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

                          UFO UpDates Mailing List
                                  Dec 2000

  Dec 1:

   Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Evans - Roger Evans [46]
   Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro
   [37]
   UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 5 Number 48 - John Hayes [292]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff - Jim Deardorff [70]
   Hessdalen - Alfredo Lissoni [15]
   Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I - Jim Deardorff [83]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [34]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [31]
   Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Young - Bob Young [53]
   NIDS - UFO Over Illinois - Colm Kelleher - NIDS [20]
   Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Hatch - Larry Hatch [125]
   Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Hatch - Larry Hatch [59]
   Secrecy News -- 11/30/00 - Steven Aftergood [90]
   Re: Turkish Announcements - Goldstein - Josh Goldstein [31]
   UFO Over Illinois - Steven L. Wilson Sr [24]
   Re: A Most Interesting Discovery (Dalnegorsk, - Paul Stonehill [7]
   Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Evans - Roger Evans [92]
   Re: UFO UpDate: Phil Klass - Sleeping? - Gates - Robert Gates [12]
   Re: Re: Mexico City Video - Hatch - Larry Hatch [41]
   Re: Campinas, Brazil? - Ticchetti - Thiago Ticchetti [25]
   Re: Campinas, Brazil? - Hatch - Larry Hatch [51]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Evans - Roger Evans [71]
   Russian UFO May Have Been Satellite Decay - Todd Lemire [58]
   Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Hale - Roy J Hale [116]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Young - Bob Young [19]
   Major Mars Discovery To Be Announced Dec. 7 - NASANews@hq.nasa.gov [47]
   Re: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I - - Bob Young [44]
   Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Velez - UFO UpDates - Toronto
   [115]

  Dec 2:

   Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff - Jim Deardorff [43]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff - Jim Deardorff [68]
   Re: UFO UpDate: NIDS - UFO Over Illinois - - Serge Salvaille [33]
   Re: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I - - John Velez [40]
   New Book - 'Our Celestial Visitors' - Steven L. Wilson Sr [97]
   Re: Turkish Announcements - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro [72]
   Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Evans - Roger Evans [55]
   Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Velez - John Velez [90]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Cashman - Mark Cashman [35]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Cashman - Mark Cashman [31]
   Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Young - Bob Young [52]
   Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Velez - John Velez [126]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Chapman - Charles Chapman [105]
   The Cydonian Imperative: Martian Biology? - Mac Tonnies [74]
   Re: Turkish Announcements - Hatch - Larry Hatch [51]
   Re: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I - - Larry Hatch [38]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Hatch - Larry Hatch [23]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Jansen - Jeroen Jansen [19]
   Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability? - Charles Chapman [60]
   Re: Calling Jaime Maussan! - Muoz - Daniel Muoz [53]
   Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Evans - Roger Evans [130]
   Re: A Most Interesting Discovery (Dalnegorsk, - Slava Shevtsov [22]
   Weird World Hot Gossip - Georgina Bruni [133]
   Re: Cave Paintings Of Alleged UFOs/Aliens? - Dan Geib [7]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Evans - Roger Evans [90]
   Re: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I - - Dr. Virgilio
   Sanchez-Ocejo [39]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Young - Bob Young [14]
   Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability? - - Donald Ledger [62]
   Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Hatch - Larry Hatch [41]
   Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability? - - Serge Salvaille [32]

  Dec 3:

   'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars' - Sunday Times - UFO UpDates -
   Toronto [33]
   Re: Phil Klass - Sleeping? - Clark - Jerome Clark [19]
   Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - - Jim Mortellaro [122]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff - Jim Deardorff [26]
   Re: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I - - Jim Deardorff [26]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro [41]
   The Dalnegorsk Details - Paul Stonehill [31]
   Re: Weird World Hot Gossip - Evans - Roger Evans [66]
   'Missing' Russian Scientist Okay - Paul Stonehill [7]
   Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Roberts - Andy Roberts [45]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff - Jim Deardorff [91]
   Re: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I - - Roger Evans [51]
   Re: Cave Paintings Of Alleged UFOs/Aliens? - Hatch - Larry Hatch [20]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Hatch - Larry Hatch [22]
   Re: Russian UFO May Have Been Satellite Decay - - Alex Persky [28]
   Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Hale - Roy J Hale [30]
   Russian Air Force and UFOs - Paul Stonehill [30]
   South Africa? - Paul Stonehill [9]
   Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Sparks - Brad Sparks [157]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Cashman - Mark Cashman [33]
   Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability? - - Mark Cashman [20]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [92]
   Whitley Strieber Interview Archive - New URL - Will Buech [13]
   Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Velez - John Velez [161]
   Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Velez - John Velez [85]
   Re: Calling Jaime Maussan! - Velez - John Velez [66]
   TV Documentary - Philip Mantle [33]
   Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Rhodes - Terry Rhodes [20]
   Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Rhodes - Terry Rhodes [20]
   The Real X-Files - December 2000 - Georgina Bruni [118]
   Re: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I - - Daniel Muoz [64]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Muoz - Daniel Muoz [29]
   Re: Phil Klass - Sleeping? - Evans - Roger Evans [24]
   Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars' - Haley - Tim Haley [58]
   Re: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I - - Daniel Muoz [56]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Chapman - Charles Chapman [92]
   Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Bowden - Dave Bowden [61]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Evans - Roger Evans [44]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Evans - Roger Evans [103]
   Re: Phil Klass - Sleeping? - Wright - Bruce Wright [25]
   Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars' - Evans - Roger Evans [29]
   Dune Comes Alive - Again - V [23]

  Dec 4:

   Re: South Africa? - Hayes - John Hayes [69]
   Re: - Daavid Rudiak [115]
   Re: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I - - David Rudiak [115]
   Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Chapman - Charles Chapman [72]
   Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars' - Sunday - Lan Fleming [21]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Young - Bob Young [14]
   Re: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I - - Bob Young [26]
   Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Deardorff - Jim Deardorff [37]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff - Jim Deardorff [48]
   Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars' - Rudiak - David Rudiak [65]
   Re: Calling Jaime Maussan! - Deardorff - Jim Deardorff [26]
   Re: Phil Klass - Sleeping? - Gates - Robert Gates [39]
   Re: Weird World Hot Gossip - Gates - Robert Gates [36]
   Re: Russian UFO May Have Been Satellite Decay - - Todd Lemire [37]
   Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars' - Hatch - Larry Hatch [38]
   Re: Phil Klass - Sleeping? - Goldstein - Josh Goldstein [34]
   Re: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I - - Larry Hatch [69]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Goldstein - Josh Goldstein [43]
   Major Mars Discovery To Be Announced _Today_ - Donald Savage [39]
   Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Hatch - Larry Hatch [85]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff - Jim Deardorff [102]
   Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars' - Hatch - Larry Hatch [53]
   Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars' - Fleming - Lan Fleming [14]
   Re: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I - - Bob Young [52]
   Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars' - Young - Bob Young [38]
   Re: Calling Jaime Maussan! - Velez - John Velez [42]
   Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Velez - John Velez [59]
   Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Young - Bob Young [73]
   Re: Phil Klass - Sleeping? - Myers - Royce J. Myers III [44]
   Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars' - Liddle - Sean Liddle [48]
   Re: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I - - Roger Evans [205]
   Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability? - - Chris Rutkowski [85]
   Re: Phil Klass - Sleeping? - Clark - Jerome Clark [54]
   Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars' - Morris - Neil Morris [12]

  Dec 5:

   Evidence Of Martian Land Of Lakes Discovered - Hardin & Savage [103]
   El Ovni De Las Lomas/Part I - John Velez [123]
   Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars' - Tonnies - Mac Tonnies [15]
   Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars' - Velez - John Velez [40]
   Re: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I - - Jim Deardorff [64]
   Munoz's Report - Corrales' Translation, Part I - Jim Deardorff [301]
   Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars' - Balaskas - Nick Balaskas [28]
   Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability? - - Brad Sparks [127]
   Re: Mexico City Video - Young - Bob Young [29]
   Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Hale - Roy J Hale [54]
   Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Hale - Roy J Hale [77]
   Re: TV Documentary - Hale - Roy J Hale [8]
   Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Evans - Roy J Hale [36]
   Filer's Files #48 -- 2000 - George A. Filer [520]
   Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Velez - John Velez [63]
   Re: Munoz's Report - Corrales' Translation, Part I - John Velez [39]
   Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars' - Velez - John Velez [53]
   Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Lushman - Rory Lushman [39]
   Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars' - Hatch - Larry Hatch [24]
   Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars' - Hatch - Larry Hatch [44]
   Re: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I - - Larry Hatch [72]
   Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability? - Hatch - Larry Hatch [104]
   Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Evans - Roger Evans [41]
   Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability? - Young - Bob Young [8]

  Dec 6:

   Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability? - Young - Bob Young [42]
   Re: Evidence Of Martian Land Of Lakes Discovered - - Nick Balaskas [29]
   Draft of an Announcement [Bryant] - Larry W. Bryant [31]
   Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability? - - Jim Deardorff [82]
   Re: Munoz's Report - Corrales Translation, Part I - Scott Corrales [24]
   Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Rhodes - Terry Rhodes [70]
   Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars' - Balaskas - Nick Balaskas [66]
   Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars' - McCoy - GT McCoy [88]

  Dec 7:

   Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Hale - Roy J Hale [59]
   Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Hale - Roy J Hale [28]
   Munoz' Report On Mexico City UFO - 2nd half - Jim Deardorff [194]
   [tmpnews] No TMP News This Week - Paul Anderson [10]
   Reluctant Viewers - Donald Ledger [37]
   Secrecy News -- 12/06/00 - Steven Aftergood [84]
   Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Bowden - Dave Bowden [29]
   Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Bowden - Dave Bowden [27]
   Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability? - - Brad Sparks [211]
   Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Hale - Roy J Hale [40]
   Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability? - - Brad Sparks [126]
   Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability? - Young - Bob Young
   YoungBob2@aol.com [18]
   UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 5 Number 49 - John Hayes [437]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Clark - Jerome Clark [39]
   Solution For The Abduction Problem? - Charles Chapman [58]
   Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Rhodes - Terry Rhodes [25]
   Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability? - - Charles Chapman [171]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Balaskas - Nick Balaskas [57]

  Dec 8:

   Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability? - - Jim Deardorff [73]
   '97 Mexico City UFO Video Witnesses Summary - Jim Deardorff [35]
   Secrecy News -- 12/07/00 - Steven Aftergood [82]
   Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability? - - Jim Deardorff [71]
   Re: Munoz's Report - Corrales Translation, Part I - Bruce Maccabee
   [341]
   Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Lushman - Rory Lushman [13]
   Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Lushman - Rory Lushman [35]
   Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Evans - Roger Evans [42]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro [88]
   CPR-Canada News: Ice-Ring in Ontario - Paul Anderson [62]
   Re: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 5 Number 49 - Young - Bob Young [72]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Hatch - Larry Hatch [63]
   Re: '97 Mexico City UFO Video Witnesses Summary - - Dr. Virgilio
   Sanchez-Ocejo [34]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Ledger - Donald Ledger [50]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Ledger - Donald Ledger [44]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Ledger - Donald Ledger [79]
   Re: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 5 Number 49 - Young - Bob Young [14]
   Re: Corso & the COMETA - Auchettl - John W. Auchettl [76]
   Re: '97 Mexico City UFO Video Witnesses Summary - - Ralf Zeigermann
   [32]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Lehmberg - Alfred Lehmberg [117]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Sandow - Greg Sandow [54]
   Re: Munoz's Report - Corrales Translation, Part I - Jim Deardorff [45]

  Dec 9:

   Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability? - - Brad Sparks [139]
   Secrecy News -- 12/08/00 - Steven Aftergood [101]
   Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Hale - Roy J Hale [15]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Tonnies - Mac Tonnies [29]
   Re: Three Crashed Saucers With Bodies? - Tonnies - Mac Tonnies [16]

  Dec 8:

   Tribal Wisdom - Bill Knapp & Ian@Mail Boxes Etc. [27]
   Tribal Wisdom - Bill Knapp & Ian@Mail Boxes Etc. [27]

  Dec 9:

   Early Official UFO file on Project 1947 - Jan Aldrich [67]
   Addition to Sign Historical Group Website - Jan Aldrich [75]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro [97]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro [59]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - McCoy - GT McCoy [80]
   Re: Corso & the COMETA - Aldrich - Jan Aldrich [57]
   Re: Corso & the COMETA - Young - Bob Young [30]
   Re: Munoz's Report - Corrales Translation, Part I - Bob Young [33]
   Re: Munoz's Report - Corrales Translation, Part I - James Easton [47]
   TCI: A Natural Mechanism for Pyramid-Making on - Mac Tonnies [127]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Hatch - Larry Hatch [63]
   Re: Munoz's Report - Corrales' Translation, Part I - Mark Cashman [71]
   Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Bowden - Dave Bowden [54]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Roberts - Andy Roberts [39]
   Re: Corso & the COMETA - Bruni - Georgina Bruni [57]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Hatch - Larry Hatch [54]
   Re: Three Crashed Saucers With Bodies? - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee
   [114]

  Dec 10:

   Re: Three Crashed Saucers With Bodies? - Sparks - Brad Sparks [28]
   Re: Addition to Sign Historical Group Website - - Bob Young [14]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Ledger - Donald Ledger [117]
   Re: Three Crashed Saucers With Bodies? - Tonnies - Michel M. Deschamps
   [20]
   Dr. M. A. Persinger Lecture - 12-04-00 - Michel M. Deschamps [188]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Ledger - Donald Ledger [102]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Hatch - Larry Hatch [141]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Hatch - Larry Hatch [80]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro [31]
   Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability? - - Jim Deardorff [168]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro [72]
   Re: Three Crashed Saucers With Bodies? - Sparks - Brad Sparks [69]
   Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles - Georgina Bruni [51]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Sandow - Greg Sandow [21]
   Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Rhodes - Terry Rhodes [31]
   Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Rhodes - Terry Rhodes
   >UtterMole@cs.com> [18]
   Ukrainian Ufology - Paul Stonehill [30]
   Re: Corso & the COMETA - Gates - Robert Gates [63]
   Ural Alien-Body-Pictures? - Werner Walter [8]
   Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Hale - Roy J Hale [15]
   Carlos Diaz 'Alien Contact' Experiences? - Scott Corrales [92]

  Dec 11:

   Re: Dr. M. A. Persinger Lecture - 12-04-00 - Rimmer - John Rimmer [18]
   Re: Corso & the COMETA - Aldrich - Jan Aldrich [113]
   Re: Addition to Sign Historical Group Website - - Jan Aldrich [24]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro [197]
   Re: Dr. M. A. Persinger Lecture - 12-04-00 - Ledger - Donald . Ledger
   [50]
   Re: Carlos Diaz 'Alien Contact' Experiences? - - Thiago Ticchetti [23]
   The Shag Harbour Incident - Airing - Jan Aldrich [18]
   Re: Dr. M. A. Persinger Lecture - 12-04-00 - Mac Tonnies [31]
   Re: Dr. M. A. Persinger Lecture - 12-04-00 - - Jim Mortellaro [20]
   Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Bowden - Dave Bowden [19]
   Re: Ural Alien-Body-Pictures? - Young - Bob Young [13]
   Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Bowden - Dave Bowden [32]

  Dec 12:

   Re: Part II of Hesemann's MC Case - Jim Deardorff [87]
   Re: Dr. M. A. Persinger Lecture - 12-04-00 - - Brad Sparks [133]
   Re: Ural Alien-Body-Pictures? - Persky - Alex Persky [69]
   Re: Dr. M. A. Persinger Lecture - 12-04-00 - Kaeser - Steven Kaeser
   [15]
   UFO Evidence II Nears Publication - Steven Kaeser [20]
   New Research Organization? - Sean Liddle [20]
   Re: Dr. M. A. Persinger Lecture - 12-04-00 - - Chris Rutkowski [37]
   Re: Ural Alien-Body-Pictures? - Ledger - Donald Ledger [32]
   Re: Munoz's Report - Corrales Translation, Part I - Bruce Maccabee [53]
   Re: Munoz's Report - Corrales Translation, Part I - Bruce Maccabee [4]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Hammond - Elizabeth Hammond [47]
   Re: Corso & the COMETA - Gehrman - Ed Gehrman [37]
   Re: Corso & the COMETA - Auchettl - John W. Auchettl [108]
   Translation Of Hesemann's Report - Part III - Jim Deardorff [116]
   Re: Ural Alien-Body-Pictures? - Goldstein - Josh Goldstein [21]
   Filer's Files #49 -- 2000 - George A. Filer [456]
   Little Community With A Big Mystery - Kelly Peterborough [81]
   Compuserve/Project FT? - Roy J Hale [10]
   'Touched By An Alien' - John Velez [40]
   Jonathan Reed Hoax - Royce J. Myers III [12]
   50th Anniversary of a UFO Invasion - Nick Balaskas [51]

  Dec 11:

   Two New UFO Maps - Larry Hatch [39]

  Dec 12:

   Bigelow/NIDS Purchase Of Records - J. D. Scarpellini [28]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Evans - Roger Evans [34]
   Re: Ural Alien-Body-Pictures? - Velez - John Velez [34]
   Re: Munoz's Report - Corrales Translation, Part I - Brad Sparks [86]
   Re: UFO Evidence II Nears Publication - Goldstein - Josh Goldstein [52]
   Re: Three Crashed Saucers With Bodies? - Balaskas - Nick Balaskas [22]
   Re: New Research Organization? - Tonnies - Mac Tonnies [28]
   Re: Bigelow/NIDS Purchase Of Records - Tonnies - Mac Tonnies [28]
   Re: Compuserve/Project FT? - Poulet - Jacques Poulet [20]
   Re: Jonathan Reed Hoax - Tonnies - Mac Tonnies [22]
   Re: Translation Of Hesemann's Report - Part III - - Roger Evans [26]

  Dec 13:

   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Lehmberg - Alfred Lehmberg [78]
   Re: 50th Anniversary of a UFO Invasion - Sparks - Brad Sparks [92]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Balaskas - Nick Balaskas [50]
   Tracking Car License Plate - Michael J. Woods [28]
   Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles - - Peter Brookesmith -
   Duke of Mendoza [293]
   Dust Bunny Results? - Brian Cuthbertson [10]
   Germany's Brainpool To Send Civilians Into Space - Steven L. Wilson, Sr
   [44]
   Re: Translation Of Hesemann's Report - Part III - - Jim Deardorff [41]
   Re: Translation Of Hesemann's Report - Part III - - Dennis Stacy [36]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Gates - Robert Gates [54]
   Re: Jonathan Reed Hoax - McCoy - GT McCoy [22]
   Re: Three Crashed Saucers With Bodies? - Sparks - Brad Sparks [37]
   Re: Two New UFO Maps - Young - Bob Young [29]
   Re: Bigelow/NIDS Purchase Of Records - Velez - John Velez [83]
   Gun Camera Footage? - Roy J Hale [15]
   Abduction 'Clues'? [was: Reluctant Viewers] - John Velez [164]
   Re: Compuserve/Project FT? - Lowe - Adam Lowe [15]
   More Jonathan Reed Hoax - Royce J. Myers III [12]
   Re: 50th Anniversary of a UFO Invasion - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee
   [698]
   Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles - - Jenny Randles [75]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Evans - Roger Evans [82]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Evans - Roger Evans [56]

  Dec 14:

   Re: Bigelow/NIDS Purchase Of Records - Kaeser - Steven Kaeser [36]
   Persinger's 'The Field Biology of Unexplained - Michel M. Deschamps
   [372]
   Re: Gun Camera Footage? - Aldrich - Jan Aldrich [49]
   Re: Corso & the COMETA - Young - Bob Young [53]
   Re: Gun Camera Footage? - Kaeser - Steven Kaeser [37]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro [128]
   Re: Dust Bunny Results? - Velez - John Velez [29]
   Re: Jonathan Reed Hoax - Myers - Royce J. Myers III [42]
   Re: Abduction 'Clues'? - Evans - Roger Evans [138]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Lehmberg - Alfred Lehmberg [141]
   Re: Dust Bunny Results? - Balaskas - Nick Balaskas [67]
   Carl Sagan's 'Cosmos' Returns to TV - Steven L. Wilson Sr [94]
   Re: Bentwaters Book Review By Jenny Randles - - Gary Anthony [82]
   Re: Two New UFO Maps - McCoy - GT McCoy [89]
   Re: A Most Interesting Discovery - Dave Vetterick [31]
   Carlos Diaz Case - Michael Hesemann [98]
   Re: Translation Of Hesemann's Report - Part III - - Roger Evans [43]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Gates - Robert Gates [15]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Elizabeth Hammond [95]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Velez - John Velez [147]

  Dec 15:

   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Hammond - Elizabeth Hammond [74]
   Re: Abduction 'Clues'? - Hammond - Elizabeth Hammond [19]
   Re: 50th Anniversary of a UFO Invasion - Hatch - Larry Hatch [128]
   UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 5 Number 50 - John Hayes [410]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Rimmer - John Rimmer [11]
   Secrecy News -- 12/14/00 - Steven Aftergood [81]
   Re: Abduction 'Clues'? - Velez - John Velez [98]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Sparks - Brad Sparks [123]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Salvaille - Serge Salvaille [28]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Evans - Roger Evans [132]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Evans - Roger Evans [64]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Evans - Roger Evans [61]
   Re: Abduction 'Clues'? - Hammond - Elizabeth Hammond [49]
   Part IV of Hesemann's MC UFO Report - Jim Deardorff [126]
   Re: Two New UFO Maps - Hatch - Larry Hatch [103]

  Dec 16:

   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Evans - Roger Evans [30]
   Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles - Bruni - Georgina Bruni
   [203]
   Ever Heard A UFO Sound? - Holger Isenberg [10]
   Re: Abduction 'Clues'? - Evans - Roger Evans [99]
   Re: Persinger's 'The Field Biology of Unexplained' - Chris Rutkowski
   [39]
   Re: Carlos Diaz Case - Hamilton - Bill Hamilton [138]
   Re: Bentwaters Book Review By Jenny Randles - Bruni - Georgina Bruni
   [77]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Strickland - Sue Strickland [56]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro [41]
   Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles - Bruni - Georgina Bruni
   [69]
   Re: Gun Camera Footage? - Raabe - Jan-H. Raabe [39]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Hammond - Elizabeth Hammond [136]
   Re: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 5 Number 50 - Young - Bob Young [38]
   Re: 50th Anniversary of a UFO Invasion - Sparks - Brad Sparks [188]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Velez - John Velez [184]
   New Roswell Related Documents Added to Project 1947 - Jan Aldrich [19]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Ledger - Donald Ledger [19]
   Re: 50th Anniversary of a UFO Invasion - Balaskas - Nick Balaskas [108]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Velez - John Velez [60]
   Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Hale - Roy J Hale [16]
   'Appy Birfday Sir Arffer! - UFO UpDates - Toronto [215]
   The 'Truth Is Out There, In Shag Harbour' - Stig Agermose [67]
   Re: Ever Heard A UFO Sound? - Hatch - Larry Hatch [34]
   Re: Persinger's 'The Field Biology of Unexplained' - Larry Hatch [66]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Stevenson - Colin Stevenson [12]

  Dec 17:

   Re: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 5 Number 50 - Young - Larry Hatch [65]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Evans - Roger Evans [138]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Velez - John Velez [59]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Evans - Roger Evans [173]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro [147]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro [32]
   Part V of Hesemann's MC UFO Report - Jim Deardorff [92]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Evans - Roger Evans [134]
   Re: 50th Anniversary of a UFO Invasion - Stacy - Dennis Stacy [41]
   NOVA, Science & Mr. Velez [was: Reluctant Viewers] - Wendy Christensen
   [51]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Rimmer - John Rimmer [26]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - St. Pierre - Greg St. Pierre [33]
   Re: 50th Anniversary of a UFO Invasion - Sparks - Brad Sparks [140]
   Re: Bigelow/NIDS Purchase of Records - Mulvey - Ann Mulvey [98]
   NIDS: Consent Form Policy? - Ann Mulvey [23]
   Re: Part V of Hesemann's MC UFO Report - Evans - Roger Evans [25]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Strickland - Sue Strickland [45]
   C.E. Cases Involving Injury, Death, or Healing - Geoff Dittman [7]
   Re: Carlos Diaz Case - Hesemann - Michael Hesemann [86]
   Re: Sawers' Season's Greetings - William Sawers [12]

  Dec 18:

   Re: Persinger's 'The Field Biology of Unexplained' - Greg St. Pierre
   [24]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Hammond - Elizabeth Hammond [57]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Hammond - Elizabeth Hammond [63]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Hatch - Larry Hatch [73]
   Re: Report Are UFOs an Air Safety Hazard - Keith - Rebecca Keith [2]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Velez - John Velez [98]
   Re: UFO UpDate: NOVA, Science & Mr. Velez - Velez - John [33]
   Re: Part V of Hesemann's MC UFO Report - Deardorff - Jim Deardorff [36]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Sparks - Brad Sparks R [185]
   Life Found In Australian Meteorite - John W. Auchettl [119]
   Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles - - Jenny Randles [311]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - McCoy - GT McCoy [35]
   Re: Carlos Diaz Case - Hamilton - Bill Hamilton [83]
   New Website On Controversial LRV Project - Kenny Young [21]

  Dec 19:

   Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles - - Gildas Bourdais [33]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Velez - John Velez [105]
   Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles - - Brad Sparks [244]
   Secrecy News -- 12/18/00 - Steven Aftergood [105]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Evans - Roger Evans [105]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Evans - Roger Evans [51]
   Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Rhodes - Terry Rhodes [28]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Evans - Roger Evans [76]
   Re: New Website On Controversial LRV Project - - GT McCoy [44]
   Re: Persinger's 'The Field Biology of Unexplained' - John Rimmer [37]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro [52]
   Falsifiability, Occam's Razor, UFOs & Abductions? - Charles Chapman
   [66]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Hammond - Elizabeth Hammond [28]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Evans - Roger Evans [158]
   Voyager Newsletter No. 16 - James Easton [947]
   Re: Report Are UFOs an Air Safety Hazard - Hatch - Larry Hatch [16]
   Re: Persinger's 'The Field Biology of Unexplained' - Donald Ledger [30]
   CPR-Canada News: Update #1 - Delta, Ontario Ice - Paul Anderson [20]
   Filer's Files #50 -- 2000 - George A. Filer [474]
   Re: CPR-Canada News: Update #1 - Delta, Ontario - Paul Anderson [27]
   Re: Persinger's 'The Field Biology of Unexplained' - Bob Young [64]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Young - Bob Young [17]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Young - Bob Young [17]
   Re: Persinger's 'The Field Biology of Unexplained' - Larry Hatch [44]
   Alien Love Doll - Alfred Lehmberg [16]
   Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Review Debate - Steven R. LaPlume
   [38]

  Dec 20:

   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Sparks - Brad Sparks [118]
   Re: New Website On Controversial LRV Project - - Kenny Young [48]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Felder - Bobbie Felder [53]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Evans - Roger Evans [40]
   Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles - - Andy Roberts [28]
   Re: Falsifiability, Occam's Razor, UFOs & - John Velez [22]
   Re: Persinger's 'The Field Biology of Unexplained' - Jerome Clark [46]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Evans - Roger Evans [52]
   Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Review Debate - - Kelly Peterborough
   [14]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro [160]
   Blood Predator - New Chupacabra Data - Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo [24]
   Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles - - Jenny Randles [56]
   The Twelve Days of [Alien] Christmas - Kelly Peterborough [96]
   Re: Voyager Newsletter No. 16 - Ledger - Donald Ledger [41]
   Re: Little Community With A Big Mystery - Young - Bob Young [113]
   Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Hale - Roy J Hale [36]
   Re: Alien Love Doll - Velez - John Velez [18]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Hammond - Elizabeth Hammond [90]
   Re: Falsifiability, Occam's Razor, UFOs & - Sean Liddle [65]
   Re: New Website On Controversial LRV Project - - Loy Pressley [14]
   Seeking Info On Triangle UFOs - Stefan Duncan [10]
   Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles - - Brad Sparks [38]
   Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles - Clark - Jerome Clark [35]
   Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles - - Gildas Bourdais [32]
   Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles - - Gildas Bourdais [38]
   Re: Carlos Diaz Case - Myers - Royce J. Myers III [114]
   Re: Alien Love Doll - Lehmberg - Alfred Lehmberg [46]

  Dec 21:

   Re: Alien Love Doll - Velez - John Velez [60]
   Re: Carlos Diaz Case - Hamilton - Bill Hamilton [83]
   Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles - - Gary Anthony [71]
   UFO Con Game - Todd Lemire [50]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro [86]
   Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles - - Jenny Randles [105]
   CPR-Canada News: Another Ice Circle - Lac - Paul Anderson [34]
   Re: Persinger's 'The Field Biology of Unexplained' - Josh Goldstein
   [67]
   Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles - Robert Gates [38]
   Re: Little Community With A Big Mystery - Hatch - Larry Hatch [88]
   Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Review Debate - - Jenny Randles [170]
   Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles - Bruni - Georgina Bruni
   [33]
   Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Review Debate - - Georgina Bruni [53]
   Re: Bentwaters Book Review - Clark - Jerome Clark [31]

  Dec 22:

   UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 5 Number 51 - John Hayes [275]
   Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles - - Andy Roberts [26]
   Secrecy News -- 12/21/00 - Steven Aftergood [116]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Roger Evans [69]
   Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles - Bruni - Georgina Bruni
   [135]
   Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles - - Georgina Bruni [38]
   Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles - Bruni - Georgina Bruni
   [22]
   Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Review Debate - - Georgina Bruni
   [122]
   Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles - Bruni - Georgina Bruni
   [35]
   Re: Bentwaters Book Review - Randles - Jenny Randles [34]
   Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles - - Dwight Connelly [43]
   "The Truth's In Here!" - Wendy Christensen [5]
   Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles - - Brad Sparks [424]
   Human Microwave Heating? - Ken Kelly [11]
   Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles - - Alfred Lehmberg [45]
   Web-Based Translation - Roy J Hale [49]

  Dec 23:

   Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Peterborough - Kelly Peterborough
   [55]
   Re: Human Microwave Heating? - Liddle - Sean Liddle [14]
   Re: Bentwaters Book Review - Clark - Jerome Clark [45]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Velez - John Velez [80]
   Roger Leir guest on Horizons Tonight 12/22/00 - Bobbie Felder [24]
   Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles - Young - Bob Young
   YoungBob2@aol.com [19]
   Re: "The Truth's In Here!" - McCoy - GT McCoy [18]
   Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles - - Jenny Randles [51]
   Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Randles - Jenny Randles [107]
   Re: "The Truth's In Here!" - Hatch - Larry Hatch [11]
   'How To Make FLYOBRPTS' Now On-Line - Jim Klotz [20]
   Re: Subject: Re: Little Community With A Big - Bob Young [149]
   Re: Human Microwave Heating? - Hatch - Larry Hatch [35]
   [canufo] Next Batch Of CIRVIS Documents Up - Yogi [13]
   Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Hatch - Larry Hatch [41]
   Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Bruni - Georgina Bruni [42]
   Re: Reluctant Viewers - Evans - Roger Evans [80]
   Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Ledger - Donald Ledger [108]
   Merry Christmas - Georgina Bruni [14]
   Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles - - Gildas Bourdais [72]
   Re: "The Truth's In Here!" - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro [59]
   Christmas Truce? - Jenny Randles [89]
   Holland Radar-Visual Case? - Todd Lemire [16]

  Dec 24:

   Re: [canufo] Next Batch Of CIRVIS Documents Up - - Jan Aldrich [37]
   Merry Christmas - Lamphere - Lan Lamphere [33]
   Merry Christmas - Evans - Roger Evans [16]
   Christmas Greetings - Bott - Murray Bott [10]
   Re: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 5 Number 51 - Hale - Roy J Hale [30]
   Re: Voyager Newsletter No. 16 - Hale - Roy J Hale [9]
   Re: "The Truth's In Here!" - Hatch - Larry Hatch [81]
   Re: Little Community With A Big Mystery - Hatch - Larry Hatch [167]
   Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles - Gates - Robert Gates [38]
   Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Manso - Luis R. Gonzlez Manso [21]
   Merry Christmas - Chippendale - Anthony Chippendale [6]
   Merry Xmas From Italy - Lissoni - Alfredo Lissoni [5]

  Dec 25:

   Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Ledger - Donald Ledger [42]
   Colorado Sightings Article - John Hayes [201]
   Re: [canufo] Next Batch Of CIRVIS Documents Up - - Kenny Young [50]
   Re: Little Community With A Big Mystery - BYoung - Bob Young [17]
   UFO Over Erupting Popocatpetl Volcano - Dan Geib [19]
   Re: Bentwaters Book Review By Jenny Randles - - Gary Anthony [209]
   The Happiest of Holidays - Fran Walton [6]
   Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Sparks - Brad Sparks [34]
   Italian Christmas, Was "The Truth's In Here!" - Jim Mortellaro [62]
   Two Requests from Gary Mangiacopra - Jan Aldrich [55]
   Merry Christmas - Seaburg - Steve Seaburg [3]
   Merry Xmas From Australia - Harrison - Diane Harrison [23]
   Filer's Files #51 -- 2000 - George A. Filer [269]
   Humbug - Mendoza Peter Brookesmith [88]

  Dec 26:

   Re: Carlos Diaz Case - Hesemann - Michael Hesemann [59]
   Re: [canufo] Next Batch Of CIRVIS Documents Up - - Jan Aldrich [67]
   Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Sparks - Brad Sparks [39]
   Transcript Of Halt Tape (part I) - Georgina Bruni [338]
   Transcript Of Halt Tape (Part II) - Georgina Bruni [157]
   Re: Christmas Truce? - Bruni - Georgina Bruni [49]
   Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Bruni - Georgina Bruni [130]
   Re: Bentwaters Book Review By Jenny Randles - Bruni - Georgina Bruni
   [173]
   Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Bruni - Georgina Bruni [60]
   Re: Humbug - Clark - Jerome Clark [29]
   Re: Humbug - Salvaille - Serge Salvaille [31]
   Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Salvaille - Serge Salvaille [43]

  Dec 27:

   Pelicans [Was Re: 'You Can't Tell The People'] - Brad Sparks [73]
   Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles - - James Easton [207]
   Re: Pelicans [was: 'You Can't Tell The People'] - - Jim Klotz [31]
   Blast in Sky Said May Be Meteorite - Steven L. Wilson, Sr [23]
   Manitoba Balloon Flights - Donald Ledger [69]
   Re: Pelicans - GT McCoy [60]
   Re: Blast in Sky Said May Be Meteorite - Young - Bob Young [28]
   Re: Pelicans - Ledger - Donald Ledger [26]
   Advertising Plane Companies - Bob Young [5]
   Re: Pelicans - Ledger - Donald Ledger [83]
   Re: Blast in Sky Said May Be Meteorite - Kaeser - Steven Kaeser [28]
   01-05-00 Illinois UFO Reconstruction - Colm Kelleher - NIDS [59]

  Dec 28:

   Re: Pelicans - Sparks - Brad Sparks [41]
   Re: Pelicans - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro [38]
   Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles - - Brad Sparks [453]
   Vegas Ball Team Renamed '51s' - Steven L. Wilson, Sr [49]
   1953 & 1955 Security Regulations - Jim Klotz [19]
   Northern Lights? - Sean Liddle [10]
   Re: 01-05-00 Illinois UFO Reconstruction - - Serge Salvaille [40]
   Oz Report - 27th Dec 2000 - Diane Harrison [58]
   Re: Blast in Sky Said May Be Meteorite - BYoung - Bob Young [34]
   Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles - Bruni - Georgina Bruni
   [327]
   Rhomboidal Object Sighted in Calama, Chile - Scott Corrales [24]
   Filer's Files #51-2000 - Uncorrupted - Anthony Chippendale [520]
   Re: Northern Lights? - BYoung - Bob Young [15]
   Follow-up on Calama UFO by Sanchez Ocejo - Scott Corrales [20]
   UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 5 Number 52 - John Hayes [483]
   Re: Northern Lights? - Blanton - Terry Blanton [10]
   Re: Bentwaters Book Review By Jenny Randles - - Gildas Bourdais [53]
   Pelicans in 1947 - Jan Aldrich [16]

  Dec 29:

   Re: Bentwaters Book Review By Jenny Randles - - Jenny Randles [436]
   Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Randles - Jenny Randles [182]
   Re: Blast in Sky Said May Be Meteorite - Evans - Roger Evans [47]
   Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles - - Martin Jeffrey [13]
   Gersten Generates More Strange Messages - Royce J. Myers III [66]
   TMP News: Moving Time - Paul Anderson [61]
   UFO Skeptics Mailing List - Easton - James Easton [124]
   Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages - Evans - Roger Evans [48]
   eXpose News Update - 12-29-00 - Royce J. Myers III [23]
   Re: Follow-up on Calama UFO by Sanchez Ocejo - - Roger Evans [37]
   Re: UFO Skeptics Mailing List - Jones - Sean Jones [9]
   Felder - Changes - Bobbie Felder [11]
   Re: UFO Skeptics Mailing List - Velez - John Velez [29]
   Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages - - Jim Mortellaro [49]
   The Stefan Duncan Show/AUFON - Stefan Duncan [35]
   Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages - Velez - John Velez [76]
   Re: Blast in Sky Said May Be Meteorite - BYoung - Bob Young [43]
   Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Review Debate - - Steven R. LaPlume
   [23]
   Re: UFO Skeptics Mailing List - BYoung - Bob Young [19]
   Re: UFO Skeptics Mailing List - BYoung - Bob Young [19]
   Re: UFO Skeptics Mailing List - Ledger - Donald Ledger [43]
   Historical Artwork And UFOs - Matthew Hurley [7]
   Re: Blast in Sky Said May Be Meteorite - Ledger - Donald Ledger [52]
   Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages - Evans - Roger Evans [81]
   Re: UFO Skeptics Mailing List - Salvaille - Serge Salvaille [39]
   Re: 01-05-00 Illinois UFO Reconstruction - Kelleher - Colm Kelleher
   [31]
   Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages - - Jan Aldrich [51]

  Dec 30:

   Re: UFO Skeptics Mailing List - Salvaille - Serge Salvaille [44]
   Re: UFO Skeptics Mailing List - Hale - Roy J Hale [36]
   Re: UFO Skeptics Mailing List - Nolane - Richard D. Nolane [20]
   AFR 205-1 PDF On-Line - Jim Klotz [22]
   McDaniel Leaves Mars Cydonia Research - Kurt Jonach [75]
   Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs - Pressley - Loy Pressley [14]
   Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages - Hatch - Larry Hatch [56]
   Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs - Hatch - Larry Hatch [24]
   Re: UFO Skeptics Mailing List - Hatch - Larry Hatch [86]
   Professor Stanley V. McDaniel - UFO UpDates - Toronto [66]
   Re: Follow-up on Calama UFO by Sanchez Ocejo - - Scott Corrales [66]
   Re: Blast in Sky Said May Be Meteorite - BYoung - Bob Young [31]
   The New Millenium - [was: Gersten Generates More - Roger Evans [37]
   Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs - Ledger - Donald Ledger [50]

  Dec 31:

   Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages - - Bob Young [25]
   Re: New Millenium - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro [86]
   Re: UFO Skeptics Mailing List - Clark - Jerome Clark [36]
   Re: Follow-up on Calama UFO by Sanchez Ocejo - - Roger Evans [78]
   IUR & Rendlesham Debate - Jenny Randles [39]
   Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages - - Jim Mortellaro [67]
   Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs - Lehmberg - Alfred Lehmberg [54]
   Oz - History Of The Universe Takes A Dive To 10 - Auchettl & Barnett
   [48]
   thelosthaven UpDated - 12-31-00 - Roy J Hale [10]
   Re: UFO Skeptics Mailing List - Easton - James Easton [52]

   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 >
   Dec > Dec 1

               Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 08:57:34 -0600
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 01:34:54 -0500
Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Evans


 >From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 05:48:19 +0000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Hale

 >>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?


Previously, Larry had written:

 >>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.

Roy replied:

 >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.

Hi, Roy!

I had the same problem as Larry. Hard to tell much from the
website. Could I get the footage in NTSC as an AVI file? If so,
then I could put it on my computer system for a closer look. It
would best if it wasn't compressed less than 6mb per second. At
that rate, you should be able to get at least 60 seconds on one
CD. Better yet, an NTSC Beta SP copy off the master tape would
be ideal!

Very interesting....

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 >
   Dec > Dec 1

             Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 10:50:35 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 01:39:53 -0500
Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Mortellaro


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com
 >Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 00:00:57 EST
 >Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>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...... :)

Robert, there are some (too freaking many) on this List who've
seen the pics. Take those recently posted here. And take all the
evidence also posted here, like marks and drawings of children
before Roswell, like Trent and so many, many, many (ad nauseum)
others. Take them. Please.

And what, pray tell, do any of us who seek answers have to show
for the revelations? The result?

These erudite young minds, full of piss and vinegar, couldn't
and/or WOULDN'T recognize a hub cap from a saucer because they
do not wish to do so. It would force them to admit to a
paradigm which they are too freightened to accept.

I got it all figgered and cyphered out. What makes a
skeptibunky, a Klass, a mainstream scientist, and a government,
as these individuals and entities are, is fear.

Scared little people. Afraid to admit to what is in their face.
That'd be the possibility of something extant which they could
never understand, let alone accept. Let alone investigate.

So they whine.

Better to get sh*t-faced on fresh wine.

I got mine.

Mortellaro
(Eat-a you heart out, Lehmberg)







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

                       UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 5 Number 48

From: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 16:39:58 +0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 01:45:40 -0500
Subject: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 5 Number 48


Posted on behalf of Joseph Trainor.

<Masinaigan@aol.com>
==========================

      UFO ROUNDUP
Volume 5, Number 48
November 30, 2000
Editor: Joseph Trainor

http://ufoinfo.com/roundup/


UFO FLAP CONTINUES IN THE CAUCASUS

Another UFO was sighted in southern Russia last week. "Residents
of Chervishevo in the Tyumen region" west of Baku and the
Caspian Sea "saw an unusual phenomenon Thursday," November 16,
2000. "An RIA (Russian news agency--J.T.) correspondent reports
that at approximately 6:30 p.m. local time Ludmilla Kovaleva and
her young daughter, Yulya, went into the yard of their house" in
Chervishevo "and could see 'a small dot with a long shiny tail'
for several minutes."

"Ms. Kovaleva said this was the second case in the seven years
she and her family have lived in the village. The Kovalevas saw
'something that looked like a comet but with a long tail' back
in April 2000."

"Nobody knows what it might be--an unidentified flying object, a
meteorite fragment, a comet, a satellite or the aftermath of
some flight test carried out at a military base nearby."

The North Caucasus region is still buzzing with talk about the
huge luminous UFO that overflew the Magaramkent district on
Tuesday, November 15, 2000.

""Russian border guards, who report almost every day the capture
of 'Chechen militants' who are trying to cross the Azerbaijan
border illegally, have now stated that they have seen a flying
saucer on the border between the two nations."

However, a spokesman for "the border troops of the Azerbaijan
Ministry of National Defense said, 'Our border guards have not
seen any 'flying saucer.''"

"The Russian Air Force dismissed on Thursday," November 16,
2000, "reports that an unidentified flying object was sighted in
Dagestan early on Tuesday," November 14, 2000.

"The daily report by the Interior Ministry of *Russia's)
Dagestan region said the guards at two Russian frontier posts
saw a UFO at 1:45 p.m. over Russia's border with Azerbaijan."

"The guards, stationed near the villages of Kazmalyar and Novyy
Filya in Dagestan's Magaramkent district, said they watched an
object flying quickly at an altitude of about 100 meters (330
feet) for almost four minutes."

"They said the object was moving (east) toward the Caspian Sea
from the vicinity of the local (Caucasus) mountains."

"Three lights on the object, 'two meters apart from each other,'
were evidence that the object was not a missile fired from
neighboring Chechnya, the guards said."

"Meanwhile, North Caucasus border guard chief Gen. Yevgeni
Bolkhovitin said on Thursday 'a central air defense control
post' had told him that the supposed UFO had been 'a Russian
space vehicle.'"

But "the Air Force spokesman in Moscow dismissed the general's
remarks."

"'Gen. Bolkhovitin's assertion, with reference to a central air
defense control post, that a Russian space vehicle flew over
Dagestan was not true to fact,' spokesman Aleksandr Brobyshevsky
told Interfax (Russian news service--J.T.)

"'We don't have any such posts in the North Caucasus region,' he
said." (See the newspaper Ekspress of Baku, Azerbaijan for
November 15, 2000, "The flight of the saucer." Also RIA and
Interfax reports for November 17, 2000, Many thanks to Martin
Montague for these reports.)

MINNESOTA'S MYSTERIOUS MORRISON COUNTY

Morrison County, just east of Little Falls, Minnesota
(population 3,000) has seen may UFO sightings over the years,
according to one resident.

In addition to last week's UFO sighting (See UFO Roundup, volume
5, number 47, "Woman motorist sees a hovering UFO in Minnesota,"
page 5), states reader Todd Madson.

Todd "wanted to mention that I'm fairly familiar with the area,
having passed through Little Falls to go to a childhood friend's
home on a number of occasions. That entire area is very rural
and not known for having a lot of air traffic."

"That friend and I saw something really unusual in the winter of
1979 while we were snowmobiling on a frozen lake in Pierz
(population 850)," about 10 miles (16 kilometers) east of Little
Falls.

The UFO "was flying a good distance away and could have not
seemingly been ours."

Todd and his girlfriend of the time had an even more dramatic
UFO sighting on February 14, 1989 in nearby Biscay, Minn.

"Anyway, my Feb. 14, 1989 sighting was notable as it shows there
were small unusual craft were being flown over rural western
Minnesota."

"We had been driving" through Biscay "and saw what appeared to
be lights attached to a pair of smokestacks in a field but
couldn't see any factory or stacks at all. There was a pair of
hovering green and red lights. I told her to pull over and we
did."

"They were stationary for a moment, then began moving forward
and eventually passed overhead at an altitude of 250 to 350 feet
(75 to 105 meters). As it happened, the streetlight near the
highway was shedding light, and it lit the bottom of these
things and lit them up really nicely. They were flying probably
30 to 50 feet (9 to 15 meters) apart, one to the front and right
of the other one."

"What they were were two black aircraft with very quiet engines
similar to an F-117 (Stealth fighter--J.T.) but the empennage
was completely wrong. And these things were flying so slowly you
could walk right along with them. I heard the engines ramping
up, and they eventually started accelerating faster. The
(objects') plan/form was a black triangle with a 79-degree wing
sweep but it appeared to have more roundness to the shape. and
the F-117 tail was nowhere in evidence. I am tempted to create a
computer graphic of what I saw. When they did fly over, there
were two dim yellowish-white lights pointing downward roughly
where the landing gear would have been on an F-117."

"They flew overhead from north to east paralleling the highway,
and we managed to follow them for awhile until they left us in
the dust."

Little Falls is on Minnesota Highway 27 about 95 miles (152
kilometers) northwest of Minneapolis. (Many thanks to Todd
Madson for this report)

(Editor's Note: Little Falls was the boyhood home of the famous
American pilot, Charles A. Lindbergh Jr., who flew The Spirit of
St. Louis from New York City to Paris in 1927.)

DIAMOND-SHAPED UFO SEEN BY NEW HAMPSHIRE MOTORIST

On Friday, November 17, 2000, at 9 p.m., the witness, Castor,
was driving on Interstate Highway I=95 in the rural west end of
Seabrook, New Hampshire (population 740) when he "witnessed the
craft hovering at approximately 1,000 feet (300 meters). The two
craft were flying in tandem when they separated launched a
star-like fireball in a northerly direction."

"One craft had four white lights which were located an equal
distance apart, which were blinking in unison like an automobile
directional signal *light). The other craft had a red and white
light."

"This was rush-hour traffic so I suppose a number of people
witnessed the event. After the star-like fireball was fired, the
two craft moved slowly in a northwesterly direction. I had
pulled into a (highway) rest area and watched until the craft
moved beyond my view. The entire event lasted approximately 15
to 20 seconds."

Seabrook is just east of I-95 and located about 10 miles (16
kilometers) south of Portsmouth. (Email Form Report).

TEENS SPOT A HOVERING UFO IN COLD SPRING, KENTUCKY

On Tuesday, November 21, 2000, at 7:15 p.m., Marvin L. reports,
"My son was out shopping on U.S. Highway 27 here" in Cold
Spring, Kentucky (population 3,700) "He and my daughter, one of
his friends and my (other) daughter were driving northbound."

"They saw a light that was blue/white. He said it got brighter,
and a red light came out of the top of it and the red light took
off at a high speed. Then the blue/white light began to strobe."

"By the time he got home was about ten minutes after he saw it.
I went outside and saw what appeared to be a yellowish-white
light in the same position. It was in the west/southwest sky. My
daughter was very scared. It would fade a little bit. My son and
his friends all left to take her (the daughter's) boyfriend and
another friend home.."

"And then my wife came about ten minutes later. When I went back
out, the light had disappeared. What it was I don't know. It was
there for about 10 to 15 minutes."

Marvin described the UFO as "a yellow, almost cross-like
(cruciform) shape in the sky. My son said it first looked like a
triangle. And strobing blue/white with a red streak coming out
of it."

Cold Spring, Kentucky is located about 30 miles (48 kilometers)
northeast of Lexington. (Email Form Report)

COUPLE CONFIRMS RECENT NEW MEXICO SIGHTING

A New Mexico couple has confirmed the recent sighting of a UFO
hovering over Deming, New Mexico (population 11,000).

On Thursday, October 26, 2000, at 4 p.m., Francisca Serivano and
her husband were driving on Interstate Highway I-10 near Deming
when they spied the UFO hovering over the community. (See UFO
Roundup, volume 5, number 45, "Hovering UFO seen near Deming,
New Mexico," page 9.)

"My husband and I were driving to Las Cruces that afternoon and
spotted that same object at around 4 p.m. It was a dark color,
metallic looking and was wedge- shaped. It must have been over
the town for hours because" truck driver Tom Hall, "the other
witness reported seeing it at 8:10 p.m."

"Anyway, just wanted to share my sighting with you guys."

Deming is located 80 miles ((128 kilometers) west of Las Cruces.
(Email Form Report)

GEORGINA BRUNI'S NEW BOOK EXPLORES RENDLESHAM FOREST UFO CASE

"After years of government denials, a secret tape recording of a
U.S. Air Force officer proves that a UFO landed" in East Anglia,
UK in 1980.

"A blockbuster new book, You Can't Tell the People, by Georgina
Bruni (Macmillan, 2000) contains a spine- chilling 30-minute
transcript of tapes made by U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. Charles
Halt, speaking into a recorder as he witnessed the spacecraft
approach him and land in the woods."

"Halt led the search party that was sent out after eerie lights
were spotted near the U.S. air base in Suffolk, England."

"'It's moving from side to side. Strange--it's like the pupil of
an eye looking at you, and the flash is so bright that it almost
burns your eye.'"

"Halt then goes on to describe two other strange- looking
objects in the night sky before the UFOs move away from him and
his men."

"'There's definitely some kind of phenomenon,' he says" on the
tape, "'We got two strange objects, half-moon shape, dancing
around with colored lights about five to ten miles out.'"

"'The half-moons have now turned into full circles.'"

"Former (USAF) Sgt. Adrian Bustinza, who was also the search
team and now works for the U.S. State Department supervising
criminal investigations, says he saw the mysterious craft
immediately before and after it landed."

'When I arrived, it was going in and out through the trees, and
at one stage it was hovering,' Bustinza told Bruni, 'Then it
went over to a clearing at the edge of the forest.'"

"'By the time we got to the clearing, it had already landed.
When this thing landed, Halt was already there.'"

"'I didn't see it land, but I saw it take off. It kind of
hovered at first, then took off. At the time, I thought we were
dealing with an extraterrestrial visitation. I can't say I saw
beings, but I saw outlines of something.'"

"Bruni has also found photos taken the next morning that show
flattened patches of earth where the UFO sat, along with a cover
letter from (RAF) Squadron Leader Donald Morland attached to
Halt's report of the incident."

"'The interesting thing about it is that it's titled UFO,' says
Bruni, 'Now why did he call it that if it was something else?'"
(See the National Examiner for November 29, 2000, "Secret tape
proves...UFO landed near U.S. Air Force base." page 42.)

(You Can't Tell the People is available from Amazon.co.uk in
Hardback and Paperback

from the UFO Files...

1972: A STRANGE ENCOUNTER AT ROSMEAD SCHOOL

Sunday evening, November 12, 1972, found Harold Truter, the
principal of Rosmead Junior School, driving home after a weekend
holiday. As he drove into Rosmead, a small town in South Africa
located about 200 kilometers (120 miles) north of Port
Elizabeth, he spotted an unusual light in the sky.

Through the car's windscreen (windshield in the USA-- J.T.)
Truter could see the school building up ahead, with its attached
bungalow living quarters, and to the left a tennis court with a
high chainlink fence and a grove of eight bluegum trees. A
strange bright greenish-white flickering glow hovered above the
tennis court.

What the bloody hell--!> the principal thought.

Turning off the highway, he drove down a short road and pulled
into the driveway. As he emerged from the car, he espied "a
strange light in the sky but considered it to be a natural but
unusual phenomenon."

The "distant light" was now a good 183 meters (600 feet) away,
hovering over a peaked ridgeline that towered over a nearby
construction site. Numerous dark silent trucks crouched at the
foot of the hill.

Truter frowned thoughtfully. Must be a helicopter...

But there was no engine noise, just the whisper of wind through
the leaves of the bluegum trees.

Returning to the car, Truter unlocked the boot (trunk in the
USA--J.T.) and began taking the luggage out.

But as he carried two suitcases past the tennis court, the
principal's nose detected the scent of burned oil.

Peering through the chainlink fence, Truter "saw that the
surface of the tennis court had been broken up and tar (asphalt)
and coal ash had been lifted up and scattered."

Truter tugged at the tennis court gate. It was locked. He ten
tried the door on the bungalow. That, too, was securely locked.
He vividly remembered locking it himself late Friday afternoon.

He glanced back at the tennis court. Asphalt chunks littered the
surface. Gaping holes about five inches (12.5 centimeters) deep
had been torn in a lateral direction parallel to the white
lines. He saw a pool of molten tar glistening in the dim light.

After unlocking the door, he went inside and rang the police.

"Investigation of the tennis court indicated a symmetrical
pattern of identical holes; some of the tar from the court had
been strewn 183 meters (600 feet) away, on to a ridge nearby."

"Bluegum trees alongside the tennis court had been badly burnt
and they died about two months later," in January 1973.

Interestingly, the Rosmead police told Truter "that there were
many other UFO reports received from the same area at the same
time, including reports of sightings by (South African) police
officers."

"Analysis of samples taken from the site indicated no obvious
anomalies, though (they) indicated no solution, either."

"Whether or not the tennis court was the landing site of a UFO
remains speculated by some; but unproven." (See the book World
Atlas of UFOs by John Spencer, Hamlyn Publishing Group, London,
1991, page 149. Also The UFO Encyclopedia, compiled and edited
by John Spencer, Avon Books, New York, N.Y., 1993, page 297.)

That's it for this week. Join us in seven days for more UFO and
paranormal news from around the plane 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 >
   Dec > Dec 1

                      Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 09:26:11 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 01:47:37 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff


 >Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 08:37:32 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Mexico City Video
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >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

I wrote:
 >>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.


Roger,

You need to fight this out with Jeff Saino, who I presume is
pretty well qualified in using computer graphic systems. He's
the one who noticed and analyzed the lesser blurriness in the
UFO's image than of the building edges. In the MUFON J. ofOct.
1998, p. 11, he wrote,

"These characteristics show that the video is the result of an
otherwise-real video shot as seen, but with the UFO added later.
A 'paste on lighter' command is used to add the UFO, so it is
added to the lighter skies but disappears 'behind' the darker
buildings. Using this command, I easily put a whole armada of
UFOs 'behind' buildings."

Unless Bruce Maccabee acknowledges that your expertise exceeds
that of Jeff, I'll stick with Jeff's over yours. In his
analysis, Jeff of course didn't ever consider that UFO aliens
could be involved, who utilized some of their advanced
technology and ability to appear deceptive to us.

For me it's unscientific and a bit silly to be studying UFOs but
always assume that they don't involve technology far beyond
ours, or that the UFO occupants wouldn't utilize it and wouldn't
have a strategy of dealing with us.

 >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.
 >...

Well, Roger, are you afraid to try to utilize your human
technology and create your own video segment akin to the Mexico
City one, to support your claims? Are you afraid you couldn't do
it? Since you're unable to tell us just how you would do it, but
just toss out phrases like "sophisticated layering," it's up to
you to show us.

 >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.

Do you have a web site where you've posted an image of the truck
mirror that does the trick for you?

   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 >
   Dec > Dec 1

                                  Hessdalen

From: Alfredo Lissoni <retecun@tiscalinet.it>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 18:14:13 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 01:54:55 -0500
Subject: Hessdalen


 From our friend, Massimo Teodorani about Hessdalen.

Best wishes

Alfredo Lissoni
Italy's National UFO Center

-----

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

I only want to advise you that the article "The EMBLA 2000
Mission in Hessdalen" is now published after peer review by NIDS
(National Institute for Discovery Science) at:

http://www.nidsci.org/whatsnew.html

It is a slightly expanded version of the same article published
one month ago at ICPH (the Italian Committee for Project
Hessdalen):

http://www.itacomm.net/PH/

Cordially

Massimo Teodorani








                         The UFO UpDates Archive
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 1

                 Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 10:30:34 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 08:37:01 -0500
Subject: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I


In looking for writeups on witnesses' reports of the Aug. 6,
1997, Mexico City UFO, I was unable to locate any in my files.
But when I queried Michael Hesemann, he offered me his, which he
wrote up a couple years ago. The only trouble is, it's in
German. So I've started translating it, with Michael's e-mail
help on sentences I had trouble with. Although he would be able
to translate it all much faster than I, I'm retired and he
isn't.

In case others on this List also don't have any files on what
the witnesses to the Mexico City sighting reported, but are
interested, I'll start sending sections of the translation,
beginning with Part I below.

In this first Part, Michael just reports on Jaime Maussan's
findings. He gets into his own findings later.


  A Translation of Michael Hesemann's Mexican City UFO Writeup
  Part I

...For a half year he [Jaime Maussan] has, to that end,
moderated a unique program, "Tercer Milenio" (Third Millennium),
which deals with the fringe sciences and explorations of the
future.

On Sept. 26, 1997, Jaime Maussan received a very special
package. Someone had sent him a video tape, in itself nothing
remarkable. But when he played the tape on his video recorder,
it took his breath away. For the anonymously sent recording
showed nothing but points of light and sky - except for a large,
metallic, structured, rotating disk, which maneuvered in broad
daylight over Mexico City, with a dateline of 6 August 1997 -
and disappeared behind a high-rise building and reappeared,
which speaks clearly for it being a large object. Enclosed with
it was only a note, which read, "We know what happens to
witnesses, if they go public with something like this."
Maussan's first reaction was, "This is a fake; it can't be
real!" Yet, on the advice of his colleague he viewed it
carefully, again and again, and started wondering. Who had taken
this segment of video tape? And where was it taken? Maussan knew
that there was only one way to find out: He broadcast the video
segment over the air and asked viewers to help him with the
investigation of the case. "Are the houses, the buildings, real?
Whoever knows, please call us!", he asked in his broadcast of
Sept. 27th, which was repeated on the 28th. A woman called in,
saying, "I know the place, I lived there. It is the section of
the city called "Bosque de las Lomas."

A day later Maussan and his colleague were at the spot. He found
two witnesses to the identical event. He asked one man, who sold
tacos on the street in a little stand, whether he had seen a UFO
at that place. He answered in the affirmative, "My daughter saw
a UFO here a couple months ago." The daughter, named Cassandra,
was twelve years old. She described that sometime between 4 and
6 pm this grey disk flew over the houses. Everyone in her family
thought she was crazy, even her father, who went to take a look
only after the object had disappeared. She explained that she
had never seen the video, yet despite this her description was
consistent with what was to be seen on it. "This little girl has
convinced me more than anyone else that there is something to
it," he said later.

Then Maussan identified the building from which the video
segment had been taken. Yet when he inquired there, no one would
speak to him. Everyone that he asked - the renter, the
doorkeeper, the security person - seemed to want to defend the
person who shot the film. Only one person admitted that he had
seen the five-minute video film after it was taken. That witness
swore he was being truthful, and insisted he was aware of the
film. [But] he came from one of the Central American states and
would be detained as illegal in Mexico. His wife and two
daughters thought he was still in their own country.

Finally, Maussan and his team found further witnesses. Annie
Lash, a young photographer, had just prepared for a photo
session, though the camera had not been cocked, when she saw the
UFO for a second. Her model confirmed the event. [Hesemann adds
that this took place at a pool area in front of one of the
skyscrapers.] The photographer [Annie] was wearing a
short-sleeved smock and on the next day had a sunburn on the
arms and face, which lasted a month. She saw the object from
below, close-up, from the location of the high-rise complex. She
described the round underside of the UFO and pale yellow lights
that surrounded it in rapid rotation. At first she saw a very
heavy, very dark cloud, which did not surprise her because it
was a cloudy day. But then the underside of the object appeared
in the middle of the cloud. She heard a noise as of escaping
gas, a hissing, and felt "something like a force, which pushed
on my body." She quickly ran to fetch her camera, but by the
time she got hold of it, the UFO had disappeared.





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

                      Re: Mexico City Video - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 14:15:20 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 08:38:47 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Maccabee


 >Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 16:29:29 -0800
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >Subject: Re: Mexico City Video


 >>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.

This can be done. A guy sent me a video he had made which was a
"copy" of the MC video in which is own version of a rotating,
nutating (wobbling or precessing) disc-like UFO passed behind
computer created buildings.

 >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 video I was sent was good. Robert Kiviat also included some
impressive UFO videos in his show "Best UFO EVidence" several
years ago in which he pointed out that the MC video could have
been hoaxed.








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

                      Re: Mexico City Video - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 14:16:04 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 08:40:31 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Maccabee


 >Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 23:19:06 -0800
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >Subject: Re: Mexico City Video


 >>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>

I wrote:

 >>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.>

You will have to take this up with Sainio. I am not familiar
with the type of "paste in" he was discussing. I suppose one
could have a program that "simply" says, "where the building is,
don't paste anything... leave it alone."

On th other hand, I suppose the alien ship could have changed
its brightness while behind the building so as to confuse us.








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

                Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 15:46:48 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 08:42:55 -0500
Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Young


 >Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 14:51:50 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?

<snip>

 >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.

Hi, John:

How can someone who looks at a picture you have posted be
consider an armchair critic who has never "looked at" the
picture?

 >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.

How about the implication that you are only mistaken?

<snip>

 >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.

You ought to try feeding directly from the videocamera to the
computer, and avoiding the tapes. If you use a VCR, you can the
best quality tapes, this also helps.

 >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?

Where was the Sun? Could this have been an internal reflection
in the lens as the hand-held camera was moved around?

 >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?

John, how many lens elements are there in your video camera zoom
lens? As you change the focus you might have picked up this.
You can look into the lens and count the number of reflections
from a light bulb.

 >I'm too busy with the 'real thing' to mess with fakes. Or fakers
 >who pretend they know what they're talking about.

I'm glad that we're on the same wavelength, my friend.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 1

                          NIDS - UFO Over Illinois

From: Colm Kelleher - NIDS <nids@earthlink.net>
Date: 30 Nov 2000 20:46:51 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 08:48:54 -0500
Subject: NIDS - UFO Over Illinois


National Institute for Discovery Science - http://www.nidsci.org

UFO OVER ILLINOIS
A ONE-HOUR DOCUMENTARY

PREMIERS

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2000
9PM & 1 AM EASTERN/PACIFIC

SATURDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2000
5 PM EASTERN/PACIFIC

ON THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL
CHECK YOUR LOCAL LISTINGS FOR CHANNEL NUMBER
AND TO VERIFY TIME IN YOUR AREA

Science Mysteries

UFO Over Illinois

A UFO sighting in January 2000 by a mini-golf course owner was
questionable until police reported the sighting from four nearby
towns. Follow teams from major UFO investigating organizations
as they seek to explain this unnatural occurrence.

Check out the NIDS website for related interviews, sketches,
testimony, and analysis:

http://www.nidsci.org/news/illinois_contents.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 >
   Dec > Dec 1

                Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 14:17:25 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 08:53:06 -0500
Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Hatch


 >Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 14:51:50 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?

 >>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. ;)

 >>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.


Hello John:

Please please!

I _never_ called you a liar or anything of the kind. I never
insinuated this either. I believe you are entirely sincere, and
it shows in your posts over a long time.

What I said was I wished I had been there to see the object
myself. This is because it clearly has some angular size (unlike
points of light) and no photo/video can do justice to what the
eye can see... proper motions, resolution issues etc.

I did say that the photos _alone_ (without any explanation)
could be a number of things, mostly mundane. Please take a step
back and imagine somebody else shot them, then mailed them to
you anonymously.

I also mentioned a better looking still photo which I took
myself. (most videocams are still a long way from that quality)

I never suggested yours were faked, like mine would have been if
I published it as a real UFO... only that photos alone,
especially low-res ones, are poor proof to somebody who wasn't
there to see the event personally.

Please reconsider your full text above.


- 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 >
   Dec > Dec 1

               Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 14:30:52 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 08:56:35 -0500
Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Hatch


 >Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 05:48:19 +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: 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!)

 >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!


Hello Roy:

In a word, I'm the wrong guy.

I responded because you addressed me personally, in "Dearest
Larry terms, and quite out of the blue I might add.

So, I went ahead and looked at the video you sent, and gave my
highly non-expert opinion.

It would be much much more productive to send the full video CD
(or whatever) to somebody who can do some real expert analysis,
Bruce Maccabee or somebody like that.

The most I could offer to the best footage is "Gee that looks
strange" or else "No it doesn't really."... and that will get us
nowhere.

Why did you ask me to look at it, instead of an expert, in the
first place?


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 >
   Dec > Dec 1

                          Secrecy News -- 11/30/00

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@igc.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 17:13:06 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 09:00:53 -0500
Subject: Secrecy News -- 11/30/00


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
November 30, 2000


**      ALDRICH AMES SPEAKS OUT ON POLYGRAPH TESTING
**      CRS ON CYBERWARFARE
**      DOE:  CLASSIFIED MAIL AND NUCLEAR HISTORY


ALDRICH AMES SPEAKS OUT ON POLYGRAPH TESTING

"The U.S. is, so far as I know, the only nation which places
such extensive reliance on the polygraph.... It has gotten us
into a lot of trouble."

That is the verdict of convicted spy Aldrich H. Ames, who is
serving a life sentence at Allenwood federal penitentiary in
White Deer, Pennsylvania.  During his career at the CIA as a spy
for the Soviet Union and for Russia, Ames was notoriously
successful in evading detection by the counterintelligence
polygraph exam.

Ames provided extensive comments on polygraph testing in a
November 28 letter to the Federation of American Scientists that
he wrote in response to a recent essay on the subject in Science
Magazine.

"Like most junk science that just won�t die (graphology,
astrology and homeopathy come to mind), because of the
usefulness or profit their practitioners enjoy, the polygraph
stays with us."

"Its most obvious use is as a coercive aid to interrogators,
lying somewhere on the scale between the rubber truncheon and
the diploma on the wall behind the interrogator�s desk.  It
depends upon the overall coerciveness of the setting � you�ll be
fired, you won�t get the job, you�ll be prosecuted, you�ll go to
prison � and the credulous fear the device inspires.  This is
why the [congressional] Redmond report ventures into the
simultaneously ludicrous and sinister reality that citizens�
belief in what is untrue must be fostered and strengthened.
Rarely admitted, this proposition is of general application for
our national security apparatus," Ames wrote.

"The national security state has many unfair and cruel weapons
in its arsenal, but that of junk science is one which can be
fought and perhaps defeated...."

The full text of the letter from Ames is posted here:

        http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/polygraph/ames.html


CRS ON CYBERWAR

"There is a war being waged in cyberspace today � at least
that�s what many in government and the media would have us
believe."  That is the promising beginning of a new report from
the Congressional Research Service on "Cyberwarfare."

The report itself is rather perfunctory, but reflects current
thinking on this topic in Congress.

"This report is designed to examine broad cyberwarfare issues
and raise underlying questions. The report first summarizes some
cases that illustrate real-world concerns many have with respect
to cyberwarfare. It then discusses the current U.S. policy and
organizational approaches to cyberwarfare. The report also
examines foreign perspectives, the issue of cyberterrorism, and
some reported instances of cyberwarfare."

The November 15 report is posted here (in PDF format):

        http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL30735.pdf


DOE: CLASSIFIED MAIL AND NUCLEAR HISTORY

As was widely reported this week, the Department of Energy
Inspector General found that the three nuclear weapons
laboratories had been routinely mailing classified documents to
recipients who were not authorized to receive them.  Oops!  The
new Inspector General report is posted here:

        http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/doeig_0488.html

Energy Secretary Bill Richardson on November 28 announced a new
fellowship program for doctoral students in American history
that is intended to promote research on nuclear history.

Secretary Richardson did not address the major obstacle to
scholarship on nuclear history, which is the failure to process
DOE�s vast classified record holdings for declassification and
release.

In an odd choice of words, he said that the forthcoming history
"will be a story written for people  not historians  and it will
help remind everyone of the sacrifices and strides made during
this era."

See the DOE press release here:

        http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2000/11/doe112800.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 >
   Dec > Dec 1

                    Re: Turkish Announcements - Goldstein

From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 00:59:41 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 09:04:32 -0500
Subject: Re: Turkish Announcements - Goldstein


 >Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 13:00:42 +0000
 >From: Philip Mantle <pmquest@dial.pipex.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >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'

<snip>

 >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.

<snip>


Dear Listerions,

I don't know why I am bothering with my reply but something
always bugs me when I hear the pseudo-beliefs in "Universal
Laws" from so called "New Agers". Where did these so called
"Universal Laws" that they always spout supposedly come from?
Are they carved on some tablet in deep space? Did I miss a photo
from the Hubble telescope or did I miss an episode of Star Trek?
Maybe I'm not channeling properly and need to get the tuner in
my VCR repaired. Can someone please explain it to me?


Thanks,

Josh Goldstein
(lost in my darkness)









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

                              UFO Over Illinois

From: Steven L. Wilson Sr <Ndunlks@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 19:02:40 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 21:46:27 -0500
Subject: UFO Over Illinois

Researcher Steven L. Wilson, Sr
To submit paranormal activity email Ndunlks@aol.com

From:    nids@earthlink.net (National Institute for Discovery Science)
To:    Ndunlks@aol.com (List Member)


National Institute for Discovery Science - http://www.nidsci.org

UFO Over Illinois
A One-Hour Documentary


Premiers

Thursday, November 30, 2000
9Pm & 1 Am Eastern/Pacific

Saturday, December 2, 2000
5 Pm Eastern/Pacific

ON THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL
CHECK YOUR LOCAL LISTINGS FOR CHANNEL NUMBER
AND TO VERIFY TIME IN YOUR AREA

Science Mysteries

UFO Over Illinois

A UFO sighting in January 2000 by a mini-golf course owner was
questionable until police reported the sighting from four nearby
towns. Follow teams from major UFO investigating organizations
as they seek to explain this unnatural occurrence.

Check out the NIDS website for related interviews, sketches,
testimony, and analysis:

http://www.nidsci.org/news/illinois_contents.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 >
   Dec > Dec 1

                Re: A Most Interesting Discovery (Dalnegorsk,

From: Paul Stonehill <rurc@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 16:58:24 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 21:48:53 -0500
Subject: Re: A Most Interesting Discovery (Dalnegorsk,


...made by a Russian scientist who resides in the United States.
http://village.globaldrum.com/rvlakeside/

Kudos to
Alexander Krivenyshev!

russia_citylink@yahoo.com
...and there is a copyright, too.

Paul Stonehill








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

               Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 19:47:26 -0600
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 21:51:40 -0500
Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Evans


 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 02:22:30 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark?

 >>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?

Previously, John wrote:

 >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.

Hi, John!

For starters, as long as I've been reading this List, people
that question the validity of a single video/photo related to a
specific unsolved UFO case are immediately labeled as a
universal "debunker" or "skeptic" about all UFO cases.

This is all a bunch of cry-baby crap, if you ask me. So, let's
cut to the nuts of all this nonsense. Here's what you want of
people like me:

1) Don't doubt any claim.

2) Don't ask any questions.

3) Don't focus on issues of common sense

4) Don't point out obvious problems with evidence

5) Don't point out obvious problems with logic

For all the belly-aching about "not being believed", I see very
little effort for reconciliation on the part of the witnesses,
themselves.

For instance, Deardorff feels that aliens can manipulate video
but humans can not. How logical is that? Michel claims to know
"flying saucers exist" for a fact, just as he is convinced that
AA is real and that Trent shot a real ET craft. But where is his
related evidence for those cases? I am waiting anxiously for the
single frame of his own video that clearly shows a flying saucer
and not some indistinguishable light in the night sky that could
be anything. He has nothing to connect his own experiences with
AA or Trent, yet he gives both full acceptance as being the real
deal. That's like saying all cops are honest because a handful
are or that all cops are dishonest because a handful are. There
is no correlation what so ever.

I am not stupid. I know there is a mountain of evidence that
points to UFOs and ET visitation and I, personally, believe in
the existence of ET life. I don't unilaterally discount all of
it just because I happen to doubt some of it. On the other hand,
it would seem that you want me to accept all of it when none of
it has been proven one way or the other to anyone's
acceptability other than your own. And, even then, your standard
for acceptance is different than, say, Deardorff's. But your
demand for acceptance by "non-witnesses" is unilateral and
unconditional. "Believe it all or don't bring it up". That seems
to be the maxim you employ.

I understand the frustration of not being believed, but you
can't blame people for asking hard questions about something so
fantastic as ET visitations. Can't you see that this kind of
interest shows how important the issue is to these same people?
Can't you see that many who question what is obvious to you want
it to be obvious to them, as well? Or is it easier for you to
pass judgment on these people and have pity on them because they
are so unenlightened as to not know "the truth" the way you and
Michel and Deardorff do?

I have seen no one on this list assert that all UFO claims are
bogus. However, I have seen the universal "believers" on this
list go ballistic when even one of their cherished UFO cases is
questioned in a logical manner. I take the cases one by one. It
seems to be "all or nothing" with you guys...

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 >
   Dec > Dec 1

               Re: UFO UpDate: Phil Klass - Sleeping? - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 23:34:10 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 21:54:24 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Phil Klass - Sleeping? - Gates


 >From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Phil Klass - Sleeping?
 >Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 14:54:42 -0800

 >Hi there folks-

 >Wondering if anyone out there has a photo of Klass when he was
 >sleeping during, I believe, a MUFON Symposium?

As I recall he loudly claimed he wasn't sleeping.  Needless to
say after I saw the photo, I was skeptical of the
claim............ :)


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 >
   Dec > Dec 1

                      Re: Re: Mexico City Video - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 00:55:33 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 22:03:56 -0500
Subject: Re: Re: Mexico City Video - Hatch


 >Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 12:55:59 -0800
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >Subject: Re: Mexico City Video

 >>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

<snip>

 >>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?

 >>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.

 >I've posted it here before. It's:

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


Jim, thank you for the response and the URL. I suppose we can
simply agree to disagree.

I will definitely check out the website. Again, (so people can
click on it) your website URL is:

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



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 >
   Dec > Dec 1

                      Re: Campinas, Brazil? - Ticchetti

From: Thiago Ticchetti <thiagolt@opengate.com.br>
Date: Sex, 1 Dez 2000 12:03 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 22:12:31 -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?


Dear friend Manuel and co-lists,
Here is what I found about the Campinas Case.

This case, known as 'The Night Of The Silver Rain', occurred in
December 13th, 1954 and was researched by the famous ufologist
Dr. Olavo Pontes. That night 3 dark-silver objects, hovered over
the city of Campinas, So Paulo state. One of the objects got
very close to the roofs of the houses before it disappeared at
an amazing speed. But when it left (according to witnesses), it
ejected an incandescent material, seemingly magnesium dust, used
in fireworks, that when it touched the ground got cold and had a
metallic appearance.

Further analysis by the Dr. Vivaldo Maffei, recorded the
chemistry composition of the material as 91% tin and 9% oxygen,
I mean, an extremely pure material, unknown on Earth. This same
case occurred in the Colombia years later.

That's it.

My 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 >
   Dec > Dec 1

                        Re: Campinas, Brazil? - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 01:29:48 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 22:15:37 -0500
Subject: Re: Campinas, Brazil? - Hatch


 >From: Manuel Borraz <maboay@teleline.es>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Campinas, Brazil?
 >Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 01:10:48 +0100

 >>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.h
tm

 >>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


Hello Manuel!

Yes! I did indeed mix up the two cases, since both involve
dropped metal samples.

Campinas (tin) is at about 47:03W - 22:52S
Ubatuba (magnesium) is at 45:06W - 23:24S
...perhaps 200 km apart (very rough guess.)

The Campinasy/tin affair is dated 13DEC54 here, while I have the
Ubatuba magnesium on 07SEP57.

In all, I have sightings listed for Campinas on 12DEC54 (the tin
affair), XXSEP57, 25JAN69, 11MAR69 and 04DEC71.

For Ubatuba, I have listings for 07SEP57 (Mg.) and 09FEB69.

It seems interesting that two cases of dropped metals should
occur close together, perhaps three years apart, roughly 45
years ago. Such cases are rare.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 1

                        Re: Mexico City Video - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 09:09:55 -0600
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 22:19:54 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Evans


 >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 09:26:11 -0800
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff

 >>Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 08:37:32 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Mexico City Video
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, 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.

I replied:

 >>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.
 >>...

Jim now states:

 >Well, Roger, are you afraid to try to utilize your human
 >technology and create your own video segment akin to the Mexico
 >City one, to support your claims? Are you afraid you couldn't do
 >it? Since you're unable to tell us just how you would do it, but
 >just toss out phrases like "sophisticated layering," it's up to
 >you to show us.

Jim, this is exactly the kind of answer that I expected from
you. Circular reasoning at its most circular. You are the one
that started this by making the claim that the video was real
and that the anomalies Bruce pointed out were the result of
"alien interference" and not human error. It's up to you to
argue and hold the position you maintain.

I am going to end this nonsense with you, not because I have no
faith in my own skill level, but because _nothing_ will convince
you that what you are seeing is terrestrial based. Why should I
spend time jumping through hoops that you will simply claim
prove nothing? When you say things like, "it's up to you to show
us", what "us" are you referring to? Just how many people
reading this list really believe that the anomalies on the video
are the result of "alien magic" other that YOU?

Your position is simply this: The aliens can manipulate video,
humans can't.

Just how many people do you think feel this is true, Jim? And
this is not the first time you've thrown down such a shallow
gauntlet. You maintained the Meier's photos could not be fake
because of your own lack of understanding about depth of field.

To show you how illogical your approach is to this, try to
imagine that ET craft ran along wheels instead of space travel
and that speed was one of their characteristics. After being
passed by a vehicle traveling at 80 MPH, your logic would be to
stand and proclaim, "That HAD to be an ET craft because it is
common knowledge that human cars can't go that fast."

Regarding the Mexico video, your position is the same: "The
footage has to be real because it is common knowledge that
humans don't have the technology to create what is seen in the
video."

Finally, I wrote:

 >>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.

Jim replied:

 >Do you have a web site where you've posted an image of the truck
 >mirror that does the trick for you?

You have GOT to be kidding. Right? The Trent saga has to be one
of the all time record holders on the list as an extended
thread. And you seriously ask if there is a photo?

This is exactly what I am talking about, Jim.

Do you do _any_ research before jumping into these things?

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 >
   Dec > Dec 1

                  Russian UFO May Have Been Satellite Decay

From: Todd Lemire <tlemire@home.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 10:17:38 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 22:22:40 -0500
Subject: Russian UFO May Have Been Satellite Decay



List members,

In response to the November 14 UFO report that appeared in
UFOROUNDUP concerning the Russian UFO, of which I've included a
portion of below. For full report see:
http://www.ufoinfo.com/roundup/v05/rnd05_47.shtml

There may be a chance that what was seen was the decay of the
Cosmos 2373 satellite, which is a Kometa mapping satellite. The
deorbit burn was probably around 2230 UTC; the
Vostok/Zenit-style sphere landed near Orenburg in Russia at 2253
UTC, according to Jonathan's Space Report located at:

http://hea-www.harvard.edu/~jcm/space/jsr/jsr.html

I'm by no means saying this is the explanation of the event on
November 14th, and with the little information available as far
as direction of travel and some of the press descriptions don't
fall in line with descriptions of a decay but there isn't much
to go on besides that press report. The location and time fit
very well and could have easily been mistaken for the UFO. This
should be looked into a bit further as a possible explanation.


Todd Lemire
Michigan UFO CENTRAL
http://members.home.net/tlemire/UFOCENTRAL.html

Giant Luminous UFO FLies Over Russian Troops In The Caucasus
Mountains

A large luminous UFO flew over Russian troops dug in along the
ridges in Dagestan during the early morning hours of Tuesday,
November 14, 2000.

This region of the Caucasus Mountains, just west of the Caspian
Sea, has been the scene of heavy fighting recently between
Russian troops and soldiers of the breakaway republic of
Chechnya and their Islamic guerrilla allies.

"Alarms went off at 1 a.m. local time yesterday (November 14,
2000) and an hour later. Confusion was extreme in the Dagestan
hills bordering Chechnya."

"At 2 a.m. local time, the first lucid reports began to come in
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 object because
they witnessed it for a long time as it slowly continued toward
the (Caspian) sea. Some garrisons noticed that it was an object
flying at low altitude, some 100 meters (330 feet above ground)
and had three fluorescent lights above it with two-meter (six
feet, seven inches) spaces between them, according to the
Russian Ministry of the Interior in Dagestan."

"Scientists at the Russian Academy of Science in Dagestan were
cautious and related their unwillingness to state if the object
in question was indeed a UFO."

"Several civilian witnesses agreed on the description of the
lights arrangement on the mysterious phenomenon while hesitating
to ascribe its origin to a secret weapon of the Russian Army or
some new weapon in the hands of the Islamic separatists."

STAVKA (Russian military command--J.T.) in Dagestan scrambled a
flight of Sukhoi Su-27 jet fighters to intercept the UFO but
"the jet fighters arrived--too late--into the pursuit."

"Acting quickly to forestall any possible rumors," the Russians
"indicated that it could be a NATO spy plane interested in
Russian military maneuvers in the Caucasus and the Caspian"
regions.







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

               Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Hale

From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 16:01:20 +0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 22:25:22 -0500
Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Hale


 >Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 02:22:30 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark?

 >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.



Hi John,

Thanks for taking the time to at least view the film on my site.
You are correct in your assumption, and that is some of Chris's
UFO footage is very similar to that being filmed in Mexico. And
perhaps the reason it gets ignored is, it is too near the mark
for some to swallow. You see sceptics froth at the mouth about
UFOs not existing, and then you give them the real hard DATA
which also has witness support and their arguments melt away.

 >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?

I am "fired up" as you say because, this footage is not supposed
to exist here in the UK. If we were to go on the premise of what
the UK public has and is being told by certain sceptics at UFO
meetings, then everything is a balloon or dust ball. This
footage is not discussed because it kick's the ladder from under
the feet of those who are putting " solvable DATA" into the
public arena. I am disappointed in some researchers who are
usually quite outspoken, and are looked upon as an authority of
UK UFO research and instead have opted to lay low and hope that
this footage and perhaps other great UFO footage dies a slow
death.

You mention premiere I have a copy of premiere 5.5 and yes there
are loads of stuff you can do with these sort of programs, if
you have the time to do so. But I have actually witnessed the
footage myself, two summers back whilst out on the parklands of
Bromley By Bow ( Town where Chris lives in London). And not just
me, plenty of people. And remember John, Chris is filming some
of this footage right next door to the City Airport Canary Wharf
( Airport used by the City of London mostly for Business flights
in and around Europe). Now if we were to believe what the
sceptics say, then what we are seeing are enormous dust balls
and golf balls flying around East London.

I have been following some not all of the Mexico wave since it
began. And I have seen a great deal of footage, some of it
amazing' and you are right to say that this is ignored, but I
also know a lot of people who do not ignore it. Perhaps if the
sceptics choose to ignore such HARD DATA, then we should now
simply ignore their ranting, that way we can really start to
look at the footage without gobble de gook being thrown in! Give
these sceptics airtime and you give their egos that great boost
which is so often needed. Chris's footage is not out to receive
different treatment John, you have to understand the position of
where I am coming from on this. UK sceptics are telling the UK
public that all UFO cases are now solvable, to me this is out of
order due to the fact that footage like Chris Martin of East
London and also someone like Brian Mcphee of Stirling Scotland
is largely being ignored because they know they have no
explanation for such footage. John do you notice how many UK
sceptics have contributed to this thread! And how many prominent
ones at that! I think that should tell us all something.


 >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.

You know John, it is a shame if that is the case, because Chris
does not mind open scrutiny of his footage. We would love for
Bruce Mac and Jeff Sanio to get this footage and run it through
their equipment, because we even discover other things to the
footage we haven't found yet. I understand Stanton refers to
these as " The Noisy Negatives" a title aptly chosen for those
who shout at the top of their lungs before anything
investigation into such footage. This is shown by the way I was
attacked when I presented the footage to Updates some months
back, and now these same people are where? And what do they have
to contribute to this debate? Zero is the answer, Zilch,
Nothing, only hot air and name calling, a good tactic often used
by sceptics when they are unable to figure out what is being
discussed in a case that may represent a huge breakthrough for
modern UFO research!


 >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.

Well maybe it is time to turn the tide! If you don't listen they
don't get noticed.

 >"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!


All the Best John,

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 >
   Dec > Dec 1

                        Re: Mexico City Video - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 12:19:52 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 22:28:22 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Young


 >Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 09:26:11 -0800
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >Subject: Re: Mexico City Video

 >>Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 08:37:32 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Mexico City Video
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >For me it's unscientific and a bit silly to be studying UFOs but
 >always assume that they don't involve technology far beyond
 >ours, or that the UFO occupants wouldn't utilize it and wouldn't
 >have a strategy of dealing with us.

Jim, List:

You can't appeal to the equivalent of "magic" and still call it
science. If you do, nothing short of a flying saucer on the
White House lawn will ever give you want you want: acceptance of
the existence of the little men by everybody else. Sorry, Jim.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 1

                 Major Mars Discovery To Be Announced Dec. 7

From: NASANews@hq.nasa.gov
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 14:20:22 -0500 (EST)
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 22:31:14 -0500
Subject: Major Mars Discovery To Be Announced Dec. 7


Donald Savage
Headquarters, Washington, DC December 1, 2000
(Phone: 202/358-1727)

Mary Hardin
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
(Phone: 818/354-0344)

NOTE TO EDITORS: N00-058

MAJOR MARS DISCOVERY TO BE ANNOUNCED AT DEC. 7 SCIENCE BRIEFING

Imaging scientists Dr. Michael Malin and Dr. Ken Edgett from
NASA's Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft will present what they
describe as their most significant discovery yet at a Space
Science Update at 2:00 p.m. EST on Thursday, Dec. 7. Their
findings are being published in the December 8 issue of Science
Magazine.

This science update will be held in the James E. Webb Auditorium
at NASA Headquarters, 300 E St., S.W., Washington, DC, and will
be carried live on Telstar 5, transponder 11. The Ku-band
satellite is located 97 degrees West longitude with a downlink
frequency of 11929 MHz, vertical polarity.

Please note that, due to coverage of the ongoing Shuttle
mission, NASA Television does not expect to carry this briefing,
and two-way question-and-answer capability from agency centers
will not be available.

Participants will be:
* Dr. Ed Weiler, Associate Administrator for Space Science, NASA
Headquarters, Washington, DC., will be panel moderator.

* Dr. Michael Malin principal investigator, Mars Orbiter Camera on
NASA's Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft at Malin Space Science
Systems (MSSS), San Diego, CA.

* Dr. Ken Edgett, staff scientist at MSSS.

* Dr. Jim Garvin, Mars Exploration Program Scientist at NASA
Headquarters.

* Dr. Ken Nealson, director of the Center for Life Detection at
NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA.

  - end -


  * * *

NASA press releases and other information are available
automatically by sending an Internet electronic mail message to
domo@hq.nasa.gov. In the body of the message (not the subject
line) users should type the words "subscribe press-release" (no
quotes). The system will reply with a confirmation via E-mail
of each subscription. A second automatic message will include
additional information on the service. NASA releases also are
available via CompuServe using the command GO NASA. To
unsubscribe from this mailing list, address an E-mail message to
domo@hq.nasa.gov, leave the subject blank, and type only
"unsubscribe press-release" (no quotes) in the body of the
message.







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

              Re: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I -

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 12:19:53 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 22:35:07 -0500
Subject: Re: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I -


 >Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 10:30:34 -0800
 >To: UFO UpDates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >Subject: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I

 >In looking for writeups on witnesses' reports of the Aug. 6,
 >1997, Mexico City UFO, I was unable to locate any in my files.
 >But when I queried Michael Hesemann, he offered me his, which he
 >wrote up a couple years ago.

<snip>

 >A Translation of Michael Hesemann's Mexican City UFO Writeup
 > Part I

 > ...For a half year he [Jaime Maussan] has, to that end,
 >moderated a unique program, "Tercer Milenio" (Third Millennium),
 >which deals with the fringe sciences and explorations of the
 >future.

 >On Sept. 26, 1997, Jaime Maussan received a very special
 >package. Someone had sent him a video tape, in itself nothing
 >remarkable.

<snip>

 >He broadcast the video segment over the air and asked
 >viewers to help him with the investigation of the case.

<snip>

 >his broadcast of Sept. 27th, which was repeated on the 28th.
 >A woman called in, saying, "I know the place, I lived there.

<snip>

 >A day later Maussan and his colleague were at the spot. He
 >found two witnesses to the identical event.

<snip>

 >"My daughter saw a UFO here a couple months ago." The
 >daughter, named Cassandra, was twelve years old.

<snip>

 >Finally, Maussan and his team found further witnesses. Annie
 >Lash, a young photographer, had just prepared for a photo

<snip>

 >She quickly ran to fetch her camera, but by the
 >time she got hold of it, the UFO had disappeared.

Jim, List:

Thank you, for this valuable answer to the question of
whether the UFO video broadcast came first or whether the
witnesses' stories of the UFO came first. It seems that the
UFO video broadcast came first, _twice_, before any witnesses
_independently_ surfaced.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 1

                Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Velez

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 22:42:09 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 22:42:09 -0500
Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Velez

Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 12:52:52 -0500
To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 15:46:48 EST
 >Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 14:51:50 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?

 ><snip>

 >>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.

 >Hi, John:

 >How can someone who looks at a picture you have posted be
 >consider an armchair critic who has never "looked at" the
 >picture?

Hiya Bob, I meant 'analysed' the original images on tape or
film. Not a still frame capture (jpg.) that I post only to
verify the fact that I indeed did record something/an event.
I've had people call me a liar or a hoaxer based on their
'eyeball' viewing of a jpg.

Instant analysis. That's what I meant by "armchair" photoanalysts.

 >>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.

 >How about the implication that you are only mistaken?

Mistaken about what Bob? The UFOs I'm recording? They are not
balloons, airplanes, blimps, or birds. I have video where a bird
or airplane will pass through the field of view as I am
recording a stationary glowing sphere. Unless white glowing
spheres have now been catagorized as commercial aircraft, I am
recording -unidentified-flying-objects. I am attaching a still
frame of one of them for you. The object had been stationary for
about 5 minutes, then suddenly flew off in a Northeasterly
direction.

But maybe I was mistaken and it was just one of those "balloons"
that can hover and manouver against the wind.

I've been studying the sky for 30 years Bob. Give me a "little"
credit for not being easily fooled by conventional objects. If
something even comes close to being identifyable I don't waste
film or my time on it. I am recording stuff that shouldn't look
the way it looks, and that moves in ways that birds, planes,
blimps and balloons don't.

Anomalous objects.

Mind you that I am not calling them "spaceships" or flying
saucers, because I have no idea 'what' they are or 'where'
they are from. I shoot them because they -are- anomalous.

 ><snip>

 >>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.

 >You ought to try feeding directly from the videocamera to the
 >computer, and avoiding the tapes. If you use a VCR, you can the
 >best quality tapes, this also helps.

I've tried every combo that I can Bob. I just can't get crisp,
clear captures from the onboard video in on my old mac. I'm
going to invest (shortly) in a good PCI video capture card and
then I should be able to transfer stuff with the same
quality/clarity as on the originals.


 >>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?

 >Where was the Sun? Could this have been an internal reflection
 >in the lens as the hand-held camera was moved around?

What Lenses? What camera Bob? I _said_ I was observing the
object through 7x50 binoculars. The object that I was observing
was to the South if memory serves. It was mid to late afternoon
and the sun would have been up and over to my right. The hard
object was no 'reflection.' Neither was the other one that flew
into the scene as I was observing the first object. One was
perfectly stationary and the other one was moving like it was on
its way to a fire. Not lens reflections.

I wouldn't catagorize lens reflections as UFOs or post pictures
of lens reflections and call them UFOs. The things I was
watching were there and performing -exactly- as I have
described.

 >>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?

 >John, how many lens elements are there in your video camera zoom
 >lens? As you change the focus you might have picked up this.
 >You can look into the lens and count the number of reflections
 >from a light bulb.

Bob, (again) what camera? These 'objects' are there whether I
use a camera, videocam, binoculars, or naked eye to observe
them. I only have one element in my eye lens. Maybe I'm getting
eyeball lens refections too eh? <LOL>

 >>I'm too busy with the 'real thing' to mess with fakes. Or fakers
 >>who pretend they know what they're talking about.

 >I'm glad that we're on the same wavelength, my friend.

I'm glad you're glad. I try always to say what I mean and to mean
what I say. I'm Popeye the sailor man!  ;)

Regards,

John Velez -UFO 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 >
   Dec > Dec 2

                      Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 10:18:50 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 07:50:19 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff


 >Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 14:16:04 -0500
 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Re: Mexico City Video
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 23:19:06 -0800
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Mexico City Video

 >>>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>

 >I wrote:

 >>>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.>

 >You will have to take this up with Sainio. I am not familiar
 >with the type of "paste in" he was discussing. I suppose one
 >could have a program that "simply" says, "where the building is,
 >don't paste anything... leave it alone."

Bruce,

If Jeff has e-mail, could you send me his address, then? I'm
quite sure that the paste-on-lighter command is implemented
pixel by pixel within the image, since an eclipsing obstacle
could be full of irregular gaps, like a tree.

 >On th other hand, I suppose the alien ship could have changed
 >its brightness while behind the building so as to confuse us.

Hmmm, in that case we'd never know it, since the video is the
only representation of its side view we have.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 2

                      Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 10:09:23 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 07:55:14 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff


 >Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 14:15:20 -0500
 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Re: Mexico City Video
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 16:29:29 -0800
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Mexico City Video

 >>>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.

 >This can be done. A guy sent me a video he had made which was a
 >"copy" of the MC video in which is own version of a rotating,
 >nutating (wobbling or precessing) disc-like UFO passed behind
 >computer created buildings.

 >>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 video I was sent was good. Robert Kiviat also included some
 >impressive UFO videos in his show "Best UFO EVidence" several
 >years ago in which he pointed out that the MC video could have
 >been hoaxed.

OK, Bruce. I knew it can be done to some degree of realism given
that movie-studio equipment was available, but not that it could
be done well and simply as Jeff Sainio had implied. If you were
told to analyze the faked video you were sent, would you have
quickly found unrealistic features, unlike with the MC video?
Was there a hazy or smoggy atmosphere involved that the faked
UFO image had to merge properly into? Did the UFO image pass
behind a computerized building that in places was not as dark as
the UFO image (so that no "paste on lighter" type of computer
command could be used)? I take it this faked video exhibited no
"camera bounce," and so didn't have the significant amount of
UFO image smearing that the MC video disclosed, some 28% of what
would be expected, according to Sainio. Did the faked video have
an accompanying sound track, in which the contents of what the
voices said matched the position of the UFO when it went behind
the building? What motivation would a hoaxer of the MC video
have had if he/they never came forward to claim credit, and if
they would never have been sure that someone like Jeff Sainio
would notice the peculiarities in the image bounce? However, the
maker of the video you were sent did have the strong motivation
of trying to convince you, and through you other ufologists,
that the MC video could have been a hoax, in order to keep the
UFO coverup intact.

Even if one wants to forget the eye witnesses, or claim they
couldn't remember the date of the event well enough a couple
months later, details like those above do need to be taken into
account when postulating that it could have been faked. As you
know, the devil is in the details, and in the UFO, some would
say.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 2

                 Re: UFO UpDate: NIDS - UFO Over Illinois -

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 13:40:25 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 07:57:50 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: NIDS - UFO Over Illinois -


 >From: Colm Kelleher - NIDS <nids@earthlink.net
 >Date: 30 Nov 2000 20:46:51 -0000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: UFO Over Illinois

 >National Institute for Discovery Science - http://www.nidsci.org

 >UFO OVER ILLINOIS
 >A ONE-HOUR DOCUMENTARY

 >PREMIERS

 >THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2000
 >9PM & 1 AM EASTERN/PACIFIC

 >SATURDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2000
 >5 PM EASTERN/PACIFIC

 >ON THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL
 >CHECK YOUR LOCAL LISTINGS FOR CHANNEL NUMBER
 >AND TO VERIFY TIME IN YOUR AREA

 >Science Mysteries

 >UFO Over Illinois

 >A UFO sighting in January 2000 by a mini-golf course owner was
 >questionable until police reported the sighting from four nearby
 >towns. Follow teams from major UFO investigating organizations
 >as they seek to explain this unnatural occurrence.

 >Check out the NIDS website for related interviews, sketches,
 >testimony, and analysis:

 >http://www.nidsci.org/news/illinois_contents.html

I'd surely like to know what the Discovery Channel had to say
about this sighting.

Anyone?

I went to:

http://www.nidsci.org/news/illinois_contents.html

Read all testimonies. Very impressive.

Finally got to:

http://www.nidsci.org/news/physicsanalysis.html

Looks like Belgium triangles in Illinois country.









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

              Re: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I -

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 14:51:26 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 08:00:03 -0500
Subject: Re: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I -


 >Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 10:30:34 -0800
 >To: UFO UpDates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >Subject: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I

 >In looking for writeups on witnesses' reports of the Aug. 6,
 >1997, Mexico City UFO, I was unable to locate any in my files.
 >But when I queried Michael Hesemann, he offered me his, which he
 >wrote up a couple years ago. The only trouble is, it's in
 >German. So I've started translating it, with Michael's e-mail
 >help on sentences I had trouble with. Although he would be able
 >to translate it all much faster than I, I'm retired and he
 >isn't.

Hi Jim,

Thank you so much for taking the time to do this. I for one
appreciate your time and effort. ;)

I got the same 'hit' from the little girls testimony that
Maussan did. I've raised two children to adulthood and now I'm
working on three granchildren so I pride myself in being able to
detect when a youngster is attempting to be deceptive. Any
'parent' will know about the internal radar statem I am
referring to.  :)

That little girl's testimony _was_ convincing. Although I am not
a human lie detector, she seemed completely credible and
sincere. It all just 'rang true.'

If there are in fact the "hundreds" of eye witnesses (that
Maussan claims he has,) then the video becomes a secondary
issue. Without the witnesses, based on the video alone, it all
likes one big practical joke. We really do need to know more
about the witnesses and the details of their testimony before we
dismiss this case as a hoax. I am trying to get an e-mail
address for Maussan so I can invite him to join us for awhile,
to help bring us all up to speed on this case.

Again, than you for taking the time to do the translation. It's
appreciated.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 2

                     New Book - 'Our Celestial Visitors'

From: Steven L. Wilson Sr <Ndunlks@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 19:36:09 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 09:04:47 -0500
Subject: New Book - 'Our Celestial Visitors'


Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 09:53:29 -0500
From: "Ernest P. Moyer" <epmoyer@netrax.net>



See book review at Amazon.com.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0967826438/o/qid=975620769/sr=2-1/103-951
2202-6832614



Our Celestial Visitors

A Program In World Rehabilitation


This Book Contains A Thorough Technical Study Of Jonathan
Swift'S 1726 Prediction Of The Two Martian Satellites.


The conclusions of this book have profound religious and
philosophical implications.

PART I:THE ABDUCTEES

A review of the work of Jacobs, Hopkins, Mack and others. When
rescued from fear the "Little Gray Men" are found to be
extremely intelligent androids, with powers beyond human ken.

The purpose is screening and selection of human genetic stocks
to build a more intelligent and devout world race. The activity
is to correct the genetic errors from our ancient world past and
the default of Adam and Eve.

The notion of "aliens" is false, and derives from hypnotic
confabulation. Our Visitors are NOT producing a hybrid race
with themselves.They cannot, since they are machines and not
biological beings (EBEs).

Detailed discussion of breeding programs and methods, with
historic validation through Antonio Villas-Boas and evidence
from Cherokee Indian myths.

Examination of messages from the Abductees, with nuclear
holocaust clearly foretold.

As stated to "Michael" at Buff Ledge, "We are here to clean up
the earth."

PARTII: THE CONTACTEES

Adamski, Fry, Bethurum and others had actual experiences but
buried in a context to make them look like fools. Purpose was to
provide a base for understanding after time had sufficiently
matured, without preempting or conditioning the work of the
abduction investigators.

Historic validation through Jonathan Swift, editor of the Tory
Government Newspaper under Queen Anne, Dean of St. Patrick's
cathedral in Dublin, and author of Gulliver's Travels. He
described a perfect Flying Saucer, and predicted the two moons
of Mars 150 years before Asaph Hall discovered them in 1877. He
and the other Contactees provided details of the operators and
their craft, including display panels, controls, propulsion
systems, and many other items to verify the Abductee reports.

PART III: REVELATION

Four chapters are devoted to the study of seraphic (space)
transports. They are angelic beings that provide transport
beyond the limitations of Einsteinian physics. They jump space
and time.

Biological beings must be "dematerialized" for seraphic
transport. Evidence is provided by Betty Andreasson, a Cherokee
Indian brave, and Abductees under examination by David Jacobs.
Historical validation of visits with our Creator on a distance
architectural sphere provided by Isaiah, the Hebrew prophet, the
writer of the ancient Book of Enoch, Hatcinondon, a Seneca
Indian Chief, and Betty Andreasson.

Discussion of the Sea of Glass, mentioned by the Apostle John in
the Book of Revelation, an immense crystal landing field on the
architectural worlds, described by Betty Andreasson, the writer
of the ancient Book of Enoch, and David Morningstar.

A discussion of the rescue of "144,000" from this planet as part
of the biological improvement program.

Includes presentation by C. S. Lewis on "aliens" and a group of
people known as the Cosmic Reserve Corps of Destiny. Chosen
individuals will offer revelation to their fellow men under
conditions of extreme world crisis. Some Abductees are part of
that program.

  APPENDICES

Appendices on US Government interference, crop circles, and
animal mutilations.

580 pages dividedintoThreeParts,withAppendices,Index
andphotographs

Ordering Information:

Available at Amazon.com
Do search under UFOs or Ernest Moyer
Soft cover edition: $22.95 plus S&H
Hard cover: $34.95 plus S&H

40% discount directly from publisher.
Soft cover: $14.00 plus S&H
Hard cover: $21.00 plus S&H

Moyer Publishing
PO Box 1206
Hanover, PA 17331 USA
email epmoyer@netrax.net

Shipping rates are for one book only at two pounds weight.
Shipping and Handling rates for USA: $3.00 (Add $0.50 each for more than one boo
k.)
Shipping and Handling rates for countries other than USA:
(Air rates only shown. Surface shipments are extremely slow and not recommended.
)
Canada: $7.00(Add $2.00 each for more than one book) --
Mexico: $10.00 (Add $5.00 each for more than one book)--
Central and South America: $9.50 (Add $2.50 each for more than
one book) -- Europe: $13.50 (Add $4.50 each for more than one
book) -- Asia and Africa: $16.00 (Add $7.00 each for more than
one book) -- Pacific Rim, including Australia, New Zealand, and
Tasmania: $18.00 (Add $7.00 each for more than one book.)
Send check or money order in US funds only.We cannot accept
checks or money orders drawn on banks outside the United States.
Sorry, we do not accept credit cards.









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

                   Re: Turkish Announcements - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 20:52:54 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 09:08:56 -0500
Subject: Re: Turkish Announcements - Mortellaro


 >Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 00:59:41 +0100
 >From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Turkish Announcements

 >>Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 13:00:42 +0000
 >>From: Philip Mantle <pmquest@dial.pipex.com>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>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'

 ><snip>

 >>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.

 ><snip>


 >Dear Listerions,

 >I don't know why I am bothering with my reply but something
 >always bugs me when I hear the pseudo-beliefs in "Universal
 >Laws" from so called "New Agers". Where did these so called
 >"Universal Laws" that they always spout supposedly come from?
 >Are they carved on some tablet in deep space? Did I miss a photo
 >from the Hubble telescope or did I miss an episode of Star Trek?
 >Maybe I'm not channeling properly and need to get the tuner in
 >my VCR repaired. Can someone please explain it to me?


Hello, Josh, bListers and EBK,

First, if you are in the dark, please, head for the light.
That's the first thing they tell you! If your darkness is within
you, then please feel free to enlighten yourself.

The words "New Age" used to bring me to my knees in an effort at
vector vomiting in the general direction of my inlaws. But
recently, the words have taken a different turn in my pair of
dimes. For which phrase I would like to thank my friend Larry
Hatch, for inwenting the phrase. Since I took the words "pair of
dimes" over for my own use, I must give attribution where
attribution is due. Thankyou Sir Lawrence of Hatchdom.

Anyway, why don't you lose the "New Age" phrase and start
thinking about the word, "Spirituality!" In a sense, New Age has
a rap for being all of which is located in Sedona, the new land
of fruites and nuts. Of course, the old land of fruites and nuts
used to be L.A. Times change, Still. (Uh, for those who never
read the book, I reefer to Stilgar, boss of the biggest Sietch
this side of Arrakis).

Spirituality is believed by some to be the next generation of
New Age. The more mature variety. Anyway, I think you are quite
correct in your feelings against "New Age." But I also think it
goes deeper than the surface reaction it appears to cause. And
that it merits a closer look. I also think that the phrase is
abused. Not only by bookstores which continue to bundle UFO
related material in that section of the shelves, but you, and
me, and so many others also seem to bundle everything which we
do not understand into the same shelf.

Perhaps someone should look into the matter and straighten us
out. But not here. Not on UpDates. We got enough grief just
trying to lose the phrase, "UFO" and get another more
politically acceptable word(s) for it.

Which we never did.

Imagine, wanting to change the name "UFO" without even knowing
what the hell "UFO" really is anyway, eh?

"Oh how I wish that for just one time, you could stand inside my
shoes. Then you'd know what a drag it is to see you." Robert
Zimmerman said that. And he was reefering to New Age haters.
Presumably.

Best personal regards,

I am, Idiot Wind








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

               Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 22:04:47 -0600
Fwd Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 09:13:01 -0500
Subject: Re:  Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Evans


 >From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 16:01:20 +0000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Hale

 >>Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 02:22:30 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark?

Previously, Roy wrote:

 >You see sceptics froth at the mouth about
 >UFOs not existing, and then you give them the real hard DATA
 >which also has witness support and their arguments melt away.
 >And remember John, Chris is filming some
 >of this footage right next door to the City Airport Canary Wharf
 >( Airport used by the City of London mostly for Business flights
 >in and around Europe). Now if we were to believe what the
 >sceptics say, then what we are seeing are enormous dust balls
 >and golf balls flying around East London.

 >Perhaps if the
 >sceptics choose to ignore such HARD DATA, then we should now
 >simply ignore their ranting, that way we can really start to
 >look at the footage without gobble de gook being thrown in!

 >I understand Stanton refers to
 >these as "The Noisy Negatives" a title aptly chosen for those
 >who shout at the top of their lungs before anything
 >investigation into such footage. This is shown by the way I was
 >attacked when I presented the footage to Updates some months
 >back, and now these same people are where? And what do they have
 >to contribute to this debate? Zero is the answer, Zilch,
 >Nothing, only hot air and name calling, a good tactic often used
 >by sceptics when they are unable to figure out what is being
 >discussed in a case that may represent a huge breakthrough for
 >modern UFO research!


Hi, Roy!

I hope you read my previous post asking for an NTSC copy of the
footage as Beta SP or AVI. As I pointed out, I couldn't tell
much from the web site.

On to your post:

You mention about how you were "attacked" here on UpDates and
about all the "ranting" from skeptics regarding this footage.
Maybe I missed it while out of town on a film shoot, but could
you please point out the specific posts from the archives where
this abuse took place?

I'm not saying that I don't believe you. I just don't recall it.
I feel this is an important issue, since there seems to be only
a handful of people that take part on this List and I'd really
like to see how many of them are as negative as you guys claim.

It is my position that the majority of the people on this List,
including me, believe in the existence of ET life. To listen to
you and John and Michel and Deardorff and Gates and Clark and
(sometimes) Mortellaro, _nobody_ on this List believes in it other
than you. I really don't think it is as bad as you think it is,
as far as this List goes.

I look forward to the video.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 2

               Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 23:30:38 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 09:30:39 -0500
Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Velez


 >Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 19:47:26 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark?
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 02:22:30 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark?

 >>>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?

 >Previously, John wrote:

 >>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.

Roger writes:

 >For starters, as long as I've been reading this List, people
 >that question the validity of a single video/photo related to a
 >specific unsolved UFO case are immediately labeled as a
 >universal "debunker" or "skeptic" about all UFO cases.

There _are_ certain people that do that, agreed. I am not,
and have never been one of them. If you can show me a
single post that I have filed in the last five+ years that I
have been a participating member of this List where I called
someone a "debunker" I'd be very interested to see it.
Otherwise I do not see its relevance here. It has nothing
to do with me or anything I have ever said.

 >This is all a bunch of cry-baby crap, if you ask me. So, let's
 >cut to the nuts of all this nonsense. Here's what you want of
 >people like me:

You go on with my "list of wants:"

 >1) Don't doubt any claim.

 >2) Don't ask any questions.

 >3) Don't focus on issues of common sense

 >4) Don't point out obvious problems with evidence

 >5) Don't point out obvious problems with logic

Okay, Roger, you've put those words in my mouth. Now, either
show me in my own writings where I have _ever_ said anything of
the kind or admit that you have attributed all of the above to
me only because it suits you. I'd also like an apology.

 >For all the belly-aching about "not being believed", I see very
 >little effort for reconciliation on the part of the witnesses,
 >themselves.

Reconciliation with what Roger?

 >For instance, Deardorff feels that aliens can manipulate video
 >but humans can not. How logical is that?

After all the sheer nonsense that you have attributed to me
above, all the words, intentions, attitudes and the like, you
ask me what I think about Jim Deardorff's personal beliefs?

Why even ask? Apparently you don't need me to find out what I'm
thinking!

Show me and the members of this List where I have _ever_ said
any of the things that you attribute to me. Or where I have
expressed any of the attitudes or "wants" that you so
authoritatively state are mine. If you can't, I don't expect to
hear anymore from you.

What a noyve on dat guy!


John Velez,
Speaking strictly for myself

******************************************************
                     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 >
   Dec > Dec 2

                       Re: Mexico City Video - Cashman

From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@temporaldoorway.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 23:36:23 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 09:33:12 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Cashman


 >Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 14:15:20 -0500
 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Re: Mexico City Video
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >This can be done. A guy sent me a video he had made which was a
 >"copy" of the MC video in which is own version of a rotating,
 >nutating (wobbling or precessing) disc-like UFO passed behind
 >computer created buildings.

Yes, indeed, and one can simulate entire cityscapes with
essentially photographic accuracy using tools like Canoma, which
infers the geometry of a building with some indications from the
artist. The resulting geometry gets the image of the building
sides mapped onto it, and thus looks extraordinarily realistic.

Modern rendering tools include haze, fog, clouds, soft shadows
and a variety of other effects, and all of that can be animated.
They even support simulated camera instability.

My own work uses relatively limited forms of this, since my
intent is artistic, but it can definitely be done by a hoaxer.

My belief is that the Mexico City video may have been hoaxed by
a company called UFO, whose website is:

http://www.ufofilm.com/

Their intro for Sci-Fi Channel's "Interceptor Force" has all of
the hallmarks of the Mexico video, including a faked consumer
video camera sequence, UFOs passing behind real buildings,
camera shake, zoom, etc.

Unfortunately, they don't show that intro in detail on their
website, but a small portion of the trailer for the movie, at
the very beginning, shows some few seconds of this type of work.

Nevertheless, having see then entire intro, I can say that it
very much resembles the Mexico video.

------
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 >
   Dec > Dec 2

                       Re: Mexico City Video - Cashman

From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@temporaldoorway.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 23:42:22 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 09:35:20 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Cashman


 >Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 14:16:04 -0500
 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Re: Mexico City Video
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 23:19:06 -0800
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Mexico City Video

 >>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.>

 >You will have to take this up with Sainio. I am not familiar
 >with the type of "paste in" he was discussing. I suppose one
 >could have a program that "simply" says, "where the building
 >is, don't paste anything... leave it alone."

 >On th other hand, I suppose the alien ship could have changed
 >its brightness while behind the building so as to confuse us.

Pretty much every paintbox animation system allows the artist to
mask areas that will not be affected by the secondary input (in
this case, potentially, a model or computer generated model of a
UFO).

There are also other methods, as I detailed in my other e-mail.

------
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 >
   Dec > Dec 2

                Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 01:01:49 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 09:50:50 -0500
Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Young


 >Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 12:52:52 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 15:46:48 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 14:51:50 -0500
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?

<snip>

 >They are not balloons, airplanes, blimps, or birds. I have
 >video where a bird or airplane will pass through the field of
 >view as I am recording a stationary glowing sphere. Unless
 >white glowing spheres have now been catagorized as
 >commercial aircraft, I am recording -unidentified-flying-objects.

How did you determine that they are glowing, as opposed to
just reflecting?

 >I am attaching a still frame of one of them for you.

Thanks. I enlarged it 800% and it has a horizontal to vertical
size ratio of 5:4, with the bright image tapering off to the
left, and a dark appendage to its left. Looks like it might be
the vertical tail surface of an aircraft. There really isn't
much detail to go on.

How did this object disappear? Did you get an image when it was
moving away? Maybe it changed its aspect.

How many of these have you observed or taped?

 >The object had been stationary for about 5 minutes, then
 >suddenly flew off in a Northeasterly direction.

 >But maybe I was mistaken and it was just one of those
 >"balloons" that can hover and maneuver against the wind.

Hard to say. I assume that you know the wind directions at
various heights that day? What was the date, time of day and
location of this sighting?

 >>>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?

 >>Where was the Sun? Could this have been an internal reflection
 >>in the lens as the hand-held camera was moved around?

 >What Lenses? What camera Bob? I _said_ I was observing the
 >object through 7x50 binoculars.

Sorry. The same thing can happen in binoculars from internal
reflections of the Sun and other bright light sources from lens
elements.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 2

               Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 01:11:39 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 10:01:31 -0500
Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Velez


 >Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 16:01:20 +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: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 02:22:30 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark?

 >>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.

 >Hi John,

 >Thanks for taking the time to at least view the film on my site.
 >You are correct in your assumption, and that is some of Chris's
 >UFO footage is very similar to that being filmed in Mexico. And
 >perhaps the reason it gets ignored is, it is too near the mark
 >for some to swallow. You see sceptics froth at the mouth about
 >UFOs not existing, and then you give them the real hard DATA
 >which also has witness support and their arguments melt away.

Howdy Roy,

Nothing personal in this but, people always seem to be laboring
under the delusion that I somehow 'care' what skeptics (or
believers for that matter) think about anything. And yes, it
_is_ too near the mark for many. In fact, it is possible to
measure the impact by either the din of noise, or the deadly
silence that such revelations can ellicit from certain quarters.
This phenomenon (at its core) is _frightening_ Roy. Many people
are deeply threatened by it and it is interesting to study all
the different manifestations it takes, and all the different
ways that people deal with it/channel it. That the Fear is there
is beyond question.

 >I am "fired up" as you say because, this footage is not supposed
 >to exist here in the UK. If we were to go on the premise of what
 >the UK public has and is being told by certain sceptics at UFO
 >meetings, then everything is a balloon or dust ball.

An admission that it is happening in the UK requires;

a. Acknowledging that UFOs are a world wide phenomenon. (Brit
skeptics are fond of calling it an aberration of "American
Pop-culture".)

b. Admitting that it is not just an aberration of 'American Pop
Culture!"  That Brit's have the 'disease' too! <LOL>

 >have opted to lay low and hope that this footage and perhaps
 >other great UFO footage dies a slow death.

Happens on both sides of the fence I'm afraid. Recently
researchers had an opportunity to speak out on an important
issue of ethics in regard to abductee witnesses and they all
curled up in their safe little corners and condoned a
mistreatment of witnesses with their silence and failure to
respond. When it comes to 'blame' there's always enough to go
around. Skeptics and believers alike.

 >You mention premiere I have a copy of premiere 5.5 and yes there
 >are loads of stuff you can do with these sort of programs, if
 >you have the time to do so. But I have actually witnessed the
 >footage myself, two summers back whilst out on the parklands of
 >Bromley By Bow ( Town where Chris lives in London). And not just
 >me, plenty of people.

Roy, you don't have to tell me man. I know. On more than one
occasion I was in the company of others when these sightings
occurred. For some folks it simply doesn't matter how many
people saw it. "Such a thing cannot be" they proclaim, so
therefore; they could not have seen it. It must be comforting
for them to live in such a 'solved and well known' Universe.
<LMAO!>

 >And remember John, Chris is filming some
 >of this footage right next door to the City Airport Canary Wharf
 >( Airport used by the City of London mostly for Business flights
 >in and around Europe). Now if we were to believe what the
 >sceptics say, then what we are seeing are enormous dust balls
 >and golf balls flying around East London.

I live within spitting distance of Jamaica Bay and JFK
International. Many of the sightings in Mexico City happen near
the airport which is located in the central part of the city.
Now you tell me that Chris resides near an airport. It seems
that these 'things' whatever they are have a fondness or
curiosity about their human built counterparts in the sky.  ;)
I would kill to see the radar recordings from Kennedy on the
days I had my sightings. I have thought about those guys over at
the JFK tower on many occasions as I taped one or more of these
odd-balls in the sky.

 >UK sceptics are telling the UK public that all UFO cases are now
 >solvable,

Wow!

Let 'em climb way up there on their high horses Roy.
Patience. They will fall from their high horses one day. And
when they do, more than one 'egghead' will crack. <VBEG>

 >You know John, it is a shame if that is the case, because Chris
 >does not mind open scrutiny of his footage. We would love for
 >Bruce Mac and Jeff Sanio to get this footage and run it through
 >their equipment, because we even discover other things to the
 >footage we haven't found yet.

Neither am I, or Bill Hamilton or Tom King or any of the other
folks that have been assiduously recording as much of these
events as possible. We _want_ the stuff looked at and analysed.
But it doesn't really matter Roy. The only way that some people
are going to wake up is when they see one for themselves. Others
will need to be abducted and anally probed before they'll
believe! But I am confident that one day the presence of these
'craft' in our skies will be common knowledge to all. We just
need to be patient and allow events to take their course. Like I
said, I'm not out to convince anybody of anything. I report.
What they do with it after that is all up to them. Comprende
amigo?

 >Well maybe it is time to turn the tide! If you don't listen they
 >don't get noticed.

It never pays not to listen to others. Especially those who are
offering 'constructive' criticism. It's the only way to grow and
to learn. If you immerse yourself in an environment where
everybody is in complete agreement on everything you have
simultaneously arrived at a point of stagnation. The only
constant is constant change. No, I listen. And I think about it
and evaluate it for myself. What is useful and beneficial I will
adopt for my own, and what I see as dross I leave behind. What's
_important_ is, that we all/each get an oportunity to make up
our own minds.

All the best to you Roy,

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 >
   Dec > Dec 2

                       Re: Mexico City Video - Chapman

From: Charles Chapman <charlesrc@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 22:58:03 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 10:04:24 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Chapman


 >Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 09:09:55 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Mexico City Video
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >>Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 09:26:11 -0800
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff

 >>>Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 08:37:32 -0600
 >>>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>>Subject: Mexico City Video
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

 >Your position is simply this: The aliens can manipulate video,
 >humans can't.

If I may interject, I think Mr. Deardorff's position _may_ be a
bit more sophisticated, and therefore a bit more troublesome,
than that. His position _may_ be that: (a) aliens can manipulate
video; (b) humans can manipulate video; and most importantly (c)
we mere humans cannot possibly tell the difference between video
manipulated by aliens and video manipulated by humans.

Please understand when I say that what I have inferred to be Mr.
Deardorff's position is "troublesome," I don't mean to imply a
moral judgment -- i.e., that said position is wrong, evil, bad,
or motivated by malice or ill will. By "troublesome" I mean
troublesome to finding and proving some acceptable verifiable
empirical truth. This is because for an empirical truth to be
verifiable, it must, at least in principle, be falsifiable.
There must be some evidence, some observation, some experiment,
that could _in principle_ disprove, or at least tend to
disprove, the ETH hypothesis. The position stated above makes
that _almost_ impossible, at best, regarding any videotape of
any purported alien craft. To prove that the tape _could_ have
been faked using existing, readily available human technology
proves nothing, because the aliens, using their super advanced
technology, could, for their unfathomable reasons, have caused
the "real" tape to look like, and be indistinguishable from, a
"fake" tape.

In other words, there are two different hypothesis -- i.e., that
a given tape (1) is fake, or that (2) shows an actual alien
craft -- and there is no evidence, observation, analysis or
experiment that a mere human could possibly conduct to verify
one hypothesis or falsify the other.

One might think that one could rely on eye witnesses. I guess
one could, but it is at best odd, and perhaps sad, that we have
to rely on eye witnesses to verify the accuracy and validity of
a videotape instead of using the tape to verify the accuracy and
validity of eye witness accounts. In reality, since the tape can
_almost_ never, at best, prove or disprove anything, it winds up
being useless for ascertaining the truth, and we are left with
eye witness accounts.

Then again, as discussed in further detail below, pershaps all
of the eye witnesses were abudcted by the aliens and
brainwashed. Perhaps only some of them were.

I use the words "almost" in the paragraphs above because there
_may_ be rare exceptions to this conundrum. In very rare cases,
it may be possible to prove not only that a tape could have been
faked by humans, but that it was in fact faked by a human.
Perhaps one of the "fakers'" conferates confesses. Or somebody,
unknown to the faker, witnessed the the faker in the act of
faking it. Perhaps even better, somebody, again unknown to the
faker, took pictures and vidotape (vidotape #1) or the faker
faking the ufo videotape (videotape #2).

Sigh... but perhaps even such evidence would not be sufficient
to prove that the tape was in fact faked, and that the ufo
depicted thereon is not a real alien craft. After all, the
aliens could have abducted the person who confessed, or
_believes_ he witnessed the alleged "faker" making the tape, and
brain washed the confessor and/or witness, forcing him to
believe that the tape was faked.

Alas, even a confession by the person who shot the tape --
coupled with a demonstration how (he believes) the tape was
faked -- is insufficient to prove the tape was faked. After all:
(a) the mere fact that a tape could have been faked by a human
using existing technology doesn't prove it was in fact faked;
and most importantly (b) the aliens could have abducted the
person who shot the tape and brainwashed him into believing he
faked it.

I've said something similar in the abduction area, and I believe
it applies to the analysis of UFOs in general. If we assume
that, compared to us, aliens are the functional equivilant of
Gods both in their abilities (i.e., limitless) and motivations
(unfathomable and beyond mere human comprehension), then we are,
quite frankly, wasting our time. Any contrary evidence can be
explained away by the aliens unlimited power to alter space,
time and reality, and, like the Shadow, to cloud mens' minds.
Just as one does not doubt the existence of God merely because
he parted the Red Sea, or spoke to Moses, and only Moses,
through a burning bush, or created an earth 5,000 years ago that
all evidence indicates is billions of years old, one does not
doubt the exitence of Aliens merely because they can "freeze"
time for everyone on earth, or brainwash everyone on earth,
except for the one person to whom they chose to reveal, for
their Unfathomable reasons, a faintest glimpse of their
existence.

Similarly, any seemingly irrational and illogical behavior on
the the part of alleged aliens is no more reason to doubt their
existence than the fact that a hurricane (an act of God) kills
an innocent child is reason to doubt the existence of a all
knowing, all powerful, merciful and/or just God. For just as we
cannot know or question the reasons or purpose of God, nor can
we know the reasons or purposes of the Aliens.

In short, the Aliens are Gods, and Gods, by their very nature,
leave only such evidence of their existence as they chose to
leave.









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

                  The Cydonian Imperative: Martian Biology?

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 23:02:54 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 10:07:14 -0500
Subject: The Cydonian Imperative: Martian Biology?


THE CYDONIAN IMPERATIVE

For Immediate Release

12-2-00

Martian Biology?*

by Mac Tonnies (macbot@yahoo.com)

*For illustrated, linked version, please visit:

http://www.geocities.com/macbot/cydonia.html

----

Throughout the examination of the many thousand high resolution
Mars images provided by Malin Space Science Systems (MSSS),
several examples of peculiar terrain have surfaced that can be
interpreted in terms of large-scale biological activity. It's
the conjecture of many who have viewed these pictures that Mars
may host some form of hearty fungus, algae or lichen. If this is
what the following pictures represent (and it's by no means
certain at this point that they do), then Mars is indeed a
living world, with tenacious simple organisms clinging to the
surface in such profusion that they may have been misinterpreted
as geological phenomena.

So far, NASA has refrained from commenting on these strange
formations, expect for a vague admission that the alien geology
of Mars has proven a "humbling" experience. Hopefully, with a
"major Mars announcement" planned for Dec. 7 and increasing
mainstream acceptance of liquid, flowing water on Mars, the
reality of these anomalous features can be expected to be known
in the near future. If NASA's Mars exploration program is in
fact the "search for life," the agency may have stumbled across
more than it had bargained for in its zeal to find microbes.

In a related development, scientists in Russia have reported
detection of photosynthetic pigments in spectroscopic studies of
Mars. If confirmed, then this is proof that Mars once harbored
plantlife of some sort in the past. Alternatively, the detection
of photosynthetic pigment might reflect the present existence of
the oddities featured here.

[image]

In the image above, organic-looking "Dalmatian spots" cover a
wind-smoothed mesa. These spots should look familiar to anyone
who's ever overseen bacterial growth in a jar of agar. Their low
albedo is consistent with a possible photosynthetic explanation.
If not living things, what could these bizarre freckles be?
Perhaps these are upwellings of tar or some other dark substance
revealed by wind erosion. Either explanation promises
appreciable impact on our understanding of Mars' geological and
biological history.

[image]

This collection of extremely dark tufts, apparently connected in
places by vine-like formations, is found within cracks in Mars'
south polar cap. It's entirely possible that photosynthetic
organisms are feasting on carbon dioxide and water ice found
deep inside the fissures. If true, this class of Martian life
might have profound importance in regards to plans to
"terraform" the Red Planet by spreading dark, non-light
reflecting materials over the polar caps to help melt them. In
fact, utilizing strains of resilient fungus has been proposed as
a way of accomplishing this (as has spreading the polar caps
with dust).

[image]

These dark features appear decidedly organic. Their nature
remains unconfirmed for the time being, though it is hoped that
NASA will offer its own hypotheses.

[image]

This peculiar topology, reminiscent of "lizardskin" or
"bubble-wrap," was originally thought to be a computer imaging
artifact, such as a moir. This terrain covers a large area and
in places seems to have notches leading underneath or through
it, almost as if it is sponge-like to a degree. Whatever this
is, geological or biological, is unlike anything yet seen on
Mars.

-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 >
   Dec > Dec 2

                      Re: Turkish Announcements - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 01:58:32 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 10:09:47 -0500
Subject: Re: Turkish Announcements - Hatch


 >Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 00:59:41 +0100
 >From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Turkish Announcements

 >>Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 13:00:42 +0000
 >>From: Philip Mantle <pmquest@dial.pipex.com>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>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'

 ><snip>

 >>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.

 ><snip>

 >Dear Listerions,

 >I don't know why I am bothering with my reply but something
 >always bugs me when I hear the pseudo-beliefs in "Universal
 >Laws" from so called "New Agers". Where did these so called
 >"Universal Laws" that they always spout supposedly come from?
 >Are they carved on some tablet in deep space? Did I miss a photo
 >from the Hubble telescope or did I miss an episode of Star Trek?
 >Maybe I'm not channeling properly and need to get the tuner in
 >my VCR repaired. Can someone please explain it to me?


My dear Josh!

If (typical) New-Agers had trap-doors on their heads, they would
take out their brains and play with them.

Any time is fantasy time for them. Never mind quibbles with
fact, logic or reason. No real problems arise until they start
to believe their own drivel, and try to pass it off to others.

New Agers are attracted to the UFO scene because it is an open
discussion with seemingly paranormal aspects. In an odd marriage
of religion and science fiction, they invent celestial
"space-brothers" with nothing better to do than guide mankind to
a new-age and spiritual awakening, complete with sacred tana
leaves ( or whatever ) and utopia and dope and Gawd knows what
else .. Oh yeah! Gotta have a stunning blonde or two, and don't
forget the flowing robes.

Personally, I prefer Wagner, and the knowledge that New-Age is
warmed over Nordic mythology with a space-age twist; at least
in part.



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 >
   Dec > Dec 2

              Re: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I -

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 03:00:47 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 10:13:00 -0500
Subject: Re: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I -


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 12:19:53 EST
 >Subject: Re: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 10:30:34 -0800
 >>To: UFO UpDates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >>Subject: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I

 >>In looking for writeups on witnesses' reports of the Aug. 6,
 >>1997, Mexico City UFO, I was unable to locate any in my files.
 >>But when I queried Michael Hesemann, he offered me his, which he
 >>wrote up a couple years ago.

 ><snip>

 >>A Translation of Michael Hesemann's Mexican City UFO Writeup
 >>Part I

<snip>

 >Thank you, for this valuable answer to the question of
 >whether the UFO video broadcast came first or whether the
 >witnesses' stories of the UFO came first. It seems that the
 >UFO video broadcast came first, _twice_, before any witnesses
 >_independently_ surfaced.


Hello Bob and Jim!

I also appreciate Jim's work translating Hesemann's account from
the German. I tried translating German several times, always a
dismal failure.

What struck me was a factoid I had missed earlier; namely that
the video came in anonymously in the mail, along with a cryptic
and threatening note saying the video should _not_ be published
or released.

Suppose I had an automatic security camera at my house. Suppose
it caught me in some very embarrassing pose; passed out over a
spilled bottle of milk or something.

What would I do? Why its obvious! I would send it in to some
well known media type, along with a note demanding that he not
show it to anyone.

See? It all makes sense when you say it real slow.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 2

                        Re: Mexico City Video - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 05:17:01 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 10:15:17 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Hatch


 >Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 10:09:23 -0800
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >Subject: Re: Mexico City Video

 >>Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 14:15:20 -0500
 >>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Mexico City Video
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>>Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 16:29:29 -0800
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: Mexico City Video

<snip>

Dear Jim:

Aw, heck. I should really go to bed, but I'm full of beer and
still like the part where the aliens moved their UFO around in
just such away as to negate any hand jiggle in one (of numerous
possible) videos.

If it were not for your hard work, I would not have known that
it was sent to Sr. Maussan anonymously, with a cryptic note
daring him not to publish the video; but here is is anyway.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 2

                   Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability?

From: Charles Chapman <charlesrc@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 06:48:19 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 10:19:56 -0500
Subject: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability?


I would like to ask the Ufologists on this List a question or
two regarding their reasoning and the analytical tools they use.
The first is whether they use, and/or find useful, the doctrine
or concept of falsifiability.

Please understand, my question is neither rhetorical nor
intended to be didactic. I honestly want to know. I have been
having some trouble following some of the debates on the list,
and realized I was uncertain regarding what the participants
considered adequate evidence, reasoning and evidence.

Perusing the web, I found the following explanations of the
concept to be useful (at least to me):.

"Falsifiability Criterion used by the philosopher of science
Karl Popper to draw a line of demarcation between science and
non (or pseudo-) science. The traditional view of science was
that what distinguished science from non-science was the use by
science of the inductive method. The traditional view of
scientists was that they accumulated instances of a given
phenomenon then derived generalisations from them. But that
wasn't what actually happened, said Popper. In fact, scientists
put up hypotheses about the nature of the world then tested the
hypotheses as hard as they could. The tests weren't trying to
prove a particular theory, which would be a form of induction,
they were trying to disprove it. It is this openness to
disproof, the willingness to test to destruction if necessary
that is the hallmark of science, said Popper. Real science
constantly, and willingly, puts itself at risk. By contrast
things like psychoanalysis and Marxism never do. "What I have
found so striking about these theories and so dangerous was the
claim that they were 'verified' or 'confirmed' by an incessant
stream of observational evidence." Contrary evidence was
normally met by psychoanalysts or Marxists with an assertion
that the critic had not understood what was going on, or by a
reinterpretation of the evidence." See:

http://www.browncat.demon.co.uk/hoi/dictionary/concepts/f/Falsifiability.html

"FALSIFIABILITY (OR REFUTABILITY) A central tenet of science
which demands that all claims or assertions investigated by
science must be open to being proven false. If a researcher
cannot define what would count as empirical or experimental
disproof of a claim then the claim itself must fall outside the
domain of science. This tenet is consistent with the belief that
in science it is possible to prove something false, but not to
prove something true. In fact it is assumed that we can never
prove something to be true, we can only fail to disprove
something and therefore accept its truth for the time being.
Science does not simply try to illustrate or demonstrate its
theories or hypotheses, rather, it actively tries to disprove
them." See:

http://bitbucket.icaap.org/cgi-bin/glossary/SocialDict?term=FALSIFIABILITY%20%20
(OR%20REFUTABILITY)

See also:

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/falsify.html

http://www.visi.com/~contra_m/cm/features/cm12_abuse.html#falsifi
ability

May I ask, do people find this concept useful? To be more
precise, is it too restrictive? Is it necessary? Is it
necessary, but perhaps by itself not sufficient, to accept a
theory (e.g., I address Occam's razor in my next message)?

__________

"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 >
   Dec > Dec 2

                      Re: Calling Jaime Maussan! - Muoz

From: Daniel Muoz <Ovnimexico1@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 09:48:54 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 10:39:40 -0500
Subject: Re: Calling Jaime Maussan! - Muoz


 >Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 17:14:29 -0500
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >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!  ;)

 >John Velez, asking: "Que esta pasando en Mexico?"


Dear John, Errol and List,

Two weeks or so ago, I started to give the List some not so
well known points regarding the sighting in Mexico City.

Maybe John Vlez and others don't know that we work alongside
Jaime Maussan here in Mexico and that a colleague named Pedro
Ramrez and myself, Daniel Muoz, did weeks of field research on
this amazing case.

Jaime directed most of our steps, naturally and he presented on
our TV show, 'Tercer Milenio', all the results of this
investigation as we performed it.

Maybe John Vlez, as he said himself, missed some of the posts,
but it's O.K.

All of the results are in my files, and our E-mail address is at
the top:

ovnimexico1@aol.com

Jaime normally does not reply to E-mail - I do. And these days
we are very busy traveling to many places, to conferences and
performing new investigations.

For instance, we just came back from Tijuana and San Diego and
next Monday we'll be in Bogot, Colombia...

So, please be patient if your mails are not replied to
immediately.

And finally I have to say that research into the August 6th,
1997 sighting is not finished. Because there is no name, yet, to
credit the video clip to, we cannot conclude the investigation.
So we are still on the case, but not dedicated to it 100%.

I wonder if one day we'll be able to say "Yes, we have all the
answers to this"... I think that saying something like this, one
risks credibility, because the UFO phenomenon does not allow us
to research at the same speed as it runs in our lives. But it is
just an opinion.

Best regards to all of you,

Daniel Muoz
Mexico City








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

               Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 09:20:22 -0600
Fwd Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 11:54:22 -0500
Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Evans


 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 23:30:38 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Velez

 >>Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 19:47:26 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark?
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, John had written:

 >>>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.

I replied:

 >>For starters, as long as I've been reading this List, people
 >>that question the validity of a single video/photo related to a
 >>specific unsolved UFO case are immediately labeled as a
 >>universal "debunker" or "skeptic" about all UFO cases.

John writes:

 >There _are_ certain people that do that, agreed. I am not,
 >and have never been one of them. If you can show me a
 >single post that I have filed in the last five+ years that I
 >have been a participating member of this List where I called
 >someone a "debunker" I'd be very interested to see it.
 >Otherwise I do not see its relevance here. It has nothing
 >to do with me or anything I have ever said.

Hi, John!

Well, for starters, how about the post above?

You wrote:

 >>>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?

And then continued with a rant about how

 >>>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.

Now, considering that I was the person that suggested Adobe
Premier, then I am justified to assume your comments were
directed at me, personally. Beyond that, I am also the biggest
proponent on this list that witness testimony has to be
validated or that anyone is capable of lying, if so motivated.
So, again, I am justified to assume your comments were directed
at me, personally.

Now, if I have done you an injustice, then I apologize. More to
the point at hand, if those comments weren't about me, then
please point out the post that instigated your comments.

Continuing, I wrote:

 >>This is all a bunch of cry-baby crap, if you ask me. So, let's
 >>cut to the nuts of all this nonsense. Here's what you want of
 >>people like me:

 >>1) Don't doubt any claim.

 >>2) Don't ask any questions.

 >>3) Don't focus on issues of common sense

 >>4) Don't point out obvious problems with evidence
 >
 >>5) Don't point out obvious problems with logic

John replies:

 >Okay, Roger, you've put those words in my mouth. Now, either
 >show me in my own writings where I have _ever_ said anything of
 >the kind or admit that you have attributed all of the above to
 >me only because it suits you. I'd also like an apology.

You know something, John? You're right! I can not find a single
post where you said those things specifically as written. I felt
it reflected your attitude more than specific comments. However,
it is refreshing to know that I am wrong about you. So, I
apologize. More importantly, I am going to bookmark this
specific page in the archives. It will be nice to know that, in
the future, I will be free to:

1) Doubt any claim.
2) Ask any questions.
3) Focus on issues of common sense.
4) Point out obvious problems with evidence.
5) Point out obvious problems with logic.

And that I can do so without making you mad or inviting comments like

 >>>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.

Moving on, I had written:

 >>For all the belly-aching about "not being believed", I see very
 >>little effort for reconciliation on the part of the witnesses,
 >>themselves

 >>For instance, Deardorff feels that aliens can manipulate video
 >>but humans can not. How logical is that?

John replies:

 >After all the sheer nonsense that you have attributed to me
 >above, all the words, intentions, attitudes and the like, you
 >ask me what I think about Jim Deardorff's personal beliefs?

 >Why even ask? Apparently you don't need me to find out what I'm
 >thinking!

 >Show me and the members of this List where I have _ever_ said
 >any of the things that you attribute to me. Or where I have
 >expressed any of the attitudes or "wants" that you so
 >authoritatively state are mine. If you can't, I don't expect to
 >hear anymore from you.

I am sure you would like nothing more, John. However, since your
attitude is pretty well documented in the post that precedes
this, I think your questions have been answered effectively by
your own writing. Of course, if those comments were not directed
to me, then I apologize. Simply show me who they were directed
to. Again, according to you

 >>>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.

Saying that "everybody is convinced that everybody is lying" is
a pretty definitive statement, John. In the end, it is this type
of generalization that does more to stir up trouble than to
invite logical and open debate.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 2

                           Weird World Hot Gossip

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 15:45:32 -0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 12:02:59 -0500
Subject: Weird World Hot Gossip


NICK POPE'S WEIRD WORLD

Welcome to the final column of the year, and indeed,
technically-speaking, the last column of the Millennium (There
was no 'Year Zero', so 2001 and not 2000 is the first year of
the New Millennium). As ever, there's a round-up of various
stories, with the emphasis on ufology and the paranormal.


You Can't Tell The People

I can hardly be impartial about this, as Georgina is a very good
friend and my editor-in chief for Hot Gossip UK. To compound
matters, I wrote the foreword. But even if all this makes me a
little biased, there's no getting away from the fact that
Georgina's book You Can't Tell The People is the big story in
ufology at the moment. The book tells the story of the
Rendlesham Forest incident (or the Bentwaters incident as it's
known in America) and the no less intriguing story of what
happened after the incident. This 450 page book contains a mass
of data and Georgina has numerous important 'scoops' - testimony
from General Gordon Williams, who was in overall command of the
Bentwaters/Woodbridge facility at the time of the incident; a
new witness from RAF Watton who confirms that at least one of
the UFOs was tracked on radar; correspondence on the incident
between former Chief of the Defence Staff Lord Hill-Norton and
former Minister of State at the MOD, Lord Gilbert; official USAF
photographs from the landing site, clearly showing a USAF
officer and a British police officer; the witness statements (in
entirety, with no selective quoting aimed at supporting
particular theories); testimony from 'missing' witness Edward
Cabansag; testimony concerning the role of the Air Force Office
of Special Investigations; these are just a few of the
revelations. This is a hugely- significant book, and I say that
as somebody who has read the Ministry of Defence's file on the
incident. Georgina has uncovered documents, photographs and
eyewitness testimony that was never forwarded to the MOD. I've
been told that Georgina's book is being widely-read on the
Sixth Floor at the MOD (Where Ministers, Service Chiefs and
other senior officials are based). All I can say is, I'm not
surprised. Running to 450 pages, including a comprehensive
index, this is a real researchers book. If you buy just one book
on UFOs this year, make it this one. Available on-line at:
www.amazon.co.uk

Matty Comes A Cropper

It had to happen. With crop circles appearing in farmers' fields
year after year, somebody has finally been charged with criminal
damage, convicted and fined. Matthew Williams admitted to making
the formation in August this year at Manor Farm in West Overton,
Wiltshire. He claimed he did this in an attempt to disprove the
claims of Michael Glickman, who had said on a US radio show that
such a pattern could not be made by humans, and had to be the
work of extraterrestrials. Magistrate Geoffrey Olsen convicted
Williams and fined him �100 with �40 costs. For legal reasons
Olsen was unable to force Williams to pay the farmer - Michael
Maude - the �200 that he estimates that the damage to his crop
of winter wheat cost. Any compensation claim will have to be
pursued through the civil courts. Despite claims to the
contrary, the formation was not particularly large or complex
when compared to some of the pictograms that have appeared over
the years. So on the basis that believers have always accepted
some formations have been hoaxed, the debate will doubtless
continue.


The Mind Machine

It sounds like something from the world of science fiction, but
it's true. Scientists have designed a machine capable of reading
thoughts. The Adaptive Brain Interface has been designed to
enable disabled people to operate household appliances just by
thinking about them, but clearly this is an invention that has
implications that go much further than this. The device consists
of a headset which contains sensors capable of picking up
electrical activity in the brain, before sending them to a
computer, which converts the signals into digital commands to
operate various household appliances. As the device's name
suggests, this is adaptive technology which is able to 'learn'
the subtle differences in signals and thus differentiate the
commands. Accuracy is running at around 70% but is expected to
rise rapidly as the technology is refined. The breakthrough was
announced by Italian scientist Jose del Millan in Electronics
Times.


Out Of This World Technology

Two conferences are coming up which promise to be of huge
interest to anybody fascinated by or involved with advanced
technology. Both are organised by SMi Defence Conferences, and
take place at The Hatton in London. A conference entitled Air
Defence Systems takes place on 11 and 12 December, and includes
information on UAVs, lasers and stealth. This is complemented by
a one day workshop on Ballistic Missile Defence, held on the
13th. Then on 31st January and 1st February there's a conference
entitled Signature Management - The Pursuit of Stealth. Each two
day conference costs over �1000, and before readers bit my head
off, I should explain that this item is aimed at my readers
within Government, the military and Industry. I get some good
feedback from these people when I write about such things, and I
try to keep all my readers happy. For those without that sort of
money to spend, the website is worth a browse. Check out
www.smi-online.co.uk for details.


Plasma Magic

For those with a little less money to spend, a subscription to
New Scientist is worth considering. Plasma Magic was the title
of an article in the 28 October edition, in which Justin Mullins
evaluated the current claims being made about how plasma
propulsion systems could revolutionise the design of hypersonic
aircraft, increasing speeds still further and improving on
stealth technology. This really could lead to a revolution in
aerospace technology, and it's interesting to note that work on
this is being done at locations including Wright-Patterson Air
Force Base, NASA's Langley Research Centre, BAe's Sowerby
Research Centre and the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency
research laboratory at Farnborough. Check out
www.newscientist.com for details of how to subscribe, get hold
of back issues and get a handle on cutting edge topics from the
weird and wonderful world of science - a world that increasingly
gives the paranormal a run for its money in weirdness stakes.


Zero Point Energy

Continuing the hi-tech theme, an interesting Parliamentary
Question appeared in the 16 November edition of Hansard:

Mr Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what
research is being funded by his Department into zero-point
energy.

Dr Moonie: None.

Roswell High

Regular readers of this column were doubtless surprised to find
out from last month's column that I'm a fan of the TV series
Roswell High. I like the series though, and think it's
well-scripted and acted. Those who like the show should check
out the books. In my last column I said that there were five
books and that they cost 5.99 each. Well, I was wrong. There
are eight books and they cost just 4.99 each. They'd make ideal
stocking-fillers for anyone interested in the Roswell incident
or in ufology more generally.

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.









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

                 Re: Cave Paintings Of Alleged UFOs/Aliens?

From: Dan Geib <DanGeib@ArtGomperz.com>
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 10:52:47 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 12:05:01 -0500
Subject: Re: Cave Paintings Of Alleged UFOs/Aliens?

Hello

Can anyone direct me to websites that carry what have been
alleged as cave paintings of ancient astronauts & UFOs

Thanks

Dan

--


UFO Folklore!
http://www.qtm.net/~geibdan/framemst.html











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

                        Re: Mexico City Video - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 10:00:58 -0600
Fwd Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 12:09:25 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Evans


 >From: Charles Chapman <charlesrc@earthlink.net>
 >Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 22:58:03 -0800
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Chapman

 >>Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 09:09:55 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Mexico City Video
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, I had written about Deardorff's view of the video in
question:

 >>Your position is simply this: The aliens can manipulate video,
 >>humans can't.

Charles writes:

 >If I may interject, I think Mr. Deardorff's position _may_ be a
 >bit more sophisticated, and therefore a bit more troublesome,
 >than that. His position _may_ be that: (a) aliens can manipulate
 >video; (b) humans can manipulate video; and most importantly (c)
 >we mere humans cannot possibly tell the difference between video
 >manipulated by aliens and video manipulated by humans.

<snip>

 >In other words, there are two different hypothesis -- i.e., that
 >a given tape (1) is fake, or that (2) shows an actual alien
 >craft -- and there is no evidence, observation, analysis or
 >experiment that a mere human could possibly conduct to verify
 >one hypothesis or falsify the other.

 >One might think that one could rely on eye witnesses. I guess
 >one could, but it is at best odd, and perhaps sad, that we have
 >to rely on eye witnesses to verify the accuracy and validity of
 >a videotape instead of using the tape to verify the accuracy and
 >validity of eye witness accounts. In reality, since the tape can
 >_almost_ never, at best, prove or disprove anything, it winds up
 >being useless for ascertaining the truth, and we are left with
 >eye witness accounts.

<snip>

 >Just as one does not doubt the existence of God merely because
 >he parted the Red Sea, or spoke to Moses, and only Moses,
 >through a burning bush, or created an earth 5,000 years ago that
 >all evidence indicates is billions of years old, one does not
 >doubt the exitence of Aliens merely because they can "freeze"
 >time for everyone on earth, or brainwash everyone on earth,
 >except for the one person to whom they chose to reveal, for
 >their Unfathomable reasons, a faintest glimpse of their
 >existence.

 >Similarly, any seemingly irrational and illogical behavior on
 >the the part of alleged aliens is no more reason to doubt their
 >existence than the fact that a hurricane (an act of God) kills
 >an innocent child is reason to doubt the existence of a all
 >knowing, all powerful, merciful and/or just God. For just as we
 >cannot know or question the reasons or purpose of God, nor can
 >we know the reasons or purposes of the Aliens.

 >In short, the Aliens are Gods, and Gods, by their very nature,
 >leave only such evidence of their existence as they chose to
 >leave.

Hi Charles!

Well, at the risk of pissing off a whole _bunch_ of people, let
me just say that I have seen no evidence of a compassionate God.
On the other hand, my oldest daughter suffered a 104 degree
fever, spasms and life threatening convulsions for a period of
about 4 days when she was only 2 years old. I had never seen
such misery and pain focused on such a small target. At that
point, I had a belly full of evidence that said to me:

A) there is no all powerful God

or

B) if there is he doesn't care about my little girl

I choose "A" and to date, have seen nothing that would change
my mind. So, as far as the rest of your post goes, you are
wasting good intentions on me.

Logic tells me that the video is fake and the finger prints of
fakery is evidenced in the anomalies that Bruce and Jeff have
accurately pointed out. My beef with Jim isn't about the level
of sophistication required to fake the video vs the level of
sophistication required to travel light years and come here. My
beef stems from the fact that Jim gives the ETs preferential
treatment in his views. On the one hand, the ETs are, as you
point out, "God-like" and have technologies that can account for
anything, including the anomalies on the video. On the other
hand, he had clearly ignored human based technologies that could
account for the same thing.

Now, which of these technologies do we know, for a fact, exist?

Of course, this is the rub.

You say that Jim's position may be "more sophisticated" and
"unfalsifiable". How about "more contrived" and "making it up as
he goes along"? THAT description would also fit his position,
don't you think?

I appreciate your effort to sort this out and noticed a very
good post that you presented regarding "Falsifiability". Please
do not take offense at my reaction, here. I've just had it with
the incredible lack of common sense that seems to on display by
UFO hardliners that, supposedly, want "the truth".

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 >
   Dec > Dec 2

              Re: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I -

From: Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo <ufomiami@prodigy.net>
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 11:14:58 -0600
Fwd Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 12:13:32 -0500
Subject: Re: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I -


 >Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 14:51:26 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I

 >>Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 10:30:34 -0800
 >>To: UFO UpDates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>

 >If there are in fact the "hundreds" of eye witnesses (that
 >Maussan claims he has,) then the video becomes a secondary
 >issue. Without the witnesses, based on the video alone, it all
 >likes one big practical joke. We really do need to know more
 >about the witnesses and the details of their testimony before we
 >dismiss this case as a hoax. I am trying to get an e-mail
 >address for Maussan so I can invite him to join us for awhile,
 >to help bring us all up to speed on this case.


Dear John Velez and all.

You have put your finger in the wound!. Eye witnesses are more
important than the video itself. It is very easy to sit at a
computer and elaborate all kinds of theories, hypothesis and
"logic", on a phenomenon that defies our logic. Where are the
field investigators? They are becoming a rare species in this
computer age. I don't blame you people, this is happening world
wide. How many of us went to Mexico to investigate?.

The right person representing Maussan's group is Daniel Munoz
and he is on UFO UpDates. His private email:

ovnimexico@yahoo.com

In the last UFO Symposium in Argentina, he show a Maussan
documentary interviewing witnesses, of that case, around Mexico
city. Unless you think they are all actors doing a routine!

I am not trying to say that the video is true. What I am saying
is that unless we do a good field investigation, we will always
have doubt. There is always the other side of the coin. Try 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 >
   Dec > Dec 2

                        Re: Mexico City Video - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 11:40:27 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 12:15:14 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Young


 >From: Charles Chapman <charlesrc@earthlink.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Mexico City Video
 >Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 22:58:03 -0800

<snip>

 >In short, the Aliens are Gods, and Gods, by their very nature,
 >leave only such evidence of their existence as they chose to
 >leave.

Dear Mr. Chapman:

Your entire post was a very perceptive commentary. And thus, we
are all either believers, non-believers or agnostics (don't
know), which are better known as skeptics.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 2

                Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability? -

From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 12:44:43 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 12:18:29 -0500
Subject: Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability? -


 >From: Charles Chapman <charlesrc@earthlink.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability?
 >Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 06:48:19 -0800

 >I would like to ask the Ufologists on this List a question or
 >two regarding their reasoning and the analytical tools they use.
 >The first is whether they use, and/or find useful, the doctrine
 >or concept of falsifiability.

<snip>

 >May I ask, do people find this concept useful? To be more
 >precise, is it too restrictive? Is it necessary? Is it
 >necessary, but perhaps by itself not sufficient, to accept a
 >theory (e.g., I address Occam's razor in my next message)?


Charles,

A few thoughts of my own on your question.

Where I find that science goes on the rocks when it applies to
UFOs is when its studies come up against a fundimental ingrained
religious belief such as Earth is the center of the universe,
and mankind is the only intelligence in the universe. Except for
a few exceptions we have managed to overcome our prejudice about
the former view and accept our tiny place in the universe. As
for the second horn of the two pronged question, are we alone in
the universe, to my mind the quest for proof of the realities of
or the lack of evidence for the ETH is just an outgrowth of a
basic belief that we are unique. The courage of science fails
here miserably.

Galileo's courage failed him at the 11th hour re his theories
about the movement of planets around the Sun as does the courage
of mainstream science when it comes to UFOs. The difference in
punishment for the pursuit of both questions was/is of course
death verses ridicule, respectively. Science is not
dispassionate about its study of the UFO phenomenon, it is
hamstrung by outmoded religious beliefs. Not one scientific body
to my knowledge has tried, in a really effective way, to come to
grips scientifically with the UFO/ETH question, mainly because
there  is a collective lack of courage to do so.

If for the moment you discount the possibility that there just
might have been/or still is a covert government scientific study
of the phenomenon - and for some of us that is not easy to do -
then despite Condon [a farce], Blue Book [a farce] the only
attempt so far - on a limited scale - has been by the Sturrock
Panel.

Dr.Haines is attempting, as we speak, to do an end run around
the scientific barrier by introducing the possibility of air
safety being comprimised by the presence of UFOs in the TRACONs
and controlled flight levels of the world. He just might have
found one of the chinks in the armor of scientific resistance to
the study of UFOs.

I think we can argue the philosophy of scientific research
[another psuedo-religious belief] until the cows come home but
until we get around that basic religious belief that we are the
top of the intelligent pecking order in the universe, we will
not only not find answers but will not even begin to seriously
study the UFO question. The only scientific body that comes
close is the SETI group[s], and they don't subscribe to the
possibility that they are looking too far away. As a matter of
fact SETI is one of the bodies most resistant to the phenomenon,
maybe for two reasons. Repressed religious beliefs and "Jeez,
I'll be out of a job". What are they going to do with all of
that equipment? Enjoyed your submission.


Don Ledger
Rank and file Layman








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

               Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 08:57:25 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 12:21:50 -0500
Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Hatch


 >Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 22:04:47 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark?
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >>Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 16:01:20 +0000
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark?

<snip>

 >You mention about how you were "attacked" here on UpDates and
 >about all the "ranting" from skeptics regarding this footage.
 >Maybe I missed it while out of town on a film shoot, but could
 >you please point out the specific posts from the archives where
 >this abuse took place?

 >I'm not saying that I don't believe you. I just don't recall it.
 >I feel this is an important issue, since there seems to be only
 >a handful of people that take part on this List and I'd really
 >like to see how many of them are as negative as you guys claim.

 >It is my position that the majority of the people on this List,
 >including me, believe in the existence of ET life. To listen to
 >you and John and Michel and Deardorff and Gates and Clark and
 >(sometimes) Mortellaro, _nobody_ on this List believes in it other
 >than you. I really don't think it is as bad as you think it is,
 >as far as this List goes.

 >I look forward to the video.


Dear Roger:

A little point is being missed here.

Unless I am sadly mistaken (which is easily possible) the recent
footage from Britain was _not_ ignored at all, but totally
trashed by virtually every British ufologist worthy of the name.

IF this is the case, it is easy to imagine somebody trying to
pique interest in this continent, having failed miserably in in
another, especially if they have a warehouse full of unsold
video CDs..

That might explain why I was chosen as "an expert" when I am
totally inexpert in photographic matters.

I hate to say this, but I suspect that somebody thinks we _all_
fell off de turnip truck.


Best wishes regardless:

- Larry Hatch

(Jes' picken cotton and plunkin at de ole' banjo..)








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 3

              'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars' - Sunday Times

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 10:09:49 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 10:09:49 -0500
Subject: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars' - Sunday Times



From: UFO UpDates - Toronto

Source: The London Sunday Times

http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/2000/12/03/stifgnnws01001.html

December 3 2000

WORLD


Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars


NASA scientists have discovered ancient sea or lake beds on the
surface of Mars that could once have harboured life, writes
Jonathan Leake.

The discovery is among the most significant concerning Mars so
far, because such places are the most likely locations for
fossils or other signs of past life.

NASA will announce the discovery in this week's edition of
Science with the suggestion that the next generation of Mars
landings should be sent to such areas.

This weekend a British group building a craft bound for Mars
said it was already considering rerouting its vehicle, Beagle
II, to land in the middle of one of the newly discovered sea
beds.

Professor Colin Pillinger, an astronomer at the Open University
who heads the Beagle II project, will also announce that he has
raised the full �30m needed for the British mission.

He has just been offered �9m by the European Space Agency, with
the rest coming from commercial sponsors. "We will launch in
June 2003 and hope to land on Mars on Boxing Day," he said.

The NASA discovery is based on images taken by Mars Global
Surveyor, which has been orbiting the red planet for more than a
year.

It is said to have sent back detailed pictures of rocks that
could only have been created by sedimentation, in which
particles sink to a sea bed and are compressed into rock.

-----

Copyright 2000 Times Newspapers Ltd. This service is provided on
Times Newspapers' standard terms and conditions.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 3

                     Re: Phil Klass - Sleeping? - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 11:51:09 -0600
Fwd Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 10:14:52 -0500
Subject: Re: Phil Klass - Sleeping? - Clark


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 23:34:10 EST
 >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Phil Klass - Sleeping?
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
 >>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Phil Klass - Sleeping?
 >>Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 14:54:42 -0800


Robert and Royce,

 >>Wondering if anyone out there has a photo of Klass when he was
 >>sleeping during, I believe, a MUFON Symposium?

 >As I recall he loudly claimed he wasn't sleeping.  Needless to
 >say after I saw the photo, I was skeptical of the
 >claim............ :)

I think you've forgotten your Klasslogic, Robert. How do you
know the photo wasn't faked? In fact, we know that any photo
that depicts something that Klass doesn't want to accept is, by
definition, a hoax. So there.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 3

                  Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? -

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 13:09:39 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 10:18:08 -0500
Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? -



 >Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 22:04:47 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark?
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >>Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 16:01:20 +0000
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Hale

 >>Snip

 >>You see sceptics froth at the mouth about
 >>UFOs not existing, and then you give them the real hard DATA
 >>which also has witness support and their arguments melt away.
 >>And remember John, Chris is filming some
 >>of this footage right next door to the City Airport Canary Wharf
 >>( Airport used by the City of London mostly for Business flights
 >>in and around Europe). Now if we were to believe what the
 >>sceptics say, then what we are seeing are enormous dust balls
 >>and golf balls flying around East London.

 >>Perhaps if the
 >>sceptics choose to ignore such HARD DATA, then we should now
 >>simply ignore their ranting, that way we can really start to
 >>look at the footage without gobble de gook being thrown in!

 >>I understand Stanton refers to
 >>these as "The Noisy Negatives" a title aptly chosen for those
 >>who shout at the top of their lungs before anything
 >>investigation into such footage. This is shown by the way I was
 >>attacked when I presented the footage to Updates some months
 >>back, and now these same people are where? And what do they have
 >>to contribute to this debate? Zero is the answer, Zilch,
 >>Nothing, only hot air and name calling, a good tactic often used
 >>by sceptics when they are unable to figure out what is being
 >>discussed in a case that may represent a huge breakthrough for
 >>modern UFO research!


 >Hi, Roy!

 >I hope you read my previous post asking for an NTSC copy of the
 >footage as Beta SP or AVI. As I pointed out, I couldn't tell
 >much from the web site.

 >On to your post:

 >You mention about how you were "attacked" here on UpDates and
 >about all the "ranting" from skeptics regarding this footage.
 >Maybe I missed it while out of town on a film shoot, but could
 >you please point out the specific posts from the archives where
 >this abuse took place?

 >I'm not saying that I don't believe you. I just don't recall it.
 >I feel this is an important issue, since there seems to be only
 >a handful of people that take part on this List and I'd really
 >like to see how many of them are as negative as you guys claim.

 >It is my position that the majority of the people on this List,
 >including me, believe in the existence of ET life. To listen to
 >you and John and Michel and Deardorff and Gates and Clark and
 >(sometimes) Mortellaro, _nobody_ on this List believes in it other
 >than you. I really don't think it is as bad as you think it is,
 >as far as this List goes.

 >I look forward to the video.

 >Roger

Hello, Roge, bListers and EBK,

I saw my name in there somewhere. In response, I speak for me
and me only. Perhaps you and I should consider each other's
position more carefully than we do. Allow me to just for this
one time, stand inside your shoes. I would shout, "SCIENCE!" a
lot. "PROOF!" would also come in now and again, perhaps quite
often.

And I would justify the words by my intentions. Presumably my
mind set (I'm still in your shoes .... ) my mind set would be
such as, "OK, I feel the anecdotal evidence is strong but it's
not conclusive. So I aks (ooops, in your shoes, I forgot) so I
ask for proof, at least proof that it's not a hoax or the planet
CooKoo, the Death Star, passing thru the solar system kicking up
comets and whatever.

Righteous. And there are likely many more good and hard
questions I should ask, whilst standing in your shoes.

Now for just one time, stand inside my shoes. I can look at my
arms and legs, still see my knees without having to bend over,
look at my Fruit of the Loom briefs and see that all is well. I
know what I am seeing. Underwear, knees, arms, legs and assorted
detritus of my own remaining humanity. Fading fast, but all
there.

And just as obvious to me as what I see hanging off my body or
on it, are the memories, the images of sightings which I
analyzed myself with the help of other experts, as opposed to
"X-spurts." People who I trust to tell me if I just saw the
planet CooKoo, Venus or whatever.

So here I sit, remembering that triangle I saw. I report it to
the authorities... big mistake. They immediately begin telling
me it was Venus or some other asinine crap which they, in their
infinite tongue in cheeky smirkshipness, assume I saw.

Not.

I saw what I did. A low flying, calculated 1200 foot long
triangular object flying silently at 2500 feet with, etc., etc.,
etc. I was shaking too much to get the camera and too shaken to
find the damned thing. I was lucky to find the 20X50 binocs. And
my body was shaking so hard I could not find the image at first.
But when I did ... woof! Only started me shaking more. I have a
condo in lower county where I used to live, where I had the
sighting. There were people out on their terratzos' just like
me. Some saw it and many heard me screaming for my wife and
"Hey, everyone, LOOK!"

Not a one thought anything of it. You could almost see the
yawns. But not me. Twenty years in aerospace, degrees in
engineering, well worn and jaded. I shook for about an hour or
more. "Just can't be."

The same is true of my memories of perceived abductions. Real
memories. Unchanged for so many years. Exactly as they were
fifty-five years ago. Real. Arms, legs, underwear.

And people tell you it was just a dream.

So the knee jerk reaction of people like me is quite
understandable to an extent. Anyone who asks questions,
especially hard ones, is a dirt sucking dirt bag who wants
nothing else than to demean and debunk. Even if this is not so.

But there is one thing you forget. Believe me you do. You forget
that some of us, not all, are educated enough, intellectually
well prepared enough, with a high enough IQ and lots of world
and life experience to do what you are doing, but in spades ...
ask the hard questions - of ourselves.

Believe it, pal. It's what makes us at least "feel" more
righteous than you, who has a very open mind. We aks harder
questions of ourselves, and often better ones than you could
ever ask. Because with us, it goes down to our very sanity.

With respect and thanks for up with us putting.


Jim Mortellaro

Perceived ass with an IQ up there and a few degrees,
other than the ones I bought from Gesundt






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 3

                      Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 10:10:43 -0800
Fwd Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 11:09:00 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 12:19:52 EST
 >Subject: Re: Mexico City Video
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 09:26:11 -0800
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Mexico City Video

 >>>Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 08:37:32 -0600
 >>>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>>Subject: Mexico City Video
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>For me it's unscientific and a bit silly to be studying UFOs but
 >>always assume that they don't involve technology far beyond
 >>ours, or that the UFO occupants wouldn't utilize it and wouldn't
 >>have a strategy of dealing with us.

 >Jim, List:

 >You can't appeal to the equivalent of "magic" and still call it
 >science. If you do, nothing short of a flying saucer on the
 >White House lawn will ever give you want you want: acceptance of
 >the existence of the little men by everybody else. Sorry, Jim.


Bob,

Even Carl Sagan once acknowledged, in one of his papers, that
what advanced aliens could do would seem like magic to us, as
Arthur C. Clark had mentioned earlier.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 3

              Re: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I -

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 10:21:30 -0800
Fwd Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 11:10:50 -0500
Subject: Re: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I -


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 12:19:53 EST
 >Subject: Re: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 10:30:34 -0800
 >>To: UFO UpDates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >>Subject: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I


 >>A Translation of Michael Hesemann's Mexican City UFO Writeup
 >>Part I ...

 >Jim, List:

 >Thank you, for this valuable answer to the question of
 >whether the UFO video broadcast came first or whether the
 >witnesses' stories of the UFO came first. It seems that the
 >UFO video broadcast came first, _twice_, before any witnesses
 >_independently_ surfaced.

Bob,

That's been clear to many of us from the start. The location
within huge Mexico City wasn't even known until after Maussan
aired the tape and asked for help.

Not only the witnesses, but their confirmers, knew that the date
of the UFO sighting had been long before (weeks before) the TV
broadcast. In the case of the Part I witnesses, Cassandra's
father verified that point, and the photographer's model could
do the same with respect to Annie Lash's report.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 3

                     Re: Mexico City Video - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 13:43:47 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 11:13:50 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Mortellaro


 >Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 05:17:01 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Mexico City Video

 >>Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 10:09:23 -0800
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Mexico City Video

 >>>Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 14:15:20 -0500
 >>>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: Mexico City Video >
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>>>Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 16:29:29 -0800
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Mexico City Video

 ><snip>

 >Dear Jim:

 >Aw, heck. I should really go to bed, but I'm full of beer and
 >still like the part where the aliens moved their UFO around
in >just such away as to negate any hand jiggle in one (of
numerous >possible) videos.

 >If it were not for your hard work, I would not have known
 >that it was sent to Sr. Maussan anonymously, with a cryptic
 >note daring him not to publish the video; but here is is
 >anyway.


 >Best wishes regardless:

 >- Larry Hatch

Dear Larry, Krelm (Gesheft Fuhrer, Alien tampering and special
effects X-Spurt) and of course, EBK,

After a recent conversation with Krelm, the friendly alien
special effects man, I can testify to the _fact_ that this did
indeed happen. They used hardware invented (originally) by the
Russians but now have switched to the harder stuff. The orange
spice, Melange, also known as GrippleOrange. It make them able
to fold camera jiggles. They also use it to quide their
spaceships thru the void without hitting anything important.

It's a New Age thing. New Age for _them_, For us,
well, we've been channeling it for years. But it's
just that here on the earth, we use a remote.

Dr. Morty, X-Spurt and President ErectusRictus








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 3

                           The Dalnegorsk Details

From: Paul Stonehill <rurc@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 10:51:54 -0800
Fwd Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 11:18:29 -0500
Subject: The Dalnegorsk Details


The Dalnegorsk details - for those who are not aware of the
case.

I am sorry if the Russian scientist's links are no longer in
use. That does not diminish his discovery. However, for those
who have not heard about the Dalnegorsk case: here is an active
link:

http://www.theporthole.co.uk/hufos/russia.html

My book contains information about the Dalnegorsk, case, too.

Mr. Subbotin of the RUFORS

http://ufo.psu.ru/

can provide details, as well as A. Kutovoj (you can reach him
directly at <kutovoj@mail.iae.lt>

Of course, they have information about many other Soviet/CIS
cases.

The book that I and P. Mantle have co-authored recently contains
many more details about the Dalnegorsk case. But for the
enquiring mind, may I suggest contacting Messers. Subbotin and
Kutovoj. I believe that Mr. Gershtein can also provide
interesting information regarding the case. He is at:

http://www.ufonav.spb.ru/

The Dalnegorsk case deserves to be researched further. My center
has received a copy of the original report of mr. Dvuzhilni.
There are Russian researchers (Mr. Belimov, etc.) who  refute
the ET explanation.

As for the Sikhote-Alin, I am investigating this and other cases
from the area. But here is at least something to send an
enquiring mind to:

http://www.nature-source.com/large-sikhote-alin.htm
http://www.arachnaut.org/meteor/photos/sikhotealin-1.html

Mr. Rempel. a famous Russian UFO researcher can help. too. To
reach him, please contact me at rurc@earthlink.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 >
   Dec > Dec 3

                      'Missing' Russian Scientist Okay

From: Paul Stonehill <rurc@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 11:17:58 -0800
Fwd Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 11:23:11 -0500
Subject: 'Missing' Russian Scientist Okay


I have just received news from Russia (the Kosmopoisk, Miss
Golovina through Mr. Ol'khovatov) that the "lost" geophysicist
returned home safely (and without anomalous adventures); they
requested I inform UFO UpDates.

Hopefully, the upshot of my posts was that people in the
West/Orient/Asia have become interested in the Sasovo case.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 3

                      Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 11:32:27 -0800
Fwd Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 12:07:42 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff


 >From: Charles Chapman <charlesrc@earthlink.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Mexico City Video
 >Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 22:58:03 -0800

 >>Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 09:09:55 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Mexico City Video
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >>>Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 09:26:11 -0800
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff

 >>Your position is simply this: The aliens can manipulate video,
 >>humans can't.

 >If I may interject, I think Mr. Deardorff's position _may_ be a
 >bit more sophisticated, and therefore a bit more troublesome,
 >than that. His position _may_ be that: (a) aliens can manipulate
 >video; (b) humans can manipulate video; and most importantly (c)
 >we mere humans cannot possibly tell the difference between video
 >manipulated by aliens and video manipulated by humans.

Charles,

Thanks for trying to set Roger straight here. Of course I did
not imply that humans cannot manipulate videos.

Your message was both helpful and informative. But may I debate
a couple points?

 >...
 >There must be some evidence, some observation, some experiment,
 >that could _in principle_ disprove, or at least tend to
 >disprove, the ETH hypothesis. The position stated above makes
 >that _almost_ impossible, at best, regarding any videotape of
 >any purported alien craft. ...

That's true, but we need to keep in mind that the UFO occupants
have repeatedly supplied us with evidence of incomplete fakery.
That is, when they make their craft, or a video or photograph of
it, look almost like a man-made job, so that we might doubt its
genuineness, then that fakery is not well done. (If or when it
is well done, then we would never know a UFO was around.)

As an example, the following comes from a newspaper account from
Lou Farish's UFONS of Nov. 2000: "A glimpse at brilliant light.
Orange. It mimics a normal aircraft but it hovers too low. It
blinks and pulsates without making a sound. Then in an instant,
it's gone." This was evidently paraphrased from one of John
Timmerman's accounts. The negative skeptic just says that since
it mimicked an aircraft, it must have been an aircraft. The more
discerning skeptic notices that human aircraft don't have bright
orange lights, don't usually flow low and/or hover, don't do so
soundlessly, and don't suddenly vanish; and then he may proceed
to check out the witness(es).

Haven't we all read of scores of cases like this? Two of my own
sightings were of this character. It stands to reason that the
UFO intelligences who do this aren't doing it just by accident.
Otherwise, they wouldn't duplicate certain features so
realistically while showing off other non-earthly features. So
when you start thinking about ET or alien motivation for this,
the first thing that should jump out at you is that they don't
wish to force themselves upon society as a whole, which means
not forcing themselves upon the negative skeptics by forcing
them to realize that UFOs are real, or that UFOs harbor
intelligent alien occupants.

Our TV UFO programs usually do the same thing. They usually make
sure that one or more negative skeptics are interviewed as well
as the witnesses, just so that they'll have both sides of the
polarized issue covered, their ratings won't go down and they
won't lose their advertisers. (So, either we're copying the
aliens, or they're copying us, or the same procedure was
independently arrived at.)

So, given that the aliens might well be capable of mimicking
man-made craft or natural events very well but do so only poorly
in certain respects, and are capable of making a photo or video
look suspicious of possible fraud, the evidence of such is still
falsifiable if the witnesses can be shown for sure to be
mistaken, lying or admit to lying. And when this can't be shown,
the concept of falsifiability loses its relevence, I'd say. One
might always claim that the witnesses were lying and got away
with their lies.

Science as we're used to it obviously isn't set up to deal with
alien intelligences more advanced than we. It's not in their
tradition and not in their interest. That its concept of
falsifiability then is impotent when it comes to the UFO
phenomenon should not be surprising.

 >...
 >Similarly, any seemingly irrational and illogical behavior on
 >the the part of alleged aliens is no more reason to doubt their
 >existence than the fact that a hurricane (an act of God) kills
 >an innocent child is reason to doubt the existence of a all
 >knowing, all powerful, merciful and/or just God. For just as we
 >cannot know or question the reasons or purpose of God, nor can
 >we know the reasons or purposes of the Aliens.

 >In short, the Aliens are Gods, and Gods, by their very nature,
 >leave only such evidence of their existence as they chose to
 >leave.

How about calling them gods instead of Gods?


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 >
   Dec > Dec 3

             Re: Cave Paintings Of Alleged UFOs/Aliens? - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 11:47:51 -0800
Fwd Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 12:11:42 -0500
Subject: Re: Cave Paintings Of Alleged UFOs/Aliens? - Hatch


 >Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 10:52:47 -0800
 >From: Dan Geib <DanGeib@ArtGomperz.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Cave Paintings Of Alleged UFOs/Aliens?

 >Hello

 >Can anyone direct me to websites that carry what have been
 >alleged as cave paintings of ancient astronauts & UFOs


Dear Dan:

In a word, no.

Any fool can guide you to marvelous caves full of artfully
crafted and lifelike scenes, complete with animals etc.

There was a recent discovery in France which appears to indicate
an earlier origin for an artistic mankind than previously
presumed.

None of these scrapings or drawings indicate UFOs or flying
saucers, not that I know of.

Indications to the contrary usually come from late-night radio
broadcasts.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 3

                        Re: Mexico City Video - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 14:40:23 -0800
Fwd Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 12:13:40 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Hatch


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 11:40:27 EST
 >Subject: Re: Mexico City Video
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Charles Chapman <charlesrc@earthlink.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Mexico City Video
 >>Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 22:58:03 -0800

 ><snip>

 >>In short, the Aliens are Gods, and Gods, by their very nature,
 >>leave only such evidence of their existence as they chose to
 >>leave.

 >Dear Mr. Chapman:

 >Your entire post was a very perceptive commentary. And thus, we
 >are all either believers, non-believers or agnostics (don't
 >know), which are better known as skeptics.


Dear Charles and Bob and others:

I am pleased to find that all my fasting (from goat meat) on
Fridays is/was/will be beneficial after all!

I was afraid it were all for naught.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 3

               Re: Russian UFO May Have Been Satellite Decay -

From: Alex Persky <alexvi@mail.ru>
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 02:57:59 +0200
Fwd Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 12:15:43 -0500
Subject: Re: Russian UFO May Have Been Satellite Decay -


 >Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 10:17:38 -0500
 >From: Todd Lemire <tlemire@home.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Russian UFO May Have Been Satellite Decay

 >In response to the November 14 UFO report that appeared in
 >UFOROUNDUP concerning the Russian UFO, of which I've included a
 >portion of below.

 >There may be a chance that what was seen was the decay of the
 >Cosmos 2373 satellite, which is a Kometa mapping satellite. The
 >deorbit burn was probably around 2230 UTC; the
 >Vostok/Zenit-style sphere landed near Orenburg in Russia at 2253
 >UTC, according to Jonathan's Space Report
 >located at:

 >http://hea-www.harvard.edu/~jcm/space/jsr/jsr.html

 >The location and time fit very well and could have easily been
 >mistaken for the UFO.

<snip>

 >A large luminous UFO flew over Russian troops dug in along the
 >ridges in Dagestan during the early morning hours of Tuesday,
 >November 14, 2000.

Hi,

The location and time of the event does fit indeed but the date
doesn't. The UFO sighting happened at 01:45 MSK (Moscow
time=UTC+0300) on November 14, it is equal to 22:45 UTC on
November 13. "Cosmos-2373" landed at 22:53 UTC on November 14
according to JSR.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 3

               Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Hale

From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 01:54:28 +0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 12:19:39 -0500
Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Hale


 >Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 08:57:25 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark?

 >Dear Roger:

 >A little point is being missed here.

 >Unless I am sadly mistaken (which is easily possible) the recent
 >footage from Britain was _not_ ignored at all, but totally
 >trashed by virtually every British ufologist worthy of the name.

Larry,

Sorry but are you refering to the footage of Chris Martin? If so
I would hope you can point me to some of the trashing that
occurred, and obviously the names of those "British ufologists
worthy of the name".

 >If this is the case, it is easy to imagine somebody trying to
 >pique interest in this continent, having failed miserably in in
 >another, especially if they have a warehouse full of unsold
 >video CDs..

Hey hold your horses buddy! Who is giving you your info? Maybe
there are some UK sceptics adding to this debate after all! Only
I wish they would do it publicly.

 >That might explain why I was chosen as "an expert" when I am
 >totally inexpert in photographic matters.

 >I hate to say this, but I suspect that somebody thinks we _all_
 >fell off de turnip truck.

There are no experts on UFOs as far as I am concerned. You have
just proven to me, Larry, one great point... trash the data
because you have no answers... very sad. And BTW, check your UK
source before printing such nonsense!


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 >
   Dec > Dec 3

                         Russian Air Force and UFOs

From: Paul Stonehill <rurc@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 19:14:19 -0800
Fwd Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 12:24:52 -0500
Subject: Russian Air Force and UFOs


Two developments UFO researchers should pay attention to. Read
the news story at:

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/reuters20001201_893.html

I recall that Tiksi is located in the republic of Sakha
(Yakutiya). The whole area of the republic is located in the
high latitudes. Over 40% of the territory lies within the Arctic
Circle. Sakha borders the Laptev Sea and the East-Siberian Sea
of the Arctic Ocean to the north.

In the KGB UFO files, released in 1992, there is a report about
a UFO in the area of Tiksi (I will re-check). Also, Yakutiya is
awash with anomalous phenomena; some information was presented
in The Soviet UFO Files and there is more in our new book. I
believe there are UFO sightings in that part of Russia in
the offing.

The second item Nick Subbotin sent me a short time ago.

Basically, according to a report in a Russian newspaper, during
a summit in November between Ukraine and the Russian Federation,
an agreement was reached that Ukraine would transfer Soviet-era
archives (of the air defense forces; the archives were left in
Ukraine after the disintegration of the USSR) to Russia.

Apparently, after prolonged debates, Ukraine has agreed to
transfer only that portion of the archives that contains
information about sightings over the Russian territory.

For more details, please contact Mr. Subbotin (see my previous
posts to UFO UpDates), for this is his research.

Because of my affinity to my homeland, Ukraine, I have collected
a number of interesting reports about current, as well past, UFO
research there; it is in my new book; however, new reports come
to my Center.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 3

                                South Africa?

From: Paul Stonehill <rurc@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 19:19:29 -0800
Fwd Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 12:34:33 -0500
Subject: South Africa?


Can anyone help me locate a serious South African UFO research
group?

I need to check on some information I collected while staying in
South Africa in 1987. I was a free-lance reporter; the
Soviet-Cuban offensive was in progress in Angola and I did not
pay too much attention to anomalous phenomena. But a Zulu fellow
told me about a UFO sighting that reminds me of a Russian case I
read about a few days ago.

Who can help?









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 3

                       Re: Mexico City Video - Cashman

From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@temporaldoorway.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 22:56:41 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 12:44:01 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Cashman


 >Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 10:09:23 -0800
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >Subject: Re: Mexico City Video

 >OK, Bruce. I knew it can be done to some degree of realism given
 >that movie-studio equipment was available, but not that it could
 >be done well and simply as Jeff Sainio had implied. If you were
 >told to analyze the faked video you were sent, would you have
 >quickly found unrealistic features, unlike with the MC video?
 >Was there a hazy or smoggy atmosphere involved that the faked
 >UFO image had to merge properly into? Did the UFO image pass
 >behind a computerized building that in places was not as dark as
 >the UFO image (so that no "paste on lighter" type of computer
 >command could be used)? I take it this faked video exhibited no
 >"camera bounce," and so didn't have the significant amount of
 >UFO image smearing that the MC video disclosed,

In the interests of demonstrating what can be accomplished with
a moderate amount of expense (a few thousand bucks worth of
hardware and software) and time (a couple of days), I've created
an animation that displays many of the features of the Mexico
City video...

http://www.temporaldoorway.com/gallery/item/mexicovideo.htm

It shows camera shake, zoom, lag times, glare, distance haze and
does so in a fairly short animation of a few hundred k (.avi) or
1.6 Mb (.mov). The object is integrated into a realistic scene
based on extracted geometry and image maps from the original
video frame panorama.

I hope you find it interesting.

------
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 >
   Dec > Dec 3

                Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability? -

From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@temporaldoorway.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 23:00:11 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 12:45:17 -0500
Subject: Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability? -


 >From: Charles Chapman <charlesrc@earthlink.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability?
 >Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 06:48:19 -0800


 >I would like to ask the Ufologists on this List a question or
 >two regarding their reasoning and the analytical tools they use.
 >The first is whether they use, and/or find useful, the doctrine
 >concept of falsifiability.

Have a look at

http://www.temporaldoorway.com/ufo/methodology/whatkindofscience.htm

and

http://www.temporaldoorway.com/ufo/methodology/doingscienceonufos.htm
http://www.temporaldoorway.com/ufo/hypotheses/index.htm
http://www.temporaldoorway.com/ufo/analysis/index.htm

for my thinking on the subject of science and UFOs.

------
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 >
   Dec > Dec 3

                Whitley Strieber Interview Archive - New URL

From: Will Buech <willb3d@hotmail.com>
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 06:56:55 -0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 12:50:39 -0500
Subject: Whitley Strieber Interview Archive - New URL


Mac Tonnies of the Cydonia Imperitive kindly alerted me that the
old URL of my unofficial Whitley Strieber interview archive has
ceased to forward people to the current address. I expect some
people have assumed the site has gone down and out, but it is
still very much in existence.

BeyondCommunion.Com

is the current - and permanent - address.

BeyondCommunion.Com features interviews with Whitley Strieber
from across his entire writing career, and related information.
These materials are presented in the hope that they may assist
people in deciding for themselves if the �visitors� encountered
by Whitley Strieber and many other people are in some sense
real.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 3

                Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 02:08:15 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 12:58:41 -0500
Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Velez


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 01:01:49 EST
 >Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 12:52:52 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?
 >
 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 15:46:48 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>>Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 14:51:50 -0500
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?

 ><snip>

 >>They are not balloons, airplanes, blimps, or birds. I have
 >>video where a bird or airplane will pass through the field of
 >>view as I am recording a stationary glowing sphere. Unless
 >>white glowing spheres have now been catagorized as
 >>commercial aircraft, I am recording -unidentified-flying-objects.

Hi Bob,

 >How did you determine that they are glowing, as opposed to
 >just reflecting?

Purely subjective call. These 'things' whatever they are are
uniformly lit, top and bottom. It "looks like" the light is
coming 'from' the object as opposed to being reflected off of
it. But of course I have no way of knowing which is which. I
used the one that describes its overall appearance best. I
didn't mean to imply that I knew for a fact that the thing was
generating its own light, only that it appears to glow rather
than reflect. Purely subjective call on my part and not based on
any measurements.

 >>I am attaching a still frame of one of them for you.

 >Thanks. I enlarged it 800% and it has a horizontal to vertical
 >size ratio of 5:4, with the bright image tapering off to the
 >left, and a dark appendage to its left. Looks like it might be
 >the vertical tail surface of an aircraft. There really isn't
 >much detail to go on.

Where have you ever seen a spherical airplane Bob?

Yes, I too noticed the dark areas. But if you look closely, the
dark part(s) (there are two of them) appear as a darkened shadow
at the very edges of the sphere. (Top and sides) It looks like a
distortion of the air 'around the object' rather than an
appendage. Let's see if anybody else took a close look at it and
shares an opinion. I vote for 'distortion of the air' and your
vote is in for an 'appendage.'


 >How did this object disappear? Did you get an image when it was
 >moving away? Maybe it changed its aspect.

It was standing perfectly still when I spotted it Bob. I had
enough time to run into the house, (upstairs to my office and
back-about a minute and some seconds) to fetch the videocam and
it was still in the exact same spot when I returned to the yard.
About 30 seconds after I begin to record, it started moving
toward my right, increasing speed as it went. I was standing in
my back yard and the bugger disappeared over my roof. I taped
until it vanished behind the top edge of my house. I can post
some single frames of when it is passing the vent stack on my
roof and as it approaches the edge of the roof if you like.
It'll give you a much better appreciation for the 'size' of the
object. You'll realize that at the distance I saw it, if it was
a plane, even a small one, wings, engines, tail, all would have
been easy to see. This thing was lower and bigger than you
think.

 >How many of these have you observed or taped?

Observed: probably better than two dozen sightings in about 5
years. Taped: nine events in the same span of time.

On one occasion I counted 15 of these 'things' up there
(including a much larger, all-white, boomerang shaped object) at
one time, all located in one section of the sky off to my South.
This was back in 1997, in broad daylight/clear skies. Some were
stationary, (but jittering slightly/'nervously' from side to
side ever so slightly. Like they were vibrating while
maintaining position) others were buzzing in and out of the area
leaving and then rejoining the main 'group'. The whole thing
lasted about 45 minutes. That was the day I saw three of them
come together to create a perfect triangle formation which then
began to rotate (clockwise) slowly without the objects losing
formation. I'm telling you man, "balloons" and "birds" don't
move and manouver the way these things do. I didn't have a
camera so I never got shots of it. The closest thing I've ever
seen to it was a video that came out of Mexico showing a cluster
of these large, white, slightly flattened (top and bottom) in
appearance spheres. The "string of pearls" video.

 >>The object had been stationary for about 5 minutes, then
 >>suddenly flew off in a Northeasterly direction.

 >>But maybe I was mistaken and it was just one of those
 >>"balloons" that can hover and maneuver against the wind.

 >Hard to say. I assume that you know the wind directions at
 >various heights that day? What was the date, time of day and
 >location of this sighting?

August 1998 at 3:34 PM. Ozone Park, Queens, New York. I am about
a half mile away from Jamaica Bay, (South Shore of Queens) and 1
1/2 miles from Kennedy airport. Airplanes are _always_ easy to
identify because they are usually in the process of landing or
taking off when I see them. They are low, in fairly close
proximity, and noisy as all get out. Even when you can't see em,
you can sure as hell hear em! Those other things I record are
dead silent. I have no idea what the wind speed was above ground
level that day. It was a nice, warm, fairly windless, summer
day.

 >>>>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?

 >>>Where was the Sun? Could this have been an internal reflection
 >>>in the lens as the hand-held camera was moved around?

 >>What Lenses? What camera Bob? I _said_ I was observing the
 >>object through 7x50 binoculars.

 >Sorry. The same thing can happen in binoculars from internal
 >reflections of the Sun and other bright light sources from lens
 >elements.

Yeah, but I spotted it with my eyes first. After the other
object performed its little aerobatic fly-by I sighted the
binoculars back on the stationary object by finding it by
naked-eye. If there were any "light reflections" hitting my eye
it would have made me squint or move my gaze away. It's a
natural instinct. Besides, the sun was to my right and slightly
behind me. Bad angle for casting any kind of reflections onto a
lens.

Thanks for taking the time to at least give it a good look-see
Bob. I appreciate the time. I just get foosticated when people
make judgements without checking it out carefully for
themselves. I have never minded or objected to fair and honest
criticism or questions. I don't expect anybody to believe me nor
am I trying to convince anybody of anything.

As I have mentioned elsewhere, I don't post the pictures as
"proof" of anything other than as 'documentation' for what I am
reporting I witnessed. When I see stuff like that, if I'm
anywhere near a camera, it gets recorded. It just seems like a
responsible way to handle it. No matter that film or video isn't
considered proof of anything. Other than shooting one down and
salvaging the debris, film and video is the only way that I have
to document the sightings.

I don't know if Greg Sandow is lurking about anywhere, but he
saw one of these 'thingies' with me while we were hanging-out
at my house one afternoon a couple of years ago. He can confirm
that what I'm reporting/recording/seeing defies attempts at
conventional explanations both in terms of appearance, and
behavior. 'What' they are is anybody's guess.

It ain't easy bro. You're damned if you do, and double-damned if
you don't! I get creamed if I report, and then they back the
truck up over me if I show pictures. Like he old Italian lady
said in the movie version of Kurt Vonnegut's book, I'm caught
in;

....."Catcha twendy duo!" <LOL>

Tell you what though. I'll be damned if I'm going to keep my
mouth shut about it only because I have to take a little heat
for reporting or because there may be some ridicule attached.
I never much cared what "people think" anyway. However, I do
consider it my responsibility/duty to tell somebody about it.

Regards, and clear skies to you Mr. Y,

John Velez, Tween a Rock and Very Hard place!
******************************************************
           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 >
   Dec > Dec 3

               Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 02:39:38 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 13:09:17 -0500
Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Velez


 >Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 09:20:22 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark?
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 23:30:38 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Velez

 >>>Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 19:47:26 -0600
 >>>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark?
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Previously, John had written:

 >>>>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?

 >I replied:

 >>>For starters, as long as I've been reading this List, people
 >>>that question the validity of a single video/photo related to a
 >>>specific unsolved UFO case are immediately labeled as a
 >>>universal "debunker" or "skeptic" about all UFO cases.

 >John writes:

 >>There _are_ certain people that do that, agreed. I am not,
 >>and have never been one of them. If you can show me a
 >>single post that I have filed in the last five+ years that I
 >>have been a participating member of this List where I called
 >>someone a "debunker" I'd be very interested to see it.
 >>Otherwise I do not see its relevance here. It has nothing
 >>to do with me or anything I have ever said.

Roger writes:

 >Hi, John!

 >Well, for starters, how about the post above?

Roger I didn't call _anybody_ a "debunker" anywhere in that
post. Which is what _you_ said! That's why you got the response
you received. I don't take it well when people attempt to put
words in my mouth, or make attributions to me that are untrue.

 >You wrote:

 >>>>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?

 >And then continued with a rant about how

 >>>>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.

 >Now, considering that I was the person that suggested Adobe
 >Premier, then I am justified to assume your comments were
 >directed at me, personally. Beyond that, I am also the biggest
 >proponent on this list that witness testimony has to be
 >validated or that anyone is capable of lying, if so motivated.
 >So, again, I am justified to assume your comments were directed
 >at me, personally.

You are personalizing what was a generic remark. You are _not_
the first one to suggest that software is used to hoax pictures
or video. Adobe Premier was stuck in my head (from having read
your post!) and I 'parroted' it when I was making my comments.
When I am referring to anyone specifically, I address it
_directly_ to the person and I will use their name if I am
quoting them. You shouldn't be so sensitive. You refer to my
comments as "rants" when it is you who are ranting on about a
non-existent issue.

Just to have it perfectly clear: I wasn't referring to you
"personally" as you put it. And I was not addressing you or I
would have mentioned it to you (mentioned your name, or
attributed the quote directly to you) in the post.

 >Now, if I have done you an injustice, then I apologize.

Apology accepted. And don't "assume" that you have a right to do
anything with me,  much less "grill me" unless you approach me
in a civil manner. You talk about "knowing" _my_ attitudes.
Roger, you don't know me or very much about me - at all. Be a
little respectful, take a little time to get to know me, and we
can rap till the cows come home. I'll answer what questions I
can for you, and be as forthcoming and accomodating as I'm able.
If you insist however on taking a 'tone' with me, or
personalizing what I say even when your name isn't mentioned,
then;

"Houston, we have a problem!"  ;)

"You can catch more flies with honey,.....yadda, yadda, yadda."

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 >
   Dec > Dec 3

                     Re: Calling Jaime Maussan! - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 02:52:34 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 13:11:18 -0500
Subject: Re: Calling Jaime Maussan! - Velez


 >From: Daniel Muoz <Ovnimexico1@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 09:48:54 EST
 >Subject: Re: Calling Jaime Maussan!
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 17:14:29 -0500
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>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!  ;)

 >>John Velez, asking: "Que esta pasando en Mexico?"

 >Dear John, Errol and List,

 >Two weeks or so ago, I started to give the List some not so
 >well known points regarding the sighting in Mexico City.

 >Maybe John Vlez and others don't know that we work alongside
 >Jaime Maussan here in Mexico and that a colleague named Pedro
 >Ramrez and myself, Daniel Muoz, did weeks of field research on
 >this amazing case.

 >Jaime directed most of our steps, naturally and he presented on
 >our TV show, 'Tercer Milenio', all the results of this
 >investigation as we performed it.

 >Maybe John Vlez, as he said himself, missed some of the posts,
 >but it's O.K.

Hello Daniel,

If _you_ are the man to speak to then let's talk! If you would be
kind enough to put up with a small barrage of questions from
those of us on this side of the border, I know there are many
who wish to more about the 'details' surrounding the witness
testimony and how it was obtained. If you need any help
translating any relevant parts/quotations of witness testimony
from Spanish to English, I will be glad to help in any way that
I can. All I care about is learnig as much of the truth of this
case as I can. I'm certain I speak for my Listmates as well.

Por favor Daniel, algunas preguntas?

1. 'How many' witnesses in total came forward?

2. Did -anyone- file a report of the sighting anywhere
(before) it appeared on Jaime's television program?

2b. Or did all the witnesses come forward (after) the program
aired?

3. Who (specifically) handled the interrogation of the witnesses
and 'how' was it conducted.

3b. How was the "investigation" conducted?

4. What are the results or conclusions (if any) at this stage in
your own investigation?

Please feel free to share whatever information you think is
relevant or important for us to know.

I thank you for taking the time to help bring us poorly informed
Norte-Americano's up to speed!  ;)

Regards, I look forward to your responses,

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 >
   Dec > Dec 3

                               TV Documentary

From: Philip Mantle <pmquest@dial.pipex.com>
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 10:51:29 +0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 13:15:52 -0500
Subject: TV Documentary


_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

From: Jennifer Gilroy <jennifer_gilroy@warkclements.co.uk>
To: <mrmarkbroberts@lineone.net>
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 6:14 PM
Subject: TV Documentary

Hi there

My name is Jennifer Gilroy and I am a researcher with a tv
company based in Glasgow. We are currently producing a one-hour
documentary entitled, 'The A-Z of the Unexplained'.

I have just been on your website and was very interested to read
about Bill from Wigan who has been abducted by aliens (and
perhaps still is).

Our programme will take the form of running through the alphabet
and for each letter, examining a different unexplained
phenomenon. So for example, C is for crop circles, K is for
Kirlian photography and W for Witches. Basically, our aim is to
try to explain the unexplained. We will be looking at the
obvious paranormal anomalies such as UFO's and Aliens. However,
we will also include more common forms of the unexplained, which
affect a lot of people such as D for deja vu and Z for Zodiac.

We are looking for people to take part in the programme, whether
they actively work in any field of the unexplained, or if they
have a story to tell of their own personal experiences. We hope
the programme will be as informative as possible, as well as
leaving many viewers 'thinking'!

I can be contacted at this e-mail address or telephone 0141 418
6324. Thank you and I look forward to any responses

Jennifer Gilroy

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/


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 >
   Dec > Dec 3

              Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Rhodes

From: Terry Rhodes <UtterMole@cs.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 08:53:54 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 13:18:41 -0500
Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Rhodes


 >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?

 >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.

I gather you mean pro eth believers when you say open-minded?

 >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.


Ok, lets talk about the footage....

Who has analysed the footage? What was the result? How do you
determine 'intelligently controlled'? What in your opinion does
the footage show?

That should be good for starters.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 3

              Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Rhodes

From: Terry Rhodes <UtterMole@cs.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 09:04:07 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 13:20:40 -0500
Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Rhodes


 >Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 16:01:20 +0000
 >From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark?


 >Chris is filming some
 >of this footage right next door to the City Airport Canary Wharf
 >( Airport used by the City of London mostly for Business flights
 >in and around Europe). Now if we were to believe what the
 >sceptics say, then what we are seeing are enormous dust balls
 >and golf balls flying around East London.

During your investigation into these objects what did the
airport radar pick up?

 >This is shown by the way I was
 >attacked when I presented the footage to Updates some months
 >back, and now these same people are where?

I think there is more than enough evidence in the archives that
you are in fact the one who attacks posters on this List. It
seems that anyone who asks you a question becomes a noisy
sceptic.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 3

                      The Real X-Files - December 2000

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 14:11:44 -0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 13:25:22 -0500
Subject: The Real X-Files - December 2000


THE REAL X-FILES
www.hotgossip.co.uk

BONNYBRIDGE UFO ENCOUNTERS

Bonnybridge councillor Billy Buchanan recently floated the idea
that the small Scottish town ought to be twinned with Roswell,
the American town in New Mexico made famous more than 50 years
ago for its encounter with UFOs.

In recent years numerous sightings of UFOs have been reported in
the Bonnybridge area and this has attracted visitors from across
the globe. According to Buchanan, Bonnybridge has had more
sightings than anywhere else in the world, but as yet there is
no explanation for the phenomenon.

Another marketing idea is said to be under way with plans to
build a theme park in the area.

I was brought up just ten miles from Bonnybridge, when as a
child I would be allowed to go camping with my friends in the
woods. I have to admit that none of us experienced a UFO
sighting - unless of course we were abducted whilst asleep.

UNEARTHLY DISCLOSURE

The latest publication from UFO guru Timothy Good is slightly
shorter than his usual books - but don't let that put you off.
Tim's dedicated research and writing skills come through as
strong as ever in 'Unearthly Disclosure'. It follows on from his
previous book, 'Alien Base', offering more information to
support his belief that there exist alien bases right here on
earth. The book is filled with intriguing reports of alien
contact and abductions and one especially fascinating story
takes priority - that of an encounter with a very odd creature,
which took place in Italy. Tim spent several years investigating
this particular case and had experts look over some amazing
photographs of the creature taken by the witness. Tim's travels
in search of the truth have taken him to several countries
including the Andes. There is also a disclosure from a
high-ranking source who worked at the Pentagon. An excellent
read and a book worthy of gracing your library. Available at all
good books shops 'Unearthly Disclosure' is published by Century
at 16.99

My long awaited book 'You Can't Tell The People, The Definitive
Account of the Rendlesham Forest UFO Mystery', was published on
10 November and it's been all go ever since. Due to demand for
forward orders and one of Britain's biggest selling newspapers
doing the serial (one day) the book went into 2nd re-print
before the publishing date, then a week after the launch date it
went into 3rd re-print. To my amazement on 24th November my
publisher contacted me to say that they were almost out of stock
and the book was now in its 4th re-print!  This is probably all
due to the vast amount of media interviews I've done over the
last few weeks.

To the amusement of some people and shock to others, my launch
party was held in the Henry VIII wine cellar at the Ministry of
Defence (MOD) Main Building in Whitehall. It was combined with a
fundraising event for the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen's
Association (BLESMA). The event was organised by MOD employees
Adrian Bevan and Tony McEvoy, who run Apollo Fundraising. Wing
Commander Colin Debenham RAF (ret), also with Apollo, was the MC
for the evening. I am on the committee of Apollo Fundraising and
we have held other events at the MOD specifically to raise funds
for our ex-service men and women. All profits from my book sales
on the evening were donated to BLESMA and guests were asked to
make donations. Celebrity socialite Sally Farmiloe and Tom
Sharpe, the Chief Warden at the Tower of London, presented a
fabulous raffle and auction. Sally, Tom and his uniformed
Beefeaters did a great job.

In fact a copy of the famous tape recording made by Colonel Halt
and his patrol during their UFO encounter in Rendlesham Forest
and copied from the master copy by my friendly technician Colin
Ussher (I acquired the master copy from Colonel Sam Morgan)
raised �100 in auction. It was bought by Princess Reem Al Sabah
and is now on its way to Kuwait. A copy of the old RAF
Bentwaters DOE site map was sold to Lady Anna Brocklebank for
her son and is probably on its way to Eton College; it also made
�100. Several framed copies of Colonel Halt's memorandum were
auctioned. Author and MOD employee Nick Pope and Gordon Wise, my
editorial director at Sidgwick & Jackson (Macmillan) each bought
a copy. Gordon later joked that it was the first time he'd ever
paid for a page out of one of his books. I remarked that it was
also the first time one of his books had been launched at the
MOD.

Security was higher than usual, instead of having one escort
(which is normal) I found myself being escorted through the maze
of corridors by three men, one in uniform and two plain clothes.
Each guest arriving at the reception was issued with a flyer
describing the evening's event, headed "PLEASE READ IMMEDIATELY.
Welcome to the Henry VIII Wine Cellar. We hope you have an
enjoyable evening. Tonight's fundraising event for the British
Limbless Ex-Servicemen's Association (BLESMA) has, as its focus,
the impending launch of the book by Georgina Bruni entitled, You
Can't tell The People." But written loud and clear (in bright
red print) at the bottom of the page was another statement:

"The use of the Henry VIII Wine Cellar on MoD premises for this
evening's event has been agreed solely on the basis that all
profits will be donated to the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen's
Association (BLESMA) The agreement to use the wine cellar does
not therefore indicate in any way whatsoever, any official
sanction/endorsement of the book entitled 'You Can't Tell The
People' nor any of the contents therein."

So now you know!

Pandora's diary feature (one of the biggest pieces to be written
in the Independent newspaper) was the only national press
coverage, because of course, all other journo's had left it too
late to gain access. However, Roger Tagholm, the sober �people�
columnist from 'Publishing News' wrote an amusing piece (with a
UFO photo feature) mentioning the title's unusual launch at the
MOD and explaining that thanks to Macmillan, he was now hooked
on the Rendlesham Forest incident. He further added that this
was largely swayed by his conversation with Nick Pope, whom he
met at the event.

Anyway, the evening was a great success and we raised a tidy sum
for a very good cause.  It was jolly nice of the MOD to allow
the event to be held on the their premises.

View and listen to my interview with Relax with a Book Com

www.relaxwithabook.com

You Can't Tell The People
The Definitive Account of the Rendlesham Forest UFO Mystery
Available on-line at: www.amazon.co.uk   www.whsmith.co.uk


Georgina Bruni,
Editor in Chief
Hot Gossip 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 >
   Dec > Dec 3

              Re: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I -

From: Daniel Muoz <Ovnimexico1@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 10:19:40 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 13:28:25 -0500
Subject: Re: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I -


 >Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 03:00:47 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 12:19:53 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 10:30:34 -0800
 >>>To: UFO UpDates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >>>Subject: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I

 >>Thank you, for this valuable answer to the question of
 >>whether the UFO video broadcast came first or whether the
 >>witnesses' stories of the UFO came first. It seems that the
 >>UFO video broadcast came first, _twice_, before any witnesses
 >>_independently_ surfaced.


 >I also appreciate Jim's work translating Hesemann's account from
 >the German. I tried translating German several times, always a
 >dismal failure.

 >What struck me was a factoid I had missed earlier; namely that
 >the video came in anonymously in the mail, along with a cryptic
 >and threatening note saying the video should _not_ be published
 >or released.

 >Suppose I had an automatic security camera at my house. Suppose
 >it caught me in some very embarrassing pose; passed out over a
 >spilled bottle of milk or something.

 >What would I do? Why its obvious! I would send it in to some
 >well known media type, along with a note demanding that he not
 >show it to anyone.

 >See? It all makes sense when you say it real slow.

Dear Larry, Errol and List,

Do you have a copy of that letter to be sure of that, Larry?
Have you really followed this case or just the comments on this
case? Have you even been here in Mexico to meet the witnesses?
Again and again, my friends, too many comments with no support
in real facts... Please stop this, and limitate to say the
things that you are in measure to demonstrate!

The person who brought us the tape and the letter in fact,
signed it with another name. No nameless or anonymous. And he
brought us to our TV station to be spread, due to its
importance... We did not know nothing on those facts, but other
communicators did. I mean, the very professional journalists
that flies on helicopters every day to inform us on the traffic
on our City. They received that day indications from their
headquarters to be in the area of the sightings because of the
reports people made regarding a big strange object hovering the
skies... So, for you, what came first, witnesses or video? For
me, the facts, even before, and contemporarily, the video and
the eye witnesses...

Also in the case of JFK the facts came first (but even before
the complot), and at the very same time, footage and eye
witnesses... Didn't they? And even now, there is no a real
answer on this case, much more important for you americans than
the Las Lomas Video... So, I cannot wait for a total acceptance
of this clip... What I could expect from you all, is a little
more of seriousness in making comments that motivates what we
are seeing in this List regarding this and too many other
cases... I supposed you were investigators, not judges... I hope
I can read something more intelligent in the coming days, when
I'll be back from Colombia, to make another investigation...

The very best for all of you, Listers.


Daniel Muoz,
Mexico City







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 3

                        Re: Mexico City Video - Muoz

From: Daniel Muoz <Ovnimexico1@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 10:22:58 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 13:30:27 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Muoz


 >Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 05:17:01 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Mexico City Video

 >>Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 10:09:23 -0800
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Mexico City Video

 >>>Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 14:15:20 -0500
 >>>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: Mexico City Video
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>>>Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 16:29:29 -0800
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Mexico City Video

 ><snip>


 >Aw, heck. I should really go to bed, but I'm full of beer and
 >still like the part where the aliens moved their UFO around in
 >just such away as to negate any hand jiggle in one (of numerous
 >possible) videos.

 >If it were not for your hard work, I would not have known that
 >it was sent to Sr. Maussan anonymously, with a cryptic note
 >daring him not to publish the video; but here is is anyway.


In fact, congratulations, Jim. I'll send you also the letter I
mentioned to Larry Hatch soon, exactly as I did with all my
reports, in order you can have the whole story.

Best regards to all.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 3

                     Re: Phil Klass - Sleeping? - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 09:32:16 -0600
Fwd Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 13:32:00 -0500
Subject: Re: Phil Klass - Sleeping? - Evans


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 11:51:09 -0600
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Phil Klass - Sleeping? - Clark

 >>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 23:34:10 EST
 >>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Phil Klass - Sleeping?
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, it was pointed out:

 >>>Wondering if anyone out there has a photo of Klass when he was
 >>>sleeping during, I believe, a MUFON Symposium?

 >>As I recall he loudly claimed he wasn't sleeping.  Needless to
 >>say after I saw the photo, I was skeptical of the
 >>claim............ :)

Jerry writes:

 >I think you've forgotten your Klasslogic, Robert. How do you
 >know the photo wasn't faked? In fact, we know that any photo
 >that depicts something that Klass doesn't want to accept is, by
 >definition, a hoax. So there.

Good point, Jerry! I think the people at MUFON were witness to, yet,
another "Klass Act" (not to be confused with the more flattering "class
act") Since he seems to not believe in ET life, I wonder why in the
world he even bothers to go to a MUFON Symposium?

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 >
   Dec > Dec 3

              Re: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I -

From: Daniel Muoz <Ovnimexico1@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 09:55:24 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 13:37:33 -0500
Subject: Re: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I -


 >From: Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo <ufomiami@prodigy.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I
 >Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 11:14:58 -0600

 >>Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 14:51:26 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I

 >>>Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 10:30:34 -0800
 >>>To: UFO UpDates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>

 >>If there are in fact the "hundreds" of eye witnesses (that
 >>Maussan claims he has,) then the video becomes a secondary
 >>issue. Without the witnesses, based on the video alone, it all
 >>likes one big practical joke. We really do need to know more
 >>about the witnesses and the details of their testimony before we
 >>dismiss this case as a hoax. I am trying to get an e-mail
 >>address for Maussan so I can invite him to join us for awhile,
 >>to help bring us all up to speed on this case.

 >Dear John Velez and all.

 >You have put your finger in the wound!. Eye witnesses are more
 >important than the video itself. It is very easy to sit at a
 >computer and elaborate all kinds of theories, hypothesis and
 >"logic", on a phenomenon that defies our logic. Where are the
 >field investigators? They are becoming a rare species in this
 >computer age. I don't blame you people, this is happening world
 >wide. How many of us went to Mexico to investigate?.

 >The right person representing Maussan's group is Daniel Munoz
 >and he is on UFO UpDates. His private email:

 >ovnimexico@yahoo.com

 >In the last UFO Symposium in Argentina, he show a Maussan
 >documentary interviewing witnesses, of that case, around Mexico
 >city. Unless you think they are all actors doing a routine!

 >I am not trying to say that the video is true. What I am saying
 >is that unless we do a good field investigation, we will always
 >have doubt. There is always the other side of the coin. Try it!


Dear Virgilio, Errol and List,

I agree with you, Virgilio, because that's the complete and
right way to do all the research - when they are really
research... Certainly all the analysis are very important,
because of the development of computers and graphic design
programs now allows to fake easier and easier everything... But
that's is only a part of the investigation. And, to be a real
one, it must contemplate not only those analysis, that are O.K.,
but also the most important, which is Field Research... The
contact with the experience itself through the witnesses... I
wrote several times in this List that I haven't seen many
investigators here in Mexico looking for that case, but too many
comments very sarcastic on the witnesses and our interviews, not
having even meeting us or the eye witnesses...

Come on! Where is seriousness here?

Congratulations, Virgilio. You are, as I had the chance to
confirm it, a real researcher... Like the old ones...

Best regards to all,


Daniel Muoz
Mexico City







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 3

                       Re: Mexico City Video - Chapman

From: Charles Chapman <charlesrc@earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 06:59:47 -0800
Fwd Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 13:40:25 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Chapman


 >Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 12:55:40 -0800
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >Subject: Re: Mexico City Video

 >>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

<snip>

 >>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.

After remaining relatively quiet for at least a little while :),
reading over the posts, and thinking about things a bit, I've
come to the tentative conclusion that perhaps the most important
thing about the aliens is not what they can do, but instead what
they can't do, or apparently can't do, or those specific things
for which we have no evidence (to my limited knowledge) that
they can do. It is those apparent limitations that make them
less than the functional equivalent of Gods, relative to us, at
this time (even if they were the functional equivalent of Gods
relative to us at some earlier time). In their apparent
limitations lies our hope, if any, of verifying their existence.
It is in their apparent limitations that we might come up with
some sort of falsifiable hypothesis.

I've come up with some examples of what I believe _may_ be the
limitations on their powers and abilities. I'm curious what
people think about whether my broad observations are: (a)
accurate; and (b) useful in some way.

1. It appears aliens travel in, and thus apparently need, ships
or craft of some kind. They do not simply pop in directly from
an alternate universe or beam in directly from a distant planet.
While it may appear rather silly, I sometimes tend to think in
analogy to Star Trek. In Star Trek, Capt. Kirk, and then Capt.
Picard, needed to travel in ships; they could not simply beam
around the galaxy. In Star Trek, the ability to beam from one
place to the other is limited by considerations of distance and
power. The Captains could beam from the Enterprise in orbit down
to a planet; they could not beam across the galaxy. In our real
world, it appears the ability of the aliens to travel is akin
to, and possibly more limited than that of, Captains Kirk and
Picard.

2. The aliens ships (and indeed the aliens themselves) must, at
least sometimes, for some purposes, be visible - i.e., to human
sight, radar and/or electromagnetically (e.g., car stop cases).
For the aliens to fulfill their purposes, neither they nor their
ships can remain invisible at all times. Again, I am
unfortunately reminded of a Star Trek analogy. The Klingons
could cloak their ships, but had to uncloak and become visible
(with the exception of one movie or episode) in order to fire.
Similarly, our alleged aliens travel in ships that can be seen,
and are visible when they abduct people. Our alleged aliens, to
combine this point with the one above, do not simply beam a lone
abductee directly to a planet on the far side of the galaxy,
perform their tests, and return him.

3. The aliens have a limited ability to control human thoughts
and erase and/or screen memories. Abductees remember, sometimes
without hypnosis, sometimes with hypnosis. While the abductee
and those close to him are paralyzed and controlled, the aliens
do not apparently stop time for, or freeze, everyone in the
world except the abductee, or even everyone in his town.

The above reminds me of yet another science fiction movie --
Predator. The fictional aliens in Predator were obviously much
more advanced at us, but they were not "Gods." They could be
seen, tracked, understood, analyzed.

If the above appears to be nothing more than a combination of
foolishness and bad movie analogies, it was not intended to be.
I am being serious (even if unintentionally foolish). The
questions are: Are my above observations regarding the apparent
limitations on alien powers correct, to the best of our
knowledge? Are there any other limitations? If so, is there
anyway we can use this information?

I've just thought of another analogy, not to science fiction,
but to fact. It is well known that researchers who work with
monkeys, baboons and other primates sometimes have their keys
stolen, the treat taken away prematurely, have feces thrown at
them, are bitten, or otherwise tricked - outsmarted - by their
intellectually inferior subjects. The researcher get complacent,
or lazy, or underestimate the intelligence of their subjects,
and are surprised. The primate subjects may be intellectually
inferior, but they have time to plan, and really, really want
those keys.

Could we, with respect to the aliens, do as well as a monkeys do
with us?









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 3

              Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Bowden

From: Dave Bowden <grafikfx@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 15:17:54 +0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 13:42:31 -0500
Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Bowden


 >Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 08:57:25 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark?

 >>Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 22:04:47 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark?
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >>>Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 16:01:20 +0000
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark?

 ><snip>

 >>You mention about how you were "attacked" here on UpDates and
 >>about all the "ranting" from skeptics regarding this footage.
 >>Maybe I missed it while out of town on a film shoot, but could
 >>you please point out the specific posts from the archives where
 >>this abuse took place?

 >>I'm not saying that I don't believe you. I just don't recall it.
 >>I feel this is an important issue, since there seems to be only
 >>a handful of people that take part on this List and I'd really
 >>like to see how many of them are as negative as you guys claim.

 >>It is my position that the majority of the people on this List,
 >>including me, believe in the existence of ET life. To listen to
 >>you and John and Michel and Deardorff and Gates and Clark and
 >>(sometimes) Mortellaro, _nobody_ on this List believes in it other
 >>than you. I really don't think it is as bad as you think it is,
 >>as far as this List goes.

 >>I look forward to the video.

Hi Larry, Roy and all,

 >A little point is being missed here.

 >Unless I am sadly mistaken (which is easily possible) the recent
 >footage from Britain was _not_ ignored at all, but totally
 >trashed by virtually every British ufologist worthy of the name.

Seems like you're getting your lines crossed here Larry, the
recent footage from Britain that was trashed by virtually every
British ufologist sounds more like the Cheshire footage.

In contrast, Chris's footage has been seen at various
conferences and no such trashing has happened.

 >IF this is the case, it is easy to imagine somebody trying to
 >pique interest in this continent, having failed miserably in in
 >another, especially if they have a warehouse full of unsold
 >video CDs..

Sorry to keep correcting you Larry but this is NOT the case.
A warehouse full of unsold video CDs?

I don't know where that's coming from!

Perhaps you were confused by my offer to transfer video footage
in .avi format to CD for anyone interested (no charge I might
add).

If you know of a more efficient way to get 400 meg of data to
the folks then let me know.

This offer was made purely for research.

It's not a case of buy one get one free as you seem to be
saying, there is no business deal going on or contracts being
signed, it's simply footage presented to any who might be
interested.

 >I hate to say this, but I suspect that somebody thinks we _all_
 >fell off de turnip truck.

Well I for one am sorry to hear you think along those lines.

Oh well,


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 >
   Dec > Dec 3

                        Re: Mexico City Video - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 10:55:55 -0600
Fwd Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 13:50:12 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Evans


 >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 10:10:43 -0800
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 12:19:52 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Mexico City Video
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, Jim wrote:

 >>>For me it's unscientific and a bit silly to be studying UFOs but
 >>>always assume that they don't involve technology far beyond
 >>>ours, or that the UFO occupants wouldn't utilize it and wouldn't
 >>>have a strategy of dealing with us.

Bob replied:

 >>You can't appeal to the equivalent of "magic" and still call it
 >>science. If you do, nothing short of a flying saucer on the
 >>White House lawn will ever give you want you want: acceptance of
 >>the existence of the little men by everybody else. Sorry, Jim.

Jim now writes:

 >Even Carl Sagan once acknowledged, in one of his papers, that
 >what advanced aliens could do would seem like magic to us, as
 >Arthur C. Clark had mentioned earlier.

Okay, Jim. I'll give this one more try.

No one is doubting that aliens advanced enough to travel light
years through space and visit us wouldn't have technology that
would seem "magical". What is at issue, here, is whether or not
the anomalies in the Mexico City Video constitute the evidence
of "alien magic" or simply human error. Trying to divert the
conversation from weaknesses in your position doesn't bring you
any closer to making your case.

Further, you keep shifting your position. First, you maintained
that aliens could manipulate video but humans could not. Then,
you shifted and claimed that while humans could manipulate
video, it would be too difficult because it would have to be
done frame by frame. Then, when that was shown to be incorrect,
you take the position that the anomalies in the video are
deliberate attempts by the aliens to confuse us.

In fact, you consider every possibility regarding the video
except one: That it was faked by humans and the anomalies are
the fingerprints of human error.

Your position that the video was, instead, faked by ETs has got
to be one of the most creative claims to come down the pike in a
long while; I'll give you that.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 3

                        Re: Mexico City Video - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 12:20:53 -0600
Fwd Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 13:52:43 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Evans


 >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 11:32:27 -0800
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff

 >>From: Charles Chapman <charlesrc@earthlink.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Mexico City Video
 >>Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 22:58:03 -0800

Previously, Charles wrote:

 >>If I may interject, I think Mr. Deardorff's position _may_ be a
 >>bit more sophisticated, and therefore a bit more troublesome,
 >>than that. His position _may_ be that: (a) aliens can manipulate
 >>video; (b) humans can manipulate video; and most importantly (c)
 >>we mere humans cannot possibly tell the difference between video
 >>manipulated by aliens and video manipulated by humans.

Jim replied:

 >Thanks for trying to set Roger straight here. Of course I did
 >not imply that humans cannot manipulate videos.

Jim...

Sorry, but this is patently not true.

I refer to the following where I pointed out:

 >>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. 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.

To which you 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.

Clearly, your belief was that human technology could not produce
what is seen in the Mexico City video. Further, you stated:

 >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.

You then conclude:

 >The Mexican City video having the "fingerprints of a hoax" then
 >is best accepted as showing the fingerprints of the aliens.

All this indicates that you prefer to believe that aliens can
manipulate the video while humans can not.

As the debate continued, you change your position, depending on
the level of adversity. I refer to the following where you
wrote:

 >If they had
 >come forward and succeeded in showing how they did it, then the
 >hypothesis would be falsified in that case.

However, when Bruce wrote:

 >>The video I was sent was good. Robert Kiviat also included some
 >>impressive UFO videos in his show "Best UFO EVidence" several
 >>years ago in which he pointed out that the MC video could have
 >>been hoaxed.

You replied:

 >OK, Bruce. I knew it can be done to some degree of realism given
 >that movie-studio equipment was available, but not that it could
 >be done well and simply as Jeff Sainio had implied.

And also, you later stated:

 >no doubt because it would entail a lot of hard
 >work and yet the real thing would look more convincing in
 >comparison.

So, first you maintain that if someone could show you that it
could be done, then your position could be falsified. Then,
later, you change the threshold to include a level of realism
that only you can define.

Now, here's the rub, Jim.

You admit that if humans produced the video, then it would be
flawed. However, when presented with the flaws inherent in the
video, you maintain that they are the result of "alien magic"
and not the very human error you predict would be evident if
faked.

Your rules seem to change as you go along.

For instance, you previously maintained:

 >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.

However, when someone wrote:

 >>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!

You replied:

 >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.

So, on the one hand, you don't feel qualified as to what they
can or can not do. Then, later, you feel you are qualified as to
what would seem impossible.

In the end, Jim, it would seem that you are simply making this
up as you go.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 3

                     Re: Phil Klass - Sleeping? - Wright

From: Bruce Wright <magnus@io.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 12:38:17 -0600
Fwd Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 13:55:32 -0500
Subject: Re: Phil Klass - Sleeping? - Wright


 >Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 09:32:16 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Phil Klass - Sleeping?
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 11:51:09 -0600
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Phil Klass - Sleeping? - Clark

 >>>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 23:34:10 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Phil Klass - Sleeping?
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>I think you've forgotten your Klasslogic, Robert. How do you
 >>know the photo wasn't faked? In fact, we know that any photo
 >>that depicts something that Klass doesn't want to accept is, by
 >>definition, a hoax. So there.

 >Good point, Jerry! I think the people at MUFON were witness to, yet,
 >another "Klass Act" (not to be confused with the more flattering "class
 >act") Since he seems to not believe in ET life, I wonder why in the
 >world he even bothers to go to a MUFON Symposium?

For the sheer joy of feeling himself to be in the right, of
course. At the end of the day this is, of course, the emotional
engine driving most "skeptical" ufology, though one must never
acknowledge this, oh my no.

Bruce W.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 3

                Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars' - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 12:43:51 -0600
Fwd Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 13:57:13 -0500
Subject: Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars' - Evans


 >From: Tim Haley <TimHaley@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 11:07:49 EST
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars' - Haley

Previously, it was posted:

 >>NASA scientists have discovered ancient sea or lake beds on the
 >>surface of Mars that could once have harboured life, writes
 >>Jonathan Leake.

 >>The discovery is among the most significant concerning Mars so
 >>far, because such places are the most likely locations for
 >>fossils or other signs of past life.

Tim writes:

 >I realize that I am probably in the minority in my opinion but I
 >think NASA is way off the mark on this one. A planet with the
 >mass of Mars could never have supported an atmosphere dense
 >enough to allow liquid water to exist long enough to form seas
 >and rivers.

Hi, Tim!

This is not my field of expertise, but I understand your point
regarding mass. I have a question. Can the mass of a planet like
Mars change over millions of years?

For instance, the human body is mosty water. If you remove that
water, the total body weight and mass changes dramatically. Is
it possible that could have happened to Mars, as well? If all
the surface and subsurface water dried up over time, would that
not affect the total mass of the planet without changing its
size? And if so, to what degree?

I may be in over my head, here. Just a thought...

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 >
   Dec > Dec 3

                          Dune Comes Alive - Again

From: V <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 13:48:53 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 13:59:09 -0500
Subject: Dune Comes Alive - Again


For you Frank Herbert fans, the Sci-Fi Channel is airing their
production of Dune starting tonight on American Cable. Those of
you who subscribe to either cable or Sat TV, may wish to see it.

The book, which won the Hugo Award and so many others, was
literally the work of the genius Muse of Mr. Herbert. There was
never anything like it before and probably will never occur
again, a one-off masterpiece of Science fact and fiction all
rolled up into one complex novel, with stories within stories
within ... ad nauseum.

As you know, the DeLorentis family, in consort with David Lynch,
bastardized the book and made the movie something Siskal and
Ebert opined, was the worst movie, not of the year, but ever.
Likely they were not far off the mark.

This one may be different. It is scheduled to be in a series,
which may allow the producers to better state the plots. And
there are many.

To my old friend Frank Herbert, whom I loved dearly, let's hope
for a winner. At least, Frank knew there were aliens in this
universe. Only he made them one of us. All part of the same
universe, at least this dimension of it. Rest in peace, Frank.
We're trying down here.


Jim Mortellaro
I was a friend of Jamis








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 4

                          Re: South Africa? - Hayes

From: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 19:46:16 +0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 08:42:00 -0500
Subject: Re: South Africa? - Hayes



 >Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 19:19:29 -0800
 >From: Paul Stonehill <rurc@earthlink.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: South Africa?

 >Can anyone help me locate a serious South African UFO research
 >group?

 >I need to check on some information I collected while staying in
 >South Africa in 1987. I was a free-lance reporter; the
 >Soviet-Cuban offensive was in progress in Angola and I did not
 >pay too much attention to anomalous phenomena. But a Zulu fellow
 >told me about a UFO sighting that reminds me of a Russian case I
 >read about a few days ago.

Hello Paul,

I have the following South African organizations listed on the
UFOINFO site and would suggest you try the MUFON SA address
first as I have had a fair amount of info from them in the past.


Dark Light

(Temporary Address)

"Dark Light" UFO Group
# 3 Jordaan Street
Cape Town, 8000

"Dark Light" is a private, non profit group crewed by private
individuals of all walks of life, investigating the phenomenon
of UFO's in South Africa. There are no "qualified" researchers
at "Dark Light", only curious individuals who have had
encounters with the unknown.

The group is not a cult and distances itself from the likes of
such. "Dark Light" does however, connect with independent
researchers from reputable UFO groups such as BUFORA, Quest
International, and G.S.W.

"Dark Light" collects and processes all information concerning
UFO activity in South Africa, as and when it is brought to the
attention of the individual members.

We recognize that there exists a formal UFO organization in
South Africa, and conduct our activities, coordinating with the
members of that group.

We have no membership fee, no special requirements, or talents
needed to be member of "Dark Light".

----------

Evaluation Center for UFO Reports (ECUFOR)
P.O.BOX 7784
Newton Park
Port Elizabeth
6055
South Africa

Cellphone: 0826592428
   ecufor@mweb.co.za

----------

MUFON SA - (See also MUFON USA)
P.O. Box 74456
Lynnwoodridge
Pretoria
0040

Hotline: 088-094-0903 (24-hour answering machine)
   mufon-sa@icon.co.za

---------

The South African UFO Forum
29 Valk Street
Birch Acers
Kempton Park
JHB

Phone: 0832866272
Fax: 0113935423
   saufof@intekom.co.za
   http://members.xoom.com/saufof


Hope these are of some help.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 4

                                     Re:

From: Daavid Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 16:03:25 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 08:49:19 -0500
Subject: Re:


 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 13:35:35 -0600
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I -

 >I agree that a good investigation needs to be done. However, I
 >am not sure that I can take the word of someone that claims to
 >have witnessed severe burns and death from electromagnetism. I
 >can not imagine such a thing.

Unfortunately, Roger, that about sums up your personal approach
to this field. If you can't imagine such a thing than it can't
be. In this case, not only does your imagination fail you, but
so does your grasp of common, everyday human physics.

Believe it or not, Roger, human knowledge does not depend on
what Roger Evens thinks must be true or not true. You are not
the center of mankind's intellectual universe. Sorry to break
the news to you.

 >Plus, if such a thing could
 >happen, the resulting electromagnetic field would be so
 >pervasive that videotaping the UFO would be impossible for miles
 >around!

Ever hear of microwave ovens? You could pop a mouse in one and
cook it no problem. Believe me, even if you removed the
shielding around the oven, the resulting electromagnetic field
would _not_ be so "pervasive" that videotaping the event be
"impossible for miles and miles around."

[Side note to animal rights activists.: No mice were actually
harmed in the process of conducting this thought experiment.]

There are all sorts of electromagnetic fields. They can be
constant; they can be pulsed; they can oscillate. They can be
predominantly magnetic or electric in their effects, or a mix.
They can have an infinite number of wavelengths (radio waves,
microwaves, visible light, ultraviolet light, X-rays, gamma rays
- which one are you talking about?). Electromagnetic waves can
be coherent (e.g. lasers or masers), or incoherent (common
everyday light). The waves can be unpolarized, linearly
polarized, or circularly polarized.

There are indeed ways to burn people using EM radiation. It
could be microwaves. It could be a powerful burst of ultraviolet
radiation (ever gotten a sunburn Roger?). It could be any number
of possible forms that EM fields can take.

As to effects on the surrounds such as knocking out video
cameras, that depends on a large number of factors, such as the
actual type of EM field, whether it's focused or unfocussed, and
the distance between the camera and the source of radiation.

If the radiation is focused, then everything off to the side of
the focused beam is unaffected, video cameras included. Shorter
wavelength forms of EM radiation such as microwaves and
ultraviolet can be easily focused and directed -- and they can
burn. No problems there.

There are also other ways to induce burns in which the EM field
effects would not be so easily focussed and in which the EM
field would have a greater effect on the surrounds. E.g., a
craft could utilize an electrohydrodynamic form of propulsion,
involving a very powerful pulsed or oscillating magnetic field
and ionized air or plasma around the craft. The changing
magnetic field will induce an opposing field in the plasma, and
the craft could push off from that.

The magnetic field would have to be quite large, and a video
camera fairly close to such a craft probably would show effects.
E.g., the magnetic videotape would be wiped clean. But the
catch-phrase here is "fairly close". Unfocussed EM fields fall
off quite rapidly. If, e.g., you model the Mexico city "saucer"
as a loop of wire 20 feet in radius, then directly above and
below this loop, the generated magnetic field will fall off
roughly with the cube of the distance relative to the loop
radius. By the time you get 2000 feet from the loop, or 100
times the loop radius, the field is down by a factor of about 1
million.

Now the above falloff is for directly above and below the loop
on axis. Off-axis the falloff is even greater. And when you get
completely to the side of the loop (which is where the video
camera would have been in the Mexico City UFO footage), the
falloff in field is proportional to something like the fourth
power of distance or more. That means, if you are directly off
to the side of this loop by roughly 600 feet, the magnetic field
the loop generates also falls off by a factor of at least a
million. Thus if the craft utilized a magnetic field a million
times stronger than Earth's (around 30 Tesla or about 20 times
what they use in MRI imagers), by the time you get a few hundred
feet away and off to the side of craft, the magnetic field would
be down in the ballpark of the Earth's field strength. Has that
ever hampered your videotaping Roger?

This is a far cry from your royal proclamation that EM effects
would be "so pervasive" that videotaping would be wiped out for
"miles and miles." Where did you dream that one up?

Furthermore, I cite this only as an _extreme_ example of how
some form of EM field could induce burns in people who happened
to be very close to the craft and could also conceivably have
some effect on a _nearby_ videorecorder. There are other forms
of EM radiation that also produce burns but could be _very
localized_ in their effects (the aforementioned ultraviolet or
microwaves to cite but 2 examples).

 >How can he reconcile one against the other? You can't
 >have both unless you buy into Deardorff's "alien magic".

Maybe you should take an elementary college physics course
Roger. The two are easily reconciliable.

Your basic problem is that you respond without regard to whether
your proclamations have any basis in fact or not. I have also
seen this behavior at work in your discussions of the Trent
photos, which display similar ignorance of basic physics.

That being said, it doesn't mean that the Mexico City video is
genuine. It just means that your nave, handwaving objection to
it is complete rubbish.

 >Regarding the "witnesses", isn't it true that the witnesses came
 >forward after the video was released? Also, isn't it possible
 >that while the sighting might be legit, the video is not? As I
 >have pointed out before, witness testimony has to be validated.
 >However, a bogus video does nothing to support the claims of
 >witnesses, especially if they came forward _after_ the video was
 >released.

I actually agree with you here, believe it or not.
Irregularities in the video originally detected by Jeff Saino
are much more likely to be explained by a hoax than orchestrated
"alien magic" or deception.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 4

              Re: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I -

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 16:03:25 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 08:51:49 -0500
Subject: Re: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I -


 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 13:35:35 -0600
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I -

 >I agree that a good investigation needs to be done. However, I
 >am not sure that I can take the word of someone that claims to
 >have witnessed severe burns and death from electromagnetism. I
 >can not imagine such a thing.

Unfortunately, Roger, that about sums up your personal approach
to this field. If you can't imagine such a thing than it can't
be. In this case, not only does your imagination fail you, but
so does your grasp of common, everyday human physics.

Believe it or not, Roger, human knowledge does not depend on
what Roger Evens thinks must be true or not true. You are not
the center of mankind's intellectual universe. Sorry to break
the news to you.

 >Plus, if such a thing could
 >happen, the resulting electromagnetic field would be so
 >pervasive that videotaping the UFO would be impossible for miles
 >around!

Ever hear of microwave ovens? You could pop a mouse in one and
cook it no problem. Believe me, even if you removed the
shielding around the oven, the resulting electromagnetic field
would _not_ be so "pervasive" that videotaping the event be
"impossible for miles and miles around."

[Side note to animal rights activists.: No mice were actually
harmed in the process of conducting this thought experiment.]

There are all sorts of electromagnetic fields. They can be
constant; they can be pulsed; they can oscillate. They can be
predominantly magnetic or electric in their effects, or a mix.
They can have an infinite number of wavelengths (radio waves,
microwaves, visible light, ultraviolet light, X-rays, gamma rays
- which one are you talking about?). Electromagnetic waves can
be coherent (e.g. lasers or masers), or incoherent (common
everyday light). The waves can be unpolarized, linearly
polarized, or circularly polarized.

There are indeed ways to burn people using EM radiation. It
could be microwaves. It could be a powerful burst of ultraviolet
radiation (ever gotten a sunburn Roger?). It could be any number
of possible forms that EM fields can take.

As to effects on the surrounds such as knocking out video
cameras, that depends on a large number of factors, such as the
actual type of EM field, whether it's focused or unfocussed, and
the distance between the camera and the source of radiation.

If the radiation is focused, then everything off to the side of
the focused beam is unaffected, video cameras included. Shorter
wavelength forms of EM radiation such as microwaves and
ultraviolet can be easily focused and directed -- and they can
burn. No problems there.

There are also other ways to induce burns in which the EM field
effects would not be so easily focussed and in which the EM
field would have a greater effect on the surrounds. E.g., a
craft could utilize an electrohydrodynamic form of propulsion,
involving a very powerful pulsed or oscillating magnetic field
and ionized air or plasma around the craft. The changing
magnetic field will induce an opposing field in the plasma, and
the craft could push off from that.

The magnetic field would have to be quite large, and a video
camera fairly close to such a craft probably would show effects.
E.g., the magnetic videotape would be wiped clean. But the
catch-phrase here is "fairly close". Unfocussed EM fields fall
off quite rapidly. If, e.g., you model the Mexico city "saucer"
as a loop of wire 20 feet in radius, then directly above and
below this loop, the generated magnetic field will fall off
roughly with the cube of the distance relative to the loop
radius. By the time you get 2000 feet from the loop, or 100
times the loop radius, the field is down by a factor of about 1
million.

Now the above falloff is for directly above and below the loop
on axis. Off-axis the falloff is even greater. And when you get
completely to the side of the loop (which is where the video
camera would have been in the Mexico City UFO footage), the
falloff in field is proportional to something like the fourth
power of distance or more. That means, if you are directly off
to the side of this loop by roughly 600 feet, the magnetic field
the loop generates also falls off by a factor of at least a
million. Thus if the craft utilized a magnetic field a million
times stronger than Earth's (around 30 Tesla or about 20 times
what they use in MRI imagers), by the time you get a few hundred
feet away and off to the side of craft, the magnetic field would
be down in the ballpark of the Earth's field strength. Has that
ever hampered your videotaping Roger?

This is a far cry from your royal proclamation that EM effects
would be "so pervasive" that videotaping would be wiped out for
"miles and miles." Where did you dream that one up?

Furthermore, I cite this only as an _extreme_ example of how
some form of EM field could induce burns in people who happened
to be very close to the craft and could also conceivably have
some effect on a _nearby_ videorecorder. There are other forms
of EM radiation that also produce burns but could be _very
localized_ in their effects (the aforementioned ultraviolet or
microwaves to cite but 2 examples).

 >How can he reconcile one against the other? You can't
 >have both unless you buy into Deardorff's "alien magic".

Maybe you should take an elementary college physics course
Roger. The two are easily reconciliable.

Your basic problem is that you respond without regard to whether
your proclamations have any basis in fact or not. I have also
seen this behavior at work in your discussions of the Trent
photos, which display similar ignorance of basic physics.

That being said, it doesn't mean that the Mexico City video is
genuine. It just means that your nave, handwaving objection to
it is complete rubbish.

 >Regarding the "witnesses", isn't it true that the witnesses came
 >forward after the video was released? Also, isn't it possible
 >that while the sighting might be legit, the video is not? As I
 >have pointed out before, witness testimony has to be validated.
 >However, a bogus video does nothing to support the claims of
 >witnesses, especially if they came forward _after_ the video was
 >released.

I actually agree with you here, believe it or not.
Irregularities in the video originally detected by Jeff Saino
are much more likely to be explained by a hoax than orchestrated
"alien magic" or deception.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 4

               Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Chapman

From: Charles Chapman <charlesrc@earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 11:06:15 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 12:10:01 -0500
Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Chapman


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 22:52:55 EST
 >Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 12:52:52 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 15:46:48 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>>Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 14:51:50 -0500
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?

<snip>

 >Another thread has gone 'round and 'round on the question of
 >whether the "aliens" psychically jittered the UFO or the UFO
 >video image in Mexico City to simulate a hoax or whether these
 >inconsistent jitter blurs were telltale signs of a sloppy human
 >hoaxer merging two different sets of video images. The issue is
 >easily settled by Hynek's basic principle of UFO investigation,
 >enunciated in The UFO Experience (1972), which obligates UFO
 >investigators to eliminate conventional explanations first
 >before rendering a case as unexplained. The human hoax is the
 >conventional explanation that must be eliminated by thorough
 >scientific investigation first before resorting to more exotic
 >explanations. Hynek's rule is actually a wise corollary of the
 >well-known Occam's (or Ockham's) Razor in the methodology of
 >science, which requires that the simpler explanations are to be
 >preferred.

I would like to ask you a question regarding the application of
Occam's Razor and Hynek's basic principle of UFO investigation
in this area.  I want to be precise, so please assume two
different hypothetical cases:

     1.    A photographic case, much like the Trent case that has
been much discussed on this list.

     2.    A videotape case, much like the Mexican case that has
been much discussed on this list.

Further assume that it is established to everyone's satisfaction
that it was technically and economically possible, indeed
readily feasible, for both cases to be faked.  It was
technically possible for both cases to be a hoax.  However,
there is just one problem.

The individuals who took the photographs and videotapes are alive
and well.  Moreover, they tell you, face to face, eye to eye,
that they are did not fake their respective cases.  That their
respective cases are not hoaxes.  That they are not liars.

Moreover, while you have established to everyone's satisfaction
that it was technically _possible_ to fake both cases, you have
no conclusive proof they were in fact faked.  The people who
took the photographs and the videotape do not confess.  Neither
do any confederates.  No models are found.  No witnesses saw
them being faked.

It could have been a truck mirror, or it could have been a UFO.
It could have been jittery camera caused by a jittery human, or
alien manipulation.

What do Occam's Razor and Hynek's principle have to say?  Do we
assume the people who are took the photographs and videotape are
lying?

What if they produce character witnesses?

What if they sign an affidavit under penalty of perjury?

What if they pass a lie detector case?

What if there are other visual witnesses, perhaps whom have the
above attributes (i.e., character references, signed affidavit,
passed lie detector test)?

At what point, if any, does Occam's Razor say we must be willing
to postulate the existence of aliens, instead of postulating
that these people are liars?  At what point, if any, does
Hynek's principle dictate that the conventional explanation is
not adequate?









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 4

               Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars' - Sunday

From: Lan Fleming <apollo18@swbell.net>
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 15:01:16 -0600
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 12:11:47 -0500
Subject: Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars' - Sunday


UFO UpDates - Toronto wrote:


 >Source: The London Sunday Times

 >http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/2000/12/03/stifgnnws01001.html

 >December 3 2000

 >WORLD

 >Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars

 >NASA scientists have discovered ancient sea or lake beds on the
 >surface of Mars that could once have harboured life, writes
 >Jonathan Leake.


It's been known for decades that there is evidence of ancient
sea beds on Mars. Several months ago, JPL published a web page
with a topographical map constructed from MGS altimeter data
showing possible sea beds on Mars. NASA may or may not have
found new evidence that is conclusive that such sea beds
existed, but I doubt very muich that it has discovered anything
really new. Calling this a "discovery" takes PR hype to a new
absurd extreme.

NASA seems to be incapable of "discovering" anything until
they're sure that it's already been known about for so long and
by so many people that it's not likely to upset anyone
important.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 4

                        Re: Mexico City Video - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 16:15:48 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 12:13:12 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Young


 >Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 12:20:53 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: Mexico City Video
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >>Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 11:32:27 -0800
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff

<snip>

 >In the end, Jim, it would seem that you are simply making this
 >up as you go.

Roger, Jim, Charles, Everybody:

Bingo.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 4

              Re: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I -

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 16:15:49 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 12:14:42 -0500
Subject: Re: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I -


 >Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 03:00:47 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I

 >I also appreciate Jim's work translating Hesemann's account from
 >the German. I tried translating German several times, always a
 >dismal failure.

 >What struck me was a factoid I had missed earlier; namely that
 >the video came in anonymously in the mail, along with a cryptic
 >and threatening note saying the video should _not_ be published
 >or released.

 >Suppose I had an automatic security camera at my house. Suppose
 >it caught me in some very embarrassing pose; passed out over a
 >spilled bottle of milk or something.

 >What would I do? Why its obvious! I would send it in to some
 >well known media type, along with a note demanding that he not
 >show it to anyone.

 >See? It all makes sense when you say it real slow.

Larry, et. al.:

Gott in Himmel,

as my old Pennsylvania Dutch grandma used to say. Now it all
makes sense.  Or, at least some of it makes sense. Which is
better than before, when almost none of it made sense.

Furstay? (This is "Pa Dutch"; I haven't the faintest idea how
to spell it in High German, or any other kind.)

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 >
   Dec > Dec 4

              Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Deardorff

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 14:18:40 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 12:16:22 -0500
Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Deardorff


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 22:52:55 EST
 >Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

 >Another thread has gone 'round and 'round on the question of
 >whether the "aliens" psychically jittered the UFO or the UFO
 >video image in Mexico City to simulate a hoax or whether these
 >inconsistent jitter blurs were telltale signs of a sloppy human
 >hoaxer merging two different sets of video images. The issue is
 >easily settled by Hynek's basic principle of UFO investigation,
 >enunciated in The UFO Experience (1972), which obligates UFO
 >investigators to eliminate conventional explanations first
 >before rendering a case as unexplained. The human hoax is the
 >conventional explanation that must be eliminated by thorough
 >scientific investigation first before resorting to more exotic
 >explanations. Hynek's rule is actually a wise corollary of the
 >well-known Occam's (or Ockham's) Razor in the methodology of
 >science, which requires that the simpler explanations are to be
 >preferred.

 >Violators of Hynek's and Vallee's basic laws should be sentenced
 >to remedial schooling where their three books are mandatory
 >reading -- that doesn't mean there are no mistakes in these
 >books (pioneers make lots of errors) but the broad principles
 >are sound. I for one am finding this ignorance of the work of
 >the scientific pioneers of UFO research to be personally
 >tiresome as well as a sad testimony to the ongoing loss of
 >UFOlogy's legacy. Vallee, Hynek, and McDonald were not
 >"debunkers." ...

Brad,

Let's not forget about the witnesses in the 1997 Mexico City
case. Hynek knew that witnesses matter. Therefore we should also
pay attention to the witnesses.

And I believe that one or more of the three pioneers realized
that UFOs are not only vehicles for transporting aliens around
but are also psychic instruments.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 4

                      Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 14:39:17 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 12:18:23 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff


 >From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@temporaldoorway.com>
 >Subject: Re: Mexico City Video
 >Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 22:56:41 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 10:09:23 -0800
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Mexico City Video

 >>OK, Bruce. I knew it can be done to some degree of realism given
 >>that movie-studio equipment was available, but not that it could
 >>be done well and simply as Jeff Sainio had implied. If you were
 >>told to analyze the faked video you were sent, would you have
 >>quickly found unrealistic features, unlike with the MC video?
 >>Was there a hazy or smoggy atmosphere involved that the faked
 >>UFO image had to merge properly into? Did the UFO image pass
 >>behind a computerized building that in places was not as dark as
 >>the UFO image (so that no "paste on lighter" type of computer
 >>command could be used)? I take it this faked video exhibited no
 >>"camera bounce," and so didn't have the significant amount of
 >>UFO image smearing that the MC video disclosed,

 >In the interests of demonstrating what can be accomplished with
 >a moderate amount of expense (a few thousand bucks worth of
 >hardware and software) and time (a couple of days), I've created
 >an animation that displays many of the features of the Mexico
 >City video...

 >http://www.temporaldoorway.com/gallery/item/mexicovideo.htm

 >It shows camera shake, zoom, lag times, glare, distance haze and
 >does so in a fairly short animation of a few hundred k (.avi) or
 >1.6 Mb (.mov). The object is integrated into a realistic scene
 >based on extracted geometry and image maps from the original
 >video frame panorama.

Thanks for having gone to this effort, Mark, and showing that
this much can be done quickly. I mean it! Although I didn't
notice the simulated "distance haze" effect, I'll look again.

We didn't get around to setting up ground rules for this, but
one of them is that you not use any software first purchasable
more recently than July, 1997, or August, if you insist.

Can you add the rotary and nutation movements also, as Bruce's
friend "Chip" did? Then allow the craft to increase slightly in
angular size as its distance from the camera decreases a bit.
And maybe add a realistic sounding sound track? The latter
should be fun, and a little cussing is allowed on it. Then add
apparent jitter to the UFO image that's significant but is only
a third or a quarter of what the simulated camera jitter is.

If you can do all that in accordance with the first ground rule
above, then we'll need to start discussing the witnesses.

Regards,

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 >
   Dec > Dec 4

               Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars' - Rudiak

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 17:45:32 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 12:20:58 -0500
Subject: Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars' - Rudiak


 >From: Tim Haley <TimHaley@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 11:07:49 EST
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars' - Haley



 >>Source: The London Sunday Times

 >>http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/2000/12/03/stifgnnws01001.html

 >>December 3 2000

 >>WORLD

 >>Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars

 >>NASA scientists have discovered ancient sea or lake beds on the
 >>surface of Mars that could once have harboured life, writes
 >>Jonathan Leake.

<.....>

 >>It is said to have sent back detailed pictures of rocks that
 >>could only have been created by sedimentation, in which
 >>particles sink to a sea bed and are compressed into rock.

 >-----

 >I realize that I am probably in the minority in my opinion but I
 >think NASA is way off the mark on this one. A planet with the
 >mass of Mars could never have supported an atmosphere dense
 >enough to allow liquid water to exist long enough to form seas
 >and rivers.

Tim,

This is oversimplifying the situation. I think a better
statement would have been that a planet with the mass of Mars
(and also with the radiation it receives from the sun) could not
_permanently_ support an atmosphere dense enough to _sustain_
liquid water and hence seas and rivers.

The operative word here is "permanently." But early in Mars'
history, there could indeed have been a denser atmosphere along
with oceans and rivers. Current thinking is that the Earth's
oceans arose from cometary bombardment early in Earth's history.
Other inner planets like Venus and Mars would have had similar
cometary bombardments and likely have had liquid water and
oceans.

Planetary mass is only one factor at work. Venus has a size and
mass very comparable to Earth's. But it is also more heavily
irradiated by the sun. Water molecules in the atmosphere would
be hotter, move faster, and be more likely to achieve escape
velocity and evaporate off into space. Absence of a significant
ozone layer such as we have on Earth (because of photosynthetic
organisms) would also expose water molecules to much more
intense UV radiation, splitting the water molecules into lighter
molecular hydrogen and oxygen, accelerating the process.

Those are the primarily factors that probably caused Venus to
eventually lose it's early planetary water. Earth is also slowly
losing it's atmospheric water, but at a much reduced pace.

Mars is still close enough to the sun that solar irradiation
would be an important factor in addition to lower mass in
causing loss of water vapor. As the atmosphere thinned and
cooled, however, any remaining water would tend to freeze out.
This would slow down the space evaporation process. There still
could be sizable quantities of ice on Mars existing as
permafrost. There is known water ice at the poles.

Again, mass is only one factor here. Europa, Jupiter's ice moon,
has a lower mass than Mars, but is still covered with a dense
layer of surface ice, and is strongly suspected of having liquid
oceans underneath (the energy source to produce liquid water
would be tidal heating from the strong gravitational pull of
Jupiter). Even Earth's moon is now though to have small
quantities of ice hidden in craters at the poles away from the
direct glare of solar irradiation. Surface temperature and solar
irradiation are important factors in addition to planetary mass.

In summary, I don't think the NASA scientists are necessarily
off the mark here.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 4

                   Re: Calling Jaime Maussan! - Deardorff

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 14:46:21 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 12:22:10 -0500
Subject: Re: Calling Jaime Maussan! - Deardorff


 >Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 02:52:34 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Calling Jaime Maussan!

 >>From: Daniel Muoz <Ovnimexico1@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 09:48:54 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Calling Jaime Maussan!
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Hello Daniel,

 >If _you_ are the man to speak to then let's talk! If you would be
 >kind enough to put up with a small barrage of questions from
 >those of us on this side of the border, I know there are many
 >who wish to more about the 'details' surrounding the witness
 >testimony and how it was obtained. If you need any help
 >translating any relevant parts/quotations of witness testimony
 >from Spanish to English, I will be glad to help in any way that
 >I can. All I care about is learnig as much of the truth of this
 >case as I can. I'm certain I speak for my Listmates as well.

Hi John,

Daniel Munoz sent me his write-up of his and Jaime's
investigation of the Mexico City witnesses to the Aug. 6, 1977
event, and I'm waiting to hear back from a potential translator
to set it into English. If he can't come through with it, you're
next on my list! Thanks for volunteering.

Regards,

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 >
   Dec > Dec 4

                     Re: Phil Klass - Sleeping? - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 17:50:41 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 12:25:00 -0500
Subject: Re: Phil Klass - Sleeping? - Gates


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Phil Klass - Sleeping?
 >Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 11:51:09 -0600

 >>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 23:34:10 EST
 >>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Phil Klass - Sleeping?
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
 >>>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Phil Klass - Sleeping?
 >>>Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 14:54:42 -0800

 >Robert and Royce,

 >>>Wondering if anyone out there has a photo of Klass when he was
 >>>sleeping during, I believe, a MUFON Symposium?

 >>As I recall he loudly claimed he wasn't sleeping. Needless to
 >>say after I saw the photo, I was skeptical of the
 >>claim............ :)

 >I think you've forgotten your Klasslogic, Robert. How do you
 >know the photo wasn't faked? In fact, we know that any photo
 >that depicts something that Klass doesn't want to accept is, by
 >definition, a hoax. So there.

 >Jerry Clark


Thats true, we don't know that the photo wasn't a masterful hoax
of sorts created by some cunning hoaxer who wanted to pull one
over on everybody. Better yet we examine the possibility that
some cunning hoaxer actually created a wax replica of Phil that
was suspended by thread or fishing line from the ceiling.

So, since the photo is now in question, we revert back to the
testimony of those who were present. As I recall they claimed
something along the lines of hearing a giant snore, and Phil's
tape recorder fell to the ground in a clatter. Oops, next tenant
of pelicanism science. If we don't like the photograph, whatever
story the witness tells is meaningless and should be disregarded
for various reasons. After all Phil may not have been sleeping,
but merely resting his eyes, and or reading documents on the
inside of his eye lids. Anything but sleeping......

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 >
   Dec > Dec 4

                     Re: Weird World Hot Gossip - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 17:55:00 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 12:27:19 -0500
Subject: Re: Weird World Hot Gossip - Gates


 >Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 13:13:34 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: Weird World Hot Gossip
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
 >>Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 15:45:32 -0000
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Weird World Hot Gossip

 >>Welcome to the final column of the year, and indeed,
 >>technically-speaking, the last column of the Millennium (There
 >>was no 'Year Zero', so 2001 and not 2000 is the first year of
 >>the New Millennium).

 >Hello, Georgina!

 >Actually, this is partly correct and partly wrong, depending on
 >how one looks at it.

 >For starters, decades are named by the first in line of
 >progression. For instance, the 60's started with 1960, not, say,
 >1961. The same with the 70's, 80's and, most importantly, the
 >90's which, of course, started with 1990 and not 1991.
 >Therefore, from a purely mathematical standpoint, the ten year
 >period of the 90's ended at midnight on the last day of 1999,
 >which means that the new decade of the new millennium started on
 >January 1, 2000. Likewise, THAT decade will end at midnight on
 >the last day of 2009.

 >You are correct when you pointed out that there was no year
 >"zero". However, virtually all math and bible scholars feel that
 >was an oversight by the Gregorian monk that came up with the
 >system that we use today. Again, from a mathematical standpoint,
 >look at the difference between the year 10 AD and 10 BC.
 >Mathematically, it should be 20 but, in fact, is only 19 because
 >the year "zero" had been left out. Oops!

I also recall that there was some stories about calender
adjustments being done in the dark ages, say between 500 AD and
1700 AD.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 4

               Re: Russian UFO May Have Been Satellite Decay -

From: Todd Lemire <tlemire@home.com>
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 18:17:45 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 12:31:22 -0500
Subject: Re: Russian UFO May Have Been Satellite Decay -


 >From: Alex Persky <alexvi@mail.ru>
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Russian UFO May Have Been Satellite Decay
 >Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 02:57:59 +0200

 >>Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 10:17:38 -0500
 >>From: Todd Lemire <tlemire@home.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Russian UFO May Have Been Satellite Decay

 >>In response to the November 14 UFO report that appeared in
 >>UFOROUNDUP concerning the Russian UFO, of which I've included a
 >>portion of below.

 >>There may be a chance that what was seen was the decay of the
 >>Cosmos 2373 satellite, which is a Kometa mapping satellite. The
 >>deorbit burn was probably around 2230 UTC; the
 >>Vostok/Zenit-style sphere landed near Orenburg in Russia at 2253
 >>UTC, according to Jonathan's Space Report
 >>located at:

 >>http://hea-www.harvard.edu/~jcm/space/jsr/jsr.html

 >>The location and time fit very well and could have easily been
 >>mistaken for the UFO.

 ><snip>

 >>A large luminous UFO flew over Russian troops dug in along the
 >>ridges in Dagestan during the early morning hours of Tuesday,
 >>November 14, 2000.

 >Hi,

 >The location and time of the event does fit indeed but the date
 >doesn't. The UFO sighting happened at 01:45 MSK (Moscow
 >time=UTC+0300) on November 14, it is equal to 22:45 UTC on
 >November 13. "Cosmos-2373" landed at 22:53 UTC on November 14
 >according to JSR.

 >Sincerely,

 >Alex Persky

Hello Alex,

You're exactly right, my mistake. Next time I'll check more
clearly before making any announcements of the sort.


Sincerely,

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 >
   Dec > Dec 4

                Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars' - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 16:23:58 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 13:11:24 -0500
Subject: Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars' - Hatch


 >From: UFO UpDates - Toronto
 >Source: The London Sunday Times
 >http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/2000/12/03/stifgnnws01001.html

 >December 3 2000

 >WORLD

 >Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars

 >NASA scientists have discovered ancient sea or lake beds on the
 >surface of Mars that could once have harboured life, writes
 >Jonathan Leake.

 >The discovery is among the most significant concerning Mars so
 >far, because such places are the most likely locations for
 >fossils or other signs of past life.

 >NASA will announce the discovery in this week's edition of
 >Science with the suggestion that the next generation of Mars
 >landings should be sent to such areas.

 >This weekend a British group building a craft bound for Mars
 >said it was already considering rerouting its vehicle, Beagle
 >II, to land in the middle of one of the newly discovered sea
 >beds.

 >Professor Colin Pillinger, an astronomer at the Open University
 >who heads the Beagle II project, will also announce that he has
 >raised the full �30m needed for the British mission.

 >He has just been offered �9m by the European Space Agency, with
 >the rest coming from commercial sponsors. "We will launch in
 >June 2003 and hope to land on Mars on Boxing Day," he said.

 >The NASA discovery is based on images taken by Mars Global
 >Surveyor, which has been orbiting the red planet for more than a
 >year.

 >It is said to have sent back detailed pictures of rocks that
 >could only have been created by sedimentation, in which
 >particles sink to a sea bed and are compressed into rock.

 >-----

 >Copyright 2000 Times Newspapers Ltd. This service is provided on
 >Times Newspapers' standard terms and conditions.


Hello All:

A British Mars lander mission? Beagle II?  That's news to me.
Something like this should have made the news before this.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 4

                   Re: Phil Klass - Sleeping? - Goldstein

From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 01:38:42 +0100
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 13:14:57 -0500
Subject: Re: Phil Klass - Sleeping? - Goldstein


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Phil Klass - Sleeping?
 >Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 11:51:09 -0600

 >>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 23:34:10 EST
 >>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Phil Klass - Sleeping?
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
 >>>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Phil Klass - Sleeping?
 >>>Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 14:54:42 -0800

 >Robert and Royce,

 >>>Wondering if anyone out there has a photo of Klass when he was
 >>>sleeping during, I believe, a MUFON Symposium?

 >>As I recall he loudly claimed he wasn't sleeping.  Needless to
 >>say after I saw the photo, I was skeptical of the
 >>claim............ :)

 >I think you've forgotten your Klasslogic, Robert. How do you
 >know the photo wasn't faked? In fact, we know that any photo
 >that depicts something that Klass doesn't want to accept is, by
 >definition, a hoax. So there.

 >Jerry Clark


Robert, Royce, and Jerry,

You are all missing the point. Of course Phil Klass would deny
he was sleeping. He is, after all, by hobby, a debunker. We all
know now that photos or videos can be faked. But witness
testimony is better evidence. I was there and I heard a little
snore come from him. Can anyone else confirm this? I also heard
from his office that due to his falling asleep on his job that
they are seriously considering renaming the magazine Aviation
Week and Snore Technology.

Josh
(The Sleeping Prophet)









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 4

              Re: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I -

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 17:34:58 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 13:19:16 -0500
Subject: Re: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I -


 >From: Daniel Muoz <Ovnimexico1@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 10:19:40 EST
 >Subject: Re: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >Dear Larry, Errol and List,

 >Do you have a copy of that letter to be sure of that, Larry?
 >Have you really followed this case or just the comments on this
 >case? Have you even been here in Mexico to meet the witnesses?
 >Again and again, my friends, too many comments with no support
 >in real facts... Please stop this, and limitate to say the
 >things that you are in measure to demonstrate!

 >The person who brought us the tape and the letter in fact,
 >signed it with another name. No nameless or anonymous. And he
 >brought us to our TV station to be spread, due to its
 >importance... We did not know nothing on those facts, but other
 >communicators did. I mean, the very professional journalists
 >that flies on helicopters every day to inform us on the traffic
 >on our City. They received that day indications from their
 >headquarters to be in the area of the sightings because of the
 >reports people made regarding a big strange object hovering the
 >skies... So, for you, what came first, witnesses or video? For
 >me, the facts, even before, and contemporarily, the video and
 >the eye witnesses...

 >Also in the case of JFK the facts came first (but even before
 >the complot), and at the very same time, footage and eye
 >witnesses... Didn't they? And even now, there is no a real
 >answer on this case, much more important for you americans than
 >the Las Lomas Video... So, I cannot wait for a total acceptance
 >of this clip... What I could expect from you all, is a little
 >more of seriousness in making comments that motivates what we
 >are seeing in this List regarding this and too many other
 >cases... I supposed you were investigators, not judges... I hope
 >I can read something more intelligent in the coming days, when
 >I'll be back from Colombia, to make another investigation...

 >The very best for all of you, Listers.


Hello Daniel:

You are right that I am responding to what was posted on this
List. I have neither the time nor the resources to go to Mexico
City and try to track this down.

Investigators there have that advantage.

For what it is worth, I quote from the translation made by Jim
Deardorff of an article originally written in German, by
Hesemann:


" On Sept. 26, 1997, Jaime Maussan received a very
  special package. Someone had sent him a video tape, in
  itself nothing remarkable. But when he played the tape on
  his video recorder, it took his breath away. For the
  anonymously sent recording showed nothing but points of
  light and sky - except for a large, metallic, structured,
  rotating disk, which maneuvered in broad daylight over
  Mexico City, with a dateline of 6 August 1997 - and
  disappeared behind a high-rise building and reappeared,
  which speaks clearly for it being a large object.

  Enclosed with it was only a note, which read, "We know
  what happens to witnesses, if they go public with something
  like this." Maussan's first reaction was, "This is a
  fake;  it can't be real!" (end quote).

- - - -

Note the words "anonymously sent"... and the enclosed note
saying "We know what happens to witnesses, if they go public
with something like this."

Granted, this is all 3rd or 4rth hand, filtered through at least
two translations Spanish ==>German ==>English and thus
questionable.

If these statements are wholly or partly wrong, it would be best
to contact Deardorff and/or Hesemann for corrections or
explanations. I'm sure many of us would like those matters
straightened out.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 4

                      Re: Mexico City Video - Goldstein

From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 02:44:07 +0100
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 13:21:58 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Goldstein


 >From: Charles Chapman <charlesrc@earthlink.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Mexico City Video
 >Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 06:59:47 -0800

 >>Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 12:55:40 -0800
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Mexico City Video

 >>>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

 ><snip>

 >>>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.

 >After remaining relatively quiet for at least a little while :),
 >reading over the posts, and thinking about things a bit, I've
 >come to the tentative conclusion that perhaps the most important
 >thing about the aliens is not what they can do, but instead what
 >they can't do, or apparently can't do, or those specific things
 >for which we have no evidence (to my limited knowledge) that
 >they can do. It is those apparent limitations that make them
 >less than the functional equivalent of Gods, relative to us, at
 >this time (even if they were the functional equivalent of Gods
 >relative to us at some earlier time). In their apparent
 >limitations lies our hope, if any, of verifying their existence.
 >It is in their apparent limitations that we might come up with
 >some sort of falsifiable hypothesis.

<snip>

 >Could we, with respect to the aliens, do as well as a monkeys do
 >with us?

Hello Charles,

You have made interesting observations but they are pure
speculation. Anyone can speculate anything at any time. Do you
think the aliens are capable of doing that? I just wish on this
list that there was more evidence based logical reasoning, a lot
less speculating, and a lot less emotional rants.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 4

                Major Mars Discovery To Be Announced _Today_

From: Donald Savage <NASANews@hq.nasa.gov>
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 13:10:20 -0500 (EST)
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 13:31:27 -0500
Subject: Major Mars Discovery To Be Announced _Today_


Donald Savage
Headquarters, Washington, DC                 December 4, 2000
(Phone:  202/358-1727)

Mary Hardin
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
(Phone:  818/354-0344)

NOTE TO EDITORS:  N00-59

MAJOR MARS DISCOVERY TO BE ANNOUNCED TODAY IN PRESS BRIEFING

      Imaging scientists Dr. Michael Malin and Dr. Ken Edgett from
NASA's Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft will present what they
describe as their most significant discovery yet at a press
briefing today from 4:00 to 4:45 p.m. EST.

The briefing will be held at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory,
Pasadena, CA, and broadcast live on NASA Television (NTV). NTV is
available on the GE-2 satellite, transponder 9C, at 85 degrees
West longitude, frequency 3880.0 MHz, audio 6.8 MHz. Reporters
will be able to ask questions if they cover the briefing from
participating NASA centers.

Participants will be:
* Dr. Michael Malin, principal investigator, Mars Orbiter Camera
on NASA's Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft, at Malin Space Science
Systems (MSSS), San Diego, CA
* Dr. Ken Edgett, staff scientist at MSSS
* Dr. Jim Garvin, Mars Exploration Program Scientist at NASA
Headquarters.

Images will be available at the time of the briefing on the
Internet at:

               http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs

                                - end -


                             * * *

NASA press releases and other information are available automatically
by sending an Internet electronic mail message to domo@hq.nasa.gov.
In the body of the message (not the subject line) users should type
the words "subscribe press-release" (no quotes).  The system will
reply with a confirmation via E-mail of each subscription.  A second
automatic message will include additional information on the service.
NASA releases also are available via CompuServe using the command
GO NASA.  To unsubscribe from this mailing list, address an E-mail
message to domo@hq.nasa.gov, leave the subject blank, and type only
"unsubscribe press-release" (no quotes) in the body of the message.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 4

               Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 17:49:37 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 13:34:37 -0500
Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Hatch


 >Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 15:17:54 +0000
 >From: Dave Bowden <grafikfx@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark?

 >>Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 08:57:25 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark?

 >>>Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 22:04:47 -0600
 >>>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>>Subject: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark?
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>>From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >>>>Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 16:01:20 +0000
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark?

 >><snip>

 >>>You mention about how you were "attacked" here on UpDates and
 >>>about all the "ranting" from skeptics regarding this footage.
 >>>Maybe I missed it while out of town on a film shoot, but could
 >>>you please point out the specific posts from the archives where
 >>>this abuse took place?

 >>>I'm not saying that I don't believe you. I just don't recall it.
 >>>I feel this is an important issue, since there seems to be only
 >>>a handful of people that take part on this List and I'd really
 >>>like to see how many of them are as negative as you guys claim.

 >>>It is my position that the majority of the people on this List,
 >>>including me, believe in the existence of ET life. To listen to
 >>>you and John and Michel and Deardorff and Gates and Clark and
 >>>(sometimes) Mortellaro, _nobody_ on this List believes in it other
 >>>than you. I really don't think it is as bad as you think it is,
 >>>as far as this List goes.

 >>>I look forward to the video.

 >>A little point is being missed here.

 >>Unless I am sadly mistaken (which is easily possible) the recent
 >>footage from Britain was _not_ ignored at all, but totally
 >>trashed by virtually every British ufologist worthy of the name.
 >
 >Seems like you're getting your lines crossed here Larry, the
 >recent footage from Britain that was trashed by virtually every
 >British ufologist sounds more like the Cheshire footage.

 >In contrast, Chris's footage has been seen at various
 >conferences and no such trashing has happened.

 >>IF this is the case, it is easy to imagine somebody trying to
 >>pique interest in this continent, having failed miserably in in
 >>another, especially if they have a warehouse full of unsold
 >>video CDs..

 >Sorry to keep correcting you Larry but this is NOT the case.
 >A warehouse full of unsold video CDs?

 >I don't know where that's coming from!

 >Perhaps you were confused by my offer to transfer video footage
 >in .avi format to CD for anyone interested (no charge I might
 >add).

 >If you know of a more efficient way to get 400 meg of data to
 >the folks then let me know.

 >This offer was made purely for research.

 >It's not a case of buy one get one free as you seem to be
 >saying, there is no business deal going on or contracts being
 >signed, it's simply footage presented to any who might be
 >interested.

 >>I hate to say this, but I suspect that somebody thinks we _all_
 >>fell off de turnip truck.

 >Well I for one am sorry to hear you think along those lines.

 >Oh well,


Hello Dave:

Ouchh!! Now that you mention the Cheshire video,
a few bells rang. It looks like I definitely got my
wires crossed on this one.

Looking back through old e-mails, I find a long and rather
bitter exchange about the Cheshire video, including this
snippet:

  "Firstly, because there seems no way to our eyes that such
  an interpretation is justified in terms of the quality of
  both the film and the case.  Indeed it is at best a routine
  incident which has a probability to be resolved and no
  particular claim to being good scientific evidence.

  Secondly, there has been a well planned publicity drive
  that  has marketed this footage to the UFO community around
  the world and to a vast media reaction in the UK. Indeed this
  has become the most hyped case in Britain for many years,
  with normally sensible media covering it in rather
  embarrassing fashion."  [ Jenny Randles ]

I apparently confused two unrelated matters, and offer my
sincere apologies!


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 >
   Dec > Dec 4

                      Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 18:04:20 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 13:36:11 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Deardorff


 >From: Charles Chapman <charlesrc@earthlink.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Mexico City Video
 >Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 06:59:47 -0800

 >>Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 12:55:40 -0800
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Mexico City Video

 >>>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

 >>>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.

 >After remaining relatively quiet for at least a little while :),
 >reading over the posts, and thinking about things a bit, I've
 >come to the tentative conclusion that perhaps the most important
 >thing about the aliens is not what they can do, but instead what
 >they can't do, or apparently can't do, or those specific things
 >for which we have no evidence (to my limited knowledge) that
 >they can do. It is those apparent limitations that make them
 >less than the functional equivalent of Gods, relative to us, at
 >this time (even if they were the functional equivalent of Gods
 >relative to us at some earlier time). In their apparent
 >limitations lies our hope, if any, of verifying their existence.
 >It is in their apparent limitations that we might come up with
 >some sort of falsifiable hypothesis.

 >I've come up with some examples of what I believe _may_ be the
 >limitations on their powers and abilities. I'm curious what
 >people think about whether my broad observations are: (a)
 >accurate; and (b) useful in some way.

 >1. It appears aliens travel in, and thus apparently need, ships
 >or craft of some kind. They do not simply pop in directly from
 >an alternate universe or beam in directly from a distant planet.

<snip>

Charles,

I think we must agree that we have no evidence that your 1.) is
violated.

 >2. The aliens ships (and indeed the aliens themselves) must, at
 >least sometimes, for some purposes, be visible - i.e., to human
 >sight, radar and/or electromagnetically (e.g., car stop cases).

This seems to be true, because of the qualifier "for some
purposes."

 >For the aliens to fulfill their purposes, neither they nor their
 >ships can remain invisible at all times.

This is a simple truism if one of their purposes is to let
themselves be known to us (though in a covert manner).

 >Again, I am
 >unfortunately reminded of a Star Trek analogy. The Klingons
 >could cloak their ships, but had to uncloak and become visible
 >(with the exception of one movie or episode) in order to fire.
 >Similarly, our alleged aliens travel in ships that can be seen,
 >and are visible when they abduct people. ...

Their ships are sometimes not seen by the abductee or other
witness from the outside, however.

 >3. The aliens have a limited ability to control human thoughts
 >and erase and/or screen memories. Abductees remember, sometimes
 >without hypnosis, sometimes with hypnosis.

Again, if one of the aliens' purposes is to let us know of their
presence, though in a covert manner, then much or perhaps most
of the apparent limitation you mention here is but part of
purposeful procedures. So, I wouldn't want to make the
assumption that the aliens don't have any such purposes in mind.
As you know, many abductees only recall their abductions years
later, and/or at first fragmentally, and may fail later under
hypnotic regression to recall the most scary parts of their
abductions. This could be due to a purposeful level of memory
suppression that is not complete. This is certainly a prominent
possibility, whose purpose could be to reduce the abductee's
level of trauma, and/or to have the abductee's awareness of the
events not occur until later years when we, the public, may be
more used to hearing about it.

 >While the abductee
 >and those close to him are paralyzed and controlled, the aliens
 >do not apparently stop time for, or freeze, everyone in the
 >world except the abductee, or even everyone in his town.

Again, if one of their goals is to keep their existence and
presence covered up from society as a whole until some future
time of their choosing, then they would not act in an overt
manner that could alert whole communities at once to their
presence.

 >I've just thought of another analogy, not to science fiction,
 >but to fact. It is well known that researchers who work with
 >monkeys, baboons and other primates sometimes have their keys
 >stolen, the treat taken away prematurely, have feces thrown at
 >them, are bitten, or otherwise tricked - outsmarted - by their
 >intellectually inferior subjects. The researcher get complacent,
 >or lazy, or underestimate the intelligence of their subjects,
 >and are surprised. The primate subjects may be intellectually
 >inferior, but they have time to plan, and really, really want
 >those keys.
 >
 >Could we, with respect to the aliens, do as well as a monkeys do
 >with us?

That sounds reasonable to me. There's at least one abduction
event on record wherein the abductee was able to keep moving
around enough to vigorously swat one of the aliens.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 4

                Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars' - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 18:18:19 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 13:38:09 -0500
Subject: Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars' - Hatch


 >Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 12:43:51 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars'
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Tim Haley <TimHaley@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 11:07:49 EST
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars' - Haley

 >Previously, it was posted:

 >>>NASA scientists have discovered ancient sea or lake beds on the
 >>>surface of Mars that could once have harboured life, writes
 >>>Jonathan Leake.

 >>>The discovery is among the most significant concerning Mars so
 >>>far, because such places are the most likely locations for
 >>>fossils or other signs of past life.

 >>I realize that I am probably in the minority in my opinion but I
 >>think NASA is way off the mark on this one. A planet with the
 >>mass of Mars could never have supported an atmosphere dense
 >>enough to allow liquid water to exist long enough to form seas
 >>and rivers.

 >This is not my field of expertise, but I understand your point
 >regarding mass. I have a question. Can the mass of a planet like
 >Mars change over millions of years?

 >For instance, the human body is mosty water. If you remove that
 >water, the total body weight and mass changes dramatically. Is
 >it possible that could have happened to Mars, as well? If all
 >the surface and subsurface water dried up over time, would that
 >not affect the total mass of the planet without changing its
 >size? And if so, to what degree?

 >I may be in over my head, here. Just a thought...


Hello Roger:

I'm no expert at planetary physics either. Regardless, it seems
to me that any changes to the mass of Mars ( or Earth for that
matter ) would be slow and very very small in percentage terms.

A planet gains mass every time a meteorite falls. A planet loses
mass if some of its water becomes disassociated into hydrogen
and oxygen, and those elements are blown away by solar
radiation. To some degree, those effects could cancel each other
out.

It would appear that liquid water did indeed exist at some point
in the past at least, and the Malin images seem to indicate that
this could have been relatively recently. I believe they
speculated that _some_ water might even be present today,
possibly trapped under the surface as ice.

Given that, an ancient sea bed, at least a smallish one, is not
ruled out for the present. We still don't know what the NASA
revelations will be, that comes this Thursday.

If indeed we are seeing ancient water courses, they must have
run to some terminus, a low point in the terrain where there is
no place else to go. This could have been a puddle, a sink, a
briny lake .. perhaps even an ancient sea.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 4

               Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars' - Fleming

From: Lan Fleming <apollo18@swbell.net>
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 20:21:56 -0600
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 13:39:05 -0500
Subject: Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars' - Fleming


 >From: Tim Haley <TimHaley@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 11:07:49 EST
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars' - Haley


 >I realize that I am probably in the minority in my opinion but I
 >think NASA is way off the mark on this one. A planet with the
 >mass of Mars could never have supported an atmosphere dense
 >enough to allow liquid water to exist long enough to form seas
 >and rivers.

That isn't so. A smaller planet would tend to lose its
atmosphere more quickly, but as long as there are internal or
surface processes that produce gases at a rate high enough to
replace air molecules escaping into space, even the Earth's Moon
could sustain a significant atmosphere indefinitely.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 4

              Re: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I -

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 23:07:41 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 13:41:29 -0500
Subject: Re: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I -


 >From: Daniel Muoz <Ovnimexico1@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 10:19:40 EST
 >Subject: Re: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 03:00:47 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 12:19:53 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 10:30:34 -0800
 >>>To: UFO UpDates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >>>Subject: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I

 >>Thank you, for this valuable answer to the question of
 >>whether the UFO video broadcast came first or whether the
 >>witnesses' stories of the UFO came first. It seems that the
 >>UFO video broadcast came first, _twice_, before any witnesses
 >>_independently_ surfaced.

 >Do you have a copy of that letter to be sure of that, Larry?
 >Have you really followed this case or just the comments on this
 >case? Have you even been here in Mexico to meet the witnesses?
 >Again and again, my friends, too many comments with no support
 >in real facts... Please stop this, and limitate to say the
 >things that you are in measure to demonstrate!

Dear Daniel Muoz, List:

OK. We can only base our comments upon the information we have
at hand. Since you are an on the scene investigator, you are
just the man from whom we are eager to hear.

Are we to assume then that Hesemann's write up in in error, or
just the translation? I'm sure that Jim doesn't want to spend
his time, nor do we, on an unreliable source.

 >The person who brought us the tape and the letter in fact,
 >signed it with another name. No nameless or anonymous.

But still evidence of fraud, because a false name was used?

 >And he brought us to our TV station to be spread, due to its
 >importance... We did not know nothing on those facts, but other
 >communicators did. I mean, the very professional journalists
 >that flies on helicopters every day to inform us on the traffic
 >on our City. They received that day indications from their
 >headquarters to be in the area of the sightings because of the
 >reports people made regarding a big strange object hovering the
 >skies...

Did these helicopter traffic reporters see the UFO?

Which witness accounts were known to investigators prior to the
broadcast of the video? That's really what many of us are
asking? What is, in your opinion, the most authoritative account
or report of the incident?


Clear skies,

Bob Young







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 4

                Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars' - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 23:22:25 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 13:45:42 -0500
Subject: Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars' - Young


 >Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 12:43:51 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars'
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Tim Haley <TimHaley@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 11:07:49 EST
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars' - Haley

 >>I realize that I am probably in the minority in my opinion but I
 >>think NASA is way off the mark on this one. A planet with the
 >>mass of Mars could never have supported an atmosphere dense
 >>enough to allow liquid water to exist long enough to form seas
 >>and rivers.

 >This is not my field of expertise, but I understand your point
 >regarding mass. I have a question. Can the mass of a planet like
 >Mars change over millions of years?

<snip>

 >If all the surface and subsurface water dried up over time,
 >would that not affect the total mass of the planet without
 >changing its size? And if so, to what degree?

Roger, Tim, List:

I guess this would happen, Roger, but the mass involved would be
a small fraction of the total mass of the planet. There is a
lot of thinking that much of the putative water which was on
Mars might be locked up in permafrost -- frozen. Also, Mars has
much more iron in its crust than the Earth. The O in the H2 O
presumably has bound with the Iron (Fe) in the rocks, and the H
was lost slowly from the atmosphere into space. In fact, it is
this Iron Oxide which gives Mars its orange color, the planet is
rusting away.

Also, there may be periods of melting of the permafrost,
which would allow large amounts of water on the surface,
periodically. While Mars now has a tilt of about 25%, close
to the Earth's tilt of 23%, there are great changes in the
tilt of Mars over a couple million years, which would create
great climate change.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 4

                     Re: Calling Jaime Maussan! - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 13:43:09 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 13:47:09 -0500
Subject: Re:  Calling Jaime Maussan! - Velez

 >Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 14:46:21 -0800
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >Subject: Re: Calling Jaime Maussan!

 >>Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 02:52:34 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Calling Jaime Maussan!

 >>>From: Daniel Muoz <Ovnimexico1@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 09:48:54 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: Calling Jaime Maussan!
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>If _you_ are the man to speak to then let's talk! If you would be
 >>kind enough to put up with a small barrage of questions from
 >>those of us on this side of the border, I know there are many
 >>who wish to more about the 'details' surrounding the witness
 >>testimony and how it was obtained. If you need any help
 >>translating any relevant parts/quotations of witness testimony
 >>from Spanish to English, I will be glad to help in any way that
 >>I can. All I care about is learnig as much of the truth of this
 >>case as I can. I'm certain I speak for my Listmates as well.

 >Daniel Munoz sent me his write-up of his and Jaime's
 >investigation of the Mexico City witnesses to the Aug. 6, 1977
 >event, and I'm waiting to hear back from a potential translator
 >to set it into English. If he can't come through with it, you're
 >next on my list! Thanks for volunteering.

Hiya Jim,

As Gilda Radner used to say, "Never mind." <LOL> I'm already
working on it!

When you mentioned receiving an e-mail from Daniel Munoz I
recalled that had he had sent me an e-mail about a week ago. I
thought he had sent me a copy of his posting to UFO UpDates as
an FYI. After I read your post I went back and reread the one
from Daniel and sure enough there was a "Word Perfect"
attachment! I have begun the translation. The second it id
finished I'll post it to the List. Hang in there, it's on the
way!

John Velez, Translator to the "Stars"!  ;)

******************************************************
                     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 >
   Dec > Dec 4

                Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 00:01:30 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 13:48:50 -0500
Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Velez


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 22:52:55 EST
 >Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 12:52:52 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 15:46:48 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>>Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 14:51:50 -0500
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?

 >>><snip>

 >>Hiya Bob, I meant 'analysed' the original images on tape or
 >>film.....

 >Hi John, Bob & List,

 >We need more than just the original tape or film in order to
 >properly analyze it. We need camera performance data and
 >sighting data, i.e., date, time, location, direction(s) of
 >photography, elevation angles, zoom, aperture, shutter speed (as
 >applicable), focus, film type and speed (as applicable), etc.

 >It has often been said that ufology is stuck in the 50's.
 >Ufology in the 50's was characterized by a lack of standards in
 >investigation and almost zero scientific analysis. The efforts
 >by Vallee, Hynek, McDonald and others in the 60's helped bring
 >UFOlogy out of the dark ages, but it seems on this list that
 >those lessons are still to be learned and a vast waste of time
 >and energy is spent on matters that should have been settled by
 >Vallee's books in 1965 and 1966 and Hynek's in 1972. Vallee's
 >classic Anatomy of a Phenomenon in 1965 and Challenge to Science
 >in 1966 established that the most fundamental data about a UFO
 >report is its location in space and time, i.e., date, time, and
 >geographic location.

Hello Brad,

If you are seriously interested in looking into the sightings I
have reported, contact me privately at my e-mail address and
we'll talk. You can post your findings/opinions to the List when
you have completed gathering all the onfo you need.

I'm not a "trained investigator" Brad. I honestly can't answer
many of the more technical questions you're asking only because
I didn't know I was supposed to be paying attention to certain
of the many details you have raised. I'm just busy taking it in
and trying to record it when these things happen, and I happen
to have a camera handy.

I will work with you and answer as many of your inquiries as I
am able. It'll be educational for me. If/when it happens again
I'll know what to look for and how to keep 'good' records. In
the meantime I have a lot of stuff we can get into if you wish.

Contact me and we'll go from there.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 4

                Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 00:54:42 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 13:50:26 -0500
Subject: Re:  Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Young


 >Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 02:08:15 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?

<snip>

 >>Thanks. I enlarged it 800% and it has a horizontal to vertical
 >>size ratio of 5:4, with the bright image tapering off to the
 >>left, and a dark appendage to its left. Looks like it might be
 >>the vertical tail surface of an aircraft. There really isn't
 >>much detail to go on.

 >Where have you ever seen a spherical airplane Bob?

As I explained, John, it sure doesn't look "spherical" to me.
But, a bright specular reflection could look that way if one is
not looking at it closely or at enough magnification.

 >Yes, I too noticed the dark areas. But if you look closely, the
 >dark part(s) (there are two of them) appear as a darkened shadow
 >at the very edges of the sphere. (Top and sides) It looks like a
 >distortion of the air 'around the object' rather than an
 >appendage. Let's see if anybody else took a close look at it and
 >shares an opinion. I vote for 'distortion of the air' and your
 >vote is in for an 'appendage.'

Yes, I would be very interested in somebody else's comments,
too.

 >How did this object disappear? Did you get an image when it was
 >moving away? Maybe it changed its aspect.

<snip>

 >I can post some single frames of when it is passing the vent
 >stack on my roof and as it approaches the edge of the roof if
 >you like.

That would be great. Also, check out Brad Spark's thoughts on
additional info which is needed to really rule out everything
mundane.

 >>How many of these have you observed or taped?

 >Observed: probably better than two dozen sightings in about 5
 >years. Taped: nine events in the same span of time.

 >On one occasion I counted 15 of these 'things' up there
 >(including a much larger, all-white, boomerang shaped object)
at >one time, all located in one section of the sky off to my
South. >This was back in 1997, in broad daylight/clear skies.
Some were >stationary, (but jittering slightly/'nervously' from
side to >side ever so slightly. Like they were vibrating while
 >maintaining position) others were buzzing in and out of the
area >leaving and then rejoining the main 'group'. The whole
thing >lasted about 45 minutes. That was the day I saw three of
them >come together to create a perfect triangle formation which
then >began to rotate (clockwise) slowly without the objects
losing >formation. I'm telling you man, "balloons" and "birds"
don't >move and manouver the way these things do.

Please don't take this except as it is intended: but, how did
you determine that birds, perhaps seagulls seen at a great
distance, don't behave like that?  (I am not proposing
pelicans).

I once had a sighting here that I investigated and after
checking with the State Game Commission, I learned that the
motions observed were just like that of birds, and that the
birds in question, geese, were actually quite commen around
here, year round, which was not what I thought before I checked.

 >Hard to say. I assume that you know the wind directions at
 >various heights that day? What was the date, time of day and
 >location of this sighting?

 >August 1998 at 3:34 PM. Ozone Park, Queens, New York. I am about
 >a half mile away from Jamaica Bay, (South Shore of Queens) and 1
 >1/2 miles from Kennedy airport. Airplanes are _always_ easy to
 >identify because they are usually in the process of landing or
 >taking off when I see them. They are low, in fairly close
 >proximity, and noisy as all get out. Even when you can't see em,
 >you can sure as hell hear em! Those other things I record are
 >dead silent. I have no idea what the wind speed was above ground
 >level that day. It was a nice, warm, fairly windless, summer
 >day.

Thanks for the info.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 4

                     Re: Phil Klass - Sleeping? - Myers

From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 20:54:00 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 13:52:21 -0500
Subject: Re: Phil Klass - Sleeping? - Myers


 >Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 12:38:17 -0600
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Bruce Wright <magnus@io.com>
 >Subject: Re: Phil Klass - Sleeping?

 >>Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 09:32:16 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Phil Klass - Sleeping?
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>>Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 11:51:09 -0600
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Re: Phil Klass - Sleeping? - Clark

 >>>>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>>>Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 23:34:10 EST
 >>>>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Phil Klass - Sleeping?
 >>>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>I think you've forgotten your Klasslogic, Robert. How do you
 >>>know the photo wasn't faked? In fact, we know that any photo
 >>>that depicts something that Klass doesn't want to accept is, by
 >>>definition, a hoax. So there.

 >>Good point, Jerry! I think the people at MUFON were witness to, yet,
 >>another "Klass Act" (not to be confused with the more flattering "class
 >>act") Since he seems to not believe in ET life, I wonder why in the
 >>world he even bothers to go to a MUFON Symposium?

 >For the sheer joy of feeling himself to be in the right, of
 >course. At the end of the day this is, of course, the emotional
 >engine driving most "skeptical" ufology, though one must never
 >acknowledge this, oh my no.


By the way, thanks to that certain person for pointing out to me
that the photo appeared in Saucer Smear. Someone told me the
story long ago that Klass had fallen asleep and had a tape
recorder going so he wouldn't miss the lecture he was snoozing
through. Apparenlty someone doing security for the event told
Klass he could not record any of the lectures and there was some
kind of arguement. This all I remember hearing about the
incident. Any other good stories or accounts out there? Also,
any good nominations for UFO Dirtbag of the Month for December?
By the way, I was already nominated - so save your vote...

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 >
   Dec > Dec 4

               Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars' - Liddle

From: Sean Liddle <gortrix@kos.net>
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 09:19:07 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 13:54:10 -0500
Subject: Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars' - Liddle


At 01:34 PM 03/12/00, you wrote:
 >From: Tim Haley <TimHaley@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 11:07:49 EST
 >Subject: Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars'
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >I realize that I am probably in the minority in my opinion but I
 >think NASA is way off the mark on this one. A planet with the
 >mass of Mars could never have supported an atmosphere dense
 >enough to allow liquid water to exist long enough to form seas
 >and rivers.

You forget about the planet wide destruction theoretically caused
by the meteor impact which purportedly caused the Tharsis Bulge
and would have not only blown off a great deal of matter (some of
which could have become Phobos and Diemos) and also any
significant atmosphere that would have existed. The current
atmosphere would have come from CO2 and other gases trapped in
subsurface magma etc.. When it was released it would further
have reduced the mass of the planet.

 >I believe all this
 >posturing by NASA is a propaganda tool to justify funding for
 >planetary exploration.

And that is a waste of money? Well, as a scientist, I assure you
that due to the inherent tunnel vision and cheapness of the
average taxpayer, we need spectacular discoveries to convince
politicians to spend tax money on sensible explorations. Without
sensation, we stagnate and keep wasting money on some of the
more useless shuttle missions that could be performed much more
efficiently by robotic devices.

 >Not that I am against planetary exploration. I just think that
 >NASA's interpretation of their observations should be considered
 >speculative at this point and not reported as fact.

But that is the way science works, idea-hypothesis-theory-fact,
it all depends on the amount of evidence.

 >It is curious to me that NASA so readily debunked the idea of
 >artificial structures in Cydonia and yet accepts the idea of sea
 >beds. Both are conclusions drawn by observations and appear to
 >be examples where the facts are forced to fit someone's
 >predetermined perception of what Mars is. This behavior
 >certainly isn't what science is all about.

Well, yes it is. The evidence for humongous structures that
would have survived planet wide destruction due to impact,
weathering, and frost heaving is minimal. A few photos that up
close are unconvincing and at differing Angles look totally
different than the assumptions made by proponents.

Please believe me, I want to believe in a race that inhabited
Mars eons ago, but if they were that advanced, why didn' t they
just invade earth and wipe us all out (or use us as food
mmmmmmm!) when they realized their planet was soon to be toast?








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 4

              Re: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I -

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 09:38:50 -0600
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 13:59:03 -0500
Subject: Re: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I -


 >From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 16:03:25 EST
 >Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 08:51:49 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I -


 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 13:35:35 -0600
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I -

Previously, I wrote:

 >>I agree that a good investigation needs to be done. However, I
 >>am not sure that I can take the word of someone that claims to
 >>have witnessed severe burns and death from electromagnetism. I
 >>can not imagine such a thing.

 >>Plus, if such a thing could
 >>happen, the resulting electromagnetic field would be so
 >>pervasive that videotaping the UFO would be impossible for miles
 >>around!

Dave writes:

 >Unfortunately, Roger, that about sums up your personal approach
 >to this field. If you can't imagine such a thing than it can't
 >be. In this case, not only does your imagination fail you, but
 >so does your grasp of common, everyday human physics.

 >Believe it or not, Roger, human knowledge does not depend on
 >what Roger Evens thinks must be true or not true. You are not
 >the center of mankind's intellectual universe. Sorry to break
 >the news to you.

Hello, Dave!

Well, first off, you need to read the post that this refers to.
In it, Muoz writes:

 >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...

 >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?

But since you clearly did _not_. You write the following:

 >Ever hear of microwave ovens? You could pop a mouse in one and
 >cook it no problem. Believe me, even if you removed the
 >shielding around the oven, the resulting electromagnetic field
 >would _not_ be so "pervasive" that videotaping the event be
 >"impossible for miles and miles around."

<snip>

 >As to effects on the surrounds such as knocking out video
 >cameras, that depends on a large number of factors, such as the
 >actual type of EM field, whether it's focused or unfocussed, and
 >the distance between the camera and the source of radiation.

 >If the radiation is focused, then everything off to the side of
 >the focused beam is unaffected, video cameras included. Shorter
 >wavelength forms of EM radiation such as microwaves and
 >ultraviolet can be easily focused and directed -- and they can
 >burn. No problems there.

Again, _read_ the Munoz post before writing. Obviously if _any_
kind of radiation is focused on a single spot, damage can be
done. Hell, you can do it with a magnifying glass if you want.
But this is clearly not what Munoz wrote! He used the term
"magnetic field"; as in the field that surrounded the ship we
are supposed to be seeing in the contested video. In fact, Munoz
uses his claims as some sort of proof to support the validity of
the video in question. Therefore, everything must be discussed
in that context.

Continuing David wrote:

 >There are also other ways to induce burns in which the EM field
 >effects would not be so easily focussed and in which the EM
 >field would have a greater effect on the surrounds. E.g., a
 >craft could utilize an electrohydrodynamic form of propulsion,
 >involving a very powerful pulsed or oscillating magnetic field
 >and ionized air or plasma around the craft. The changing
 >magnetic field will induce an opposing field in the plasma, and
 >the craft could push off from that.

No one is going to argue with this, since it is something that
is not evident in the video in question. And, of course, this is
the point at hand. You can list a dozen different ways that
radiation can hurt someone, including the one above. However,
for it to apply to the Mexico sighting, you have to reconcile it
with what we see in the video. It goes nowhere near people and,
I may be mistaken, but I have heard no reports of it landing or
of people interacting with it. It certainly doesn't land in the
video, and that's the context of this discussion. We are not
concerned with what MIGHT have happend when the video camera
wasn't shooting.

Therefore, when you write:

 >Unfocussed EM fields fall
 >off quite rapidly. If, e.g., you model the Mexico city "saucer"
 >as a loop of wire 20 feet in radius, then directly above and
 >below this loop, the generated magnetic field will fall off
 >roughly with the cube of the distance relative to the loop
 >radius. By the time you get 2000 feet from the loop, or 100
 >times the loop radius, the field is down by a factor of about 1
 >million.

Then you merely prove my point that any magnetic field
surrounding the ship would not harm the humans observing it due
to falloff.

Further, you write:

 >Now the above falloff is for directly above and below the loop
 >on axis. Off-axis the falloff is even greater. And when you get
 >completely to the side of the loop (which is where the video
 >camera would have been in the Mexico City UFO footage), the
 >falloff in field is proportional to something like the fourth
 >power of distance or more. That means, if you are directly off
 >to the side of this loop by roughly 600 feet, the magnetic field
 >the loop generates also falls off by a factor of at least a
 >million. Thus if the craft utilized a magnetic field a million
 >times stronger than Earth's (around 30 Tesla or about 20 times
 >what they use in MRI imagers), by the time you get a few hundred
 >feet away and off to the side of craft, the magnetic field would
 >be down in the ballpark of the Earth's field strength. Has that
 >ever hampered your videotaping Roger?

No, David, and it has never burned anyone, either, has it? Of
course, THAT is the issue at hand. For your position to be
applicable, here, you have to show that that a pervasive,
surrounding field of the ship would be strong enough to burn
observers on the ground and, yet, not affect electronics within
the same area. Not possible.

Continuing, you wrote:

 >This is a far cry from your royal proclamation that EM effects
 >would be "so pervasive" that videotaping would be wiped out for
 >"miles and miles." Where did you dream that one up?

Please, David, give me a break. Even something as destructive as
a nuclear bomb will produce an EM pulse strong enough to affect
electronics for MILES around the target area without burning
humans at the same time. The last time I looked at the Mexico
City video, I noticed no mushroom clouds within the frame. Are
you suggesting that the ship is putting out an electromagnetic
field stronger than that created by a nuclear bomb? It would
have to be to burn people, don't you think? And a field strong
enough to burn the people would also affect electronics, now
wouldn't it?

Moving on, I wrote:

 >>How can he reconcile one against the other? You can't
 >>have both unless you buy into Deardorff's "alien magic".

David writes:

 >Maybe you should take an elementary college physics course
 >Roger. The two are easily reconciliable.

Only if you ignore the issues at hand, David. Again, we are
talking about a magnetic field that is supposedly strong enough
to burn observers on the ground but not affect electronics
within the same area. You have provided not one piece of
evidence that this is possible. In fact, quite the opposite. You
have proven that any field would have tremendous falloff and
would neither hurt people nor hamper electronics; my point
entirely.

Lest you forget, Munoz stated that people were killed by the
elecromagetic field surrounding the ship. He even said some were
burned by it. And, most importantly, he uses this claim as some
sort of proof that validates the video. THAT is the issue at
hand, not your personal beef with me or unrelated positions
regarding applications of electromagnetism not even in evidence.

Regarding such, David wrote:

 >Your basic problem is that you respond without regard to whether
 >your proclamations have any basis in fact or not. I have also
 >seen this behavior at work in your discussions of the Trent
 >photos, which display similar ignorance of basic physics.

David. Please point out one, single thing from the archives
where my technical position, in relation to the issues at hand,
was provably incorrect. In return, I'll do the same for you. In
fact, I just did with this post! Regarding Trent, your positions
on the technical analysis is _totally_ dependent on assumptions
since there are no baselines for comparisons. (If you want to
start up on Trent again, I'll be happy to oblige. Just start up
another thread and see what EBK says about it.)

 >That being said, it doesn't mean that the Mexico City video is
 >genuine. It just means that your nave, handwaving objection to
 >it is complete rubbish.

Rubbish? It would seem not. Again, you seem to have a person
grudge that overtakes your own common sense, David. None of my
technical positions have ever been disproved by you and,
frankly, I think that pisses you off. On the other hand, you own
responses are almost always skewed due to personal bias either
about the subject matter or, quite often, about me.

Very scientific.

Finally, I wrote:

 >>Regarding the "witnesses", isn't it true that the witnesses came
 >>forward after the video was released? Also, isn't it possible
 >>that while the sighting might be legit, the video is not? As I
 >>have pointed out before, witness testimony has to be validated.
 >>However, a bogus video does nothing to support the claims of
 >>witnesses, especially if they came forward _after_ the video was
 >>released.

David replied:

 >I actually agree with you here, believe it or not.
 >Irregularities in the video originally detected by Jeff Saino
 >are much more likely to be explained by a hoax than orchestrated
 >"alien magic" or deception.

Great!

So, let's see if we can sum this up:

I take the position that no electromagnetic field can be strong
enough to kill humans yet not affect electronics in the same
area.

Your post reveals that said electromagnetic field would, indeed,
fall off to the point of being harmless to observers. And, of
course, you have pointed out that said magnetic field would not
affect electronics in the surrounding area. You did point out
that radiation of any type can be focused and do harm without
affecting electronics, but this doesn't apply here since that
doesn't constitute a "field" surrounding the ship, but a more of
a focused beam.

In the end, it would seem that you and I are saying the same
thing, David. Unless, of course, you can explain how a
surrounding magnetic field can be strong enough to kill people
at the distance seen on the video without affecting electronics
in the same area.

On the surface, you seem like an intelligent man, David. Why
must we be at such odds, all the time? I have no personal beef
with you. Chill, dude.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 4

                Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability? -

From: Chris Rutkowski <rutkows@cc.UManitoba.CA>
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 10:56:59 -0600 (CST)
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 14:01:07 -0500
Subject: Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability? -

 >From: Charles Chapman <charlesrc@earthlink.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability?
 >Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 06:48:19 -0800

Charles Chapman asked:

 >I would like to ask the Ufologists on this List a question or
 >two regarding their reasoning and the analytical tools they use.
 >The first is whether they use, and/or find useful, the doctrine
 >or concept of falsifiability.

 >Please understand, my question is neither rhetorical nor
 >intended to be didactic. I honestly want to know. I have been
 >having some trouble following some of the debates on the list,

 >"FALSIFIABILITY (OR REFUTABILITY) A central tenet of science
 >which demands that all claims or assertions investigated by
 >science must be open to being proven false. If a researcher
 >cannot define what would count as empirical or experimental
 >disproof of a claim then the claim itself must fall outside the
 >domain of science. This tenet is consistent with the belief that
 >in science it is possible to prove something false, but not to
 >prove something true. In fact it is assumed that we can never
 >prove something to be true, we can only fail to disprove
 >something and therefore accept its truth for the time being.

You asked a very good question, and no one so far in my reading
of the replies has answered your point directly, so perhaps I
will take a shot at it.

Falsifiability is a very good measure of a theory's "soundness".
A similar and possibly corollary concept is that of duplication
- if a scientific principle cannot be duplicated given similar
conditions, then its validity is suspect.

Popper's philosophy of science is a good foundation for
researchers to adopt, in ufology or any other area of study. In
fact, I recommend his works highly. However, there are several
situations and fields in which falsifiability and duplication
both seem inadequate, or at least inappropriate for use. Michael
Persinger, who is lauded by skeptics as a good scientist, points
out that his results with temporal lobe manipulations canot be
duplicated exactly, nor can they be predicted with any rigour.
Yet, he himself notes that atmospheric physics and fluid
dynamics are themselves not accurate sciences. We still cannot
predict the weather, so this begs the question "Is atmospheric
physics a science?"

Furthermore, economic theories are inexact, too. Predicting
economic movements (i.e the stock market) cannot be accurate,
either. So is economics a pseudoscience? Others have even
pointed out that psychology and psychoanalysis is hardly
transplatable from one person to another without a lot of
fudging, so that field of research may be deemed a pseudoscience
as well.

The other point to make is that your question about ufology
using falsifiability is itself problematic. In what way would
you imply ufology is not using falsifiability? In my studies of
UFO report data, falsifiability is tested each year,
successfully. I can predict the hourly distribution of
sightings, the average number of witnesses, the numbers of CEs
versus NLs, etc. So, in many fields within ufology, scientific
principles are used with complete confidence in their
applications and results. In studies of abductees, we can make
certain tests to learn if certain percentages are fantasy-prone,
have histories of abuse, have more or less auditory
hallucinations than the general population, etc. These are valid
scientific tests.

I think where you were going with your question was in asking if
ufologists' belief in UFOs as extraterrestrial craft was
falsifiable. For that one question, the answer is, of course,
no. We cannot prove that advanced life forms are NOT observing
Earth and piloting spacecraft through the atmosphere. Therefore,
the ETH fails falsifiability and must be scientifically invalid.
But a simple thought exercise can show why falsifiability is
inappropriate in this regard. If such an advanced race did exist
and really WERE monitoring our activities, perhaps from a base
on the far side of the Moon, we would probably not be able to
detect them, espcially if they took lengths to mask their
presence. Therefore, even though they would REALLY be there,
they could not possibly be there according to our understanding
of science through the principle of falsifiability.

Finally, even though the ETH with regards to ufology fails, that
does not stop SETI programs from getting funding to search for
ETs. SETI theories suggest ET life is out there, so funding
supports scientific research to prove ETs exist. Yet, negative
results do not stop the research, despite the fact that there is
no way to prove ETs do NOT exist somehwere in the universe. It
seems that SETI violates falsifiability, yet is accepted calmly
within scientific circles.

Is this what you were getting at with your questions?


--
Nobody in particular





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 4

                     Re: Phil Klass - Sleeping? - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 11:47:01 -0600
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 14:03:01 -0500
Subject: Re: Phil Klass - Sleeping? - Clark


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 17:50:41 EST
 >Subject: Re: Phil Klass - Sleeping?
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Phil Klass - Sleeping?
 >>Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 11:51:09 -0600

 >>>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 23:34:10 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Phil Klass - Sleeping?
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>>From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
 >>>>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>Subject: Phil Klass - Sleeping?
 >>>>Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 14:54:42 -0800


Robert,

 >>>As I recall he loudly claimed he wasn't sleeping. Needless to
 >>>say after I saw the photo, I was skeptical of the
 >>>claim............

 >>I think you've forgotten your Klasslogic, Robert. How do you
 >>know the photo wasn't faked? In fact, we know that any photo
 >>that depicts something that Klass doesn't want to accept is, by
 >>definition, a hoax. So there.

 >Thats true, we don't know that the photo wasn't a masterful hoax
 >of sorts created by some cunning hoaxer who wanted to pull one
 >over on everybody. Better yet we examine the possibility that
 >some cunning hoaxer actually created a wax replica of Phil that
 >was suspended by thread or fishing line from the ceiling.

This is indeed possible and would explain the otherwise
inexplicable.

 >So, since the photo is now in question, we revert back to the
 >testimony of those who were present. As I recall they claimed
 >something along the lines of hearing a giant snore, and Phil's
 >tape recorder fell to the ground in a clatter. Oops, next tenant
 >of pelicanism science. If we don't like the photograph, whatever
 >story the witness tells is meaningless and should be disregarded
 >for various reasons. After all Phil may not have been sleeping,
 >but merely resting his eyes, and or reading documents on the
 >inside of his eye lids. Anything but sleeping......

Pelican science tells us, of course, that human testimony is
utterly unreliable and we can count on it to fall victim to
radical misperception. We may safely speculate that Klass was
wide awake, that the snore was actually from witnesses who, out
of desperate need to believe in something that would embarass
Uncle Phil, dreamed -- or perhaps hallucinated in an altered
state of consciousness -- that during a fascinating MUFON
lecture Klass was happily adrift in the Land of Nod. And if not
that, they mistook a chair for Klass and the "snore" was merely
the scraping of the chair across the floor. (As further
evidence, note that "snore" and "floor" rhyme.) And if that not,
they all conspired to hoax this extraordinary claim.

Gee, who says pelican science isn't useful?

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 >
   Dec > Dec 4

               Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars' - Morris

From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 18:31:02 +0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 14:04:24 -0500
Subject: Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars' - Morris


 >Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 16:23:58 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars' - Sunday Times

 ><snip>

 >Hello All:

 >A British Mars lander mission? Beagle II?  That's news to me.
 >Something like this should have made the news before this.


Larry,All,

The Beagle2 Mars lander website is at:

http://www.beagle2.com


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 >
   Dec > Dec 5

                Evidence Of Martian Land Of Lakes Discovered

From: Hardin & Savage <NASANews@hq.nasa.gov>
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 15:30:22 -0500 (EST)
Fwd Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 00:59:22 -0500
Subject: Evidence Of Martian Land Of Lakes Discovered


Donald Savage
Headquarters, Washington, DC                  December 4, 2000
(Phone: 202/358-1727)

Mary Hardin
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
(Phone: 818/354-0344)

RELEASE:  00-190

EVIDENCE OF MARTIAN LAND OF LAKES DISCOVERED

In what ultimately may be their most significant discovery yet,
Mars scientists say high-resolution pictures showing layers of
sedimentary rock paint a portrait of an ancient Mars that long
ago may have featured numerous lakes and shallow seas.

"We see distinct, thick layers of rock within craters and other
depressions for which a number of lines of evidence indicate
that they may have formed in lakes or shallow seas. We have
never before had this type of irrefutable evidence that
sedimentary rocks are widespread on Mars," said Dr. Michael
Malin, principal investigator for the Mars Orbiter Camera on
NASA's Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft at Malin Space Science
Systems (MSSS), San Diego, CA. "These images tell us that early
Mars was very dynamic and may have been a lot more like Earth
than many of us had been thinking."

Such layered rock structures where there were once lakes are
common on Earth. The pancake-like layers of sediment compressed
and cemented to form a rock record of the planet's history.

The regions of sedimentary layers on Mars are spread out and
scattered around the planet. They are most common within impact
craters of Western Arabia Terra, the inter-crater plains of
northern Terra Meridiani, the chasms of the Valles Marineris,
and parts of the northeastern Hellas Basin rim. The scientists
compare the rock layers on Mars to features seen in the American
Southwest, such as the Grand Canyon and the Painted Desert of
Arizona.

"We caution that the Mars images tell us that the story is
actually quite complicated and yet the implications are
tremendous. Mars has preserved for us, in its sedimentary rocks,
a record of events unlike any that occur on the planet today,"
said Dr. Ken Edgett, staff scientist at MSSS. "This is changing
the way we think about the early history of Mars -- a time
perhaps more than 3.5 billion years ago."

"On Earth, sedimentary rocks preserve the surface history of our
planet, and within that history, the fossil record of life. It
is reasonable to look for evidence of past life on Mars in these
remarkably similar sedimentary layers," said Malin. "What is new
in our work is that Mars has shown us that there are many more
places in which to look, and that these materials may date back
to the earliest times of Martian history."

Malin added, "I have not previously been a vocal advocate of the
theory that Mars was wet and warm in its early history. But my
earlier view of Mars was really shaken when I saw our first
high- resolution pictures of Candor Chasma. The nearly
identically thick layers would be almost impossible to create
without water."

As an alternative to lakes, Malin and Edgett suggest that a
denser atmosphere on early Mars could have allowed greater
amounts of windborne dust to settle out on the surface in ways
that would have created the sedimentary rock.

"We have only solved one little piece of a tremendous puzzle,"
Malin said. "There is no illustration on the box to show us what
it is supposed to look like when it is completed and we are sure
most of the pieces are missing."

"These latest findings from the Mars Global Surveyor tell us
that more study both from orbit and at the surface is needed to
decipher the tantalizing history of water on Mars," said Dr. Jim
Garvin, Mars Exploration Program Scientist at NASA Headquarters.
"Our scientific strategy of following the water by seeking,
conducting in situ studies, and ultimately sampling will follow
up on these latest discoveries about Mars, and adapt to the new
understanding."

"Mars seems to continually amaze us with unexpected
discoveries," said Dr. Edward Weiler, Associate Administrator
for Space Science at NASA Headquarters. "This finding just might
be the key to solving some of the biggest mysteries on Mars, and
it also tells us that our new Mars exploration program needs the
flexibility to follow up in a carefully thought-out manner."

"The finding of layered sedimentary deposits is something that
biologists have been hoping for," said Dr. Ken Nealson, director
of the Center for Life Detection at NASA's Jet Propulsion
Laboratory (JPL), Pasadena, CA. "Perhaps the favorite sites for
biologists to search for fossils or evidence of past life on
Earth are layered lake or oceanic sediments such as in these
sites Malin and Edgett describe."

The Mars Global Surveyor mission is managed by JPL for NASA's
Office of Space Science, Washington, DC. Malin Space Science
Systems built and operates the camera system. Lockheed Martin
Astronautics, Denver, CO, developed and operates the spacecraft.

Images for this release are available at:

       http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/dec00_seds/

Information on the Mars Global Surveyor is available at:

                  http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs

                                - end -

                             * * *

NASA press releases and other information are available
automatically by sending an Internet electronic mail message to
domo@hq.nasa.gov. In the body of the message (not the subject
line) users should type the words "subscribe press-release" (no
quotes).  The system will reply with a confirmation via E-mail
of each subscription.  A second automatic message will include
additional information on the service. NASA releases also are
available via CompuServe using the command GO NASA.  To
unsubscribe from this mailing list, address an E-mail message to
domo@hq.nasa.gov, leave the subject blank, and type only
"unsubscribe press-release" (no quotes) in the body of the
message.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 5

                         El Ovni De Las Lomas/Part I

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 16:55:07 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 01:34:05 -0500
Subject: El Ovni De Las Lomas/Part I


Howdy All,

Here is the first installment of a translation of the document
that Daniel Munoz sent to me and several others. It is as close
to a 'word for word' translation as I could perform and still
keep it intelligible in its English incarnation. I will have to
post this in sections. It is 8 jam packed (small copy) type
written pages that will take a bit of time to translate in toto.
So that nobody has to wait weeks for it, I have opted to post it
in sections as I complete the translation. It's probably easier
for all to create a folder and drop these postings in there as
you get them. Once you have several 'pieces' you can print out
hard copy to read it at your own convenience.

Also, I don't know if Errol can swing it, but we should
consolidate this thread down to one. There are several different
conversations going on that all relate to this topic that are
appearing under different headings. It's getting hard to follow
who is talking to who anymore. Consolidation of all Mexico city
sighting case threads would just make it all simpler and easier
to follow.

I will also be attaching a copy of the original in Spanish, so
that our Latin members can read it in their native language. It
will also allow them to comment on the accuracy of my
translation for the non-Spanish speaking UpDates members.

[OVNI_LOMAS.doc forwarded only to subscribers--ebk]

Everybody is happy!  ;)

OVNI_LOMAS.doc [forwarded only to subscribers--ebk]

Personal note:

After I translated this first section it became clear to me that
this isn't going to be a 'cake walk' for Daniel on this List.
I'm only the messenger. Don't shoot until I'm well clear of the
line of fire!  ;)

Viola! Ladies and Gents of UFO UpDates, may I present;

The Las Lomas Ovni.   Part 1

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

El Ovni De Las Lomas (The Las Lomas UFO)

The video known as "The Las Lomas UFO," where it is
possible to observe a strange object in the form of a
"flying saucer" overflight on the day of August 6,
1997, in the skies of the Southern point of Mexico City,
may turn out to be one of the clearest evidences of
the presence of extraterrestrials on our planet.

After only one airing on the program "Third Millennium" this
extraordinary sequence of 25 seconds in duration has generated
all kinds of comments in countries such as; Italy, Spain,
Germany, the USA, New Zealand, Belgium, and England. In the
video, it is possible to observe an object that appears to be
metallic, with a dome on it's upper part, while it displays
itself intermittently between the edifices of the "Royal
Reforma" building complex. It displayed rotation (spinning
motion) from the first moment the camera was trained on it by
the *'author's of the video.

(*person(s) recording, -the use of a 'Plural' was Daniel's.
Apparently, there was "more than one" person involved in the
recording process. A photographer, (and) a witness to/for the
photographer. JV)

It continues:

Its' behavior (the object) coincides perfectly with the
testimony that was gained from the witnesses of the sighting,
who confirm that UFOs display a 'wobbly' movement like the waves
on the ocean.

Here is a brief chronology of the happenings:

Friday, September 26, 1997:

A VHS videotape and a letter were, left at the door of 'San
Angel Television' which is located in the Southern part of
Mexico City. The tape and the letter were left by a person who
did not wish to be identified. The person requested that the
tape be turned over to Jaime Maussan's  "Third Millennium"
program. From the first moment that the video arrived at our
offices it created unusual excitement, given the images that
were recorded on it. That day we decided to transfer the images
over to a professional format so that we would be able to
perform enlargements and convert the images to negatives in
order to enable the study of the UFO presented (in the video) in
greater detail.

The letter that accompanied the video related the reasons that
pushed the author of the video to bring to our (offices.) An
uncompromising letter where the author affirms being very
skeptical about the UFO phenomenon, including admitting to
making fun of those who spoke on the subject. Until he (himself)
became a witness as a part of this sighting. According to the
letter, the author was 'eating in' at his office, when together
with a companion they observed (through a window in the
lunchroom) a strange object flying in between the buildings.
They got up immediately and ran to get a camera that their boss
kept in his office. From the patio outside the lunchroom they
recorded 25 seconds of the progress of the object, until it was
out of sight. According to the author, his sister was the one
who convinced him to turn the tape over to our television
program. In the letter the author requested anonymity fearing
'repercussions' at his job, and in his personal life. In the
same breath he affirms that his friend is also nervous and he
requested that the voices/sound track from the original be
omitted (the way that we do) for TV.

Saturday, September 27:

We transferred ourselves and a copy of the tape to the City of
Juarez, Chihuahua, on the frontiers of the United States so that
we could initiate two live broadcasts from that border city. We
arrived at the facilities of channel 56 where there was great
expectation to see the video together with the viewers of that
TV station. That same day we were able to enlarge the video
further and together with the producers and staff of of channel
56 we set about looking at the new details on order to establish
the veracity of the presented sequence. A sequence that would be
broadcast that day for the first time on television, at the end
of the live broadcast, in order to create interest for the
broadcast of the following day which was to be dedicated to the
UFO phenomenon in the city of Juarez, a true "Point of Contact."

Sunday, September 28:

After preparing a piece which included the original video and
the necessary enhancements/enlargements that we made at the
studios of channel 56, we presented the letter we received and
the video on the second Live transmission from the city of
Juarez. There, for the first time we exposed to public opinion
the history of this video that was recorded on August 6th where
a UFO circumnavigates near some apartment buildings located in
the South of Mexico city. The viewers were encouraged to call
our offices with information so that we could begin our true
investigation in earnest.

Look for part II tomorrow.  JV



OVNI_LOMAS.doc [forwarded only to subscribers--ebk]

******************************************************
                     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 >
   Dec > Dec 5

               Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars' - Tonnies

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 14:16:12 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 01:44:57 -0500
Subject: Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars' - Tonnies


 >Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 18:31:02 +0000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >Subject: Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars'

 >Larry,All,

 >The Beagle2 Mars lander website is at:

 >http://www.beagle2.com


Even the probe's website is cool--I word I'd seriously
hesitate to apply to any of NASA's ventures...


=====
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 >
   Dec > Dec 5

                Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars' - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 17:19:53 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 01:49:21 -0500
Subject: Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars' - Velez


 >Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 18:31:02 +0000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >Subject: Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars'

 >>Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 16:23:58 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars' - Sunday Times

 >><snip>

 >>A British Mars lander mission? Beagle II?  That's news to me.
 >>Something like this should have made the news before this.

 >Larry,All,

 >The Beagle2 Mars lander website is at:

 >http://www.beagle2.com

 >Neil

Hiya Neil,

Thanx for the link, interesting stuff. What I really find
interesting is the lack of coverage here in the States. The
current state of the media in this country is sad and more than
a little scary. It's gone deaf, dumb, and blind, to what is
going on in other countries, and it has all been reduced to the
level of sensationalistic tabloid garbage. I have to watch the
Public Television broadcast of ITN News in order to find out
what is going on Internationally. There is not one bloody
network station that carries more than two minutes of
International News. And those are the newscasts that large
portions of the population are relying on for "news."

BTW, speaking just as a "tailfin and shiney doo-dad lovin'
American" (I grew up with BIG Cadillacs and curvey Corvettes to
look at,) the British Beagle looks a lot like a solar powered,
Home Depot, Bar-B-Que grill!  If they find all those missing cow
parts on Mars, at least they'll be ready to cook em up. Yum!
<LOL>

The Beagle, a "True" Unidentified Flamebroiled Object!  <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 >
   Dec > Dec 5

              Re: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I -

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 13:57:40 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 01:52:23 -0500
Subject: Re: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I -


 >Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 17:34:58 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I

 >>From: Daniel Muoz <Ovnimexico1@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 10:19:40 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Dear Larry, Errol and List,

 >>...The person who brought us the tape and the letter in fact,
 >>signed it with another name. No nameless or anonymous. And he
 >>brought us to our TV station to be spread, due to its
 >>importance...

 >Hello Daniel:

 >...For what it is worth, I quote from the translation made by Jim
 >Deardorff of an article originally written in German, by
 >Hesemann:

 >" On Sept. 26, 1997, Jaime Maussan received a very
 >special package. Someone had sent him a video tape, in
 >itself nothing remarkable. But when he played the tape on
 >his video recorder, it took his breath away. For the
 >anonymously sent recording showed nothing but points of
 >light and sky - except for a large, metallic, structured,
 >rotating disk, which maneuvered in broad daylight over
 >Mexico City, with a dateline of 6 August 1997 - and
 >disappeared behind a high-rise building and reappeared,
 >which speaks clearly for it being a large object.

 >Enclosed with it was only a note, which read, "We know
 >what happens to witnesses, if they go public with something
 >like this." Maussan's first reaction was, "This is a
 >fake;  it can't be real!" (end quote).

 >Note the words "anonymously sent"... and the enclosed note
 >saying "We know what happens to witnesses, if they go public
 >with something like this."

 >Granted, this is all 3rd or 4rth hand, filtered through at least
 >two translations Spanish ==>German ==>English and thus
 >questionable.

 >If these statements are wholly or partly wrong, it would be best
 >to contact Deardorff and/or Hesemann for corrections or
 >explanations. I'm sure many of us would like those matters
 >straightened out.

Hi Larry,

Hesemann's German at that point read, "...die ihm anonym
bersandte Aufnahme...". In German "anonym" means the same in
English, as far as the dictionary meaning is concerned. But
unless I learn more about it, I'd give the nod to Munoz, who was
closer to Maussan on this than was Hesemann. I believe that
Maussan spoke or corresponded with Hesemann via English, which
then became German for Hesemann, and now that German is
translated back into English by another person. Munoz's version,
after translation, will just be from Spanish to English, period.

It may be, however, that Hesemann knows that the note
accompanying the video arrived pseudonymously rather than
anonymously, and was just loose in his use of words there. My
English dictionary's 2nd definition of "anonymous" is "of
unknown name." If no one could be found having the name that was
signed, then the real sender's name was probably unknown, and so
the lawyer could argue that "anonymous" wasn't wrong.

Since some interest has been stirred up on this, perhaps we can
ask Munoz to supply the name that was used, or perhaps we'll
find out when his report is translated. Was it a common Spanish
name, which 20,000 or more inhabitants of Mexico City each has,
or was it a more unique name?

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 >
   Dec > Dec 5

               Munoz's Report - Corrales' Translation, Part I

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 14:31:59 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 02:06:31 -0500
Subject: Munoz's Report - Corrales' Translation, Part I


Below is about the first half of Daniel Munoz's report on the
Aug. 6, 1997, Mexico City sighting and video, as translated by
Scott Corrales. Scott, author of 'Chupacabras and Other
Mysteries', is not on this list.

Did this beat your translation to the List, John (Velez)? If
yours comes through, too, we'll have two versions to compare for
accuracy.

I see now that I did not do proper justice in translating one of
Hesemann's words; I should have used "letter" instead of "note."

Jim

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

Report from Daniel Munoz
as translated by Scott Corrales,
12/4/00

Part I

The "Las Lomas" UFO

The video known as the "Las Lomas UFO", in which it is possible
to see a strange, "saucer-shaped" object flying over the western
skies of Mexico City on August 6, 1997, could become one of the
strongest pieces of evidence supporting an extraterrestrial
presence in our world.

Following an initial transmission during the "Tercer Milenio"
program, this extraordinary 25-second sequence gave rise to all
manner of commentary in such countries as Italy, Spain, Germany,
the U.S., New Zealand, Belgium and the U.K. It is possible to
see in this video a metallic-looking object featuring a dome in
its upper section as it moves irregularly between the buildings
of the "Royal Reforma" residential complex: a circular motion
clearly distinguishable from the UFO's first camera close-up by
the video's authors�a behavior that coincides perfectly with the
descriptions given by witnesses to UFO sightings, who state that
UFOs move with a swinging motion, as if skimming the ocean's
waves.

The following is a brief chronicle of the event:

Friday, September 26, 1997 - A VHS videotape and a letter left
by an unidentified party are received at Gate #3 of Televisa San
Angel in southern Mexico City. The person requests that the
video be directly delivered to Jaime Maussan's Tercer Milenio
program. This video reached our office and unleashed an unusual
excitement from the outset, given the images it contained. That
very same day, the decision is made to transfer it to a
professional format and make certain enhancements and changes to
the images' negative in order to more clearly observe the
alleged UFO. The letter accompanying the video narrated the
reasons that led its author to deliver it to our facilities-a
letter lacking a return address, in which the author states
his/her skepticism about the UFO phenomenon and even mocks those
who discuss the subject until he himself becomes a witness to
this sighting. According to the letter, the author was eating in
his office when, in the company of a co-worker, he sees a
strange object flying between the buildings through one of the
mess room's windows. Both employees got up immediately and ran
for a camcorder kept in their boss's office. From the patio
outside the mess room, they were able to record the object's
progress for 25 seconds until they lost it from sight. According
to the author, his sister convinced him to send the video to our
television show, and the letter requests anonymity, fearing
reprisals both at work and in his personal life. He likewise
states that his friend was also somewhat nervous and requests
that the voices heard on the original audio track be omitted, as
was indeed done on television.

Saturday, September 27 - With a copy of the video, we traveled
to Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua on the U.S. border to make two live
broadcasts from that city. Upon reaching the facilities of that
network's Channel 56, the video created a sensation among the
station's coworkers upon being screened. That very same day
further enhancements were made to the video, and along with the
producers and staff of the Channel 56 program, a search is made
for new details which will allow a determination of the veracity
of the sequence presented. The sequence was aired for the first
time on TV that very same day at the end of the live broadcast
that Saturday, creating expectations for the following day's
program, which would be completely devoted to UFO phenomena in
Ciudad Juarez, a veritable contact point.

Monday, September 29: During the work session held every Monday
by the Tercer Milenio team in Mexico City, a call is received
from a person claiming to know the place appearing in the UFO
sequence shown on TV the previous day. We immediately took down
the viewer's information and went to meet him. Once initial
personal contact was made, we were taken to the site from where
the video was recorded, realizing that this was, in fact, the
site in question. Using the information on the letter received,
we went up to the penthouse of the building known as
"Corporativo Reforma Laureles", making sure that this was indeed
the location from which the August 6th UFO was seen. In the
offices at said location, there was no one by the name of the
video's alleged author, as given on the letter delivered to
Televisa. However, the panoramic shot taken by our cameraman
coincides perfectly with the one appearing on the video. Thanks
to our viewers, we had found the precise location of the
sighting. That very same day, after coming down from the
building's penthouse terrace, one of our coworkers called us
excitedly, saying that "a girl had seen the object shown on the
video." In fact, Casandra Lopez Mendoza, 14, would tell us with
great excitement how she had seen "a spinning object flying
close to the building between  4:00 and 6:00 p.m. on a cloudy
Wednesday with light rain." Casandra had been considered crazy
by her relatives on August 6th after she had told them what
happened. But our presence would lend weight to her belief that
what she had seen was not only real, but highly important.
Casandra's description dovetailed perfectly with the behavior
exhibited by the object on the video, which she had not seen and
whose existence was unknown to her. Casandra stated that this
wasn't the first time she'd seen UFOs in the area: on two prior
occasions she had witnessed similar objects over the canyon.
Once the interview was over, we headed to a local restaurant to
show Casandra the images we had received in order to record her
impressions on this matter. However, before this could be done,
we learned from the waiters that the restaurant's manager, Mr.
Luis Arturo Garcia Flores, had also been an eyewitness to the
August 6 sighting. We approached him immediately, confirming the
events with another eyewitness who had also seen the object's
maneuvers and whose statements would confirm Casandra's
testimony and the images on the video. Once interviewed, we
invited both eyewitnesses to view the video carefully, creating
in Casandra a vivid excitement reflected in her eyes-the
excitement of someone who was confirming that what she had seen
months earlier had not been a product of her imagination.

Tuesday, September 30: We began our investigation with Mexico
City's International Airport as well as with the P.R. agencies
in Southwestern Mexico City to ascertain if what appears on the
video could be a promotional balloon. The Mexican Association of
Public Relations Agencies informed us by phone that nothing
resembling a balloon had been employed at that time as far as
they knew.

That day we had an appointment with Mr. Enrique Kolbeck, an air
traffic controller at Mexico City Airport, with whom we would
visit the sighting area once more. We then conducted an
interview after he made a few appraisals regarding cloudiness,
location, the distance between said point and the airport and
ground characteristics. Kolbeck initially expressed doubts as to
the object's movements in the video, but was later convinced as
to its veracity by also interviewing the eyewitnesses. According
to his statement, it isn't feasible for a balloon to fly freely
at such an altitude between the buildings, and much less one
that size. In any event, he agreed to research among airport
authorities to see if any balloon-flying permits had been issued
for flights over that part of the city on August 6, 1997.

That very same day we made an effort to conduct interviews with
the residents of the "Royal Reforma" complex to see if anyone
had witnessed the strange object on August 6th. Due to the fact
that it is a highly exclusive residential complex occupied by
certain politicians and public figures of Mexican society, we
were denied all manner of information, and of course, access.


Wednesday, October 1: We traveled to Phoenix, Arizona, U.S.A. to
reach Jim Dilettoso, one of the best computerized image analysts
in the United States. Dilettoso has devoted himself, on a
part-time basis, to analyze UFO images from different part soft
the world, reaching conclusions which have made an impression on
the scientific establishment. From the first moment that he saw
the August 6th images, Dilettoso evinced an interest in the
possibility that the object could be a balloon suspended from a
helicopter. However, after feeding the images into a computer to
conduct the initial analysis of the Las Lomas UFO, Dilettoso was
surprised---as were others present in the laboratory---when the
monitor displayed all of the images elements except for the UFO
itself. After a few minutes of concern, arising from the belief
that the equipment had been damaged, Jim Dilettoso discovered
that within the same image in which the UFO could not be seen on
the screen, it would appear in its proper place after passing
infrared and ultraviolet filters. This led Dilettoso to adjust
all of his analytical equipment to another frequency in order to
analyze the object's characteristics, a situation which had
practically never happened to him earlier in any other
circumstance, and which on the other hand, confirmed the
veracity of the video presented.

Before taking our leave, Dilettoso asked us for a little more
time to conduct further studies on the Las Lomas video, given
its unusual characteristics. Dilettoso would look for centers of
gravity and would try to reconstruct the UFO's movement in order
to achieve a better analysis.

Thursday, October 2: We returned to Mexico City early in order
to pursue the search for eyewitnesses to the August 6th UFO.
However, activity in this regard was practically nil.

Friday, October 3: Fortunately, positive results were obtained
in our search for witnesses. Behind the "Royal Reforma"
complex's buildings, we found Mr. Alfredo Rodriguez Hernandez, a
local blacksmith, who had also seen the UFO pass almost directly
overhead. His description of the object and its movements
coincides almost perfectly with what can be seen on the video,
and even new information was provided to substantiate the story:
uninterrupted gyration by the vehicle, possible portholes�We
later headed for Casandra Lopez's house, where we found her once
more, willing to lend her aid in locating other witnesses to the
sighting. Some neighbors stated that they had not seen any
objects whatsoever that August 6th, however, three of them
claimed having seen "a luminous sphere among the clouds which
appeared to be an airplane, but of large size and making no
sound or motion whatsoever" around 8:00 p.m. on Monday,
September 29. With these new eyewitness accounts, and
remembering Casandra's words, we reached the conclusion that it
was feasible that a UFO sighting had occurred in that location.

That very same day we inquired from the local police if anything
unusual had been reported to their headquarters on the first
week of August. Even though they did not accept the interview,
the stated that nothing strange had been reported for a very
long time in that area of the city.


Saturday, October 4: On this day, Pedro Ramirez, Carlos
Clemente, Salvador Guerrero and Ruben Villatoro, members of the
LOS VIGILANTES group, which specializes in scanning the skies in
search of UFO evidence, were heading to the place where the
events occurred in an effort to locate more witnesses to the
August 6th sighting. The group would find three children whose
ages ranged between 6 and 12 and who stated that a "large object
had been flying over the buildings, apparently in an effort to
land�" LOS VIGILANTES also conducted field research to
reconnoiter the site and try to secure any evidence of the
unidentified flying object's flyover. While this search proved
fruitless, the fact that three new eyewitnesses to the August
6th UFO would confirm that an object similar to the one
appearing in the video had flown over the area that day.

Monday, October 6: Once more, during our weekly work session, we
received news of eyewitnesses to the event. These persons had
stepped forward due to the Tercer Milenio broadcast of the
previous Sunday, recognizing the object they had seen in the
afternoon of August 6th. We immediately reported to the Lask
family residence, where we met Annie and David, as well as
Victor Gonzalez, who had seen the UFO directly overhead. While
Annie Lask was photographing a model on her house's rooftop for
a school project on August 6th (a cloudy afternoon, according to
the witnesses) both felt a powerful surge of static over the
area-strong enough to make "their hair stand on end" and would
keep them from continuing with their photo shoot. However, Annie
became aware of a shadow that was darker than the surrounding
environment, which was already dark given the lack of direct
sunlight. This made her feel apprehensive, and when she turned
around to look for the source of the shadow, both Annie and her
model allegedly saw "an enormous round grey object, spinning
dizzily" making a sound similar to a "a gas leak". The strange
object was seen by Annie Lask and the model (whom we could not
interview due to the fact that he had traveled to Cancun) for a
few seconds, during which they would have been able to notice,
aside from the circular shape, the noise and static produced: "a
sort of energy encircled it". When the UFO moved toward the
place where it was subsequently recorded on video, Annie and the
model perceived an increase in the sound's intensity "as if the
leak had intensified." Parallel to this extraordinary sighting,
David Lask, Annie's younger brother, and Victor Gonzalez, her
boyfriend, were inside the house near the family pets. While
David played, he became aware that the dogs "began barking in a
strange fashion", the kind of bark they issued only when
bothered by a loud sound, according to David. While we
interviewed him, David stated that in following his dogs, one of
them barking at the window, he finally reached the back yard,
from where he had been able to catch a glimpse of "a part of a
circular, grey object flying over his house." He would also
state that after seeing the video broadcast on our Tercer
Milenio program, he recognized it as having seen it flying over
the house two months earlier. On the other hand, Victor Gonzalez
was watching TV when the Lask family's pets "became strangely
agitated": the dogs barked as if frightened and the cats raised
their hackles for no apparent reason. Two pet ferrets in the
Lask household also exhibited the same unsettled feeling.
Although he saw nothing strange, he told us that "the
environment became rarefied". But the Lacks' extraordinary
experience was far from over. Upon asking Annie Lask about some
of the typical symptoms experienced by people who have close
encounters with these objects, such as headaches, toothaches,
muscular aches, etc., she told us that she had indeed been
afflicted with a strange headache. But what startled her even
more later on was "a strange tanning effect which had marked the
skin that was not covered by the t-shirt she wore the day of the
sighting. Annie stated that she had just returned from a trip to
Acapulco where she had in fact suntanned, but that after her
experience with the UFO, her skin was burned in three different
shades: one was her natural skin color, the next was the
intermediate one acquired during her beach holidays, and the
third, more intense one, was the one received from the sighting
and which would last over a month, as she would state before our
cameras. It was thus, with this startling account, that we ended
the day but not our investigation, which was becoming more
interesting with each passing day.

Tuesday, October 7: The investigation took a break on this day
to evaluate all of the material hitherto obtained as a result of
the August 6th video. However, we decided that  it was necessary
to capture on video an account that would endorse not only that
the UFO existed and was not a computer trick (which we had
dismissed by this time), but that it wasn't a promotional
device.

Wednesday, October 8: On this day we restarted our research to
arrange an interview with some P.R. firm executives in
southwestern Mexico City having greater financial means at their
disposal. It was thus that we reached the Media Director of a
large P.R. firm in the city's southern area, Lic. Jose Manuel
Jimenez, who would state for our cameras that "no type of
untethered balloon could be employed in the airspace over Mexico
City, and that the capital city's authorities had long ago
forbidden any promotional displays using balloons of this type."
That same day in the afternoon we headed to the home of Lic.
Victor Quezada, MIS Director of a university in the capital
whose computer analysis tools would show us a halo of energy
surrounding the UFO featured in the August 6th video. An energy
which, according to Quezada "is not characteristic to airplanes,
helicopters or balloons". Furthermore, Victor Quezada would
explain that it was extremely hard to make a trick similar to
the August 6th video, since it would require a large
infrastructure and budget to carry it out. Quezada performed a
series of analyses based on a combination of color filters and
light intensities to reach the conclusion that the object was
not something manufactured in a computer, but rather a tangible
object which could have well been sent by an eyewitness�"


End of Munoz's Report, Part I








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 5

              Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars' - Balaskas

From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 19:37:27 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
Fwd Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 02:14:56 -0500
Subject: Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars' - Balaskas


 >Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 16:23:58 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars' - Sunday Times

<snip>

 >>This weekend a British group building a craft bound for Mars
 >>said it was already considering rerouting its vehicle, Beagle
 >>II, to land in the middle of one of the newly discovered sea
 >>beds.

<snip>

 >A British Mars lander mission? Beagle II?  That's news to me.
 >Something like this should have made the news before this.

Hi Larry.

About 2 1/2 years ago Stig Agermose posted an article from The
Nando Times on UFO UpDates about this future British Mars lander
mission. Unfortunately the URL Stig mentioned in his post has
expired but you can find my comments on this British planetary
mission at

http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1998/jul/m28-021.shtml

Nick Balaskas

P.S.  I too do not understand all the excitement over a major
Mars "discovery" that has long since been accepted as a fact and
written up in astronomy textbooks since the 1970s. But, with the
important recent discovery of flowing liquid water beneath the
surface of Mars, these ocean basins may actually be much younger
than millions of years and the dark patches found in these low
land regions of Mars can now be interpreted as further evidence
of biological activity going on now.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 5

                Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability? -

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 20:08:02 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 02:17:41 -0500
Subject: Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability? -


 >From: Chris Rutkowski <rutkows@cc.UManitoba.CA>
 >Subject: Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability?
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 10:56:59 -0600 (CST)

 >>From: Charles Chapman <charlesrc@earthlink.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability?
 >>Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 06:48:19 -0800

 >Charles Chapman asked:

 >>I would like to ask the Ufologists on this List a question or
 >>two regarding their reasoning and the analytical tools they use.
 >>The first is whether they use, and/or find useful, the doctrine
 >>or concept of falsifiability.

 >>Please understand, my question is neither rhetorical nor
 >>intended to be didactic. I honestly want to know. I have been
 >>having some trouble following some of the debates on the list,

 >>"FALSIFIABILITY (OR REFUTABILITY) A central tenet of science
 >>which demands that all claims or assertions investigated by
 >>science must be open to being proven false. If a researcher
 >>cannot define what would count as empirical or experimental
 >>disproof of a claim then the claim itself must fall outside the
 >>domain of science. This tenet is consistent with the belief that
 >>in science it is possible to prove something false, but not to
 >>prove something true. In fact it is assumed that we can never
 >>prove something to be true, we can only fail to disprove
 >>something and therefore accept its truth for the time being.

 >You asked a very good question, and no one so far in my reading
 >of the replies has answered your point directly, so perhaps I
 >will take a shot at it.

 >Falsifiability is a very good measure of a theory's "soundness".
 >A similar and possibly corollary concept is that of duplication
 >- if a scientific principle cannot be duplicated given similar
 >conditions, then its validity is suspect.

 >Popper's philosophy of science is a good foundation for
 >researchers to adopt, in ufology or any other area of study. In
 >fact, I recommend his works highly. However, there are several
 >situations and fields in which falsifiability and duplication
 >both seem inadequate, or at least inappropriate for use. Michael
 >Persinger, who is lauded by skeptics as a good scientist, points
 >out that his results with temporal lobe manipulations canot be
 >duplicated exactly, nor can they be predicted with any rigour.
 >Yet, he himself notes that atmospheric physics and fluid
 >dynamics are themselves not accurate sciences. We still cannot
 >predict the weather, so this begs the question "Is atmospheric
 >physics a science?"

 >Furthermore, economic theories are inexact, too. Predicting
 >economic movements (i.e the stock market) cannot be accurate,
 >either. So is economics a pseudoscience? Others have even
 >pointed out that psychology and psychoanalysis is hardly
 >transplatable from one person to another without a lot of
 >fudging, so that field of research may be deemed a pseudoscience
 >as well.

 >The other point to make is that your question about ufology
 >using falsifiability is itself problematic. In what way would
 >you imply ufology is not using falsifiability? In my studies of
 >UFO report data, falsifiability is tested each year,
 >successfully. I can predict the hourly distribution of
 >sightings, the average number of witnesses, the numbers of CEs
 >versus NLs, etc. So, in many fields within ufology, scientific
 >principles are used with complete confidence in their
 >applications and results. In studies of abductees, we can make
 >certain tests to learn if certain percentages are fantasy-prone,
 >have histories of abuse, have more or less auditory
 >hallucinations than the general population, etc. These are valid
 >scientific tests.

 >I think where you were going with your question was in asking if
 >ufologists' belief in UFOs as extraterrestrial craft was
 >falsifiable. For that one question, the answer is, of course,
 >no. We cannot prove that advanced life forms are NOT observing
 >Earth and piloting spacecraft through the atmosphere. Therefore,
 >the ETH fails falsifiability and must be scientifically invalid.
 >But a simple thought exercise can show why falsifiability is
 >inappropriate in this regard. If such an advanced race did exist
 >and really WERE monitoring our activities, perhaps from a base
 >on the far side of the Moon, we would probably not be able to
 >detect them, espcially if they took lengths to mask their
 >presence. Therefore, even though they would REALLY be there,
 >they could not possibly be there according to our understanding
 >of science through the principle of falsifiability.

Chris, Charles & List,

I disagree that ETH is unfalsifiable. If the work was done and
it was handled properly we could make some progress -- Charles
has another posting with excellent suggestions on analyzing ETH
from the standpoint of what the aliens _cannot_ do or seem
unwilling or inacapable of doing. The way ETH is treated on this
List is typically extremist special pleading, always begging for
exceptions to the rule of Occam's Razor to "save" the ETH at all
costs (not realizing that this behavior doesn't "save" ETH at
all but discredits it). Searching for ad hoc excuses is not the
scientific method. An ad hoc excuse is one that is created just
for the purpose of rescuing the hypothesis and it doesn't do
anything else, doesn't lead to scientific progress, greater
knowledge or ongoing discovery.

Occam's Razor (and Hynek's principle) require that we eliminate
the simplest explanations first and that means eliminating the
_lowest_ level of alien technology first before resorting to
higher or "magic" levels. At every turn just about when someone
wants to try to follow Occam's / Hynek's rule someone else drags
in the "magic" red herring to avoid rigorous thinking and
disciplined effort. The objector (or naive obstructionist) comes
along and says "No! no! no! With magic technology the aliens can
do anything and you can't argue one way or another about what
they can or cannot do."

The proper scientific method applied to ETH in UFO research is
to set up a series of ETH models or variants beginning at the
lowest possible levels of technology, then working out the
testable implications of each variant in terms of reliable data
on UFO activity patterns and behavior. Each model will need a
lot of work (to make up for 50 years of virtually zero
scientific theoretical work on UFO's) and should not be
peremptorily dismissed or rejected early on just because someone
gushes out the "alien magic" mantra in an instant analysis. ETH
models would deal with expected or predicted behavior for a
variety of possible activities such as generalized observation,
intelligence-gathering, scientific study, military conquest,
religious interference, entertainment, biological control or
breeding, psychological warfare or manipulation, benevolent
monitoring, mixed activities, etc. Other hypotheses besides ETH
should receive similar systematic treatment. All of this will
require rigorous logical argument and careful study; loose
thinking will scuttle the whole enterprise prematurely. Getting
bogged down in interminable emotional arguments will lead such
efforts astray. Quite possibly we simply do not have enough
serious scientific theoreticians to carry out this program of
scientific development of ETH.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 5

                        Re: Mexico City Video - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 21:26:48 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 02:22:02 -0500
Subject: Re: Mexico City Video - Young


 >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

<snip>

 >This story has more than a video on it.

<snip>

 >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...

Dear Daniel Muoz:

I agree with your statement above, unless of course the one part
in question, if false, would falsify the whole.

So, let's hear about some of the other parts you have mentioned.
Such as the skin burns. Do you have a medical report?

In the matter of the fatality from overexposure to the magnetic
field. Do you have a name of the deceased and a medical
examiner's report or police report about the death?

The plane crash might be interesting to hear about.

Please send us more details.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 5

               Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Hale

From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 04:25:55 +0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 02:26:13 -0500
Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Hale


 >From: Terry Rhodes <UtterMole@cs.com>
 >Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 08:53:54 EST
 >Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark?
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >I gather you mean pro eth believers when you say open-minded?


Terry,

Come on now, start talking on this List like a someone who can
come forward with something positive to say, Rather than trying
to pick fights all the time.


 >Ok, lets talk about the footage....

 >Who has analysed the footage? What was the result? How do you
 >determine 'intelligently controlled'? What in your opinion does
 >the footage show?

 >That should be good for starters.

 >Tel


I am struggling to take you seriously at all concerning the
Chris Martin footage. Let me explain, and then I will answer
your questions.

Firstly, when I first put this on the List you weren't having
any of it, and I even offered to meet you at the Chris Martin
Lecture being held by L.U.F.O.S. ( London UFO Studies) Roy Lakes
group, at a hall in Walthamstow ( East London). I posted this to
you.

http://www.aliensonearth.com/ufo/updates/2000/sep/m03-007.shtml

After no answer from yourself I then posted:

http://www.aliensonearth.com/ufo/updates/2000/sep/m07-023.shtml

Again recently I then Posted:

http://www.aliensonearth.com/ufo/updates/2000/nov/m03-028.shtml

And from all of this I had no response from you what so ever?
You are very selective on your postings.And you have the notion
after all I have asked off you concerning your research into
this footage to ask me even more questions!

Now please begin to take ufology a little bit more seriously.
This is a two way road!

Now your questions Answered:

1.) This footage has been Analysed by Dave Bowden.

2.) The result at this time shows us nothing we can compare
these objects on the film with, in regards commercial or
military aviation. We know of no known natural phenomena which
fits the footage description and which carries out such
extraordinary movements.

3.) An object which just doesn't go where the wind decides to
take it. An object which has real time free motion and movement
within our environment.

4.) In my opinion this footage shows UFOs which are under some
kind of intelligent control.

Now Terry, if you are serious about this footage, again I ask
you to contact Dave for a (Free) copy of the footage on CD. If
you decide not to do this, I can see no point in answering your
miss and hit questions, as you have been given ample
opportunities to have this footage at your disposal.

Regards,

Roy..         Keep Smiling..

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 >
   Dec > Dec 5

               Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Hale

From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 04:29:18 +0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 02:31:32 -0500
Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Hale


 >From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark?
 >Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 19:21:01 -0000

 >Y'all,

 >Roy Hale has been complaining for a while about how the UK
 >sceptics have 'ignored' the Chris Martin footage. I can only
 >speak for myself but I can assure Roy I haven't 'ignored' it. In
 >fact I've never seen any of it other than a few stills in
 >various magazines which are just little silvery blobs. They
 >didn't seem like anything to write home about so I haven't
 >pursued the matter further.

Good to hear from you Andy,

Right on with the " Silvery Blobs" good to hear that you think
they are silver at least.

 >Anyway - Roy obviously has strong feelings about Martin's
 >footage and clearly thinks they represent something unusual. On
 >that basis I'll delve round for a few weeks, obtain his book and
 >video and see what I think. I might even ask him to take me out
 >a-filming.

I don't think I am alone in having strong feelings about this
case, many people have taken a keen interest. Good to have you
on board. And Chris is looking for any sceptical researcher to
check out his films and his filming.

 >In the mean time perhaps Roy would be good enough to furnish us
 >with answers to the following questions:

I will oblige.

 >* As Martin lives in London and makes these sightings and videos
 >on a regular basis - and as Roy lives in London and is a keen
 >Martin supporter... has Roy ever taken the trouble to go out
 >with Martin on one of his filming expeditions? And if not, why
 >not?

I live in Essex, Chris lives in East London. If I can remember
correctly I have been out with Chris on about 15 - 20 occasions
over the last few years. I have, as I mentioned in earlier posts
( you obviously missed those ones) witnessed some of these UFOs
at first hand. Mostly appearing in broad daylight.

 >* Martin came up for discussion on this list a while ago (check
 >the archives). Rory Lushman related how he had been filming with
 >London Weekend Television. Martin was there too and got all
 >excited, pointing to an object in the sky and requesting the
 >film crew to film the 'UFO'. According to Rory both he and film
 >crew could see it was a 'plane in the far distance. Would Roy
 >care to comment on this in the light of how so many of Martin's
 >'UFOs' are filmed near to airports?


Firstly we only have the testimony of Rory Lushman to go on. But
in answer to your question: The enhancements carried out by Dave
Bowden show no such structures which I and others can relate to
as planes. Have you seen the sphere footage taken at Aldgate. (
Town near the City of London) This is a remarkable piece of
footage which has baffled those who have seen it.

 >So, to sum up, Roy.

 >* Martin hasn't been ignored - it's just that ooop north he
 >hasn't made an impact

Are you telling me that all UK sceptics are in the north of the
UK? I must tell you, some friends of mine in the north, do know
about Chris Martin and his footage.Possible selcetive viewing!

 >* I'll happily take on the task of giving a UK sceptical
 >viewpoint. But it won't be rushed, I like to do my research and
 >I'm sure I can dig up some interesting things.

Hey Andy, thank you for that Tabloid answer, start digging. Oh
and while your there try and investigate the footage as well!

 >If only I could share with you the email Martin sent me about
 >Nick Pope (who wrote the foreword to his book) on the 8th of
 >July. Or share with you the rumours that email was based on.

I am aware of the e-mail you mention, and I understand that
things are okay. I am not hear to discuss rumours, I would like
you to tell me what is on those tapes.I look forward to your
constructive analysis of the objects on the tapes. Please ask
for a (Free ) CD from Dave Bowden to start your investigations,
the footage on the CD is very high quality.

Just to add for all of our U.S. colleagues, you will be given
the chance to view Chris's footage in the U.S. at the
forthcoming Nevada UFO conference in 2001.


 >Andy

Regards,

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 >
   Dec > Dec 5

                          Re: TV Documentary - Hale

From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 04:33:28 +0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 02:33:50 -0500
Subject: Re: TV Documentary - Hale


 >Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 10:51:29 +0000
 >From: Philip Mantle <pmquest@dial.pipex.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: TV Documentary

<snip>

 >Basically, our aim is to try to explain the unexplained.

I shall wait to see who they wheel out to do this!

Roy..








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 5

               Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Evans

From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 04:36:10 +0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 02:35:11 -0500
Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Evans


 >Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 22:04:47 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark?
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Hi, Roy!

 >I hope you read my previous post asking for an NTSC copy of the
 >footage as Beta SP or AVI. As I pointed out, I couldn't tell
 >much from the web site.

Hi Roger,

Please contact Dave Bowden so he can send you a CD with
the AVI on it at very high quality.


 >On to your post:

 >You mention about how you were "attacked" here on UpDates and
 >about all the "ranting" from skeptics regarding this footage.
 >Maybe I missed it while out of town on a film shoot, but could
 >you please point out the specific posts from the archives where
 >this abuse took place?

 >I'm not saying that I don't believe you. I just don't recall it.
 >I feel this is an important issue, since there seems to be only
 >a handful of people that take part on this List and I'd really
 >like to see how many of them are as negative as you guys claim.

 >It is my position that the majority of the people on this List,
 >including me, believe in the existence of ET life. To listen to
 >you and John and Michel and Deardorff and Gates and Clark and
 >(sometimes) Mortellaro, _nobody_ on this List believes in it other
 >than you. I really don't think it is as bad as you think it is,
 >as far as this List goes.

 >I look forward to the video.

 >Roger


I was attacked by a couple of individuals, and also asked
questions as to why I was pushing Chris's footage?

I don't wish to get bogged down in name calling, so I will only
now talk about the footage, I want people to tell me what it is
they think is on the tapes.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 5

                          Filer's Files #48 -- 2000

From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 22:53:27 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 02:38:49 -0500
Subject: Filer's Files #48 -- 2000


Filer's Files #48 -- 2000, MUFON Skywatch Investigations
George A. Filer, Director, Mutual UFO Network Eastern
December 4, 2000, Sponsored by Electronic Arts; Webmaster
C. Warren http://www.filersfiles.com. - Majorstar@aol.com.

SPACE WEATHER, MARS AND UFOs.

Our Sun is continuing its severe eruptions of sun flares,
coronal mass ejection's and gamma ray bursts that have been
striking our Earth's magnetosphere. A series of large flashes,
and unusual light activity in the Earth's atmosphere have been
reported recently that may be related to this heavy solar
activity. There is speculation that the Sun's eleven year solar
cycle is much larger than normal and many scientists are
extremely concerned due to escalating solar events. Last week,
there were eight large solar events in rapid succession. This
cycle appears unusually severe and may trigger comparatively bad
weather here on Earth. Heavy solar activity often results in
colder than normal temperatures, and heavy snow storms during
the winter. New evidence suggests the Sun effects the Earth's
weather to a much larger degree than we have realized. This
solar activity also seems to effect the number of UFO sightings
which have been lower the last few weeks.

Scientists at Armagh Observatory in Ireland claim a unique
weather record could show that the Sun has been the main
contributor to global warming over the past two centuries. The
weather observations, made almost daily since 1795, comprise the
longest climate archive available for a single site in Ireland.
Dr. John Butler, the astronomer in charge said, "We can see
global warming taking place over the past two centuries that
suggests that changes in the Sun are at least partially
responsible." What makes the data so useful is that the site of
the observatory has not changed all that much in 200 years,"
said Dr. Butler. "Other weather stations have been engulfed by
towns and cities that make the long-term reliability of their
data questionable." "It's quite apparent from our data that
global warming, of about a degree C, has been taking place for
at least a hundred years. The Sun's activity affects the flux of
cosmic rays, high-energy particles from deep space, that strike
our atmosphere are likely the chief source of ionization that
influences cloud formation. Thanks to BBC News Online.

MARS SIGNIFICANT DISCOVERY ANNOUNCEMENT EXPECTED

NASA announced its going to make a major announcement about a
new discovery on Mars. NASA claims this is the "most significant
discovery yet" from the Mars Global Surveyor, which has been
orbiting our neighboring planet since 1997. Michael Malin and
Ken Edgett, who are in charge of the Mars Orbiter Camera that
discovered evidence of recent water near the Martian surface
last summer, will attend the news conference. Also to attend is
Ken Nealson, the director of the Center for Life Detection at
NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. My
guess is that the announcement is likely to reveal that NASA
scientists have discovered ancient sea or lake beds on the
surface of Mars that could once have harbored life, writes
Jonathan Leake of BBC. The discovery is among the most
significant concerning Mars so far, because such places are the
most likely locations for fossils or other signs of past life.
NASA will announce the discovery in this week's edition of
"Science" with the suggestion that the next generation of Mars
landings should be sent to such areas. A British group building
a craft bound for Mars said it was already considering rerouting
its vehicle, Beagle II, to land in the middle of one of the
newly discovered sea beds. It is said to have sent back detailed
pictures of rocks that could only have been created by
sedimentation, in which particles sink to a sea bed and are
compressed into rock. Thanks to BBC.

Editor's Note: There is also evidence on Mars for an ancient
civilization that is remarkably similar to sites in Egypt and
Mexico. During the Egyptian Israeli War we flew Austrian Peace
keeping forces into Cairo frequently over flying the Pyramids at
Giza. Later on vacation I also visited the mysterious Mexican
city of Teotihuacan, where three distinctive pyramids dedicated
to the Sun, the Moon, and to Quetzalcoatl exist. As a former
intelligence officer I've had experience in analyzing aerial
photographs and it is my opinion the similarities between the
Mars Face, the pyramids, the Fort and City Mound in the Cydonia
region are similar to the pyramid sites on Earth. Further, it is
important to understand the Mars Cydonia site is located on the
edge of what I feel was once an ancient lake or seas. Also, the
ancient City Mound appears to have a trench or a moat and looks
very similar to ancient mound sites on Earth. The pyramids and
the Mars Face appear similar to the Sphinx and pyramids at Giza.
The sites at all three locations have an ancient road or pathway
connecting the various key structures. If the photographs were
taken on Earth rather than on Mars it would be assumed we are
looking at ancient ruins. These allegedly natural structures are
strongly suggestive of a conscious design. I admit that any
single structure could have been formed by natural forces, but
this combination of structures would require an unbelievable
coincidence of nature. This combination of structures strongly
indicates to me this is the site of an ancient Martian city.

WASHINGTON D.C. DISC SEEN

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA -- Around 10:00 PM on November 19, 2000, the
witness observed an object flying southeast overhead across a
flight path to the Reagan National Airport only a few miles out
side of the District of Columbia. The aircraft fly so low you
are very accustomed to their sounds, different lighting, and
even at times are able to read the company logos on the side of
the aircraft. I looked up I saw blinking white then red then
white again lights that were unfamiliar to any normal aircraft
that we have seen. These lights formed a somewhat circular
pattern and would alternate between the red and white in this
clear pattern. This first caught my eye and as I observed if
further it seemed to move in a pattern of front and back and
then side to side but all the while moving forward, almost as if
it was gliding or floating. I pointed this unusual sighting to
my daughter and her friend (both honor students at George
Washington University where I work.  We then proceeded outside
and watched as this light pattern and movement continued. As it
moved closer and continued over the house, it was not close
enough to determine the exact shape. We closely watched the
light pattern that was circular and most definitely not our
usual jet or helicopter. The object continued with a very
exacting movement and light pattern when suddenly we saw another
one meet with it and they both seemed to instantaneously
disappear. What perplexes me is how something like this can fly
across a flight path, so near to the district where it is
heavily populated, and then toward the direction of the Pentagon
and yet we have heard nothing about this on the news. I have to
believe some of these pilots or our own radar would pick
something this strange up. Thanks to Peter Davenport UFORC
www.ufocenter.com

FLORIDA DISK SPOTTED

NORTH MIAMI BEACH - At 6:42 PM, on November 28, 2000, the
witness observed an object like a plate with an upside down cup
in the top.  The disk had yellow, white and red lights at the
bottom. Some of the lights were steady and others were blinking
at the top. The witness stated, "I just remember seeing
something around the object, but not too close. They looked like
stars to me, but they were following the object. There were at
least three of these little things." I watched it thru a window.
It was bright in some parts. The lights also had some kind of
movement or perhaps the object itself had some kind of rotation.
The disk was north of me and it was moving west, when I came out
of the apartment to see it again, but it was gone. Although, I
saw it for only 35 seconds I can still see it in my mind's eye.
Thanks to Peter Davenport NUFORC www.ufocenter.com

OHIO ROUND UFO SEEN

NEWARK -- Kenny Young reports that on November 29, 2000, a
resident from the of Licking County alerted the Ohio State
Highway Patrol that her 11-year old son at 5:45 PM observed an
UFO. Her son rushed into the house shaking with tears in his
eyes. His face was red and he was yelling: "Mom! I just saw a
UFO!" This child does not tell stories and was clearly shook up.
The mother looked outside to see for herself, but nothing was
there. The son described a low-level object flying just above
the trees that was a gray-colored UFO. It had eight bright green
lights on the bottom with a red light in the center. The UFO was
round and "big enough to put four cars" inside of it. The object
made no sound and hovered stationary at an angle with the bottom
toward her son, situated so that he could not see the top of it.
She contacted the Ohio State Patrol office located at State
Route 16 and County Road 40. Thanks to Kenny Young - U F O  R e
s e a r c h >http://home.fuse.net/ufo/

WISCONSIN FAST MOVING COLORED LIGHTS

FOUNTAIN CITY -- Jim Aho writes that he received this report
from Timothy Dust on November 23, 2000 who indicates, "My
brother, Jonathan Dust and I were both at our parents' rural
cabin on Thanksgiving Day. After dinner around 6:25 PM, my
brother and I decided to go outside on our 2nd floor deck for a
breath of fresh air. We had an awesome view above the tree tops
of the clear night sky. Looking around at the stars, I suddenly
noticed a large "stationary" red and orange light, hovering a
100 feet above an the Canada Ridge that's a half mile away. My
brother got a pair of high-powered binoculars to view it more
clearly. It changed its position several times - up and down,
left to right, then right to left, as if bobbing on the waves.
The colors changed as well, from rosy red to orange to white
with a tint of green and then back to red. At one point it
looked as if it was leaving but returned, and then lowered
itself down into the tree-line and proceeded to go back and
forth until it disappeared into Eagle Valley. We both watched
this "orb" for over 30 minutes. There was no sound. The craft at
arm's length, was the size of a pencil eraser. Johnathan the
brother says, "We were identifying several constellations when
Timothy noticed a bright red light hovering over the ridge tree
line by 100 feet.  From my perspective it was a bright red
light, it was not a plane (no associated green or white lights)
because it held position. It moved like a settling leaf (back
and forth) at one time like it was looking for something. The
weather in that direction was overcast so it was not at a far
distance. Thanks to Tim and Johnathan Dust DMoonwraith@aol.com
and Jim Aho, the W-Files http://files.ufo2u.com

ILLINOIS FLYING TRIANGLE'

PEORIA -- Two objects were seen over the downtown area on
November 28, 2000. Each had four bright white lights on them.
The first one condensed into one light and suddenly disappeared.
The second one was in a wide V formation. It was very low to the
ground. Too low to be an airplane. It almost looked like it was
going to graze the tops of the Peoria buildings. Then it to
condensed into one light and disappeared. The UFOs were against
the orange glow of the city lights and were very easy to see.
Normally, I would not report something like this but my wife is
a skeptic and when she saw this she absolutely freaked. She
encouraged me to report this so I did. Thanks to Peter Davenport
NUFORC www.ufocenter.com Editor's Note: Last January a similar
craft was seen by four policemen in Southern Illinois. The
Discovery Channel has been carrying this Illinois UFO Sighting
Television Program in recent weeks and I encourage you to see
the show. Drs. Bruce Cornet and Colm Kelleher are the stars of
the show.

ARIZONA UFO SIGHTING ROB'S & DAR'S BACKYARD

RIMROCK -- Rob Meyers went to the window in his living room at
7:18 PM, on December 1, 2000 and saw a strange light above his
backyard. Rob said, "Come here and look at this." Dar looked and
exclaimed, "That's an UFO!" She immediately ran out side saying,
"Grab your camera, its a huge ship!" Rob grabbed his equipment
and ran out to the creek and saw a huge UFO about 1000 feet off
the ground. Rob started to video the UFO. That's when two ships
appeared. Rob said, "It was not one, but two." It started to
shine a beam of light down on the ground and started moving
towards us. It stopped, and all of a sudden one ship blinked and
disappeared. Rob continued to observe the craft. He came into
the house and called a friend and asked him to go outside to see
if he could also see the UFO. The friend also saw the craft and
Rob again went outside and it was still there. Thanks to Ed
Burdick and Rob Meyers robmeyer@sedona.net.

ARIZONA FLYING TRIANGLE

PHOENIX - November 28, 2000, I was in my backyard in north
Phoenix around 7:00 PM, when I heard the rumble of a passing
jetliner. As I looked up to see it a giant mass in the shape of
a Flying Triangle with a deep red light on each point. As I
watched the object I noticed all three lights would blink on an
off together. I observed it traveling to the northwest for about
10 seconds when the object began to lean to the left and began
to rotate in a clockwise motion, still holding its northwest
direction. I was able to watch it long enough to see it make a
full rotation before disappearing behind some distant trees. The
movements were so smooth and unwavering that it seemed unreal.
The amazing thing of it all was the amount of air traffic that
was in the area. I counted no less than 6 airplanes within my
vision as all of this occurred. I see the commercial air traffic
coming and going from Sky Harbor International airport in the
north. The sight of this object from a small plane must have
been intense. Thanks to Jason Ingraham.

IRELAND LARGE METALLIC DISK IN IRISH COUNTRYSIDE

BALLINA - On November 22, 2000, in broad daylight a metallic disk appeared
from behind Mount Neiphin and traveled silently but at huge velocity across
countryside in a "S"pattern before ascending vertically into clouds at 2:00
PM. The UFO was witnessed by at least five people including a Garda police
officer, but it is likely that more may have seen it, although the area is
sparsely populated. We wish to remain anonymous to avoid local ridicule,
however we will help out if more witnesses come forward. I am a high school
teacher and others are shop owner, electrician and a student. The UFO was
about 20 meters in diameter. Thanks to NUFORC www.ufocenter.com.

SCOTLAND TWO UFOs REPORTED

EDINBURGH -- The eyewitness Nevel Bell writes, "I had my first
UFO sighting on a clear Saturday night, November 25, 2000, at
about 7:.15 PM while walking home. I saw what looked like a
satellite moving through the eastern sky, as it's path was
constant and straight. To the left of the satellite there was
another. Perfectly normal I thought. Then it all started to get
weird. The two moving objects started to move closer to each
other, visibly picking up speed. Then they seemed to cross each
other's path and they did this several times. I thought that
they could have been fighter jets at high altitude as there was
no sound. The two star like objects then arced across the sky at
a tremendous speed, something I've never witnessed before. Then
they dipped down and disappeared into the horizon. Now, I've
work in radio and have investigated these sort of sighting in
depth. During my work on that particular program, I became the
worlds biggest skeptic! My logical explanation for my sighting
is that the objects where in fact fighter jets at high altitude,
or they really didn't exist. Has anyone seen anything like this
? Gerry Far Shores Anomalous Phenomena Resource
www.topcities.com/OuterSpace/farshores/farshores / Nevel Bell
nevelbel@hotmail.com.

FIREBALLS AND METEORS

Nick Balaskas, from the Physics and Astronomy Department at York
University writes, regarding the fireball discussed in Filer's
Files #47. Below is some information about fireballs taken from
the 'Observer's Handbook 2001' published by The Royal
Astronomical Society of Canada, which I think you will find very
useful. Some of the web sites mentioned below have reports from
others who may have witnessed the same fireball or UFO. A
fireball is defined as a meteor that is brighter than -4 in
apparent magnitude that is as bright as or brighter than Venus.
Exploding meteors or bolides often change direction while other
meteors can seem to remain stationary in the sky for a very
brief moment if they are falling directly at you. There are
photographic examples of both. While looking through a
telescope, I saw a rapidly moving point of light moving from
left to right, then I saw what I thought was the same object now
moving from right to left. When I looked at the sky through
unaided eyes, I saw two satellites moving away from each other
in opposite directions. If there happened to be a small patch of
cloud in that region of the sky, I would probably have concluded
that this satellite (or UFO) changed direction by about 180
degrees.

Many of these fireballs caught in NASA satellite film footage
may not be real meteors. For example, visible charged particles
moving in space could be attracted towards or away from the
Shuttle and would exhibit a curved trajectory. There is no way
to accurately determine real changes in altitude or distance of
an object from a single observing point. Some objects may seem
to zig-zag back and forth while in fact they only really changed
their heading by a couple of degrees at most. People see this
all the time if they look towards a distant busy airport. Do not
forget that there are many surprises in nature still waiting to
be identified by science. It is only recently that we have
discovered Red Sprites, Blue Jets and ELFS (huge saucer shaped
atmospheric phenomena) associated with large thunderstorms. It
was just announced that there is E.T. bacteria in our upper
atmosphere. Ever since the Russian announced recently that
fossils were discovered in their lunar samples, I would not be
surprised if someone will also find proof that astronaut
Musgrave's space snakes, which have been seen and photographed
in Earth orbit, are real too!

I would like to share a story with you of a meteor-like event I
witnessed but still cannot explain. After reading a passage in
the Bible about life after death, I stepped outside my home and
place of work high up in the Asir Mountains of Saudi Arabia. I
looked up into the black night sky and wondered if indeed human
life is eternal. I then saw a bright meteor streak across the
sky. After it disappeared completely it brightened up again and
continued streaking on further along in the sky in the same
direction as before towards the ground. Although I attributed
this unusual sighting to a special meteoroid composed of
materials with different volatilities, as my eyes got adapted to
the darkness I discovered that the entire sky was overcast with
low clouds! I could not possibly have seen a meteor burning up
in the sky between the ground and the cloud layers, especially
one which was of such exceptionally long duration in time from
start to finish. A possible flare or firing of a missile by our
Yemenese neighbors also did not seem to be the answer since it
originated from above. Spooked, I entered my home again, closed
the door and wondered if this sighting was simply the answer
from God to my question rather than just another unexplainable
UFO sighting. The preferred method for submitting fireball
reports is by completion of an electronic fireball reporting
form at one of the following locations:  Canada (only):
http://miac.uqac.uquebec.ca/MIAC/fireball.htm  United States
(AMS): http://www.amsmeteors.org/ Thanks to Nick Balaskas
nikolaos@yorku.ca

Editor's Note: Once I became very disgusted regarding God and
UFOs while driving home, and said out loud, "If you are real
give me a sign." I also got a bright light , meteor or UFO that
almost smashed into my car's windshield. It scared me, but I
know something is out there.

SF-6 GAS POSSIBLE CHEMTRAIL SOLUTION ANNOUNCED

Bill Dungan Jr. writes, I was reading your Filer's Files #44 and
find the possible reasons for the chem-trails interesting. I
have some experience with SF-6, sulphur hexafluoride gas that is
being sprayed on Salt Lake City by the Department of Energy's
Chemical and Biological National Security program, whose goal is
to develop systems the US can use to respond to attacks during
the Winter Olympics. Sulphur hexafluoride is being released into
the skies above Salt Lake City for these tests by aircaft.
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'+, Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA)
is also supporting this study. DTRA which is responsible for
protecting the US 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.

When I retired from the US Air Force in 1988, I was an Airborne
Radar Tech on E3 AWACS aircraft. The statement you made about it
being " non-toxic " and " inert " was only partially correct. In
radar systems, if there is an electrical arc through the gas a
by-product is a type of cyanide gas. SF-6 gas was used to
pressurize the waveguides and high voltage system under a max.
pressure of 15 psi. In the E3's aft lower lobe ( where the high
voltage equipment is located ) we were constantly on the alert
for the " almond smell " of cyanide gas whenever we suspected
any high voltage arcing. The positive pressure within the
waveguides worked to keep contaminants from entering the guides
and degrading the microwave signal used as the radar beam.
Sensors in the waveguides constantly monitored the electrical
conductivity of the gas which, without contaminants, would be
infinity. Should enough contaminants get into the waveguides,
the sensors would then show some amount of electrical
conductivity which would " signal " the need to purge the guides
and/or look for a serious degradation of the waveguide material.
Contamination within the guides can produce electrical arcing.
The arcing produces the cyanide gas.   For the life of me, I
cannot think of any plausible reason to spray this gas into the
atmosphere unless it is mixed with some other material to act as
a " protector " of that material against stray ions in the
atmosphere. The reason I'm writing you about this is because
lightning arcing through this stuff would be a large scale
cyanide " generator " if the gas is in any large amount. Thanks
to Bill Dungan Jr. wdungan@dedac.com.

Editor"s Note: Ron Regehr informed me about the article in the
Salt Lake Tribune regarding the DoE and the DoD plan 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."
Ron Regehr says, "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." SALT LAKE TRIBUNE
10/21/00. by Brent Isralsen
http://www.sltrib.com/2000/oct/10212000/utah/35229.htm

NATIONAL AVIATION REPORTING CENTER ON ANOMALOUS PHENOMENA"

Dr. Richard Haines announced the National Aviation Reporting
Center on Anomalous Phenomena (NARCAP) is a research
organization formed to study the Anomalous Aerial Phenomena
Impact on Aviation Safety. NARCAP is a non-profit, scientific
organization that will provide pilots and air traffic
controllers with a special reporting facilities to improve US
aviation safety. Ted Roe, NARCAP's executive director said, "Our
center was developed to help enhance aviation safety by better
understanding the nature and potential effects of unidentified
aerial phenomena (UAP) upon ground and airborne systems,
piloting, and cockpit/aircrew procedures." The center takes no
position on the source or nature of such phenomena and prefers
to let the data speak for themselves. "We provide a
confidential, telephone and internet-based reporting system for
radar and air traffic controllers, and pilots to assist in
documenting high quality, scientifically relevant data on UAP of
many different kinds," Roe stated, Dr. Richard Haines, a retired
NASA research scientist and NARCAP's chief scientist, explained
why the new organization was formed. "We conducted a thorough,
fifty-year review of pilot reports of UAP and found almost one
hundred incidents that appeared to impact aviation safety either
directly or indirectly. For instance, we found numerous
instances of temporary or permanent disabling of one or more
on-board electrical or magnetically controlled systems during
close proximity to UAP. We found that many pilots changed their
altitude and/or course to avoid a collision with nearby UAP -
sometimes with passenger and crew injury - and we found cases of
cockpit confusion during these intriguing close encounters.
These reports suggest that an unexplained aerial phenomenon does
exist and deserves serious scientific study, and that US
aviation safety could be adversely affected by UAP under certain
circumstances."

NARCAP has a flight simulation capability to assist the pilots
in carrying out a flight re-construction. This capability helps
us "tease out those small but important hidden details of an
incident." Dr. Haines stated, "based on a comprehensive review
of past US pilot, radar operator, and controller reports, we
believe there is a potential and ongoing threat to aviation
safety posed by so-called anomalous aerial phenomena. In the
same way that wind shear, lightning strikes, bird strikes, and
other very low probability of occurrence events can influence
aviation safety, so can some unidentified aerial phenomena.
Pilots must be prepared to deal effectively with them. We would
like to work with the nation's airlines to implement special
pilot training classes directly related to coping with such
close encounters." Dr. Haines stated that Federal Aviation
authorities have taken wind shear very seriously, requiring
special commercial pilot training. Yet UAP appear to occur with
equal or greater frequency than does wind shear. UAP have caused
transient and permanent effects on cockpit instruments basic to
navigation and flight control, and UAP have also contributed to
an increase in both pilot and air traffic controller workload
due to their unexpected appearance and poorly understood
characteristics that can lead to overreactions on the part of
aviation personnel. "Unidentified Aerial Phenomena must not be
disregarded any longer. US aviation officials should face the
documented facts and then quietly but effectively introduce
procedures and programs to help pilots and controllers cope more
effectively. Our science community should also become involved
in the serious study of UAP for the common good and we would
like to collect the data they need," said Dr. Haines. Thanks to:
TED ROE Phone: (831) 338 - 4783) www.narcap.org

Editor's Note: It is my feeling that UAP may include missiles or
unknown aircraft that may be responsible for many near misses
and possible airline crashes. TWA Flight 800 and Egyptian Air
Flight 900 crashes have many mysterious aspects that need
further investigation. An organization like this is needed.
Government agencies have so many political factors restraining
them, they are often unable to react or release pertinent data.

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

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 >
   Dec > Dec 5

                Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 00:15:51 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 02:43:10 -0500
Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Velez


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 00:54:42 EST
 >Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 02:08:15 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot?

 ><snip>

 >>>Thanks. I enlarged it 800% and it has a horizontal to vertical
 >>>size ratio of 5:4, with the bright image tapering off to the
 >>>left, and a dark appendage to its left. Looks like it might be
 >>>the vertical tail surface of an aircraft. There really isn't
 >>>much detail to go on.

 >>Where have you ever seen a spherical airplane Bob?

Bob responds:

 >As I explained, John, it sure doesn't look "spherical" to me.
 >But, a bright specular reflection could look that way if one is
 >not looking at it closely or at enough magnification.

It was only a couple of thousand feet up and away from me. It
was slightly larger than the (apparent) size of Jupiter in the
night sky. That was naked eye. Through the videocam viewfinder
it was a well defined, slightly flattened on top and bottom
sphere. It was all white, and because it was so evenly lit and
bright it looked like the light was coming from it rather than a
reflection. With reflections you get highlights on one side, and
shadows on the opposite side. These are uniformly white out to
the edges, top and bottom, with shadow areas appearing only
along the outer perimeter/edges. They 'look like' structured
white orbs.

 >>I can post some single frames of when it is passing the vent
 >>stack on my roof and as it approaches the edge of the roof if
 >>you like.
 >That would be great. Also, check out Brad Spark's thoughts on
 >additional info which is needed to really rule out everything
 >mundane.

I have invited Brad to contact me privately so that we can do
just that. (See my posting to Brad under same subject header)

 >Please don't take this except as it is intended: but, how did
 >you determine that birds, perhaps seagulls seen at a great
 >distance, don't behave like that?  (I am not proposing
 >pelicans).

<LOL>Pelicans! There ya go! Why I'll bet it's the same pelicans
that were spotted in 1947!  Heckle and Jeckel :)

In answer to your question: because I have watched all kinds of
birds flying while they are out at different times of the day
looking for food or whatever. Gulls don't "hover."  Remain in
-the exact same spot- for periods of time without moving a lick.
The things I record can move, come to a complete stand-still,
and then continue off along a different flight path. The only
bird that can hover like these things do are hummingbirds.
Unless they come in a large white spherical variety, it ain't
hummingbirds either! ;)

Hey man, I'm with you. I'd much rather think that I am taping
Pelicans than true UFOs. All a pelican can do is crap on my
head. Who knows 'what' UFOs are really all about. Pelicans I can
understand and deal with.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 5

             Re: Munoz's Report - Corrales' Translation, Part I

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 02:32:01 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 11:25:56 -0500
Subject: Re: Munoz's Report - Corrales' Translation, Part I


 >Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 14:31:59 -0800
 >To: UFO UpDates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >Subject: Munoz's Report - Corrales Translation, Part I

 >Below is about the first half of Daniel Munoz's report on the
 >Aug. 6, 1997, Mexico City sighting and video, as translated by
 >Scott Corrales. Scott, author of 'Chupacabras and Other
 >Mysteries', is not on this list.

 >Did this beat your translation to the List, John (Velez)? If
 >yours comes through, too, we'll have two versions to compare for
 >accuracy.

 >I see now that I did not do proper justice in translating one of
 >Hesemann's words; I should have used "letter" instead of "note."

 >Jim

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

 >Report from Daniel Munoz
 >as translated by Scott Corrales,
 >12/4/00

 >Part I

 >The "Las Lomas" UFO

Hiya Jim,

It seems that Scott is running way ahead of me so I will
(thankfully) relinquish my translator duties to Scott. I have
only one discrepency in our translations that I'd like to point
out in the interest of accuracy. In the first paragraph I say
"Southern part of Mexico City" and Scott says, "Western", the
word used in Daniel's original is, "Sur" which means South.
"Oeste" means "West."

If I'm mistaken I'll eat my Spanish hat without salt.  And, I'm
probably in for a whippin' if my mom finds out! <LOL>

Otherwise we both translated it pretty much the same. It's all
yours Scott! It's a tome of a thing to translate quickly. I
don't envy you the job but thanx for doing it.

Better you than me!  <LOL>

Regards,

John Velez, -Off the hook!-  ;)

******************************************************
                     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 >
   Dec > Dec 5

                Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars' - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 02:51:50 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 11:29:34 -0500
Subject: Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars' - Velez


 >Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 19:37:27 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
 >From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars'

 >>Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 16:23:58 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars' - Sunday Times

 ><snip>

 >>>This weekend a British group building a craft bound for Mars
 >>>said it was already considering rerouting its vehicle, Beagle
 >>>II, to land in the middle of one of the newly discovered sea
 >>>beds.

 ><snip>

 >>A British Mars lander mission? Beagle II?  That's news to me.
 >>Something like this should have made the news before this.

 >Hi Larry.

 >About 2 1/2 years ago Stig Agermose posted an article from The
 >Nando Times on UFO UpDates about this future British Mars lander
 >mission. Unfortunately the URL Stig mentioned in his post has
 >expired but you can find my comments on this British planetary
 >mission at

 >http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1998/jul/m28-021.shtml

 >Nick Balaskas

 >P.S.  I too do not understand all the excitement over a major
 >Mars "discovery" that has long since been accepted as a fact and
 >written up in astronomy textbooks since the 1970s. But, with the
 >important recent discovery of flowing liquid water beneath the
 >surface of Mars, these ocean basins may actually be much younger
 >than millions of years and the dark patches found in these low
 >land regions of Mars can now be interpreted as further evidence
 >of biological activity going on now.

Hiya Nick, All,

Nick, do you mean to say that in all the photographing that
they've been doing, they haven't tried to photograph the regions
that lighten and darken portions of the Martian surface in a
cyclical/seasonal manner?

I would have thought that with a resolution of 109 yards to the
inch they would have done it by now just to see exactly what is
at work on the surface to cause the phenom.

I always thought that scientists had determined that the changes
on the surface observed from earth based telescopes were
seasonal, major-league, dust storms.

Is the possibility of 'biological activity' still an open
question? I really thought that they had written it all off as
dust storms.

Teach me sumpin professor!  <vbg>

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 >
   Dec > Dec 5

              Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Lushman

From: Rory Lushman <oubliette@currantbun.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 08:00:00 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 11:32:10 -0500
Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Lushman


Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 08:00
From: Rory Lushman <oubliette@currantbun.com>
To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark?


 >Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 04:29:18 +0000
 >From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark?

 >I don't think I am alone in having strong feelings about this
 >case, many people have taken a keen interest. Good to
 >have you on board. And Chris is looking for any sceptical
 >researcher to check out his films and his filming.

Even better Roy, instead of checking out his films, I would like
to accompany Chris on one of his outings. As he is clearly so
lucky filming objects/lights, we're bound to get lucky. Now can
you mutually arrange this Roy?

 >I have, as I mentioned in earlier posts ( you obviously
 >missed those ones) witnessed some of these UFOs at first
 >hand. Mostly appearing in broad daylight.

Before I meet up with Chris, can you furnish me with the dates,
times and locations of these events that you witnessed Roy.

 >Firstly we only have the testimony of Rory Lushman to go on.

So what are you saying Roy, that I'm a liar? You weren't there
Roy. Chris Martin pointed out an object that was quite clearly a
plane; the location driver couldn't believe he was trying to fob
this off as a UFO. However Roy, as you doubt my word, I could
always try and contact the film crew at LWT and see what they
thought. Also apart from the film crew, there were at least 8
other people being interviewed and the park was full of members
of the public.

 >Please ask for a (Free ) CD from Dave Bowden to start
 >your investigations, the footage on the CD is very high quality.

Please can you send me a free CD. I would like to examine it
further.

How long has Chris been having these sightings and do his
experiences go beyond sightings and if so can you tell me when
they first started.


Cheers

Rory










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 5

                Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars' - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 01:08:43 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 11:34:15 -0500
Subject: Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars' - Hatch


 >Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 18:31:02 +0000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >Subject: Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars'

 >>Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 16:23:58 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars' - Sunday Times

 >><snip>

 >>Hello All:

 >>A British Mars lander mission? Beagle II?  That's news to me.
 >>Something like this should have made the news before this.

 >Larry,All,

 >The Beagle2 Mars lander website is at:

 >http://www.beagle2.com


Hello Neil and thanks for the link!

Very interesting. Perhaps a bit of competition will
encourage other better known space agencies to be more
ambitious, and more prompt and up-front with their
findings.

I'm surprised and pleased to learn about Beagle II. I browse
some science news sites, and hadn't heard a peep until now.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 5

                Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars' - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 01:31:19 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 11:36:21 -0500
Subject: Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars' - Hatch


 >Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 17:19:53 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars'

 >>Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 18:31:02 +0000
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >>Subject: Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars'

 >>>Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 16:23:58 -0800
 >>>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars' - Sunday Times

 >>><snip>

 >>>A British Mars lander mission? Beagle II?  That's news to me.
 >>>Something like this should have made the news before this.

 >>Larry,All,

 >>The Beagle2 Mars lander website is at:

 >>http://www.beagle2.com


 >Hiya Neil,

 >Thanx for the link, interesting stuff. What I really find
 >interesting is the lack of coverage here in the States. The
 >current state of the media in this country is sad and more than
 >a little scary. It's gone deaf, dumb, and blind, to what is
 >going on in other countries, and it has all been reduced to the
 >level of sensationalistic tabloid garbage. I have to watch the
 >Public Television broadcast of ITN News in order to find out
 >what is going on Internationally. There is not one bloody
 >network station that carries more than two minutes of
 >International News. And those are the newscasts that large
 >portions of the population are relying on for "news."

 >BTW, speaking just as a "tailfin and shiney doo-dad lovin'
 >American" (I grew up with BIG Cadillacs and curvey Corvettes to
 >look at,) the British Beagle looks a lot like a solar powered,
 >Home Depot, Bar-B-Que grill!  If they find all those missing cow
 >parts on Mars, at least they'll be ready to cook em up. Yum!
 ><LOL>

 >The Beagle, a "True" Unidentified Flamebroiled Object!  <LOL>



Hello John and all:

IF its the image at the upper left of the main page of their
website, it looks more like a space-age drum set to me, or maybe
a collection of Italian coffee pots. We all wish them every
success of course.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 5

              Re: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I -

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 01:37:46 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 11:38:51 -0500
Subject: Re: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I -


 >Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 13:57:40 -0800
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >Subject: Re: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I

 >>Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 17:34:58 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I

 >>>From: Daniel Muoz <Ovnimexico1@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 10:19:40 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Write-Up, Part I
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>...The person who brought us the tape and the letter in fact,
 >>>signed it with another name. No nameless or anonymous. And he
 >>>brought us to our TV station to be spread, due to its
 >>>importance...

 >>...For what it is worth, I quote from the translation made by Jim
 >>Deardorff of an article originally written in German, by
 >>Hesemann:

 >>" On Sept. 26, 1997, Jaime Maussan received a very
 >>special package. Someone had sent him a video tape, in
 >>itself nothing remarkable. But when he played the tape on
 >>his video recorder, it took his breath away. For the
 >>anonymously sent recording showed nothing but points of
 >>light and sky - except for a large, metallic, structured,
 >>rotating disk, which maneuvered in broad daylight over
 >>Mexico City, with a dateline of 6 August 1997 - and
 >>disappeared behind a high-rise building and reappeared,
 >>which speaks clearly for it being a large object.

 >>Enclosed with it was only a note, which read, "We know
 >>what happens to witnesses, if they go public with something
 >>like this." Maussan's first reaction was, "This is a
 >>fake;  it can't be real!" (end quote).

 >>Note the words "anonymously sent"... and the enclosed note
 >>saying "We know what happens to witnesses, if they go public
 >>with something like this."

 >>Granted, this is all 3rd or 4rth hand, filtered through at least
 >>two translations Spanish ==>German ==>English and thus
 >>questionable.

 >>If these statements are wholly or partly wrong, it would be best
 >>to contact Deardorff and/or Hesemann for corrections or
 >>explanations. I'm sure many of us would like those matters
 >>straightened out.


 >Hesemann's German at that point read, "...die ihm anonym
 >bersandte Aufnahme...". In German "anonym" means the same in
 >English, as far as the dictionary meaning is concerned. But
 >unless I learn more about it, I'd give the nod to Munoz, who was
 >closer to Maussan on this than was Hesemann. I believe that
 >Maussan spoke or corresponded with Hesemann via English, which
 >then became German for Hesemann, and now that German is
 >translated back into English by another person. Munoz's version,
 >after translation, will just be from Spanish to English, period.

 >It may be, however, that Hesemann knows that the note
 >accompanying the video arrived pseudonymously rather than
 >anonymously, and was just loose in his use of words there. My
 >English dictionary's 2nd definition of "anonymous" is "of
 >unknown name." If no one could be found having the name that was
 >signed, then the real sender's name was probably unknown, and so
 >the lawyer could argue that "anonymous" wasn't wrong.

 >Since some interest has been stirred up on this, perhaps we can
 >ask Munoz to supply the name that was used, or perhaps we'll
 >find out when his report is translated. Was it a common Spanish
 >name, which 20,000 or more inhabitants of Mexico City each has,
 >or was it a more unique name?

Hello Jim:

Points well taken.

Now, with John Velez kindly translating Munoz, I think the
anonymous-vs-pseudonymous matter will become of secondary
importance. It could easily have arisen from a poor translation
as you noted.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 5

             Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability? - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 02:46:32 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 11:42:25 -0500
Subject: Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability? - Hatch


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 20:08:02 EST
 >Subject: Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability?
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Chris Rutkowski <rutkows@cc.UManitoba.CA>
 >>Subject: Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability?
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 10:56:59 -0600 (CST)

 >>>From: Charles Chapman <charlesrc@earthlink.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability?
 >>>Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 06:48:19 -0800

 >>Charles Chapman asked:

 >>>I would like to ask [..] whether they use, and/or find
 >>>useful, the doctrine or concept of falsifiability.

<snip>

 >>You asked a very good question, and no one so far in my reading
 >>of the replies has answered your point directly. [ CR ]

<snip>

 >Chris, Charles & List,

 >I disagree that ETH is unfalsifiable. If the work was done and
 >it was handled properly we could make some progress -- Charles
 >has another posting with excellent suggestions on analyzing ETH
 >from the standpoint of what the aliens _cannot_ do or seem
 >unwilling or inacapable of doing. The way ETH is treated on this
 >List is typically extremist special pleading, always begging for
 >exceptions to the rule of Occam's Razor to "save" the ETH at all
 >costs (not realizing that this behavior doesn't "save" ETH at
 >all but discredits it). Searching for ad hoc excuses is not the
 >scientific method. An ad hoc excuse is one that is created just
 >for the purpose of rescuing the hypothesis and it doesn't do
 >anything else, doesn't lead to scientific progress, greater
 >knowledge or ongoing discovery.

 >Occam's Razor (and Hynek's principle) require that we eliminate
 >the simplest explanations first and that means eliminating the
 >_lowest_ level of alien technology first before resorting to
 >higher or "magic" levels. At every turn just about when someone
 >wants to try to follow Occam's / Hynek's rule someone else drags
 >in the "magic" red herring to avoid rigorous thinking and
 >disciplined effort. The objector (or naive obstructionist) comes
 >along and says "No! no! no! With magic technology the aliens can
 >do anything and you can't argue one way or another about what
 >they can or cannot do."

 >The proper scientific method applied to ETH in UFO research is
 >to set up a series of ETH models or variants beginning at the
 >lowest possible levels of technology, then working out the
 >testable implications of each variant in terms of reliable data
 >on UFO activity patterns and behavior. Each model will need a
 >lot of work (to make up for 50 years of virtually zero
 >scientific theoretical work on UFO's) and should not be
 >peremptorily dismissed or rejected early on just because someone
 >gushes out the "alien magic" mantra in an instant analysis. ETH
 >models would deal with expected or predicted behavior for a
 >variety of possible activities such as generalized observation,
 >intelligence-gathering, scientific study, military conquest,
 >religious interference, entertainment, biological control or
 >breeding, psychological warfare or manipulation, benevolent
 >monitoring, mixed activities, etc. Other hypotheses besides ETH
 >should receive similar systematic treatment. All of this will
 >require rigorous logical argument and careful study; loose
 >thinking will scuttle the whole enterprise prematurely. Getting
 >bogged down in interminable emotional arguments will lead such
 >efforts astray. Quite possibly we simply do not have enough
 >serious scientific theoreticians to carry out this program of
 >scientific development of ETH.


Hello Brad and all.

I'd like to jump in here with a few points:

1) I think the term "falsifiable" with respect to the ETH, means
that there is no way to prove that there are _not_ any live
aliens out there, especially ones that might send UFOs this way.
With that particular wording, I would have to call the ETH
unfalsibiable. I cannot think of any reasonable experiment that
could ever prove there are _no_ ETs / UFOs whatever.

2) The ETH is potentially _verifiable_ of course. If science
ever publicly lays its hands on some obviously alien craft, the
deed is done. Even the EB ( Easter Bunny ) hypothesis is
potentially verifiable, but lets not get into that.

3) I like Brad's idea of starting with the simplest least
extravagant models and working our way up from there.

The _null_ hypothesis is that this Earth, not even this Solar
System has ever been visited by any craft manufactured by
"aliens"; whether they exist out there in time and space or not.
I call this Model Zero .. the one favored by many skeptics,
debunkers, many psycho-social theorists and so forth.

I would like to propose Model One: Subject to discussion and
change, it goes like this:

"At some time in the past, and possibly into the present,
intelligent beings, not of this Earth, have sent unmanned
exploratory or scientific probes to, about or around the Earth."

As I see it, these would be extremely advanced cybernetic
devices, with logical capabilities comparable to a human. But
don't expect poetry and music.

Such artificial intelligence could easily outwit our attempts to
capture, interfere or even detect the devices in most cases.
Exceptions might occur by chance from time to time.

The purpose of all this would presumably be information
gathering, and I would expect that information to be sent back
to the originating society, wherever that may be.

"Model One", stripped to its essentials - the part above in
quote marks - is about as un-extravagant as I can make it
without dropping to Model Zero; the null hypothesis.

If you like that, we can debate what Model Two should be.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 5

               Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 08:07:20 -0600
Fwd Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 11:45:02 -0500
Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Evans


 >From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 04:36:10 +0000
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Evans

 >>Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 22:04:47 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark?
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

I had written:

 >>You mention about how you were "attacked" here on UpDates and
 >>about all the "ranting" from skeptics regarding this footage.
 >>Maybe I missed it while out of town on a film shoot, but could
 >>you please point out the specific posts from the archives where
 >>this abuse took place?

 >>I'm not saying that I don't believe you. I just don't recall it.
 >>I feel this is an important issue, since there seems to be only
 >>a handful of people that take part on this List and I'd really
 >>like to see how many of them are as negative as you guys claim.

 >>It is my position that the majority of the people on this List,
 >>including me, believe in the existence of ET life. To listen to
 >>you and John and Michel and Deardorff and Gates and Clark and
 >>(sometimes) Mortellaro, _nobody_ on this List believes in it other
 >>than you. I really don't think it is as bad as you think it is,
 >>as far as this List goes.

Roy writes:

 >I was attacked by a couple of individuals, and also asked
 >questions as to why I was pushing Chris's footage?

 >I don't wish to get bogged down in name calling, so I will only
 >now talk about the footage, I want people to tell me what it is
 >they think is on the tapes.

Hi, Roy!

You made a pretty serious claim about people on this List which
I feel is incorrect. However, I could be mistaken. I am not
asking you to call anyone names or insult anyone. Indeed, if you
were the one insulted or attacked, all you have to do is point
out the posts where this happened.

I am genuinely interested in the video, don't get me wrong. But,
an unsubstantiated claim is an unsubstantiated claim, Roy.
Whether it's about UFOs or List members, without validation,
it's hard to take them seriously.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 5

             Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability? - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 10:35:23 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 11:46:17 -0500
Subject: Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability? - Young


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 4 DEC 2000 20:08:02 EST
 >Subject: Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability?
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

Brad, List:

A very good statement of the way to try to make progress.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 6

             Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability? - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 12:31:15 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 08:48:13 +0000
Subject: Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability? - Young


 >Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 02:46:32 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability?

 >1) I think the term "falsifiable" with respect to the ETH, means
 >that there is no way to prove that there are _not_ any live
 >aliens out there, especially ones that might send UFOs this way.
 >With that particular wording, I would have to call the ETH
 >unfalsifiable. I cannot think of any reasonable experiment that
 >could ever prove there are _no_ ETs / UFOs whatever.

<snip>

 >2) The ETH is potentially _verifiable_ of course. If science
 >ever publicly lays its hands on some obviously alien craft, the
 >deed is done. Even the EB ( Easter Bunny ) hypothesis is
 >potentially verifiable, but lets not get into that.

Larry, Brad, Chris, anybody:

Larry has a good point. But falsifiable hypotheses could be
proposed for individual incidents or claims.

 >3) I like Brad's idea of starting with the simplest least
 >extravagant models and working our way up from there.

Yes, easy to construct a simple falsifiable _hypothesis_. For
example, "A brilliant green light reported the other day by a
member of an aircraft crew in Texas is an ET craft." Either it
is or it isn't, or it can be proven to be or cannot.

<snip>

 >I would like to propose Model One: Subject to discussion and
 >change, it goes like this:

 >"At some time in the past, and possibly into the present,
 >intelligent beings, not of this Earth, have sent unmanned
 >exploratory or scientific probes to, about or around the Earth."

 >As I see it, these would be extremely advanced cybernetic
 >devices, with logical capabilities comparable to a human. But
 >don't expect poetry and music.

A good statement, particularly considering the possible event in
the _past_. After all, we have billions of years of Earth's
history, although imperfectly presented, right at our
fingertips. This aspect of the present (let's say, past 50
years) being only a tiny part of the potentially available
evidence (a fossil, say) would address Fermi's Parodox: If ETs
travel between the stars why aren't they here yet?

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 >
   Dec > Dec 6

             Re: Evidence Of Martian Land Of Lakes Discovered -

From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 13:29:39 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
Fwd Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 08:50:04 +0000
Subject: Re: Evidence Of Martian Land Of Lakes Discovered -


 >Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 15:30:22 -0500 (EST)
 >From: Hardin & Savage <NASANews@hq.nasa.gov>
 >Subject: Evidence Of Martian Land Of Lakes Discovered
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

 >"The finding of layered sedimentary deposits is something that
 >biologists have been hoping for," said Dr. Ken Nealson, director
 >of the Center for Life Detection at NASA's Jet Propulsion
 >Laboratory (JPL), Pasadena, CA. "Perhaps the favorite sites for
 >biologists to search for fossils or evidence of past life on
 >Earth are layered lake or oceanic sediments such as in these
 >sites Malin and Edgett describe."

<snip>

Hi everyone.

A while back Kent Steadman discovered one such large Martian
lake from the released MSSS Mars Global Surveyor images which he
called "Lake Steadman". It too exhibits the layered sedimentary
deposits and erosion patterns typical of other lakes found by
Dr. Malin and his MSSS team. Since Lake Steadman is totally
devoid of any craters, it may date back to the present time, not
billions of years ago. For this reason it should be a better
candidate site not just for past biological life but still
living Martian organisms too.

I wonder if Lake Steadman was among the first such examples to
be brought to Dr. Malin's attention and if it played a part in
the recent announcement of this major Martian discovery? Lake
Steadman can be viewed at

http://www.cbjd.net/orbit/mars/steadlake.html

Nick Balaskas







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 6

                      Draft of an Announcement [Bryant]

From: Larry W. Bryant <overtci@bellatlantic.net>
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 13:43:41 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 08:54:47 +0000
Subject: Draft of an Announcement [Bryant]


DRAFT of an Announcement to be Published in the "Pentagram" et al.


TO:  Ms. Norina Anghel, Classified Ads accounts clerk,
      COMPRINT, Inc.
      (9030 Comprint Court, Gaithersburg, MD  20877)

FROM:  Larry W. Bryant
        3518 Martha Custis Drive
        Alexandria, VA  22302
        PHONE:  (703) 931-3341

DATE:  December 5, 2000

Per our phone conversation today, here's the text of my proposed
Announcement to be published in a forthcoming edition of the Army
Pentagram, the Bolling AFB Beam, and the Andrews AFB Capital Flyer:

           Blow the Whistle on the Edwards AFB UFO Coverup!

All federal personnel (active and retired) now have the
opportunity to expose the current whereabouts of ALL the
photography (including jet-interceptor gun-camera film) produced
of a landed "flying saucer" at Edwards AFB, Calif., in May 1957
(as revealed by former astronaut L. Gordon Cooper in his memoirs
"Leap of Faith"). In support of an FOIA quest for these records,
you might qualify for a monetary reward under the forthcoming
"Edwards AFB Saucer-Film Disclosure Fund." For more info,
contact Larry W. Bryant at 703-931-3341

(overtci@bellatlantic.net), or visit:
http://www.ufocity.com; http://www.im-ur.com; and
http://www.petitionpetition.com.

NOTE to Ms. Anghel: Please advise me of the cost for placing the
above ad for one time in each of the above-cited weekly
post/base military newspapers (the headline being in 10-point
size and the body being in 8-point)-- so that I may mail you a
check in advance payment therefor. Thanks for this coordination.
-- O-ver and O-ut.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 6

                Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability? -

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 11:35:37 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 08:56:48 +0000
Subject: Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability? -


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 20:08:02 EST
 >Subject: Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability?
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Chris Rutkowski <rutkows@cc.UManitoba.CA>
 >>Subject: Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability?
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 10:56:59 -0600 (CST)


 >Chris, Charles & List,

 >I disagree that ETH is unfalsifiable. If the work was done and
 >it was handled properly we could make some progress - Charles
 >has another posting with excellent suggestions on analyzing ETH
 >from the standpoint of what the aliens _cannot_ do or seem
 >unwilling or inacapable of doing. The way ETH is treated on this
 >List is typically extremist special pleading, always begging for
 >exceptions to the rule of Occam's Razor to "save" the ETH at all
 >costs (not realizing that this behavior doesn't "save" ETH at
 >all but discredits it). Searching for ad hoc excuses is not the
 >scientific method. An ad hoc excuse is one that is created just
 >for the purpose of rescuing the hypothesis and it doesn't do
 >anything else, doesn't lead to scientific progress, greater
 >knowledge or ongoing discovery.

 >Occam's Razor (and Hynek's principle) require that we eliminate
 >the simplest explanations first and that means eliminating the
 >_lowest_ level of alien technology first before resorting to
 >higher or "magic" levels. At every turn just about when someone
 >wants to try to follow Occam's / Hynek's rule someone else drags
 >in the "magic" red herring to avoid rigorous thinking and
 >disciplined effort. The objector (or naive obstructionist) comes
 >along and says "No! no! no! With magic technology the aliens can
 >do anything and you can't argue one way or another about what
 >they can or cannot do." ...

Brad,

Back to the basics. Your suggestion is not in any manner a
scientific way of proceeding on this question. You are pleading
that we disregard all the UFO evidence except that which does
not boggle the mind. This might have been a plausible way to
proceed in late June of 1947 when we did not have much more to
go on than Kenneth Arnold's sighting - just a string of bobbing
and weaving, reflective disk-like craft that traveled fast. It
may have boggled Arnold's mind, but not ours now, after 53 years
of UFO reports. Your suggestion tries to negate Hynek's emphasis
on the importance of the high degree of strangeness accompanying
UFO sightings. Instead, this high degree of strangeness is a key
criterion (along with witness credibility) by which UFOs are
distinguished from IFOs. And we have a good deal more UFO
evidence now than in Hynek's day.

Let's remember, this is the year 2000, not 1947. We have a lot
of evidence showing us what the ETs or aliens can do. Let's
build on that evidence, not ignore it. For example, the alien
implant in Whitley Strieber's ear, which he had a surgeon try to
remove, actually moved itself away from the surgeon's tool a
couple of times just as he tried to remove it. This scared the
surgeon and Whitley both sufficiently that they quit trying to
remove it then and there. The surgeon has testified to this. Ed
Walters' flickering, thumping black dot that appeared on the
window pane, when the UFO was in the distance, is another. By
now we have accuumulated far too many similar reports to dismiss
them by dismissing the witnesses. We have been in "ET school"
for 53 years now, and you want to go back to the
pre-kindergarten level?

Another point to keep in mind: Scientists are able to keep track
of the difference between 300 and 300 million. Orders of
magnitude are of great importance in any scientific study. We
know that some ET technology could be much, much farther ahead
of ours than we are now ahead of the technology that existed 300
years ago around the start of our scientific revolution.
Astronomers know that some ET evolution could be over 300
million years ahead of us. ET "magic" has many orders of
magnitude in years to support the concept, and we have many
years of UFO evidence that supports it.

Occam's razor is too far wrong in too many cases to be of any
value here. How sensible would it be to re-investigate the
structure of matter by going back to the ancient Greek idea that
it is made up of nothing more than hard tiny spheres, since that
is a simpler sounding hypothesis than that of science today
involving a plethora of sub-microsopic particles and forces?
Forget Occam's razor. It is not any firm "rule" used in science.

The scientific method includes utilizing all the best available
experimental data and evidence, and not starting the
investigation of a problem by tossing out 90% of it.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 6

              Re: Munoz's Report - Corrales Translation, Part I

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@juno.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 13:24:38 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 09:03:00 +0000
Subject: Re: Munoz's Report - Corrales Translation, Part I


 >Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 02:32:01 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Munoz's Report - Corrales' Translation, Part I

 >>Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 14:31:59 -0800
 >>To: UFO UpDates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >>Subject: Munoz's Report - Corrales Translation, Part I


Dear Jim and John,

 >It seems that Scott is running way ahead of me so I will
 >(thankfully) relinquish my translator duties to Scott. I have
 >only one discrepency in our translations that I'd like to point
 >out in the interest of accuracy. In the first paragraph I say
 >"Southern part of Mexico City" and Scott says, "Western", the
 >word used in Daniel's original is, "Sur" which means South.
 >"Oeste" means "West."

I'll have to go back and check, but the author refers to an
agency being in the southern part of the city and then
backtracks to say its in the southwestern part.  Given the sheer
dimensions of Mexico City, this hardly matters, but for what
it's worth, you're absolutely right in your correction. :-)

The second part will go out tomorrow (I hope - a phone call can
send all my plans up in smoke)

Scott








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 6

              Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Rhodes

From: Terry Rhodes <UtterMole@cs.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 15:57:22 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 09:06:43 +0000
Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Rhodes


 >Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 04:25:55 +0000
 >From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark?

 >Come on now, start talking on this List like a someone who can
 >come forward with something positive to say, Rather than trying
 >to pick fights all the time.

I see, asking questions is somehow negative and indicates I'm
looking for a fight? I can now see how easily you jump to
inaccurate conclusions.

 >I am struggling to take you seriously at all concerning the
 >Chris Martin footage. Let me explain, and then I will answer
 >your questions.

 >Firstly, when I first put this on the List you weren't having
 >any of it, and I even offered to meet you at the Chris Martin
 >Lecture being held by L.U.F.O.S. ( London UFO Studies) Roy Lakes
 >group, at a hall in Walthamstow ( East London). I posted this to
 >you.

Ok, you ask for sceptics to join in the discussion then you slam
me, now who was it that was looking for a fight, you or me?

 >And from all of this I had no response from you what so ever?
 >You are very selective on your postings.And you have the notion
 >after all I have asked off you concerning your research into
 >this footage to ask me even more questions!

Unfortunately Roy I have a demanding job which doesn't always
give me alot of free time, I apologise if that is an
inconvenience to you.

Ok, I think we've established that you don't like being asked
questions.

 >1.) This footage has been Analysed by Dave Bowden.

Would it be possible for Dave to post the full results of his
analysis?

 >2.) The result at this time shows us nothing we can compare
 >these objects on the film with, in regards commercial or
 >military aviation. We know of no known natural phenomena which
 >fits the footage description and which carries out such
 >extraordinary movements.

To what extent were the objects compared to commercial and
military aircraft? What catalogue of military craft were
compared to the video?

You say "We know of no known natural phenomena", to what extent
was your involvement in the analysis of the footage? What known
natural phenomena was compared to the footage?

 >3.) An object which just doesn't go where the wind decides to
 >take it. An object which has real time free motion and movement
 >within our environment.

So you would consider shooting stars and ball lightening under
intelligent control?

 >4.) In my opinion this footage shows UFOs which are under some
 >kind of intelligent control.

So you no longer believe these to be alien spacecraft?

If memory serves me correctly on Chris Martin, he summons these
objects at will, is this correct?

 >Now Terry, if you are serious about this footage, again I ask
 >you to contact Dave for a (Free) copy of the footage on CD. If
 >you decide not to do this, I can see no point in answering your
 >miss and hit questions, as you have been given ample
 >opportunities to have this footage at your disposal.

So unless I want a copy of the CD you won't answer any
questions? I think you'd better ask Daddy the next time you use
his pc, if you hadn't realised we're all subscribers to a UFO
discussion list and this is the first time I've seen someone
hold answering questions to ransom. You invited people to join
the discussion so why are you so intent on evading the
questions?

Ok, you missed an answer somewhere along the lines... What was
the result of your investigation into the objects when you
contacted the airport where the objects were seen? I take it you
have investigated beyond speculation.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 6

              Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars' - Balaskas

From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 18:37:08 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
Fwd Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 13:33:49 +0000
Subject: Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars' - Balaskas


 >Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 02:51:50 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars'

 >Hiya Nick, All,

 >Nick, do you mean to say that in all the photographing that
 >they've been doing, they haven't tried to photograph the regions
 >that lighten and darken portions of the Martian surface in a
 >cyclical/seasonal manner?

 >I would have thought that with a resolution of 109 yards to the
 >inch they would have done it by now just to see exactly what is
 >at work on the surface to cause the phenom.

 >I always thought that scientists had determined that the changes
 >on the surface observed from earth based telescopes were
 >seasonal, major-league, dust storms.

Hi John!

Using Earth based telescopes we can record both hemispheres of
Mars with just two pictures taken a little over 12 hours apart.
Of course only large features such as the polar caps and regions
with very different albedos would be obvious in our pictures of
Mars but nothing smaller such as craters less than a few tens of
miles across would be visible. Comparing pictures of the same
hemisphere taken during the Martian summer with ones taken in
winter, we find that they continue to exhibit identical seasonal
variations year after year which can best be explained in terms
of surface biological activity instead of dust storms, ground
frost, etc.

With the Mars Global Surveyor, which is still in orbit
collecting images of Mars, it will take many more years before
the entire planet is imaged just once but we do have a few
overlapping images taken in different seasons to examine now.
Unfortunately, even with the highest resolution images taken by
MGS, we cannot positively indentify surface features such as
bushes (see the URL below where I provide such evidence).

http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2000/jun/m05-011.shtml

 >Is the possibility of 'biological activity' still an open
 >question? I really thought that they had written it all off as
 >dust storms.

 >Teach me sumpin professor!  <vbg>

Yes, the question of biological activity on Mars is still an
open one for many reasons. For example, I suspect that the
reason NASA adjusted the colour balance of the pictures taken by
the Viking landers in 1976 was not only to make the blue
Earth-like sky look red and thus seemingly more inhospitable to
life as we know it but because they would not have to explain
the greenish patches on the rocks which were obvious visual
evidence of life on Mars! I would not be surprised if these
green patches turn out to be lichen (algae and fungi) or some
plant-like life that can survive the Martian conditions - which
is not that much different with Toronto today. ;o)

Just a few weeks ago a Russian scientist who had an experiment
on NASA's ill fated Mars Polar Lander which crashed on Mars
(several MUFON Ontario members including myself had our names
placed aboard this spacecraft) confirmed that there is life on
Mars. Using the Hubble Space Telescope several images of Mars
were taken in different colours (much like the images of the
Moon taken with the HST by a space scientist here at York
University) he found direct evidence for such plant and
bacterial life on Mars. His article was published in
'Spectroscopy' 15(9) 49-50 (2000) but is also briefly described
in the URL below.

http://www.spacer.com/news/mars-life-001.html

Nick Balaskas

P.S. I am not a professor. Like yourself, I am just a very
curious person who is fascinated by the world which we are all a
part of.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 6

                Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars' - McCoy

From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 20:38:52 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 23:56:42 +0000
Subject: Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars' - McCoy


Hello John, Nick & Larry too.

 >Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 02:51:50 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars'

 >>Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 19:37:27 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
 >>From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars'

 >>>Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 16:23:58 -0800
 >>>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: 'Dried-Up Sea Beds Found On Mars' - Sunday Times

 >><snip>

 >>>>This weekend a British group building a craft bound for Mars
 >>>>said it was already considering rerouting its vehicle, Beagle
 >>>>II, to land in the middle of one of the newly discovered sea
 >>>>beds.

 >><snip>

 >>>A British Mars lander mission? Beagle II? That's news to me.
 >>>Something like this should have made the news before this.

 >>Hi Larry.

 >>About 2 1/2 years ago Stig Agermose posted an article from The
 >>Nando Times on UFO UpDates about this future British Mars lander
 >>mission. Unfortunately the URL Stig mentioned in his post has
 >>expired but you can find my comments on this British planetary
 >>mission at
 >
 >>http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1998/jul/m28-021.shtml
 >
 >>Nick Balaskas
 >
 >>P.S. I too do not understand all the excitement over a major
 >>Mars "discovery" that has long since been accepted as a fact and
 >>written up in astronomy textbooks since the 1970s. But, with the
 >>important recent discovery of flowing liquid water beneath the
 >>surface of Mars, these ocean basins may actually be much younger
 >>than millions of years and the dark patches found in these low
 >>land regions of Mars can now be interpreted as further evidence
 >>of biological activity going on now.
 >
 >Hiya Nick, All,
 >
 >Nick, do you mean to say that in all the photographing that
 >they've been doing, they haven't tried to photograph the regions
 >that lighten and darken portions of the Martian surface in a
 >cyclical/seasonal manner?
 >
 >I would have thought that with a resolution of 109 yards to the
 >inch they would have done it by now just to see exactly what is
 >at work on the surface to cause the phenom.
 >
 >I always thought that scientists had determined that the changes
 >on the surface observed from earth based telescopes were
 >seasonal, major-league, dust storms.
 >
 >Is the possibility of 'biological activity' still an open
 >question? I really thought that they had written it all off as
 >dust storms.
 >
 >Teach me sumpin professor! <vbg>
 >
 >Regards,
 >
 >John Velez

You , know , I'm trying to figure out to figgure, ah, out just
what the heck is going on, here we have our U.S. media going on
and on and on about the next president of the United States. But
we have news of water (life, possibly) on Mars. Oh well, gotta
count chads, I guess.

I Grew up in the drylands of Eastern Oregon, went to College
at: Eastern Oregon State College (now a University). One of my
many interests was Geology and it applies to this thread.

About, oh, 10,000 years ago, the ice age ended, a sudden, total
warming that broke several Ice Dams along the Columbia River in
Washington and Oregon. The Big One was Lake Missoula, Blocked
for literally centuries, it would be like suddenly draining
lake Superior in to, oh, Minnesota, and Iowa.

The Grand Coullee Dam in Eastern Wa. was for a long, long time
the world's Largest Dam. But the Real Grand Coullee, was (In the
racial memory of the Native American folks who lived there!)
was the Glacier that stopped the Columbia in Her tracks. This
created among other things, a falls Four times as big as
Niagara-now called Dry Falls. There is to this day a pool of
water under the main falls.

When the Great Flood from the Melting was released the whole of
the Columbia Basin was scoured, Creating the Scablands and the
Potholes. Freshwater lakes the Potholes carried the remnants of
the flood, but the Sediments of the Ice age Lakes were still
there.

There are, throughout the Western U.S., very many dry lake
beds: Muroc is one-where Edwards AFB lies. Also: Area 51,
Papoose, et. al. In Oregon there are several ice age remnants:
Wallowa lake, along with Harney and Abert, are remnant of what
was. all exhibit the characteristics of the sedimentary rock
layers of the Martian Lakes. If we manage to make it, I suggest
the First landing on Mars may take place on one of the dry
lake beds and, we call it Muroc.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 7

               Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Hale

From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 05:17:40 +0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 00:02:26 +0000
Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Hale


Rory wrote:

 >From: Rory Lushman <oubliette@currantbun.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark?
 >Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 08:00:00 -0000

 >Even better Roy, instead of checking out his films, I would like
 >to accompany Chris on one of his outings. As he is clearly so
 >lucky filming objects/lights, we're bound to get lucky. Now can
 >you mutually arrange this Roy?


Rory,

Thank you for at last in approaching this in the only way we
can, that is to get a first hand perspective on this whole case,
I commend your reasoning. Please e-mail me privately with dates
that you are available and I will then make contact with Chris,
in respect of having a get together.


 >Before I meet up with Chris, can you furnish me with the dates,
 >times and locations of these events that you witnessed Roy.


As there have been quite a few, I have not gone out of my way to
jot each occasion down, but far as to say, some of the
highlighted sightings were taking place about a year ago at the
local park not far from where Chris resides, these were part of
multiple witness sightings on those occasions.


 >So what are you saying Roy, that I'm a liar? You weren't there
 >Roy. Chris Martin pointed out an object that was quite clearly a
 >plane; the location driver couldn't believe he was trying to fob
 >this off as a UFO. However Roy, as you doubt my word, I could
 >always try and contact the film crew at LWT and see what they
 >thought. Also apart from the film crew, there were at least 8
 >other people being interviewed and the park was full of members
 >of the public.


I was merely turning the tables here Rory, many sceptics frown
on just one persons testimony to a UFO sighting, I guess you do
not like this happening to you, but I am not here disputing what
was seen on one occasion of a film set, if this was a plane that
was seen by all at the time, then I don't see how this can
translate into what is on the film that has been captured, I
think by now many people who have seen the film would have told
us they were all planes of some kind, but as of yet no such
thing.


 >Please can you send me a free CD. I would like to examine it
 >further.


I will only mention this once more to all interested parties.
Please E-Mail Dave Bowden for a FREE copy of The Chris Martin
Footage. This can be done by clicking here:

grafikfx@netscapeonline.co.uk

This CD shows very high quality video of UFOs over the UK.

 >How long has Chris been having these sightings and do his
 >experiences go beyond sightings and if so can you tell me when
 >they first started.

 >Cheers

 >Rory


When you say beyond, what do you exactly mean? Also does this
mean that you did not go to see the lecture at Leeds, like you
mentioned in a previous post? Only if not I would hold these
questions until you and Chris meet, there is one thing you will
notice about Chris, and that is he is one easy going guy who has
nothing to hide about his UFO experiences and filming.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 7

               Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Hale

From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 05:18:35 +0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 00:09:30 +0000
Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Hale


Roger wrote:

 >Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 08:07:20 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark?
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Hi, Roy!

 >You made a pretty serious claim about people on this List which
 >I feel is incorrect. However, I could be mistaken. I am not
 >asking you to call anyone names or insult anyone. Indeed, if you
 >were the one insulted or attacked, all you have to do is point
 >out the posts where this happened.

 >I am genuinely interested in the video, don't get me wrong. But,
 >an unsubstantiated claim is an unsubstantiated claim, Roy.
 >Whether it's about UFOs or List members, without validation,
 >it's hard to take them seriously.

 >Roger


Hey,

Am I talking to myself here or what? If you were interested in
the footage Roger then when did you make contact with Dave
Bowden for a copy of the FREE CD to be sent to you?

I am beginning to wonder why I posted this footage on UpDates,
because all I have had is tabloid questions thrown at me, I have
been banging my head on the wall with some of these questions.
Please get a copy of the FREE CD and you will be able to see it,
clearly, for yourself!

Now I know how Zebadee felt on The Magic Roundabout!

Regards,

Roy..





                         The UFO UpDates Archive
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 7

                 Munoz' Report On Mexico City UFO - 2nd half

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 21:34:00 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 00:20:21 +0000
Subject: Munoz' Report On Mexico City UFO - 2nd half


Hello List,

Below is the last part, Part II, of Daniel Munoz's investigation
with Jaime Maussan of the Mexican City UFO of Aug. 6th, 1997. We
owe Scott Corrales many thanks for doing the translation for us,
and so speedily.

Jim

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

    Part II of Corrales' translation of the report of Daniel Munoz

Thursday October 9 to Saturday October 11: Over the course of
these three days, research on the August 6th UFO would be
carried out in San Luis Potosi and in Phoenix, Arizona. However,
the rest of the Third Milenio team would kick off negotiations
aimed at making a live broadcast of our program from the site
where the Las Lomas UFO was recorded. Back with Jim Dilettoso at
Village Labs, which collaborates with the U.S. space program,
the expert analyst certified that following a week of detailed
analyses on the Las Lomas UFO images, he had reached the
conclusion that it "definitely wasn't an object suspended from a
helicopter by means of a cable." This was the theory that Jim
had attempted to confirm or refute by analyzing the behavior of
the object itself. In seeking out the centers of gravity during
flight, Dilettoso became aware that the object did not follow
the same logical patterns as a model suspended from above,
together with the fact that no trace of threads or cables
supporting the object had been found. Dilettoso would avail
himself of this explanation of a model UFO suspended by a cable,
and schematically explained how the object would have moved
downward precisely at the moment in which the object suddenly
begins moving from left to right. However, the video clearly
shows that the object moved upwards, contrary to what should
have indeed happened. Also, during the trip to Phoenix, Arizona,
we interviewed Lee Elders and Scott Catamas, the latter being
the producer for a UFO TV shown in the U.S. Both men highlighted
the importance of this video for UFO research all over the
world, and Catamas urged the authors of the video to step
forward, even if anonymously, to make an integral contribution
to what could well be the greatest single item of evidence of
the UFO phenomenon in all history.

Sunday, October 12: Back in Mexico, we met at 5 p.m. at the
Corporativo Reforma Laureles building from where we would
broadcast the results of our investigation throughout the world
through TELEVISA's airwaves. It is worth noting at this point
that an air  of expectation wafted about our company in regard
to this video, which was being considered "the best and clearest
to have been seen in a long time." Likewise, regular viewers of
our program expressed similar feelings on the street, aboard
taxicabs, in restaurants and over the phone. The video and the
ensuing investigation had wakened the interest of the people who
follow our show every week. For this reason, today's broadcast
would feature a retelling of the events from the very beginning,
the analyses preformed by Dilettoso in Phoenix, the presentation
of other accounts, including the Lask Family, which would join
us live during the transmission. Once more, we would urge
viewers to join the investigation, and invite the video's
authors to step forward once more to openly state that the
evidence was real and that they had indeed witnessed something
startling. Today's broadcast would have one of the highest
ratings in Tercer Milenio's history.

Monday, October 23: Today we again received calls from our
fellow researchers and friends from Spain, requesting more
information about what was going on in Mexico regarding the
August 6th UFO. During this call, we would learn that UFO
skeptics and naysayers in Spain considered the video as "the
trick that Mexican skeptics has prepared to ridicule the subject
of UFOS and discredit its exponents in Mexico." Evidently, the
research conducted by these groups was not complete, and
definitely not beyond the comfort of their desks and computers
plugged into the Internet.

Tuesday, October 14: A viewer and friend of Tercer Milenio who
wished to remain anonymous placed a call to our offices, stating
that "a new witness had seen the object in question and had even
experienced discomfort as a result of prolonged exposure to the
UFOelectromagnetic waves. We quickly set out to confirm the
events and agreed to meet at Mexico City's Red Cross Hospital,
where the witness was hospitalized. In speaking with the alleged
victim's sister, we reached the conclusion that it wasn't
related to the same sighting, but to a more recent one which had
taken place on September 25, but within the same area of the
city. We were even able to recognize the witness as one of the
persons whom we had interviewed earlier regarding sightings in
the area, which confirmed the truthfulness of the event. Mr.
Mauricio Olvera, a resident of the Chamizal area, had
experienced acute hydrocephaly, a congestion of fluid within the
skull exerting pressure on the brain, causing hallucinations and
blackouts. Upon interviewing the attending physician, who also
requested anonymity, he stated that "Mexican medical science was
unable to relate acute hydrocephaly to any type of intense
electromagnetic source, since there had never been a case that
could be analyzed and thus establish such a premise..." However,
he did not reject the possibility, and that it would be unknown
to our medical science. After the interview was over, we agreed
to follow up on this case.

Wednesday, October 15 to Sunday, October 19: Over the course of
these days, the LOS VIGILANTES group would gradually become a
part of the investigation, trying to secure any clues that would
lead us to uncovering the identity of the author of the August
6th video. On our part, we began to see how the controversy was
growing on the Internet's web pages, where four images from the
video had been presented on the Sightings radio and television
program's site. The readers' opinion would be contradictory from
the outset. There were those who believed that this was the best
evidence yet, while another group stated that it was "too good
to be real." However, this made it clear that it was truly an
extraordinary piece of evidence.

Monday, October 20: On this day we headed out once more with
Tercer Milenio's cameras toward the sighting area in an effort
to contact new eyewitnesses to the event. Accompanied by our
collaborator Pedro Ramirez, we had the fortune to find two
children, Jesus and Luis Fernando Ocampo Chavez, ages 10 and 6
respectively, who had seen the object fly over the area while in
the company of their brother Juan Carlos, 12. They were
returning home from the store and going down the canyon where
they live when they became aware of "a strange metallic object,
round and grey, which spun and moved among the buildings."
According to the children's account, the object "was trying to
land on the buildings." We found it interesting to hear the
children reply categorically that "the people who saw this large
object should talk about what they saw...whatever it was they
saw, they saw," they told us. Definitely, an extraordinary case.
At the same time, Pedro Ramirez had headed to the Corporativo
Laureles building to locate a person who allegedly knew the
author of the video. However, despite not having found the
person in question, he was able to find out that the penthouse
offices from which the video had been shot had not been occupied
until September 17, which complicated the hypothesis of the
author being an employee of said company. On the other hand, the
person in charge of the office space's preparation was Arq.
Adolfo Gonzalez, who indirectly confirmed to us through his wife
that "a UFO video had indeed been recorded from this building,"
another account which was added to the long list of persons
involved in the case.

Tuesday, October 21 to Monday, October 27: As of this date,
communication via telephone between Pedro Ramirez and the
possible contacts to reach the video's author would be constant.
Arq. Gonzalez disclosed that "the Tercer Milenio team already
knew one of the young men with firsthand knowledge about the
video." In fact, the person in question was young Emilio Osorio,
whom after a long series of interviews both in person and over
the phone, had disclosed more and more details regarding this
story, as well as the identity of the author of the August 6th
video, thus becoming an integral part of the investiagion. Pedro
Ramirez would learn that the video's author was in fact an
illegal alien from Central America-one of the main reasons for
his refusal to become publicly known and vouch for the video's
authenticity, since he feared deportation to his country of
origin and shattering his hopes for creating a new life along
with his family in Mexico. It was further learned that not only
two young men had participated in the video-and whose voices can
be perfectly identified in it-but also a woman, allegedly a
coworker of the two young men in question. However, the woman's
voice could not be heard on the copy of the video received by
Tercer Milenio almost a month ago in its facilities. But it
would be possible to hear her, according to Emilio Osorio, "in
another part of the video that we didn't know about, and which
nonetheless existed...the end of the video, which lasted
approximately 15 seconds more, where it was possible to see the
object appearing once again behind the "Royal Reforma" complex's
buildings as it descends again, becoming hidden from the
camera's viewfinder and from the witnesses who were taping it."
According to the story told by Osorio to Pedro Ramirez, the
video's author worked as a consultant, which made it necessary
for him to travel constantly to different parts of the Republic,
as well as a basic knowledge of video recording. However, none
of his coworkers were willing to openly state their knowledge
concerning the video. More specifically, they refused to accept
that one of their coworkers may have been the author of the
August 6th video. The conversations held with Emilio Osorio
revealed that in fact, the name used in the letter attached to
the video received at our offices was a pseudonym, and that the
text described a real situation experienced by the video's
authors---persons whose ages ranged between 25 and 30 years of
age and who had shot the video using a Handycam camera employed
in the course of their consulting work. Emilio Osorio also
stated that the video had been copied with editing equipment in
order to forward a copy to our offices. This could explain the
reason why a fringe with the "Time Code", exclusive to
professional video equipment, appears on the upper part of the
video. Without a doubt, the information gleaned by Pedro Ramirez
through this exceptional contact would dispel several mysteries
on the video's author while opening a new line of inquiry within
this UFO case.

Tuesday, October 28: On this day we received a series of
blueprints for the sighting area on behalf of a civil engineer
specializing in aerial photography. With them, and at the
suggestions of a viewer, Mr. Gonzalo del Pozo Brambila, a
Mechanical Engineer, we were able to establish a greater amount
of details relative to the size and behavior of the Las Lomas
UFO recorded on August 6th.

Wednesday, October 29: Our collaborator Pedro Ramirez continued
to make contact by phone with Emilio Osorio in an effort to
obtain precise information on the video's author, who continued
to deny any possibility of contact to be interviewed. However,
and in spite of having offered to respect his anonymity at all
times, the search has been hitherto fruitless.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 7

                       [tmpnews] No TMP News This Week

From: Paul Anderson <psa@direct.ca>
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 23:18:02 -0700
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 07:52:33 +0000
Subject: [tmpnews] No TMP News This Week



All,

There will not be a TMP News Weekly Briefing this week, due to
my having been (and still am) very much under the weather the
past couple days now, with a nasty cold or flu or combination
thereof (feels like both at times!).

The next edition will have the latest news as usual, in
particular the announcement by NASA of new evidence for ancient
lakes and seas on Mars (old news again really for many
independent researchers). With apologies,

Paul Anderson










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 7

                              Reluctant Viewers

From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 13:19:24 +0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 07:58:24 +0000
Subject: Reluctant Viewers


Hello list,

Recently while perusing Jerry Clark's 'The UFO Book' I came
across the famous Tehran, Iran CE 2 case. At the outset it
mentions that several reports to Mehrabad airport of a lighted
object in the vicinity were ignored until finally tower
controller Houssain Perouzi decided to look for himself -
laudable considering this was unknown traffic near or in a
control zone. This incident is not really related to what I
refer to below. It just jarred my memory.

It triggered a recent memory of mine which in turn renewed my
curiosity about reluctant potential witnesses UFO events in the
presence of the reporting witness.

Many of you have probably had the following experience with a
witness to a UFO incident.

The initial viewer sees an object and then draws it to the
attention of friends accompaning him or her. However for some
reason, these friends will not take the time to bend their necks
and look at what the initial witness is referring to. At a
pilot-related Christmas party a week ago, a fellow pilot
expressed this curiosity to me about a sighting he had as a
young man and where he could not get his friends to even look
into the sky to see what he was getting excited about.

This is not the first case I've come across. I've read of
several and I've talked to witnesses with similar experiences.

Closer to home, my own daughter [at the age of 12] saw a large,
edge-lit, blimp-shaped object in the sky, directly overhead
while playing with her friends in the street in front of our
house just after dusk in the mid-summer. To this day it bugs her
as to why, when she drew attention to the object to her friends
and her sister, none of them would look up.


I've wondered - but not too seriously - if this has to do with
people not wanting to fall for the "made you look" prank or
whether this is has a more intricate/selective implication,
similar to scenarios where witnesses have remembered thinking or
wished that the object they were seeing would come closer so
they could see it better... and it does.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 7

                          Secrecy News -- 12/06/00

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@igc.org>
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 11:47:53 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 08:01:57 +0000
Subject: Secrecy News -- 12/06/00


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
December 6, 2000

**  A BOOM IN POLYGRAPH STUDIES
**  CHALK POINSETTIA AND OTHER PENTAGON POETRY



A BOOM IN POLYGRAPH STUDIES

Now that Congress has drastically expanded the number of
national security personnel who are subject to polygraph
testing, the government is belatedly initiating new studies to
test the validity of the polygraph.

The Department of Energy will release $860,000 to the National
Academy of Sciences for an 18 month study, the Albuquerque
Journal reported December 5:

http://www.abqjournal.com/news/191809news12-05-00.htm

Senator Jeff Bingaman, who had requested the study over a year
ago, said in a press release: "The distinguished scientists and
engineers who work at Sandia and Los Alamos deserve to know
whether polygraphs produce valid results and this study will
help make that determination." See:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2000/12/bingaman.html

Meanwhile, the Department of Defense announced in Commerce
Business Daily today that it is seeking a contractor to perform
a new study on polygraph validity.

"The goal of this project is to manipulate volunteers into
telling specific lies during polygraph examination to test the
accuracy of the polygraph examination procedure," the DoD
announcement said. See:

http://services.sciencewise.com/content/index.cfm?objectid=2684

But there is a methodological difficulty in such tests that
tends to render them useless: There is no way to ensure that a
volunteer who is instructed to lie in an artificial setting will
present the same physiological signs as an actual liar in a
setting where the stakes are genuine.

The irony of these new polygraph studies is that they follow,
rather than precede, the expansion of polygraph testing. This
reflects the fact that the congressional radicals who are
driving security policy are largely indifferent to questions of
scientific validity.

Worse, the new National Academy study might make it more
difficult to repeal the latest increase in polygraph testing in
the short term. This is because proponents will be able to argue
that no action should be taken during the eighteen months that
the matter is under review by the Academy.


CHALK POINSETTIA AND OTHER PENTAGON POETRY

The hundreds of secret compartmented programs at the Pentagon
are each assigned a two word nickname and a classified codeword.
The names are selected and combined, more or less arbitrarily,
from lists of pre-approved words, giving rise to an oddly
suggestive form of Pentagon poetry.

William M. Arkin, the independent analyst and author, picked out
the names of 26 particularly resonant Pentagon programs --
DIAGONAL GLANCE, CHALK POINSETTIA, CREDIBLE WOLF -- for a
feature he wrote in last Sunday's New York Times Magazine.

Several of these terms have not appeared previously in the
public domain. Furthermore, in several cases Arkin has gone
where no uncleared person has gone before and has provided a
thumbnail description of the contents of the secret programs.
Someone, somewhere in the Pentagon, will be grinding his teeth
at the impudence. See:

http://www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/20001203mag-lexicon.html

An additional layer of obscurity is attached to these names
because of the fact that over time they may be reused for other
secret programs.

For example, Arkin identifies CLOUD GAP as a "classified Air
Force program." In the 1960s, however, CLOUD GAP was a joint
program of the Department of Defense and the Arms Control and
Disarmament Agency "to test the feasibility of theoretical arms
control and disarmament measures." The earlier edition of CLOUD
GAP, now practically forgotten, culminated in a test to
demonstrate the verifiable destruction of nuclear warheads.


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

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 >
   Dec > Dec 7

              Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Bowden

From: Dave Bowden <grafikfx@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 17:11:49 +0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 08:04:27 +0000
Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Bowden


 >Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 17:49:37 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? -


 >Hello Dave:

 >Ouchh!! Now that you mention the Cheshire video,
 >a few bells rang. It looks like I definitely got my
 >wires crossed on this one.

 >Looking back through old e-mails, I find a long and rather
 >bitter exchange about the Cheshire video, including this
 >snippet:

 >"Firstly, because there seems no way to our eyes that such
 >an interpretation is justified in terms of the quality of
 >both the film and the case. Indeed it is at best a routine
 >incident which has a probability to be resolved and no
 >particular claim to being good scientific evidence.

 >Secondly, there has been a well planned publicity drive
 >that has marketed this footage to the UFO community around
 >the world and to a vast media reaction in the UK. Indeed this
 >has become the most hyped case in Britain for many years,
 >with normally sensible media covering it in rather
 >embarrassing fashion." [ Jenny Randles ]

 >I apparently confused two unrelated matters, and offer my
 >sincere apologies!

Hi Larry,

No apology needed, there's no harm done and besides we all drop
the odd clanger now and again ;)

All the best,

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 >
   Dec > Dec 7

              Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Bowden

From: Dave Bowden <grafikfx@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 18:08:21 +0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 08:07:36 +0000
Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Bowden


 >From: Rory Lushman <oubliette@currantbun.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark?
 >Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 08:00:00 -0000

 >>Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 04:29:18 +0000
 >>From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark?

Hi Rory,

<snip>

 >>Please ask for a (Free) CD from Dave Bowden to start your
 >>investigations, the footage on the CD is very high quality.

 >Please can you send me a free CD. I would like to examine it
 >further.

I remember sending you some samples some weeks back via email,
you wrote to me privately to say you were unable to view them on
your system and that you would rather wait to see them in full
at the Leeds conference.

Did you make it to the Leeds conference? I take it you did not
because there was no further comment from you.

Have you since upgraded you machine?

The .AVIs I put on CD are quite large and uncompressed, one of
them is over 280meg in size.

If you have the ability to view them let me know, send me your
home address privately and I'll try to beat the Christmas rush.


Looking forward to your views,

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 >
   Dec > Dec 7

                Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability? -

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 20:26:51 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 08:10:31 +0000
Subject: Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability? -


 >Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 02:46:32 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability?

 >>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 20:08:02 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability?
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Chris Rutkowski <rutkows@cc.UManitoba.CA>
 >>>Subject: Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability?
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 10:56:59 -0600 (CST)

 >>>>From: Charles Chapman <charlesrc@earthlink.net>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>Subject: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability?
 >>>>Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 06:48:19 -0800

 >>>Charles Chapman asked:

 >>>>I would like to ask [..] whether they use, and/or find
 >>>>useful, the doctrine or concept of falsifiability.

 ><snip>

 >>>You asked a very good question, and no one so far in my reading
 >>>of the replies has answered your point directly. [ CR ]

 ><snip>

 >>Chris, Charles & List,

 >>I disagree that ETH is unfalsifiable. If the work was done and
 >>it was handled properly we could make some progress -- Charles
 >>has another posting with excellent suggestions on analyzing ETH
 >>from the standpoint of what the aliens _cannot_ do or seem
 >>unwilling or inacapable of doing. The way ETH is treated on this
 >>List is typically extremist special pleading, always begging for
 >>exceptions to the rule of Occam's Razor to "save" the ETH at all
 >>costs (not realizing that this behavior doesn't "save" ETH at
 >>all but discredits it). Searching for ad hoc excuses is not the
 >>scientific method. An ad hoc excuse is one that is created just
 >>for the purpose of rescuing the hypothesis and it doesn't do
 >>anything else, doesn't lead to scientific progress, greater
 >>knowledge or ongoing discovery.

 >>Occam's Razor (and Hynek's principle) require that we eliminate
 >>the simplest explanations first and that means eliminating the
 >>_lowest_ level of alien technology first before resorting to
 >>higher or "magic" levels. At every turn just about when someone
 >>wants to try to follow Occam's / Hynek's rule someone else drags
 >>in the "magic" red herring to avoid rigorous thinking and
 >>disciplined effort. The objector (or naive obstructionist) comes
 >>along and says "No! no! no! With magic technology the aliens can
 >>do anything and you can't argue one way or another about what
 >>they can or cannot do."

 >>The proper scientific method applied to ETH in UFO research is
 >>to set up a series of ETH models or variants beginning at the
 >>lowest possible levels of technology, then working out the
 >>testable implications of each variant in terms of reliable data
 >>on UFO activity patterns and behavior. Each model will need a
 >>lot of work (to make up for 50 years of virtually zero
 >>scientific theoretical work on UFO's) and should not be
 >>peremptorily dismissed or rejected early on just because someone
 >>gushes out the "alien magic" mantra in an instant analysis. ETH
 >>models would deal with expected or predicted behavior for a
 >>variety of possible activities such as generalized observation,
 >>intelligence-gathering, scientific study, military conquest,
 >>religious interference, entertainment, biological control or
 >>breeding, psychological warfare or manipulation, benevolent
 >>monitoring, mixed activities, etc. Other hypotheses besides ETH
 >>should receive similar systematic treatment. All of this will
 >>require rigorous logical argument and careful study; loose
 >>thinking will scuttle the whole enterprise prematurely. Getting
 >>bogged down in interminable emotional arguments will lead such
 >>efforts astray. Quite possibly we simply do not have enough
 >>serious scientific theoreticians to carry out this program of
 >>scientific development of ETH.

 >Hello Brad and all.

 >I'd like to jump in here with a few points:

Hi Larry,

Nice to have you jump in here! It is important that we work
towards clarifying and refining concepts. Results are not going
to be immediate or overnight. This has to be an ongoing process.


 >1) I think the term "falsifiable" with respect to the ETH, means
 >that there is no way to prove that there are _not_ any live
 >aliens out there, especially ones that might send UFOs this way.
 >With that particular wording, I would have to call the ETH
 >unfalsibiable. I cannot think of any reasonable experiment that
 >could ever prove there are _no_ ETs / UFOs whatever.

I must respectfully but totally disagree with you here. Why even
go this route when in your Point 3 (below) you do propose a
testable ETH model or models? Any theory or hypothesis can be
modified to make it immune to disproof. But as Popper and others
have pointed out that is the wrong procedure in science because
it makes the theory worthless. A theory that is so safe it can't
be disproved by any conceivable means is one that says little or
nothing that can be attacked. And if it says so little it can't
be supported either, and that leads to no new knowledge. Also
keep in mind that by "proof" I do not mean 100% perfect evidence
as that is impossible, but something close to 100%.

Also, you seem to be broadening ETH here to encompass aliens
everywhere, when ETH was not intended to mean that, thus
confusing it with Intelligent Life Elsewhere (ILE) theory as
defined in the Condon Report and distinguished from ETH which is
solely a _UFO_ theory. ILE is something of more interest to SETI
advocates. ETH is an explanation for _UFO's_ here on earth, not
everywhere, that is what it was invented for, by definition by
the Condon Committee (by pro-ETHers). I can think of an
experiment that would disprove ETH (keeping in mind "proof" is
_not_ 100%) at a lowest non-stealth technology level: Global
surveillance satellites covering the entire earth continuously
24/7 fail to detect UFO's inside the earth's atmosphere, or
entering or exiting, after several years of careful monitoring.

Falsification of a hypothesis or model is not necessarily the
end of the matter if a simple modification can save it. But if
the modifications necessary to rescue a theory merely complicate
it more and more, while explaining nothing new, nothing except
the disproof, then it is ad hoc and in the end will fail to
rescue anything. The power of a scientific theory is in its
ability to explain unexpected matters or even to make
predictions of the future or outcomes of future experiments
(here we cannot control much of UFO phenomena in a lab except
landing traces). The scientific process is to carefully register
the modifications needed to save a hypothesis and measure how
much it complicates rather than explains and how much it
predicts new findings or does not. In other words, to keep good
score. Sometimes the originator of a theory tries to pretend
that the modification that saves his theory was actually "there"
from the start and wants to slide by without keeping score on
such points as if his theory had been "perfect' all along.


 >2) The ETH is potentially _verifiable_ of course. If science
 >ever publicly lays its hands on some obviously alien craft, the
 >deed is done. Even the EB ( Easter Bunny ) hypothesis is
 >potentially verifiable, but lets not get into that.

I still have to disagree. This version of ETH is still too broad
(see my comments above). That alien ship that science lays its
"hands" on does not necessarily have _anything_ to do with UFO's
that have been sighted for the past half century! Think about
it. It's just like sporadic meteors are not necessarily related
to shower meteors and can come from any direction at any time --
a "sporadic" alien spacecraft might land or crash at any time
from any origin having nothing to do with the UFO's that have
been seen here since Arnold or before and thus nothing to do
with proving or disproving ET Hypothesis (ETH) of UFO origin. I
think you were assuming this to be an obvious point needing no
thought, but in fact it is not so simple and obvious.

I don't want to get into the Popperian (and anti-Popperian)
arguments about whether there is such a thing as "verifiability"
(Popper said there isn't, there is only falsification and
failure to succeed in falsification). Basically verification
means testing the testable implications of a theory or
hypothesis and I'll leave the exact semantics to the
epistemologists and philosophers of science.

Falsification, verification and testability do not mean that any
particular theory can in fact be falsified, verified or tested
at a particular moment, only that in principle or in concept
that it could be. Sometimes a theory is developed long before
the scientific instruments have been invented that are capable
of testing it (e.g., many tenets of Einstein's general
relativity theory of 1915 could not be tested until decades
later).


 >3) I like Brad's idea of starting with the simplest least
 >extravagant models and working our way up from there.

This is crucially important and I'm glad you are seizing on it.
There is already opposition to the idea even before we have a
chance to get started!


 >The _null_ hypothesis is that this Earth, not even this Solar
 >System has ever been visited by any craft manufactured by
 >"aliens"; whether they exist out there in time and space or not.
 >I call this Model Zero .. the one favored by many skeptics,
 >debunkers, many psycho-social theorists and so forth.

Too broad again, based on confusing ETH with ILE as previously
critiqued. The Null Hypothesis here needs modification, to say
that _UFO's_ are better explained as conventional phenomena,
such as IFO's, mental aberrations and hoaxes.


 >I would like to propose Model One: Subject to discussion and
 >change, it goes like this:

 >"At some time in the past, and possibly into the present,
 >intelligent beings, not of this Earth, have sent unmanned
 >exploratory or scientific probes to, about or around the Earth."

Again, we are trying to explain UFOs here not SETI interests
except where they might overlap. There are actually two or more
models here which probably should not be confused unless they
can reasonably be studied in aggregate (which I doubt). I would
distinguish at least four models here: General Mapping,
Scientific Exploration, Military Reconnaissance, and Economic
Survey. And I previously mentioned several other possible modus
operandi (M.O.'s).


 >As I see it, these would be extremely advanced cybernetic
 >devices, with logical capabilities comparable to a human. But
 >don't expect poetry and music.

Here there is a contradiction: "Extremely advanced" cybernetics
or anything else is not consistent with the "simplest least
extravagant model." We have to begin with the latter and
eliminate it first before proceeding to the more complicated
hypothesis of "extreme" technological advancement. Otherwise we
will be back where we started, stymied from getting anywhere.


 >Such artificial intelligence could easily outwit our attempts to
 >capture, interfere or even detect the devices in most cases.
 >Exceptions might occur by chance from time to time.

Incorrect modeling. See above.


 >The purpose of all this would presumably be information
 >gathering, and I would expect that information to be sent back
 >to the originating society, wherever that may be.

I'm not sure why this transmission is necessary to the model or
what testable implications arise from it. It doesn't explain UFO
behavior so far as I can see, but seems once again to be a
confusion with ILE and SETI interests.


 >"Model One", stripped to its essentials - the part above in
 >quote marks - is about as un-extravagant as I can make it
 >without dropping to Model Zero; the null hypothesis.

It is "un-extravagant" only if corrected as noted above.


 >If you like that, we can debate what Model Two should be.

 >Best wishes

 >- Larry Hatch

Thank you for contributing to this endeavor. I'm looking forward
to further constructive discussions.

Best wishes,

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 >
   Dec > Dec 7

               Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Hale

From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 03:15:18 +0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 08:14:32 +0000
Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Hale


 >From: Terry Rhodes <UtterMole@cs.com>
 >Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 15:57:22 EST
 >Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark?
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >I see, asking questions is somehow negative and indicates I'm
 >looking for a fight? I can now see how easily you jump to
 >inaccurate conclusions.

As I said before Mr Rhodes, make the effort to get the CD.

 >Ok, you ask for sceptics to join in the discussion then you slam
 >me, now who was it that was looking for a fight, you or me?

God you amaze me, and when have you made contact to get a
copy of the footage on CD?

 >Unfortunately Roy I have a demanding job which doesn't always
 >give me alot of free time, I apologise if that is an
 >inconvenience to you.


That's right Terry, we don't look at e-mails collecting in our
inbox we just wipe delete the lot of them without reading any of
them isn't that right, Terry?

 >Ok, I think we've established that you don't like being asked
 >questions.

The audacity of the man! I won't do your work for you Terry. Now
you are really making wonder as to why you haven't asked for a
copy of the footage to be sent to you.

 >So unless I want a copy of the CD you won't answer any
 >questions? I think you'd better ask Daddy the next time you use
 >his pc, if you hadn't realised we're all subscribers to a UFO
 >discussion list and this is the first time I've seen someone
 >hold answering questions to ransom. You invited people to join
 >the discussion so why are you so intent on evading the
 >questions?

I better not answer that one... don't want to get caught by daddy.

 >Ok, you missed an answer somewhere along the lines... What was
 >the result of your investigation into the objects when you
 >contacted the airport where the objects were seen? I take it you
 >have investigated beyond speculation.

 >Tel

Are you investigating me Terry, or Chris Martins UFO footage?
No don't answer that I know all about it already.....


Roy..

So all over again ay!







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 7

                Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability? -

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 22:44:21 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 08:26:06 +0000
Subject: Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability? -


 >Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 11:35:37 -0800
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >Subject: Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability?


 >>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 20:08:02 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability?
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Chris Rutkowski <rutkows@cc.UManitoba.CA>
 >>>Subject: Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability?
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 10:56:59 -0600 (CST)


 >>Chris, Charles & List,

 >>I disagree that ETH is unfalsifiable. If the work was done and
 >>it was handled properly we could make some progress - Charles
 >>has another posting with excellent suggestions on analyzing ETH
 >>from the standpoint of what the aliens _cannot_ do or seem
 >>unwilling or inacapable of doing. The way ETH is treated on this
 >>List is typically extremist special pleading, always begging for
 >>exceptions to the rule of Occam's Razor to "save" the ETH at all
 >>costs (not realizing that this behavior doesn't "save" ETH at
 >>all but discredits it). Searching for ad hoc excuses is not the
 >>scientific method. An ad hoc excuse is one that is created just
 >>for the purpose of rescuing the hypothesis and it doesn't do
 >>anything else, doesn't lead to scientific progress, greater
 >>knowledge or ongoing discovery.

 >>Occam's Razor (and Hynek's principle) require that we eliminate
 >>the simplest explanations first and that means eliminating the
 >>_lowest_ level of alien technology first before resorting to
 >>higher or "magic" levels. At every turn just about when someone
 >>wants to try to follow Occam's / Hynek's rule someone else drags
 >>in the "magic" red herring to avoid rigorous thinking and
 >>disciplined effort. The objector (or naive obstructionist) comes
 >>along and says "No! no! no! With magic technology the aliens can
 >>do anything and you can't argue one way or another about what
 >>they can or cannot do." ...

 >Brad,

 >Back to the basics. Your suggestion is not in any manner a
 >scientific way of proceeding on this question. You are pleading
 >that we disregard all the UFO evidence except that which does
 >not boggle the mind. This might have been a plausible way to
 >proceed in late June of 1947 when we did not have much more to
 >go on than Kenneth Arnold's sighting - just a string of bobbing
 >and weaving, reflective disk-like craft that traveled fast. It
 >may have boggled Arnold's mind, but not ours now, after 53 years
 >of UFO reports. Your suggestion tries to negate Hynek's emphasis
 >on the importance of the high degree of strangeness accompanying
 >UFO sightings. Instead, this high degree of strangeness is a key
 >criterion (along with witness credibility) by which UFOs are
 >distinguished from IFOs. And we have a good deal more UFO
 >evidence now than in Hynek's day.

 >Let's remember, this is the year 2000, not 1947. We have a lot
 >of evidence showing us what the ETs or aliens can do. Let's
 >build on that evidence, not ignore it. For example, the alien
 >implant in Whitley Strieber's ear, which he had a surgeon try to
 >remove, actually moved itself away from the surgeon's tool a
 >couple of times just as he tried to remove it. This scared the
 >surgeon and Whitley both sufficiently that they quit trying to
 >remove it then and there. The surgeon has testified to this. Ed
 >Walters' flickering, thumping black dot that appeared on the
 >window pane, when the UFO was in the distance, is another. By
 >now we have accuumulated far too many similar reports to dismiss
 >them by dismissing the witnesses. We have been in "ET school"
 >for 53 years now, and you want to go back to the
 >pre-kindergarten level?

 >Another point to keep in mind: Scientists are able to keep track
 >of the difference between 300 and 300 million. Orders of
 >magnitude are of great importance in any scientific study. We
 >know that some ET technology could be much, much farther ahead
 >of ours than we are now ahead of the technology that existed 300
 >years ago around the start of our scientific revolution.
 >Astronomers know that some ET evolution could be over 300
 >million years ahead of us. ET "magic" has many orders of
 >magnitude in years to support the concept, and we have many
 >years of UFO evidence that supports it.

 >Occam's razor is too far wrong in too many cases to be of any
 >value here. How sensible would it be to re-investigate the
 >structure of matter by going back to the ancient Greek idea that
 >it is made up of nothing more than hard tiny spheres, since that
 >is a simpler sounding hypothesis than that of science today
 >involving a plethora of sub-microsopic particles and forces?
 >Forget Occam's razor. It is not any firm "rule" used in science.

 >The scientific method includes utilizing all the best available
 >experimental data and evidence, and not starting the
 >investigation of a problem by tossing out 90% of it.

 >Jim Deardorff


Hi Jim & List,

Well you're a smarter man than I am, Jim, if you can comprehend
alien technol ogy that is 300,000,000 years ahead of ours. I am
simple minded and want to start with the pre-school basics and
make sure they are established before moving ahead to college
and post-doctoral work and all the stages in between. I can
understand your impatience. We all want quick answers. But it's
even better if we can be _sure_ they are the _right_ answers.
And I prefer to do the do-able tasks first and leave the
impossible tasks for others with greater intellect.

The scientific method has never gotten a fair chance to be
employed against the UFO problem. Modern science has had two
thousand years in which to advance beyond Greek science but
UFOlogy has had barely a total of 6 months to 1 year of
full-fledged scientific work (which as I've posted previously
should be full-time effort by the equivalent of, say, 100 James
McDonalds). You seem to assume that UFOlogy has (a) rigorously
asserted lower technology versions of ETH, (b) built detailed
theoretical models of how they may be tested against the
evidence, and (c) then has exhaustively eliminated them -- I am
aware of no such work.

No one is suggesting that any genuine UFO data or evidence are
to be thrown out merely by setting up theoretical models of ETH
to test -- the fact and theory processes are separate. The
Hynek-style screening process which requires competent
scientific investigation of UFO cases before they are admitted
to study is a completely separate matter from trying to set up a
more logical and rigorous framework of ETH models. Hynek does
not suggest in The UFO Experience (1972) that High Strangeness
cases should be exempted from his "screening filter" of an
exhaustive or "severe" scientific investigation -- such
uninvestigated or incompletely investigated cases are "virtually
useless" said Hynek.

You are certainly welcome to fashion your own theories based on
alien "magic" levels 300 million years ahead of us. With my
limited faculties I cannot figure out what if anything you can
intelligently say about alien technology that is 300 million
years advanced. I wish you the best in that endeavor.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 7

             Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability? - Young

From: Bob Young YoungBob2@aol.com
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 23:45:27 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 08:28:14 +0000
Subject: Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability? - Young


 >Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 11:35:37 -0800
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >Subject: Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability?

<snip>

 >We know that some ET technology could be much, much farther
 >ahead of ours than we are now ahead of the technology that
 >existed 300 years ago around the start of our scientific revolution

Jim, List:

This is a perfect example of a _non-falsifiable_ hypothesis. It
can never be disproven, thus is worthless as a way to advance
knowledge. In addition, it is so simplistic as to be
nonsensical. Of course, 300 years from now there will be
technology 300 years in advance of today.


Clear skies,

Bob Young

"Mean what you say - say what you mean."
                    --The Red Queen







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 7

                       UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 5 Number 49

From: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 15:12:36 +0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 19:41:34 +0000
Subject: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 5 Number 49


Posted on behalf of Joseph Trainor.

<Masinaigan@aol.com>
==========================

       UFO ROUNDUP
Volume 5, Number 49
December 7, 2000
Editor: Joseph Trainor

http://ufoinfo.com/roundup/


METALLIC SPHERE UFO SHOWS UP IN BRAZIL

"A very shiny object appeared over the city of Campinas," in
Brazil's Sao Paulo state, "baffling the local population. The
strange object looked like a flashing silver-white ball of light
and was seen the night of Wednesday, November 29, 2000."

Campinas is a large city located 160 kilometers (100 miles)
north of Sao Paulo, which is the largest city in South America.

"The popular rumors" in Campinas "talked of a flying saucer, an
alien invasion, meteors, a weather balloon and a laser cannon."

"The witnesses claimed that the light started to flash in the
districts of Cambua and Taquaral around 9 p.m. and lasted for
thirty minutes. All agreed that the object blinked little
sparkles that could be seen with a very strong clarity."

"Astronomer Julio Lobo of the Observatorio de Capricornia said
that since last Friday," November 24, 2000, "he had received
calls from people claiming to have seen possible UFOs."

"On Thursday, November 30, 2000, ten people phoned him, wanting
to learn the source of the strange light."

"'The people get interested and want answers,' he said, 'Those
who saw it said it 'was a thing from another world'.'"

"Taxi driver Andre de Moura said that he was amazed with what he
saw. 'The light dropped and blinked a lot. Because it stayed in
the same place, I concluded that it was a flying saucer.'"

"When he arrived at a neighbor's house, the man was looking at
it, as well, but then the object disappeared."

"Another cabbie, Walmir Airton Possari, said he saw the light
while driving to the market. According to him, all of the
market's customers were amazed and went outside, looking at it
to try to identify what kind of light it was."

"'I'm sure that it was two lights emitting powerful flashes of
light,' he said."

"However, to his friend, Julio Nakanishi, the object was simply
a balloon. He said that when he first saw the light, he thought
it was an airplane or a helicopter."

"A spokesman for Viracopos Airport" near Campinas " stated that
they had received no reports of any weird sightings." (See the
newspaper Diario Popular of Sao Paulo for December 1, 2000.
Muito obrigado a Thiago Tischetti por eso articulo do diario.)

UFOs HAVE A BUSY WEEKEND IN THE UNITED KINGDOM

On Saturday, November 25, 2000, at 9:15 p.m., Nevel Bell "had
just been to the supermarket" in Edinburgh, Scotland's capital
"and was walking home. It was a clear night, and when it's
clear, I always look up at the stars. I saw what looked like a
satellite moving through the sky. But then, to the left of the
satellite object, there was another."

"Perfectly normal, I thought. Then it all started to get weird."

"The two moving objects started to move close to each other,
visibly picking up speed. Then they started to cross each
other's path, and they did this several times."

"O.K. I thought to myself, There must be a logical explanation
for this."

"I thought they could have been (RAF) fighter jets at high
altitude, but there was no sound."

"The two star-like objects then arced across the sky at a
tremendous speed, something I've never witnessed before. They
then dipped down and disappeared into the horizon." (Many thanks
to Gerry Lovell for forwarding this report.)

On Sunday, November 26, 2000, at 5:20 p.m., Jackie L. was
walking down Craigdale Road in Hornchurch, Essex, UK when she
spotted something strange in the sky.

"It was moving to the right very slowly," she reported, "It was
around 5:20 p.m. whilst I was walking down the road. I could see
this flourescent pink thing in the sky and just could not
believe it. It was very sparkly, extremely bright (and)
flashing. It appeared to stay there for awhile, then quietly
moved sideways, then disappeared behind the houses, leaving
behind a very thin 'smoke-like' trail from the top. It was an
oblong shape but because it was sparkly there was no
definition." (Email Form Report)

MAJOR UFO FLAP BREAKS OUT IN WISCONSIN

A major UFO flap broke out in Wisconsin during September, with
three sightings at different locales around the state.

On Thursday, November 2, 2000, at 5:30 a.m., a man spotted a UFO
in Medford, Wis. (population 4,200), a small town located about
30 miles (48 kilometers) north of Wausau.

The witness reported, "Just prior to going to work at the local
factory, I saw what looked like blinking, although it was still
dark. The object was really white, triangular and 40 degrees
(above the horizon--J.T.) I watched the bright object to my
south. It was not moving at this time. The object was brighter
than any (other) object in the sky. The object then moved at a
high rate of speed for about nine seconds until it was out of my
sight."

On Monday, November 20, 2000, a UFO incident took place in
Oostburg, Wis. (population 2,000), a small port town on Lake
Michigan approximately 10 miles (16 kilometers) south of
Sheboygan.

"It happened at 8:30 p.m.," the witness reported. "In the
east/southeast sky, a bright object hovered for a long period of
time. The night was very clear, and at first I thought it was a
very bright star. But it appeared to be blinking red, green and
blue lights."

"Since it was blinking, I thought it may be some type of
aircraft, but it was not moving at all. I got a pair of
binoculars to get a better look, but it was so far out over Lake
Michigan that it only made the lights more defined. I was just
wondering if there were any more reports of it. Or an
explanation." (Editor's Comment: Add this sighting to the
casebook of the Lake Michigan Triangle.)

The most recent UFO sighting took place in the southwestern part
of the state. On Thursday, November 23, 2000, Timothy and
Jonathan Dust drove to their parents' rural home in Fountain
City, Wis. (population 400) for the Thanksgiving holiday.
Fountain City is just east of the Mississippi River and located
about 30 miles (48 kilometers) south of Eau Claire.

Timothy Dust reported, "My brother Jonathan and I were both at
our parents' cabin just outside of Fountain City, celebrating
the holiday. After dinner, around 6:25 p.m., my brother and I
decided to go outside on our deck for a breath of fresh air
since my father was burning wood to supplement the electric
heaters in the house," adding that the outdoor temperature of
about 30 degrees Fahrenheit.

"The deck is just off the second floor," Tim added, "The floor
of the deck is at treetop height. We had an awesome view of the
night sky this evening."

"Looking around at the stars, I suddenly noticed a large
'stationary' red and orange object hovering 100 feet (30 meters)
above an adjacent ridge of bluffs called Canada Ridge. Canada
Ridge is about a half-mile (800 meters) away from the cabin, and
the object was within one mile (1,600 meters)) of us."

"My brother went to get a pair of high-powered binoculars to
view it more closely. I just watched it with my own eyes."

off to the southwest about two miles away, hovering over the
ridge treeline like it was hiding. Then, five minutes later, it
looked like it landed. We watched the area but it did not
reappear until at least a half-hour later."

Tim added, "The (UFO's) color changed, as well, from rosy red to
orange to white with a hint of green and then back to red."

"At one point, it looked as if it was leaving the area and then
it came back to the original spot just above the ridge. We both
watched the orb for, say, 40 to 45 minutes. There was no sound."
(Many thanks to Jim Aho of the W-Files and Peter B. Davenport of
the National UFO Reporting Center for these reports.)

HOVERING UFO SIGHTED OVER A SMALL TENNESSEE TOWN

On Thursday, November 30, 2000, at 9 p.m., Michael Smith and his
family were driving north on Interstate Highway I-75 when he
spotted an unusual object in the sky to the east of the highway.

"My wife and I were heading home to Indiana from Florida, where
we'd spent Thanksgiving weekend with some relations. We were
just north of Knoxville, Tennessee. She was driving, and I was
in the passenger seat, looking out the window at the stars."

"I noticed a particularly bright star. At first I thought that
it was a pale-blue colored object, but while I watched it from
the mountain, it seemed to be stationary."

"I know it wasn't a plane, and it appeared to hover over a small
town down in a valley in the Appalachian Mountains near (east
of) the interstate. I know it wasn't a star because I had to
turn my head to keep it in view, and stars appear to move when
you move because of the great distances."

(Editor's Note: From Mike's description, it appears that the UFO
was hovering over Halls Crossroads, Tennessee-- population 450,
which is located about 10 miles north of Knoxville.
Interestingly, there was a UFO flap in nearby Dandridge, Tenn.
during 1999.)

"The (UFO) was hovering. At one point, I had to turn all the way
around in my seat to see it. And it was in the same spot! A
plane or helicopter would have some movement. I probably watched
it for around ten minutes. It was very bright, with an estimated
altitude of 1,500 feet (450 meters)." (Email Form Report)

FAMILY SEES A UFO NEAR EASLEY, SOUTH CAROLINA

On Monday, November 27, 2000, at 5:15 p.m., Vicki Rholetter, her
husband and her mother-in-law were on Highway 129, returning
home from a holiday shopping trip to Greenville, South Carolina.

The UFO "appeared to be hovering in the sky in a south or
southeasterly direction," Vicki reported, "My husband, my
mother-in-law and I were returning home from a shopping trip to
Greenville, S.C. As we were driving down Highway 129, my
husband, who was driving, brought my mother-in-law's and my
attention to a large object in the sky on the driver's (left)
side of the car. It didn't appear to be an airplane, and it
looked a little too low off the ground for that, and there were
none of the usual flashing (navigation) lights one would expect
with an airplane. It didn't look like a helicopter, either. In
fact, it didn't appear to be made of any metal, not that we
could see."

"As far as we could tell, it just looked like a big white glob
of light in the sky. It appeared to be hovering. If it was
moving at all, then it was only very, very slowly."

"It also changed shape, too, before it disappeared. My husband
said that it looked a little triangular to him. But to me it
appeared more cylindrical at first. As we watched it, it started
to 'pulse'."

"First it got very bright, then dim, then very bright again and
finally very dim, and then it just faded away. Just disappeared
completely. I noticed that as it got dimmer, it took on a
rounder shape."

"I'm really a little skeptical of UFO sightings, but I really
don't know what else it might be. It's definitely one of the
weirdest things I've ever seen."

Vicki estimated that they were just outside of Easley, S.C.
(population 14,000) when they spied the UFO. Easley is located
140 miles (220 kilometers) northwest of Columbia, the state
capital. (Email Form Report)

LARGE UFO HOVERS OVER A HOME IN RIMROCK, ARIZONA

On Thursday, November 30, 2000, shortly after 7 p.m., Bob and
Dar Meyers were at their home in Rimrock, Arizona when something
strange happened.

"At 7:18 p.m., I went to the window in my living room and saw a
light in the yard," Bob reported, "'Dar,' I said, "Come here and
look at this.'"

"She said, 'That's a UFO.' She immediately ran outside and came
(back) in again. 'Grab your camera.'"

"So I grabbed my equipment and ran out to the trees And when I
looked, there it was--a huge UFO 1,000 feet (300 meters) off the
ground."

"I started to video it, and that's when the ships appeared. Not
one but two. Then it started to shine a beam of light down on
the ground. Then it started to come towards us, then stopped,
then, all of a sudden, the ship blinked out and disappeared."

"I continued to observe the craft and still was staying where I
saw it. I came in the house and called a friend and asked him to
go outside to see if he could see it, and he said yes." (Many
thanks to Steve Wilson for forwarding the Meyers' report.)

FRENCH ASTRONOMER HAS EVIDENCE OF MYSTERIOUS GLOWS ON THE MOON

Transient Lunar Phenomena (TLP for short) have been observed by
Earth-based astronomers since Galileo invented the first
telescope. For centuries, astronomers have dismissed TLPs as
"optical illusions." But now a French scientist asserts that the
TLPs are quite real.

"For hundreds of years, claims of changes on the lunar surface
have always been controversial. Many scientists have dismissed
the occasional reported sightings of glows and mists hanging
over certain lunar features."

"Now a French astronomer has obtained some of the best evidence
yet that occasionally something has disturbed the lunar
surface."

"It was seen in 1992 by veteran lunar observer Audoin Dollfuss
of the Observatoire de Paris, using the one-meter (39-inch)
Mendon reflecting telescope. He has only just finished analysing
the results and has submitted them for publication" in the
December 2000 issue of the astronomical journal Fading Light.

"On 30 December (1992) he noticed a series of glows on the floor
of the crater Langrenus. They were definitely not there the day
before. Professor Dollfuss observed them for several days before
they faded. Clouds of light were seen dancing inside the
crater."

"Each time he returned to the telescope, he noticed that the
shape of the glow had changed. He believes that the glows were
due to escaping gas that lifted dust above the lunar surface
into sunlight."

(Editor's Note: In geology, this activity is known as
outgassing.)

"Some lunar observers have expressed surprise that such an event
should have taken place because Langrenus was not regarded as a
prime candidate for lunar changes. Professor Dollfuss points out
that Langrenus, when observed in detail, has an extensive series
of fractures on its crater floor and that gas could be escaping
from there."

(Editor's Comment: That's a possibility. The crater Langrenus is
136 kilometers (84 miles) in diameter and resembles a shield
volcano here on Earth. There may be significant geothermal
activity just below the crater floor.)

In 1994," the lunar orbiter Clementine "observed the crater
Aristarchus, before and after a TLP was seen from Earth," the
spacecraft's spectrometer data "suggested that parts of the
crater had changed color slightly." (See BBC Online for December
2, 2000. Many thanks to "the Space Cadets" for forwarding this
article.)

ENDEAVOUR HEADS INTO SPACE FOR "POWER UP" MISSION

"The space shuttle Endeavour lifted off Thursday night,"
November 30, 2000, "on a mission to deliver giant solar panels
to the International Space Station," also known as Station
Alpha.

"The weather was perfect for the launch at 10:06 p.m. local
(Florida, USA) time."

Endeavour's crew consisted of shuttle commander Brent Jett Jr.,
pilot Michael Bloomfield, Carlos Noriega, Joseph Tanner and Marc
Carneau.

"The most powerful set of spacecraft solar wings are packed
aboard Endeavour."

"Endeavour pulled up to the International Space Station on
Saturday" December 2, 2000, "and docked, setting the stage for
the attachment--and dramatic spreading--of the world's largest
solar wings."

"Endeavour hooked up with Alpha as the spacecraft zoomed more
than 280 miles (448 kilometers) above central Asia, ending a
two-day chase. Shuttle commander Brent Jett Jr. steered his ship
in from below, with practiced precision."

"Endeavour pulled into a docking port that was added by the last
shuttle crew in October." Station Alpha "will be considerably
wider once the new electricity-producing solar wings are
installed."

"The $600 million wings were folded like an accordion for
launch. Once opened, the wings will span 240 feet, longer than
the wingspan of a Boeing 777 jetliner. And they will be 38 feet
across."

On Sunday, December 3, 2000, astronauts Carlos Noriega and Joe
Tanner donned spacesuits and performed the first spacewalk of
the mission. The two astronauts attached the solar wings to
Station Alpha. Now that the solar wings are attached, Alpha has
become "the third brightest object in the night sky, after the
moon and the star Sirius."

"The 35,000-lbs. of solar wings, batteries, radiators and
extension beams will power the station. NASA expects the solar
panels to generate four times the electricity produced by the
Russian-built solar wings already on the space station."

The first glitch in the mission occurred on Monday, December 4,
2000. "NASA delayed unfurling the second of the set of solar
wings after the first one appeared too slack."

"On Sunday night," December 3, 2000, "the right (solar) wing was
extended via computer command to its entire length of 115 feet
in just 13 minutes. But some slack tension cables left the
blanket of solar cells less taut than desired."

"After hours of consultation, NASA flight controllers came up
with a possible solution, instructing Endeavour's astronauts to
open the folded left wing a little bit at a time Monday evening
in a start-and-stop procedure."

"Alpha commander Bill Shepherd and his Russian crew need more
power in order to spread out in the complex where they have been
living for the past month."

"One of the space station's three rooms has been unheated and
sealed to conserve power. A fourth room due to soar in January
2001, the American-made Destiny lab module, requires
considerable electricity for experiments." (See USA Today for
December 4, 2000, "Spacewalking astronauts attach solar wings to
station," page 12A, and December 5, 2000, "Second space station
wing to be spread little by little," page 10A; the Chicago
Tribune for December 1, 2000, "Shuttle ferrying solar wings to
station," page 5; and the Duluth, Minn. News-Tribune for
December 3, 2000, "Endeavour docks with space station," page
13A.)

from the UFO Files...

2580 B.C.: TIME TRAVELERS?

Three women and their male companion visit a friend's home to
see her new children. As they're leaving, one of the visitors
asks a servant if it's okay if she leaves a package behind. The
servant says yes.

Weeks later, the servant remembers the package and goes to fetch
it. As she picks it up, she hears the sound of music coming from
within. Obviously, she has accidentally switched on a Sony
Walkman or a CD player.

The sort of mishap that occurs every day, right?

But what if I told you that this happened in Egypt way back in
1580 B.C.?

Among the papyrus texts unearthed by archaeologists in the
Nineteenth Century was the strange story of Rud-didet, the wife
of high priest Ra-user.

Rud-didet and her husband lived during the reign of Pharaoh Kufu
(Greek name Cheops), who is reputed to be the builder of the
Great Pyramid.

According to the text, shortly after the couple's three children
were born, the house of Ra-user was visited by three
goddesses--Isis, Nebhat and Meskhent-- in the guise of dancing
girls, and the god Khnumu, who was disguised as a porter. The
divine visitors left a number of gifts for the newborns,
including a model of the red-and- white double crown of Egypt
and a bushel of barley.

"They then returned to he house of Ra-user and requested
permission to leave the barley in a closed chamber, which they
sealed up, and then took their leave."

"A few weeks afterward, Rud-didet asked her handmaid if the
house and all that was in it were in good condition, and the
handmaid replied that all was satisfactory except that the
barley was not yet brought (to the kitchen). Her mistress
inquired why that had not been done, and the servant answered
that their store (room) had been given to the dancing girls who
had arrived on the day of the children's birth, and that it now
lay in a closed chamber under their seal."

"Rud-didet then ordered the servant to use it for the present,
saying that Ra-user could replace it before their return. The
girl opened the chamber, and entering, was surprised to hear
people talking and singing, music and the sound of dancing, and
such sounds as one hears in the court" of a pharaoh.

"She quickly returned and acquainted her mistress with what she
had heard. Rud-didet entered the room herself and also heard the
sounds but could not locate them. At last she laid her hand on
the sack that held the barley, and found that the sounds
proceeded from it."

"She at once placed it in a chest, which she put for security in
a greater (larger) chest, and this she bound round with leather
and laid in the store-room, taking the precaution to seal it,
and when Ra-user returned she told him what had occurred."

"Some days after, Rud-didet had occasion to punish her servant
and beat her with stripes (gave her a whipping--J.T.), and the
servant grumbled and said to her companions, 'Why has this been
done to me? I will go to Pharaoh Khufu and tell him that her
three sons are destined to become rulers.'"

"She then betook herself to her uncle; but he would not hearken
to her treachery and struck her a violent blow with a bunch of
flax which he held. Feeling faint, she went down to the
riverside (Nile) for a draught (drink) of water, and was seized
upon by a crocodile, which carried her away."

"Her uncle then presented himself to Rud-didet whom he found in
a most dejected condition. He asked her what made her downcast,
and she replied that she feared treachery from the handmaiden."

"'You need not fear for her,' replied the man, 'because she has
been seized upon by a crocodile.'"

As author Lewis Spence points out, "At this point the manuscript
fails us."

We learn no more about Rud-didet and her mysterious visitors and
just what was in that sack of barley.

What is most intriguing about the tale of Rud-didet are the
"real life" details of ancient Egyptian life in the text-- the
household protocols, the resentful servant, the crocodile attack
on the banks of the Nile. The only paranormal note in this text
consists of the handmaiden and Rud-didet hearing music emanating
from the sack.

Did the visitors identify themselves as Isis, Nebhat, Meskhent
and Khnumu? Or did Rud-didet and her husband decide that after
this strange incident.

A music-producing electronic device small enough to be concealed
in a sack of barley was unknown even in Spence's time (He died
in 1942--J.T.) But if it had been in the sack, and the
handmaiden had accidentally turned it on while she was poking
about the store-room, that might explain the strange music the
women heard.

Pharaoh Kufu reigned from 2590 B.C. to 2568 B.C., in the Fourth
Dynasty. If the four visitors were really time travelers from
the future, it's perfectly obvious why they went there.

They wanted to see if Kufu was building the Great Pyramid...or
if it was already standing in Giza. (See the book Myths and
Legends of Ancient Egypt by Lewis Spence, Frederick A. Stokes
Co., New York, N.Y., pages 203 to 205.)


That's it for this week. Join us in seven days 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 >
   Dec > Dec 7

                        Re: Reluctant Viewers - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 09:56:57 -0600
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 19:44:12 +0000
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Clark


 >From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 13:19:24 +0000
 >Subject: Reluctant Viewers


Hi, Don,

 >The initial viewer sees an object and then draws it to the
 >attention of friends accompaning him or her. However for some
 >reason, these friends will not take the time to bend their necks
 >and look at what the initial witness is referring to. At a
 >pilot-related Christmas party a week ago, a fellow pilot
 >expressed this curiosity to me about a sighting he had as a
 >young man and where he could not get his friends to even look
 >into the sky to see what he was getting excited about.

 >I've wondered - but not too seriously - if this has to do with
 >people not wanting to fall for the "made you look" prank or
 >whether this is has a more intricate/selective implication,
 >similar to scenarios where witnesses have remembered thinking or
 >wished that the object they were seeing would come closer so
 >they could see it better... and it does.

You could call this the Triumph of Pelicanism. Society has
conditioned us to reject out of hand all kinds of out-of-
the-ordinary events and made it clear that there is nothing to
be gained by reporting them. Some people take that further and
elect not even to experience them when given the opportunity to
do so.

It doesn't happen only in UFO contexts. One of my favorite
cryptozoological episodes occurred early on the evening of June
16, 1826, off St George's Bank, near your own Nova Scotia. The
captain and an English passenger were chatting on the deck when
their conversation was interrupted by the approach of an
enormous, many-humped snakelike animal. The passenger raced off
to inform others on the ship, the American vessel Silas
Richards, but only a scant handful emerged from below deck to
view the ostensible sea serpent. As the passenger recalled, "The
remainder refused to come up, saying there had been too many
hoaxes of that kind already."

When it comes to brainwashing, many brains aren't much of a
laundry problem, it appears.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 7

                     Solution For The Abduction Problem?

From: Charles Chapman <charlesrc@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 08:29:10 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 19:46:05 +0000
Subject: Solution For The Abduction Problem?


I found another article regarding tracking and transmitting
devices that I thought may be of interest to the list. As
before, I think such devices may be useful in helping monitor and
protect repeat and other potential abductees (e.g., the children
of abductees, since according to some researchers alien abduction
is a multi-generational phenomenon).

The article's lead paragraphs state:

"Imagine being able to make a simple phone call, log into a Web
site or check into a kiosk and know within a minute or two the
exact location of your child, in what direction the child is
walking and perhaps even the child's heart rate.

PRIVACY NIGHTMARE or life-saving device? What sounds like a
gadget from a high-tech cops-and-robbers movie is fast becoming a
reality at several companies, including Siemens AG, WhereNet
Corp., Applied Digital Solutions Inc., and eWorldtrack Inc.

     The idea: to apply satellite and mobile-phone technology
to track missing children or people with medical problems." See:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/499923.asp

I hesitated to post this. The reason for my hesitation is that
the last time the subject came up, I recall many people were of
the opinion it would be far to easy for the aliens to defeat
such devices. However, I think the devices could be still useful
for the reasons stated below.

Assume that a legally competent, adult potential abductee
_volunteered_ to have such a device attached to his wrist or
ankle in such a way that it could not be removed without a key.
Further assume that the potential abductee did not have a key;
only the researchers had keys.

Further assume the device is defeated in some way, and the
potential abductee is, unfortunately, abducted by aliens. All
might not be lost. The _way_ in which the device was defeated
may or may not tell us something. For example:

Would an alien really use a hacksaw to cut through the padded
steal, etc. band? Perhaps the aliens used mind control to force
the person abductee to go to the basement, take a hacksaw, and
cut it off. Fine, then the next time we find a potential
abductee who agrees to remove from his or her household all
items (hacksaws, tin snips, etc.) capable of removing the
device.

Perhaps the next time the aliens use mind control to force the
potential abductee to drive down to True Value hardware,
purchase a hacksaw, drive home, and then remove the device.
Still, that might tell us something also, either it: (a)
increases the probability that _this particular case_ is a hoax;
or (b) indicates the aliens mind control powers are greater than
we realized.

Perhaps the device is defeated in some way other than removal.
If it is turned off, that in itself could alert the monitors
that something is amiss. Also, the way in which it is turned
off might leave some residual effects or other clues.

I know the above, at this point, is speculation. But perhaps
these ideas can be used in some way to either protect people
and/or further study the phenomenon.

-- Charles
__________

"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 >
   Dec > Dec 7

              Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Rhodes

From: Terry Rhodes <UtterMole@cs.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 11:43:05 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 20:49:51 +0000
Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Rhodes


 >Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 03:15:18 +0000
 >From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? >>


 >Are you investigating me Terry, or Chris Martins UFO footage?

You are promoting the footage with 'ask Dave Bowden for the CD',
isn't it time we started to hear about the analysis results and
investigation into the alleged UFOs?

My guess is that you haven't done one ounce of investigation but
are taking the footage at face value and want others to do the
same, hence your constant push to send out free copies. You've
already mentioned that you don't keep records of the sightings
therefore you can't be doing follow-up investigations.

You threw the gauntlet down for sceptics to 'join in' but with
this standard of investigation only the gullible would take you
seriously. Of course I could be wrong, perhaps you'd like to
share your follow-up investigations with us?

You could start with the info gained from the local airport, the
height and size of the alleged UFOs, the wind speed, direction,
and other weather conditions received from the met office at the
altitude and time of the sightings.

If you try to side step answering these questions again the only
conclusion can be that you are bluffing over having actually
investigated these alleged video taped UFOs!

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 >
   Dec > Dec 7

                Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability? -

From: Charles Chapman <charlesrc@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 09:29:57 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 20:52:00 +0000
Subject: Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability? -


 >From: Chris Rutkowski <rutkows@cc.UManitoba.CA>
 >Subject: Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability?
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 10:56:59 -0600 (CST)

 >>From: Charles Chapman <charlesrc@earthlink.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability?
 >>Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 06:48:19 -0800

<snip>

 >Popper's philosophy of science is a good foundation for
 >researchers to adopt, in ufology or any other area of study. In
 >fact, I recommend his works highly. However, there are several
 >situations and fields in which falsifiability and duplication
 >both seem inadequate, or at least inappropriate for use. Michael
 >Persinger, who is lauded by skeptics as a good scientist, points
 >out that his results with temporal lobe manipulations canot be
 >duplicated exactly, nor can they be predicted with any rigour.
 >Yet, he himself notes that atmospheric physics and fluid
 >dynamics are themselves not accurate sciences. We still cannot
 >predict the weather, so this begs the question "Is atmospheric
 >physics a science?"

To say that something is not an "accurate" science does not
imply that it is not science. In my opinion, all of the examples
you give qaulify as "science." I think you _may_ be confusing
the concept of falsifiability with the desire to control all of
the relevant independant variables in an experiment, leaving
only one measurable dependent variable. Falsifiability does not
require that.

Further, where the so-called soft sciences cannot conduct
well-controlled experminets, they use statistical analysis. For
example, while statistical corelation does not mean there is
causation, lack of statistical corelation certainly suggests a
lack of causal connection. :)

 >Furthermore, economic theories are inexact, too. Predicting
 >economic movements (i.e the stock market) cannot be accurate,
 >either. So is economics a pseudoscience? Others have even
 >pointed out that psychology and psychoanalysis is hardly
 >transplatable from one person to another without a lot of
 >fudging, so that field of research may be deemed a pseudoscience
 >as well.

Again, to say a discipline or field of study is "inexact" does
not mean it is not science, or cannot be performed
scientifically.

While the stock market cannot be predicted with accuracy, and
the science of ecnomics has not yet been perfected to the degree
of the sciences of physics or chemistry, that does not mean it
is not a science. That scientific economic theories are
imperfect does not imply they are useless, much less not
falsifiable. For example, we have some understanding of the
effect of interest rates on the stock market and inflation.
While that understanding is far from perfect, there is a
statistical correlation. Theories are tested.

Another example from economics. You may recall the Lafler curve
from the 1980s. Lafler's theory was that a cut in tax rates
would lead to a decrease in the U.S. governments deficit because
people, having to pay less taxes, would work harder, earn more,
and thus pay more taxes (although less as a percentage of
income). President Regan tried it. It didn't work; the deficit
shot up. That result tended to falsify the theory.

Similarly, while psychology is far from an exact science, that
does not mean that it is a pseudoscience at all. For example:

1. There have been numerous studies on the efficacy of
counseling, medication, and a combination of both in the
treatment of depression. To my knowledge, they have consistently
found that: (a) medication combined with counseling is more
effective than medication alone; (b) medication alone is more
effective than counseling alone; (c) counseling alone is better
than doing nothing. The jury is still out on whether counseling
is more effective regarding depression than talking to a friend.

2. We know a very large percentage of serial killers,
psychopaths, etc., have a history of torturing animals as a
children. Does this correlation imply causation? I don't know.
But it does provide us with a predicitve tool. It is a
hypothesis that can be tested. Not experimentally, certainly,
but statistically.

3. Far greater than 90% (something like 99%) of female strippers
in the U.S. were molested as children. This suggests causation,
or at the very least a predictive tool, or a statisically
falsifiable hypothesis.

I would go farther. I think that many of the "physical
historical" sciences -- i.e., archeology, geology -- are true
sciences. What is predicted? The next discovery of some ancient
fact. Someone comes up with a theory that the dinosaurs were
loners. Whoops, somebody discovers fossil evidence indicative of
nesting or social behavior. Someone says the long neck of
certain dinosaurs were used to reach up and eat folliage.
Whoops, an intact rib cage is discovered, measurements taken,
and the calculation made that, for this particular dinosaur at
least, the heart could not possibly have been large enough to
pump the blood to reach a head elevated 45 feet in the air. The
above is far from exact. We can never know with certainty.
However, theories are proposed, rationally discussed, and
discredited based on the next fossil discovery or carbon 14
test.

 >The other point to make is that your question about ufology
 >using falsifiability is itself problematic. In what way would
 >you imply ufology is not using falsifiability?

I want to make is clear that, in my opinion, certainly not _all_
of ufology is not using falsifiability. I'm sure that many, many
ufologists do. I ceartainly am not saying you don't. However, I
do believe that many ufologists (perhaps not a majority) do not
propose, and ardently resist proposing, any falsifiable
hypothesis. I see it on the list, and in other areas, all of the
time -- e.g., special pleading, the use of "just so" stories,
the assumption (stated or not) that the aliens are the
functional equivilant of gods and therefore cannot be studied. I
believe an perfect example is the discussion of whether the
Mexico tape was faked. We have reached the point that proving it
could have been faked proves nothing, because the aliens could
have caused it to "look" fake.

 >In my studies of
 >FO report data, falsifiability is tested each year,
 >successfully. I can predict the hourly distribution of
 >sightings, the average number of witnesses, the numbers of CEs
 >versus NLs, etc. So, in many fields within ufology, scientific
 >principles are used with complete confidence in their
 >applications and results. In studies of abductees, we can make
 >certain tests to learn if certain percentages are fantasy-prone,
 >have histories of abuse, have more or less auditory
 >hallucinations than the general population, etc. These are valid
 >scientific tests.

I agree, and I applaud such efforts. Again, I neither stated nor
implied that there was no good science being conducted in
ufology.

 >I think where you were going with your question was in asking if
 >ufologists' belief in UFOs as extraterrestrial craft was
 >falsifiable. For that one question, the answer is, of course,
 >no. We cannot prove that advanced life forms are NOT observing
 >Earth and piloting spacecraft through the atmosphere. Therefore,
 >the ETH fails falsifiability and must be scientifically invalid.

Yes, absence of evidence may not be evidence of absence. It is
very, very possible that there are aliens watching, visiting and
abducting us, but that they are so advanced compared to us that
the only way we are ever going to verify their existance and
activities is when they choose to land on the White House lawn
and say, "We are here." If that is the case, there is
possibility of conducting any real science.

However, I don't agree with your approach. I believe it is best
to take one alleged sighting, photograph, videotape, abduction,
or other specific event at a time. One can come up with a
faslifiable hypothesis that any particular alleged sighting,
etc., was or was not of, or caused by, a "real" ET.

 >But a simple thought exercise can show why falsifiability is
 >inappropriate in this regard. If such an advanced race did exist
 >and really WERE monitoring our activities, perhaps from a base
 >on the far side of the Moon, we would probably not be able to
 >detect them, espcially if they took lengths to mask their
 >presence. Therefore, even though they would REALLY be there,
 >they could not possibly be there according to our understanding
 >of science through the principle of falsifiability.

I think this is certainly possible. However, if I believed that
was the case, I would unsubscribe from the mailing list, leave
the field, and stop wasting my time. Why waste my tme studying
something that cannot be discussed rationally? Why waste my time
discussing something where, everytime I try to suggest that a
particular case is without merit, the proponent simply gives the
aliens greater powers to explain away any problems or
inconsistancies?

 >Finally, even though the ETH with regards to ufology fails, that
 >does not stop SETI programs from getting funding to search for
 >ETs. SETI theories suggest ET life is out there, so funding
 >supports scientific research to prove ETs exist. Yet, negative
 >results do not stop the research, despite the fact that there is
 >no way to prove ETs do NOT exist somehwere in the universe. It
 >seems that SETI violates falsifiability, yet is accepted calmly
 >within scientific circles.

I support both SETI and ufology. I think both are worthy of
support and scientific study. However, for me at least, the
study has to be scientific.

 >Is this what you were getting at with your questions?

Some of it, though I think you overstated my position.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 7

                      Re: Reluctant Viewers - Balaskas

From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 12:37:02 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 20:55:03 +0000
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Balaskas


 >From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 13:19:24 +0000
 >Subject: Reluctant Viewers

<snip>

 >Many of you have probably had the following experience with a
 >witness to a UFO incident.

 >The initial viewer sees an object and then draws it to the
 >attention of friends accompaning him or her. However for some
 >reason, these friends will not take the time to bend their necks
 >and look at what the initial witness is referring to. At a
 >pilot-related Christmas party a week ago, a fellow pilot
 >expressed this curiosity to me about a sighting he had as a
 >young man and where he could not get his friends to even look
 >into the sky to see what he was getting excited about.

 >This is not the first case I've come across. I've read of
 >several and I've talked to witnesses with similar experiences.

 >Closer to home, my own daughter [at the age of 12] saw a large,
 >edge-lit, blimp-shaped object in the sky, directly overhead
 >while playing with her friends in the street in front of our
 >house just after dusk in the mid-summer. To this day it bugs her
 >as to why, when she drew attention to the object to her friends
 >and her sister, none of them would look up.

Hi Don.

I can relate to this too. One night, about a decade ago, the sky
over Ottawa where I once lived and worked seemed to be on fire.
The bright rapidly changing colours of the aurora borealis were
so spectacular I just lay down in my backyard and enjoyed the
light show. To this day I regret that my family and friends were
too busy watching T.V. to even come out for a moment just to see
for themselves.

Your e-mail also reminded me of what I read in Dr. Allen Hynek's
'The UFO Experience' (page 7) which I briefly quote below:

During an evening reception of several hundred astronomers at
Victoria, British Columbia, in the summer of 1968, word spread
that just outside the hall strangely maneuvering lights - UFOs -
had been spotted. The news was met by casual banter and the
giggling sound that often accompanies an embarrassing situation.
Not one astronomer ventured outside in the summer night to see
for himself.

Erwin Schrodinger, pioneer in quantum mechanics and a
philosopher of science, wrote, "The first requirement of a
scientist is that he be curious. He should be capable of being
astonished and eager to find out."


When those few first photos of Mars taken by the Mariner IV
spacecraft back in 1965 showed a lifeless crater pocketed
terrain that looked very much like our Moon, the belief held at
the time by many astronomers that Mars was a likely candidate
where E.T. life would be found came to an abrupt end. Once it
became an accepted scientific fact, it is hard to get the new
generation of astronomers who learned about these Mariner IV
results in school to immediately turn around and again consider
Mars as a likely candidate for E.T. life, even in light of the
growing number of new observations which suggest that this is in
fact the case. They may not want to look now, but they will
eventually.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 8

                Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability? -

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 09:42:59 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 08:28:45 +0000
Subject: Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability? -


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 22:44:21 EST
 >Subject: Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability?
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Hi Jim and list,

 >Well you're a smarter man than I am, Jim, if you can comprehend
 >alien technol ogy that is 300,000,000 years ahead of ours. I am
 >simple minded and want to start with the pre-school basics and
 >make sure they are established before moving ahead to college
 >and post-doctoral work and all the stages in between. I can
 >understand your impatience. We all want quick answers. But it's
 >even better if we can be _sure_ they are the _right_ answers.
 >And I prefer to do the do-able tasks first and leave the
 >impossible tasks for others with greater intellect.
 >
 >The scientific method has never gotten a fair chance to be
 >employed against the UFO problem. Modern science has had two
 >thousand years in which to advance beyond Greek science but
 >UFOlogy has had barely a total of 6 months to 1 year of
 >full-fledged scientific work (which as I've posted previously
 >should be full-time effort by the equivalent of, say, 100 James
 >McDonalds). You seem to assume that UFOlogy has (a) rigorously
 >asserted lower technology versions of ETH, (b) built detailed
 >theoretical models of how they may be tested against the
 >evidence, and (c) then has exhaustively eliminated them -- I am
 >aware of no such work.

 >No one is suggesting that any genuine UFO data or evidence are
 >to be thrown out merely by setting up theoretical models of ETH
 >to test -- the fact and theory processes are separate. The
 >Hynek-style screening process which requires competent
 >scientific investigation of UFO cases before they are admitted
 >to study is a completely separate matter from trying to set up a
 >more logical and rigorous framework of ETH models. Hynek does
 >not suggest in The UFO Experience (1972) that High Strangeness
 >cases should be exempted from his "screening filter" of an
 >exhaustive or "severe" scientific investigation -- such
 >uninvestigated or incompletely investigated cases are "virtually
 >useless" said Hynek.

 >You are certainly welcome to fashion your own theories based on
 >alien "magic" levels 300 million years ahead of us. With my
 >limited faculties I cannot figure out what if anything you can
 >intelligently say about alien technology that is 300 million
 >years advanced. I wish you the best in that endeavor.

 >Regards,

 >Brad Sparks

Brad,

Naturally neither I nor any others can comprehend alien
technology that is 300,000,000 years ahead of ours. My point was
and is, that we should allow for the existence of such when that
is where witesses and evidential clues lead us. Even if it is
only 300,000 years ahead of ours, or 30,000 years ahead of ours,
or perhaps just 3,000 years ahead, it would and should still
seem like magic to us, or of "high strangeness" or paranormal.

We should not consider the UFO evdence as non-genuine when it is
of that nature and just because it is of that nature, and if I
read you right, you seem to agree on that after all.

Unless I've missed it, you have not yet agreed that the UFO
evidence is often presented in a deceptive manner. If you come
around to that point, which requires allowing that UFO
intelligences could possess intelligence and experience at
levels beyond our own, then you'd be in a position to put two
and two together on the Mexico City case of Aug. 6, 1997. It
cannot be scientific, in the best sense of the word, to
arbitrarily assume that UFO intelligences would not or do not
possess a strategy of dealing with us that involves purposeful
deception.

In the Mexico City case, which prompted this line of discussion
in the first place, it is the witnesses, as well as the
realistic manner in which Maussan came into possession of the
video, plus its realistic features, which requires us to examine
the likelihood that advanced alien technology and strategy
explains the anomalous feature of the video. Ignoring the
witnesses just does not work in this case.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 8

                 '97 Mexico City UFO Video Witnesses Summary

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 11:17:01 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 08:33:42 +0000
Subject: '97 Mexico City UFO Video Witnesses Summary


Hello List,

Perhaps some of you have also made a similar list of witnesses
to the Aug. 6th Mexico City UFO, from Daniel Munoz's report. I
think it's handy to have in summary form. I'm still awaiting
help from Hesemann in translating his report in German and
progressing further into it to see if any of the witnesses he
found are different ones.

Jim

-----

Below, "INT" means the witness(es) were interviewed by Munoz
(and/or Maussan?).

**The two men whose voices are heard on the video. One
identified by Emilio Osorio, but name withheld because he was an
illegal alien from Central America

*Casandra Lopez Mendoza, age 14 (or 12 at the time?); INT

*Mr. Luis Arturo Garcia Flores, a restaurant manager (at the
Freedom Bosques restaurant, according to Hesemann's report); INT

*Mr. Alfredo Rodriguez Hernandez, blacksmith; INT

***3 children, interviewed by members of Los Vigilantes UFO group

**Annie and David Lask; INT

*Photographer Annie's model, he not available for interviewing

*Victor Gonzales, Annie's boyfriend; INT

**Jesus and Luis Fernandez Ocampo Chavez, ages 10 and 6
(possibly the same as two of the three children four entries
above?); INT


Second-hand, confirming witnesses:

*Casandra's parents, plus other relatives(?)

*A restaurant manager plus one or more waiters, who confirmed
that Luis Arturo Garcia Flores had been a witness

*Others in the Lask family, confirming that Annie and David Lask
were witnesses

*Arq. Adolfo Gonzales confirming, from information separate from
the video scene itself, that the video in question was shot from
the particular high-rise office building

*Emilio Osorio, knew inside details, including the make of video
camera: Handycam








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 8

                          Secrecy News -- 12/07/00

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@igc.org>
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 13:39:17 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 08:36:57 +0000
Subject: Secrecy News -- 12/07/00


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
December 7, 2000

**     SENATOR SHELBY DEFENDS THE ANTI-LEAK STATUTE
**     THE PERILS OF CLASSIFIED HISTORY



SENATOR SHELBY DEFENDS THE ANTI-LEAK STATUTE

In his first extended response to President Clinton's
widely-admired veto of the legislation that would have made it a
felony to disclose classified information, Senator Richard
Shelby yesterday lashed out at the Administration and at critics
of the anti-leak provision, of which he was the principal
sponsor.

"After 8 years of subordinating national security to political
concerns, the Clinton-Gore administration now exits on a similar
note," Sen. Shelby said on the Senate floor before the Senate
approved a revised version of the FY 2001 Intelligence
Authorization Act with the anti-leak provision deleted.

Sen. Shelby criticized the President for overruling his national
security experts and vetoing the bill based on a "hysterical,
largely inaccurate, but extremely well-timed media lobbying
blitz" mounted by opponents.  "This carefully drafted provision
would not have silenced whistleblowers," it "would not have
criminalized mistakes," and "it would not have eroded first
amendment rights," Senator Shelby insisted.  He did not discuss
his intentions with respect to similar legislation in the coming
year.

Sen. Shelby's comments in yesterday's floor debate on the FY
2001 Intelligence Authorization Act may be found here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2000_cr/s120600.html

This debate also included a colloquy on activities under the
Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act, described misleadingly as "the
largest declassification of U.S. government records in American
history," and the related declassification of records related to
war crimes of the Japanese Imperial Army.

Because the Senate adopted an amendment by Senator Wayne Allard
concerning NRO contracting practices, the revised Intelligence
Authorization Act must now go back to the House for its
approval.


THE PERILS OF CLASSIFIED HISTORY

Historian Dwayne A. Day reviews several declassified histories
of the nation's spy satellite programs in latest issue of the
quarterly journal Quest (vol. 8, no. 2).

He concludes with reflections on the defects of classified
history as a category.  He notes that "there are some practices
represented in these histories that would not be tolerated at
all in an academic setting."  So, for example, he notes "the use
of entire paragraphs from another work without quotation marks
or attribution."  And due to inadequate peer review, "some
pretty basic mistakes... went uncorrected."

Most interestingly, Day criticizes the insularity of the
official historians and their ignorance of, or indifference to,
mainstream unclassified historical research.  "The situation is
steeped in irony.  Normally it is the civilian, public
historical community that has difficulty accessing classified
material.  But in several of these works, the outside literature
is ignored by the classified community, leading to serious
historical misunderstandings," he writes.

This provocative article is not available online, but order
information for Quest magazine may be found here:

http://www.spacebusiness.com/quest/

The National Security Archive has posted an updated web page on
the classified CIA history of the 1953 Iran coup, derived from
the New York Times' disclosure of the document last spring.
Along with the text of the still-classified history itself,
there is introductory material by Malcolm Byrne of the Archive's
Iran Declassification Project and by Iran scholar Professor Mark
Gasiorowski.  See:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/index.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 >
   Dec > Dec 8

                Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability? -

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 09:42:59 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 09:10:05 +0000
Subject: Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability? -


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 22:44:21 EST
 >Subject: Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability?
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Hi Jim and list,

 >Well you're a smarter man than I am, Jim, if you can comprehend
 >alien technol ogy that is 300,000,000 years ahead of ours. I am
 >simple minded and want to start with the pre-school basics and
 >make sure they are established before moving ahead to college
 >and post-doctoral work and all the stages in between. I can
 >understand your impatience. We all want quick answers. But it's
 >even better if we can be _sure_ they are the _right_ answers.
 >And I prefer to do the do-able tasks first and leave the
 >impossible tasks for others with greater intellect.

 >The scientific method has never gotten a fair chance to be
 >employed against the UFO problem. Modern science has had two
 >thousand years in which to advance beyond Greek science but
 >UFOlogy has had barely a total of 6 months to 1 year of
 >full-fledged scientific work (which as I've posted previously
 >should be full-time effort by the equivalent of, say, 100 James
 >McDonalds). You seem to assume that UFOlogy has (a) rigorously
 >asserted lower technology versions of ETH, (b) built detailed
 >theoretical models of how they may be tested against the
 >evidence, and (c) then has exhaustively eliminated them -- I am
 >aware of no such work.

 >No one is suggesting that any genuine UFO data or evidence are
 >to be thrown out merely by setting up theoretical models of ETH
 >to test -- the fact and theory processes are separate. The
 >Hynek-style screening process which requires competent
 >scientific investigation of UFO cases before they are admitted
 >to study is a completely separate matter from trying to set up a
 >more logical and rigorous framework of ETH models. Hynek does
 >not suggest in The UFO Experience (1972) that High Strangeness
 >cases should be exempted from his "screening filter" of an
 >exhaustive or "severe" scientific investigation -- such
 >uninvestigated or incompletely investigated cases are "virtually
 >useless" said Hynek.

 >You are certainly welcome to fashion your own theories based on
 >alien "magic" levels 300 million years ahead of us. With my
 >limited faculties I cannot figure out what if anything you can
 >intelligently say about alien technology that is 300 million
 >years advanced. I wish you the best in that endeavor.


Brad,

Naturally neither I nor any others can comprehend alien
technology that is 300,000,000 years ahead of ours. My point was
and is, that we should allow for the existence of such when that
is where witesses and evidential clues lead us. Even if it is
only 300,000 years ahead of ours, or 30,000 years ahead of ours,
or perhaps just 3,000 years ahead, it would and should still
seem like magic to us, or of "high strangeness" or paranormal.

We should not consider the UFO evdence as non-genuine when it is
of that nature and just because it is of that nature, and if I
read you right, you seem to agree on that after all.

Unless I've missed it, you have not yet agreed that the UFO
evidence is often presented in a deceptive manner. If you come
around to that point, which requires allowing that UFO
intelligences could possess intelligence and experience at
levels beyond our own, then you'd be in a position to put two
and two together on the Mexico City case of Aug. 6, 1997. It
cannot be scientific, in the best sense of the word, to
arbitrarily assume that UFO intelligences would not or do not
possess a strategy of dealing with us that involves purposeful
deception.

In the Mexico City case, which prompted this line of discussion
in the first place, it is the witnesses, as well as the
realistic manner in which Maussan came into possession of the
video, plus its realistic features, which requires us to examine
the likelihood that advanced alien technology and strategy
explains the anomalous feature of the video. Ignoring the
witnesses just does not work in this case.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 8

              Re: Munoz's Report - Corrales Translation, Part I

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 17:27:22 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 09:25:15 +0000
Subject: Re: Munoz's Report - Corrales Translation, Part I


 >Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 14:31:59 -0800
 >To: UFO UpDates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >Subject: Munoz's Report - Corrales Translation, Part I

What follows are comments about the first half of Daniel Munoz's
report on the Aug. 6, 1997, Mexico City sighting and video, as
translated by Scott Corrales.

<snip>

 >Report from Daniel Munoz
 >as translated by Scott Corrales,
 >12/4/00

 >Part I

 >The "Las Lomas" UFO

 >The video known as the "Las Lomas UFO", in which it is possible
 >to see a strange, "saucer-shaped" object flying over the western
 >skies of Mexico City on August 6, 1997, could become one of the
 >strongest pieces of evidence supporting an extraterrestrial
 >presence in our world.

Please keep in mind, as you read my comments below, that at this
very time 3 years ago I was very "into" this video and was
proceeding along a research track that would elucidate all
apsects of the video plus I was pushing for further witness
interviewing, etc. I have a massive amount of research and data
compilation, a small amount of which was widely circulated on
the Internet in November, 1997, as preliminary analyses parts 1
and 2 and then published in the MUFON Journal in the spring of
1998.

It appears that this would be a very good case if it weren' for
the 'fingerprints of a hoax' which have already been discussed.

<snip>

 >Monday, September 29: During the work session held every Monday
 >by the Tercer Milenio team in Mexico City, a call is received
 >from a person claiming to know the place appearing in the UFO
 >sequence shown on TV the previous day. We immediately took down
 >the viewer's information and went to meet him. Once initial
 >personal contact was made, we were taken to the site from where
 >the video was recorded, realizing that this was, in fact, the
 >site in question. Using the information on the letter received,
 >we went up to the penthouse of the building known as
 >"Corporativo Reforma Laureles", making sure that this was indeed
 >the location from which the August 6th UFO was seen. In the
 >offices at said location, there was no one by the name of the
 >video's alleged author, as given on the letter delivered to
 >Televisa. However, the panoramic shot taken by our cameraman
 >coincides perfectly with the one appearing on the video. Thanks
t>o our viewers, we had found the precise location of the
 >>building's penthouse terrace,

There is _no_ doubt in my mind that the video background scene
was in fact obtained from the identified building. The MUFON
representative in Mexico checked this out carefully. (I have
comparison photos including one from Hesemann which looks as if
it was taken from the roof of the Reforma building.)

 >one of our coworkers called us
 >excitedly, saying that "a girl had seen the object shown on the
 >video." In fact, Casandra Lopez Mendoza, 14, would tell us with
 >great excitement how she had seen "a spinning object flying
 >close to the building between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. on a cloudy
 >Wednesday with light rain."

August 6, 1997 was, indeed , a Wednesday.... but note that
there were Wednesdays "every week".
I have the weather report from Mexico City, Servicio Meteorologico
Nacional: from 1600-1700 local time cloud cover was
about 60% in several layers and the visibility (range) was
varied from 10-12 km. If I read it right, there was a very
light rain or drizzle starting about 1855 for about an hour
and a half.

 >Casandra had been considered crazy
 >by her relatives on August 6th after she had told them what
 >happened. But our presence would lend weight to her belief that
 >what she had seen was not only real, but highly important.
 >Casandra's description dovetailed perfectly with the behavior
 >exhibited by the object on the video, which she had not seen and
 >whose existence was unknown to her. Casandra stated that this
 >wasn't the first time she'd seen UFOs in the area: on two prior
 >occasions she had witnessed similar objects over the canyon.

UFO sightings are almost a "pandemic" in Mexico. Could there be
date confusion? Object confusion? There is a video of Cassandra.
It should be studied. According to the investigation by Brit and
Lee Elders in January/February, 1998, Cassandra was southwest of
the first building that the object disappeared behind
(supposedly) and was about halfway between the "Reforma"
building and the "disappearance" building. That means she would
have had to looking northeast, past the buildings, to see it.

 >Once the interview was over, we headed to a local restaurant to
 >show Casandra the images we had received in order to record her
 >impressions on this matter. However, before this could be done,
 >we learned from the waiters that the restaurant's manager, Mr.
 >Luis Arturo Garcia Flores, had also been an eyewitness to the
 >August 6 sighting. We approached him immediately, confirming the
 >events with another eyewitness who had also seen the object's
 >maneuvers and whose statements would confirm Casandra's
t>estimony and the images on the video.

According to the Elders' map this restaurant was very close to
the supposed location of the object, perhaps in one of the
buildings seen in the video (I don't know that), only a guess)

 >Once interviewed, we
 >invited both eyewitnesses to view the video carefully, creating
 >in Casandra a vivid excitement reflected in her eyes-the
 >excitement of someone who was confirming that what she had seen
 >months earlier had not been a product of her imagination.

Note carefully the claim that the witness testimony was obtained
before the video was shown to them. This is GOOD. However, it
had been on TV already. Was Maussan positive that they hadn't
seen the TV presentation, or heard about it?

<snip>

 >That very same day we made an effort to conduct interviews with
t>he residents of the "Royal Reforma" complex to see if anyone
 >had witnessed the strange object on August 6th. Due to the fact
t>hat it is a highly exclusive residential complex occupied by
 >certain politicians and public figures of Mexican society, we
 >were denied all manner of information, and of course, access.

Other investigators, including Hesemann many months later, tried
to gain access.

 >Wednesday, October 1: We traveled to Phoenix, Arizona, U.S.A. to
 >reach Jim Dilettoso, one of the best computerized image analysts
 >in the United States. Dilettoso has devoted himself, on a
 >part-time basis, to analyze UFO images from different part soft
 >the world, reaching conclusions which have made an impression on
 >the scientific establishment. From the first moment that he saw
 >the August 6th images, Dilettoso evinced an interest in the
 >possibility that the object could be a balloon suspended from a
 >helicopter.

It should have been quickly if not immediately obvious that it
wasn't anything hanging below a suspension because of the way it
began its forward motion: the acceleration was 'instantaneous'
... 'inertialess acceleration'... to a steady velocity. I
realized this immediately and this was what caught my initial
interest.

 >However, after feeding the images into a computer to
 >conduct the initial analysis of the Las Lomas UFO, Dilettoso was
 >surprised---as were others present in the laboratory---when the
 >monitor displayed all of the images elements except for the UFO
 >itself. After a few minutes of concern, arising from the belief
 >that the equipment had been damaged, Jim Dilettoso discovered
 >that within the same image in which the UFO could not be seen on
 >the screen, it would appear in its proper place after passing
 >infrared and ultraviolet filters. This led Dilettoso to adjust
 >all of his analytical equipment to another frequency in order to
 >analyze the object's characteristics, a situation which had
 >practically never happened to him earlier in any other
 >circumstance, and which on the other hand, confirmed the
 >veracity of the video presented.

The above "problem:" with the video seems a bit strange.
Dilettoso had good equipment. But the reference to "infrared and
ultraviolet filters" makes little sense. One the video has been
recorded you can only filter electrronic signals. There are not
separate electronic channels that one could filter to pick out
"infrared and ultraviolet". The camera probably couldn't record
significant IR or UV anyway.

 >Before taking our leave, Dilettoso asked us for a little more
 >time to conduct further studies on the Las Lomas video, given
 >its unusual characteristics. Dilettoso would look for centers of
 >gravity and would try to reconstruct the UFO's movement in order
 >to achieve a better analysis.

 >Thursday, October 2: We returned to Mexico City early in order
 >to pursue the search for eyewitnesses to the August 6th UFO.
 >However, activity in this regard was practically nil.

 >Friday, October 3: Fortunately, positive results were obtained
 >in our search for witnesses. Behind the "Royal Reforma"
 >complex's buildings, we found Mr. Alfredo Rodriguez Hernandez, a
 >local blacksmith, who had also seen the UFO pass almost directly
 >overhead.

Problem: "Directly overhead" would mean that the UFO passed
close to the Reforma building. WHen first seen in the video it
would have been more than 450 m away (450 m being about the
distance of the building it disappeared behind), was at some
time before the video, very close to the building where the
video was shot. In the video you see it move to the right....
toward the east.... So if it passed near the Reforma building
then it moved northward first and then turned and hovered (or
hovered and then turned) and headed generally east.

 >His description of the object and its movements
 >coincides almost perfectly with what can be seen on the video,

Not if the UFO was "overhead". What shows on the video is motion
generally eastward

 >and even new information was provided to substantiate the story:
 >uninterrupted gyration by the vehicle, possible portholes

Again, did this guy see the video on TV?

 >We
 >later headed for Casandra Lopez's house, where we found her once
 >more, willing to lend her aid in locating other witnesses to the
 >sighting. Some neighbors stated that they had not seen any
 >objects whatsoever that August 6th, however, three of them
 >claimed having seen "a luminous sphere among the clouds which
 >appeared to be an airplane, but of large size and making no
 >sound or motion whatsoever" around 8:00 p.m. on Monday,
 >September 29. With these new eyewitness accounts,

Don't be confused: these "new" eyewitness accounts had nothing
to do with Aug 6.

 >and remembering Casandra's words, we reached the conclusion that it
 >was feasible that a UFO sighting had occurred in that location.

 >That very same day we inquired from the local police if anything
 >unusual had been reported to their headquarters on the first
 >week of August. Even though they did not accept the interview,
 >the stated that nothing strange had been reported for a very
 >long time in that area of the city.

 >Saturday, October 4: On this day, Pedro Ramirez, Carlos
 >Clemente, Salvador Guerrero and Ruben Villatoro, members of the
 >LOS VIGILANTES group, which specializes in scanning the skies in
 >search of UFO evidence, were heading to the place where the
 >events occurred in an effort to locate more witnesses to the
 >August 6th sighting. The group would find three children whose
 >ages ranged between 6 and 12 and who stated that a "large object
 >had been flying over the buildings, apparently in an effort to
l>and" LOS VIGILANTES also conducted field research to
r>econnoiter the site and try to secure any evidence of the
 >unidentified flying object's flyover. While this search proved
f>ruitless, the fact that three new eyewitnesses to the August
 >6th UFO would confirm that an object similar to the one
 >appearing in the video had flown over the area that day.

Did the children see the TV show only about a week before? Did
they recall an exact date? Did they point out directions and did
the directions coincide?

 >Monday, October 6: Once more, during our weekly work session, we
 >received news of eyewitnesses to the event. These persons had
 >stepped forward due to the Tercer Milenio broadcast of the
 >previous Sunday, recognizing the object they had seen in the
 >afternoon of August 6th. We immediately reported to the Lask
f>amily residence, where we met Annie and David, as well as
 >Victor Gonzalez, who had seen the UFO directly overhead.

According to the map by the Elders, Annie's house was was some
1300 m northeast of the building that the object first
disappeared behind. According to them, Annie indicated it flew
southwestward.

 >While
 >Annie Lask was photographing a model

(Jose Luis)

 >on her house's rooftop for
 >a school project on August 6th (a cloudy afternoon, according to
 >the witnesses) both felt a powerful surge of static over the
 >area-strong enough to make "their hair stand on end" and would
 >keep them from continuing with their photo shoot. However, Annie
 >became aware of a shadow that was darker than the surrounding
 >environment, which was already dark given the lack of direct
 >sunlight. This made her feel apprehensive, and when she turned
 >around to look for the source of the shadow, both Annie and her
 >model allegedly saw "an enormous round grey object, spinning
 >dizzily" making a sound similar to a "a gas leak". The strange
 >object was seen by Annie Lask and the model (whom we could not
 >interview due to the fact that he had traveled to Cancun) for a
 >few seconds, during which they would have been able to notice,
 >aside from the circular shape, the noise and static produced: "a
 >sort of energy encircled it".

According to the Elders' interview the model was so scared he
ran down some stairs off the roof.

 > When the UFO moved toward the
 >place where it was subsequently recorded on video,

Note: this would have been southwestward direction

 >Annie and the
 >model perceived an increase in the sound's intensity "as if the
 >leak had intensified." Parallel to this extraordinary sighting,
 >David Lask, Annie's younger brother, and Victor Gonzalez, her
 >boyfriend, were inside the house near the family pets. While
 >David played, he became aware that the dogs "began barking in a
 >strange fashion", the kind of bark they issued only when
 >bothered by a loud sound, according to David. While we
 >interviewed him, David stated that in following his dogs, one of
 >them barking at the window, he finally reached the back yard,
 >from where he had been able to catch a glimpse of "a part of a
 >circular, grey object flying over his house." He would also
 >state that after seeing the video broadcast on our Tercer
 >Milenio program, he recognized it as having seen it flying over
 >the house two months earlier.

Note that the video was shown on Mexican TV about 7 weeks after
it was shot according to the date stamp on the video (which is
the only non-human-memory information available about the date
of the event)

 >On the other hand, Victor Gonzalez
 >was watching TV when the Lask family's pets "became strangely
 >agitated": the dogs barked as if frightened and the cats raised
 >their hackles for no apparent reason. Two pet ferrets in the
 >Lask household also exhibited the same unsettled feeling.
 >Although he saw nothing strange, he told us that "the
 >environment became rarefied". But the Lacks' extraordinary
 >experience was far from over. Upon asking Annie Lask about some
 >of the typical symptoms experienced by people who have close
 >encounters with these objects, such as headaches, toothaches,
 >muscular aches, etc., she told us that she had indeed been
 >afflicted with a strange headache. But what startled her even
 >more later on was "a strange tanning effect which had marked the
 >skin that was not covered by the t-shirt she wore the day of the
 >sighting. Annie stated that she had just returned from a trip to
 >Acapulco where she had in fact suntanned, but that after her
 >experience with the UFO, her skin was burned in three different
 >shades: one was her natural skin color, the next was the
 >intermediate one acquired during her beach holidays, and the
 >third, more intense one, was the one received from the sighting
 >and which would last over a month, as she would state before our
 >cameras. It was thus, with this startling account, that we ended
 >the day but not our investigation, which was becoming more
 >interesting with each passing day.

Note: quite independent of the video, this sighting should be
(or was?) carefully investigated because (a) multiple witness,
(b) animal reaction, (c) physiological effects. Note that Annie
had a camera ready to shoot the model... she did not think to
photograph the object, however. How many times have we heard
such things? ("Let me count the ways....."

 >Tuesday, October 7: The investigation took a break on this day
 >to evaluate all of the material hitherto obtained as a result of
 >the August 6th video. However, we decided that it was necessary
 >to capture on video an account that would endorse not only that
 >the UFO existed and was not a computer trick (which we had
 >dismissed by this time), but that it wasn't a promotional
 >device.

 >Wednesday, October 8: On this day we restarted our research to
 >arrange an interview with some P.R. firm executives in
 >southwestern Mexico City having greater financial means at their
 >disposal. It was thus that we reached the Media Director of a
 >large P.R. firm in the city's southern area, Lic. Jose Manuel
 >Jimenez, who would state for our cameras that "no type of
 >untethered balloon could be employed in the airspace over Mexico
 >City, and that the capital city's authorities had long ago
 >forbidden any promotional displays using balloons of this type."
 >That same day in the afternoon we headed to the home of Lic.
 >Victor Quezada, MIS Director of a university in the capital
 >whose computer analysis tools would show us a halo of energy
 >surrounding the UFO featured in the August 6th video. An energy
 >which, according to Quezada "is not characteristic to airplanes,
 >helicopters or balloons". Furthermore, Victor Quezada would
 >explain that it was extremely hard to make a trick similar to
 >the August 6th video, since it would require a large
 >infrastructure and budget to carry it out. Quezada performed a
 >series of analyses based on a combination of color filters and
l>ight intensities to reach the conclusion that the object was
 >not something manufactured in a computer, but rather a tangible
 >object which could have well been sent by an eyewitness">>

Hmmmm..... well, first, neither I nor Jeff Sainio noticed a
"halo" around the object, although I suppose some of the
fuzziness of the edges might be interpreted as a "halo." Next,
we know that the computer software did exist to create such a
video.

 >End of Munoz's Report, Part I

If you got this far I know you are a hard core "nut" or a
masochist. In either case you will want/need the major data dump
available as a zipped file (thanks to EBK) which has my original
internet postings on the analysis, the MUFON article of April
1998, illustrations, and a composite photo that compares
smeared/blurred and unsmeared building images with the UFO
images to show that the UFO image was not smeared when the
building image was smeared by camera motion.

E-mail & ask me for brumacmex.zip








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 8

              Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Lushman

From: Rory Lushman <oubliette@currantbun.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 22:51:01 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 10:09:08 +0000
Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Lushman


 >Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 18:08:21 +0000
 >From: Dave Bowden <grafikfx@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark?

 >I remember sending you some samples some weeks back via email,
 >you wrote to me privately to say you were unable to view them on
 >your system and that you would rather wait to see them in full
 >at the Leeds conference.

Yes they would not open. Work prevent me attending conference.

 >Have you since upgraded you machine?

Nowt wrong with my machine, its new.

Cheers

Rory









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 8

              Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Lushman

From: Rory Lushman <oubliette@currantbun.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 22:56:14 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 10:11:14 +0000
Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Lushman


 >Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 05:17:40 +0000
 >From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark?


 >Thank you for at last in approaching this in the only way we
 >can, that is to get a first hand perspective on this whole case,
 >I commend your reasoning. Please e-mail me privately with dates
 >that you are available and I will then make contact with Chris,
 >in respect of having a get together.

I shall be in touch soon.

 >As there have been quite a few, I have not gone out of my way to
 >jot each occasion down, but far as to say, some of the
 >highlighted sightings were taking place about a year ago at the
 >local park not far from where Chris resides, these were part of
 >multiple witness sightings on those occasions.

Surely as a seasoned investigator the first thing you would do
is make a note of dates and times for reference purposes.

 >When you say beyond, what do you exactly mean? Also does this
 >mean that you did not go to see the lecture at Leeds, like you
 >mentioned in a previous post? Only if not I would hold these
 >questions until you and Chris meet, there is one thing you will
 >notice about Chris, and that is he is one easy going guy who has
 >nothing to hide about his UFO experiences and filming.

I could not make it to the conference due to work. The problem I
have with all this Roy is that you promote Chris so much, yet
when we ask you questions on this public list, you refer us to
ask Chris. If you cannot answer the questions on behalf of Chris
then step back and let him join the debate. Why not ask him to
debate this on Updates. We might get some straight anwsers then.

But let's not have half a story. You cannot promote Chris and
his sightings then expect to bury your head in the sand when
questions are getting asked. If you are his point of contact, then
let's have some answers.


Cheers

Rory










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 8

               Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 17:31:59 -0600
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 10:13:20 +0000
Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Evans


 >From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 05:18:35 +0000
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark?

 >>Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 08:07:20 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark?
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, I had written:

 >>You made a pretty serious claim about people on this List which
 >>I feel is incorrect. However, I could be mistaken. I am not
 >>asking you to call anyone names or insult anyone. Indeed, if you
 >>were the one insulted or attacked, all you have to do is point
 >>out the posts where this happened.

 >>I am genuinely interested in the video, don't get me wrong. But,
 >>an unsubstantiated claim is an unsubstantiated claim, Roy.
 >>Whether it's about UFOs or List members, without validation,
 >>it's hard to take them seriously.

Roy replies:

 >Am I talking to myself here or what? If you were interested in
 >the footage Roger then when did you make contact with Dave
 >Bowden for a copy of the FREE CD to be sent to you?

 >I am beginning to wonder why I posted this footage on UpDates,
 >because all I have had is tabloid questions thrown at me, I have
 >been banging my head on the wall with some of these questions.
 >Please get a copy of the FREE CD and you will be able to see it,
 >clearly, for yourself!

Hello, Roy.

No, you aren't talking to yourself. You are talking to me and I
asked you a simple question which you seem determined to not
answer! Fine by me. Just don't bellyache in the future about
witnesses not being taken seriously due to lack of evidence or
being "attacked" by all those disgruntled List members.

Regarding the CD, I shot off an email to Dave as soon as you
referred me to him. I, as of this writing, have not heard from
him. Dave, if you are reading this, will you please email me and
let me know if you got my message?

In all, I guess that's the difference between Dave and you, Roy.
Whereas I am not sure that he received my interrogative, I know
for a fact that you did.


Later,

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 >
   Dec > Dec 8

                     Re: Reluctant Viewers - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 19:07:02 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 10:17:18 +0000
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Mortellaro


 >From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 13:19:24 +0000
 >Subject: Reluctant Viewers

 >Hello list,

 >Recently while perusing Jerry Clark's 'The UFO Book' I came
 >across the famous Tehran, Iran CE 2 case. At the outset it
 >mentions that several reports to Mehrabad airport of a lighted
 >object in the vicinity were ignored until finally tower
 >controller Houssain Perouzi decided to look for himself -
 >laudable considering this was unknown traffic near or in a
 >control zone. This incident is not really related to what I
 >refer to below. It just jarred my memory.

 >It triggered a recent memory of mine which in turn renewed my
 >curiosity about reluctant potential witnesses UFO events in the
 >presence of the reporting witness.

 >Many of you have probably had the following experience with a
 >witness to a UFO incident.

 >The initial viewer sees an object and then draws it to the
 >attention of friends accompaning him or her. However for some
 >reason, these friends will not take the time to bend their necks
 >and look at what the initial witness is referring to. At a
 >pilot-related Christmas party a week ago, a fellow pilot
 >expressed this curiosity to me about a sighting he had as a
 >young man and where he could not get his friends to even look
 >into the sky to see what he was getting excited about.

 >This is not the first case I've come across. I've read of
 >several and I've talked to witnesses with similar experiences.

 >Closer to home, my own daughter [at the age of 12] saw a large,
 >edge-lit, blimp-shaped object in the sky, directly overhead
 >while playing with her friends in the street in front of our
 >house just after dusk in the mid-summer. To this day it bugs her
 >as to why, when she drew attention to the object to her friends
 >and her sister, none of them would look up.

 >I've wondered - but not too seriously - if this has to do with
 >people not wanting to fall for the "made you look" prank or
 >whether this is has a more intricate/selective implication,
 >similar to scenarios where witnesses have remembered thinking or
 >wished that the object they were seeing would come closer so
 >they could see it better... and it does.

 >Don Ledger

Hello, Don, bListers and Errol,

I've often wondered myself. And with each sighting which I have
had in the presence of others, I endured the same type of
reaction. I admit to _not_ having had a large number of
sightings myself, but those which I remember having, the half
dozen or so which occured with others present, were never
acknowledged by the others to the extent which it disturbed me.

One example is very vivid. It occurred when I was about 9 years
of age, and when I was with some friends playing at the edge of
a woods near my home. I was perched on a large rock which
resembled the back of an elephant, so we called it "elephant
rock." It was broad daylight. A disc suddenly appeared, slowly
approaching us. I was riveted to that perch I was sitting on,
emulating my then hero, "Sabu," riding the back of an elephant
in the jungle. But when that disc appeared, I became very
agitated. Until only recently I recalled not one of the little
kids I was with at the time.

I yelled at my little friends and said something like, "Look, a
flying saucer ... look ... " or like that. Not one of my friends
seemed to even hear me, let alone look up. Only one little boy
(George Craparo - I shall never forget him as long as I live)
looked at it and was nearly speechless himself. George and I met
again after what must have been forty-five years. He reminded me
of the event. In fact, he told me he was there with me. I did
not recall that and still do not. It was he who told me when we
met.

George was the little boy who was "lost" for some period of time
(as was I) and then found lying in a vacant lot near his home.
Georgie was passed out cold, with flies buzzing around his head
as we found him. Turns out, I was the one to lead his and my
parents to him. I just knew he was there because ... because I
don't know why or remember why.....

When Georgie woke up he looked at me and asked me if they hurt
me too, the little doctors, the ones that came to us that time
at Elephant rock. I told him they hurt me too. And everyone told
us we had the same dreams. Everyone told us Georgie fainted
because of the heat.

When I met him last year, researching for my book, George
agreed to tell his story in the book, in his own words in
his writing. I read them. His memories are my memories.

We discussed why the other kids were seeminly not
interested. He said, and this is a direct quote, "Because
'they' were turned off." I don't know. But for sure, when
I get turned on, I want it to be Pia Zadora what does the
trick.


Jim Mortellaro

X-Zpurt in meeethane and the planet Venus








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 8

                    CPR-Canada News: Ice-Ring in Ontario

From: Paul Anderson <psa@direct.ca>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 19:57:35 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 10:21:08 +0000
Subject: CPR-Canada News: Ice-Ring in Ontario


CPR-CANADA NEWS
The E-News Service of Circles Phenomenon Research Canada

http://www.egroups.com/group/cprcanadanews
http://www.geocities.com/cpr-canada

December 7, 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 other information on
CPR-Canada-related projects and events. CPR-Canada News is
available free by subscription (see below).

_____________________________


ICE RING IN ONTARIO


Just received a report from CPR-Canada Ontario director Drew
Gauley, of an ice ring found in eastern Ontario, near the
village of Delta.

Wintertime circles!

According to Drew and local reporter Peter Dunkley, the ring is
in pond ice, and is about 15 feet in diameter and 3 inches in
width. The ice is very thin, and apparently would not support
anyone walking on it. Also, the surrounding area has a light
covering of snow and no footprints were seen anywhere.

The ring appeared the night of December 2.

Further reports, images to follow.

Though not a 'crop circle', this is the tenth report now of
circular type phenomena received this year.

I have also just received reports of three similar ice
formations, in Ontario and Quebec, from late 1999. Two are said
to have been circles/rings and the other a more complex
'pictogram', all in ice/snow.

Details to follow if they are confirmed.

Paul Anderson

____________________________


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 >
   Dec > Dec 8

                 Re: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 5 Number 49 - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 23:35:35 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 10:30:19 +0000
Subject: Re: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 5 Number 49 - Young


 >From: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>
 >Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 15:12:36 +0000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 5 Number 49

 >Posted on behalf of Joseph Trainor.
 ><Masinaigan@aol.com>

 >UFO ROUNDUP
 >Volume 5, Number 49
 >December 7, 2000
 >Editor: Joseph Trainor

 >http://ufoinfo.com/roundup/

<snip>

 >FRENCH ASTRONOMER HAS EVIDENCE OF MYSTERIOUS GLOWS ON THE >MOON

 >Transient Lunar Phenomena (TLP for short) have been observed by
 >Earth-based astronomers since Galileo invented the first
 >telescope. For centuries, astronomers have dismissed TLPs as
 >"optical illusions." But now a French scientist asserts that the
 >TLPs are quite real.

<snip>

 >"On 30 December (1992) he noticed a series of glows on the floor
 >of the crater Langrenus. They were definitely not there the day
 >before. Professor Dollfuss observed them for several days before
 >they faded. Clouds of light were seen dancing inside the
 >crater."

 >"Each time he returned to the telescope, he noticed that the
 >shape of the glow had changed. He believes that the glows were
 >due to escaping gas that lifted dust above the lunar surface
 >into sunlight."

 >(Editor's Note: In geology, this activity is known as
 >outgassing.)

 >"Some lunar observers have expressed surprise that such an event
 >should have taken place because Langrenus was not regarded as a
 >prime candidate for lunar changes. Professor Dollfuss points out
 >that Langrenus, when observed in detail, has an extensive series
 >of fractures on its crater floor and that gas could be escaping
 >from there."

 >(Editor's Comment: That's a possibility. The crater Langrenus is
 >136 kilometers (84 miles) in diameter and resembles a shield
 >volcano here on Earth. There may be significant geothermal
 >activity just below the crater floor.)

<snip>

List:

This is classic 1940s era lunar volcanism, long discredited.
We now know that all but a few lunar craters are from impacts.

Langrenus is a classic large lunar impact crater, with central
rebound peaks, rim slumping, secondary cratering and even rays,
a product of relatively young impact craters with sharp
features, like Langrenus. See the Geologic Map of the Langenus
Quadrangle, Geologic Atlas of the Moon, by Carroll Ann Hodges,
United States Geological Survey, Department of the Interior,
1973:

"Geologic History...the major Copernican event being the
impact that created Langrenus and its scondary crater chains."

and:

The Geologic History of the Moon, U.S. Geological Survey
Professional Paper 1348, by Don E. Wilhelms, Figure 12.2,
Representative Eratosthenian craters, p 253.

A somewhat overexposed image is Lunar Orbiter 4-184H1:

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/research/lunar_orbiter/img/4-184H1.jpg

Langrenus is the bright crater with central peaks and slumping
from the left side of the interior rim, located about halfway
down, on the left of the picture.

Some Lunar Transient Phenomena may exist, such as flashes not
known to be caused by meteor impacts, and possibly some
outgassing, but most are certainly not due to "optical
illusions", but are merely part of the constantly changing play
of light and shadows on the Moon, and effect of our atmosphere
and "seeing".

It seems strange that if these "dancing clouds of light" were
visible for several days Dollfuss didn't try to take a picture.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 8

                        Re: Reluctant Viewers - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 00:47:42 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 10:33:22 +0000
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Hatch


 >From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 13:19:24 +0000
 >Subject: Reluctant Viewers


 >Recently while perusing Jerry Clark's 'The UFO Book' I came
 >across the famous Tehran, Iran CE 2 case. At the outset it
 >mentions that several reports to Mehrabad airport of a lighted
 >object in the vicinity were ignored until finally tower
 >controller Houssain Perouzi decided to look for himself -
 >laudable considering this was unknown traffic near or in a
 >control zone. This incident is not really related to what I
 >refer to below. It just jarred my memory.

 >It triggered a recent memory of mine which in turn renewed my
 >curiosity about reluctant potential witnesses UFO events in the
 >presence of the reporting witness.
 >
 >Many of you have probably had the following experience with a
 >witness to a UFO incident.
 >
 >The initial viewer sees an object and then draws it to the
 >attention of friends accompaning him or her. However for some
 >reason, these friends will not take the time to bend their necks
 >and look at what the initial witness is referring to. At a
 >pilot-related Christmas party a week ago, a fellow pilot
 >expressed this curiosity to me about a sighting he had as a
 >young man and where he could not get his friends to even look
 >into the sky to see what he was getting excited about.
 >
 >This is not the first case I've come across. I've read of
 >several and I've talked to witnesses with similar experiences.
 >
 >Closer to home, my own daughter [at the age of 12] saw a large,
 >edge-lit, blimp-shaped object in the sky, directly overhead
 >while playing with her friends in the street in front of our
 >house just after dusk in the mid-summer. To this day it bugs her
 >as to why, when she drew attention to the object to her friends
 >and her sister, none of them would look up.
 >
 >I've wondered - but not too seriously - if this has to do with
 >people not wanting to fall for the "made you look" prank or
 >whether this is has a more intricate/selective implication,
 >similar to scenarios where witnesses have remembered thinking or
 >wished that the object they were seeing would come closer so
 >they could see it better... and it does.


Hello Don:

The "reluctant viewer" could have any of several takes on the
matter.

Whenever somebody starts talking religion, I sort of back out of
the room so they won't see me rolling my eyes.

I'm sure some people feel that way about UFOs, wrongly or
otherwise. They throw UFO matters in with Bigfoot, chupacabras,
crop-circles, all the fakes and quacks on late night radio ad
nauseum.

Others are simply disinterested. "Oh, a UFO? (yawn) When do we
eat?"

There are plenty of very ordinary reasons for this behavior. As
long as the press plays up the quacks and nut cases at the
expense of serious UFO students, we can expect the public to
sort of roll their eyes, and quietly back out of the room.

If they actually look at the UFO ( often just a light ) they
risk getting dragged into some argument over what was actually
seen.

If they ignore it or simply look away, all this is avoided.

If somebody said "Look! A UFO!" I would certainly look. Maybe
I would finally see one after all these years! More likely, I
would learn yet again, how little it takes to make a 'UFO'.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 8

              Re: '97 Mexico City UFO Video Witnesses Summary -

From: Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo <ufomiami@prodigy.net>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 09:45:14 -0600
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 10:40:40 +0000
Subject: Re: '97 Mexico City UFO Video Witnesses Summary -


 >Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 11:17:01 -0800
 >To: UFO UpDates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >Subject: '97 Mexico City UFO Video Witnesses Summary

 >Hi List!,

 >Perhaps some of you have also made a similar list of witnesses
 >to the Aug. 6th Mexico City UFO, from Daniel Munoz's report. I
 >think it's handy to have in summary form. I'm still awaiting
 >help from Hesemann in translating his report in German and
 >progressing further into it to see if any of the witnesses he
 >found are different ones.

<snip>

Hi Jim and List!

As I've said before, witnesses in this case are more important
than the video itself. The video could be real or a fake. We
spent a lot of time analyzing the video. We know it could be
duplicated with today's technology.

But, could you duplicate the witnesses too?

Are all the witnesses lying simply to appear on a TV program? I
saw the TV interviews and the witnesses looked sincere - unless
they're all actors.

We know that journalistic research is different from field
investigation. We can only speculate with the data we have on
hand.

In closing, my question is: From 0 to 10, how much probability
you give it?


Virgilio


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 >
   Dec > Dec 8

                       Re: Reluctant Viewers - Ledger

From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 11:23:34 +0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 10:57:53 +0000
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Ledger


 >Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 12:37:02 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
 >From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers

 >>From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 13:19:24 +0000
 >>Subject: Reluctant Viewers

 ><snip>

 >>Many of you have probably had the following experience with a
 >>witness to a UFO incident.

 >>The initial viewer sees an object and then draws it to the
 >>attention of friends accompaning him or her. However for some
 >>reason, these friends will not take the time to bend their necks
 >>and look at what the initial witness is referring to. At a
 >>pilot-related Christmas party a week ago, a fellow pilot
 >>expressed this curiosity to me about a sighting he had as a
 >>young man and where he could not get his friends to even look
 >>into the sky to see what he was getting excited about.

 >>This is not the first case I've come across. I've read of
 >>several and I've talked to witnesses with similar experiences.

 >>Closer to home, my own daughter [at the age of 12] saw a large,
 >>edge-lit, blimp-shaped object in the sky, directly overhead
 >>while playing with her friends in the street in front of our
 >>house just after dusk in the mid-summer. To this day it bugs her
 >>as to why, when she drew attention to the object to her friends
 >>and her sister, none of them would look up.

 >Hi Don,

 >I can relate to this too. One night, about a decade ago, the sky
 >over Ottawa where I once lived and worked seemed to be on fire.
 >The bright rapidly changing colours of the aurora borealis were
 >so spectacular I just lay down in my backyard and enjoyed the
 >light show. To this day I regret that my family and friends were
 >too busy watching T.V. to even come out for a moment just to see
 >for themselves.

<snip>

Hi Nick and Jerry,

I used that Vancouver incident in Maritime UFO Files to
illustrate a point. But I'm still uncertain as to why many can
overcome curiosity and resist the impulse to "look up" when
something really incredible is happening so close to them.

In the Vancouver case what happened to scientific curiosity?. It
was a least a chance for many of them to observe first hand and
see what all of the fuss was about then in the future be able to
smugly deny the phenomenon siting first hand experience. Perhaps
they had reservations, and that they would not be able to deny
the phenomenon, preferring the devil they knew.... At least one
scientist could have had the presence of mind to say, "Here's our
chance to put this one to rest, once and for all."

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 >
   Dec > Dec 8

                       Re: Reluctant Viewers - Ledger

From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 11:52:46 +0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 11:02:43 +0000
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Ledger


 >From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 19:07:02 EST
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 13:19:24 +0000
 >>Subject: Reluctant Viewers

<snip>

 >>Closer to home, my own daughter [at the age of 12] saw a large,
 >>edge-lit, blimp-shaped object in the sky, directly overhead
 >>while playing with her friends in the street in front of our
 >>house just after dusk in the mid-summer. To this day it bugs her
 >>as to why, when she drew attention to the object to her friends
 >>and her sister, none of them would look up.

 >>I've wondered - but not too seriously - if this has to do with
 >>people not wanting to fall for the "made you look" prank or
 >>whether this is has a more intricate/selective implication,
 >>similar to scenarios where witnesses have remembered thinking or
 >>wished that the object they were seeing would come closer so
 >>they could see it better... and it does.

 >>Don Ledger

<snip>

 >We discussed why the other kids were seeminly not
 >interested. He said, and this is a direct quote, "Because
 >'they' were turned off." I don't know. But for sure, when
 >I get turned on, I want it to be Pia Zadora what does the
 >trick.

Hi Jim,

The "switched off" effect has risen its head more than a few
times in the interviews I've done over the last 8 years or so.
Like others I've had a wife or husband remark about how they
tried to wake a sleeping partner to no avail when strange
occurrances began to happen in the room.

Your experience reminds me of one told to me by a women in her
30s of when she was 15 years old and when she was "lost" once
when she was only four. A little boy brought her out of the
forest then left her for the searchers to find. She vaguely
remembers being on a picnic and then her parents fell asleep and
she couldn't wake them. She ended up getting lost. In this case
though she's not sure if her parents falling asleep really
happened or if she dreamed that part. She was however, really
lost, as she has been reminded by relatives over the years.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 8

                       Re: Reluctant Viewers - Ledger

From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 12:09:08 +0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 21:45:42 +0000
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Ledger


 >Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 00:47:42 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers

 >>From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 13:19:24 +0000
 >>Subject: Reluctant Viewers

 >>Recently while perusing Jerry Clark's 'The UFO Book' I came
 >>across the famous Tehran, Iran CE 2 case. At the outset it
 >>mentions that several reports to Mehrabad airport of a lighted
 >>object in the vicinity were ignored until finally tower
 >>controller Houssain Perouzi decided to look for himself -
 >>laudable considering this was unknown traffic near or in a
 >>control zone. This incident is not really related to what I
 >>refer to below. It just jarred my memory.

 >>It triggered a recent memory of mine which in turn renewed my
 >>curiosity about reluctant potential witnesses UFO events in the
 >>presence of the reporting witness.

 >>Many of you have probably had the following experience with a
 >>witness to a UFO incident.
 >>
 >>The initial viewer sees an object and then draws it to the
 >>attention of friends accompaning him or her. However for some
 >>reason, these friends will not take the time to bend their necks
 >>and look at what the initial witness is referring to. At a
 >>pilot-related Christmas party a week ago, a fellow pilot
 >>expressed this curiosity to me about a sighting he had as a
 >>young man and where he could not get his friends to even look
 >>into the sky to see what he was getting excited about.

 >>This is not the first case I've come across. I've read of
 >>several and I've talked to witnesses with similar experiences.

 >>Closer to home, my own daughter [at the age of 12] saw a large,
 >>edge-lit, blimp-shaped object in the sky, directly overhead
 >>while playing with her friends in the street in front of our
 >>house just after dusk in the mid-summer. To this day it bugs her
 >>as to why, when she drew attention to the object to her friends
 >>and her sister, none of them would look up.

 >>I've wondered - but not too seriously - if this has to do with
 >>people not wanting to fall for the "made you look" prank or
 >>whether this is has a more intricate/selective implication,
 >>similar to scenarios where witnesses have remembered thinking or
 >>wished that the object they were seeing would come closer so
 >>they could see it better... and it does.


 >The "reluctant viewer" could have any of several takes on the
 >matter.

 >Whenever somebody starts talking religion, I sort of back out of
 >the room so they won't see me rolling my eyes.

 >I'm sure some people feel that way about UFOs, wrongly or
 >otherwise. They throw UFO matters in with Bigfoot, chupacabras,
 >crop-circles, all the fakes and quacks on late night radio ad
 >nauseum.

 >Others are simply disinterested. "Oh, a UFO? (yawn) When do we
 >eat?"

 >There are plenty of very ordinary reasons for this behavior. As
 >long as the press plays up the quacks and nut cases at the
 >expense of serious UFO students, we can expect the public to
 >sort of roll their eyes, and quietly back out of the room.

 >If they actually look at the UFO ( often just a light ) they
 >risk getting dragged into some argument over what was actually
 >seen.

 >If they ignore it or simply look away, all this is avoided.

 >If somebody said "Look! A UFO!" I would certainly look. Maybe
 >I would finally see one after all these years! More likely, I
 >would learn yet again, how little it takes to make a 'UFO'.


Hi Larry,

That's a bit of a stretch for 12 year olds. I can see a bunch of
jaded, timid scientists or hungry grownups blowing off a
sighting. But children at play?

I'm loath to get involved in, or take lights in the sky
seriously myself, but in the case of my daughter's sighting out
on the street in front of our house she describes - see the book
- something that can't be explained around here. Forget blimps.
They just don't happen here or in many other places in this
world, there not being more than a dozen registered blimp-type
aircraft in the world.

As for the pilot related - reluctant viewers - he found it
strange as I do that he couldn't get other pilots to look up,
into the sky. That is weird, buddy.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 8

                 Re: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 5 Number 49 - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 11:29:10 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 21:47:35 +0000
Subject: Re: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 5 Number 49 - Young


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 23:35:35 EST
 >Subject: Re: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 5 Number 49
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

 >Some Lunar Transient Phenomena may exist, such as flashes not
 >known to be caused by meteor impacts...

Dear List:

This should have read, "Some Lunar Transient Phenomena may
exist, such as flashes _now_  known to be caused by meteor
impacts..."

Sorry.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 8

                      Re: Corso & the COMETA - Auchettl

From: John W. Auchettl <Praufo@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 11:40:39 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 21:51:52 +0000
Subject: Re: Corso & the COMETA - Auchettl


Oz & ASIA DATA RESEARCH
Phenomena Research Australia

Jan, EBK & Researchers,


The "No Gun Ri" - Massacre.


REF:

http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2000/jun/m30-016.shtml

 >Subject: Corso & the COMETA - Aldrich
 >From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
 >Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 13:19:07 -0400
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

Jan Aldrich said:

"Perhaps you have seen the story of the Korean War veteran who
told the story of the massacre of Korean civilians by US force
in the beginning of the war. Only one problem, he was not there,
_his_ story is a lie. The massacre apparently did happen, but
this guy was not anywhere near the scene, he was not a witness.
Now he had an honorable discharge, but is his current conduct
honorable?"

The Pentagon in an unpublished draft report now admits the
massacre of Korean refugees is a fact!

So sorry Jan - That Vet "Lawrence Levine" was right.

Now lets keep an open mind on COMETA & CORSO?

                      ***

DOD REPORT REFERENCES:


[1].
"U.S. Report Confirms Killings of Civilians by G.I.'s
in Korean War"

By CHRISTOPHER MARQUIS and STEVEN LEE MYERS
American investigators have concluded that United States
soldiers killed significant numbers of Korean civilians near the
village of No Gun Ri during the early days of the Korean War,
but they found no evidence that the troops were given orders to
op ...
December 6, 2000, Wednesday
Foreign Desk , 606 words

                      ***
[2].
LA Times.
http://www.latimes.com/

"GIs in Panic at No Gun Ri, Draft Says"

Wednesday, December 6, 2000  Home Edition
ID: 0000116825 Part A Section
Byline: From the Washington Post  390 words

A yearlong Pentagon investigation has concluded that American
soldiers panicked and fired into a crowd of unarmed refugees
near the South Korean village of No Gun Ri in the early days of
the Korean War, but it did not find conclusive evidence that the
troops had orders to shoot civilians, a Defense Department
official and others involved with the inquiry said.

                      ***

[3].
Wasgington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/

"US admits massacure of Korean refugees"

By Thomas Rick
Wednesday, December 6, 2000


                      ***

PRA SITE OF THE WEEK:

http://hometown.aol.com/praoz/pramagbook/videohunterM2000.htm

UFO VIDEO UPDATE - THE OLYMPIC EDITION
"The Spirit of Wandjina - Returns in 2000" A comprehensive and
commemorative video look at the Australian UFO Scene from 1959
to 2000 3 hours Video

By Mr Mike Farrell
UFO Video Hunter & Researcher
Member of UFOR-NSW & INUFOR-nsw
Director of UFO-VAC
UFO Video Action Coalition for 2000
Australia
Email: vidhunter@hotmail.com

[C27]


                      ***

Regards to all,

John W. Auchettl - Director PRA Research

DR Ron Barnett   - Deputy Director


PRA WEB:
http://members.aol.com/praufo/PRA1/Pra1.htm

Phenomena Research Australia [PRA]
P.O. Box 523, Mulgrave, Victoria, Australia, 3170
Australian & Asia UFO
1961-2000 - 39 YEARS OF RESEARCH SERVICE

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






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 8

              Re: '97 Mexico City UFO Video Witnesses Summary -

From: Ralf Zeigermann <kag15@dial.pipex.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 16:56:25 +0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 21:56:25 +0000
Subject: Re: '97 Mexico City UFO Video Witnesses Summary -


 >From: Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo <ufomiami@prodigy.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: '97 Mexico City UFO Video Witnesses Summary
 >Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 09:45:14 -0600


 >In closing, my question is: From 0 to 10, how much probability
 >you give it?

Zero, since the video is most probably (from my point of view
99%) a fake.

No, not most probably, but definitely... for God's sake, just
look at it! That revolving thing is COMPED IN! It's not real,
ask Bruce, ask anyone who knows about Film/TV/Video/Computers -
it's an obvious fake.

Even in '97 it was possible to just comp an 'UFO' into existing
video material! And it was even possible in 1990; or even 1985!
But that's where it stops.

So where do the witnesses statements come from? I haven't got a
clue. It seems that all those witnesses appeared _after_ the
public showing of the video - right?

Whatever.

Before being butchered here on the UpDates Forum, all I can say
is that I work in advertising as an Art Director and have been
part in many of 'fakes'for commercials; I know about today's
(and 'yesterday's') technology and I know what's wrong with an
image when I see it.

And _that_ UFO is not real. It is faked.

Cheers,

all the best to Mexico City,

Ralf

----------------------------------------------------
Ralf's 3D-Site
Info about the German SF series 'Raumpatrouille',
a Bryce-Gallery, models to download and more!

http://www.kag15.dial.pipex.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 >
   Dec > Dec 8

                      Re: Reluctant Viewers - Lehmberg

From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 11:19:53 -0600
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 22:00:42 +0000
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Lehmberg


 >From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 19:07:02 EST
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 13:19:24 +0000
 >>Subject: Reluctant Viewers

 >>Recently while perusing Jerry Clark's 'The UFO Book' I came
 >>across the famous Tehran, Iran CE 2 case. At the outset it
 >>mentions that several reports to Mehrabad airport of a lighted
 >>object in the vicinity were ignored until finally tower
 >>controller Houssain Perouzi decided to look for himself -
 >>laudable considering this was unknown traffic near or in a
 >>control zone. This incident is not really related to what I
 >>refer to below. It just jarred my memory.

<snip>

 >>Don Ledger

 >Hello, Don, bListers and Errol,

 >I've often wondered myself. And with each sighting which I have
 >had in the presence of others, I endured the same type of
 >reaction. I admit to _not_ having had a large number of
 >sightings myself, but those which I remember having, the half
 >dozen or so which occured with others present, were never
 >acknowledged by the others to the extent which it disturbed me.

<snip>

Honored fellow motes, Jim, Don, and ebk (a giant among mere motes);

I've had the same kind of experience with these men and women
who contrive to deny their senses. An unusual experience doesn't
fit the partyline paradigm and the mind-wiping cognitive
dissonance sullenly kicks in. The engine of rationalization
coughs and sputters to provide the usual excuse, and everyone is
returned to the usual program (already in progress).

I remember a not unrecent occasion when a collection of sober
old men and their equally sober wives were, as you'd have it,
out in the middle of nowhere, (but still close to somewhere),
and present to witness the unsettling inexplicable. They were
congregated there to fly classic model aircraft from a bygone
modeling age. All was still, which suited the rubber models they
were launching into the air, the sky was an appropriate robin's
egg blue of quiet and unsullied clarity . . . then,

Apology to MW #254 (For July 8, 1998)

I stood alone with many, there were twenty five or so - on a
Sunday evening flying model planes. Some were gas, but few were
flying, and were muffled when they were, it was rubber models
folks would fly, for time.

Pastoral was the evening - no alcohol or drugs, a simple breeze
was blowing; It was silent as a slug. The ladies fixed the
finger food while the old men flew their dreams; the sky a blue
and crystal clear so sharp it leaps and gleams.

I see it ('cause I'm looking), but I do not jump or shout - I
nudge my nephew Mason, "Hey there, Mace... what's that about"?
He looks, his mouth falls open, and he nudges at his Mom, who
gets right up, and takes a step, to see it closer, Tom <g>.

It's flying slow, too slow my guess, to be a jet or plane. It
floats along, majestically, bewitching watching brains. Like a
BB held at arms length, but squash it flat - bright white. It
coasted by cigar like, and then it drifted out of sight!

There was general amazement. There was "what the hell was that"?
No one mentioned UFO's, and I was silent as a cat. Someone
filled in - "Aircraft"! Other's offered "Blimp." I soto-voiced
to Mason, "That's facetious, scared, and limp."

The *thing* flew by again, my friend, for the second time of
FIVE, and FEWER people watched it - this is what I now confide.
The third time fewer _still_ looked up to wonder what it was;
the forth was even less than that - the fifth, just me, because
<g>.

Call them up and ask opinions of the ones who would not look. I
doubt that they'd remember, while their peace of mind it took.
It reminded them that models are contrived to paint our sky with
*things* WE build to fly up there - not the ET's craft surmised.
The craft that flew that fateful day they didn't glue together.
They didn't sand the fuselage, or build it like a feather. They
did not spin the prop they'd bought with rubber they controled;
they could not point out, proudly, _their_ invention - rock and
roll.

The conundrum that we face is like a boil, or a pustule, and the
cause of it's neglect we should decry. Those that push _away_
the truth to prove their precious 2D motive we should vilify -
respectfully, despise.

The pustule skin is very near... to breaking - don't you
think? The skin of it is hot and tight and dry. Any little touch
could have it blow up in our face, but I'd like to clean it out
-- at least, I'd think that we should try.....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This occured on June 28, 1998, at 18:00 hours on an AAM
sanctioned model-airplane flying field outside of Anderson,
California. A collection of professional people and a few
scientists <g>put wonder behind them, and fixed their
attentions on their own comforting and familiar contrivances.
They had forgotten that the simple model planes they held in
their trembling hands would be perceived as a similar magic not
all that far and away into their own _recent_ past.

Maybe Tommy Lee Jones was dead on right. In conversation with
Will Smith, (an aside to him in MIB), he said, "They don't
_want_ to know." Even if "K" crapped out to traditional
sensibility. Zed and Jay didn't mind knowing - WANTED to know!
I want to know. I know of others who say they want to know...
finally, you WILL want to know."

Restore John Ford!

Denial is an insidious thing we use to make our reality murky -
more sand we can push our heads into to escape the unusual, and
just another distracting opiate of real people. Refute that
denial stridently enough and risk banishment from their company
-- I know.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 8

                       Re: Reluctant Viewers - Sandow

From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 12:29:12 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 22:02:34 +0000
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Sandow


 >From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 11:23:34 +0000
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers

 >I used that Vancouver incident in Maritime UFO Files to
 >illustrate a point. But I'm still uncertain as to why many can
 >overcome curiosity and resist the impulse to "look up" when
 >something really incredible is happening so close to them.

 >In the Vancouver case what happened to scientific curiosity?. It
 >was a least a chance for many of them to observe first hand and
 >see what all of the fuss was about then in the future be able to
 >smugly deny the phenomenon siting first hand experience. Perhaps
 >they had reservations, and that they would not be able to deny
 >the phenomenon, preferring the devil they knew.... At least one
 >scientist could have had the presence of mind to say, "Here's our
 >chance to put this one to rest, once and for all."


Hi, Don.

Not everyone is interested in experiencing something new,
unusual, edgy, or strange. That's true in all areas of life, I'm
afraid. I don't see people flocking out to buy the CD reissue of
Lou Reed's "Metal Machine Music."

But with UFOs, I think there's a huge emotional factor, which we
observe in UFO debates. Some people stampede to believe, some
people stampede not to believe. The tortured reasoning we see
from both believers and skeptics is evidence, at least for me,
that high emotions are in play.

James Oberg, in a phone interview with me, described it best. We
(as a species) are on the edge of space, he said, or words to
that effect. So we're swamped with fantasies of what we'll find
there. He framed this in a skeptical tone, of course, as a way
of accounting for what he feels are UFO delusions. But his point
applies just as well to skeptics. They, fearing what would
happen if we encounter aliens, scramble to deny that any are
here. (And yes, I know that UFOs, if they're really visitors of
some kind, don't have to be from space -- yada yada yada yada.
My point applies just as well for any intrusion from the
beyond.)

Another soundbite in this area comes from Michael Swords, who
observed a strange gap in scientific theorizing. It's
respectable, among scientists, to believe that intelligent
aliens exist, but that interstellar travel is impossible (the
SETI crowd). It's also respectable to believe that interstellar
travel is possible, but that there aren't any other intelligent
races (the space colonization crowd). But there isn't any
identifiable group of scientists that combines these views, to
believe that aliens exist _and_ that interstellar travel is
possible -- probably because then they'd have to seriously
entertain the possibility of alien visits, and that's just too
scary.

I've written an essay about this, called "Who's Afraid of UFOs,"
which you can find on my website:

http://www.gregsandow.com/ufo/Contents/Who_s_Afraid_of_UFOs_/who_
s_afraid_of_ufos_.htm.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 8

              Re: Munoz's Report - Corrales Translation, Part I

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 09:39:23 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 22:04:08 +0000
Subject: Re: Munoz's Report - Corrales Translation, Part I


 >Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 17:27:22 -0500
 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Re: Munoz's Report On MC Video, Maccabee
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 14:31:59 -0800
 >>To: UFO UpDates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >>Subject: Munoz's Report - Corrales Translation, Part I

 >What follows are comments about the first half of Daniel Munoz's
 >report on the Aug. 6, 1997, Mexico City sighting and video, as
 >translated by Scott Corrales.

 ><snip>

 >>Report from Daniel Munoz
 >>as translated by Scott Corrales,
 >>12/4/00

 >>Friday, October 3: Fortunately, positive results were obtained
 >>in our search for witnesses. Behind the "Royal Reforma"
 >>complex's buildings, we found Mr. Alfredo Rodriguez Hernandez, a
 >>local blacksmith, who had also seen the UFO pass almost directly
 >>overhead.

 >Problem: "Directly overhead" would mean that the UFO passed
 >close to the Reforma building. WHen first seen in the video it
 >would have been more than 450 m away (450 m being about the
 >distance of the building it disappeared behind), was at some
 >time before the video, very close to the building where the
 >video was shot. In the video you see it move to the right....
 >toward the east.... So if it passed near the Reforma building
 >then it moved northward first and then turned and hovered (or
 >hovered and then turned) and headed generally east.

 >>His description of the object and its movements
 >>coincides almost perfectly with what can be seen on the video,

 >Not if the UFO was "overhead". What shows on the video is motion
 >generally eastward

Hi Bruce,

I think it best to allow a good deal of leeway in the phrase
"almost directly overhead." That could refer to the UFO being at
an elevation as low as 60 degrees, perhaps even 50, above the
horizon. This because, as you know, observed segments of
elevation get squeezed together from the typical observation
when they're anywhere near overhead, and the opposite near the
horizon. This in turn being related to the moon appearing large
near the horizon and small when anywhere near overhead.

I'm looking forward to seeing the geography of it all on your
map file.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 8

                                Tribal Wisdom

From: Bill Knapp & Ian@Mail Boxes Etc.
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 08:37:55 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 11:29:15 +0000
Subject: Tribal Wisdom


Tribal Wisdom Vs. Business Practices


The tribal wisdom of the Dakota Indians, passed on from one
generation to the next, says that "when you discover you are
riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount."

However, in modern business, because of the heavy investment
factors to be taken into consideration, often other strategies
have to be tried with dead horses, including the following:


  1. Buying a stronger whip

  2. Changing riders

  3. Threatening the horse with termination

  4. Appointing a committee to study the horse

  5. Arranging to visit other sites to see how they ride dead
     horses

  6. Lowering the standards so that dead horses can be included

  7. Reclassifying the dead horse as living-impaired

  8. Change the form so that it reads: "This horse is not dead."

  9. Hire outside contractors to ride the dead horse

10. Harness several dead horses together for increased speed

11. Donate the dead horse to a recognized charity, thereby
     deducting its full original cost

12. Providing additional funding to increase the horse's
     performance

13. Do a time management study to see if the lighter riders
     would improve productivity

14. Declare that a dead horse has lower overhead and therefore
     performs better

15. Promote the dead horse to a supervisory position









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 8

                                Tribal Wisdom

From: Bill Knapp & Ian@Mail Boxes Etc.
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 08:37:55 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 11:29:15 +0000
Subject: Tribal Wisdom


Tribal Wisdom Vs. Business Practices


The tribal wisdom of the Dakota Indians, passed on from one
generation to the next, says that "when you discover you are
riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount."

However, in modern business, because of the heavy investment
factors to be taken into consideration, often other strategies
have to be tried with dead horses, including the following:


  1. Buying a stronger whip

  2. Changing riders

  3. Threatening the horse with termination

  4. Appointing a committee to study the horse

  5. Arranging to visit other sites to see how they ride dead
     horses

  6. Lowering the standards so that dead horses can be included

  7. Reclassifying the dead horse as living-impaired

  8. Change the form so that it reads: "This horse is not dead."

  9. Hire outside contractors to ride the dead horse

10. Harness several dead horses together for increased speed

11. Donate the dead horse to a recognized charity, thereby
     deducting its full original cost

12. Providing additional funding to increase the horse's
     performance

13. Do a time management study to see if the lighter riders
     would improve productivity

14. Declare that a dead horse has lower overhead and therefore
     performs better

15. Promote the dead horse to a supervisory position










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 9

                Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability? -

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 13:10:46 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 09:31:02 +0000
Subject: Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability? -


 >Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 09:42:59 -0800
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >Subject: Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability?


 >>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 22:44:21 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability?
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Hi Jim and list,

 >>Well you're a smarter man than I am, Jim, if you can comprehend
 >>alien technol ogy that is 300,000,000 years ahead of ours. I am
 >>simple minded and want to start with the pre-school basics and
 >>make sure they are established before moving ahead to college
 >>and post-doctoral work and all the stages in between. I can
 >>understand your impatience. We all want quick answers. But it's
 >>even better if we can be _sure_ they are the _right_ answers.
 >>And I prefer to do the do-able tasks first and leave the
 >>impossible tasks for others with greater intellect.

 >>The scientific method has never gotten a fair chance to be
 >>employed against the UFO problem. Modern science has had two
 >>thousand years in which to advance beyond Greek science but
 >>UFOlogy has had barely a total of 6 months to 1 year of
 >>full-fledged scientific work (which as I've posted previously
 >>should be full-time effort by the equivalent of, say, 100 James
 >>McDonalds). You seem to assume that UFOlogy has (a) rigorously
 >>asserted lower technology versions of ETH, (b) built detailed
 >>theoretical models of how they may be tested against the
 >>evidence, and (c) then has exhaustively eliminated them -- I am
 >>aware of no such work.

 >>No one is suggesting that any genuine UFO data or evidence are
 >>to be thrown out merely by setting up theoretical models of ETH
 >>to test -- the fact and theory processes are separate. The
 >>Hynek-style screening process which requires competent
 >>scientific investigation of UFO cases before they are admitted
 >>to study is a completely separate matter from trying to set up a
 >>more logical and rigorous framework of ETH models. Hynek does
 >>not suggest in The UFO Experience (1972) that High Strangeness
 >>cases should be exempted from his "screening filter" of an
 >>exhaustive or "severe" scientific investigation -- such
 >>uninvestigated or incompletely investigated cases are "virtually
 >>useless" said Hynek.

 >>You are certainly welcome to fashion your own theories based on
 >>alien "magic" levels 300 million years ahead of us. With my
 >>limited faculties I cannot figure out what if anything you can
 >>intelligently say about alien technology that is 300 million
 >>years advanced. I wish you the best in that endeavor.


 >Brad,

 >Naturally neither I nor any others can comprehend alien
 >technology that is 300,000,000 years ahead of ours. My point was
 >and is, that we should allow for the existence of such when that
 >is where witesses and evidential clues lead us. Even if it is
 >only 300,000 years ahead of ours, or 30,000 years ahead of ours,
 >or perhaps just 3,000 years ahead, it would and should still
 >seem like magic to us, or of "high strangeness" or paranormal.

 >We should not consider the UFO evdence as non-genuine when it is
 >of that nature and just because it is of that nature, and if I
 >read you right, you seem to agree on that after all.

Jim,

I think you are laboring under a great misunderstanding here:
The purpose of developing an array of ETH Models is to try to
eliminate _THEORIES_ that don't fit the UFO evidence -- not to
eliminate any UFO evidence arbitrarily. I will insist on using
Hynek's priniciple and other sound investigative strategies on
UFO cases but that is a completely separate issue from theory
modeling of the ETH.


 >Unless I've missed it, you have not yet agreed that the UFO
 >evidence is often presented in a deceptive manner. If you come
 >around to that point, which requires allowing that UFO
 >intelligences could possess intelligence and experience at
 >levels beyond our own,

Jim, you are perfectly welcome to serve as our expert specialist
on UFO deception tactics. Please feel free to fill us in on what
you can tell us about this subject as appropriate. I don't know
anyone else who has studied such matters so we'll all be able to
benefit from what you've learned. One point of disagreement I
have is that since we are capable of deception and stealth
tactics at our level of technology -- and lower -- it is not
logically required that aliens be at a higher level to do so.


 >then you'd be in a position to put two
 >and two together on the Mexico City case of Aug. 6, 1997. It
 >cannot be scientific, in the best sense of the word, to
 >arbitrarily assume that UFO intelligences would not or do not
 >possess a strategy of dealing with us that involves purposeful
 >deception.

 >In the Mexico City case, which prompted this line of discussion
 >in the first place, it is the witnesses, as well as the
 >realistic manner in which Maussan came into possession of the
 >video, plus its realistic features, which requires us to examine
 >the likelihood that advanced alien technology and strategy
 >explains the anomalous feature of the video. Ignoring the
 >witnesses just does not work in this case.

 >Jim Deardorff

The latest report on the Mexico City case you just posted here
on UFO UpDates reveals new evidence of outright fraud and a
series of suspicious circumstances suggestive of fraud. I am
assuming the translation is accurate but if I am
misunderstanding anything I welcome correction or further
information from those directly involved in the investigation.
(See Daniel Munoz's Report Part 2 at:
http://www.aliensonearth.com/ufo/updates/2000/dec/m07-003.shtml)

1. There is a serious date discrepancy in that the
photographer's company did not until Sept. 17, 1997, even occupy
the penthouse offices from where the video was allegedly taken
during company consulting work purportedly done on Aug. 6 (the
date imprint on the video itself). This contradiction of the
video imprint date indicates fraud.

2. A video processing imprint which when found led to the
discovery that the video is not the original but was processed
on the company's "professional video equipment" -- which leads
to the suspicion that the whole video was fabricated using that
same equipment.

3. The revelation that there is additional video footage that
hasn't been released, about 15 seconds' worth. It is also
unclear whether the audio track has ever been fully investigated
since it has apparently never been released publicly.

4. Worst of all, the photographer's coworkers reportedly deny
that anyone among them took the UFO video.

5. Apparently, the identity of the video photographer in the
Mexico City case is still unknown and he is still uninterviewed
after more than 3 years. His identity according to the just
posted report is being withheld by a coworker named Emilio
Osorio.

As for the alleged eyewitnesses, there is no proof that they are
eyewitnesses of the same event purportedly recorded on the
video. There is no credible evidence yet presented that these
witnesses had any ability to determine the exact date some 2
months or more after the fact assuming it was really August 6,
1997, and that in fact the incident(s) they describe may well
have occurred in Sept 1997 and has nothing to do with the
alleged video other than that the tv broadcast of the video on
Sept. 27 brought them out.

Other incidents including a possible physiological effects case
on Sept. 25 and a sighting on Sept. 29 turned up which might
suggest that any real UFO cases occurred in September and have
nothing to do with the Aug. 6 video date. Bruce Maccabee has
noted other discrepancies between witness accounts and the video
which suggest the two are not related - see:

http://www.aliensonearth.com/ufo/updates/2000/dec/m08-005.shtml


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 >
   Dec > Dec 9

                          Secrecy News -- 12/08/00

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@igc.org>
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 13:25:12 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 09:33:07 +0000
Subject: Secrecy News -- 12/08/00


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
December 8, 2000

**COMPENSATION FOR NUCLEAR WEAPONS WORKERS
**A GOOD TRANSLATOR IS HARD TO FIND


COMPENSATION FOR NUCLEAR WEAPONS WORKERS

Yesterday President Clinton signed an executive order
implementing legislation to provide compensation for thousands
of Department of Energy workers who unwittingly sacrificed their
health in building the nation's nuclear arsenal.  Government
accountability in this delicate matter had long been blocked by
official secrecy surrounding nuclear weapons development.

"These individuals, many of whom were neither protected from nor
informed of the hazards to which they were exposed, developed
occupational illnesses as a result of their exposure to
radiation and other hazards unique to nuclear weapons production
and testing," according to a White House statement.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2000/12/radstat.html

In these twilight days of the Clinton Administration, it is
worth noting that no previous Administration has done as much to
address the adverse impact of the nuclear weapons complex on
people and the environment.

"This problem has been exacerbated by the past policy of the
Department of Energy (DOE) and its predecessors of encouraging
and assisting DOE contractors in opposing the claims of workers
who sought those benefits," the Executive Order stated.  "This
policy has recently been reversed."

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2000/12/radeo.html

Among those who contributed most dramatically to this reversal
is Hazel O'Leary, the Secretary of Energy during the first
Clinton term.  No one has done more -- though there is more to
be done -- to open up official records on environment, safety
and health issues in the U.S. nuclear weapons complex.

This transient moment of openness was intolerable to the
partisans of the nuclear weapons complex, who vilified O'Leary
with an amazing lack of restraint.

Congressman Curt Weldon (R-PA) distinguished himself by accusing
O'Leary last year of "leaking the design of the W-87 warhead" to
U.S. News and World Report.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/1999/06/weldon3.html

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/1999/06/weldon2.html

This was -- there is no way to put it politely -- a lie.  Weldon
lied repeatedly, and with studied indifference to the facts.

Today, O'Leary is long gone.  Meanwhile, Rep. Weldon is
jockeying to become chairman of the House Armed Services
Committee.


A GOOD TRANSLATOR IS HARD TO FIND

The CIA's Foreign Broadcast Information Service (FBIS), which
collects, translates and publishes news and open source
information from around the world, is showing new signs of wear
and tear.  Its publicly accessible version, the World News
Connection, is declining even faster.

Earlier this week, FBIS published a November 27 story from the
Palestinian paper Al Hayat al Jedidah reporting allegations that
Israeli soldiers were using depleted uranium projectiles against
Palestinian targets (FBIS-NES-2000-1127). The FBIS translator
imaginatively rendered the Arabic phrase "yuranyum mafsud" into
English as "phlebotomized uranium."  There is of course no such
thing.

It appears that the FBIS translator was not only unfamiliar with
depleted uranium, but was also remarkably deficient in the
Arabic language.  The Arabic word "mafsud" has a common semitic
root (f-s-d) that simply connotes "loss."  The "mafsud"
construction alludes to something that has been removed, hence
"depleted."

What the word could NOT mean in this context is "phlebotomized"
-- which refers to "the act or practice of bloodletting as a
therapeutic measure."  If such a wild mistranslation by FBIS is
not a private joke, then it is an embarrassing sign of
incompetence.

Long time consumers of the public version of FBIS cannot help
but notice, and lament, the decline of quality in this once
treasured product.  In the old days, FBIS would carry all manner
of otherwise unobtainable primary documentation -- foreign
speeches, legislation, reports, everything.  Now it is largely
comprised of wire service copy, whether from TASS or Xinhua or
IRNA, or of articles from a foreign news website that can be
accessed without paying exorbitant subscription fees.  It's a
real loss.

The World News Connection web site, which offers subscriptions
to selected FBIS material, is here:

http://wnc.fedworld.gov

For official users, FBIS has a publicly accessible web site
(that warns unauthorized users to exit "immediately") here:

http://199.221.15.211/

Speaking of embarrassment, Secrecy News inadvertently
transmitted an extraneous attachment when emailing yesterday's
edition.  It is harmless -- not a virus -- and should simply be
deleted.

******************************
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 >
   Dec > Dec 9

               Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Hale

From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 19:27:40 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 09:35:10 +0000
Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Hale


 >From: Terry Rhodes <UtterMole@cs.com>
 >Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 11:43:05 EST
 >Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark?
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >If you try to side step answering these questions again

 >Tel


Walthamstow Meeting - Leeds Review- UFO Background Incoming mail
deletion - CD Contact?

Oh and suddenly you no longer have a demanding job, three
replies in three days!

But I would like to hear from those who are serious about seeing
this footage or have seen it, if you haven't ask Dave for a free
CD! grafikfx@netscapeonline.co.uk

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 >
   Dec > Dec 9

                       Re: Reluctant Viewers - Tonnies

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 13:10:52 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 09:41:40 +0000
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Tonnies


 >Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 00:47:42 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers

<snip>

 >There are plenty of very ordinary reasons for this behavior.
 >As long as the press plays up the quacks and nut cases at the
 >expense of serious UFO students, we can expect the public to
 >sort of roll their eyes, and quietly back out of the room.

 >If they actually look at the UFO (often just a light) they
 >risk getting dragged into some argument over what >was actually
 >seen.

 >If they ignore it or simply look away, all this is >avoided.

<snip>

This reminds me of the UFO sightings over the hotel where
members the Robertson Panel (?) was staying. (Maybe it was a
restaurant; whatever the building was, it's immaterial for
purposes of this anecdote...)

Anyway, the panel's raison d'etre was to investigate UFOs.
Someone entered the building talking of the weird lights right
outside.

Not one of the scientists present bothered to get up from his
chair.

=====
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 >
   Dec > Dec 9

              Re: Three Crashed Saucers With Bodies? - Tonnies

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 13:17:00 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 09:43:36 +0000
Subject: Re: Three Crashed Saucers With Bodies? - Tonnies


List,

I was surprised by UFOCity.com's current 'Document of the Week',
which appears to be an FBI memo re. information given to an Air
Force investigator.

The text is very plainly stated: the AF officer was told by an
"informant" that three discs had crashed in NM, each bearing
three three-foot tall occupants.

I am embarrassed to say I can't remember seeing this document
before. Was this a hoax? A joke?

(See "Doc. of the Week" at http://www.ufocity.com )



=====
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 >
   Dec > Dec 9

                   Early Official UFO file on Project 1947

From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 20:37:43 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 11:57:54 +0000
Subject: Early Official UFO file on Project 1947


Thanks to Candy Peterson and John Stepkowski we have posted
early AMC material on USAAF UFO investigations in 1947 at

http://www.project1947.com/roswell/brentamc.htm

To quote from my article on Roswell records:

    "On or before the 2nd of July 1947, Dave Johnson, the
    aviation editor of the Boise, Idaho, Statesman newspapers,
    contacted Lieutenant General Nathan F. Twining, Commanding
    General of AMC, concerning the flying disc sightings. General
    Twining sent a routing slip dated 2 July to General
    Brentnall, Deputy Commanding General, T-3, Engineering saying
    that AMC should investigate flying discs. Included was a
    sheet with short summaries of the sightings of Richard
    Rankin, Kenneth Arnold and a reference to a sighting by
    Forest Service Fire Watch personnel. On the 3rd of July,
    newspaper and wire service stories originating in Boise under
    David Johnson's byline said that AMC was investigating flying
    saucer reports and witnesses should contact Wright Field with
    any information:

    "As explained in an earlier letter in 1946 from General
    Curtis LeMay, Assistant Chief of Staff for Research and
    Development, AMC was able to initiate projects without
    approval from LeMay or higher authorities. However, during
    the next budget request, the interim project had to be
    approved for funding. General Twining was authorized on his
    own authority, then, to initiate a "flying disc"
    investigation, and this apparently he did with no relation to
    the Roswell incident."

Well, just when you think you have figured out events in UFO
history, something crashes through your nice tight little
reconstruction to shatter it. While, Twining may have had the
authority to start a UFO investigation on his own, he probably
either co-ordinated with General Vandenberg or received orders
from Vandenberg to investigate UFOs on or before the 2nd of
July. So Dave Johnson's telephone call may not have been the
catalyst for such an investigation. (More will be posted on this
later, however, it should be noted at this time that the sources
are the press, not official documents.)

The source of these Twining-Brentnall documents were the Sarah
Clark Collection, USAF Research and Development files. The
documents were located in Record Group 342, Decimal File 000,
"Flying Discs".

Please note that Air Force intelligence did not start
investigating UFO reports until after the 4th of July weekend.
There was a meeting in General Schlugen's office at which it was
decided that several flying disc incidents should be
investigated. The messages to the Air Defense Command (ADC) and
AMC (cables # 236 and 237, not yet recovered) were dispatched
from Washington, D. C. at 5:45 pm on 9 July 1947, according to
documents in Records Group 341, Deputy Director of Intelligence,
Decimal File 0009, Flying Discs.

4th Air Force headquarters at Hamilton Air Force Base received
orders from ADC to investigation sightings by both Arnold and
Rankin on the 10th of July 1947 (4th Air Force UFO Files, Air
Force Historical Research Agency). Obviously, by this time AMC
was already on the job.

It should also be noted that Twining gave the job of
investigating UFOs not to Colonel McCoy of Deputy Commanding
General, Technical Intelligence, T-2, but rather to General
Brentnall, Deputy Commanding General for Engineering, T-3. The
significance of this act and exactly when T-2 became involved is
not yet evident.


Jan Aldrich

Project 1947
http://www.project1947.com/
P. O. Box 391
Canterbury, CT 06331, USA
(860) 546-9135








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 9

                  Addition to Sign Historical Group Website

From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 21:10:02 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 12:01:03 +0000
Subject: Addition to Sign Historical Group Website


The Sign Historical Group continues to add important new items
to its website:

http://www.project1947.com/shg/

Barry Greenwood continues to update his Article Catalogue
(ARTCAT), the bibliographical work of magazine and journal
articles:

    "Bibliography of Anomalous Aerial Phenomena, SETI and UFO
     Articles in Learned Journals and Popular Magazines"

http://www.project1947.com/shg/bgbib.htm

His revisions and additions to the ARTCAT are now incorporated
into the SHG website. Barry still requires assistance in finding
new articles not contained in this listing, especially from
foreign and non-English language journals.

Another new item recently added to the Sign Historical Group
Resources page "Barry Greenwood's UFO Clipping Volumes Listing"
helps to demonstrate the enormous amount of press coverage the
UFO subject has received over the last 50 years.

http://www.project1947.com/shg/ufoclips.htm

Greenwood's collection comes from decades of personal searches
in literally thousands of different newspapers, and from large
newspaper clipping collections such as those contained in the
Center for UFO Studies' files, the collection efforts of others
such as Loren Gross, Robert Gribble, Ted Bloecher, June Larson,
Gene Duplantier, newspaper columnist Buckley Griffin, the New
England UFO Study Group, and the Meteor Research Society. New
clippings and accumulations of material in various libraries,
archives and newspaper morgues around the country continue to be
added from the contributions of scores of other researchers and
correspondents. Large portions of the Project 1947 collection
effort are also present in these files.

Finally, an ongoing inventory of File Folder Headings of
Government Documents in the Holdings of Jan Aldrich

http://www.project1947.com/shg/janfold.htm

shares the Sign Historical Group website with a similar
compilation by Barry Greenwood

http://www.project1947.com/shg/govintro.htm

Both inventories represent decades of work by many researchers.
While there are overlaps in the material in the two collections,
they are mostly complimentary, containing much material which is
not duplicated in the other. Again, the huge amount of material
shows the extent of government interest and research into the
subject during the last 50 years. The Sign Historical Group
(SHG) is dedicated to collecting important UFO material,
preserving UFO history, and indexing and categorizing UFO
documents and research materials. Most members of the Sign
Historical Group have their own research projects which take up
most of their time and resources.

The Sign Historical Group was formed with the aim that some type
of concerted action should be taken to improve the understanding
of UFO history. SHG has approved a number of modest projects not
requiring a great amount of time or money. First and foremost is
an oral history program which has interviewed a number of
important personalities in UFO history: Frederick Durant, Col.
Robert Friend, Professor Charles Moore, J. J. Kaliszewski, Al
Chop, Capt. Willis Sperry, Dr. Leon Davidson, Col Doyle Rees,
Dr. Frank Salisbury, William Rhodes, and dozens of others. SHG
attempts to acquire important UFO material and personal papers
which are in danger of being lost. A number of small personal
collections have been acquired as have several larger holdings
representing decades of UFO research. SHG encourages members and
non-members to produce inventories of their UFO material, to
give an indication of what exactly is available in various
collections. SHG members conduct research at various archives
and libraries, and utilize Freedom of Information requests and
contacts with specialists and historians to locate new material.
Utilization of the USAF Intelligence Report Index Cards has
resulted in a number of FOIA requests for various intelligence
reports concerning UFOs or related material.

SHG looks forward to further important developments which will
increase our knowledge of UFO history and aid in the
preservation of important documents and material concerning this
intriguing and far reaching subject. Looking for answers to
mysteries teaches us a great deal about ourselves as well.


Jan Aldrich
Vice Chairman








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 9

                     Re: Reluctant Viewers - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 20:57:12 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 12:05:43 +0000
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Mortellaro


 >Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 00:47:42 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers


 >>From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 13:19:24 +0000
 >>Subject: Reluctant Viewers


 >>Recently while perusing Jerry Clark's 'The UFO Book' I came
 >>across the famous Tehran, Iran CE 2 case. At the outset it
 >>mentions that several reports to Mehrabad airport of a lighted
 >>object in the vicinity were ignored until finally tower
 >>controller Houssain Perouzi decided to look for himself -
 >>laudable considering this was unknown traffic near or in a
 >>control zone. This incident is not really related to what I
 >>refer to below. It just jarred my memory.

 >>Snip

 >The "reluctant viewer" could have any of several takes on the
 >matter.

 >Whenever somebody starts talking religion, I sort of back out of
 >the room so they won't see me rolling my eyes.

 >I'm sure some people feel that way about UFOs, wrongly or
 >otherwise. They throw UFO matters in with Bigfoot, chupacabras,
 >crop-circles, all the fakes and quacks on late night radio ad
 >nauseum.

 >Others are simply disinterested. "Oh, a UFO? (yawn) When do we
 >eat?"

 >There are plenty of very ordinary reasons for this behavior. As
 >long as the press plays up the quacks and nut cases at the
 >expense of serious UFO students, we can expect the public to
 >sort of roll their eyes, and quietly back out of the room.

 >If they actually look at the UFO ( often just a light ) they
 >risk getting dragged into some argument over what was actually
 >seen.

 >If they ignore it or simply look away, all this is avoided.

 >If somebody said "Look! A UFO!" I would certainly look. Maybe
 >I would finally see one after all these years! More likely, I
 >would learn yet again, how little it takes to make a 'UFO'.


 >Best wishes

 >- Larry Hatch

Hello, Larry, Errol and readers,

Interesting how right you are, Lawrence. It is easy to make a
UFO. But it's not so easy to make a real UFO. To me, a real UFO
is not merely an unidentified craft.

To me it is a real thing, a thing, a conveyance, which I've seen
with my own eyes in the presence of witnesses on some occasions.
A thing which many others have seen and photographed. I refer to
those UFO's which are not made, or faked. To me, a UFO is a very
real thing. It's what you log on your own great software...

Not only have I seen one or six, but I have been privileged to
perceive myself in one or ten. To me, a UFO is very real.

Having said that, and since you are quite right, a UFO is easy
to make and photograph, and since some sane and educated people
have seen things which we know are not made, then we have a
problem. One which has been around for more than half a century.
Likely a lot longer. A dichotomy exists which defines the
problem.... eh, eh, eh, for EBK.

Which is the problem. Easy to fake. Not easy to fool some of us,
though. As real as the back of my hand. As real as the
triangular marks on my arm which one day just appeared and which
no doctor or dermatologist can define. Not self-inflicted. Can't
reach there, eh?

As real as the memories. Real. As real as Larry Flint and just
as big. And just as disabled. It's what they say of us. Mental
defectives, abused kids, people looking for fame and money. Yah,
and the check is in the mail. And "Don't worry sweetheart, I'm
sterile."

That's what the phenom is. That's what the witnesses are.
Maligned. Tested. Abused. Accused. Worse. No, not by my good
friend Lawrence of Hatchdom. But by so many others.

Why, Larry, would someone, oh, say like me, wish to make himself
a target of those who will malign me. Why would the likes of me
wish to make himself out to be something which he is not, fake
it, make it all up, if indeed I must expose myself to abuse
worse than you may imagine. I'm too damned proud for that. I
value my reputation, my accomplishments and my career, even in
semiretirement.

I recently got thrown off a board because I am out of my closet.
I recently became anathema to someone who I thought wore the
white hat. Why would I take the abuse of not only acquaintances,
but business associates, some relatives and people who should
really have a much more open mind and intellect??? Why?

Because the truth as I know it to be must be told. Even if just
one person out there takes solace from another's experiences and
suffering, it's worth all the abuse and personal indignity and
embarrassment.

Even from my so-called fellow abductee(s). Even from them. And
to take THEIR abuse is the worst kind of humiliation. The _very_
worst kind. I've even suffered that.

Larry, the truth be known, it's easy to make a fake UFO. But
worse, it's even easier to make an experiencer into a fake.

Isn't it interesting that people doubt what they have not seen.
I'll bet the condo, Larry, that if you could see what I've seen,
you'd be in our camp. Toot sweet. I'll bet the condo, _both_ of
them!

Love and respect,

John Smith









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 9

                     Re: Reluctant Viewers - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 22:31:59 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 12:12:49 +0000
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Mortellaro


 >From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 12:29:12 -0500

 >>From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 11:23:34 +0000
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers

 >>I used that Vancouver incident in Maritime UFO Files to
 >>illustrate a point. But I'm still uncertain as to why many can
 >>overcome curiosity and resist the impulse to "look up" when
 >>something really incredible is happening so close to them.

 >>In the Vancouver case what happened to scientific curiosity?. It
 >>was a least a chance for many of them to observe first hand and
 >>see what all of the fuss was about then in the future be able to
 >>smugly deny the phenomenon siting first hand experience. Perhaps
 >>they had reservations, and that they would not be able to deny
 >>the phenomenon, preferring the devil they knew.... At least one
 >>scientist could have had the presence of mind to say, "Here's our
 >>chance to put this one to rest, once and for all."

 >Hi, Don.

<snip>

 >But with UFOs, I think there's a huge emotional factor, which we
 >observe in UFO debates. Some people stampede to believe, some
 >people stampede not to believe. The tortured reasoning we see
 >from both believers and skeptics is evidence, at least for me,
 >that high emotions are in play.

<snip>

Hello, Greg, long time no... whatever, eh? How's about now?

Words. Nice ones. But just words. Conveying meaning but not to
the experiencer. To estrange the experiencer and his or her
experience from the "skeptic and the believer" is wrong. At
least so, in my book. Did you mean to do that or am I just
misunderstanding again? I do that often. (sigh)

You leave out the person and his experience, the knowledge firm
and resolute, that it happened. It was seen. OK, grant that it
is undefined. But it was there. _I_ was there. And you refer to
the skeptic and the believer. Is the believer the person who
believes based on... on what? Personal experience? Or just
belief. And "When you ain't got no faith, then you got
unbelief."

And you refer to tortued reasoning. Wow signal all over again.
And somewhat insulting, as the tortured reasoning to which you
refer must, by reason of reason, be the tortured reasoning of
the witness? That was a question. Is it tortured witness
reasoning or are you just refering to the believer who believes
because... just because. I don't understand. I am not very
smart. After all, my apartment is on the median divider on the
Streets of Canal.

Faith is (as Herbert wrote in Dune about "mood") is for love
making and cattle. Belief may be as deceitful as cattle or love
making. But the reality of ones' senses is valid in most places,
including the Judeo/Christian legal ethic.

So why leave out the witness? Or were you not leaving us out of
this nice picture, painted with nice words?

Informed readers want to know.


Jim Mortellaro,

Formerly in the closet - now in the dog house.
Why is that. Rhetorical queery. Very. Queer.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 9

                        Re: Reluctant Viewers - McCoy

From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 19:35:20 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 12:18:19 +0000
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - McCoy


 >From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 11:52:46 +0000
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers

 >>From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >>Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 19:07:02 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 13:19:24 +0000
 >>>Subject: Reluctant Viewers

 ><snip>

 >>>Closer to home, my own daughter [at the age of 12] saw a large,
 >>>edge-lit, blimp-shaped object in the sky, directly overhead
 >>>while playing with her friends in the street in front of our
 >>>house just after dusk in the mid-summer. To this day it bugs her
 >>>as to why, when she drew attention to the object to her friends
 >>>and her sister, none of them would look up.

 >>>I've wondered - but not too seriously - if this has to do with
 >>>people not wanting to fall for the "made you look" prank or
 >>>whether this is has a more intricate/selective implication,
 >>>similar to scenarios where witnesses have remembered thinking or
 >>>wished that the object they were seeing would come closer so
 >>>they could see it better... and it does.

 >>>Don Ledger

 ><snip>

 >>We discussed why the other kids were seeminly not
 >>interested. He said, and this is a direct quote, "Because
 >>'they' were turned off." I don't know. But for sure, when
 >>I get turned on, I want it to be Pia Zadora what does the
 >>trick.

 >Hi Jim,

 >The "switched off" effect has risen its head more than a few
 >times in the interviews I've done over the last 8 years or so.
 >Like others I've had a wife or husband remark about how they
 >tried to wake a sleeping partner to no avail when strange
 >occurrances began to happen in the room.

 >Your experience reminds me of one told to me by a women in her
 >30s of when she was 15 years old and when she was "lost" once
 >when she was only four. A little boy brought her out of the
 >forest then left her for the searchers to find. She vaguely
 >remembers being on a picnic and then her parents fell asleep and
 >she couldn't wake them. She ended up getting lost. In this case
 >though she's not sure if her parents falling asleep really
 >happened or if she dreamed that part. She was however, really
 >lost, as she has been reminded by relatives over the years.

 >Don

This whole reluctant viewer thread reminds me of a guy I knew
who flew fire patrol with me. One day we were over a National
Forest in Oregon, I causually remarked, "Gee you could hide a
herd of Elephants down there!" when we were chasing a smoke. He
said: "Ah do you believe in Bigfoot?" I was a bit non-plussed,
and not wanting to say: "Well I seen a UFO too!" as a slightly
sarcastic (but truthful) remark.

He then related a story that he was an observer in a whole
planeload of people (Cessna 206 = 6 people) this was not during
fire season or even a Government flight just some folks on a
pleasure flight to a local resort. He always looked out the
window partly as habit because of his observer's training and
partly out of _curiousity_ the word that gets any student of the
anomalous in trouble.

They were flying along above the forest in the western part of
the State of Oregon, actually I can't remember which one I think
it the Umqua or Willamette, (and some folk have trouble with the
name Rendalsham) on their way to a resort called Sunriver near
Bend, Oregon.

So, on a cool fall, evening but still daylight,as they were
motoring along at, oh, 7000 feet or so, he saw a figure packing
a Deer (dead) over its shoulder, the Deer was a buck, and of
unkown species, as Blacktail and Mule Deer could be present in
the area.

The figure was tall with the Buck over it's shoulder, and
walking with it like it was, oh, a small child over it's
shoulder. Also, it was very hairy, like an ape - he figured they
were a few hundred feet away, as this was on a ridge they were
flying by. My friend said:"Hey look at that!"- no one looked.

The Pilot said: "Hey it's deer season. Just some guy packing out
his kill." - end of story.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 9

                      Re: Corso & the COMETA - Aldrich

From: Jan Aldrich <project1947@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 20:27:16 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 12:28:28 +0000
Subject: Re: Corso & the COMETA - Aldrich


 >Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 11:40:39 EST
 >From: John W. Auchettl <Praufo@aol.com>
 >Subject: Re: Corso & the COMETA
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >Oz & ASIA DATA RESEARCH
 >Phenomena Research Australia

 >Jan, EBK & Researchers,

 >The "No Gun Ri" - Massacre.

 >REF:

 >http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2000/jun/m30-016.shtml

 >>Subject: Corso & the COMETA - Aldrich
 >>From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
 >>Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 13:19:07 -0400
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >Jan Aldrich said:

 >"Perhaps you have seen the story of the Korean War veteran who
 >told the story of the massacre of Korean civilians by US force
 >in the beginning of the war. Only one problem, he was not there,
 >_his_ story is a lie. The massacre apparently did happen, but
 >this guy was not anywhere near the scene, he was not a witness.
 >Now he had an honorable discharge, but is his current conduct
 >honorable?"

 >The Pentagon in an unpublished draft report now admits the
 >massacre of Korean refugees is a fact!

 >Now lets keep an open mind on COMETA & CORSO?

<snip>

Try reading my paragraph you quoted, again. Then, again, then
you might get it!

"The massacre apparently did happen, but this guy was not
anywhere near the scene, he was not a witness."

I am _not_ by an stretch of the imagination denying here that
the massacre did occur. I am saying the supposed lead witness
quoted extensively in the press was not present there. His,
again, John, _his_ testimony was a lie! He was not present on
the scene.

John, the point of the whole example, since you missed that,
too, was that honorable service does not necessarily mean that
people act honorably for the rest of their lives!

I am all for open mindedness, and I am all for considering all
the facts, and after everything is in; it also time to make
decisions on the veracity of claims. Corso is nothing more than
a bragard and a liar. My assessment. You don't like that than
come up with your own. Believe what you want.

Every, again especially for you, John, so you get it, _every_
Corso-phile here has avoided, sidestepped, ignored, and not
answered this question: "Do you actually believe that a giant
space based defense cobbled together from the stuff in Corso's
filing cabinet is protecting the earth from ETs?" Not one of
Corso's defenders here has answered that. Maybe, like you, they
can't read this claim in Corso's book. They can only talk about
Corso from what they have heard on TV.

John, I spent four tours, over seven years in Korea, I travelled
extensively in that country. I have some idea of the suffering the
Korean people went through. I consider your post insulting in the
extreme and right now I am congratulating myself that I didn't
let loose with the string of expletives you so richly deserve.


Jan Aldrich








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 9

                       Re: Corso & the COMETA - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 23:43:42 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 12:30:47 +0000
Subject: Re: Corso & the COMETA - Young


 >Date: Fri, 08 DEC 2000 11:40:39 EST
 >From: John W. Auchettl <Praufo@aol.com>
 >Subject: Re: Corso & the COMETA
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>Subject: Corso & the COMETA - Aldrich
 >>From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
 >>Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 13:19:07 -0400
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >Jan Aldrich said:

 >>"Perhaps you have seen the story of the Korean War veteran who
 >>told the story of the massacre of Korean civilians by US force
 >>in the beginning of the war. Only one problem, he was not there,
 >>_his_ story is a lie. The massacre apparently did happen, but
 >>this guy was not anywhere near the scene, he was not a witness.
 >>Now he had an honorable discharge, but is his current conduct
 >>honorable?"

 >The Pentagon in an unpublished draft report now admits the
 >massacre of Korean refugees is a fact!

 >So sorry Jan - That Vet "Lawrence Levine" was right.

 >Now lets keep an open mind on COMETA & CORSO?

John, Jan, List:

Sorry, John - Levine was lying, or fantasizing, or whatever. He
had been a member of the weapons platoon involved months later
for a short time and very likely heard about it from others.

What does this have to do with Corso, who told many proven fibs
and made many bizarre claims never shown to have been true?

While every circus has a clown, not all clowns belong 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 >
   Dec > Dec 9

              Re: Munoz's Report - Corrales Translation, Part I

From: Bob Young  <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 23:54:42 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 12:32:48 +0000
Subject: Re: Munoz's Report - Corrales Translation, Part I


 >Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 09:39:23 -0800
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >Subject: Re: Munoz's Report - Corrales Translation, Part I

 >>Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 17:27:22 -0500
 >>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Munoz's Report On MC Video, Maccabee
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>Problem: "Directly overhead" would mean that the UFO passed
 >>close to the Reforma building. WHen first seen in the video it
 >>would have been more than 450 m away (450 m being about the
 >>distance of the building it disappeared behind), was at some
 >>time before the video, very close to the building where the
 >>video was shot. In the video you see it move to the right....
 >>toward the east.... So if it passed near the Reforma building
 >>then it moved northward first and then turned and hovered (or
 >>hovered and then turned) and headed generally east.

<snip>

 >>Not if the UFO was "overhead". What shows on the video is motion
 >>generally eastward

 >I think it best to allow a good deal of leeway in the phrase
 >"almost directly overhead." That could refer to the UFO being at
 >an elevation as low as 60 degrees, perhaps even 50, above the
 >horizon. This because, as you know, observed segments of
 >elevation get squeezed together from the typical observation
 >when they're anywhere near overhead, and the opposite near the
 >horizon. This in turn being related to the moon appearing large
 >near the horizon and small when anywhere near overhead.

Hi, Jim and Bruce:

I agree with Jim on this. Most people see astronomical objects
over 45 degrees as being "overhead".


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 >
   Dec > Dec 9

              Re: Munoz's Report - Corrales Translation, Part I

From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 05:07:17 -0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 12:35:05 +0000
Subject: Re: Munoz's Report - Corrales Translation, Part I


Regarding:

 >Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 09:39:23 -0800
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >Subject: Re: Munoz's Report - Corrales Translation, Part I

Jim wrote:

 >>Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 17:27:22 -0500
 >>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Munoz's Report On MC Video, Maccabee
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >I'm looking forward to seeing the geography of it all on your
 >map file.

Absolutely Bruce.

Draw a map...

Prove those Adamski/Meier/Mexico/Walters et al 'flying saucers'
aren't 'real' - it's only been, what... 50 plus years?

Take your time...

Oops... the Walters' portfolio is actually kosher, no foolin'
anyone, isn't it?


"I recall looking at my instrument clock which read about five
minutes to seven. As I looked up from my instrument panel and
straight ahead over the La Grande valley, I saw a cluster of
about twenty to twenty- five brass coloured objects that looked
like ducks.

They were coming at me head on and at what seemed a terrific
rate of speed.

The sun was at my back and to my right. These objects were
coming into the sun. I wasn't sighting through the viewfinder on
my camera but was sighting along the side of it. As the group of
objects came within 400 yards of me they veered sharply away
from me and to their right, gaining altitude as they did so and
fluttering and flashing a dull amber color.

They appeared to be round, rather rough on top, and to have a
dark or a light spot on top of each one. I couldn't be
absolutely positive of this because it all happened so suddenly.
I attempted to make a turn and follow them but they disappeared
to the east at a speed far in excess of my airplane. I knew they
were not ducks because ducks don't fly that fast.

I was a little bit shocked and exited when I realized they had
the same flight characteristics of the large objects I had
observed on June 24".


Quack... draw a map...


James

E-mail: pelicans@debunk.co.uk
www.flyingsaucers.org

P.S. It's only some banter... don't have a mutilated cow,
man...:)








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 9

               TCI: A Natural Mechanism for Pyramid-Making on

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 22:09:57 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 13:49:17 +0000
Subject: TCI: A Natural Mechanism for Pyramid-Making on


12-9-00

THE CYDONIAN IMPERATIVE

For Immediate Release


A Natural Mechanism for Pyramid-Making on Mars?

by Mac Tonnies

see: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/cydonia.html

The attention lavished on the Cydonia Mensae region, home of the
"Face," has distracted attention from pyramidal formations
elsewhere on Mars. While several of these appear decidedly
natural, others are more open to interpretation. The question
that needs to be kept in mind is, obviously: Can there be a
purely geological mechanism capable of producing
artificial-seeming pyramids?

[image]

Architect Robert Fiertek's interpretation of the "City" based on
Viking data. Note the abundance of "pyramids." The MGS has shown
several of these features to be quite unlike the forms depicted
here.

Of the features in Cydonia, the only formations that can
rightfully be dubbed "pyramids" are the City Pyramid and the D&M
Pyramid. Other City formations scrutinized in the Viking photos,
such as the NW City Formation and City Mound, while interesting,
are much less geometric and possibly the least relevant in terms
of confirming artificiality. But at the same time the Mars
Global Surveyor has laid to rest some of the reconstructive
models based on the Viking data (architect Robert Fiertek's
speculative interpretation of the City being among the most
notable), the new images have also unveiled some tantalizing new
formations. Either we are dealing with exotic geology or
artificial structures--or, as suggested in previous
installments, a curious combination of both.

The first "pyramids" found on Mars were brought to public
attention by Carl Sagan, who wrote of them in his book "Cosmos"
and pointedly (no pun intended) referred to them in his
television series of the same name. Located in Elysium, these
striking formations are generally dismissed as faceted
mountains, sculpted by abrasive Martian winds. While the
"Pyramids of Elysium" lack complimentary "Faces," their
tetrahedral design is actually more striking, to my mind, than
many of the City formations originally identified by Richard
Hoagland. Then again, their very simplicity also argues against
their having an esoteric heritage; three-sided forms are not
unknown in geology.

[image]

A pyramidal formation in Elysium.

While the Elysium pyramids are intriguing, their lack of
internal and contextual complexity makes them difficult to
assess as candidate artifacts. The formations in Cydonia, being
close together and displaying more sophisticated morphology
(both the D&M Pyramid and the City Pyramid are five-sided) lend
themselves more easily to an architectural interpretation.

[image]

The eroded, pyramid-shaped formation shown above, identified by
Richard Hoagland while perusing Malin Space Science Systems'
online catalogue, is perhaps the most intriguing of the
pyramidal formations photographed by the MGS. While it could
certainly be a wind-sculpted mountain, its cleanly divided
facets arouse some suspicion. Also there are several straight
lines seemingly etched into the terrain to the formation's left,
as well as what appears to be a five-sided "crater" (?) near the
feature's lower right flank. This contextual detail, however
slight compared to the apparent geometry seen at Cydonia, is
harder to reconcile with wind-faceting; distinct atmospheric and
geological processes would have to have worked in tandem to
produce the above feature. Such cannot be said for the
relatively simple pyramids in Elysium and elsewhere on Mars.

[image]

The quadrant of the D&M Pyramid imaged by the MGS.

A number of theories have been put forward to explain various
pyramidal formations on Mars. Wind and even giant crystal growth
have been suggested as culprits. Erol Torun's analysis of the
D&M Pyramid in Cydonia rules all geological mechanisms out; in
his view, the D&M simply must be artificial, as its detail and
proposed mathematical consistencies are incompatible with blind
natural forces (to say nothing of the its incriminating
proximity to the Face).

While Torun's analysis is useful, it was based largely on a
speculative reconstruction of the feature. More meaningfully,
Torun was forced to work from low-resolution Viking images.
Future images of the D&M taken by the MGS will help us evaluate
the accuracy of Torun's model. For example, are the "buttresses"
evident on the Viking frames actual features? So far, the only
high-resolution imagery obtained of the D&M shows only a single
eroded quadrant: not nearly enough upon which to base an
evaluation.

However, it's safe to say that when and if new pictures of the
D&M are available, we can expect the massive formation to have
some superficial characteristics typical of natural formations;
build-ups of sand and other apparent deformations should be
expected, especially of a feature of the D&M's massive size.
Critics of the Artificiality Hypothesis universally ignore the
conjecture that the anomalies under investigation are almost
inconceivably ancient.

It would be absurd to expect smooth, polished surfaces when
dealing with objects possibly hundreds of thousands of year old.
Any artificial structure left deserted in a Mars-like erosive
environment would necessarily be coated in dust and smoothed
away by meteoric rain, dust, and possibly flowing water
(mounting evidence suggests that the Face, and possibly related
features, once protruded from a shallow lake). Only the D&M's
giant size has allowed us to reconstruct its original dimensions
(assuming, hypothetically, that it was built to architectural
tolerances).

The same argument applies to the Face; if the Face formation was
any smaller, chances are erosion would have wiped it clean
beyond recognition. We most likely never would have looked twice
at Cydonia, City or no City.

This is not speculation or an attempt to rationalize away the
Martian enigmas' obviously degraded appearance. The exact same
phenomenon greets viewers of the Great Sphinx in Egypt or the
faces of Mount Rushmore--seen from a distance, the intended
morphology is quite plain; seen up close, the inevitable
fissures and cracks and abrasions suddenly come into focus.

The MGS spacecraft, with its exquisite resolution, has provided
us with a novel forensic controversy: how to distinguish
possible ruins from natural formations when both, given that
they exist, are hundreds of thousands of years old--if not
older?

The MGS' mapping mission ends at the close of 2000. We direly
need new photos of the Cydonian features is planetary SETI is to
flourish as an empirical discipline.


=====
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 >
   Dec > Dec 9

                        Re: Reluctant Viewers - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 03:07:51 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 13:52:15 +0000
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Hatch


 >Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 12:09:08 +0000
 >From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers

 >>Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 00:47:42 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers

<snip>

 >>The "reluctant viewer" could have any of several takes on the
 >>matter.

 >>Whenever somebody starts talking religion, I sort of back out of
 >>the room so they won't see me rolling my eyes.

 >>I'm sure some people feel that way about UFOs, wrongly or
 >>otherwise. They throw UFO matters in with Bigfoot, chupacabras,
 >>crop-circles, all the fakes and quacks on late night radio ad
 >>nauseum.

 >>Others are simply disinterested. "Oh, a UFO? (yawn) When do we
 >>eat?"

 >>There are plenty of very ordinary reasons for this behavior. As
 >>long as the press plays up the quacks and nut cases at the
 >>expense of serious UFO students, we can expect the public to
 >>sort of roll their eyes, and quietly back out of the room.

 >>If they actually look at the UFO (often just a light) they
 >>risk getting dragged into some argument over what was actually
 >>seen.

 >>If they ignore it or simply look away, all this is avoided.

 >>If somebody said "Look! A UFO!" I would certainly look. Maybe
 >>I would finally see one after all these years! More likely, I
 >>would learn yet again, how little it takes to make a 'UFO'.

 >Hi Larry,

 >That's a bit of a stretch for 12 year olds. I can see a bunch of
 >jaded, timid scientists or hungry grownups blowing off a
 >sighting. But children at play?

 >I'm loath to get involved in, or take lights in the sky
 >seriously myself, but in the case of my daughter's sighting out
 >on the street in front of our house she describes - see the book
 >- something that can't be explained around here. Forget blimps.
 >They just don't happen here or in many other places in this
 >world, there not being more than a dozen registered blimp-type
 >aircraft in the world.

 >As for the pilot related - reluctant viewers - he found it
 >strange as I do that he couldn't get other pilots to look up,
 >into the sky. That is weird, buddy.



Hello Don:

I wasn't referring to kids at all, just jaded adults who ignore
what they see as some nonsense.

I most especially do not refer to people who are reportedly
"switched off" during some abduction event. Whether one buys
into this or not, it is certainly a very different matter!

Quite simply, I was referring to the person who doesn't turn his
head when somebody says "Look! .. a UFO! "

I'm reminded of some woman who saw what she considered a UFO.
She made quite a fuss, and only a few people looked. This may
have been at a picnic or the like. According to the writer (
don't ask me who! ) .. her husband kept muttering what nonsense
UFOs were.

" He didn't even look. " said the wife.

I might have jumped on the picnic table for a better look. Can
you imagine that? A beer bottle in my right hand, and my left
foot in the potato salad.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 9

             Re: Munoz's Report - Corrales' Translation, Part I

From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@temporaldoorway.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 08:30:37 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 13:55:16 +0000
Subject: Re: Munoz's Report - Corrales' Translation, Part I


 >Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 14:31:59 -0800
 >To: UFO UpDates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >Subject: Munoz's Report - Corrales Translation, Part I

 >Below is about the first half of Daniel Munoz's report on the
 >Aug. 6, 1997, Mexico City sighting and video, as translated by
 >Scott Corrales. Scott, author of 'Chupacabras and Other
 >Mysteries', is not on this list.

 >Jim Dilettoso discovered  that within the same image in which
 >the UFO could not be seen on  the screen, it would appear in
 >its proper place after passing  infrared and ultraviolet filters.
 >This led Dilettoso to adjust  all of his analytical equipment to another
 >frequency in order to analyze the object's characteristics, a
 >situation which had  practically never happened to him earlier in
 >any other circumstance, and which on the other hand, confirmed
 >the veracity of the video presented.

This is the sort of thing that makes me very suspicious. If
Dilettoso actually makes this claim, it would be impossible to
take him seriously.

Non-digital (analog) video tape, whether using the NTSC (US) or
PAL (European) standard, records the video signal on tape in
what are essentially two signals...

http://www.ee.washington.edu/conselec/CE/kuhn/ntsc/95x4.htm

    "...Modern color TV is carefully structured to preserve all
    the original monochrome information -- and just add on the
    color information on top. To do this, one signal, called
    luminance (Y) has been chosen to occupy the major portion
    (0-4 MHz) of the channel. Y contains the brightness
    information and the detail. Y is the monochrome TV signal.

    Two signals are then created to carry the chrominance
    information. One of these signals is called "Q" and the other
    is called "I". The positive polarity of Q is purple, the
    negative is green. The positive polarity of I is orange, the
    negative is cyan. Thus, Q is often called the "green-purple"
    or "purple-green" axis information and I is often called the
    "orange-cyan" or "cyan-orange" axis information.

    It turns out that the human eye is more sensitive to spatial
    variations in the "orange-cyan" than it is for the "green
    purple". Thus, the "orange-cyan" or I signal has a maximum
    bandwidth of 1.5 MHz and the "green purple" only has a
    maximum bandwidth of 0.5 MHz.

    Now, the Q and I signals are both modulated by a 3.58 MHz
    carrier wave. However, they are modulated out of 90 degrees
    out of phase. These two signals are then summed together to
    make the C or chrominance signal.

    The nomenclature of the two signals aids in remembering what
    is going on. The I signal is In-phase with the 3.58 MHz
    carrier wave. The Q signal is in Quadrature (i.e. 1/4 of the
    way around the circle or 90 degrees out of phase, or
    orthogonal) with the 3.58 MHz carrier wave.

    Now, this new chrominance signal (formed by I and Q) has the
    interesting property that the magnitude of the signal
    represents the color saturation, and the phase of the signal
    represents the hue[13]."

As you can see, the videotape only records the brightness, hue
and saturation of the scene. The "color triangle" for video does
not include non-visible frequencies, which obviously makes it
impossible to apply "filters" for non-visible frequencies to the
output of the videotape expecting there to be any useful result.

The only way to record and display non-visual light signals
would be to use a special sensor that translated such
frequencies into the realm recordable on videotape. This was not
done.

Once again, this casts suspicion on any of Dilettoso's comments
on his analysis of the videotape, but does not directly address
the validity of the tape itself.

------
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 >
   Dec > Dec 9

              Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Bowden

From: Dave Bowden <grafikfx@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 14:25:31 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 13:58:58 +0000
Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Bowden


 >Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 17:31:59 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark?
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >>Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 05:18:35 +0000
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark?

 >>>Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 08:07:20 -0600
 >>>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark?
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Hi Roger,

 >Previously, I had written:

 >>>You made a pretty serious claim about people on this List which
 >>>I feel is incorrect. However, I could be mistaken. I am not
 >>>asking you to call anyone names or insult anyone. Indeed, if you
 >>>were the one insulted or attacked, all you have to do is point
 >>>out the posts where this happened.

 >>>I am genuinely interested in the video, don't get me wrong. But,
 >>>an unsubstantiated claim is an unsubstantiated claim, Roy.
 >>>Whether it's about UFOs or List members, without validation,
 >>>it's hard to take them seriously.

 >Roy replies:

 >>Am I talking to myself here or what? If you were interested in
 >>the footage Roger then when did you make contact with Dave
 >>Bowden for a copy of the FREE CD to be sent to you?

 >>I am beginning to wonder why I posted this footage on UpDates,
 >>because all I have had is tabloid questions thrown at me, I have
 >>been banging my head on the wall with some of these questions.
 >>Please get a copy of the FREE CD and you will be able to see it,
 >>clearly, for yourself!

 >Hello, Roy.

 >No, you aren't talking to yourself. You are talking to me and I
 >asked you a simple question which you seem determined to not
 >answer! Fine by me. Just don't bellyache in the future about
 >witnesses not being taken seriously due to lack of evidence or
 >being "attacked" by all those disgruntled List members.

 >Regarding the CD, I shot off an email to Dave as soon as you
 >referred me to him. I, as of this writing, have not heard from
 >him. Dave, if you are reading this, will you please email me and
 >let me know if you got my message?

 >In all, I guess that's the difference between Dave and you, Roy.
 >Whereas I am not sure that he received my interrogative, I know
 >for a fact that you did.

I've checked the records and I do not appear to have received a
request from you. I don't doubt for a moment you sent it, I've
had mail go missing before.

Send me your home address privately and I'll get a CD off to
you.


All the best,

Dave Bowden

grafikfx@netscapeonline.co.uk
http://members.netscapeonline.co.uk/grafikfx/








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 9

                       Re: Reluctant Viewers - Roberts

From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 14:51:33 -0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 14:34:37 +0000
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Roberts


 >From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 12:29:12 -0500

Greg wrote:

 >James Oberg, in a phone interview with me, described it best. We
 >(as a species) are on the edge of space, he said, or words to
 >that effect. So we're swamped with fantasies of what we'll find
 >there. He framed this in a skeptical tone, of course, as a way
 >of accounting for what he feels are UFO delusions. But his point
 >applies just as well to skeptics. They, fearing what would
 >happen if we encounter aliens, scramble to deny that any are
 >here. (And yes, I know that UFOs, if they're really visitors of
 >some kind, don't have to be from space -- yada yada yada yada.
 >My point applies just as well for any intrusion from the
 >beyond.)

I felt it necessary to comment on this as it appears to be a
conceit believers in ET use to make a case against sceptics. And
it's rubbish of the most peurile variety.

I have come across more than a few ufological sceptics (note I
say sceptic and not debunker - though I realise many on this
List have difficulty understanding the difference) in my time
and broadly speaking they fall into two categories:

* Those who would _love_ for life elsewhere to exist and to be
proven to have visited us. They are usually sceptics by dint of
years of investigation and research which has led them to that
position.

and

* Those who don't give a flying one whether ET (or in fact
anything else exists) but are interested in belief, story
transmission, perception, proof, evidence and how it all
conspires together to produce folklore du jour.

For the record I fall into the second category.

So I'm afraid that Greg's pre-school theorising is way off the
mark.

Ah well, back to the Luke Wills Rhythm Busters (Jerry C will
understand).

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 >
   Dec > Dec 9

                       Re: Corso & the COMETA - Bruni

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 14:51:13 -0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 14:38:16 +0000
Subject: Re: Corso & the COMETA - Bruni


 >Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 11:40:39 EST
 >From: John W. Auchettl <Praufo@aol.com>
 >Subject: Re: Corso & the COMETA

 >From Oz & ASIA DATA RESEARCH Phenomena Research Australia

 >The "No Gun Ri" - Massacre.
 >REF: http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2000/jun/m30-016.shtml

 >Subject: Corso & the COMETA - Aldrich
 >From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
 >Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 13:19:07 -0400

 >Jan Aldrich said:

 >"Perhaps you have seen the story of the Korean War veteran who
 >told the story of the massacre of Korean civilians by US force
 >in the beginning of the war. Only one problem, he was not there,
 >_his_ story is a lie. The massacre apparently did happen, but
 >this guy was not anywhere near the scene, he was not a witness.
 >Now he had an honorable discharge, but is his current conduct
 >honorable?"

 >The Pentagon in an unpublished draft report now admits the
 >massacre of Korean refugees is a fact!
 >So sorry Jan - That Vet "Lawrence Levine" was right.
 >Now lets keep an open mind on COMETA & CORSO?


Dear John

Thanks for posting that, I believe Jan was responding to List
members but specifically to my post on Corso.

Jan, you originally wrote:

 >>Corso is a lair and a dishonorable man.

I wrote:

 >>I still think that the above comment is a little too strong Jan,
 >>especially as he cannot defend himself.

You wrote:

 >He wrote this book _after_ his career in the Army was finished.
 >This book is full of lies and misrepresentations, that is
 >dishonorable conduct. His honorable Service has nothing to do
 >with this, nor did I say such.

 >Perhaps you have seen the story of the Korean War veteran who
 >told the story of the massacre of Korean civilians by US force
 >in the beginning of the war. Only one problem, he was not there,
 >his_ story is a lie. The massacre apparently did happen, but
 >this guy was not anywhere near the scene, he was not a witness.
 >Now he had an honorable discharge, but is his current conduct
 >honorable?

Let's examine the following line concering the witness to the
Korean massacre - just for the record:

 >Only one problem, he was not there, his_ story is a lie

My answer to that is, you were not with Corso so how can you
sure he was a liar?

Now that the Pentagon investigation has been proved that the
Korean incident took place maybe you will re-consider the
statements you made concerning Corso.


Just a thought,

Georgina Bruni

YOU CAN'T TELL THE PEOPLE
The Definitive Account of the Rendlesham Forest UFO Mystery
By Georgina Bruni Published by Sidgwick & Jackson
Available on-line at: www.amazon.co.uk  and www.whsmith.co.uk
View and listen to Georgina Bruni talking about the book at:
www.relaxwithabook.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 >
   Dec > Dec 9

                        Re: Reluctant Viewers - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 07:11:49 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 14:42:09 +0000
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Hatch


 >Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 13:10:52 -0800 (PST)
 >From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 00:47:42 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers

 ><snip>

 >>There are plenty of very ordinary reasons for this behavior.
 >>As long as the press plays up the quacks and nut cases at the
 >>expense of serious UFO students, we can expect the public to
 >>sort of roll their eyes, and quietly back out of the room.

 >>If they actually look at the UFO (often just a light) they
 >>risk getting dragged into some argument over what >was actually
 >>seen.

 >>If they ignore it or simply look away, all this is >avoided.

 ><snip>

 >This reminds me of the UFO sightings over the hotel where
 >members the Robertson Panel (?) was staying. (Maybe it was a
 >restaurant; whatever the building was, it's immaterial for
 >purposes of this anecdote...)
 >
 >Anyway, the panel's raison d'etre was to investigate UFOs.
 >Someone entered the building talking of the weird lights right
 >outside.

 >Not one of the scientists present bothered to get up from his
 >chair.


Hello Mac:

I recall reading of that same incident. I want to say it was
Hynek who mentioned that, but I tend to confuse matters early
Saturday mornings [burp!]

One thing. If the person entering the building referred merely
to "strange lights", I myself might be inclined to ignore it.

If somebody cries "UFO" I would be outside like a shot, stopping
only briefly at the refreshments table perhaps.

My small point is that I would either:

a) Finally have a good personal UFO sighting _or_

b) Gain another small insight into what some people
    call "UFOs", mistakenly or otherwise.

I do not entirely discount the more weird explanations for
'Reluctant Viewer' (the topic of this thread) by any means.

Several seemingly unrelated but recurring themes in my studies
seem to show both the technology and the intent for some sort of
camouflage and deception on the part of whoever is responsible
for mysterious flying objects.

My second small point, not unrelated to Occam's shaving habits,
is that the simpler more mundane explanations for viewer
reluctance are probably more likely or preferable -- but not
necessarily true in each and every case.


Best wishes

- Larry Hatch


PS: I finally figured out what it takes to burn a palm-tree log
in the fireplace: an acetylene torch and lots of patience.
[burp!] One tough way to roast a pig.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 9

              Re: Three Crashed Saucers With Bodies? - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 10:45:40 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 14:47:19 +0000
Subject: Re: Three Crashed Saucers With Bodies? - Maccabee


 >Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 13:17:00 -0800 (PST)
 >From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >Subject: Three Crashed Saucers With Bodies?
 >To: UfoUpdates <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >List,

 >I was surprised by UFOCity.com's current 'Document of the Week',
 >which appears to be an FBI memo re. information given to an Air
 >Force investigator.

 >The text is very plainly stated: the AF officer was told by an
 >"informant" that three discs had crashed in NM, each bearing
 >three three-foot tall occupants.

 >I am embarrassed to say I can't remember seeing this document
 >before. Was this a hoax? A joke?

 >(See "Doc. of the Week" at http://www.ufocity.com )


This document is mentioned briefly in my book, 'The UFO-FBI
Connection'.

The document itself is not a fake. It was in the package of
documents released by the FBI.

However, as nealy as can be determined after researching the
context of the document, it refers to the claim by Silas Newton
that 3 saucers with bodies had crashed in New Mexico. This claim
was made publicly in March, 1950, just before the FBI document
was written.

Newton and Leo GeBauer apparently invented the story in 1949 in
order to claim that a "doodlebug" device for locating oil had
been built based on alien technology. The intent was to "con"
some oil investors in buying rights to the doodlebug...and
thereby make $$$$.

The Newton-GeBauer story was incorporated into Frank Scully's
book Behind the Flying Saucers (1950)

I made an FOIA request to the FBI many years ago for information
on the "investigator for the Air Forces" but got no further
information. (Actually, in the initial release of documents,
which I obtained in 1977, the "investigator for the Air forces"
was crossed out. Only in later years did they "admit" that the
source was someone (supposedly) associated with the Air Force.

I should point out that,more inmportant than this document, is
what happened afterward. Quoting from my book, CHAPTER 14:

......................

In late March, 1950, FBI headquarters received from Guy Hottel,
the SAC for Washington state, a memorandum which stated that "an
investigator for the Air Forces" had told Mr. Hottel that three
crashed saucers had been recovered in New Mexico, along with 9
bodies of 3 foot tall aliens. It turned out that this report was
based on a hoax, but the FBI didn�t know that at the time. The
importance of this report is what it caused J. Edgar to do. He
asked Special Assistant D.M. Ladd to ask the Air Force "just
what are the facts re 'flying saucers?'" Hoover wanted "A short
memo as to whether it is true or just what the Air Force, etc.
think of them." In other words, it appears that Hoover was
completely, and justifiably, confused by the conflicting
pronouncements by the Air Force.

The FBI-Air Force liaison, Agent S. W. Reynolds, who had been
contacted by General Schulgen almost three years before at the
very beginning of the saucer controversy, met with AFI
representatives,

Major Boggs and Lt. Col. J.V. Hearn and was told the following:

"The Air Force discontinued their intelligence project to
determine what flying saucers are the latter part of last year.
They publicly announced to the press in December, 1949, that the
project had been discontinued. They advised that the press
release had been concurred in by the Army and Navy. The reason
for the discontinuance, according to Major Boggs and Lieutenant
Colonel Hearn, was that after two years of investigating over
three fourths of the incidents regarding flying saucers proved
to be misidentifications of a wide variety of conventional items
such as lighted weather balloons and other air-borne objects..

Colonel Hearn pointed out that the Commanders of the various
areas are charged with the security of those areas. Reports
concerning flying saucers received at this time will be
investigated by the Area Commander and his report submitted to
the Air Force Intelligence Division as an intelligence item.

Major Boggs and Lieutenant Colonel Hearn made the observation
that many of the reported sightings of flying saucers at this
time appear to be an outgrowth of recent magazine articles. They
reiterated that the Air Force is conducting no active
investigation to determine whether flying saucers exist or what
they might be."

This waffling answer was clearly intended to imply that the Air
Force didn�t think much of flying saucers. They admitted that
reports were still coming in, but they weren�t being analyzed by
any central group because most of the previous sightings had
been explained and Project Grudge had been closed. Any sighting
analysis had to be done at the location of the sighting and
information forwarded as ordinary intelligence. Hearn and Boggs
did not give the FBI any impression of what ATIC might be doing
with the collected sighting reports. Whether or not this
non-answer satisfied Hoover is not reflected in the record.

Another article in True Magazine provided a direct contradiction
to the official Air Force policy as stated by Boggs and Hearn.
The March, 1950 issue contained an article by Commander Robert
McLaughlin, who had been the Chief of the Navy missile test
activities at the super secret White Sands Proving Ground test
and development area. Recall that he had been the source of
information about White Sands sightings that had leaked to the
press during the previous summer (Chapter 12). In the True
article, entitled "How Scientists Tracked Flying Saucers" he
discussed the tracking of a saucer during a missile test. He
reported that several times during 1948 and 1949 his crew at
White Sands had observed UFOs. One of the sightings he mentioned
was that of Charles Moore, which has already been described. By
referring to calculations based on measurements by the White

Sands instruments he concluded that the saucers were not a
natural phenomenon and voiced his opinion that saucers were
"space ships" operated by "intelligent beings." When queried
about McLaughlin�s ET conclusion the Air Force referred to the
Grudge report and stated that there is no evidence that saucers
are other than hallucinations, hoaxes and errors in
identification.

......................................

(end of book quote)

Considering the conflicting information regarding the reality of
flying saucer it is no wonder that Hoover was confused (at
least, I assume he was confused; I certainly would be given only
the information he was receiving from inside and outside the air
force)








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 10

               Re: Three Crashed Saucers With Bodies? - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 11:11:37 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 10:36:29 +0000
Subject: Re: Three Crashed Saucers With Bodies? - Sparks


 >Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 13:17:00 -0800 (PST)
 >From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >Subject: Three Crashed Saucers With Bodies?
 >To: UfoUpdates <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >List,

 >I was surprised by UFOCity.com's current 'Document of the Week',
 >which appears to be an FBI memo re. information given to an Air
 >Force investigator.

 >The text is very plainly stated: the AF officer was told by an
 >"informant" that three discs had crashed in NM, each bearing
 >three three-foot tall occupants.

 >I am embarrassed to say I can't remember seeing this document
 >before. Was this a hoax? A joke?

 >(See "Doc. of the Week" at http://www.ufocity.com )

Mac & List,

The document was reporting one of the Scully-inspired hoax
stories that was widely circulating in the media in early 1950
following the nationwide mass publicity generated by TIME
magazine's report on Jan. 9, 1950.  Somewhere along the way the
identity of the publication dropped out of the hearsay chain.

BTW, in the 70's I interviewed every living participant of the
Robertson Panel including all CIA and Air Force personnel and no
one ever told me about an incident of refusing to go outside of
the hotel to look at a UFO, and in the three decades of research
since the interviews I have never heard of such a story.  I
vaguely recall that Hynek told a story about astronomers at an
astronomy conference like that.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 10

               Re: Addition to Sign Historical Group Website -

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 12:17:05 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 10:38:00 +0000
Subject: Re: Addition to Sign Historical Group Website -


 >From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Addition to Sign Historical Group Website
 >Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 21:10:02 -0500

 > The Sign Historical Group continues to add important new items
 >to its website:

 >http://www.project1947.com/shg/

<snip>

 >http://www.project1947.com/shg/bgbib.htm

 > http://www.project1947.com/shg/ufoclips.htm >>

Jan:

I get the following message for all of these: "Sorry. No Such
Address"

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 >
   Dec > Dec 10

                       Re: Reluctant Viewers - Ledger

From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 13:25:27 +0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 10:40:34 +0000
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Ledger


 >Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 11:19:53 -0600
 >From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers

 >>From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >>Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 19:07:02 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 13:19:24 +0000
 >>>Subject: Reluctant Viewers

 >>>Recently while perusing Jerry Clark's 'The UFO Book' I came
 >>>across the famous Tehran, Iran CE 2 case. At the outset it
 >>>mentions that several reports to Mehrabad airport of a lighted
 >>>object in the vicinity were ignored until finally tower
 >>>controller Houssain Perouzi decided to look for himself -
 >>>laudable considering this was unknown traffic near or in a
 >>>control zone. This incident is not really related to what I
 >>>refer to below. It just jarred my memory.

 ><snip>

 >>>Don Ledger

 >>Hello, Don, bListers and Errol,

 >>I've often wondered myself. And with each sighting which I have
 >>had in the presence of others, I endured the same type of
 >>reaction. I admit to _not_ having had a large number of
 >>sightings myself, but those which I remember having, the half
 >>dozen or so which occured with others present, were never
 >>acknowledged by the others to the extent which it disturbed me.

 ><snip>

 >Honored fellow motes, Jim, Don, and ebk (a giant among mere motes);

 >I've had the same kind of experience with these men and women
 >who contrive to deny their senses. An unusual experience doesn't
 >fit the partyline paradigm and the mind-wiping cognitive
 >dissonance sullenly kicks in. The engine of rationalization
 >coughs and sputters to provide the usual excuse, and everyone is
 >returned to the usual program (already in progress).

 >I remember a not unrecent occasion when a collection of sober
 >old men and their equally sober wives were, as you'd have it,
 >out in the middle of nowhere, (but still close to somewhere),
 >and present to witness the unsettling inexplicable. They were
 >congregated there to fly classic model aircraft from a bygone
 >modeling age. All was still, which suited the rubber models they
 >were launching into the air, the sky was an appropriate robin's
 >egg blue of quiet and unsullied clarity . . . then,

 >Apology to MW #254 (For July 8, 1998)

 >I stood alone with many, there were twenty five or so - on a
 >Sunday evening flying model planes. Some were gas, but few were
 >flying, and were muffled when they were, it was rubber models
 >folks would fly, for time.

 >Pastoral was the evening - no alcohol or drugs, a simple breeze
 >was blowing; It was silent as a slug. The ladies fixed the
 >finger food while the old men flew their dreams; the sky a blue
 >and crystal clear so sharp it leaps and gleams.

 >I see it ('cause I'm looking), but I do not jump or shout - I
 >nudge my nephew Mason, "Hey there, Mace... what's that about"?
 >He looks, his mouth falls open, and he nudges at his Mom, who
 >gets right up, and takes a step, to see it closer, Tom <g>.

 >It's flying slow, too slow my guess, to be a jet or plane. It
 >floats along, majestically, bewitching watching brains. Like a
 >BB held at arms length, but squash it flat - bright white. It
 >coasted by cigar like, and then it drifted out of sight!

 >There was general amazement. There was "what the hell was that"?
 >No one mentioned UFO's, and I was silent as a cat. Someone
 >filled in - "Aircraft"! Other's offered "Blimp." I soto-voiced
 >to Mason, "That's facetious, scared, and limp."

 >The *thing* flew by again, my friend, for the second time of
 >FIVE, and FEWER people watched it - this is what I now confide.
 >The third time fewer _still_ looked up to wonder what it was;
 >the forth was even less than that - the fifth, just me, because
 ><g>.

 >Call them up and ask opinions of the ones who would not look. I
 >doubt that they'd remember, while their peace of mind it took.
 >It reminded them that models are contrived to paint our sky with
 >*things* WE build to fly up there - not the ET's craft surmised.
 >The craft that flew that fateful day they didn't glue together.
 >They didn't sand the fuselage, or build it like a feather. They
 >did not spin the prop they'd bought with rubber they controled;
 >they could not point out, proudly, _their_ invention - rock and
 >roll.

 >The conundrum that we face is like a boil, or a pustule, and the
 >cause of it's neglect we should decry. Those that push _away_
 >the truth to prove their precious 2D motive we should vilify -
 >respectfully, despise.

 >The pustule skin is very near... to breaking - don't you
 >think? The skin of it is hot and tight and dry. Any little touch
 >could have it blow up in our face, but I'd like to clean it out
 >-- at least, I'd think that we should try.....

 >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 >This occured on June 28, 1998, at 18:00 hours on an AAM
 >sanctioned model-airplane flying field outside of Anderson,
 >California. A collection of professional people and a few
 >scientists <g>put wonder behind them, and fixed their
 >attentions on their own comforting and familiar contrivances.
 >They had forgotten that the simple model planes they held in
 >their trembling hands would be perceived as a similar magic not
 >all that far and away into their own _recent_ past.

 >Maybe Tommy Lee Jones was dead on right. In conversation with
 >Will Smith, (an aside to him in MIB), he said, "They don't
 >_want_ to know." Even if "K" crapped out to traditional
 >sensibility. Zed and Jay didn't mind knowing - WANTED to know!
 >I want to know. I know of others who say they want to know...
 >finally, you WILL want to know."

 >Restore John Ford!

 >Denial is an insidious thing we use to make our reality murky -
 >more sand we can push our heads into to escape the unusual, and
 >just another distracting opiate of real people. Refute that
 >denial stridently enough and risk banishment from their company
 >-- I know.

 >Lehmberg@snowhill.com

Hello Alfred,

Well and poetically said. Somewhere about 10-12 years ago I read
a piece about belief in UFOs. I wish now I knew where. The
upshot of the piece was that some scientist when confronted with
his own UFO sighting stated, "It's not that I can't believe
this. I just won't and refuse to believe it."

So much for evidence.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 10

              Re: Three Crashed Saucers With Bodies? - Tonnies

From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 12:38:25 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 10:42:22 +0000
Subject: Re: Three Crashed Saucers With Bodies? - Tonnies


 >Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 13:17:00 -0800 (PST)
 >From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >Subject: Three Crashed Saucers With Bodies?
 >To: UfoUpdates <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >List,

 >I was surprised by UFOCity.com's current 'Document of the Week',
 >which appears to be an FBI memo re. information given to an Air
 >Force investigator.

 >The text is very plainly stated: the AF officer was told by an
 >"informant" that three discs had crashed in NM, each bearing
 >three three-foot tall occupants.

 >I am embarrassed to say I can't remember seeing this document
 >before. Was this a hoax? A joke?

 >(See "Doc. of the Week" at http://www.ufocity.com )


Mac,

It is no joke. I also got the document when I bought the 3 packs
of documents from the Fund for UFO Research.

That document has also been reprinted in one of Linda Howe's
books.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 10

                   Dr. M. A. Persinger Lecture - 12-04-00

From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 12:51:27 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 10:51:56 +0000
Subject: Dr. M. A. Persinger Lecture - 12-04-00


I went, I listened and then, on behalf of all the folks who have
ever had a sighting, but couldn't attend the lecture, I got up
and told Dr. Persinger he was full of crock!....surrounded by a
large audience, on top of that!

Here's an article I wrote about it for the local papers...

Michel

-----

Dr. M. A. Persinger at the Art Gallery of Sudbury

Thursday, December 7, 2000

On the evening of Monday, December 4th, I attended a lecture
given by world-renown neuroscientist Dr. M. A. Persinger at the
Art Gallery of Sudbury. The room was full of people who sat
there, as I did, listening attentively to Dr. Persinger as he
discussed "The Field Biology of Unexplained Events", which
covered a wide spectrum of the unknown, such as ghosts,
poltergeists, aliens, airships and UFOs.

The basic premise of his lecture, it seemed to me, was that in
one way or another, these phenomena, which have been witnessed
by thousands of people for centuries, were the direct or
indirect results of stimuli produced by the brain, in the
presence of electromagnetic fields of various strengths. He
stipulated that luminous events primarily precede the occurrence
of the more intense manifestations of tectonic strain
earthquakes, or so it was written in the brochure given to the
audience. Somehow, the energy released by these earthquakes has
an adverse effect on people, making them see things that aren't
really there or their perception has been affected in such a way
that they are misinterpreting what they are actually seeing,
which is a natural phenomena.

To the inexperienced person who is unfamiliar with true UFO
reports, these explanations would seem to make sense. But to
those of us who have seen these things with our own eyes...us
meaning ordinary citizens, police officers, civilian and
military pilots, firefighters, lawyers, judges, mine workers,
(some) astronomers, aerospace engineers, astronauts, cosmonauts,
and so on, there is no doubt that there are things out
there...and down here...that seem to defy the known laws of
physics.

During the lecture, he presented some news clippings taken from
the Sudbury Star about the famous Falconbridge UFO incident that
occurred in the fall of 1975...a case I am very familiar with.
He went on to mention the Creighton Fault Line and sightings of
balls of light that have been seen in the Sudbury area at the
time. What he failed to mention was the fact that some of these
objects were not only seen visually, but also tracked on two
different types of radar! I know this because I happen to have
in my possession the actual reports made to the Falconbridge
radar base at the time, and what was seen were not balls of
light, but structured objects! And witnessed by several people,
including regional police officers and a nursing staff at
Pioneer Manor, just to name a few.

Dr. Persinger also alluded to the cattle or animal mutilation
syndrome by mentioning another famous case, that of Snippy the
horse (real name: Lady) and the fatal wound the animal suffered
as a result of an encounter with the above-mentioned balls of
light...IF the audience is to believe what was said about it.
I'll get to the facts of that case very shortly.

But first, the Falconbridge UFO incident. I quote the following
seven reports:

Nursing Staff At Pioneer Manor Sudbury Ont. (Six Nurses) They
wish to remain anonymous:

11 Nov 75 - it seemed to hover over Sudbury Stadium. One object
very bright and very low at first and suddenly shot into the
sky. One hr 55 min. It was still visible when Sudbury Regional
Police arrived at 0955z."

Constables Chrapchynski and Deighton, Sudbury Regional Police:

4 objects were observed clearly in the sky. The brightest in the
east remained in a stationary position. One in the southwest
moved at times in a jerky motion. One in the northwest remained
stationary. The one in the northeast was the dimmest, also
stationary. They were still plainly visible after day break when
all regular bright objects in the sky had disappeared. Seen
intermittently for 1 hour.'

Constables Keables & Whiteside, Sudbury Regional Police

One object at times it appeared to be cylindrical with shafts of
light bright enough to light up clouds in immediate area it
appeared at times to travel in circles. At one point it came
quite close. It was still visible to the naked eye after the sun
came up. The above observations were made with the use of
binoculars.'

Constable Marsh - Sudbury Regional Police:

One very bright star-like object moving in a jerky circular
manner. When covered with clouds it was still bright enough to
shine through as well as light up an area around it. While
observing this object he saw two other similar objects, one in
the south and one southwest of Coniston. All seemed to be moving
in a jerky circular manner. They seemed to emit a pulsating type
of light varying in colours. Easily distinguishable from the
stars."

Constables Ryan & Lederoute, Sudbury Regional Police:

One bright white object appeared to be over the north end of the
city of Sudbury, moving in a north westerly direction at a high
rate of speed. 1 min., Then covered by a large cloud."

Captain Carson, Mcpl Kreutz & Cpl Lawrenson - CFS Falconbridge:

Circular object, brilliantly lighted with two black spots in
centre moving upwards at high speed from 42,000 ft to 72,000 ft.
(no horizontal movement) this object was sighted visually and by
radar bearing 210 degrees magnetic at 30 nm from CFS
Falconbridge. Major Oiver took pictures but is not sure if they
will turn out. A similar object was sighted by the same
observers bearing 270 magnetic but at too great a distance to
provide details. Many other reports were received from Sudbury
Ontario Provincial Police."

Maj. Oliver, Capt. Carson & Cpl. Lauritsen - CFS Falconbridge:

Spherical shaped and appeared to be rotating. Appeared to have
surface area similar to the moon and was ascending and
descending. 2 hrs intermittently due to cloud cover. Observed on
height finder radar and search. Position 210 degrees 30 miles
alt 42,000 ft at 1115z. Position 200 degrees 30 miles alt 50,000
ft at 1120z. Position 190 degrees 25 miles alt 72,000 ft at
1129z."

My colleague Todd Fraser and I also have in our possession NORAD
teletypes linking the UFO intrusion at Falconbridge with 4 other
key U.S. bases which had security breaches during the two weeks
preceding this event. Some of these military facilities
consisted of nuclear weapon storage areas that were highly
restricted. Some of these bright objects were seen in close
proximity to these installations and witnessed by base security
personnel.

The other UFO-related phenomena which was briefly discussed at
the lecture was the case of Lady (Snippy) the horse, the first
publicized report of an animal mutilation that occurred in
September 1967 in an area of the San Luis Valley of Colorado,
known to be a hot bed of UFO sightings. The following excerpts
were taken from a book entitled "An Alien Harvest - Further
Evidence Linking Animal Mutilations And Human Abductions To
Alien Life Forms" by Linda Moulton Howe, with her
permission...pp 1-4: "Lady was a healthy 3-year-old Appaloosa
who belonged to Harry (King)'s sister, Nellie, and her husband
Berle Lewis. Each evening, Lady went back to the ranch for water
where her mother, Snippy, was corralled. But Lady didn't show up
on September 8. Harry found her lying on her side near the edge
of a small, flat clearing in the chico bush. Her body had been
stripped of flesh from the neck up. The exposed skeleton was so
white and clean it looked like it had/aid in the sun for days.
But Harry knew he had seen her alive and well two nights before.
The rest of Lady's body was untouched. Harry said 'That neck was
cut so smooth it couldn't have been done even with a sharp
hunting knife.' Berle Lewis said that when they searched the
ground, Lady's tracks stopped about 100 feet southeast of her
body."

Dr. John H. Altshuler, a doctor of pathology and hematology who
studied at McGill University, was working as a pathologist at
Rose Medical Center in Denver, Colorado in 1967. He is now
Assistant Clinical Professor of Medicine (Hematology) and
Pathology at the University of Colorado Health

"When I got close to the horse, I could see that it was also cut
from the neck down to the base of the chest in a vertical, clean
incision. At the edge of the cut, there was a darkened color as
if the flesh had been opened and cauterized with a surgical
cauterizing blade. The outer edges of the cut skin were firm,
almost as if they had been cauterized with a modern day laser.
But there was no surgical laser technology like that in 1967.
Today when we use cauterizing to control bleeding, the flesh
still has a soft pliable feeling. But the edges of that horse
cut were stiff, leathery and a bit hardened. I cut tissue
samples from the hard, darker edge. Later, I viewed the tissue
under a microscope. At the cell level, there was discoloration
and destruction consistent with changes caused by burning. Most
amazing was the lack of blood. I have done hundreds of
autopsies. You can't cut into a body without getting some blood.
But there was no blood on the skin or on the ground. No blood
anywhere. That impressed me the most. Then inside the horse's
chest, I remember the lack of organs. Whoever did the cutting
took the horse's heart, lungs, and thyroid. The mediasternum was
completely empty - and dry. How do you get the heart out without
blood? It was an incredible dissection of organs without any
evidence of blood."

"Today I have enough confidence in my reputation and ability
that I am no longer afraid to say that I saw three UFOs that
night above the sand dune valley in September 1967', and
examined the horse that was surgically worked on with some kind
of burning instrument."

Any intelligent reader can see that the information I've
provided above highly contradicts what had been said at the
lecture. Just like Paul Kurtz, Joe Nickell and Philip Klass of
CSICOP (Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of
the Paranormal), and Jill Tarter and Dr. Seth Shostak of
S.E.T.I. (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence), Dr.
Persinger's approach to the UFO subject is actually
Investigation By Proclamation, not by doing "real science" as he
puts it. Remember the Debunker's Motto: "Don't bother me with
the facts; my mind is already made up!"

For more information on animal mutilations and related matters,
log on to Earthfiles.com.

Cordially,

Michel M. Deschamps
MUFON Provincial Section Director for Sudbury, Ontario
& 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 >
   Dec > Dec 10

                       Re: Reluctant Viewers - Ledger

From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 14:09:40 +0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 10:54:28 +0000
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Ledger


 >From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 12:29:12 -0500

 >>From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 11:23:34 +0000
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers

 >>I used that Vancouver incident in Maritime UFO Files to
 >>illustrate a point. But I'm still uncertain as to why many can
 >>overcome curiosity and resist the impulse to "look up" when
 >>something really incredible is happening so close to them.

 >>In the Vancouver case what happened to scientific curiosity?. It
 >>was a least a chance for many of them to observe first hand and
 >>see what all of the fuss was about then in the future be able to
 >>smugly deny the phenomenon siting first hand experience. Perhaps
 >>they had reservations, and that they would not be able to deny
 >>the phenomenon, preferring the devil they knew.... At least one
 >>scientist could have had the presence of mind to say, "Here's our
 >>chance to put this one to rest, once and for all."

 >Hi, Don.

 >Not everyone is interested in experiencing something new,
 >unusual, edgy, or strange. That's true in all areas of life, I'm
 >afraid. I don't see people flocking out to buy the CD reissue of
 >Lou Reed's "Metal Machine Music."

 >But with UFOs, I think there's a huge emotional factor, which we
 >observe in UFO debates. Some people stampede to believe, some
 >people stampede not to believe. The tortured reasoning we see
 >from both believers and skeptics is evidence, at least for me,
 >that high emotions are in play.

 >James Oberg, in a phone interview with me, described it best. We
 >(as a species) are on the edge of space, he said, or words to
 >that effect. So we're swamped with fantasies of what we'll find
 >there. He framed this in a skeptical tone, of course, as a way
 >of accounting for what he feels are UFO delusions. But his point
 >applies just as well to skeptics. They, fearing what would
 >happen if we encounter aliens, scramble to deny that any are
 >here. (And yes, I know that UFOs, if they're really visitors of
 >some kind, don't have to be from space -- yada yada yada yada.
 >My point applies just as well for any intrusion from the
 >beyond.)

 >Another soundbite in this area comes from Michael Swords, who
 >observed a strange gap in scientific theorizing. It's
 >respectable, among scientists, to believe that intelligent
 >aliens exist, but that interstellar travel is impossible (the
 >SETI crowd). It's also respectable to believe that interstellar
 >travel is possible, but that there aren't any other intelligent
 >races (the space colonization crowd). But there isn't any
 >identifiable group of scientists that combines these views, to
 >believe that aliens exist _and_ that interstellar travel is
 >possible -- probably because then they'd have to seriously
 >entertain the possibility of alien visits, and that's just too
 >scary.

 >I've written an essay about this, called "Who's Afraid of UFOs,"
 >which you can find on my website:

 >http://www.gregsandow.com/ufo/Contents/Who_s_Afraid_of_UFOs_/who_
 >s_afraid_of_ufos_.htm.



Hello Greg,

Before I read your email to the list I read one by Alfred
Lehmberg and at the end I noted this reluctance by the learned
to accept what may be staring them in the face. This is the gap
that you speak of. There is, as you say, always an excuse, never
outright scientific proof. Distance and time. To me neither
plays as an answer. One [time] can negate the other [distance]
but not necessarily the other way around. Too much distance but
there's plenty of time to overcome both technology growth and
cover the distance-to here, not because they were aware of this
little ball of ours but because they stumbled across it.
Distance to the edge of the universe negates time as an
advantage but not halfway to the edge-or even further. That
still about 7.5 billion years. Let's say like us, 5 billion to
evolve, leaving 2.5 billion to sniff around the near universe.
Give us a thousand years and what will we be doing-assuming that
we don't [using that old saw] kill ourselves off-which I don't
believe for a moment.

We have to overcome this belief of ours that we will always
adhere to the family unit, because that's what always gets in
the way of travelling at the speed of light or much lower
numbers. We don't like the idea of being separated from loved
ones, our children and our grandchildren -forever. We assume
that other intelligence races have the same quams.

If some intelligence managed, a few thousand but even better a
few hundred thousands of years ago, to slip the bonds of time
and family attachments then they would never have to look back.
They either become pure nomads or have managed somehow to stay
connected with their own kind, perhaps expanding in some linear
fashion outwards into their own system, their own galaxy and
then across intersteller space and into some other galaxie.

I don't have that problem with time that seems to bug some
others. Time is a problem for the observer, not for the
traveller-and there's lots of it. What have we got, another 15
billion years before this apparently rapidly expanding universe
of ours, dies out?

I don't think it's that simple. we are only limited by
imagination which seems to expand as we discover new
technologies.

SETI would suffer by the discovery of ET here and now. They seem
to believe in intelligent life in the universe, but have those
convienient distance and time limitations as an excuse as to why
they aren't here now. Without those limitations, they could be
out of a job.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 10

                        Re: Reluctant Viewers - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 10:44:12 -0800
Fwd Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 10:59:08 +0000
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Hatch


 >From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 20:57:12 EST
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 00:47:42 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers

 >>>From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 13:19:24 +0000
 >>>Subject: Reluctant Viewers

 >>>Recently while perusing Jerry Clark's 'The UFO Book' I came
 >>>across the famous Tehran, Iran CE 2 case. At the outset it
 >>>mentions that several reports to Mehrabad airport of a lighted
 >>>object in the vicinity were ignored until finally tower
 >>>controller Houssain Perouzi decided to look for himself -

<snip>

 >>Whenever somebody starts talking religion, I sort of back out of
 >>the room so they won't see me rolling my eyes.

<snip>

 >>There are plenty of very ordinary reasons for this behavior.

<snip>

 >>If somebody said "Look! A UFO!" I would certainly look. Maybe
 >>I would finally see one after all these years! More likely, I
 >>would learn yet again, how little it takes to make a 'UFO'.

 >>Best wishes

 >>- Larry Hatch

 >Hello, Larry, Errol and readers,

 >Interesting how right you are, Lawrence. It is easy to make a
 >UFO. But it's not so easy to make a real UFO. To me, a real UFO
 >is not merely an unidentified craft.

Dear Sir Jimbo di Gripple:

Here, as in some Nevada casino, I simply play the odds.

Most "UFO sightings" are sheer and utter junk, Period. Others, a
few at least, are extremely interesting, or I would never have
started to catalog them.

 >To me it is a real thing, a thing, a conveyance, which I've seen
 >with my own eyes in the presence of witnesses on some occasions.
 >A thing which many others have seen and photographed. I refer to
 >those UFO's which are not made, or faked. To me, a UFO is a very
 >real thing. It's what you log on your own great software...

I never suggested otherwise! It is, however, the entire
abduction/missing time scene which gives me (and you) the
shakes. Perhaps I am as guilty as the timid biologist who would
not lift a stone for fear of finding improperly coloured
salamanders.

 >Not only have I seen one or six, but I have been privileged to
 >perceive myself in one or ten. To me, a UFO is very real.

An "abductee" is almost by definition going to have multiple
experiences, or sightings. What those objectively amount to
is anybody's conjecture.

What I object to is some non-abductee who sees "genuine UFOs"
every few weeks .. to the tune of 10 or 20 in the space of just
a few years. Anybody who has ever thrown dice in Reno can tell
you how likely that is. A mathematician will tear such
assertions to pieces in short order, but I digress.

 >Having said that, and since you are quite right, a UFO is easy
 >to make and photograph, and since some sane and educated people
 >have seen things which we know are not made, then we have a
 >problem. One which has been around for more than half a century.
 >Likely a lot longer. A dichotomy exists which defines the
 >problem.... eh, eh, eh, for EBK.

I am not calling all UFOs fake. I think the Mexico City video is
a blatant fake. I give it a rating of 2 Adamskis [ on an
unofficial scale of zero to three ] and hope you concur.

 >Which is the problem. Easy to fake. Not easy to fool some of us,
 >though. As real as the back of my hand. As real as the
 >triangular marks on my arm which one day just appeared and which
 >no doctor or dermatologist can define. Not self-inflicted. Can't
 >reach there, eh?

Again, you gotta be there! I'm willing to listen. Heck! I used
to rot my brains an hour a week in church. Worse yet, the
Catholics would throw these " Holy Days of Obligation " ( some
special saint or whatever ) and you had to go to church onna
friggin Wednesday or sompin!!!

The only thing I can compare to that is a UFO convention.

I only saw one UFO convention/gathering/hootenanny, call it what
you will, and that was that. One doofus was selling astral love
beads by the ounce. Some German mystic lady was holding court
with what looked like sexual deviates. Her blonde hair was dyed
with various colors and flavors of Kool-Aid. Somewhere, a guy
from MUFON was droning on.. and on - but I digress.

 >As real as the memories. Real. As real as Larry Flint and just
 >as big. And just as disabled. It's what they say of us. Mental
 >defectives, abused kids, people looking for fame and money. Yah,
 >and the check is in the mail. And "Don't worry sweetheart, I'm
 >sterile."

Whatever you do, do _not_ videotape the UFO(s). That will make
them suspicious and overly cautious. Instead, just grab some
innocuous object... a dinner fork say, or if they are
mechanical, maybe a loose ball bearing. Even some metal filings
might help.

Ask to use the toilet and steal the knob off the water tap.
Former Soviets will have long since pinched any toilet
tissues.

 >That's what the phenom is. That's what the witnesses are.
 >Maligned. Tested. Abused. Accused. Worse. No, not by my good
 >friend Lawrence of Hatchdom. But by so many others.

Dear Jimmy: I do not malign you (although I am sometimes
tempted! HAAH!) The fact is that I do not know what to make of
the entire abduction scene. Maybe there do exist orange glowing
salamanders, just under some flat rock.

 >Why, Larry, would someone, oh, say like me, wish to make himself
 >a target of those who will malign me. Why would the likes of me
 >wish to make himself out to be something which he is not, fake
 >it, make it all up, if indeed I must expose myself to abuse
 >worse than you may imagine. I'm too damned proud for that. I
 >value my reputation, my accomplishments and my career, even in
 >semiretirement.

This is exactly what convinces me of your sincerity. That's not
to say you are not full of lasagna mind you, but I take what you
say as your honest word.

 >I recently got thrown off a board because I am out of my closet.
 >I recently became anathema to someone who I thought wore the
 >white hat. Why would I take the abuse of not only acquaintances,
 >but business associates, some relatives and people who should
 >really have a much more open mind and intellect??? Why?

Because, you have your particular strong memories, beliefs and
perceptions, and you dare speak them out.

 >Because the truth as I know it to be must be told. Even if just
 >one person out there takes solace from another's experiences and
 >suffering, it's worth all the abuse and personal indignity and
 >embarrassment.

 >Even from my so-called fellow abductee(s). Even from them. And
 >to take THEIR abuse is the worst kind of humiliation. The _very_
 >worst kind. I've even suffered that.

 >Larry, the truth be known, it's easy to make a fake UFO. But
 >worse, it's even easier to make an experiencer into a fake.

I _never_ suggested that. Period. What I'm saying is simply this:
I will never have the degree of understanding or belief, that
you and others have so clearly expressed, until and unless I see
it with my own eyes.

 >Isn't it interesting that people doubt what they have not seen.
 >I'll bet the condo, Larry, that if you could see what I've seen,
 >you'd be in our camp. Toot sweet. I'll bet the condo, _both_ of
 >them!

 >Love and respect,

 >John Smith

Best, and 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 >
   Dec > Dec 10

                        Re: Reluctant Viewers - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 11:05:30 -0800
Fwd Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 11:04:58 +0000
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Hatch


 >From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Ledger
 >Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 19:35:20 -0800

 >>From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 11:52:46 +0000
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers

 >>>From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 19:07:02 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>>From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>>Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 13:19:24 +0000
 >>>>Subject: Reluctant Viewers

 >><snip>

 >>>>Closer to home, my own daughter [at the age of 12] saw a large,
 >>>>edge-lit, blimp-shaped object in the sky ..

<snip>

 >>Hi Jim,

 >>The "switched off" effect has risen its head more than a few
 >>times in the interviews I've done over the last 8 years or so.
 >>Like others I've had a wife or husband remark about how they
 >>tried to wake a sleeping partner to no avail when strange
 >>occurrances began to happen in the room.

 >>Your experience reminds me of one told to me by a women in her
 >>30s of when she was 15 years old and when she was "lost" once
 >>when she was only four. A little boy brought her out of the
 >>forest then left her for the searchers to find. She vaguely
 >>remembers being on a picnic and then her parents fell asleep and
 >>she couldn't wake them. She ended up getting lost. In this case
 >>though she's not sure if her parents falling asleep really
 >>happened or if she dreamed that part. She was however, really
 >>lost, as she has been reminded by relatives over the years.

 >This whole reluctant viewer thread reminds me of a guy I knew
 >who flew fire patrol with me. One day we were over a National
 >Forest in Oregon, I causually remarked, "Gee you could hide a
 >herd of Elephants down there!" when we were chasing a smoke. He
 >said: "Ah do you believe in Bigfoot?" I was a bit non-plussed,
 >and not wanting to say: "Well I seen a UFO too!" as a slightly
 >sarcastic (but truthful) remark.

 >He then related a story that he was an observer in a whole
 >planeload of people (Cessna 206 = 6 people) this was not during
 >fire season or even a Government flight just some folks on a
 >pleasure flight to a local resort. He always looked out the
 >window partly as habit because of his observer's training and
 >partly out of _curiousity_ the word that gets any student of the
 >anomalous in trouble.

 >They were flying along above the forest in the western part of
 >the State of Oregon, actually I can't remember which one I think
 >it the Umqua or Willamette, (and some folk have trouble with the
 >name Rendalsham) on their way to a resort called Sunriver near
 >Bend, Oregon.

 >So, on a cool fall, evening but still daylight,as they were
 >motoring along at, oh, 7000 feet or so, he saw a figure packing
 >a Deer (dead) over its shoulder, the Deer was a buck, and of
 >unkown species, as Blacktail and Mule Deer could be present in
 >the area.

 >The figure was tall with the Buck over it's shoulder, and
 >walking with it like it was, oh, a small child over it's
 >shoulder. Also, it was very hairy, like an ape - he figured they
 >were a few hundred feet away, as this was on a ridge they were
 >flying by. My friend said:"Hey look at that!"- no one looked.

 >The Pilot said: "Hey it's deer season. Just some guy packing out
 >his kill." - end of story.
 >
 >GT McCoy

Hello GT et. at.:

Somehow, I got it in my mind that the Bigfoot critters only ate
nuts and berries. Maybe the occasional tortille chips left by
campers and backpackers.

Deer meat is reminiscent of a (possibly fanciful) picture of
early hominids, all in their early 20s, and none very
prepossessing. One of these shows a younger looking clan or
family member dragging a dead deer past the cave ( instead of
INTO to cave ) while daddy tends to the fire, and a rather
unprepossessing Mamma complains about the lack of amenities.

I saw this in a book somewhere, so I suppose its true.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 10

                     Re: Reluctant Viewers - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 14:08:55 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 11:06:28 +0000
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Mortellaro


 >Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 13:10:52 -0800 (PST)
 >From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 00:47:42 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers

 ><snip>

 >>There are plenty of very ordinary reasons for this behavior.
 >>As long as the press plays up the quacks and nut cases at the
 >>expense of serious UFO students, we can expect the public to
 >>sort of roll their eyes, and quietly back out of the room.

 >>If they actually look at the UFO (often just a light) they
 >>risk getting dragged into some argument over what >was actually
 >>seen.

 >>If they ignore it or simply look away, all this is >avoided.

 ><snip>

 >This reminds me of the UFO sightings over the hotel where
 >members the Robertson Panel (?) was staying. (Maybe it was a
 >restaurant; whatever the building was, it's immaterial for
 >purposes of this anecdote...)

 >Anyway, the panel's raison d'etre was to investigate UFOs.
 >Someone entered the building talking of the weird lights right
 >outside.

 >Not one of the scientists present bothered to get up from his
 >chair.

"Something is happening here, but you don't know what it is ...
do you, Mr. Jones?"

Are not all scientists named Smith or Jones?

John Smith





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 10

                Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability? -

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 11:52:07 -0800
Fwd Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 11:08:21 +0000
Subject: Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability? -


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 13:10:46 EST
 >Subject: Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability?
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 09:42:59 -0800
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Analytical Question #1: Falsifiability?

 >Jim, you are perfectly welcome to serve as our expert specialist
 >on UFO deception tactics. Please feel free to fill us in on what
 >you can tell us about this subject as appropriate. I don't know
 >anyone else who has studied such matters so we'll all be able to
 >benefit from what you've learned.

Brad, I've already pointed to Stan Gordon as one who has long
known or suspected the alien strategy of deception -- to at
times disguise their craft as man-made vehicles, or even natural
phenomena, except that they also leave behind plenty of clues to
indicate it could not have been man-made or natural.

Have you actually missed this, over the years? We've all noted,
for example, the numerous nighttime UFO reports wherein the UFO
exhibited red, green and white lights. These are of course the
colors of standard aircraft navigational lights. Yet their other
behavior was bizarre in one or more aspects, causing the UFO
report in the first place. The Brazilian AF encounter of May 19,
1986, was of this nature (e.g., noted on pp. 511-512 of Greer's
_Extraterrestrial Contact_).

 >One point of disagreement I
 >have is that since we are capable of deception and stealth
 >tactics at our level of technology -- and lower -- it is not
 >logically required that aliens be at a higher level to do so.

The logic that their level of ethics, not just technology, is
higher than ours stems from the ethics shown by the consequences
of their strategy. For over 50 years now they have refrained
from presenting themselves in such a decisive manner to society
as a whole that chaos would envelop our societies, orthodox
scientific minds would be driven beserk, and orthodox
religionists would be driven to despair or suicide. This was
accomplished by the dual strategy I've already covered on this
forum.

Added to this, of course, is the fact that they haven't tried to
take over our planet, subjegate or kill us. Instead, they've
given us 53 years of gradual education concerning their
presence, capabilities, diversity, etc. This indicates a high
level of ethics, does it not, as well as great patience on the
part of the aliens.

 >>In the Mexico City case, which prompted this line of discussion
 >>in the first place, it is the witnesses, as well as the
 >>realistic manner in which Maussan came into possession of the
 >>video, plus its realistic features, which requires us to examine
 >>the likelihood that advanced alien technology and strategy
 >>explains the anomalous feature of the video. Ignoring the
 >>witnesses just does not work in this case.

 >>Jim Deardorff

 >The latest report on the Mexico City case you just posted here
 >on UFO UpDates reveals new evidence of outright fraud and a
 >series of suspicious circumstances suggestive of fraud. ...

Rather, they indicate more the need for whatever further
information can be gleaned, as Daniel Munoz and others have been
trying for ever since.

There's no reason why discrepancies in selected testimony, which
could be caused by insufficient or incorrectly interpreted
information, need cause one to ignore sincere eyewitness
testimony.

 >1. There is a serious date discrepancy in that the
 >photographer's company did not until Sept. 17, 1997, even occupy
 >the penthouse offices from where the video was allegedly taken
 >during company consulting work purportedly done on Aug. 6 (the
 >date imprint on the video itself). This contradiction of the
 >video imprint date indicates fraud.

Not necessarily so at all. It merely indicates lack of
sufficient information, due to the perceived need by certain
witnesses to maintain their anonymity, so that they will not be
subject to false charges and revilement by non-witnesses.

There are various possibilities that could explain the
discrepancy. Are you unable to think of any? One is that a small
amount of office space was made available to the boss and a few
of his key workers by early August or before, with the majority
of the office force not moving into adjacent offices until they
were readied on Sept. 17th.

Another possibility is that what Pedro Ramirez was told was
incorrect in one way or another.

It is always easier to jump to the conclusion of "hoax" than to
think of realistic alternatives for minor, discrepant
information.

 >2. A video processing imprint which when found led to the
 >discovery that the video is not the original but was processed
 >on the company's "professional video equipment" -- which leads
 >to the suspicion that the whole video was fabricated using that
 >same equipment.

This is just a wild speculation, since the witnesses' testimony
indicates the UFO was very real.

 >3. The revelation that there is additional video footage that
 >hasn't been released, about 15 seconds' worth. It is also
 >unclear whether the audio track has ever been fully investigated
 >since it has apparently never been released publicly.

It would be very good indeed to have this part, if it (still)
exists, released. It suggests that the woman whose voice was on
the audio track did not wish to risk that she would be
identified.

 >4. Worst of all, the photographer's coworkers reportedly deny
 >that anyone among them took the UFO video.

Would such a denial be any different than what we hear from a
lot of scientists that (genuine) UFOs don't or can't exist? The
reasons for such denial are similar. Fear of ridicule from
colleagues or bosses, fear of losing one's job, and possible
fear of upsetting one's own world outlook, are powerful reasons
for denial.

Alternatively, these co-workers may have been others than the
videographer himself and the one or two co-workers with him.

 >5. Apparently, the identity of the video photographer in the
 >Mexico City case is still unknown and he is still uninterviewed
 >after more than 3 years. His identity according to the just
 >posted report is being withheld by a coworker named Emilio
 >Osorio.

And the reasons for this are apparent to you, from Munoz's
report.

 >As for the alleged eyewitnesses, there is no proof that they are
 >eyewitnesses of the same event purportedly recorded on the
 >video.

This is because the "proof" you seem to require would be another
video, or some photographs. This is the plea we often hear: if
there are only 10 witnesses, twenty are wanted. If there is only
one video, two are wanted, etc.

 >There is no credible evidence yet presented that these
 >witnesses had any ability to determine the exact date some 2
 >months or more after the fact assuming it was really August 6,
 >1997,

This can happen, when the search for witnesses has to commence
only after some 7 weeks have elapsed. Thus, one need not require
that the date be "exact," but rather, approximate. If one of
them had kept a diary, however, and acknowledged it, that would
have been good.

Munoz's report mentioned that Casandra told the interviewers the
day of the week it occurred -- on a Wednesday, and there's only
one chance in about 6 that this would have been correct if it
had been some different UFO she saw. Thus, such evidence is
credible in supporting the video.

The weather, as described by the witness, Annie Lask, was
cloudy, which is consistent with a weather report for that date
that Bruce Maccabee mentioned in one of his files on the case.

Her younger brother, David, placed the event at two months
before he saw the TV recording of the video. The actual elapsed
time, then, had been 52 days, for which "two months" is a very
adequate description.

 >and that in fact the incident(s) they describe may well
 >have occurred in Sept 1997 and has nothing to do with the
 >alleged video other than that the tv broadcast of the video on
 >Sept. 27 brought them out.

This wouldn't "in fact" be the case, unless your additional UFO
looked like the one in the video. I believe that other skeptics
prefer to think that a UFO sighting occurred prior to Aug. 6th,
and so prompted a subsequent video hoax on Aug. 6th.

 >Other incidents including a possible physiological effects case
 >on Sept. 25 and a sighting on Sept. 29 turned up which might
 >suggest that any real UFO cases occurred in September and have
 >nothing to do with the Aug. 6 video date.

Munoz's report, as mentioned above, supports the Aug. 6th date,
however, and was thorough enough to included mention of these
later events.

 >Bruce Maccabee has
 >noted other discrepancies between witness accounts and the video
 >which suggest the two are not related - see:

 >http://www.aliensonearth.com/ufo/updates/2000/dec/m08-005.shtml

However, those just indicate the need for further information
and clarification, if possible. They do not negate any of the
evidence indicating that the event had occurred on or around
Aug. 6th.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 10

                     Re: Reluctant Viewers - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 15:03:12 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 11:10:59 +0000
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Mortellaro


 >From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 14:51:33 -0000

 >>From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >>Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 12:29:12 -0500

 >Greg wrote:

 >>James Oberg, in a phone interview with me, described it best. We
 >>(as a species) are on the edge of space, he said, or words to
 >>that effect. So we're swamped with fantasies of what we'll find
 >>there. He framed this in a skeptical tone, of course, as a way
 >>of accounting for what he feels are UFO delusions. But his point
 >>applies just as well to skeptics. They, fearing what would
 >>happen if we encounter aliens, scramble to deny that any are
 >>here. (And yes, I know that UFOs, if they're really visitors of
 >>some kind, don't have to be from space -- yada yada yada yada.
 >>My point applies just as well for any intrusion from the
 >>beyond.)

 >I felt it necessary to comment on this as it appears to be a
 >conceit believers in ET use to make a case against sceptics. And
 >it's rubbish of the most peurile variety.

Hey, Andy, Errol, Sargon from Mongo and the dreaded List,

First, stop using them big words. And if you must, try real hard
not to do what I do all the time... not use my speel cheeker. It's
terribly puerile to use peurile when you mean childish. Although
I may concur with you, not just yet. Lemme read more first. Wait....

 >I have come across more than a few ufological sceptics (note I
 >say sceptic and not debunker - though I realise many on this
 >List have difficulty understanding the difference) in my time
 >and broadly speaking they fall into two categories:

Andy, Andy, Andy... sceptics are not in this post again, are
they? Perhaps you meant "skeptics?" Hey, allow me to hep yous
and let yous borree my speek cheeler... cheeker, whatever. I
must tell you this, whilst a kiss is just a kiss, I've never met
a sceptic (or skeptic) I didn't like. Never.

 >* Those who would _love_ for life elsewhere to exist and to be
 >proven to have visited us. They are usually sceptics by dint of
 >years of investigation and research which has led them to that
 >position.

 >and

 >* Those who don't give a flying one whether ET (or in fact
 >anything else exists) but are interested in belief, story
 >transmission, perception, proof, evidence and how it all
 >conspires together to produce folklore du jour.

Hey, you are in that same sinking ship that leaves out the
erudite, the educated, the professional, et Al, (can't forget
Al) who have seen and/or experienced UFO's or ET, or the
perception thereto... thereof... whatever.

 >For the record I fall into the second category.

And for the record, I fall down a lot, too... I do! But I also
fit into that third category which you and Greg appear to have
distanced yourselves from. From which you and Greg have
distanced yourselves.

The experiencer. Moi. And many others. Some even with a damned
good edukashun. Like yous. And me.

 >So I'm afraid that Greg's pre-school theorising is way off the
 >mark.

I agree, for the very first time tonight. You should feel
vindictive. Vindicated, I meant.

 >Ah well, back to the Luke Wills Rhythm Busters (Jerry C will
 >understand).

I understand, Andy... and me? Back to Rainy Day Woman and
Subterranean Homesick Blues. Not to mention "his" conversion to
Christianity before going back to his roots as a Jew. Cheeses,
for a poet laureate, this guy sure do change pairs of dimes a
lot. Whaddya think, eh?

 >Happy Trails

Happy trails to you too. Until (pregnant pause) we meet (yet
another one) again.


Jim Jones





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 10

               Re: Three Crashed Saucers With Bodies? - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 15:09:00 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 11:13:09 +0000
Subject: Re: Three Crashed Saucers With Bodies? - Sparks


 >Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 10:45:40 -0500
 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Re: Three Crashed Saucers With Bodies? - Tonnies
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 13:17:00 -0800 (PST)
 >>From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >>Subject: Three Crashed Saucers With Bodies?
 >>To: UfoUpdates <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>List,

 >>I was surprised by UFOCity.com's current 'Document of the Week',
 >>which appears to be an FBI memo re. information given to an Air
 >>Force investigator.

 >>The text is very plainly stated: the AF officer was told by an
 >>"informant" that three discs had crashed in NM, each bearing
 >>three three-foot tall occupants.

 >>I am embarrassed to say I can't remember seeing this document
 >>before. Was this a hoax? A joke?

 >>(See "Doc. of the Week" at http://www.ufocity.com )

 >This document is mentioned briefly in my book, 'The UFO-FBI
 >Connection'.

 >The document itself is not a fake. It was in the package of
 >documents released by the FBI.

 >However, as nealy as can be determined after researching the
 >context of the document, it refers to the claim by Silas Newton
 >that 3 saucers with bodies had crashed in New Mexico. This claim
 >was made publicly in March, 1950, just before the FBI document
 >was written.

 >Newton and Leo GeBauer apparently invented the story in 1949 in
 >order to claim that a "doodlebug" device for locating oil had
 >been built based on alien technology. The intent was to "con"
 >some oil investors in buying rights to the doodlebug...and
 >thereby make $$$$.

 >The Newton-GeBauer story was incorporated into Frank Scully's
 >book Behind the Flying Saucers (1950)

 >I made an FOIA request to the FBI many years ago for information
 >on the "investigator for the Air Forces" but got no further
 >information. (Actually, in the initial release of documents,
 >which I obtained in 1977, the "investigator for the Air forces"
 >was crossed out. Only in later years did they "admit" that the
 >source was someone (supposedly) associated with the Air Force.

 >I should point out that,more inmportant than this document, is
 >what happened afterward. Quoting from my book, CHAPTER 14:

 >In late March, 1950, FBI headquarters received from Guy Hottel,
 >the SAC for Washington state, a memorandum which stated that "an
 >investigator for the Air Forces" had told Mr. Hottel that three
 >crashed saucers had been recovered in New Mexico, along with 9
 >bodies of 3 foot tall aliens. It turned out that this report was
 >based on a hoax, but the FBI didn�t know that at the time. The
 >importance of this report is what it caused J. Edgar to do. He
 >asked Special Assistant D.M. Ladd to ask the Air Force "just
 >what are the facts re 'flying saucers?'"
<SNIP>

Hi Bruce,

One small correction.

Guy Hottel was SAC (Special Agent in Charge) of the Washington,
D.C., FBI field office, not of "Washington state". There was no
such thing as a Washington State field office, there were field
offices in Seattle and I think Spokane.

The significance of this is that the FBI had two separate
elements operating in Washington, D.C., the National
Headquarters and the Washington Field Office (in later years
abbreviated WFO).

The HQ dealt with high level national matters whereas the
Washington Field Office dealt with local area investigations,
including information provided by sources in the Pentagon, which
is where I suspect this rumor came from and why so little info
is known about it - it had to go through the WFO then HQ which
provided a certain amount of distance in the transmission line.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 10

                   Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 20:57:39 -0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 12:01:21 +0000
Subject: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles


Forwarded from Nick Pope

Issue 142 of Fortean Times contained a review of Georgina
Bruni's new book on the Bentwaters case, "You Can't Tell The
People". The review was written by Jenny Randles and as she's
someone who has written extensively about the Rendlesham Forest
mystery, I was expecting a fair and comprehensive assessment of
the book. Sadly, this didn't happen.

Jenny dammed the book with faint praise, saying Georgina had
made "a decent stab" at covering the case, and referring to "a
promising first book". What she didn't do was analyse any of the
new data that Georgina produced, and this was strange, given
that Jenny knows a fair bit about this case. There was no
mention of the numerous new witnesses that Georgina interviewed,
such as Nigel Kerr from RAF Watton, who confirmed that one of
the UFOs over Bentwaters was tracked on radar. The fact that
Georgina Interviewed General Gordon Williams was similarly not
mentioned. Jenny was silent about the official USAF photographs
of the landing site, the new transcript of the Halt tape, the
new revelations about the involvement of the Air Force Office of
Special Investigations and the correspondence between Lord
Hill-Norton and Lord Gilbert at the MOD.

Maybe Jenny's still trying to assess all this new data and
doesn't want to offer a definitive opinion until others have
commented, but it's hardly fair on Georgina not to at least
mention the fact that so much new material has been presented.

What makes the review even more bizarre is that Jenny makes a
major issue about the fact that James Easton wasn't mentioned in
the book, as if this was some major oversight. But Easton is
known for only two things; the first is the lighthouse theory,
but this came from Ian Ridpath, who in turn picked it up from
Vince Thurkettle, both of whom Georgina interviewed. Easton is
also known for having offered selective quotes from the witness
statements, especially that alleged to have been made by Edward
Cabansag. But Easton simply got all this from the CAUS file,
which Georgina also has. And Georgina actually interviewed
Cabansag at length. So why would Georgina need to mention
Easton? After all, if she'd mentioned every wannabe who'd tried
to write himself into the story by parroting other people's
theories and offering misleading titbits from supposedly genuine
documents that she already had, the book would have lost its
focus.

I'll doubtless be accused of being bias. After all, Georgina is
a very good friend of mine, and I wrote the foreword to the
book. But a review should attempt to give readers an overview of
the book and make an objective analysis of the data. This didn't
happen here, and that's a shame. All in all, the review seemed
to be about Jenny's views on the case, and not about the book
itself. This is a missed opportunity, and readers of Fortean
Times deserve better. What do you think?


Nick Pope

London









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 10

                       Re: Reluctant Viewers - Sandow

From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 16:32:45 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 12:02:41 +0000
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Sandow


 >From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 22:31:59 EST
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Hello, Greg, long time no... whatever, eh? How's about now?

 >Words. Nice ones. But just words. Conveying meaning but not to
 >the experiencer. To estrange the experiencer and his or her
 >experience from the "skeptic and the believer" is wrong. At
 >least so, in my book. Did you mean to do that or am I just
 >misunderstanding again? I do that often. (sigh)

 >You leave out the person and his experience, the knowledge firm
 >and resolute, that it happened. It was seen. OK, grant that it
 >is undefined. But it was there. _I_ was there. And you refer to
 >the skeptic and the believer. Is the believer the person who
 >believes based on... on what? Personal experience? Or just
 >belief.

Hi, Jim.

I was talking about extremists on both sides. Sorry if that
wasn't clear. I certainly didn't mean to include you or many
other experiencers.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 10

              Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Rhodes

From: Terry Rhodes <UtterMole@cs.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 17:40:59 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 12:04:47 +0000
Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Rhodes


 >Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 19:27:40 +0000
 >From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark?

 >Walthamstow Meeting - Leeds Review- UFO Background Incoming mail
 >deletion - CD Contact?

 >Oh and suddenly you no longer have a demanding job, three
 >replies in three days!


 >But I would like to hear from those who are serious about seeing
 >this footage or have seen it, if you haven't ask Dave for a free
 >CD! grafikfx@netscapeonline.co.uk

Roy

You have failed dismally in answering any questions yet again.
We can then assume that you have never and will never undertake
any investigations into UFO sightings and prefer to deal with
the whole subject as a religeon. Thank you for putting us all
straight once and for all, your contribution to the UFO subject
has been noted and rejected!

Think back over the last week and how you slated sceptical
researchers and how you goaded them with Dave to talk about this
footage. Think carefully because you have done yourself no
favours by refusing point blankly to answer these questions.

I think your move now is to start talking about how the
government will follow you if you answer the questions and you
believe your phone is being tapped. Isn't that how you paranoid
researchers get out of tight corners?

Thanks for mentioning my work, I do have a lull before the Xmas
storm, that's the joys of being self employed.

Are you resigning from the List following your exposure as being
a talk and no action researcher?

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 >
   Dec > Dec 10

              Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Rhodes

From: Terry Rhodes >UtterMole@cs.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 17:44:33 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 12:06:08 +0000
Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Rhodes


 >Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 14:25:31 +0000
 >From: Dave Bowden >grafikfx@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto >updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark?

 >I've checked the records and I do not appear to have received a
 >request from you. I don't doubt for a moment you sent it, I've
 >had mail go missing before.

 >Send me your home address privately and I'll get a CD off to
 >you.


Hi Dave

In the mood for answering questions?

According to Roy Hale you analysed this video footage, can you
post the results of your analysis? Or would that be too
demanding for this 'too near the mark' footage?

Incidently why are you sending the footage via CD rather than
VHS video tape? If you could send the video I would be more than
happy to receive a copy

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 >
   Dec > Dec 10

                              Ukrainian Ufology

From: Paul Stonehill <rurc@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 19:03:56 -0800
Fwd Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 12:10:36 +0000
Subject: Ukrainian Ufology


 From time to time I'd like to introduce Western researchers to
the UFO research in my native Ukraine.

One of the personalities is Kratochvil Valeriy Yosipovich, an
expert in the field of extraterrestrial civilizations, author of
the book "We are extraterrestrials", as well as other books, and
member of a UFO research group. I had described him in my book
'The Soviet UFO Files', referred to his findings; alas, the
editors had misspelled his name several times (just as they
mislabeled UFO photos in my books, inadvertently, rushing to
meet a publication date. I have learnt my lesson).

Kratochvil Valeriy Yosipovich was born in 1942. He has
researched alien/ET phenomena since 1966. Author of the
following books: 'Clairvoyance: From Magician Of Ancient Times
To NASA Space Programme'(Kyiv, 1991), 'Rejuvenating
Prescription' (Kyiv, 1992), 'Secrets Of Long Duty' (Minsk,
1992), 'UFO - Visitors From Future' (Minsk, 1992), 'UFO-Machine
Of Time' (Kyiv, 1993) - That's how Ukrainian translators title
his books in English. Since 1972, he is also a member of UFO
research group.

http://www.srlc.nmu.kiev.ua/spbiomed/spaceclub_history.htm

I was also glad to find out that in Ukraine, space research
scientists and UFO researchers like Mr. Kratochvil routinely
meet to discuss issues of interest to both parties. Read the URL
above.

Are we to follow their example in the States and elsewhere?

I can foresee a meeting between Mr. Goldin of NASA and his
scientists from the JPL, and Stanton Friedman, Richard Hoagland,
etc. from our side...No, too easy. Sc-Fi stuff. Those who need
to contact the writer, do send me your e-mails.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 10

                       Re: Corso & the COMETA - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 00:18:52 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 12:12:58 +0000
Subject: Re: Corso & the COMETA - Gates


 >From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Corso & the COMETA
 >Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 14:51:13 -0000

 >>Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 11:40:39 EST
 >>From: John W. Auchettl <Praufo@aol.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Corso & the COMETA

 >>From Oz & ASIA DATA RESEARCH Phenomena Research Australia

 >>The "No Gun Ri" - Massacre.
 >>REF: http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2000/jun/m30-016.shtml

 >>Subject: Corso & the COMETA - Aldrich
 >>From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
 >>Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 13:19:07 -0400

 >>Jan Aldrich said:

 >>"Perhaps you have seen the story of the Korean War veteran who
 >>told the story of the massacre of Korean civilians by US force
 >>in the beginning of the war. Only one problem, he was not there,
 >>_his_ story is a lie. The massacre apparently did happen, but
 >>this guy was not anywhere near the scene, he was not a witness.
 >>Now he had an honorable discharge, but is his current conduct
 >>honorable?"

 >>The Pentagon in an unpublished draft report now admits the
 >>massacre of Korean refugees is a fact!
 >>So sorry Jan - That Vet "Lawrence Levine" was right.
 >>Now lets keep an open mind on COMETA & CORSO?

 >Dear John

 >Thanks for posting that, I believe Jan was responding to List
 >members but specifically to my post on Corso.

 >Jan, you originally wrote:

 >>>Corso is a lair and a dishonorable man.

 >I wrote:

 >>>I still think that the above comment is a little too strong Jan,
 >>>especially as he cannot defend himself.

 >You wrote:

 >>He wrote this book _after_ his career in the Army was finished.
 >>This book is full of lies and misrepresentations, that is
 >>dishonorable conduct. His honorable Service has nothing to do
 >>with this, nor did I say such.

 >>Perhaps you have seen the story of the Korean War veteran who
 >>told the story of the massacre of Korean civilians by US force
 >>in the beginning of the war. Only one problem, he was not there,
 >>his_ story is a lie. The massacre apparently did happen, but
 >>this guy was not anywhere near the scene, he was not a witness.
 >>Now he had an honorable discharge, but is his current conduct
 >>honorable?

 >Let's examine the following line concering the witness to the
 >Korean massacre - just for the record:

 >>Only one problem, he was not there, his_ story is a lie

 >My answer to that is, you were not with Corso so how can you
 >sure he was a liar?

 >Now that the Pentagon investigation has been proved that the
 >Korean incident took place maybe you will re-consider the
 >statements you made concerning Corso.

Hi Georgina,

A point to consider. Just because the Roswell crash happened,
doesn't mean the MJ-12 documents are real by assumption. Nor
does it mean that Corso's tales and stories are correct. Just
because an alleged shooting happened in Korea, does not mean
that the lead witness, who unloaded his story in various public
ways, was in fact telling the truth. In fact we know that he
lied.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 10

                          Ural Alien-Body-Pictures?

From: Werner Walter <CENAP@addcom.de>
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 13:10:46 +0100
Fwd Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 12:19:06 +0000
Subject: Ural Alien-Body-Pictures?


Hi List-Members,

Does anyone know more about the so-called Ural Alien-Body which
you can see at:

http://www.gufoa.kheta.ge/ural-et.html


Werner Walter,

CENAP-Mannheim, URL: http://www.alien.de/cenap
UFO-Hotline 0621-701370
Herausgeber des Print-Medium CENAP REPORT





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 10

               Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Hale

From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 13:35:19 +0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 12:20:43 +0000
Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Hale


 >From: Rory Lushman <oubliette@currantbun.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark?
 >Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 22:56:14 -0000

 >I could not make it to the conference due to work.

 >Cheers

 >Rory


Hello

Sorry to hear that you were unable to attend the lecture you
seemed 'raring to go' judging by your mails at the time you had
a lot of questions to fire at Chris. Work can be a pain.

*NB: The footage caught by modern camcorders does in fact show,
times, dates etc., this also applies to Chris's UFO footage.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 10

                  Carlos Diaz 'Alien Contact' Experiences?

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@juno.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 10:36:05 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 12:23:21 +0000
Subject: Carlos Diaz 'Alien Contact' Experiences?



Dear Friends,

The following item arrived in this morning's mail. For those who
might not recall, Mr. Carlos Diaz is an alleged UFO contactee
who has worked closely with certain Mexican researchers and with
messianic Italian contactee Giorgio Bongiovanni. Diaz's main
claim to fame have been his photographs of golden-red spacecraft
he has described as "plasma ships" and which have been featured
in a number of UFO documentaries.

Scott Corrales
Institute of Hispanic Ufology

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

The Dubious Contact Experiences Of Carlos Diaz Martinez
By Pascal Lopresti

In 1997, Carlos Diaz Martinez was a guest at the 2nd UFO
Congress held in Acapulco, Mexico, and organized by Lic. Jaime
Maussan Flota and yours truly, Pascal Lopresti. [In this
conference], Diaz showed the audience the only extant material
known about the plasma ships, whose videos and still images were
taken between 1981 and 1993.

His lecture was well received by the conference goers, and his
message in support of global ecology caused a strong impact
among those present. Subsequently, he undertook the commitment
to make public in 1998 all of his new material "which for the
moment must remain concealed" before those in attendance and the
news media.

Being one of the conference's main organizers, I have remained
in touch with Carlos Diaz since early 1998, asking him when the
material in question would be made known, in fulfillment of his
promise. However, he used his father's illness--and subsequent
death--as an excuse to avoid making good on his promise. I
persisted until he agreed to show it to me in private at my home
in Mexico City, where he screened a video he had taped a day
earlier at night over his house in Tepoztlan, Morelos.

When I quizzed his wife and children about it, they advised me
that they had not been present during the recording and denied
any commitment, further refusing to issue any opinion on the
video in question.

The following is my description of what appeared on the video:

Carlos Diaz appears with his camera, recording from the kitchen
of his house in Tepoztlan..walking with camera in hand, he
enters the garden as he remarks that he feels something in his
solar plexus which--he says--is caused by extraterrestrial
contact. It is approximately 10 o'clock at night when, standing
in his house's garden, he aims the camera upward and suddenly
finds himself within a plasma ship, as he claims.

The television screen shows a yellow light. I then ask him what
is going on and he replies: "I'm inside the spaceship and I'm
with them."

I ask him: "Who are they?"

C. Diaz: "My alien friends...

P. Lopresti: "Why isn't there any movement in the image?"

C. Diaz: Because I'm filming with a tripod.

P. Lopresti: "But you didn't have a tripod!"

C. Diaz: "My alien friends lent me the tripod."

The following image on the video shows a plasma ship, allegedly
inside a cave located in the State of Chiapas to the southeast
of Mexico.

In this regard, he told me that he'd traveled aboard the craft
from his house in Tepoztlan to Chiapas (an approximate distance
of 1400 km) in 15 minutes...

...the plasma craft in question projects light and a circle
resembling the British crop circles forms beneath it. Once again
I inquire: "What's going on?"

C. Diaz: "I'm filming the spaceship that's forming the circle."

P.Lopresti: "And...you have a tripod there???"

C. Diaz: "Yes, my camera has a tripod because my friends...the
aliens...lent me one."

Carlos Diaz has always refused to allow the video to be analyzed
by any of Mexico's researchers or from anywhere else in the
world, arguing that he doesn't trust any researcher...

My opinion in this regard is that I definitely doubt that there
is any truth to the video.

First: Because he has not allowed to be subjected to laboratory
analysis.

Second: He leaves his house to film the UFO and doesn't have a
tripod. He then states that the tripod was lent to him by the
aliens ("his friends").

Third: No human being from this planet can board a plasma ship
with his/her physical body and a camcorder.

As a researcher, I feel obligated to make this event known to
the public, and to let the public draw its own conclusions. My
own conclusions as a researcher of this type of event is that it
is not only false, but also utterly ridiculous.

I truly regret that persons like Carlos Diaz should go around
telling tales of this nature, since in my opinion, they are
solely interested in attracting fame and money by calling
themselves "contactees" and it troubles me, more than anything,
because these attitudes promote skepticism among those who seek
clear and truthful answers.

Pascal Lopresti
UFO Researcher

##################

Translation (c) 2000. Scott Corrales/Institute of Hispanic Ufology.
Special Thanks to Dr. Virgilio Snchez Ocejo







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 11

             Re: Dr. M. A. Persinger Lecture - 12-04-00 - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 18:04:28 +0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 08:33:56 +0000
Subject: Re: Dr. M. A. Persinger Lecture - 12-04-00 - Rimmer


 >From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
 >To: Errol Bruce-Knapp <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Dr. M. A. Persinger Lecture - 12-04-00
 >Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 12:51:27 -0500

 >I went, I listened and then, on behalf of all the folks who have
 >ever had a sighting, but couldn't attend the lecture, I got up
 >and told Dr. Persinger he was full of crock!....surrounded by a
 >large audience, on top of that!

So that's official MUFON policy, is it then?

<snip>

 >Persinger's approach to the UFO subject is actually
 >Investigation By Proclamation, not by doing "real science" as he
 >puts it. Remember the Debunker's Motto: "Don't bother me with
 >the facts; my mind is already made up!"

Never catch a believer saying that, would you?

--
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 >
   Dec > Dec 11

                      Re: Corso & the COMETA - Aldrich

From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 14:18:28 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 08:39:59 +0000
Subject: Re: Corso & the COMETA - Aldrich


 >From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
 >Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 14:51:13 -0000
 >To: UFO UpDates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Corso & the COMETA - Bruni


 >>Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 11:40:39 EST
 >>From: John W. Auchettl <Praufo@aol.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Corso & the COMETA
 >>To: UFO UpDates <updates@sympatico.ca>

Let's make a few things clear from the outset. The No Gun Ri
massacre has plenty of evidence in the records of the Korean
government. However, as the US and Korea are allies the Koreans
did not press the case. The supposed witness who came forth did
state that he was present at the massacre, and he saw the things
he was describing. He did not say that his knowledge of the
massacre came from stories he had heard or rumors. He said he
was an eye witness. However, upon checking, he wasn't there.
What is the term usually given to such individuals? Liars!

Does that mean that No Gun Ri did not occur? No! Nor did I ever
say that it did not. In fact I wrote the opposite.
Unfortunately, John and Georgina can't seem to fathom that.

See further below.


 >>From Oz & ASIA DATA RESEARCH Phenomena Research Australia

 >>The "No Gun Ri" - Massacre.
 >>REF: http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2000/jun/m30-016.shtml

 >>Subject: Corso & the COMETA - Aldrich
 >>From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
 >>Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 13:19:07 -0400

 >>Jan Aldrich said:

 >>"Perhaps you have seen the story of the Korean War veteran who
 >>told the story of the massacre of Korean civilians by US force
 >>in the beginning of the war. Only one problem, he was not there,
 >>_his_ story is a lie. The massacre apparently did happen, but
 >>this guy was not anywhere near the scene, he was not a witness.
 >>Now he had an honorable discharge, but is his current conduct
 >>honorable?"

 >>The Pentagon in an unpublished draft report now admits the
 >>massacre of Korean refugees is a fact!
 >>So sorry Jan - That Vet "Lawrence Levine" was right.
 >>Now lets keep an open mind on COMETA & CORSO?


 >Dear John

 >Thanks for posting that, I believe Jan was responding to List
 >members but specifically to my post on Corso.

 >Jan, you originally wrote:

 >>>Corso is a lair and a dishonorable man.

 >I wrote:

 >>>I still think that the above comment is a little too strong Jan,
 >>>especially as he cannot defend himself.

I would like to answer this once more. Kevin Randall, Stan
Friedman and I, to name just a few, criticized Corso while he
was still alive in this forum and while Birnes was monitoring
this list. In fact, Birnes e-mailed me on other matters
discussed here, but never once defended the Birnes/Corso book in
public concerning things said here.

 >You wrote:

 >>He wrote this book _after_ his career in the Army was finished.
 >>This book is full of lies and misrepresentations, that is
 >>dishonorable conduct. His honorable Service has nothing to do
 >>with this, nor did I say such.

 >>Perhaps you have seen the story of the Korean War veteran who
 >>told the story of the massacre of Korean civilians by US force
 >>in the beginning of the war. Only one problem, he was not there,
 >>his_ story is a lie. The massacre apparently did happen, but
 >>this guy was not anywhere near the scene, he was not a witness.
 >>Now he had an honorable discharge, but is his current conduct
 >>honorable?

 >Let's examine the following line concerning the witness to the
 >Korean massacre - just for the record:

 >>Only one problem, he was not there, his_ story is a lie

 >My answer to that is, you were not with Corso so how can you
 >sure he was a liar?

This above statement is so silly on the face it almost does not
deserve an answer. I don't have to be present for something to
be the truth or a lie. However, if I were to say I was present
and an eyewitness at the Mai Li Massacre, Custer's Last Stand,
or the Destruction of Carthage, I would be a lair. I guess that
is very hard to fathom.

 >Now that the Pentagon investigation has been proved that the
 >Korean incident took place maybe you will re-consider the
 >statements you made concerning Corso.

 >Just a thought,

More like complete lack of thought. The Internet allows us time
to reflect on what has been said before posting an answer.
Apparently, in some cases that provides no help.

Corso is the Saviour of Mankind. How do I know this? He told us
himself, and Corso was according to many posters on this list a
truthful, honorable man. Buddha, Christ, Mohammed, and Corso.

Now if Corso's book is true, there are hundreds if not thousands
of UFO books that a false and dozens of disinformation agents
posting, here, on things if measured against the Corso standard
are untrue So why are you sniping and snipping at me about
marginal matters? Shouldn't you be purifying ufology to make it
conform to the Saviour's image.

Again: Every Corso-phile here has avoided, sidestepped, ignored,
and not answered this question: "Do you actually believe that a
giant space based defense cobbled together from the stuff in
Corso's filing cabinet is protecting the earth from ETs?" Not
one of Corso's defenders here has answered that here. After
this challenge, there continue to be no takers. What Brave
Hearts!

No, the Corso-philes have engaged in such small side issues like
is there a drop of water in the dish pan while they fail to
affirm that the oceans do have water in them. Curiouser and
curiouser.

Why isn't there a statue of Corso in every town square, and why
isn't he promoted posthumously to General of the Armies? A
First Church of Corso. Anyone who saved his country, the Cuban
missile crisis, and saved his Species deserves no less.

Come on, give me a break, I have better things to do. If you
want to belief in Corso, do so, and go find someone else to pick
a fight with. I've had my say, and it is on record here. So
either put up or shut up! Is Corso, in fact, the Saviour or
not? Other side issues are not worth the time.

Jan Aldrich







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 11

               Re: Addition to Sign Historical Group Website -

From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 14:24:02 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 08:41:53 +0000
Subject: Re: Addition to Sign Historical Group Website -


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 12:17:05 EST
 >Fwd Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 10:38:00 +0000
 >Subject: Re: Addition to Sign Historical Group Website -


 >>From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Addition to Sign Historical Group Website
 >>Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 21:10:02 -0500

 >> The Sign Historical Group continues to add important new items
 >>to its website:

 >>http://www.project1947.com/shg/

<snip>

 >>http://www.project1947.com/shg/bgbib.htm

 >> http://www.project1947.com/shg/ufoclips.htm>>

 >Jan:

 >I get the following message for all of these: "Sorry. No Such
 >Address"

 >Bob Young

Hi Bob,

Try them now, or more than once. Texasgulf.net is upgrading
their server and there may be some connection problems for a few
days.


Regards,

Jan









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 11

                     Re: Reluctant Viewers - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 14:19:37 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 08:45:27 +0000
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Mortellaro


 >Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 10:44:12 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers

 >>From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >>Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 20:57:12 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 00:47:42 -0800
 >>>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers

 >>> Snip

 >>Interesting how right you are, Lawrence. It is easy to make a
 >>UFO. But it's not so easy to make a real UFO. To me, a real UFO
 >>is not merely an unidentified craft.

 >Dear Sir Jimbo di Gripple:

 >Here, as in some Nevada casino, I simply play the odds.

 >Most "UFO sightings" are sheer and utter junk, Period. Others, a
 >few at least, are extremely interesting, or I would never have
 >started to catalog them.

And all unknown. Which I know you know. It's all them others who
are trying to fit it into paradigms into which they do not fit.
For there is not one paradigm or even pair of paradigms having
the parameters. Even my pair. (Politically Incorrect, I know,
but you guys know what I mean, eh?)

 >>To me it is a real thing, a thing, a conveyance, which I've seen
 >>with my own eyes in the presence of witnesses on some occasions.
 >>A thing which many others have seen and photographed. I refer to
 >>those UFO's which are not made, or faked. To me, a UFO is a very
 >>real thing. It's what you log on your own great software...

 >I never suggested otherwise! It is, however, the entire
 >abduction/missing time scene which gives me (and you) the
 >shakes. Perhaps I am as guilty as the timid biologist who would
 >not lift a stone for fear of finding improperly coloured
 >salamanders.

I know you did not say it. But others do. I give as an example,
a post by Greg Sandow recently, in which I complained that he
did not mention experiencers in't. His response was that he was
speaking only about the "extremists" in that post. But in my
weaknesses, I truly believe that the slip was Freudian. If not
purposeful, then purposely left out by the cerebellum or
whatever piece of matter gray was thinking at the time of the
writing.

To wit, many of us do not consider the experiencer. I _know_
you do. However I was writing about those who do not. Another
slippage of the Freudian transmission. Only this time (and
many others) it was my Freudian transmission. As my
punishment, I will be sent back in the next life as Fill Class.
For now, I shall seek solace from a bottle of AAMCO tranny
fluid, which when added to Gripple and lasagna, makes life
a bit more bearable. If not bare in extremis.

Or worse.

 >>Not only have I seen one or six, but I have been privileged to
 >>perceive myself in one or ten. To me, a UFO is very real.

 >An "abductee" is almost by definition going to have multiple
 >experiences, or sightings. What those objectively amount to
 >is anybody's conjecture.

I know a man whom I trust without reservation. A man who,
independent of knowing about those few sightings I have had,
sees lights often. And of the type and variety which used to
give me the freaking willies when I was a lot younger. I used to
see them just as he described. Followed by what I call, "High
Strangeness."

The only difference between me and "the believers" is that I
admit to not knowing what the hell the phenom is. I only know
what I think it is. And that can be as Freudian, as faulted, as
terribly and incorrectly wrong as swamp gas and pelicans.
Wronger even.

Friday of this week, just a few nights ago, I witnessed an object
which I cannot explain. This would be the third sighting of a
triangular object since 1998. To me, that's three too many.
When I asked me "why me?" I responded, "Because I am looking!"
I really don't think many are. If not not looking, then not paying
attention. I shall send you the info off list.

 >What I object to is some non-abductee who sees "genuine UFOs"
 >every few weeks .. to the tune of 10 or 20 in the space of just
 >a few years. Anybody who has ever thrown dice in Reno can tell
 >you how likely that is. A mathematician will tear such
 >assertions to pieces in short order, but I digress.

 >>Having said that, and since you are quite right, a UFO is easy
 >>to make and photograph, and since some sane and educated people
 >>have seen things which we know are not made, then we have a
 >>problem. One which has been around for more than half a century.
 >>Likely a lot longer. A dichotomy exists which defines the
 >>problem.... eh, eh, eh, for EBK.

 >I am not calling all UFOs fake. I think the Mexico City video is
 >a blatant fake. I give it a rating of 2 Adamskis [ on an
 >unofficial scale of zero to three ] and hope you concur.

I think I don't know. However the leaning is towards a
concoction short of Carta Blanca inebriation. Sans lemon slice.

 >>Which is the problem. Easy to fake. Not easy to fool some of us,
 >>though. As real as the back of my hand. As real as the
 >>triangular marks on my arm which one day just appeared and which
 >>no doctor or dermatologist can define. Not self-inflicted. Can't
 >>reach there, eh?

 >Again, you gotta be there! I'm willing to listen. Heck! I used
 >to rot my brains an hour a week in church. Worse yet, the
 >Catholics would throw these " Holy Days of Obligation " ( some
 >special saint or whatever ) and you had to go to church onna
 >friggin Wednesday or sompin!!!

I've often wondered that when I did eat meat on Fridays, if I
was then damned or if, after St. Christopher was demoted, I was
dispensed. Oh God, I'm so confused!

 >The only thing I can compare to that is a UFO convention.

Oh, but I can think of another. But the last time I used the
analogy I was constructed a cross and given nails and a hammer.
I think I shall try it again, in the light of the broad minds
and happy people here on UpDates. I liken your comparison to a
Chinese Fire Drill. Uh, oh. Here come the PI cops with that
cross again.

 >I only saw one UFO convention/gathering/hootenanny, call it what
 >you will, and that was that. One doofus was selling astral love
 >beads by the ounce. Some German mystic lady was holding court
 >with what looked like sexual deviates. Her blonde hair was dyed
 >with various colors and flavors of Kool-Aid. Somewhere, a guy
 >from MUFON was droning on.. and on - but I digress.

 >>As real as the memories. Real. As real as Larry Flint and just
 >>as big. And just as disabled. It's what they say of us. Mental
 >>defectives, abused kids, people looking for fame and money. Yah,
 >>and the check is in the mail. And "Don't worry sweetheart, I'm
 >>sterile."

 >Whatever you do, do _not_ videotape the UFO(s). That will make
 >them suspicious and overly cautious. Instead, just grab some
 >innocuous object... a dinner fork say, or if they are
 >mechanical, maybe a loose ball bearing. Even some metal filings
 >might help.

 >Ask to use the toilet and steal the knob off the water tap.
 >Former Soviets will have long since pinched any toilet
 >tissues.

 >>That's what the phenom is. That's what the witnesses are.
 >>Maligned. Tested. Abused. Accused. Worse. No, not by my good
 >>friend Lawrence of Hatchdom. But by so many others.

 >Dear Jimmy: I do not malign you (although I am sometimes
 >tempted! HAAH!) The fact is that I do not know what to make of
 >the entire abduction scene. Maybe there do exist orange glowing
 >salamanders, just under some flat rock.

Pelicans. Definitely!

 >>Why, Larry, would someone, oh, say like me, wish to make himself
 >>a target of those who will malign me. Why would the likes of me
 >>wish to make himself out to be something which he is not, fake
 >>it, make it all up, if indeed I must expose myself to abuse
 >>worse than you may imagine. I'm too damned proud for that. I
 >>value my reputation, my accomplishments and my career, even in
 >>semiretirement.

 >This is exactly what convinces me of your sincerity. That's not
 >to say you are not full of lasagna mind you, but I take what you
 >say as your honest word.

Thank you. And it's exactly what I _only_ want to happen,
Lawrence of Hatchdom. If I could kiss you... uh, never mind. I
ain't got that much Gripple. Maybe in my next life one of us
will look like Pia.

 >>I recently got thrown off a board because I am out of my closet.
 >>I recently became anathema to someone who I thought wore the
 >>white hat. Why would I take the abuse of not only acquaintances,
 >>but business associates, some relatives and people who should
 >>really have a much more open mind and intellect??? Why?

 >Because, you have your particular strong memories, beliefs and
 >perceptions, and you dare speak them out.

Yah. A pisser ain't it? Speak your truth and get forked.

 >>Because the truth as I know it to be must be told. Even if just
 >>one person out there takes solace from another's experiences and
 >>suffering, it's worth all the abuse and personal indignity and
 >>embarrassment.

 >>Even from my so-called fellow abductee(s). Even from them. And
 >>to take THEIR abuse is the worst kind of humiliation. The _very_
 >>worst kind. I've even suffered that.

 >>Larry, the truth be known, it's easy to make a fake UFO. But
 >>worse, it's even easier to make an experiencer into a fake.

 >I _never_ suggested that. Period. What I'm saying is simply this:
 >I will never have the degree of understanding or belief, that
 >you and others have so clearly expressed, until and unless I see
 >it with my own eyes.

I think I shall call you St. Thomas. It's OK. He's still a saint.

 >>Isn't it interesting that people doubt what they have not seen.
 >>I'll bet the condo, Larry, that if you could see what I've seen,
 >>you'd be in our camp. Toot sweet. I'll bet the condo, _both_ of
 >>them!

 >>Love and respect,

I bow to your erudition. It's just that I can't get back up. My back
is out.

This is the truth everyone. When I saw that object on Friday
night, I called my wife since I was without cameras. I pulled
off on the grassey knoll (not the one in Dallas) and just looked
and described what I was seeing to Rosie on the phone. In the
morning, I was rewarded with a flat tire. A slow leak on my
Aurora from a nail I picked up on that knoll. The UFO? Was over
the biggest cemetery in the NY area.

Woodlawn.

In that cemetery is another anomaly. A coyote. Honest. Still
there making a living eating rats and mice all year long. A coyote
in the Bronx, NY. The four legged kind, though. Not the two
legged ones what'l kill you for your truth.

God bless America, the Bronx, Larry and all the ships at sea,
even the ones still got straight keys left over from the old
days (last year).

Morty







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 11

             Re: Dr. M. A. Persinger Lecture - 12-04-00 - Ledger

From: dledger@ns.sympatico.ca (Donald . Ledger)
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 15:42:00 +0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 08:48:10 +0000
Subject: Re: Dr. M. A. Persinger Lecture - 12-04-00 - Ledger


 >From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
 >To: Errol Bruce-Knapp <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Dr. M. A. Persinger Lecture - 12-04-00
 >Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 12:51:27 -0500

 >I went, I listened and then, on behalf of all the folks who have
 >ever had a sighting, but couldn't attend the lecture, I got up
 >and told Dr. Persinger he was full of crock!....surrounded by a
 >large audience, on top of that!

 >Here's an article I wrote about it for the local papers...

 >Michel

 >-----

<snip>



Hi Michel,

Good for you. It never ceases to amaze me how some of these
people seek to present thenselves as the sober side of the
phenomenon when the present such hare-brained, and insulting
explanations for UFO sightings with little regard for the
intelligence of the witnesses. These witnesses are the same
people after all that we entrust all of our everyday needs to.
One moment, for example, they are piloting hundreds of people
through our skies with the respect of these same passengers,
those waiting to be passengers, their governments, their
contractors, their employers-everyone in all walks of life. The
next moment they have a UFO encounter and then for some reason,
they have become hysterical, mental aberrants, mis-interpretors
of the conditions inherent in the very skies in which they have
flown for years. Suddenly they are unfit to judge what they have
seen but some interloper with no credentials in that area other
than he has the word Doctor in front of his name, now suddenly
commands respect with an explanation for something he has poorly
researched and has never seen himself, and portrays it as the
truth.

I used the pilot witness in this case, but there are all of the
others insulted by these nonesensical explanations. Highly
educated people and the salt of the earth people who keep our
societies running. From coal miners to astronomers, from the
police and fire departments to our educators, our farmers to our
jurists and politicians, all suddenly have no validity in the
UFO field, their word is less than valueless at the say so of
the those with no more or less validity than the witness.
Micheal rest assured that Persinger has nothing more than a pet
theory that he has been flogging for some time now. he seeks to
wrap it science. It has less than no value and is an insult to
witnesses. It has appeal only to the frightened as if trying to
explain away the boogie man.

It's amazing isn't it that these same witnesses manage to keep
our world running in their everyday lives despite this
"aberration" of theirs. You are right Micheal. Persinger is full
of it.

Stay focused.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 11

               Re: Carlos Diaz 'Alien Contact' Experiences? -

From: Thiago Ticchetti <thiagolt@opengate.com.br>
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 17:39:20 -0200
Fwd Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 09:17:36 +0000
Subject: Re: Carlos Diaz 'Alien Contact' Experiences? -


 >From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@juno.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 10:36:05 -0500
 >Subject: Carlos Diaz 'Alien Contact' Experiences?

 >Dear Friends,

 >The following item arrived in this morning's mail. For those who
 >might not recall, Mr. Carlos Diaz is an alleged UFO contactee
 >who has worked closely with certain Mexican researchers and with
 >messianic Italian contactee Giorgio Bongiovanni. Diaz's main
 >claim to fame have been his photographs of golden-red spacecraft
 >he has described as "plasma ships" and which have been featured
 >in a number of UFO documentaries.

 >Scott Corrales
 >Institute of Hispanic Ufology

 >===============================

 >The Dubious Contact Experiences Of Carlos Diaz Martinez
 >By Pascal Lopresti

<snip>


Isn�t he that became Veronica Lane????


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 >
   Dec > Dec 11

                     The Shag Harbour Incident - Airing

From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 15:19:43 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 09:20:20 +0000
Subject: The Shag Harbour Incident - Airing


TV Presentation of the Shag Harbour Incident

Michael MacDonald, Johanna Eliot, and the rest of the folks at
Ocean are happy to announce the premiere broadcast of 'the Shag
Harbour UFO incident', Sunday December 17, 4 pm Eastern, 5pm
Atlantic time on SPACE: THEIMAGINATIONSTATION

This 48 Minute Documentary tells the tale of an alleged UFO
crash in southwestern Nova Scotia back in 1967.


Michael MacDonald/Johanna Eliot

Ocean Entertainment/Ocean Digital

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


A request to Canadian subscribers, if a video of this program
may be purchased please post the ordering information here!

Thanks.


Jan Aldrich

Project 1947
http://www.project1947.com/
P. O. Box 391
Canterbury, CT 06331, USA
(860) 546-9135







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 11

                 Re: Dr. M. A. Persinger Lecture - 12-04-00

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 13:16:17 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 09:43:06 +0000
Subject: Re: Dr. M. A. Persinger Lecture - 12-04-00


 >From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
 >To: Errol Bruce-Knapp <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Dr. M. A. Persinger Lecture - 12-04-00
 >Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 12:51:27 -0500

 >I went, I listened and then, on behalf of all the folks who
 >have ever had a sighting, but couldn't attend the lecture, I
 >got up and told Dr. Persinger he was full of crock!...
 >surrounded by a >large audience, on top of that!

I think you do Persinger's thesis an injustice.

 >Here's an article I wrote about it for the local
 >papers...

<snip>

 >During the lecture, he presented some news clippings taken
 >from the Sudbury Star about the famous Falconbridge UFO
 >incident that occurred in the fall of 1975... a case I am very
 >familiar with. He went on to mention the Creighton Fault Line
 >and sightings of balls of light that have been seen in the
 >Sudbury area at the time. What he failed to mention was the
 >fact that some of these objects were not only seen visually,
 >but also tracked on two different types of radar!

So? Persinger's scenario is _not_ that people are "seeing
things." The balls of light are indeed real electromagnetic
phenomena; that they might register radar is entirely consistent
with his theory that some UFOs are produced through geomagnetic
stress in the earth's crust.

=====
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 >
   Dec > Dec 11

                Re: Dr. M. A. Persinger Lecture - 12-04-00 -

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 19:56:17 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 09:46:24 +0000
Subject: Re: Dr. M. A. Persinger Lecture - 12-04-00 -



 >From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
 >To: Errol Bruce-Knapp <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Dr. M. A. Persinger Lecture - 12-04-00
 >Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 12:51:27 -0500

 >I went, I listened and then, on behalf of all the folks who have
 >ever had a sighting, but couldn't attend the lecture, I got up
 >and told Dr. Persinger he was full of crock!....surrounded by a
 >large audience, on top of that!

 >Snip

Dear Michel, Errol and those who believe in Santa Clause,

Anyone who believes such drivel snivel deserves to be granted
the famed "Bovine Excrement Award" for gullibility and culpable
stupidity.

Truth be known, I was invited by an old client, to attend a
seminar nearby (about 100 miles) and decided to use the passes I
had to attend this one.

I stayed about five minutes. How long did it take you?


James,

"Pelican Gas" Venus-Envy,
Third Turd from the Son







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 11

              Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Bowden

From: Dave Bowden <grafikfx@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 01:30:31 +0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 09:48:10 +0000
Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Bowden


 >From: Rory Lushman <oubliette@currantbun.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark?
 >Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 22:51:01 -0000

 >>Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 18:08:21 +0000
 >>From: Dave Bowden <grafikfx@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark?

 >>I remember sending you some samples some weeks back via email,
 >>you wrote to me privately to say you were unable to view them on
 >>your system and that you would rather wait to see them in full
 >>at the Leeds conference.

 >Yes they would not open. Work prevent me attending conference.

 >>Have you since upgraded you machine?

 >Nowt wrong with my machine, its new.

Eee by gum lad! glad to hear it Rory, a CD will be in't post to
you, nowt t' worry 'bout ;)


All the best,

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 >
   Dec > Dec 11

                    Re: Ural Alien-Body-Pictures? - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 22:19:46 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 09:49:34 +0000
Subject: Re: Ural Alien-Body-Pictures? - Young


 >From: Werner Walter <CENAP@addcom.de>
 >Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 13:10:46 +0100
 >Subject: Ural Alien-Body-Pictures?
 >To: UFO Updates <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >Does anyone know more about the so-called Ural Alien-Body which
 >you can see at:

 >http://www.gufoa.kheta.ge/ural-et.html

Hi, Werner, List:

Are there any physicians on this List who could judge whether
this might be a human infant or fetus?

Of course, KGB stole the body. But, did KGB still exist in 1996?


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 >
   Dec > Dec 11

              Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Bowden

From: Dave Bowden <grafikfx@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 03:55:04 +0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 09:51:36 +0000
Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Bowden


 >From: Terry Rhodes >UtterMole@cs.com>
 >Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 17:44:33 EST
 >Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark?
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 14:25:31 +0000
 >>From: Dave Bowden >grafikfx@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto >updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark?

 >>I've checked the records and I do not appear to have received a
 >>request from you. I don't doubt for a moment you sent it, I've
 >>had mail go missing before.

 >>Send me your home address privately and I'll get a CD off to
 >>you.

 >Hi Dave

 >In the mood for answering questions?

 >According to Roy Hale you analysed this video footage, can you
 >post the results of your analysis? Or would that be too
 >demanding for this 'too near the mark' footage?


I enhanced captures from the videos, they are on the CD. Would
you like to see them?

Send me your home address and I will send you a CD.

 >Incidently why are you sending the footage via CD rather than
 >VHS video tape? If you could send the video I would be more than
 >happy to receive a copy

It's a matter of cost. CD's cost about 50p each and can be sent
inland for 27p first class wrapped in an envelope.

It is not my fault you do not have the equipment to view this.
Maybe I could make you a special case and put it to tape, how
does that sound?

I'll make a special 'video'.

Would you like it in Betamax, the quality is better?


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 >
   Dec > Dec 11

                              Two New UFO Maps

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 02:02:09 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 09:13:56 +0000
Subject: Two New UFO Maps


Hello all:

I have added two new maps to the *U* UFO database website.

One is for the Western USA:

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

The other for the Eastern states:

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


In the East, sightings tend to cluster along sea coasts and the
shores of the Great Lakes. Elsewhere in the eastern and central
states, sightings are more or less uniformly scattered in the
rural, farming and ranching areas.

In the West, there are fairly large areas devoid of sightings,
or nearly so. There seems no rhyme or reason to this. Why should
one patch of desert be (well) deserted, while another has
several sightings?

One nearly empty area centers on the point where Oregon, Idaho
and Nevada meet. SE Oregon is nearly vacant while SE Washington
state has numerous sightings. Both areas are thinly populated,
perhaps more so in Oregon, but not to the degree the map would
indicate.

SE Montana is quiet, unlike other parts of that state. There are
at most one or two sightings mapped within 100 miles of
Billings,MT for example. Central Nevada has several sightings in
a similar area .. and a small fraction of the population.

The northern edge of Nevada, everything North of Winnemucca and
Elko is completely vacant, and so are the sand hills area of
Western Nebraska until you near the Wyoming state line.

Wyoming has the lowest population density of any state but
Alaska, yet has a thin and nearly even sprinkle of sightings.
Leo Sprinkle who lives there kindly provided one or two of
these.

Maybe the vacant spots offer subtle clues just like the "busy"
areas might seem to.

I haven't drawn any conclusions yet. Much of this might be
attributed to circumstance, happenstance, local customs and
conditions. Discounting that, just maybe there are small
indications of the purpose or intent UFOs. Maybe not.

Any comments are welcome.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 12

                      Re: Part II of Hesemann's MC Case

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 22:27:20 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 12:52:21 -0500
Subject: Re: Part II of Hesemann's MC Case


Part II of translation of Hesemann's writeup of the MC case

Hello List,

Sorry this comes so late after Part I. Hesemann and I didn't
connect for a while. This part is short and gives some
preliminaries before Hesemann got out into Mexico City to seek
the site and possible witnesses, so there won't be very much of
direct interest.

After reading into the file brumacmex1.zip that Bruce made
available recently, I noticed that the present writeup of
Michael's that I'm in the process of translating is an amplified
version of the file, Hesemann.txt, which is within Bruce's zip
file, and which Hesemann himself translated about 3 years ago.

Jim

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

  Part II of Hesemann's Investigation of the 8/6/97 Mexico City UFO

Computer analyses of the materials by well known experts such as
Jim Dilettoso of Village Lab in Tempe, AZ, the optical physicist
Dr. Bruce Maccabee (US Navy) and Prof. Victor Quesada of the
"Grupo Sol of the University of Mexico," uncovered no hint of
any hoax. The experts estimated the diameter of the filmed
object as 15-20 meters (see report in Magazin2000 Nr. 123
[issued around Jan. 1998]).

Since first hearing of the astounding video of 6 Aug. 1997,
taken in the section of populous Mexico City called Bosques de
las Lomas, I have followed the matter with great interest.
Already, a few weeks after its first appearance on Mexican
television on 26 Sept. 1997, a clean copy of the video segment
lay before us. Jaime Maussan, with whom I have stayed in close,
friendly contact for years, kept me abreast on the affair. And
so Magazin2000 could already, in the last issue of a series,
offer exclusive information on the case.

Nevertheless I was skeptical. The video segment of a rotating
disk, which disappeared behind a group of high-rise buildings
and reappeared, was too good to be true. Was it indeed THE UFO
evidence we all have been waiting for? I doubted it. The
wobbling movements of the disk disturbed me. Since I understood
the situation in Mexico very well, I knew that popular
television moderator Maussan had many enemies and envious
detractors. Could someone have attempted to deceive him, in
order to make him into a fool before the public? On the one
hand, Maussan had carefully researched the place, finding and
interviewing a series of witnesses. Eyewitnesses make a hoax
unlikely. On the other hand, we know that each true or faked UFO
case can inspire "bandwagon jumpers," sensationalist
individuals, whose goal is to have 30 seconds in the limelight
of the media, and it takes a good lie to do it. To be sure,
Jaime assure me that with these witnesses this was not the case;
they are trustworthy. To me it was clear that as always the
truth lies "out there." I must go to Mexico in order to
personally gain an on-the-spot picture of the situation.

                                Trip to Mexico

The opportunity soon presented itself. I was invited to the 2nd
World UFO Congress in Acapulco, Mexico, in early December, 1998,
and since I had to change planes in the capital city anyhow, I
remained there for two days. I had arranged to meet with a
colleague, Alejandra Dehesa, who had earlier worked for Tele
Azteca, the rival of Maussan's Televisa. Alejandra, mother of an
enchanting little daughter, had interviewed me repeatedly in
Mexico and the USA for her program, and I knew her as a caring
and capable journalist. However, I had an ulterior motive: her
former boss, an arch-skeptic, had already once boasted that he
knew the excellent Carlos Diaz film, "With Ease," to be fake.
And since his TV program stood in direct opposition to Jaime's
newer show, "Tercer Milenio" (Third Millennium), he was, to say
the least, under suspicion.

 From Alejandra I hoped to receive inside information. In
addition, she spoke fluent English and could therefore translate
(to be sure, I understand Spanish and can enunciate it, but my
speech is not good enough) and serve also as a neutral observer
of my investigation. I deliberately wanted to investigate
independently of Jaime and surprise him with my findings,
whatever they might be. I wanted to remain as objective as
possible. Friendship is one thing, a well researched case is
another.

In the previous week Alejandra had already made all available
information on the case available to me. We therefore already
knew in which part of the metropolis - Mexico City is, with
almost 30 million inhabitants, along with Tokyo and Sao Paulo,
one of the three most populated cities of the world - the event
had occurred. Namely, in the section "Bosques de las Lomas,"
which one reaches via one of the swankier streets of the capital
city, "The Reforma." Bosques de las Lomas, which means "Forests
of the Hills," is a mixture of undeveloped hilly fields and
houses, not so closely packed as in other districts of the
Mexico City. One encounters some office buildings, plain private
homes and workshops, a modern shopping center and a group of
exclusive apartment houses, which are seen on the video.


End of Part II






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 12

                Re: Dr. M. A. Persinger Lecture - 12-04-00 -

From: Brad Sparks  <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 04:51:21 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 12:54:27 -0500
Subject: Re: Dr. M. A. Persinger Lecture - 12-04-00  -


 >From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
 >To: Errol Bruce-Knapp <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Dr. M. A. Persinger Lecture - 12-04-00
 >Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 12:51:27 -0500

<snip>

 >During the lecture, he presented some news clippings taken from
 >the Sudbury Star about the famous Falconbridge UFO incident that
 >occurred in the fall of 1975...a case I am very familiar with.
 >He went on to mention the Creighton Fault Line and sightings of
 >balls of light that have been seen in the Sudbury area at the
 >time. What he failed to mention was the fact that some of these
 >objects were not only seen visually, but also tracked on two
 >different types of radar! I know this because I happen to have
 >in my possession the actual reports made to the Falconbridge
 >radar base at the time, and what was seen were not balls of
 >light, but structured objects! And witnessed by several people,
 >including regional police officers and a nursing staff at
 >Pioneer Manor, just to name a few.

<snip>

 >But first, the Falconbridge UFO incident. I quote the following
 >seven reports:

 >Nursing Staff At Pioneer Manor Sudbury Ont. (Six Nurses) They
 >wish to remain anonymous:

 >11 Nov 75 - it seemed to hover over Sudbury Stadium. One object
 >very bright and very low at first and suddenly shot into the
 >sky. One hr 55 min. It was still visible when Sudbury Regional
 >Police arrived at 0955z."

 >Constables Chrapchynski and Deighton, Sudbury Regional Police:

 >4 objects were observed clearly in the sky. The brightest in the
 >east remained in a stationary position. One in the southwest
 >moved at times in a jerky motion. One in the northwest remained
 >stationary. The one in the northeast was the dimmest, also
 >stationary. They were still plainly visible after day break when
 >all regular bright objects in the sky had disappeared. Seen
 >intermittently for 1 hour.'

 >Constables Keables & Whiteside, Sudbury Regional Police

 >One object at times it appeared to be cylindrical with shafts of
 >light bright enough to light up clouds in immediate area it
 >appeared at times to travel in circles. At one point it came
 >quite close. It was still visible to the naked eye after the sun
 >came up. The above observations were made with the use of
 >binoculars.'

 >Constable Marsh - Sudbury Regional Police:

 >One very bright star-like object moving in a jerky circular
 >manner. When covered with clouds it was still bright enough to
 >shine through as well as light up an area around it. While
 >observing this object he saw two other similar objects, one in
 >the south and one southwest of Coniston. All seemed to be moving
 >in a jerky circular manner. They seemed to emit a pulsating type
 >of light varying in colours. Easily distinguishable from the
 >stars."

 >Constables Ryan & Lederoute, Sudbury Regional Police:

 >One bright white object appeared to be over the north end of the
 >city of Sudbury, moving in a north westerly direction at a high
 >rate of speed. 1 min., Then covered by a large cloud."

 >Captain Carson, Mcpl Kreutz & Cpl Lawrenson - CFS Falconbridge:

 >Circular object, brilliantly lighted with two black spots in
 >centre moving upwards at high speed from 42,000 ft to 72,000 ft.
 >(no horizontal movement) this object was sighted visually and by
 >radar bearing 210 degrees magnetic at 30 nm from CFS
 >Falconbridge. Major Oiver took pictures but is not sure if they
 >will turn out. A similar object was sighted by the same
 >observers bearing 270 magnetic but at too great a distance to
 >provide details. Many other reports were received from Sudbury
 >Ontario Provincial Police."

 >Maj. Oliver, Capt. Carson & Cpl. Lauritsen - CFS Falconbridge:

 >Spherical shaped and appeared to be rotating. Appeared to have
 >surface area similar to the moon and was ascending and
 >descending. 2 hrs intermittently due to cloud cover. Observed on
 >height finder radar and search. Position 210 degrees 30 miles
 >alt 42,000 ft at 1115z. Position 200 degrees 30 miles alt 50,000
 >ft at 1120z. Position 190 degrees 25 miles alt 72,000 ft at
 >1129z."
<SNIP>

 >Michel M. Deschamps

Hi Michel & List,

I was just about to answer Jim Deardorff with the Falconbridge
case as an example of the kind of UFO simulation of conventional
phenomena that he was talking about, when you posted this cache
of additional info I had never seen before, including specific
radar coordinates. I have long been fascinated with this bizarre
radar-visual sighting where military observers using binoculars
saw a moon-like spherical object complete with craters on the
surface, at a time and location when the moon itself was on the
other side of the earth. I have long been puzzled at how
seemingly the UFO simulated the appearance of the moon, and
wondered at what would have happened had a casual witness had
looked up at this object and dismissed it as the moon -- without
realizing it wasn't and that the moon was elsewhere.

Unfortunately there is some bad news. This Falconbridge Canadian
Forces Station case is still an uninvestigated case and must be
treated as a pending case, not a certified unexplained UFO that
has passed Hynek's screening filter of a competent scientific
investigation. It hasn't even been subjected to a Blue Book-type
investigation so far as anyone knows.

But the newly presented Falconbridge radar height-finder data
show the object was gradually rising from 42,000 feet to 72,000
feet from 1115Z to 1129Z (UT/GMT) or 6:15 to 6:29 AM (EST), with
no actual data showing any descent despite a sheer assertion of
both descending and ascending motion (which must be regarded as
unsubstantiated without more specific evidence for descent).

This translates to a climb rate of 1,600 ft/min the first 5
minutes then about 2,400 ft/min the next 9 minutes, and an
almost due eastward course at about 70 mph then northeast at
about 60 mph. This seems to be a balloon that has been caught in
the east-flowing jet stream, having been launched at about 6 AM
apparently, somewhere in the general Sudbury region. We are
lacking in so many basic details such as beginning and end
times, manner of appearance and disappearance, and other data
points on height and location.

The police reports are strangely almost lacking such elementary
info as times, which we'd normally expect in police reports, so
we cannot tell if their sightings relate to Falconbridge's. The
times that are given are several hours prior to Falconbridge's
sighting, except for those just before sunrise, which may
overlap in time. Without angular sizes larger than "star-like"
that are reliably determined the Sudbury police sightings remain
dubious at best. Hours-long sightings of bright star-like
objects with jerky movements in the predawn skies sounds like
stars and planets with the well-known autokinesis effect
(involuntary movements of the eyeball). Apperance of changing
colors, pulsating, sudden motions, and shafts and rays of light
are typical for bright stars. Sunrise was at about 7:20 AM.
Venus would have been very bright in the SE sky before sunrise
and for some time after, rising above the horizon almost due
East at about 3:08 AM. The first sightings with times reported
were "very low" over Sudbury Stadium from about 3:00 to 4:55 AM,
then apparently continued for some indefinite time afterward.
Jupiter was very bright in the Western sky and set beneath the
horizon at about 4:30 AM. Mars and Saturn were very high up in
the SW and SE skies. The brightest star Sirius was high in the
Southern sky.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 12

                   Re: Ural Alien-Body-Pictures? - Persky

From: Alex Persky <alexvi@mail.ru>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 14:35:13 +0200
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 12:56:10 -0500
Subject: Re: Ural Alien-Body-Pictures? - Persky


 >From: Werner Walter <CENAP@addcom.de>
 >Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 13:10:46 +0100
 >Subject: Ural Alien-Body-Pictures?
 >To: UFO Updates <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >Does anyone know more about the so-called Ural Alien-Body which
 >you can see at:

 >http://www.gufoa.kheta.ge/ural-et.html

Hi,

This is a photo of the so-called "Kyshtymski Karlik" (Kyshtym
Dwarf). In 1997 the Russian magazine "Anomalia" published
Michael Gershtein's (ufo_miger@chat.ru) article 'Three Dead
Bodies And Two Movies', here is the summary of the article.


It was claimed that the creature was found in 1996 (1997?) at a
graveyard at the village Kaolinovy by the pensioner Ms. Tamara
Prosvirina. The village is situated near the small Ural town of
Kyshtym. She claimed that she received "a telepathic command" to
go to the graveyard where she found the creature and took it
home. It lived there for a time being and Tamara fed it with
sour cream and milk. Her neighbors and relatives also saw the
living creature, they said that it's color was white and it's
extremities were very mobile because of the special texture of
it's joints. After a while Tamara's neighbors noticed that she
had a severe psychic disease and she was admitted to mental
hospital. The creature was locked up in her house and died
there. After some time it became mummified.

While Tamara was at hospital her house was rod by Mr.Nurtdinov
who found the dead body and seized it up. He said that at that
time the body had a smell of cologne. He dried the body a little
and put the mummy into his refrigerator.

After a while the thief was arrested by Kyshtym militia. Eugeny
Mokichev who was an investigator from Kyshtym found the body in
the cold-store and could not understand what was it. Was it a
victim of an illegal abortion, or misscarriage, or it was a
murdered ugly child? Nobody was astonished by the appearance of
the creature because Kyshtym was situated at the center of the
radioactive contamination zone which had appeared after an
incident at the radioactive wastes store in Cheliabinsk-40 in
1957.

Captain Vladimir Bendlin initiated an investigation and shot a
video of the body. Stanislav Samoshkim who was a local
pathologo-anathomist (the term?) concluded that the body was not
a human being's one. Dr. I.Ermolaeva confirmed his conclusion
and said "there are no children with so strange texture of the
body in existence".

So militia didn't have a ground for the future investigation
because there was no corpus delicti and if there was no corpus
delicti then there was no crime. Capt.Bendlin addressed to a
local "ufologist" by name Ms. Galina Semenkova who was living in
town of Kamensk-Uralsky. She announced that she knows all the
truth about the death humanoid because she had a telepathic
contact with extraterrestrials. She said to Bendlin that this
was an extraterrestrial from Alfa Centauri who had been sent to
the Earth to establish contact with us. In any case, she took
the mummy into her possession and ordered everyone to keep
silence so as not to make Alfa Centaurians angry.

The dead body passed from Ms.Semenkova to another owner, then to
another one and was subsequently lost. The last owners found by
the journalist by name Yuri Konshin said that the mummy was
taken away by a very high-ranking guys from FSS (KGB). But it
was a pretext because FSS could capture the body when it was in
the possession of Kyshtym militia. Moreover, soon after that an
ad appeared in Internet saying that there was "an alien body
from Russia" for sale, in English.

Also Gershtein wrote that the same dead body had been seen about
twenty years ago near the town of Salinas in Puerto-Rico
according to articles in "Evidencia OVNI" and "The Flying Saucer
Review".


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 >
   Dec > Dec 12

             Re: Dr. M. A. Persinger Lecture - 12-04-00 - Kaeser

From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 09:21:42 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 13:08:45 -0500
Subject: Re: Dr. M. A. Persinger Lecture - 12-04-00 - Kaeser


 >Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 18:04:28 +0000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: Dr. M. A. Persinger Lecture - 12-04-00


 >>Persinger's approach to the UFO subject is actually
 >>Investigation By Proclamation, not by doing "real science" as he
 >>puts it. Remember the Debunker's Motto: "Don't bother me with
 >>the facts; my mind is already made up!"

 >Never catch a believer saying that, would you?

 >--
 >John Rimmer
 >Magonia Magazine
 >www.magonia.demon.co.uk

John-

I guess is depends on the meaning of "facts", doesn't it?

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 >
   Dec > Dec 12

                      UFO Evidence II Nears Publication

From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 09:34:02 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 13:10:56 -0500
Subject: UFO Evidence II Nears Publication


Richard Hall spoke at a dinner on Saturday and gave a few
details about the upcoming UFO Evidence II, which is an update
to the famous 1964 NICAP publication. It had been scheduled for
release this month, but it now is set to come out the first week
of January.

It is being published by Scarecrow Press, which (I believe)
concentrates on library texts. Information can be found on their
web site at:

http://www.scarecrowpress.com/Catalog/SingleBook.shtml?command=Search&db=^DB
/CATALOG.db&eqSKUdata=0810838818

It is also available at a discount through Amazon.com:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0810838818/o/qid=976544922/sr=2-2/102
-3044290-1808941

This much anticipated book will provide an excellent overview of
the evidence that has been obtained during the past 36 years,
including police reports, pilot/radar sightings, and trace case
evidence.  It is nearly 800 pages in length and should help to
energize the debate that continues regarding this subject area.

Just thought I'd mention it.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 12

                         New Research Organization?

From: Sean Liddle <gortrix@kos.net>
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 09:48:28 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 13:13:58 -0500
Subject: New Research Organization?


Hi Everyone. I have a plan, and I need input. I believe that a
new UFO research organization is needed. The media and various
governments treat all serious researchers and proponents for
proper research as wackos and freaks quite often, because
whenever a chance arises, the people that get interviewed are
those of us in the community who believe in the fringe elements
of ufology.

Yes, I mean those of us who believe in abduction, Cydonia, the
Striber-esque spiritual ETs, etc etc. I am talking about those of
us who think that the X-Files is a documentary. :)

The rest of us who _do_ believe in UFOs and wish many questions
were answered and wish more in-depth research were funded are
painted with the same brush as the fringe topics.

I propose a new organization. Please submit comments and
suggestions to me at:

kapraufo@yahoo.co.uk

I'll answer most emails that don't call me names or suggest I am
a MIB. :)


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 >
   Dec > Dec 12

                Re: Dr. M. A. Persinger Lecture - 12-04-00 -

From: Chris Rutkowski <rutkows@cc.UManitoba.CA>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 09:13:30 -0600 (CST)
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 13:16:00 -0500
Subject: Re: Dr. M. A. Persinger Lecture - 12-04-00 -


 >From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
 >Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 12:51:27 -0500
 >Fwd Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 10:51:56 +0000
 >Subject: Dr. M. A. Persinger Lecture - 12-04-00

 >I went, I listened and then, on behalf of all the folks who have
 >ever had a sighting, but couldn't attend the lecture, I got up
 >and told Dr. Persinger he was full of crock!....surrounded by a
 >large audience, on top of that!

Michel:

Sounds like you've joined the small and elite club of people
like myself who are definitely _off_ Persinger's Christmas Card
list. :^)

 >Persinger's approach to the UFO subject is actually
 >Investigation By Proclamation, not by doing "real science" as he
 >puts it. Remember the Debunker's Motto: "Don't bother me with
 >the facts; my mind is already made up!"

Yes, Friedman's quote is applicable in many situations. I have
set out simple, common sense reasons and explanations why
Persinger's TST theory doesn't really work, in many forums -
books, articles, TV segments on A&E and HBO, news stories ...
and yet he still gets attention from people who are impressed
with his presentations.

I find the biggest problem with his approach is that he never
investigates UFO reports. He only plugs information about
sightings and events into his database and correlates that data
with locations of faults, earthquakes and other geomagnetic
events. When you actually look at the UFO data he uses, not only
does he include sightings like the ones you detail, but also
many which are obviously stars or aircraft, thus invalidating
his theory by their mere presence. It's common sense, but it
seems lost on many of his supporters.

BTW, he also published an article which suggested that
ufologists would have a higher incidence of cancer than the
general populations because their investigations take them into
areas which are high in electromagnetic activity. How are you
feeling these days, Michel?


--
Nobody in particular









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 12

              Re: Munoz's Report - Corrales Translation, Part I

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 12:40:39 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 13:21:32 -0500
Subject: Re: Munoz's Report - Corrales Translation, Part I


 >From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Munoz's Report - Corrales Translation, Part I
 >Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 05:07:17 -0000

 >Deardorff wrote:

 >>Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 17:27:22 -0500
 >>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Munoz's Report On MC Video, Maccabee
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>I'm looking forward to seeing the geography of it all on your
 >>map file.

Jim Easton wrote:

 >Absolutely Bruce.

 >Draw a map...

 >Prove those Adamski/Meier/Mexico/Walters et al 'flying saucers'
 >aren't 'real' - it's only been, what... 50 plus years?

 >Take your time...

 >Oops... the Walters' portfolio is actually kosher, no foolin'
 >anyone, isn't it?

(Jim quoted from a sighting report by Kenneth Arnold):
 >"I recall looking at my instrument clock which read about five
 >minutes to seven. As I looked up from my instrument panel and
 >straight ahead over the La Grande valley, I saw a cluster of
 >about twenty to twenty- five brass coloured objects that looked
 >like ducks.

 >They were coming at me head on and at what seemed a terrific
 >rate of speed.

 >The sun was at my back and to my right. These objects were
 >coming into the sun. I wasn't sighting through the viewfinder on
 >my camera but was sighting along the side of it. As the group of
 >objects came within 400 yards of me they veered sharply away
 >from me and to their right, gaining altitude as they did so and
 >fluttering and flashing a dull amber color.>

 >They appeared to be round, rather rough on top, and to have a
 >dark or a light spot on top of each one. I couldn't be
 >absolutely positive of this because it all happened so suddenly.

Note especially the next line:

 >I attempted to make a turn and follow them but they disappeared
 >to the east at a speed far in excess of my airplane.

(Continuing)

 >I knew they
 >were not ducks because ducks don't fly that fast.>

 >I was a little bit shocked and exited when I realized they had
 >the same flight characteristics of the large objects I had
 >observed on June 24".

(End of quote................

 >Quack... draw a map...

 >P.S. It's only some banter... don't have a mutilated cow,
 >man...:)

They say it is bad to mix metaphors. Apparently that also
applies to UFO sightings. Show me a duck that can fly faster
than an airplane and I'll eat the Mexican UFO.

(I'd have second thoughts about eating a mutilated cow.)









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 12

              Re: Munoz's Report - Corrales Translation, Part I

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 12:48:32 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 13:24:47 -0500
Subject: Re: Munoz's Report - Corrales Translation, Part I


Because of interest in the Mexico City sighting I am attaching a
single file which is the map provided by Brit Elders showing
locations of the witnesses as of February, 1998.

[] MexCtyMAP.gif






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 12

                       Re: Reluctant Viewers - Hammond

From: Elizabeth Hammond <lizzz@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 13:53:05 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 13:28:12 -0500
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Hammond


 >From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 22:31:59 EST
 >To: UFO UpDates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Mortellaro

 >>From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >>Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 12:29:12 -0500

<snip>

 >So why leave out the witness? Or were you not leaving us out of
 >this nice picture, painted with nice words?

 >Informed readers want to know.


 >Jim Mortellaro,

 >Formerly in the closet - now in the dog house.

Why is that. Rhetorical queery. Very. Queer.

Dear Jim and List:

It seems that all this is is words, words and more words. From
both skeptics as well as those who have sighted UFO's or are
alleged Abductees. Since when is "Research" sitting next to
someone with a tape recorder running? All this shows,IMHO, is
that I can speak. When are REAL researchers going to take the
step off the cliff? Actually examine some of us. Make use of all
the non-invasive technologies out there; cheek swabs for DNA,
MRI's and Cat scans looking for foreign bodies.Control groups
and all the other accoutrament that goes with real science?

Words are easy. It's easy to dismiss Abductee's as phony on the
basis of... still more words. It easy to call oneself an
Abductee, but we have a little head start, we also have
identifiable marks, which all should be collected, collated and
filed. We have memories of our time aboard these Crafts. This
is a lot more than "You aren't real because I say so!" Or "No
one has ever bought anything back as evedince, therefore there
is none!" Sure there is, here I am, I was there and now I'm
back. Now, why is it that no one wants to step forward and
evaluate this very valuable piece of evidence? Are you that
afraid to be wrong?

I beleive that is exactley what the issue is. People are so
afraid to be wrong on this that they'll fill the air with as
much fast talking drivel as they can muster, just to drown us
out. If all we are is crazy, why don't you want us to be heard?
Let us have our say, politly, with respect. And let us have a
brave and well-respected group of Scientists, from many
different disciplines examine the only evidence we have,
Abductees. The results, which ever way they may point, should
be very interesting!

Yours,

Liz Hammond








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 12

                      Re: Corso & the COMETA - Gehrman

From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 16:35:04 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 13:31:42 -0500
Subject: Re: Corso & the COMETA - Gehrman


 >From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Corso & the COMETA
 >Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 14:18:28 -0500

 >Again: Every Corso-phile here has avoided, sidestepped, ignored,
 >and not answered this question: "Do you actually believe that a
 >giant space based defense cobbled together from the stuff in
 >Corso's filing cabinet is protecting the earth from ETs?" Not
 >one of Corso's defenders here has answered that here. After
 >this challenge, there continue to be no takers. What Brave
 >Hearts!


Jan,

If by "Corso-phile" you mean a person who thinks Col. Corso told
the truth about the events he witnessed, then I qualify. I
believe that Col. Corso distributed the contents of his filing
cabinet to selected corporations and this complicated potlatch
resulted in many (not all) of the technological advances we've
seen during the last forty years.

Whether this technology is protecting the earth from aliens is
another matter. I certainly don't know how effective these
weapons are, nor do you. This stuff is all classified. Col.
Corso was in a better position to know than anyone on this list.
He had access to the folks who should have known, so yes, I
guess I trust his judgment when he writes: "I believe their (the
Aliens) intentions were and still are hostile and I believe that
we took the steps necessary to develop the weapons that can
blunt their threat." But what he thinks is secondary to his role
of verifying the reality of the Roswell debris. I believe Col.
Corso is a valuable witness and should be treated with respect.

 >No, the Corso-piles have engaged in such small side issues like
 >is there a drop of water in the dish pan while they fail to
 >affirm that the oceans do have water in them. Curiouser and
 >curiouser.

My main concern is understanding the nature of the creatures
known as aliens. Are they a danger? Are they controlling us in
ways we can only imagine? What are their intentions? These are
valid questions. Aren't you worried, too?






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 12

                      Re: Corso & the COMETA - Auchettl

From: John W. Auchettl <Praufo@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 20:06:03 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 15:57:34 +0000
Subject: Re: Corso & the COMETA - Auchettl



 >Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 20:27:16 -0800 (PST)
 >From: Jan Aldrich <project1947@yahoo.com>
 >Subject: Re: Corso & the COMETA - Aldrich
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 11:40:39 EST
 >>From: John W. Auchettl <Praufo@aol.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Corso & the COMETA - Auchettl
 >>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>


Jan,

Let me address your last point first!

                          ***

 >John, I spent four tours, over seven years in Korea,
 >I travelled extensively in that country. I have some
 >idea of the suffering the Korean people went through.
 >I consider your post insulting in the extreme and
 >right now I am congratulating myself that I didn't
 >let loose with the string of expletives you so
 >richly deserve.

Wonderful and congratulations Jan, your country is very proud of
all hard working Gunner NCOs.

But your not an orphan when it comes to duty, sacrifice, travel,
sights and emotions. Been there, so what!

However, next time you're in Korea you might like to meet me
there and I will take you to a place where your "string of
expletives" or what I would better call "foul mouth" can let
loose. Now my witness will be an Australian - only one of 339
who died in the Korean War (1950-53).


Name:            Woods, William Arthur DCM
Number:          1/400143
Rank:            Private [Pte]
Unit:            3 Bn RAR
Service:         AMF
Conflict:        Korea, 1950-1953
Date of Death:   11/03/1951
Place of Death:  Korea
Cause of Death:  Killed In Action
Memorial Panel:  2
Source:          AWM149 Roll of Honour cards, Korea

He is a member of my family!

REF See the Roll of Honour - SEARCH:
http://www.awm.gov.au/atwar/conflict_korea.htm


                          ***


Have another Look at my post Jan.

I said:

 >>So sorry Jan - That Vet "Lawrence Levine" was right.


You missed the "hook" Jan.


It was "Edward L. Daily" of Clarksville, Tenn, who told the lie
or better still "embellished his personal wartime behaviour".

One of the many requirements to good research is to drop the
"ego" "the I" and 'blind hate' out of the data and keep that
mind open to the message.

The paradox you need to grasp was that 'Edward L. Daily's' crap
revealed the truth - about an event that 'Lawrence Levine' was
at!

Edward Daily's embellished personal wartime behaviour saw Four
Associated Press staff members win the International Consortium
of Investigative Journalists' top reporting award for stories
uncovering attacks by the U.S. military on civilians during the
Korean War A series that also earned the Pulitzer Prize.

                          ***

What you and I believe in has nothing to do with Corso and
Cometa.

I have no evidence that Corso is a Liar nor have you.

If you use the book to prosecute CORSO then you're doomed.

Corso had something to say, he had something on his mind. Now,
if you don't like the book "great" that's up to you, however,
something about CORSO needs further research!

Now REF Jerome Clark post:

http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2000/jun/m29-021.shtml

If you use Jerome Clarks "rhetorical cliff" and the scheme that
the 'tribe has spoken' then that's fine, but that's not
research, evidence or truth - nor is it the end, no matter how
hard one wishes it was.

I totally agree with Jerome Clark, only if you apply the
observation to the book - however, does that answer Corso?

Jerry said:

   "Let me see a show of hands by people who actually
   read this awful book all the way through... Never
   mind. This was a moment of seriousness, we now
   return you to our regularly ration of silliness."

   (REF: updates/2000/jun/m29-021)

So the book was crap?

                          ***

As of the 12 Dec 2000: "The Day After Roswell"

[1]. Australia No1 selling UFO (topic) book.

[2]. Amazon - Hardcover (October 1999)
      ISBN: 0613100638
      Amazon.com Sales Rank: 85,246

[3]. Amazon - Paperback (June 1998)
      ISBN: 067101756X
      Amazon.com Sales Rank: 11,909

      Number of Reviews: 146

                          ***


I surmise:

 From Corsos alleged embellish personal peacetime behaviour we
may see some ingenious member of the public win the
International Consortium of Investigative Ufologists' top
reporting award for a report (joke) that discloses the cover-up
of UFO knowledge from civilians who needed to know etc.

What you and I believe in has nothing to do with Corso and
Cometa.

I have no evidence that Corso is a Liar nor have you.

More power to the next generation of researchers who take up the
challenge and leave the personal crap out of their mind.

A lesson that we all could learn.

More to follow.

UBIQUE

John W. AUCHETTL
Director PRA



Phenomena Research Australia [PRA]
P.O. Box 523, Mulgrave, Victoria, Australia, 3170
Australian & Asia UFO
1961-2000 - 39 YEARS OF RESEARCH SERVICE
========================================================








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 12

                 Translation Of Hesemann's Report - Part III

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 18:54:47 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 16:00:23 +0000
Subject: Translation Of Hesemann's Report - Part III


Hello List,

Below is Part III of my translation, with Hesemann's help, of
his report on his two-day investigation of the Mexico City UFO
of Aug. 6th, 1997.

There's one item of interest in it I hadn't thought about
before. It's the likelihood that hoaxers taking a panoramic
video segment onto which to dub in a UFO image, would have done
so on a clear day with minimal smog, and would have directed
their videocamera towards the two majestic volcanic peaks
visible from the top of the building. Also they wouldn't then
have to contend with making the UFO image look properly merged
into the smog, with brightness varying properly with variation
in the apparent distance of the UFO image.

Jim

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

        Translation of Hesemann's Mex.City UFO Write-up
                                Part III

                        The First Indication

Already on the way we recognized in front of us the block of
tall office buildings with sloping roofs, above which the UFO in
the film appears to hover before it starts moving. A good
beginning, we thought, and we asked our driver to halt. We
questioned the doorman, who sat behind a bulletproof,
reflecting, dark, round pane of glass. He knew nothing about it.
On the question of how large was the building, he answered that
it had an area of 230 square meters, about 17x14 meters. We
noted these numbers, which should prove to be important. That
is, the object appeared on a hazy, smoggy afternoon, and in the
foreground the haze allowed us to determine with fair accuracy
how far in the distance it was from the videographer, and at
what height it hovered. It exhibited about the same degree of
unsharpness of its edges as the forementioned buildings, before
which we now stood. The ratio of the width of the UFO to that of
the building in the film amounted to 1:2.45. The diameter of the
high rise being 17 meters, that of the UFO must have been 6.93
meters, or 7 meters rounded off, with an uncertainty, say, of
+-3 meters (thus 4-10 meters in diameter). Should it have been
still nearer the video camera, it would be correspondingly
smaller. This much was clear, however: If we should find
witnesses in this area, they must have viewed the UFO from a
different perspective than that viewed by the camera some 500
meters distant, namely from underneath. Precisely that would
prove to be correct, as we would later learn.

On the other side of the street there were small stores, a taco
stand and various workshops, and so we crossed the street in
order to seek eye witnesses. Yet with the first persons with
whom we spoke, it was apparent how much publicity the case had
already achieved. To the question, "Have you sometime in recent
months seen an unusual flying object over this area?" almost
everyone answered, "Oh, you mean the UFO that was seen on
[Maussan's program] Televisa?" It made it simpler for us from
then on, and we showed each one to whom we spoke a single
picture from the video.

Unfortunately, we found no first-hand witnesses. The man at the
taco stand said he hardly ever looks up at the sky; he has to
take care of his tacos, and the businessmen seldom leave their
shops. On a residential street there lived some witnesses, so a
man told us, but he knew no names. Finally, after more attempts,
two young men explained to us that their father had seen it. He
would be coming by in the evening. Our first eyewitness was on
tap.

We continued our drive to the shopping center at the plaza
"Reform Laureles." A glance at the panorama showed us that we
were at the right spot. Now we saw the high rises and all the
other buildings from almost the same perspective as shown in the
film. In the direction of the high rises there was a large,
black building with black, reflecting windows. From there the
video must have been shot.

In any case we could exclude one possibility of how the video
might have been faked. The high rises on the film were no
models, no scaled-down copies of the real buildings. That's how
Hollywood would have produced the video, like they did with the
exploding White House model in "Independence Day." No, these
high rises were real. On their roofs the same idle wind vanes
were mounted that were to be seen in the film. Each detail
agreed one-for-one.

                                At the Right Spot!

Here we were productive: We asked some security men who stood in
front of the shopping center. They knew of a colleague who had
seen the UFO, but who had just gone off duty. An employee of the
supermarket in the center should in any case have observed it.
On the first floor we found a location with separate fast-food
stands and tables in front of an enormous bay window with view
of the high rises. We asked around -- and were led to a young
man who cleared off the tables, and who could in any case view
the spooky scene on the film. He finally led us to the security
manager of the shopping center on the roof of the building. We
had a wonderful view of the block of high rises, of the city
center, and also, to our right, the snow covered volcano
Popocatepetl and Ixhuachihuatl, which on this clear and
smog-free December afternoon towered majestically toward the
sky. We asked ourselves, if the video were a hoax, why wouldn't
the hoaxer have videotaped toward that direction? Anyone could
come up the elevator undisturbed to this viewing platform, no
one was otherwise to be seen far and wide, and so a hoaxer could
shoot his film here in peace. The reason why the film was
instead shot from one of the below lying terraces of this
mysterious black office building could have been that the
videographer worked there. The answer to our question must
therefore be found precisely there.

We left the shopping center, but not without seeking out the
restaurant "Freedom -- Bosques" (a Mexican restaurant chain).
Two waiters confirmed to us that their previous manager, Arturo
Garcia, had actually seen the object through the bay window of
the place. Garcia had since been transferred to a southern part
of the capital city, and since Jaime Maussan had already
interviewed him, we left it at that. In any case, both his
ex-coworkers believed him.

On the other side of the street, facing the mysterious black
office building, there was a taco stand, of which Mexico City
has so many. We asked the friendly street vendor if she had seen
something. She had not; however her daughter, Cassandra, who at
the time of the sighting had been on school vacation, helping
her parents, had seen it. It had been shortly before 5 p.m. when
she tried to make her father go look at the UFO. However he had
been too preoccupied.


End of Part III









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 12

                  Re: Ural Alien-Body-Pictures? - Goldstein

From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 04:11:01 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 16:02:16 +0000
Subject: Re: Ural Alien-Body-Pictures? - Goldstein


 >From: Werner Walter <CENAP@addcom.de>
 >Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 13:10:46 +0100
 >Subject: Ural Alien-Body-Pictures?
 >To: UFO Updates <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >Hi List-Members,

 >Does anyone know more about the so-called Ural Alien-Body which
 >you can see at:

 >http://www.gufoa.kheta.ge/ural-et.html

 >Werner Walter,

 >CENAP-Mannheim, URL: http://www.alien.de/cenap
 >UFO-Hotline 0621-701370
 >Herausgeber des Print-Medium CENAP REPORT


Hello Intrepid Voyeurs, er, I mean Voyagers,

Walter, How did you learn of this website? Is this another
"autopsy video", "USSR crashed disc", "as real as Billy Meyer"
video, or what?  How about investigators with contacts in
Russia: Paul Stonehill, George Knapp, Richard Haines, and all
else. Ever heard of this purported alien? I want to make a deal
to buy it from the KGB.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 12

                          Filer's Files #49 -- 2000

From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 22:13:05 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 16:05:01 +0000
Subject: Filer's Files #49 -- 2000


Filer's Files #49 -- 2000, MUFON Skywatch Investigations
George A. Filer, Director, Mutual UFO Network Eastern
December 11, 2000, Sponsored by Electronic Arts; Webmaster
C. Warren http://www.filersfiles.com. - Majorstar@aol.com.

UFOs SIGHTED IN NEW YORK, NEW JERSEY, PENNSYLVANIA, SOUTH
CAROLINA, GEORGIA, NEBRASKA, ARIZONA AND GREECE BUT TOTAL NUMBER
UFO REPORTS DROP IN NOVEMBER

THE GEMINID METEOR SHOWER

The Geminid meteor shower will peak the evening of December 13,
and the early morning of December 14. The meteor shower normally
produces plenty of shooting stars however, an almost full Moon
will hurt viewing as it rises around midnight. You will probably
be able to see some of the brighter meteors, and perhaps a few
UFOs.

UFOs SEEN PASSING INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION

Shepherd, Yuri Gidzenko and Sergei Krikalev, the station's first
full-time crew, were launched aboard a Russian Soyuz ferry craft
October 31, 2000, and docked with the space station two days
later. The crew has been on board for a month when the STS 97,
Shuttle Endeavor astronauts conducted a rendezvous. Jeff
Challender has been monitoring the television downlinks. He was
able to capture a video of a fast moving UFO passing the
International Space Station that is shown on the left side of
the video. The curvature of the Earth is represented by a curved
streak of light in the center of picture. A UFO moves from the
right to left of the screen at an estimated 35,000 mph. The
object appears to be at some several miles away as the object
appears to pass behind the space station. The small ball of
light is moving from east to west; this is the opposite
direction of objects sent into orbit by man. Apparently, the
UFOs are interested in the Space Station and around the area.
Thanks to Jeff Challender, See: www.filersfiles.com

NEW HAMPSHIRE FIREBALL

SALISBURY-- Gerry at Far Shores writes that on December 7, 2000,
Scientists the were examining the mysterious fireball that
landed in a Salisbury, NH backyard this week. Several neighbors
say a softball sized, glowing object landed in the woods behind
their homes starting a small fire. The only sign that anything
happened was two small patches of burned leaves. Most experts
agree that it probably wasn't a meteorite since they seldom
start fires. Russian scientist Andrei Ol'khovatov said it may
have been what he describes as high-speed ball lightning, a rare
electric atmospheric discharge. An engineer at a US Department
of Energy lab in New Mexico said he's heard of similar cases
caused by electrical flashes. Richard Spaulding said, "I think
they are an electrical manifestation -- akin to lightning, but
with nothing to do with thunderstorms." Thanks to Foster's
online, farshores@inorbit.com,
www.farshores.topcities.com/farshores

NEW YORK LUMINESCENT LIGHTS

SARATOGA -- Larry Clark reports that on November 30, 2000,
Fannie L. Sarr saw two luminescent lights flying over the tree
tops in a perfect elliptical motion. The luminescent lights then
became erratic in their movements at 6:45 PM. Fannie said, "My
son and I were driving home from the school when I saw a
luminescent light in the sky moving with great speed." I told my
son that I thought I saw a UFO. As we continued to drive we both
kept looking and within a minute we saw two luminescent lights
moving in a very fast elliptic rotation over the same area over
and over. After we watched the movement of the lights for a few
minutes they started to become erratic. I started to feel a need
to get home quickly as they appeared to be right over my house.
As we drove away we lost sight of them because of the trees.
When we reached home I sent my husband to go see if he could see
them, but he did not. Shortly after this occurrence I noticed
that the internal clock on my computer was not correct and I had
to reset it. Perhaps there is a connection between the clock in
my computer and the lights? Thanks to Larry Clark
www.nymufon.org -and proserver1015@interland.net and
nymufon@nycap.rr.com

LONG ISLAND -- Sheryl Wade writes, I read George Krug's sighting
on Easter morning 1999. I'm responding because very early Easter
morning, I was looking at the moonless sky in a north eastern
direction at 12:15 AM when an object flew over my head just
above the trees. The amazing part is that if I wasn't looking up
I would have never seen it. It was big, fast, and quietly moving
southwest towards Amityville. That same morning something
crashed right off the Southern State Parkway at Exit 32 that
took down trees in a field and accomplished a lot of damage to
the land. They quickly tried to plant new vegetation and blocked
off from the public what happened. It was chalked off in the
news as a meteor. Thanks to Sheryl Wade, migente@earthlink.net.

NEW JERSEY TEARDROP SHAPED UFO

EAST BRUNSWICK -- Ed Nolan writes I am a stock room manager for
a retail store, so was in the process of removing trash to
dumpsters located directly behind the store at 4:35 PM in late
November. My helper and I were walking back to the rear door
when I noticed a black object that appeared at first to be a
balloon coming over the tree line moving east. As it came closer
it took on a teardrop shape. It flew directly over us, and
dipped its nose at us, revealing that it was not round, but was
in fact a craft of some sort. It was all black with two fins
running the length of it. It was an elliptical shape as viewed
head on, similar to the body of the SR-71 Blackbird aircraft.
Because there were clouds overhead, it was very easy to see the
black object. It was like nothing we had ever seen before. I am
very familiar with every known aircraft type in the world, and
this was definitely not a known aircraft. Once it was directly
overhead at 300 feet it was obvious to us that it was either
extraterrestrial, or a government black-ops craft. It never
changed speed or altitude, but did do the dip and wobble when
directly over our heads, affording us to get a good look at it.
We have had no ill effects from our encounter, other than to say
to each other, "They are real!" Martin an engineering student at
Rutgers University also saw the object. Airplanes were also seen
at the same time. Thanks to Ed Nolan.

WEST ALLENHURST -- On Thanksgiving evening November 23, 2000,
observed a V-shaped and crescent-shaped object silently crossing
the sky with dull or faint orangey/pink lights. At 6:15 PM, four
of us were getting in our car. As my husband was unlocking the
car I was gazing up to the sky and noticed a faint light
crossing the sky. I continued to look and I noticed that there
were 6 or 7 faint lights in a V shape. I called to my family to
look up to the sky and they all saw it as well. We watched as it
silently crossed the sky. As we drove, I continued looking up
and saw the same type of faint lights but now there were 8 to 10
"lights" in an arc or crescent shape. Even though the "lights"
were faint, the "object" appeared relatively close compared to
planes that you see in the sky. There was no sound either time,
and there was a hint of a "shadow" where the body of this craft
would be. The dull lights were orangey/pinkish on both of the
sightings and were steady, not blinking or flashing - heading in
a southerly direction. Thanks to Peter Davenport, Director of
the National UFO Reporting Center www.ufocenter.com.

PENNSYLVANIA FLYING TRIANGLE

PHILADELPHIA -- Tommy wrote Malcolm Hawthorne that, a few months
ago three friends and I witnessed an event that I couldn't
explain nor could anyone in our local astronomical group. What
we saw was a set of three identical objects flying in the same
orbit. These objects made a perfect triangle which spun. After
this we saw three single objects flying in the same orbit one
after the other. Then we saw another trio of objects, for a
total of nine objects. All the astro groups claimed that it
seemed like low flying satellites, but I'm smart enough to know
better. Thanks to mh@uforeality.com (Malcolm Hathorne)
sante@speakeasy.net

SOUTH CAROLINA UFO

EASLEY -- On November 27, 2000, Vicki Rholetter, her husband and
her mother-in-law were on Highway 129, returning home when they
saw a UFO hovering in the sky. Vicki reported, "We were
returning home from a shopping trip at 5:15 PM when a large
object flew a little too low off the ground." It didn't appear
to be an airplane, and there were none of the usual flashing
navigation and warning lights one would expect with an airplane.
It didn't look like a helicopter, either. "It didn't appear to
be made of any metal, not that we could see." "As far as we
could tell, it just looked like a big white glob of light
hovering in the sky. " It also changed shape, too, before it
disappeared. My husband said that it looked a little triangular
to him but I thought it appeared more cylindrical at first. As
we watched it, it started to pulse. "First it got very bright,
then dim, then very bright again and finally very dim, and then
it just faded away completely." I noticed that as it got dimmer,
it took on a rounder shape." "I'm really a little skeptical of
UFO sightings, but I really don't know what else it might be?
It's definitely one of the weirdest things I've ever seen.
Thanks to UFO Roundup Vol.5 # 49, 12/7/00 Editor Joseph Trainor
http://ufoinfo.com/roundup/

GEORGIA SEVERAL BRIGHT DISK-SHAPED OBJECTS

ATLANTA -- Several disk-shaped objects were seen moving north at
9:30 PM across the sky on November 23, 2000. The discs were
bright at the onset, then slowly faded away similar to a
reflecting light that moved away from the light source. The
first sighted two objects were followed by a formation of about
8 to 12 UFOs. Then a pause and then a new formation of UFOs were
repeated several times. The discs were moving against the wind
in the upper atmosphere and above the cloud cover. The fading
away of the objects could have been due to the clouds. It is not
possible to define if the brightness of the objects was due to
their own light or if it was reflection from the sun. The
objects were disks shaped as seen with low powered binoculars.
No noise but this may have been due to the distance. I am a
scientist with a Ph.D. in biochemistry. ATLANTA -- Formations of
between 2 and 12 disc-shaped white-yellow lights (as seen with
binoculars), at first bright as they appeared in the sky, then
dimming as they were moving towards north-northeast. All seemed
to be of identical shape and size. In total, over 50 of these
lights were seen by three scientists (including one B.S. and 2
Ph.D.s), and two professional high tech people (including a MBA
graduate from Harvard University), and by a 13-year girl. The
last formation disappeared behind clouds which started to move
into the area. The whole episode lasted for about 15 minutes.

Editor's Notes: Two sets of witnesses apparently saw these UFOs.
Seldom do US aircraft fly in formation at night. A formation of
twelve aircraft is exceptionally rare. These observations
suggest a large mother ship off loading smaller craft was
nearby.

DALTON -- I was driving around my neighborhood about 7:15 PM on
November 27, 2000, when I saw what seemed to be two bright
lights about a quarter of a mile away above the tree tops. I
drove towards the object trying to get a better vantage point to
identify it. As I got within 500 feet, I got the scare of my
life, it was a saucer shaped craft that was about 70 to 80 feet
in diameter hovering 100 feet over a house. It had two bright
lights on each side of the disk and many multicolored lights
between. None of the lights were blinking. I rolled down the
window to listen, but it did not make any sound at all. I had
slowed down to about 5 mph when the craft, which had been
hovering on a horizontal axis, slowly turned onto a vertical
axis and very slowly moved off towards the southwest. As it
moved off I noticed what looked to be a very weak bluish light
emitting from what previously was the top and bottom of the
saucer when it was hovering horizontally. The color of the craft
was gunmetal gray or black, since it was dark and the lights on
it were bright, but they were not illuminating it like I would
have expected them to. After it had moved over the treeline I
did not see it again. I saw this object at a very close range
and it was the most awesome thing that I had ever seen. I am a
very credible and intelligent 32 year old in great health and
have 20/15 vision in both eyes. This was not a common object.
This was a real craft that was made and operated by intelligent
beings. Thanks to Peter Davenport NUFORC, www.ufocenter.com

NEBRASKA DISC SIGHTED

LINCOLN -- Scott Colborn related this story to me while we were
on the air on his radio show "Exploring Unexplained Phenomena"
on KZUM 89.3 and Lincoln Cable TV #10. On November 30, 2000, a
farmer heard his dogs barking very loudly on a farm off Highway
2. The barking was the kind the dogs made when a car approached
their home. The witness looked outside and noticed a very bright
light in his field around 7:00 PM. He decided to walk over to
the field, and invited his dogs to join him. Normally, they were
always willing to go for a walk, but they were afraid and
refused to go. The farmer walked to a grove of trees on the edge
of his field, but the lights that had been very bright, suddenly
blacked out. Since the field was now dark, he decided not to go
further and returned to his home. His dogs acted very violently
toward him and did not seem to recognize him, so he ran into his
home. He ran up to the second floor and used his binoculars to
search the field. The lights were now on again, and he could see
a disc shaped object. He focused his binoculars better and was
able to see portals or windows in the disc, that he calls "a
unit." He noticed movement in a thicket near the disc. Suddenly
something moved quickly from thicket to the unit. Shortly there
after the object brightened and took off. He has been very busy
had so far has not checked field for landing traces. Thanks to
Scott Colborn. kcoborn@inetnebr.com.

ARIZONA FORMATION OF FLYING TRIANGLES

AVONDALE -- I was going to the backyard on December 1, 2000,
when I turned to the southwest, towards "South Mountain," and I
saw a whole bunch of lights in the shape of one big triangle at
6:45 PM. It seemed to have helicopters flying along side the
Flying Triangle that looked like they were "protecting." The sky
was sort of pinkish purple that day.

PHOENIX - The witness reports that a Flying Triangle UFO was
seen by her eleven year old grandson while taking out garbage on
November 20, 2000. My grandson along with his mother called me
to tell they had seen UFOs at 8:45 PM. He describe them as
Flying Triangles but it was too dark to see how many they were.
He did say the Flying Triangles broke apart and became three. A
bright green beam was seen. Two of the UFOs left going south
while one just hovered. The area was near freeway I-17 and 27th
Avenue. The mother (my daughter) came to look and noticed that
two UFOs seemed to hang in the sky. Then another light joined
the two and started to move toward their home. I told them to
pray they are demonic and you don't want to let them know you
are curious.

VAIL -- My son in law and daughter witnessed a large glowing
teardrop shaped craft flying very low at almost 100 meters off
the ground on November 4, 2000. They drove toward it the craft
flashing their lights. The craft "doubled" it's height, and
started to move west along the railroad tracks. The sighting was
near a new golf course two miles north of I-10 Interstate. As
the craft moved west, two A-10 fighter aircraft tried to follow
it. It increased in speed and lost the A-10 aircraft. The color
of the craft was a "glow in the dark" light green/white. It had
a red light at "pointed" aft end. It was encircled with
different colored lights around the perimeter. It made no noise
during any movement. My daughter says that there was a dark
area, like a windshield on the upper "dome." My son in law is an
electrician and my daughter is waitress.

PHOENIX -- On November 28, 2000, Jason Ingraham reported seeing
a mass in the shape of a Flying Triangle with a deep red light
on each point that three lights would blink on an off together.
Around 7:00 PM Jason observed it moving northwest for about 10
seconds when the object began to lean to the left and began to
rotate in a clockwise motion. I was able to watch it long enough
to see it make a full rotation before disappearing behind some
distant trees. The movements were so smooth and unwavering that
it seemed unreal. There were 6 normal airplanes in the sky along
with the very different Flying Triangle.

SCOTTSDALE -- While watching TV at 8:45 PM, we saw three very
bright lights in the southern sky over Phoenix on November 4,
2000. The three lights were in a triangle pattern, one on top
and two on the bottom. The bottom left light went out first for
about ten seconds while the other two remained on. Then it came
back on. Then two of the lights went out at exactly the same
time for about ten seconds and they reappeared. The lower left
light went out again and did not come back on. Finally the other
two lights went out and they did not reappear. While this was
going on we saw a normal size commercial airplane heading for
the Phoenix Sky Harbor airport in the distance, but it was very
SMALL in size compared to the triangle we witnessed. Thanks to
Peter Davenport NUFORC www.ufocenter.com Editor's Note: The
Flying Triangles are being seen on a regular basis over Arizona.

CALIFORNIA CONTRAIL MESSAGE

LOS ANGELES -- Rob Maine reports a very strange twist in the
contrail story. On December 8, 2000, for the first time
contrails have been used to write a message in plain English! At
3:00 PM on Wednesday the words "WHO ARE WE?" with a question
mark were repeated all over the Los Angeles sky in block
letters! This was at contrail altitude in what ought be a
violation of FAA rules over a major city! I viewed through a 20
power telescope what appeared to be an unmarked Boeing 770
aircraft. At 1:00 PM, today I viewed a test of this high
altitude sky writing when a perfect H and R and a question mark
were written over the San Gabriel Valley. There were two planes
visible during the writing of the message. One aircraft appeared
to be a KC-10. I watched the formation of a perfect block letter
E with two planes flying in formation and turning off the
"contrail" at the exact same moment to form the out crossbars of
the E. This proves once and for all that we are not dealing with
a normal contrail, but a spray that is being controlled by
valves! This should have been seen by at least a million people,
but I will be surprised to see if any news media mentions it at
all. The message was clearly readable for 45 minutes over
Pasadena with a hundred people on the street and no one noticed.
Could this be a psychological test to see just how brainwashed
the American people have become? I find astounding that such a
blatant display could occur over one of the largest cities in
America and nobody notices it! The planes appear to be coming
from the Antelope Valley and Edwards or Vandenberg Air Force
Bases. They are gray and have no markings and are usually two or
three engine jets such as DC-10 or 767 types. Lots of dot and
dash trails appear that seem to be clearing the nozzles or
something. These aircraft were flying far above the airliners
coming from Los Angeles International Airport. They apparently
have stopped trying to hide their existence and thrown down the
gauntlet. Has anyone else seen this mysterious WHO ARE WE?
Thanks Rob Maine Rmefx@aol.com

CANADA ICE RINGS

ONTARIO -- Just received a report from CPR-Canada Ontario
director Drew Gaily, of an ice ring found in eastern Ontario,
near the village of Delta. According to Drew and local reporter
Peter Dunkley, the ring is in pond ice, and is about 15 feet in
diameter and 3 inches in width. The ice is very thin, and
apparently would not support anyone walking on it. Also, the
surrounding area has a light covering of snow and no footprints
were seen anywhere. The ring appeared the night of December 2,
2000. Though not a "crop circle," this is the tenth report now
of circular type phenomena received this year. I have also just
received reports of three similar ice formations, in Ontario and
Quebec, from late 1999. Two are said to have been circles or
rings and the other is a more complex 'pictogram,' all in ice
and snow. Thanks to Paul Anderson
cprcanadanews-subscribe@egroups.com

GREECE UFO SPOTTED

On the weekend of November 11-12, 2000, several people reported
seeing a UFO over the island of Crete, which then traveled to
Northern Greece. Witnesses reported seeing a bright light just
after dusk. The light would approach and then move farther away.
The object was enveloped in a green or red cloud-like light and
was about the size of a full moon. The sighting was filmed and
shown on Greek national television. I am collecting a research
database on past and current UFO and paranormal events in Greece
and Cyprus and welcome reader feedback. I can be reached at
www.GreekFuture.com. Thanks to Alexander Zikas, M.S. Engr.,
MUFON Virginia."

US & CANADIAN FIGHTERS MOVE TO COUNTER RUSSIAN PROBES

Pravda News announced December 6, that Igor Sergeyev, Russian
Defense Minister believed the US submarine 'Memphis' had
collided with the Russian 'Kursk' sub causing its sinking. He
confirmed comments by Norwegian Northern Force commander Admiral
Einar Skorgen, that Russian antisubmarine aircraft had pursued a
foreign submarine on August 17, 2000, into Norwegian waters. The
US sub was believed to be damaged and was escaping from the site
of the sinking. Admiral Skorgen also said, Russian aircraft got
so absorbed in the pursuit that they nearly violated the
Norwegian air space, so Norwegian fighters were scrambled to
ward them off. Allegedly, the 'Memphis' sub was observed making
repairs in Bergen, Norway.

Apparently, in a move to show their displeasure with the US the
Russians have moved TU-95 Bear recce/bombers to two Siberian
bases and are expected to probe Alaskan defenses. Pentagon
spokesman Kenneth Bacon said, "US F-15 Eagles and Canadian CF-18
Hornet fighter aircraft were deployed to forward operating
locations in Alaska and Canada to counter the Russian move.
During the cold war the Soviets often deployed Bear bombers from
Russia to Cuba penetrating US defenses along the coast.

On October 17 and November 9, Russian SU-24 reconnaissance
aircraft and SU-27 interceptors buzzed the aircraft carrier USS
Kitty Hawk in the Sea of Japan and took photographs. The Russian
air force chief General Anatoly Kornukov claimed the Russian
aircraft's approach came as "an absolute surprise" to the Kitty
Hawk, which didn't raise their fighters into the air until the
second flight.

LOS ALAMOS ALLEGED UFO FACILITIES

Robert Collins writes, in the website link below there is a LANL
Area map. In there the reader will note areas marked as A, B,
and C. These are the areas reported to be the three major
underground facilities devoted to studies of recovered UFO/Alien
artifacts. A big caution here, since there is no proof that any
of these facilities exist at this writing. They are only being
reported. The Facility marked as "A" is said to be one of the
original underground facilities devoted to the study of "alien
artifacts" and dates all way back to the early fifties. It was
dubbed or nicknamed the "Dulce Complex." If one drives by the
front gate of TA 49 you will see that it has a simple fence with
a lock on it, nothing unusual: The perfect cover? Please see,
http://home.sprintmail.com/~rigoletto/reports/mj12_lanl_underg_f
acilities.htm


PHOTOGRAPH BOOKLET of some of the best UFO photographs available
and data on their propulsion systems by US Navy Commander Graham
Bethune. for $10.00. CD of Filer's Files for 1997, 98, 99 & 2000
for only $25. Send check or money order to G. Filer 222 Jackson
Road, Medford, New Jersey 08055.

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 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, & 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 e-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 >
   Dec > Dec 12

                     Little Community With A Big Mystery

From: Kelly Peterborough <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 23:28:42 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 16:07:59 +0000
Subject: Little Community With A Big Mystery


December 9, 2000
http://www.dailycourier.com/CNkeck1209.html

Close To Home

Kecksburg: Little community with a big mystery

EDITOR'S NOTE: Welcome to Kecksburg. Close to Home is a series
which runs periodically in The Daily Courier. The story features
a look at the small town from its citizens' viewpoints.

Bernadette Myers
For The Daily Courier

Today marks the 35th anniversary of the strangest night in
Kecksburg's history.

According to Kecksburg resident Bob Bittner Sr., a metallic,
acorn-shaped, unidentified flying object fell to earth near
Kecksburg, and the event was followed by a military recovery of
the object.

Bittner was there when the military came in: "Forty-five minutes
later, they came out of the ravine. I saw a truck with a tarp on
it, but I couldn't tell if anything was on it."

He says, however, other witnesses say they saw an object on the
truck.

"No one will ever tell me there wasn't something. They didn't
send all that military out there to look at shooting stars,"
states Bittner.

"Ninety percent think something happened, 10 percent think it's
a hoax," says Bittner of one of the few points of division in
the small, close-knit community.

The quiet village of Kecksburg seems an unlikely backdrop for
such an unusual event. Kecksburg was founded in 1866 when John
Martin Keck, a German immigrant who had settled in Greensburg,
purchased five acres in Mount Pleasant Township and laid out
plans for a small community. By 1868, the community had a
general store, blacksmith shop and a post office with Keck
serving as postmaster.

By the late 1800s, Kecksburg was also home to a cigar factory,
funeral home, drug store, hotel, barbershop, church, livery
stable, and doctor's office.

Keck's son William, or "Will G.," was affiliated with the firm
that bottled mineral water found on the Keck farm and that lead
to the development of the Pepsi-Cola bottling plant that
operated in Kecksburg for many years.

In addition to the water and soft drink bottling industry, Will
G. Keck also helped bring the first telephone company to the
area. In 1906, the company that would become "The Citizens
Telephone Company of Kecksburg" was founded.

Now mostly residential, Kecksburg today is a little quieter than
it was in the past. The Pepsi bottling plant is now the site of
"A-liner," a camper manufacturer. Just a few other businesses
are nearby.

Hutter's Dairy sits "just over the hill" from Kecksburg, according to
owner Jane Hutter. She and husband Gilbert have operated the dairy since
1951. They have processed milk from their dairy and opened a store in
1969.

Customers come from all around to buy their milk.

"Greensburg, Latrobe, wherever they don't have our milk in the
store,"says Hutter.

Duane Hutter of the Kecksburg Volunteer Fire Department says the
VFD provides social activities as well as rescue services. They
have an annual "gun bash" each spring and a fair during the last
full week of July. Weekly activities include Monday night bingo
and Wednesday night wing night.

These activities provide necessary funds for the fire
department, which has a roster of 68 active and inactive
members.

"The community has been tremendous to us," comments Hutter. The
small community has enabled the VFD to keep updating its fleet.
They recently joined together to build a tanker truck for
$26,000 that holds 3,500 gallons of water.

Hutter adds that if a tanker of that size were to be purchased,
the bill would have been $295,000. He says the Kecksburg VFD
also operates the state certified rescue truck for the township,
and the rescue squad is charted under the fire department.

The fire department grounds are the site of the UFO model,
displayed high atop a platform for residents and passers-by to
see.

Bittner was there during the filming for "Unsolved Mysteries" in
1990. "There was a reenactment. It was a pretty big project, a
lot of Army trucks," he recalls.

Despite the story being featured on national television and
efforts by local researchers such as Stan Gordon of Greensburg,
what actually happened that December night remains unexplained,
and Kecksburg remains a little community with a big mystery.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 12

                           Compuserve/Project FT?

From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 05:51:28 +0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 16:09:10 +0000
Subject: Compuserve/Project FT?


Hi All,

Could someone please tell me if you have to be a member of
Compuserve to gain access to the UFO forum? Would it be possible
for someone to tell me on how I get to join the UFO forum on
Compuserve.

Also I seem to have lost the URL for Project FT, could someone
kindly please post this to the list.

Kind Regards,

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 >
   Dec > Dec 12

                            'Touched By An Alien'

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 04:12:10 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 16:10:55 +0000
Subject: 'Touched By An Alien'


Hello All,

Awhile back I saw a film that was produced by an independent
film maker named, Laurel Chiten called, 'Twitch and Shout'. It's
about people who live with Turrets Syndrome. The film made me
think, laugh, and cry in alternating waves from start to finish.
The film maker is gifted.

Well, she's trying to put together another one called, 'Touched
By An Alien'. They are trying to raise funds to get this film
edited and 'out there.' You can view a 13 minute clip in
streaming Real Video at the following URL.

http://www.blinddog.net

You guys know me. I'm rough on TV shows and movies that treat
the subject of UFOs or abductions in a way that only serves to
put asses in the seats for the producers and that have little or
nothing to do with an intelligent or sane look at a difficult
subject. I'm even rougher in terms of being critical about the
way that abductees are presented or treated in some of these
offerings.

This one is different folks. This one seems to tell it like it
is from the perspective of the experiencer as well as some those
who have attached themselves to the phenomenon or have found
themselves drawn into it for one reason or another. Don't look
for "science" or an "investigation" you won't find it.

What you will find is real people. The segments with the
abductees are open, honest, intimate, and just plain riveting.
As an experiencer I plan to support the efforts to get this film
completed and aired. Even if you are just a lover of good
independent films I hope you lend what support you can towards
getting this one completed.

If you support the efforts of some abductees that have had the
courage to report in spite of exposing themselves to character
assassination and ridicule, then support these people. Put yer
money where yer mouth is!

(Thanks to Lister 'Dave' for putting me wise to this one!)  ;)


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 >
   Dec > Dec 12

                             Jonathan Reed Hoax

From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 02:36:32 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 16:12:50 +0000
Subject: Jonathan Reed Hoax


This guy just won't accept that the masses are not willing to
fall for his ridiculous hoax. The webiste has been updated and
the photos of the alien are a good source for a laugh if you're
looking for one. Though I can't say I laugh all that often when
I imagine the damage this moron has done to ufology.

http://www.odysseylink.net/Gallery/Gallery.htm

More embelishment and more sensationalist tabloid crap...


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









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 12

                     50th Anniversary of a UFO Invasion

From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 11:56:50 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 16:17:02 +0000
Subject: 50th Anniversary of a UFO Invasion


Greetings everyone!

In a few e-mails I got recently I was reminded that on my Name
Day, December 6, was the 50th anniversary of an event that
nearly brought about World War III but remains little known and
still unexplained to this day. What really happened on December
6, 1950?

British Prime Minister Clement Attlee arrived in Washington,
D.C. in December 4 with stories in the newspapers of an imminent
nuclear attack on the U.S. by the Soviets since the U.S.
military under General MacArthur was considering using their
nuclear weapons against Chinese troops during the Korean War.

To quote from one of the e-mails I got from a fellow researcher
of the UFO phenomena, on December 5th, President Truman wrote in
his diary, "It looks like World War III is here. I hope not -
but we must meet whatever comes - and we will.". Secretary of
State Dean Acheson went to bed thinking that he would not be
surprised to ba awaken by an announcement of a global war. The
following morning all hell seemed to break loose when the U.S.
early warning system picked up a formation of unidentified
objects flying in over Alaska on a southeast heading towards
Washington, D.C. All interception and defense forces were
alerted.

As am sure you all know, WWIII did not happen that day. The
official explanation given was it was a false alarm produced by
a flight of geese (this was in the pre-pelican days). Was it
something more serious than just birds? I think it was. That
same day(?) U.S. military forces, not members of the SPCA,
crossed into Mexico just across the border from Texas to recover
one of these downed "geese". This UFO crash was confirmed by
several credible individuals including a well known Mexican
General who was in command of this specific area where the
incident occurred. Many researchers, including Larry Bryant who
last year petitioned Mexican officials for more information,
have been frustrated in their attempts to find out what the U.S.
military did with the UFO wreckage and at least one recovered
E.T. alien body.

It is interesting to read that 50 years later there are again
increased tensions between Russia and the U.S. over the alleged
sinking of the Russian submarine Kursk by the U.S. submarine
Memphis. The Russians are expected to probe U.S. defenses in
Alaska with their TU-95 bombers as they did during the Cold War
years and I suspect I will again hear of many more stories from
friends, one of which is now a Canadian astronaut, about Russian
bombers being met by them in their Canadian CF-18 Hornets and
escorted back out of our airpsace.

If anyone of you has any information, including possible new
leads, insights or comments about this UFO crash/retrieval case
(Item B-7 on page 22 in Leonard Stringfield's Status Report II),
many researchers, including UFO UpDates subscribers and seekers
of the truth such as myself, want to know.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 12

                      Bigelow/NIDS Purchase Of Records

From: J. D. Scarpellini <Claros10@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 12:45:37 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 16:22:09 +0000
Subject: Bigelow/NIDS Purchase Of Records


[Non-Subscriber Post]

To the List:

Since I've read the various postings concerning John Carpenter's
sale of records to Robert Bigelow/NIDS the following things from
Roger K. Leir's book may be of interest. It appears that
Bigelow/NIDS may have a history (ongoing?) of solicitatiion of
and purchase of files.

The Aliens And The Scalpel (ISBN 1-893183-02-5)
Granite Publishing, author Dr. Roger K. Leir, D.P.M.

On page 107 Dr. Leir describes a call from Bigelow's secretary
telling Dr. Leir that the board has been looking at the budget
proposal. They (the board) would like to know the paitients
names, medical histories, and experiences as abductees. They
would also like to know if they have demonstrable evidence which
shows on an X-ray CAT scan or MRI.

Leir then writes that he told the secretary that he would
happily provide all the answers and send them by FAX. "I typed
the answers that night and FAXed them to both NIDS and Derrel"

Several days later Leir received another communication from the
secretary telling him the board had approved the budget and she
would fax him a set of documents.

It seems to me that names and medical histories are more medical
records. (That are now paid for and in Bigelow/NIDS hands) I'd
like to hear opinions and thoughts from anyone else that has
read this book. It sure looks like Bigelow _asked_ for
information from medical records. Were there release forms
signed by the patients? Did they know about it?

J. D. Scarpellini








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 12

                        Re: Reluctant Viewers - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 12:40:20 -0600
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 16:24:38 +0000
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Evans


 >From: Elizabeth Hammond <lizzz@worldnet.att.net>
 >Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 13:53:05 -0500
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Hammond

Previously, Elizabeth wrote:

 >When are REAL researchers going to take the
 >step off the cliff? Actually examine some of us. Make use of all
 >the non-invasive technologies out there; cheek swabs for DNA,
 >MRI's and Cat scans looking for foreign bodies.Control groups
 >and all the other accoutrament that goes with real science?

 >Words are easy. It's easy to dismiss Abductee's as phony on the
 >basis of... still more words. It easy to call oneself an
 >Abductee, but we have a little head start, we also have
 >identifiable marks, which all should be collected, collated and
 >filed.

<snip>

 >Now, why is it that no one wants to step forward and
 >evaluate this very valuable piece of evidence? Are you that
 >afraid to be wrong?

 >The results, which ever way they may point, should
 >be very interesting!

Hi, Elizabeth!

Know what's even more interesting? Is why people like yourself
don't go to a doctor and have the scans and examinations done
and documented for all the world to see. Money is not the issue,
since proof of ET life (by way of the evidence that you claim is
contained within your body) would be worth mucho bucks. 24 Hours
or 60 minutes would probably pick up the medical bills, just for
the exclusive right to the story.

So, go ahead! Be a trend setter and have the tests done! As you
say:

 >Words are easy. It's easy to dismiss Abductee's as phony on the
 >basis of... still more words.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 12

                    Re: Ural Alien-Body-Pictures? - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 13:48:21 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 16:27:59 +0000
Subject: Re: Ural Alien-Body-Pictures? - Velez


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 22:19:46 EST
 >Subject: Re: Ural Alien-Body-Pictures?
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Werner Walter <CENAP@addcom.de>
 >>Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 13:10:46 +0100
 >>Subject: Ural Alien-Body-Pictures?
 >>To: UFO Updates <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>Does anyone know more about the so-called Ural Alien-Body which
 >>you can see at:

 >>http://www.gufoa.kheta.ge/ural-et.html

 >Hi, Werner, List:

 >Are there any physicians on this List who could judge whether
 >this might be a human infant or fetus?

 >Of course, KGB stole the body. But, did KGB still exist in 1996?


Hey Bob, All,

Errol, is that Israeli doctor who was posting awhile back still
subscribed to the List? If not, and you have his e-mail address,
could you forward it to me so I can ask him his opinion of these
Russian "alien" photos.

I agree Bob. A doctor needs to tell us if this is a human fetus
or deformed stillborn. If a physician says no, then we can go
from there. I would have dismissed it were it not for the
diminutive size of the body and how well defined and developed
the skeletal system appears to be. The bones "look" very mature
for a fetus or even a stillborn infant.

Curious pix. I was ready to blow them off but I have to admit
they _are_ a curiosity.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 12

              Re: Munoz's Report - Corrales Translation, Part I

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 15:57:26 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 16:34:18 +0000
Subject: Re: Munoz's Report - Corrales Translation, Part I


 >Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 12:40:39 -0500
 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Re: Munoz's Report - Corrales Translation, Part I
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Munoz's Report - Corrales Translation, Part I
 >>Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 05:07:17 -0000

 >>Deardorff wrote:

 >>>Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 17:27:22 -0500
 >>>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: Munoz's Report On MC Video, Maccabee
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
<SNIP>

 >(Jim quoted from a sighting report by Kenneth Arnold):
 >>"I recall looking at my instrument clock which read about five
 >>minutes to seven. As I looked up from my instrument panel and
 >>straight ahead over the La Grande valley, I saw a cluster of
 >>about twenty to twenty- five brass coloured objects that looked
 >>like ducks.

 >>They were coming at me head on and at what seemed a terrific
 >>rate of speed.

 >>The sun was at my back and to my right. These objects were
 >>coming into the sun. I wasn't sighting through the viewfinder on
 >>my camera but was sighting along the side of it. As the group of
 >>objects came within 400 yards of me they veered sharply away
 >>from me and to their right, gaining altitude as they did so and
 >>fluttering and flashing a dull amber color.>

 >>They appeared to be round, rather rough on top, and to have a
 >>dark or a light spot on top of each one. I couldn't be
 >>absolutely positive of this because it all happened so suddenly.

 >Note especially the next line:

 >>I attempted to make a turn and follow them but they disappeared
 >>to the east at a speed far in excess of my airplane.

 >(Continuing)

 >>I knew they
 >>were not ducks because ducks don't fly that fast.>

 >>I was a little bit shocked and exited when I realized they had
 >>the same flight characteristics of the large objects I had
 >>observed on June 24".

 >(End of quote................

 >>Quack... draw a map...

 >>P.S. It's only some banter... don't have a mutilated cow,
 >>man...:)

 >They say it is bad to mix metaphors. Apparently that also
 >applies to UFO sightings. Show me a duck that can fly faster
 >than an airplane and I'll eat the Mexican UFO.

 >(I'd have second thoughts about eating a mutilated cow.)

Bruce, Jim & List,

It is easy to see how 2-foot ducks could so quickly disappear in
Arnold's July 29, 1947, sighting and have nothing to do with the
radically different sighting situation in Arnold's famous
incident on June 24 -- which Easton claims were due to 10-foot
pelicans anyway, rather than 2-foot ducks.

The duck-like objects were coming at Arnold's plane "head on"
which would require a 180-degree turn to pursue. Whereas on June
24 the objects crossed Arnold's path in front of him so he had
plenty of opportunity to chase after them, if it had been
physically possible to do so, merely by heading straight towards
them with no turn necessary at all, or a gradual turn to follow
them after passing the dead-ahead point.

In a standard 2-minute tight turn (rather than a 4-minute turn)
the 180-degree turn would be accomplished in 1 minute. Had
Arnold attempted such a turn, at a relative closing speed of
roughly 100 mph with the duck-like objects the "ducks" would
have traveled about 1.7 miles behind the plane in 1 minute.
Unlike the much larger pelicans which would disappear to the eye
at about 6 miles' distance (1 arcminute visual resolution) the
2-foot ducks would disappear at a distance of only about 1.2
miles -- or even before Arnold could have completed a turn to
try to pursue them.

Moreover, Arnold said the duck-like objects were "coming into
the sun" and that they "disappeared to the east" -- which was
the approximate direction of the sun in that morning incident so
it's no wonder the "ducks" disappeared for the additional reason
of the sun's glare. (The sun was at azimuth 76 degs elevation 13
degs, at 6:55 AM MST on July 29, 1947, over Union, Oregon.)


The illusion of "terrific" speed of the ducks or duck-like
objects was caused by the surprise effect of it happening "so
suddenly" and due to the physics of the ducks' disappearance as
a result of their head-on trajectory, small size and the
interference of the sun's glare. Please note Arnold had no
_quantitative_ value for the alleged "terrific" speed, nor any
comparison with which someone else could derive a number for the
speed, it was purely a subjective impression

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 >
   Dec > Dec 12

              Re: UFO Evidence II Nears Publication - Goldstein

From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 22:17:41 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 21:27:49 +0000
Subject: Re: UFO Evidence II Nears Publication - Goldstein


 >From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@konsulting.com>
 >To: 'UFO UpDates - Toronto ' <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: UFO Evidence II Nears Publication
 >Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 09:34:02 -0500

 >Richard Hall spoke at a dinner on Saturday and gave a few
 >details about the upcoming UFO Evidence II, which is an update
 >to the famous 1964 NICAP publication. It had been scheduled for
 >release this month, but it now is set to come out the first week
 >of January.

 >It is being published by Scarecrow Press, which (I believe)
 >concentrates on library texts. Information can be found on their
 >web site at:

 >http://www.scarecrowpress.com/Catalog/SingleBook.shtml?command=Search&db=^DB
 >/CATALOG.db&eqSKUdata=0810838818

 >It is also available at a discount through Amazon.com:

 >http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0810838818/o/qid=976544922/sr=2-2/102
 >-3044290-1808941

 >This much anticipated book will provide an excellent overview of
 >the evidence that has been obtained during the past 36 years,
 >including police reports, pilot/radar sightings, and trace case
 >evidence.  It is nearly 800 pages in length and should help to
 >energize the debate that continues regarding this subject area.

 >Just thought I'd mention it.

 >Steve

Hello Steve and all other Listerions,

Thanks for mentioning it Steve. Richard Hall has been for many
years one of my mentors in Ufodom. Aside from presenting
research data and facts, he has been a guiding force in clearly
showing what standards are required to be a legitimate
researcher. He has written excplicitly condemning the
thoughtless habits of unscientific dilletantes. He is one of
only a very few men on Earth able to focus his eyes and pen
sharply, and at a distance strip the feathers off a flock of
approaching pelicans.

My kind of bird <g>.

I could not get into the link you provided to the List for
Scarecrow Press. It gave me an error message that said I was not
allowed to enter the file. I had to fire up one of my search
engines and go looking for it.

I also went into the Amazon site to look at the prepublication
page. Lower down on the page is a section that says something
like, people who have bought Richard Hall's books also like the
following authors: it then lists a bunch of authors of
firefighter books. I'm sure "UFO Evidence II will be a fine
tome, but it is not a firefighting book. One author, a John
Norman, wrote "Fire Officers Handbook of Tactics". Perhaps Mr.
Hall might be interested in cowriting "Fire Officer's Handbook
of Tactics at UFO Incidents" as a worthy companion to the
chapter regarding UFOs in the current firefighter's manual ( I
don't remember the correct title).

So long,

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 >
   Dec > Dec 12

              Re: Three Crashed Saucers With Bodies? - Balaskas

From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 16:45:03 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 21:32:04 +0000
Subject: Re: Three Crashed Saucers With Bodies? - Balaskas


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 11:11:37 EST
 >Subject: Re: Three Crashed Saucers With Bodies?
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

 >BTW, in the 70's I interviewed every living participant of the
 >Robertson Panel including all CIA and Air Force personnel and no
 >one ever told me about an incident of refusing to go outside of
 >the hotel to look at a UFO, and in the three decades of research
 >since the interviews I have never heard of such a story.  I
 >vaguely recall that Hynek told a story about astronomers at an
 >astronomy conference like that.

Hi Brad. Hi Mac.

You are correct about the astronomy conference (see URL below).

http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2000/dec/m07-018.shtml

I have not been able to find out if Dr. Thornton Page, Robertson
Panel member and past astronomer with the University of Chicago
was among the several hundred astronomers at the meeting in
Victoria, Canada back in 1968 who did not bother to step outside
to see for themselves when strange maneuvering lights were
reported in the sky.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 12

               Re: Bigelow/NIDS Purchase Of Records - Tonnies

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 14:09:30 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 21:42:15 +0000
Subject: Re: Bigelow/NIDS Purchase Of Records - Tonnies


 >From: J. D. Scarpellini <Claros10@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 12:45:37 EST
 >Subject: Bigelow/NIDS Purchase Of Records
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Since I've read the various postings concerning John
 >Carpenter's sale of records to Robert Bigelow/NIDS the
 >following things from Roger K. Leir's book may be of interest.
 >It appears that Bigelow/NIDS may have a history (ongoing?) of
 >solicitatiion of and purchase of files.

 >The Aliens And The Scalpel (ISBN 1-893183-02-5) Granite
 >Publishing, author Dr. Roger K. Leir, D.P.M.

 >On page 107 Dr. Leir describes a call from Bigelow's secretary
 >telling Dr. Leir that the board has been looking at the budget
 >proposal. They (the board) would like to know the paitients
 >names, medical histories, and experiences as abductees. They
 >would also like to know if they have demonstrable evidence
 >which shows on an X-ray CAT scan or MRI.

<snip>

Just a quick note for those wanting to read the book: The book
"Casebook: Alien Implants" published in Whitley Strieber's
"Hidden Agendas" series, is a reprint of the much more expensive
(and hard to find) "The Aliens and the Scalpel."

=====
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 >
   Dec > Dec 12

                     Re: Compuserve/Project FT? - Poulet

From: Jacques Poulet <jpoulet@chucara.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 17:12:38 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 21:43:50 +0000
Subject: Re: Compuserve/Project FT? - Poulet


 >Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 05:51:28 +0000
 >From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Compuserve/Project FT?

 >Hi All,

 >Could someone please tell me if you have to be a member of
 >Compuserve to gain access to the UFO forum? Would it be possible
 >for someone to tell me on how I get to join the UFO forum on
 >Compuserve.

Here's the French URL:

http://forumsb.compuserve.com/gvforums/FRA/default.asp?srv=ufo

Try from there, to locate the English one.

Good Luck!



Jacques Poulet      http://www.chucara.com/

Cimetire           http://www.multimania.com/jpoulet/cimetiere/
English Chucara     http://www.chucara.com/saut/english.html

CHUCARA                Phone: (514) 913-0274
Box 61
La Prairie, Qc
Canada  J5R 3Y1








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 12

              Re: Translation Of Hesemann's Report - Part III -

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 15:45:39 -0600
Fwd Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 21:48:18 +0000
Subject: Re: Translation Of Hesemann's Report - Part III -


 >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 18:54:47 -0800
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Translation Of Hesemann's Report - Part III

Previously, Jim wrote:

 >Below is Part III of my translation, with Hesemann's help, of
 >his report on his two-day investigation of the Mexico City UFO
 >of Aug. 6th, 1997.

 >There's one item of interest in it I hadn't thought about
 >before. It's the likelihood that hoaxers taking a panoramic
 >video segment onto which to dub in a UFO image, would have done
 >so on a clear day with minimal smog, and would have directed
 >their videocamera towards the two majestic volcanic peaks
 >visible from the top of the building. Also they wouldn't then
 >have to contend with making the UFO image look properly merged
 >into the smog, with brightness varying properly with variation
 >in the apparent distance of the UFO image.

Hello, Jim.

So now you are going to "mind read" the intent of any proposed
hoaxers as well as the intent of the proposed aliens? Shooting
on a clear day would not make the job any easier than shooting
on a hazy day. In fact, if anything, the more smog the better to
obscure the detail in the fake UFO. Having the craft so close
and behind the buildings only adds to the realism. I am
unconvinced.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 13

                      Re: Reluctant Viewers - Lehmberg

From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 16:36:19 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 08:59:16 +0000
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Lehmberg


 >Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 12:40:20 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Reluctant Viewers
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Elizabeth Hammond <lizzz@worldnet.att.net>
 >>Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 13:53:05 -0500
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Hammond

 >Previously, Elizabeth wrote:

 >>When are REAL researchers going to take the
 >>step off the cliff? Actually examine some of us. Make use of all
 >>the non-invasive technologies out there; cheek swabs for DNA,
 >>MRI's and Cat scans looking for foreign bodies.Control groups
 >>and all the other accoutrament that goes with real science?

 >>Words are easy. It's easy to dismiss Abductee's as phony on the
 >>basis of... still more words. It easy to call oneself an
 >>Abductee, but we have a little head start, we also have
 >>identifiable marks, which all should be collected, collated and
 >>filed.

 ><snip>

 >>Now, why is it that no one wants to step forward and
 >>evaluate this very valuable piece of evidence? Are you that
 >>afraid to be wrong?

 >>The results, which ever way they may point, should
 >>be very interesting!

 >Hi, Elizabeth!

 >Know what's even more interesting? Is why people like yourself
 >don't go to a doctor and have the scans and examinations done
 >and documented for all the world to see. Money is not the issue,
 >since proof of ET life (by way of the evidence that you claim is
 >contained within your body) would be worth mucho bucks. 24 Hours
 >or 60 minutes would probably pick up the medical bills, just for
 >the exclusive right to the story.

 >So, go ahead! Be a trend setter and have the tests done! As you
 >say:

 >>Words are easy. It's easy to dismiss Abductee's as phony on the
 >>basis of... still more words.

 >Roger

... cheap shot Mr. Evans! In parallel you ask an individual with
a mysteriously baffling malady shared by disparate persons all
over the globe to pay the freight for proving the existence of
that same malady, when -- if there are that many people
effected, it should be a _shared_ concern for everyone,
including yourself. Let's buy one less aircraft carrier and
investigate the whole problem, you agree? If we can put it
together for the Manhatten Project we can can sure put it
together to secure some information on the continuing and
ubiquitus ufological conundrum. Actually, I suspect that the
suggested investigation provides too much information leading to
too many of us coming off too many "money meters" for elitist
comfort as the _real_ hurdle to illumination in this area.

Obviously, I think Ms. Hammond alludes to a 'mainstream'
interest that is not made available in a dearth of interested,
unflinching, and substantive mainstream investigation. An
investigation of one person by that same person is too easily
dismissed as pipe dreams, wishful thinking, or self fulfilling
prophesy, _whatever_ the evidence they provide at their own
effort and expense. Moreover, the kind of effort you suggest has
been attempted by members of this list and is roundly ignored by
those same members, forgetting the dissmissal of the mainstream.
I think Velez can speak eloquently on this, as can Mack, Jacobs,
Hopkins, Friedman, et.al. Something damned weird -is- going on,
and is not addressed by your canted attack on one of the mere
messengers -- pretty easy words _you_ utter while shooting the
piano player for keying a tune you don't like to hear.

Lehmberg@snowhill


--
~~~~
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 >
   Dec > Dec 13

               Re: 50th Anniversary of a UFO Invasion - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 17:34:19 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 09:00:48 +0000
Subject: Re: 50th Anniversary of a UFO Invasion - Sparks


 >Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 11:56:50 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
 >From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: 50th Anniversary of a UFO Invasion


 >Greetings everyone!

 >In a few e-mails I got recently I was reminded that on my Name
 >Day, December 6, was the 50th anniversary of an event that
 >nearly brought about World War III but remains little known and
 >still unexplained to this day. What really happened on December
 >6, 1950?

 >British Prime Minister Clement Attlee arrived in Washington,
 >D.C. in December 4 with stories in the newspapers of an imminent
 >nuclear attack on the U.S. by the Soviets since the U.S.
 >military under General MacArthur was considering using their
 >nuclear weapons against Chinese troops during the Korean War.

 >To quote from one of the e-mails I got from a fellow researcher
 >of the UFO phenomena, on December 5th, President Truman wrote in
 >his diary, "It looks like World War III is here. I hope not -
 >but we must meet whatever comes - and we will.". Secretary of
 >State Dean Acheson went to bed thinking that he would not be
 >surprised to ba awaken by an announcement of a global war. The
 >following morning all hell seemed to break loose when the U.S.
 >early warning system picked up a formation of unidentified
 >objects flying in over Alaska on a southeast heading towards
 >Washington, D.C. All interception and defense forces were
 >alerted.

 >As am sure you all know, WWIII did not happen that day. The
 >official explanation given was it was a false alarm produced by
 >a flight of geese (this was in the pre-pelican days). Was it
 >something more serious than just birds? I think it was. That
 >same day(?) U.S. military forces, not members of the SPCA,
 >crossed into Mexico just across the border from Texas to recover
 >one of these downed "geese". This UFO crash was confirmed by
 >several credible individuals including a well known Mexican
 >General who was in command of this specific area where the
 >incident occurred. Many researchers, including Larry Bryant who
 >last year petitioned Mexican officials for more information,
 >have been frustrated in their attempts to find out what the U.S.
 >military did with the UFO wreckage and at least one recovered
 >E.T. alien body.
<SNIP>

 >If anyone of you has any information, including possible new
 >leads, insights or comments about this UFO crash/retrieval case
 >(Item B-7 on page 22 in Leonard Stringfield's Status Report II),
 >many researchers, including UFO UpDates subscribers and seekers
 >of the truth such as myself, want to know.
 >
 >Nick Balaskas

Hi Nick,

The radar incident has been found in a number of sources,
including diaries of high officials such as Dean Acheson's if I
remember right, and there are strange unaccountable
discrepancies that no one has been able to resolve. One set of
data claims the unidentified aircraft were tracked approaching
Maine. Another claims Alaska (as you mentioned). One claims a
Dec. 6, 1950, date (if I recall correctly) another is adamant
about a Dec. 17 date (if I recall right).

As for the alleged UFO crash, this is the fraudulent Lt Col
Willingham story that he later admitted he had fabricated from a
rumor he had heard as a boy. It was investigated by Todd Zechel
who made a leap in conclusion as great as Moore and Friedman did
on Roswell. Moore & Friedman jumped to the conclusion that the
Barney Barnett story from Western New Mexico was connected to
the Roswell Incident in Eastern New Mexico even though it had no
date or even a year. The bogus Barnett story gave them alien
bodies and an obvious crashed saucer; the Roswell case gave it
all a date. Later they admitted there was no basis for linking
these two stories (see MUFON proceedings 1982 and 1985), but by
then it was too late, the connection was etched in people's
minds.

Zechel likewise jumped to the conclusion that the undated story
he got from the Bowen family was connected to Willingham's even
though it too was undated. All Zechel knew was that Col John
Bowen served as provost marshal at Carswell AFB, Ft. Worth,
Tex., 1948-52. Willingham's story had air defense radars
purportedly tracking the UFO from Alaska to Washington to a
90-degree turn over Colorado then a crash in Mexico just over
the border from Texas (Willingham claimed he flew to the landing
site, it was cordoned off, etc.) -- only problem was that there
were no air defense radars in Colorado or Texas that could have
tracked any such maneuvers until about 1952 or later. But,
without a shred of evidene. Zechel connected it all to the FBI
document of Dec. 8, 1950, saying the AF had declared an
"Immediate High Alert" on reporting flying discs. That gave the
dateless floating stories a date.

So Zechel started looking up newspapers around Dec 8, 1950, and
found the news about sightings of contrails in Alaska, Korean
War developments of the Chinese entering the war, etc.
Eventually the MJ-12 document hoaxers put it all together in the
bogus Eisenhower Briefing Document. Because Zechel had
reconstructed two different locations and two different
approximate dates, the MJ-12 hoaxers picked spots in the middle.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 13

                      Re: Reluctant Viewers - Balaskas

From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 18:01:12 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
Fwd Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 09:03:33 +0000
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Balaskas


 >From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 19:35:20 -0800

<snip>

 >So, on a cool fall, evening but still daylight,as they were
 >motoring along at, oh, 7000 feet or so, he saw a figure packing
 >a Deer (dead) over its shoulder, the Deer was a buck, and of
 >unkown species, as Blacktail and Mule Deer could be present in
 >the area.

 >The figure was tall with the Buck over it's shoulder, and
 >walking with it like it was, oh, a small child over it's
 >shoulder. Also, it was very hairy, like an ape - he figured they
 >were a few hundred feet away, as this was on a ridge they were
 >flying by. My friend said:"Hey look at that!"- no one looked.

 >The Pilot said: "Hey it's deer season. Just some guy packing out
 >his kill." - end of story.

Hi GT.

Your story reminded me of one told by a past colleague who once
worked as a forest fire lookout tower observer deep in the
British Columbia interior. He observed a column of smoke rising
from the dense forest near his lookout tower which looked like
one produced by a camp fire. Surprised that there would be such
careless campers cooking a meal within such a dense forest and
also wondering how they got there since there were no roads
nearby, he went out to investigate in person. My friend was at
first puzzled by what looked like campers wearing fur coats but
when he got closer he was shocked to find a family of three Big
Foots! He left immediately but returned later to find that there
were bare footprints around the now extinguished campfire.

During his days working at the fire lookout tower, he
experienced many other strange things, including some which I
think were UFO related, but only shared these stories with
fellow fire lookout observers and others like myself who would
not ridicule him or laugh and dismiss what he had to say.

If UFOs continue to be reported by credible people in the skies
over highly populated areas and be totally overlooked by
everyone else, for whatever reason, then accounts of Big Foot
sightings in many large sparcely unpopulated areas of North
America are very likely to be true and still be unknown to
science. After all, sightings of even larger creatures such as
dinosaurs continue to be made in places such as the Congo, Papua
New Guinea and other "extinct" sea creatures in British Columbia
and New Zealand (eg. giant squids which have attacked whales and
even submarines). We still live in a largely unexplored planet
but when this fact is compounded by the lack of curiousity and
even the closed minds exhibited by people, especially
scientists, no wonder there are so many unsolved sightings of
the "impossible" being made.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 13

                         Tracking Car License Plate

From: Michael J. Woods <mike.woods@sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 19:17:28 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 09:09:13 +0000
Subject: Tracking Car License Plate


Dear List-ers, lurkers and any other entities that have arrived
on this astral plane......

I have a bit of a weird request I hope someone can help me with.
I was recently reading a Toronto Globe & Mail (no stretch, I
live here) article about traffic problems in Los Angeles, Calf.

In so many words it said if a motorist wasn't interested in
opening fire on the other drivers, one way to wile away the
hours stuck in traffic jams was to check out the personalized or
if you prefer, vanity plates. The writer rattled off a few
examples he'd seen in a recent drive in L.A... and one of them,
a California plate, read UFO GUY.

Up here in the frozen tundra of Toronto, Ontario... we also have
vanity plates. Since I'm as vain as the next guy, as our
moderator will attest, (and pog ma hahn if you don't like it -
Gaelic scholars take note) I have personalized, or vanity
plates... and, you guessed it, mine read UFO GUY. For those with
a limited grasp of the obvious, or whose medication has recently
been increased, the help I'm looking for is someone on UpDates
who lives in L.A.... and by some freakin' miracle knows who the
California UFO GUY is. I would love to speak to anyone who is
obviously as brilliant as I am (Let's all pause here until the
nausea passes.)

Anyone who can help with this rather nutty quest can respond via
UpDates or e-mail me directly.

Thanks for your time, let alone if you can help.


Mike (UFO GUY) Woods

The truth can STAY out there,
Send in a good FANTASY!!







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 13

                Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles -

From: Peter Brookesmith - Duke of Mendoza <DarkSecretPB@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 21:21:05 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 09:16:47 +0000
Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles -


Compliments of the Duke:

 >From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles
 >Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 20:57:39 -0000


 >Forwarded from Nick Pope

 >Issue 142 of Fortean Times contained a review of Georgina
 >Bruni's new book on the Bentwaters case, "You Can't Tell
 >The People". The review was written by Jenny Randles and
 >as she's someone who has written extensively about the
 >Rendlesham Forest mystery, I was expecting a fair and
 >comprehensive assessment of the book. Sadly, this didn't
 >happen.

Nick Pope has overclaimed so much on his own behalf and without
protest let others boost his unfounded reputation as both a
government insider on UFOs and general expert on the subject
that it truly grates upon the soul to see him misrepresent,
traduce and vilify someone who has not only forgotten more than
Pope ever knew about UFOs but has collected more investigative
mud on her boots over the decades than this little shrimp
actually weighs (which is not much).

I don't know how much of Jenny's original review of the Bruni
tome survived into print in FT #142, but for those too idle to
look up the full version, available at:

http://www.forteantimes.com/artic/rendlesham/rendlesham.html

here it is, under the short dotty line. Knowing Jenny's various
views on the Ramblesham case, and disagreeing amicably with a
fair percentage of them (I am of course of the Lighthouse
Pelican persuasion) I can assure Nick Pope and Georgina, Suntan
of Bruni, both that I was amazed, and more than somewhat
admiring, at Jenny's sheer generosity in her review. If anyone
ever leant over backwards to give an opponent a fair hearing,
Jenny has here. In response to which, Bruni wheels on a crony
and third-rate windbag, with a lack of grace and, dare I say it,
honor, that tells us all we need to know about her.

best wishes
Pecksniff D. Micawber
"If it don't turn up
it ain't worth having"

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


You Can't Tell The People
The Definitive Account Of The Rendlesham Forest Mystery

Georgina Bruni

Foreword by Nick Pope

Sidgwick & Jackson, 2000
ISBN 0 283 06358 0


This long awaited book by internet magazine editor and former
private detective Georgina Bruni is by no means the first to be
written on the famous Rendlesham Forest UFO saga. A celebrated
series of events this strange episode struck a Suffolk wood late
in December l980 and has triggered four books already - the
earliest in l984 and the most recent in l998. It is almost
certain that this new offering will not be the last word on the
controversy, so the sub title suggesting otherwise is possibly
more hype than it is reality.

In truth it is unlikely that anyone could yet write the
definitive account of a case still so shrouded in confusion and
dependent upon at least a dozen key witnesses - only some of
whom have yet told what they know. That said, the author makes a
decent stab at covering the interwoven events that spread out
over several nights. By using broad strokes she looks at various
angles and tells of the strange lights, radar trackings, cover
ups and witness repercussions - especially to the young and
puzzled USAF personnel stationed at the time in England .

This book also brings two things to the story that nobody has
successfully done before.

Firstly, the author uses her obvious skills at search and find
to track down some of the peripheral - and one or two of the
integral - figures who have not gone on record until now. Most
useful is eyewitness, Cabansag; although he seems to recall
disappointingly little.

Perhaps aided by her support from Nick Pope - the former MoD UFO
team officer - she has been able to chat to people of high
profile like Brigadier General Gordon Williams who was overall
commander of the East Anglian NATO base at the heart of these
sightings and so get him to talk about his role (minimal as it
was).

The other advantage is that she is a relative newcomer both to
ufology and to Rendlesham. This brings a freshness of
perspective that could never be evident from previous writers on
the subject (myself included) who have lived with the case since
it happened 20 years ago and written about it many times. There
are certainly useful insights to be gleaned from this renewed
look at the evidence and it probably provides the book with its
most significant opportunity to do something positive. Georgina
grasps that opportunity very well.

Of course, there are disadvantages as well as advantages from
coming new to such a complex and problem riddled case. It needs
to be realised that there is one almighty battle raging within
ufology (let alone in the world outside of it) between, on the
one hand, those who foster the impression that this is
'Britain's Roswell' - the most well documented encounter of an
alien spacecraft to happen on these islands - and those who say
the whole thing is one huge misperception . This sometimes
heated debate sees even a few members of the British UFO
community backing the skeptics in arguing that at heart this
case crumbles into a complicated series of mistaken perceptions
involving lighthouses, meteors, stars, rabbit holes and dubious
radiation readings. This image is light years away from the one
proffered by a literal interpretation of the witness testimony
describing strange glows, semi translucent 'craft' and perhaps
alien intervention at a then major (but now abandoned) air base
eight miles from Ipswich.

So who on earth is right?

Unfortunately, the case has evolved into this contentious arena
across many long years of claim and counter claim and to fathom
why some experienced and respected ufologists have moved from
being former 'believers' into the camp of the 'skeptics'
requires a lot more than simply attending to what the various
witnesses report. It needs a depth of appreciation hard to
acquire without being immersed within the case lomg term. The
book inevitably lacks that understanding.

UFO investigation is a rather specialised art form. It involves
listening to everyone and believing nobody. It means casting
aside personal preconceptions and letting the evidence guide you
rather than being led by ones own aspirations. It often
necessitates placing the conflicting evidence side by side and
making value judgements between interpretations.

After an initial burst of data collection what may seem to be a
straightforward case with events of great moment can often (and
has often in the past) dissolved almost like ice crystals on a
sunny morning the more testimony, facts and spiraling
contradictions come to light. That familiar pattern has happened
with the events in Rendlesham Forest and I am not sure if most
readers that come fresh to this story via this book will really
understand the nature of the sobering shock that this
transformation of the evidence ought to provide.

I have seen the Rendlesham case collapse - not into a definitely
solved case as yet - but certainly from its initial hallowed
status into a less than convincing edifice. As time has gone by
evidence has weighed against evidence. Original written witness
statements dated l980, for example, have appeared that seem to
dispute much of what the same witnesses have been verbally
claiming in numerous interviews. The seemingly impressive
radiation traces recorded in the forest and reported to the MoD
and USAF in official documents have eroded to the point that on
balance they now seem almost trivial. And, more worrying, the
suggestion that the Orford Ness lighthouse was a trigger for
what was seen that post Christmas weekend has strengthened, not
weakened, as new facts have come to light.

These new facts are - for instance - how one of the primary
witnesses described seeing the lighthouse at the same time as
the UFO and thus was certain the UFO was not the lighthouse.
Which is fine, except that, on closer questionning, the position
he cites for the lighthouse is wrong. It is actually where a
smaller lightship was then located. The UFO he relates was thus
pretty much where the real lighthouse was positioned. This has
to make the cautious minded ufologist wonder - did he see the
lightship and think it was the lighthouse and then see the
lighthouse and think it was a UFO?

Not to contemplate that worrying option is to allow ones trust
in witnesses and ones hopes for an amazing case to take
precedence over what the evidence disappointingly decrees.
Unfortunately in ufology disappointment has to be the basis for
soul searching. It is not sufficient reason to look for reasons
why it must be wrong. These are hard lessons for any
investigator to learn and I think you only learn them with the
passage of much time.

Faced with mounting difficulties such as these, it is hard to
see the case in quite the same light as one does when first
hearing about it. Of course, it is important to listen as the
witnesses imply that they did not write the statements that the
authorities say they did. Similarly their affirmation that they
were not fooled by the lighthouse is a factor you should not
ignore. It needs to be balanced against the conflicting aspects
that simultaneously emerge.

So how well does Georgina Bruni marshal these opposing forces?
She listens to what the witnesses tell her very carefully indeed
and describes their own words in a well executed manner. She
expertly paints the picture of events that some of them
transcribe (although, sadly, one of the most important of the
key witnesses - John Burroughs - could not be found to add to
his prior testimony ). As such and as a recounting of the case
this book scores highly.

The well structured documentation of the case adds much that was
not on record from witnesses with new things to say. This is
without doubt a valuable service .

However, the problems for me come next - when one interprets
what this mountainous data might mean. It may appear trusting
and indeed even fair to what are basically honest people (as -
like Georgina - I am sure that these witnesses are) to form ones
conclusions on what they think has happened. But in ufology the
facts are often a chimera. And the risk comes in assuming too
much within what are really just human perceptions that
experience teaches can be frequently misleading . At times it is
necessary to consider that something else might lie behind what
is reported.

That realisation is not entirely absent from this book. A number
of alternative suggestions for what might have occurred are
considered. This includes - somewhat briefly - the views of the
skeptics. But the latter are by no means given the consideration
now necessary. They are in fact glossed over so much that the
arch proponent of their cause - Scottish ufologist James Easton
- does not even feature a mention!

This man has single handedly argued the misperception theory for
this case since l997. He has published several major reports on
it (all freely available on the net) and was the person who
brought to light the infamous witness statements that had been
kept out of the gaze of ufology for years . His minute appraisal
of many aspects of the case have seen him engage in countless
internet debates (including with this books author - so she was
hardly ignorant of his role) and whether you agree with his
opinion or loathe it open minded coverage surely cannot afford
to ignore him. To do so entirely must detract from the worth of
this book in my opinion.

Which is a pity, because otherwise there is much to commend it.
Georgina Bruni clearly has an ability to tell a story well and
offers witness testimony in a constructive manner. As a UFO
writer, if she continues in this vein, I think we have some
interesting books to look forward to . She has grasped the
nature of the debate sufficiently clearly to make this a more
than average account of her own crusade to find the facts. And
that makes it a worthy addition to your library.

But this is badly let down, I fear, by an apparent unwillingness
to face up to the plausible alternative argument being put
forward that could cause this seemingly impressive encounter to
disappear. Since, if that happens, it poses significant
questions that ufology must address (rather than run away from)
it is unfortunate not to see them adequately confronted.

Another nagging concern for me was the way that certain events
that have other plausible resolutions seem to provide the
springboard for deeper and needless assumptions.

One of these explains the curious title of the book. That
emerges from a conversation the author had at a charity
dinner in May l997. In attendance was former Prime Minister,
now Baroness, Margaret Thatcher. As the party was breaking
up Georgina collared her, started to talk about the internet
and then at the last moment sprung the subject of UFOs onto
her. It apparently made Maggie a bit uncomfortable.

Now this in itself is not a surprise. I, myself, have spoken
about UFOs to senior politicians (including a former prime
minister) and rarely are they obviously relaxed to debate such a
contentious issue in the public eye. They no doubt realise how
their every word could be seized upon by the tabloids if chanced
to be overheard. So discomfort proves little. Indeed lack of
discomfort might be more expected if such powerful people knew
some hidden truth kept from the rest of us and that they had
been aware of for years (as perforce Margaret Thatcher would
have been if the reality of alien contact had been shared with
her when she led the country).

What did Maggie say to Georgina? Two short sentences, thats all.
One was 'You can't tell the people' (hence the books title) and
the other 'You must get your facts right'. Now, of course, you
can interpret this in various ways. Perhaps Georgina caught
Maggie on the hop and got her flustered (although being
flustered and being Margaret Thatcher strikes me as virtually a
contradiction in terms). Perhaps as a consequence she shared
some major secret of the universe in front of a motley crew of
strangers at a dinner party. Maybe with her guard down she
hinted that UFOs were real, aliens had confronted the USAF in
Rendlesham Forest and the world was not ready to hear the
terrible news.

Or maybe not. Perhaps Maggie simply meant when asked what she
thought about UFOs - that any writer should get their facts
right rather than write up the usual tabloidese twaddle about
conspiracies and little green men that must dog the press
conference of many an unwary politician. And maybe when she said
'you cannot tell the people' - implicit was the unspoken
addendum 'because, unfortunately, they dont want to hear the
truth - only alien speculations that entertain and create best
sellers.'

Now I don't know which of these things Margaret Thatcher
intended. Nor, of course, does Georgina Bruni. But I think I
know which is the more likely. And, in any case, the point is
that how one interprets this snatch of conversation is an
interesting litmus test for a UFO enthusiast. Do you jump to the
conclusion that you have just been given an accidental insight
into some fantastic cover up? Or do you start asking questions
as to what this (certainly odd) remark might have otherwise
meant?

Depending upon the conclusion that you reach here you will
probably read 'You Can't Tell The People' in entirely different
ways. Your opinion on how far the book goes to make the case
that Rendlesham Forest is one of ufology's most amazing close
encounters will turn upon the mind set that you adopt as you
read what the players in this epic drama all say.

In fact, in many ways, this case and this book is an ink blot
test for UFO enthusiasts. It shows much of what is good and bad,
right and wrong, clear and unclear about the whole UFO
phenomenon.

By no means is this a poor book. In fact I would rate it as
esssential reading for all who are interested by this
fascinating case, But it is nonetheless just one perspective and
not the definitive insight touted - nor indeed the only
perspective that you need to truly appreciate this extraordinary
UFO encounter.

Treat it as a starting point of a longer exploration. But do not
stop there. Pursue the internet writings of Ian Ridpath and
James Easton to see why they think as they do. Read the
alternative interpretations on the market about the case. Then
make up your own mind as to what really happened in Rendlesham
Forest.

That, I suspect, remains very much an open question.


-------

here endeth the review









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 13

                             Dust Bunny Results?

From: Brian Cuthbertson <bdc@fc.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 21:00:24 -0600 (CST)
Fwd Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 09:17:58 +0000
Subject: Dust Bunny Results?


Folks,

Many moons ago now there was promoted, thru the List, a
comparative study of dust from the homes of experiencers and
non-experiencers, initiated by John Velez and some others whose
names I forget. I sent in my dust as a typical non-experiencer.
Results were to be reported back. Now maybe it was just me, but
I don't recall ever hearing them.

Anyone care to respond? What happened?

Hopefully this dust bunny research wasn't just swept under a rug
:-)

-Brian








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 13

              Germany's Brainpool To Send Civilians Into Space

From: Steven L. Wilson, Sr <Ndunlks@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 13:55:34 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 09:50:35 +0000
Subject: Germany's Brainpool To Send Civilians Into Space


Germany's Brainpool to send civilians into space


By Jeff Mason


BREMEN, Germany, Dec 12 (Reuters) - Star Trek fans pay
attention: the final frontier may yet be reachable.

German television production firm Brainpool TV said on Tuesday
it had reserved seven slots on Russian Soyuz rockets to send
winning contestants from a series of game shows to the
International Space Station orbiting the earth.

Brainpool said it will make a $7.5 million down payment to the
European Aeronautic, Defence & Space Co (EADS) subsidiary
Astrium GmbH to conduct the training and arrange the flights,
which are to take place between 2002 and 2008.

Brainpool subsidiary space TV will market the project under the
name "Space Commander."

"The Space Commanders, as we call them, are the pioneers of the
new generation," said Brainpool Chief Executive Officer Joerg
Grabosch at a news conference in Bremen. "Now everyone will be
given the chance as cosmonauts to go into space."

Contestants must be at least 23 years old, no taller than 1.85
metres (six feet), and no heavier than 85 kg (187 pounds).
Recruitment for the first planned flight will start in major
cities in five European countries in 2001.

Of an expected 60,000 applicants per country, 600 will be chosen
in each country to compete in events that judge their knowledge,
physical fitness and social skills.

At the end of the televised contests, five national winners will
be sent to Moscow for six months of cosmonaut training and a
course in the Russian language.

The final winner -- chosen by viewers -- will spend eight days
in space. "The person is not just a passenger, but has to
participate," Grabosch said. Each of the final five contestants
will come home as millionaires, he said.

The firm would not confirm how much each flight would cost, but
said it would be comparable to the current cost of a trip to
Russian space station Mir, which is $20 million.

"We will include appropriate sponsors, merchandising, books, and
computer games," Grabosch said. "We need all these revenues in
order to finance this project."

Space TV is also open to partnerships with other firms to help
cover the costs, Grabosch said.

13:44 12-12-00

Copyright 2000 Reuters Limited.  All rights reserved.

Researcher Steven L. Wilson, Sr
To submit paranormal activity email Ndunlks@aol.com






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 13

              Re: Translation Of Hesemann's Report - Part III -

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 19:15:43 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 09:51:59 +0000
Subject: Re: Translation Of Hesemann's Report - Part III -


 >Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 15:45:39 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: Translation Of Hesemann's Report - Part III
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >>Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 18:54:47 -0800
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Translation Of Hesemann's Report - Part III

 >Previously, Jim wrote:

 >>Below is Part III of my translation, with Hesemann's help, of
 >>his report on his two-day investigation of the Mexico City UFO
 >>of Aug. 6th, 1997.

 >>There's one item of interest in it I hadn't thought about
 >>before. It's the likelihood that hoaxers taking a panoramic
 >>video segment onto which to dub in a UFO image, would have done
 >>so on a clear day with minimal smog, and would have directed
 >>their videocamera towards the two majestic volcanic peaks
 >>visible from the top of the building. Also they wouldn't then
 >>have to contend with making the UFO image look properly merged
 >>into the smog, with brightness varying properly with variation
 >>in the apparent distance of the UFO image.

 >Hello, Jim.

 >So now you are going to "mind read" the intent of any proposed
 >hoaxers as well as the intent of the proposed aliens? Shooting
 >on a clear day would not make the job any easier than shooting
 >on a hazy day. In fact, if anything, the more smog the better to
 >obscure the detail in the fake UFO. Having the craft so close
 >and behind the buildings only adds to the realism. I am
 >unconvinced.


I'll side with Michael Hesemann on that. Recall that Bruce did
an analysis showing that the brightness of the UFO varied as
would be expected of a real object in haze/smog whose distance
from the camera varied somewhat. It wouldn't be necessary to
worry about that factor in a hoax starting with a clear-day
panorama, for a UFO that close. But the chances of a video
hoaxer going wrong there are probably greater than his getting
it right; he could well expect that the brightness of a UFO
image should diminish when it's simulated to be farther away.
It's one of many chances a hoaxer probably wouldn't want to
take.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 13

              Re: Translation Of Hesemann's Report - Part III -

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 22:19:10 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 09:56:52 +0000
Subject: Re: Translation Of Hesemann's Report - Part III -


 >Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 18:54:47 -0800
 >To: UFO UpDates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >Subject: Translation Of Hesemann's Report - Part III

 >Hello List,

 >Below is Part III of my translation, with Hesemann's help, of
 >his report on his two-day investigation of the Mexico City UFO
 >of Aug. 6th, 1997.

 >There's one item of interest in it I hadn't thought about
 >before. It's the likelihood that hoaxers taking a panoramic
 >video segment onto which to dub in a UFO image, would have done
 >so on a clear day with minimal smog, and would have directed
 >their videocamera towards the two majestic volcanic peaks
 >visible from the top of the building. Also they wouldn't then
 >have to contend with making the UFO image look properly merged
 >into the smog, with brightness varying properly with variation
 >in the apparent distance of the UFO image.

 >Jim

Jim,

Have you ever been to Mexico City? Have you been to Mexico City
lately?

You'll be a long time waiting for "a clear day with minimal
smog," believe me.

But why not turn the argument around? Since the aliens are
capable of almost anything, why didn't they clean up the air on
the day in question -- all the better to pose for their portrait
a la Meier? Or simply make the air appear clear to the
videocamera?

Or, for that matter, simply wait for a clear day on which to
appear? Or don't they have onboard weathermen?

But I forget: they do everything for ambiguity's sake (unlike
the very human Merry Pranksters of yore).

At least I'm glad to see you mulling over the idea that a hoaxer
or hoaxers might have been involved -- in whatever capacity.

Merry Christmas. Film of Santa to follow.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 13

                        Re: Reluctant Viewers - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 22:51:50 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 10:02:50 +0000
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Gates


 >Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 12:40:20 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Reluctant Viewers
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Elizabeth Hammond <lizzz@worldnet.att.net>
 >>Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 13:53:05 -0500
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Hammond

 >Previously, Elizabeth wrote:

 >>When are REAL researchers going to take the
 >>step off the cliff? Actually examine some of us. Make use of all
 >>the non-invasive technologies out there; cheek swabs for DNA,
 >>MRI's and Cat scans looking for foreign bodies.Control groups
 >>and all the other accoutrament that goes with real science?

 >>Words are easy. It's easy to dismiss Abductee's as phony on the
 >>basis of... still more words. It easy to call oneself an
 >>Abductee, but we have a little head start, we also have
 >>identifiable marks, which all should be collected, collated and
 >>filed.

 ><snip>

 >>Now, why is it that no one wants to step forward and
 >>evaluate this very valuable piece of evidence? Are you that
 >>afraid to be wrong?

 >>The results, which ever way they may point, should
 >>be very interesting!

 >Hi, Elizabeth!

 >Know what's even more interesting? Is why people like yourself
 >don't go to a doctor and have the scans and examinations done
 >and documented for all the world to see. Money is not the issue,
 >since proof of ET life (by way of the evidence that you claim is
 >contained within your body) would be worth mucho bucks. 24 Hours
 >or 60 minutes would probably pick up the medical bills, just for
 >the exclusive right to the story.

She could have all the examinations, scans, and documentation
done, and the skeptics would still dismiss it as some kind of
weird aborration and or that she was some kind of hoaxer,
attempting to get attention and so on. You would have another
group of folks claiming that the testimony of the various
doctors could reflect their personal bias, how the xrays and
scans were actually machine defects or anomallys.

Then you would have those who would maintain something along the
lines of "Well, since I can't/or didn't get the chance to
physically touch the proof, its a hoax and so on.

 >So, go ahead! Be a trend setter and have the tests done! As you
 >say:

 >>Words are easy. It's easy to dismiss Abductee's as phony on the
 >>basis of... still more words.

In the end, you would have people saying something like "See,
with all the evidence, and all the tests and scans, it proves
its real." The cronies from the skeptical tank would look at the
same evidence, same tests and same scans and tells us that it
can all be explained away.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 13

                       Re: Jonathan Reed Hoax - McCoy

From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 20:06:35 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 10:17:36 +0000
Subject: Re: Jonathan Reed Hoax - McCoy


HI, Royce, EBK & Listfolk


 >From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Jonathan Reed Hoax
 >Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 02:36:32 -0800

 >This guy just won't accept that the masses are not willing to
 >fall for his ridiculous hoax. The webiste has been updated and
 >the photos of the alien are a good source for a laugh if you're
 >looking for one. Though I can't say I laugh all that often when
 >I imagine the damage this moron has done to ufology.

 >http://www.odysseylink.net/Gallery/Gallery.htm

 >More embelishment and more sensationalist tabloid crap...


You Know, I was hoping that the "Artifact"they found was a real
Trafalmadorian  Wrist Disruptor that they  had inadvertantly
picked up at a yard sale, and thinking it was oh a "Star Trek"
Toy or prop, as they were inspecting it, they failed to notice
the >/.\< graphic Trafamadorian for "Do not touch, Disrupter
overload button-Emergency Only."

Not having an inkling of what it does, someone toutches it. and
destroying oh,fifty tralfams (about 300 meters or 300 yards of
space  around the object. Oh well.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 13

               Re: Three Crashed Saucers With Bodies? - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 23:09:57 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 10:19:07 +0000
Subject: Re: Three Crashed Saucers With Bodies? - Sparks


 >Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 16:45:03 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
 >From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Three Crashed Saucers With Bodies?


 >>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 11:11:37 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Three Crashed Saucers With Bodies?
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 ><snip>

 >>BTW, in the 70's I interviewed every living participant of the
 >>Robertson Panel including all CIA and Air Force personnel and no
 >>one ever told me about an incident of refusing to go outside of
 >>the hotel to look at a UFO, and in the three decades of research
 >>since the interviews I have never heard of such a story. I
 >>vaguely recall that Hynek told a story about astronomers at an
 >>astronomy conference like that.

 >Hi Brad. Hi Mac.

 >You are correct about the astronomy conference (see URL below).

 >http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2000/dec/m07-018.shtml

 >I have not been able to find out if Dr. Thornton Page, Robertson
 >Panel member and past astronomer with the University of Chicago
 >was among the several hundred astronomers at the meeting in
 >Victoria, Canada back in 1968 who did not bother to step outside
 >to see for themselves when strange maneuvering lights were
 >reported in the sky.

 >Nick Balaskas

Hi Nick,

Thanks. I am wondering if the date of the astronomy conference
was correct. Hynek did a survey of astronomers at the annual
meeting of the American Astronomical Society meeting in
Victoria, B.C., in June 1952. His report to Project Blue Book
doesn't mention such an incident but it's the kind of anecdotal
thing he might have wanted to leave out. I thought Thornton Page
had been at Johns Hopkins not Univ of Chicago. I should have
said I'd interviewed _almost_ everyone connected with the
Robertson Panel.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 13

                        Re: Two New UFO Maps - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 23:13:47 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 10:21:52 +0000
Subject: Re: Two New UFO Maps - Young


 >Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 02:02:09 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Two New UFO Maps

 >I have added two new maps to the *U* UFO database website.

 >One is for the Western USA:

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

 >The other for the Eastern states:

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

<snip>

 >In the West, there are fairly large areas devoid of sightings,
 >or nearly so. There seems no rhyme or reason to this. Why should
 >one patch of desert be (well) deserted, while another has
 >several sightings?

<snip>

 > Maybe the vacant spots offer subtle clues just like the "busy"
 >areas might seem to.

 >I haven't drawn any conclusions yet. Much of this might be
 >attributed to circumstance, happenstance, local customs and
 >conditions. Discounting that, just maybe there are small
 >indications of the purpose or intent UFOs. Maybe not.

 >Any comments are welcome.

Hi, Larry:

Might also be related to the sources of the reports, or their
filtering, meaning the investigators or agencies from which they
came. Don't know, when the sightings are thinly located, most
statistical conclusions are probably not supportable.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 13

                Re: Bigelow/NIDS Purchase Of Records - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 00:39:47 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 10:33:25 +0000
Subject: Re: Bigelow/NIDS Purchase Of Records - Velez


 >From: J. D. Scarpellini <Claros10@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 12:45:37 EST
 >Subject: Bigelow/NIDS Purchase Of Records
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >[Non-Subscriber Post]

 >To the List:

 >Since I've read the various postings concerning John Carpenter's
 >sale of records to Robert Bigelow/NIDS the following things from
 >Roger K. Leir's book may be of interest. It appears that
 >Bigelow/NIDS may have a history (ongoing?) of solicitatiion of
 >and purchase of files.

 >The Aliens And The Scalpel (ISBN 1-893183-02-5)
 >Granite Publishing, author Dr. Roger K. Leir, D.P.M.

 >On page 107 Dr. Leir describes a call from Bigelow's secretary
 >telling Dr. Leir that the board has been looking at the budget
 >proposal. They (the board) would like to know the paitients
 >names, medical histories, and experiences as abductees. They
 >would also like to know if they have demonstrable evidence which
 >shows on an X-ray CAT scan or MRI.

 >Leir then writes that he told the secretary that he would
 >happily provide all the answers and send them by FAX. "I typed
 >the answers that night and FAXed them to both NIDS and Derrel"

 >Several days later Leir received another communication from the
 >secretary telling him the board had approved the budget and she
 >would fax him a set of documents.

 >It seems to me that names and medical histories are more medical
 >records. (That are now paid for and in Bigelow/NIDS hands) I'd
 >like to hear opinions and thoughts from anyone else that has
 >read this book. It sure looks like Bigelow _asked_ for
 >information from medical records. Were there release forms
 >signed by the patients? Did they know about it?

 >J. D. Scarpellini

Allow me if I may!

Hi JD, hi All,

The first time I brought this subject to the attention of the
List and the UFO community at large I had hopes that the end
result would be 'some kind' of new awareness about, and
attention to, the rights of abductees as witnesses. Strip away
the label "abductee" and what you have is a person. In America
"people" have certain rights of protection that are guaranteed
by the Constitution and insured by law. In the case of the sale
of client files by John Carpenter to Robert Bigelow I raised a
red flag and questioned the propriety and even the legality of
the transfer of such personal information without the knowledge
or consent of the client. At that time I told every body that
the rabbit hole went much deeper than just the one transaction
involving John Carpenter.

Nobody picked up on it. Nobody wanted to touch it with a ten
foot cattle prod. Everyone was in such an uproar over the
original disclosure that persuing the possibility that it
involved more people, more files, more researchers, was just
beyond most folks ability to tolerate, spend time on it or, in
some cases, even to care. The point is, nobody questioned my
comment or chose to pursue it any further.

Here we are four months down the road and another incident
involving yet another abduction 'researcher' where abductee
files and personal information seem to be a 'marketable
commodity'. At least to Mr. Bigelow and whoever has sold him the
personal files of any UFO witnesses/abductees.

Guess what? It won't be the last either.

Until something is done (and done by the individuals that were
violated in this way) -nothing- is going to change. It's going
to be "business as usual" and every once in awhile another
of these so called "abduction researchers" is going to get
busted for having cashed in on their clients personal files.

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

BTW, John Carpenter has "explained" the "attack on his
character" as being motivated by our (myself and the
few others that confronted him about the sale of client
files to Bigelow originally) wish to, "publicly destroy the
credibility" of his "disappearing night watchman" videotape.

Can you believe it?

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

This latest edition including Dr. Leir in the transfer of client
files to private citizen Bigelow is just the tip of the iceburg
kiddies.

"It ain't over till it's over!"  (Professor Yogi Berra)

And all of this mess is far from over... or even close to
being resolved.


John Velez,

*I tried ta tells ya, but ya refuses ta listen!


******************************************************
                     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 >
   Dec > Dec 13

                             Gun Camera Footage?

From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 06:33:52 +0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 10:35:35 +0000
Subject: Gun Camera Footage?


Hi All,

Reading through some old UFO magazines today and Gun Camera
Footage was mentioned.

I have one question; does anybody know if such evidence is in
existence? I understand this was mostly filmed in the late 40s
and through to the mid 50s period, by USAF planes.

Has anyone on the List ever dug into this area of UFO research,
only I am quite interested to find out any revelations to such
possible data existing.

Is there an URL for any data?

Well I guess I will be the first, can I wish all List folk a
great X-mas!

Kind Regards,

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 >
   Dec > Dec 13

                 Abduction 'Clues'? [was: Reluctant Viewers]

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 01:51:10 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 10:43:14 +0000
Subject: Abduction 'Clues'? [was: Reluctant Viewers]


 >Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 12:40:20 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Reluctant Viewers
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Elizabeth Hammond <lizzz@worldnet.att.net>
 >>Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 13:53:05 -0500
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Hammond

 >Previously, Elizabeth wrote:

 >>When are REAL researchers going to take the
 >>step off the cliff? Actually examine some of us. Make use of all
 >>the non-invasive technologies out there; cheek swabs for DNA,
 >>MRI's and Cat scans looking for foreign bodies.Control groups
 >>and all the other accoutrament that goes with real science?

 >>Words are easy. It's easy to dismiss Abductee's as phony on the
 >>basis of... still more words. It easy to call oneself an
 >>Abductee, but we have a little head start, we also have
 >>identifiable marks, which all should be collected, collated and
 >>filed.

 ><snip>

 >>Now, why is it that no one wants to step forward and
 >>evaluate this very valuable piece of evidence? Are you that
 >>afraid to be wrong?

 >>The results, which ever way they may point, should
 >>be very interesting!

 >Hi, Elizabeth!

 >Know what's even more interesting? Is why people like yourself
 >don't go to a doctor and have the scans and examinations done
 >and documented for all the world to see. Money is not the issue,
 >since proof of ET life (by way of the evidence that you claim is
 >contained within your body) would be worth mucho bucks. 24 Hours
 >or 60 minutes would probably pick up the medical bills, just for
 >the exclusive right to the story.

 >So, go ahead! Be a trend setter and have the tests done! As you
 >say:

 >>Words are easy. It's easy to dismiss Abductee's as phony on the
 >>basis of... still more words.

 >Roger

Hi Roger, hi All,

First: You know Roger, you'd be a lot easier to take if you
could find a way to phrase questions and comments without the
snide and sarcastic overtones. It puts me off everytime I see
it.

Now:

Liz is quite correct Roger. I agree with her that the "proof"
that everyone is looking for is right under your noses in the
form of the abductees themselves. I and others have been saying
all along that the moment a multidisciplinary team of doctors is
permitted to have a go at a large enough sampling of abductees
that answers (as well as a million new questions) will begin to
flow immediately.

It is to the shame of the academic and scientific community that
such an investigation has not been funded and launched. In mere
consideration of the numbers of people reporting this phenomenon
worldwide such an investigation is already justified.

How do I know? Why am I so 'cocksure' of my statements? Because
my opinions are based on _experience_ and not 'theories or
beliefs.'

I'm going to share something of a personal nature with you here
to serve two purposes; to elucidate on where my opinions stem
from, and to hopefully prevent you from spewing off about things
you know nothing about in the future. I'm not too crazy about
the way you spoke to Liz. Unlike yourself, I _know_ Liz. She is
a sweet, decent person and she deserves to be spoken to with a
bit more civility and respect than you have shown.


So what's the story?

A little over two plus years ago I was diagnosed with a chronic
hepatitis C virus infection. I was placed on chemo/combination
therapy (Interferon and Rebetron) for ten months. Hep C is a
killer I was thrown into a fight for my life.


Details:

I have a 'Guiness Book record' level of HCV (virus) in my blood,
(one drop of my blood contains 82 million units of HCV -virus-
I'm like Typhoid Mary) I have genotype 1 virus which is the most
untreatable/virulent form of the virus, I have carried it for 34
years, (84% of those who have HCV genotype 1 develop cirrosis or
cancer in 15 to 20 years) and my body/liver failed to respond to
the chemo/ combination therapy. (Which is why the Dr. chose to
terminate the treatments back in April of this year. It is also
the reason I disappeared from this List for so long last year.)

Within a one week period (a month after I had been taken off the
chemo) my blood test results went from bad to "normal." I had
been tested one week and came up with my 'usual' horrible
numbers in the indicators, and the following week, everything
came up absolutely normal.

ALT which is an enzyme indicator for liver damage went from 194
to the normal range of 40 to 60. The iron (ferrous) content in
my blood went from a whopping 1787 down to the 330 normal range.
All inexplicable by my doctor who happens to be a specialist in
(gastroenterology) and an expert in HCV.

My doctor tells me that he cannot explain the sudden change from
"bad numbers" in the lab results one week, to perfectly "normal"
ones the next. He keeps telling me that stuff like that
just_doesn't_happen. He has never had, or heard of a case (in
the 17 years he's been in practice) like mine. I am officially a
medical 'anomaly' as per an experienced physician.

[My Dr. teaches at the Gastroenterology dept. at Long Island
College Hospital. He's no 'lightweight' this guy. He's
considered one of the more knowledgeable people when it comes to
HCV. It's why I went to him!]

The man wants to write a 'paper' on me for the CDC in
Washington. (Center for Disease Control) I'm the one that's
'holding him up' from doing it. He needs to do a follow-up
biopsy on my liver before he can complete his own study. I'm not
too fond of the idea of going through _that_ again anytime soon.
So far, he's been leaving it up to me. But the pressure is there
nonetheless to do it some time soon. Once he has that test
result in his hand, he can report to CDC. According to him, I
don't fit in with anything 'known' in terms of my biological
responses to treatment.

I have had a physician tell me to my face that there is
something 'different' about how my body has responded (in this
situation) in comparison to 'everybody else.' Which doesn't
prove _anything_ in and of itself as far as abduction goes. But,
isn't it 'interesting' that this unusual medical anomaly should
turn up in someone who also claims to have been abducted by
aliens all of his life? <EG>

Don't you think it warrants a little investigating? Hmmm?

But wait, there's more!

He also found the scar from a "puncture-wound" deep inside my
right ear. (My ear has never been "punctured" by anything or
anybody at anytime.) And when he first examined my nose/sinuses,
he asked me what my (non-existent) "sinus surgery" was for? This
has come up three times in my life (with three different
doctors.)

All these anomalies discovered and noted in my permanent medical
record (at my request) during the two years I have been
monitored by him. See Roger, we're not _all_ 'asleep at the
wheel' as you like to think.

I wouldn't give it to you. But if you can come up with a
qualified and competent physician that is willing to review my
medical history in order to verify all these "anomalies,"
contact me with his/her name and I'll provide them with my
doctor's name and contact information.

Now it's _your_ turn to put up or shut up!

I'm telling you now Roger. Everytime you get heavy handed with
an abductee on this List I am going to jump on you with my BIG
BOOTS!

Please, there's no need to be so snide and nasty when talking to
Liz or me or anybody else. You're getting this kind of treatment
from me because in 'my world' you get what your hand calls for.

Get a doctor... I'll authorize the release of information with
my physician. It won't prove whether I'm being abducted or not,
but it will demonstrate that there are some unusual anomalies
present. What causes them is anybodies guess. I don't pretend to
know. Afterwards you can eat a little crow by posting the
verification of my statements from your own doctor to this List.
How's that for "fair" Roger?

I'm a 'wall' for you and people like you. I have nothing to
hide, I simply tell the truth without embellishing it and it
gives me all kinds of confidence when I'm dealing with folks who
blow a lot of smoke but know nothing about what they are talking
about.

Like I said though, isn't it just a little curious to you that
all these medical thingies are connected to an abductee.  ;)

If you have the rocks, and the doctor to back it up, call me on
it. The ball is in your court, I believe.


John Velez,

I'm right here and ready to deal. Been here and available for
five years!  <LOL>

******************************************************
                     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 >
   Dec > Dec 13

                      Re: Compuserve/Project FT? - Lowe

From: Adam Lowe <nicap@freechariot.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 10:27:35 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 10:46:14 +0000
Subject: Re: Compuserve/Project FT? - Lowe


 >Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 05:51:28 +0000
 >From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Compuserve/Project FT?

 >Hi All,

 >Could someone please tell me if you have to be a member of
 >Compuserve to gain access to the UFO forum? Would it be possible
 >for someone to tell me on how I get to join the UFO forum on
 >Compuserve.

 >Also I seem to have lost the URL for Project FT, could someone
 >kindly please post this to the list.


Hi Roy.

The NICAP website has the Project FT address as:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/project_ft


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 >
   Dec > Dec 13

                           More Jonathan Reed Hoax

From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 04:19:55 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 10:49:33 +0000
Subject: More Jonathan Reed Hoax


I think Reed and his partners in crime are gearing up for
another run on the public. I'm just waiting to see them pop back
up on Coast to Coast AM. Take a look at the following website:

http://www.aliendestiny.com/

Also, be sure to click on the book ordering info and view the
cover for the book - the grammar and punctuation are terrible!


Regards,

Royce J. Myers III eXpos: The Watchdog of UFOlogy "Don't Trip
On Your Open Mind...or the rubber alien prop you used to try and
scam the public with." eXpos News
http://home.sprintmail.com/~rjm3 UFO Hall o' Shame
http://home.earthlink.net/~ufowatchdog ufowatchdog@earthlink.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 >
   Dec > Dec 13

              Re: 50th Anniversary of a UFO Invasion - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 09:45:56 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 11:04:41 +0000
Subject: Re: 50th Anniversary of a UFO Invasion - Maccabee


 >Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 11:56:50 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
 >From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: 50th Anniversary of a UFO Invasion


 >Greetings everyone!

 >In a few e-mails I got recently I was reminded that on my Name
 >Day, December 6, was the 50th anniversary of an event that
 >nearly brought about World War III but remains little known and
 >still unexplained to this day. What really happened on December
 >6, 1950?

 >British Prime Minister Clement Attlee arrived in Washington,
 >D.C. in December 4 with stories in the newspapers of an imminent
 >nuclear attack on the U.S. by the Soviets since the U.S.
 >military under General MacArthur was considering using their
 >nuclear weapons against Chinese troops during the Korean War.

 >To quote from one of the e-mails I got from a fellow researcher
 >of the UFO phenomena, on December 5th, President Truman wrote in
 >his diary, "It looks like World War III is here. I hope not -
 >but we must meet whatever comes - and we will.". Secretary of
 >State Dean Acheson went to bed thinking that he would not be
 >surprised to ba awaken by an announcement of a global war. The
 >following morning all hell seemed to break loose when the U.S.
 >early warning system picked up a formation of unidentified
 >objects flying in over Alaska on a southeast heading towards
 >Washington, D.C. All interception and defense forces were
 >alerted.

 >As am sure you all know, WWIII did not happen that day. The
 >official explanation given was it was a false alarm produced by
 >a flight of geese (this was in the pre-pelican days). Was it
 >something more serious than just birds? I think it was. That
 >same day(?) U.S. military forces, not members of the SPCA,
 >crossed into Mexico just across the border from Texas to recover
 >one of these downed "geese". This UFO crash was confirmed by
 >several credible individuals including a well known Mexican
 >General who was in command of this specific area where the
 >incident occurred. Many researchers, including Larry Bryant who
 >last year petitioned Mexican officials for more information,
 >have been frustrated in their attempts to find out what the U.S.
 >military did with the UFO wreckage and at least one recovered
 >E.T. alien body.>

 >If anyone of you has any information, including possible new
 >leads, insights or comments about this UFO crash/retrieval case
 >(Item B-7 on page 22 in Leonard Stringfield's Status Report II),
 >many researchers, including UFO UpDates subscribers and seekers


In honor of your "Name Day," I include the following article
that I published in the Proceedings of the MUFON Symposium, July
1999.

This information forms one chapter in my book, 'The UFO-FBI
Connection'.

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/



IMMEDIATE SAUCER ALERT!
The Mystery of December 6, 1950
by
Bruce Maccabee

(This article was presented at the Symposium of the MUTUAL UFO
NETWORK in July, 1999. The information presented here is also
presented in somewhat different format in the book, THE UFO-FBI
CONNECTION, by Bruce Maccabee, (Llewellyn Pub., 2000)



ABSTRACT

For an hour the United States military was under a condition of
national emergency during the morning of December 6, 1950. Two
days later the FBI was informed that the Army�s Counter
Intelligence Corps had been placed on Immediate High Alert for
any information related to flying saucers. Were these two
documented events related? This paper contains a discussion of
the possibility that a flight of saucers caused the emergency
and that the crash of one of them near the Texas-Mexico border
on or about December 6, 1950 caused the immediate high alert.


PART 1: NATIONAL EMERGENCY
LOCATION: WHITE HOUSE, WASHINGTON, D.C,
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
DATE: DECEMBER 6, 1950
TIME: 10:30 AM

(The President is preparing for a conference with British Prime
Minister Clement Attlee. The secure phone rings. It is the
Undersecretary of Defense Robert Lovett.)

"Mr. President. I don�t know whether this is related to the war
in Korea, but it might be. Our northern tier radars have picked
up a flight of several dozen aircraft approaching our east
coast. They are unidentified and do not respond to our
signalling. They could be Russian bombers. If they proceed on
the present course they will be over Washington D.C. in several
hours, having passed over major cities along the East Coast.
The Continental Air Command has scrambled and is on high alert.
We have begun preparations for a National Emergency and handling
of the press. I suggest you take any precautions you think
necessary in the event that this is an attack. I�ll keep you
informed. After I hang up all civilian communications with the
Pentagon will be cut off.. I will keep you informed as the
situation develops. Goodbye."

Shock! Could this be the realization of his worst nightmare?
By resisting the North Korean aggression had President Truman
brought on the most-feared consequence, nuclear war with the
Soviet Union? Were these Soviet bombers loaded with atomic
bombs to drop on Boston, New York and Washington, D.C.?

"Impossible," he thought as he placed the phone in its cradle.
"I don�t believe it. The CIA has not reported any troop
movements or aircraft activity that would suggest the Russians
were preparing to attack."

And yet, the radar had detected something. It must have been
something big to cause this much activity by the Continental Air
Command.

Despite his apprehension he proceeded to the meeting with Mr.
Clement Atlee as if nothing were happening.

But, in the back of his mind he knew that some objects were
approaching the United States. What were they?

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

What you have just read is partly fiction and partly fact.
Something DID happen that morning, something that has been
glossed over in the history books as an "accident" of the radar.
But was it? Read on. What follows is NOT fiction.

................................................................


PART 2: IMMEDIATE HIGH ALERT FOR FLYING SAUCERS

"URGENT. DECEMBER 8. RE: FLYING SAUCERS. This office very
confidentially advised by Army Intelligence, Richmond, that they
have been put on immediate high alert for any data whatsoever
concerning flying saucers. CIC here states background of
instructions not available from Air Force Intelligence, who are
not aware of reason for alert locally, but any information
whatsoever must be telephoned by them immediately to Air Force
Intelligence. CIC advises data strictly confidential and should
not be diseminated (sic)."

The above teletype message is contained in file 62-83894, the
"flying disc"file of the FBI, the REAL X-Files! (The Truth is In
Here!)

How very strange for the Army�s Counter Intelligence Corps (CIC)
to be put on immediate high alert for any data regarding
objects/phenomena/craft which the U. S. Air Force had publically
and repeatedly claimed can all be explained and are no threat to
the security of the United States! Are we to presume the CIC has
nothing better to do than to run around chasing "will o� the
wisps" and similar ethereal things of no consequence to national
defense? Of course not! We may imagine that Air Force
Intelligence, headquartered in the Pentagon, requested the
immediate high alert because something had happened, something
related to flying saucers that demanded immediate attention.
Evidently whatever had happened was so serious a matter that the
CIC was not told the reason for the high alert. Not only that
but the high alert condition was "confidential" and "not to be
disseminated" which suggests that the CIC agent broke security
by telling the FBI agent in Richmond.

\What had happened? Even today we don�t know ... but based on
other information we can make a guess.

................................................................

PART 3: THE COLONEL'S STORY

In 1977 Retired Air Force Col. Robert Willingham filed a report
with NICAP regarding his observation of what he believed to be a
Crashed Saucer. What? Did he say a Crashed Saucer? Yes, he did.
And here is what happened, according to the affadavit he filed
with the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena
(NICAP) and now in the file of the Center for UFO Studies
(CUFOS). (NICAP was a civilian UFO reseach group founded in the
latter half of the 1950�s. It was the largest such group in the
1960�s but it closed in the late 1970�s. CUFOS, founded in the
early 1970�s, still exists in Chicago.) The complete affadavit
is presented in A History of UFO Crashes by Kevin Randle (Avon
Books, NY, 1995). Supplemental information is in parentheses:
"Down in Dyess Air Force Base in (Abilene) Texas, we were
testing what turned out to be the F-94 (Lockheed Starfire, jet
fighter, top speed about 600 mph, operational in 1950). They
reported on the scope that they had an unidentified flying
object at a high speed going to intercept our course. It became
visible to us and we wanted to take off after it. Headquarters
wouldn�t let us go after it and we played around a little bit.
We got to watching how it made 90 degree turns at this high
speed and everything. We knew it wasn�t a missile of any type.
So then, we confirmed it with the radar control station on the
DEW (Distant Early Warning) line (NORAD - North American Defense
Command) and they kept following it and they claimed that it
crashed somewhere off between Texas and the Mexico border. We
got a light aircraft, me and my copilot, and we went down to the
site. We landed out in the pasture right across from where it
hit. We got over there. They told us to leave and everything
else and then armed guards came out and they started to form a
line around the area. So, on the way back, I saw a little piece
of metal so I picked it up and brought it back with me. There
were two sand mounds that came down and it looked to me like
this thing crashed right between them. But it went into the
ground, according to the way people were acting around it. So we
never did get up to the site to see what had crashed. But you
could see for, oh I�d say, three to five hundred yards where it
went across the sand." "It looked to me, I guess from the metal
that we found, that it either had a little explosion or it began
to disintegrate. Something caused this metal to come apart." "It
looked like something that was made because it was honeycombed.
You know how you would make a metal that would cool faster. In a
way it looked like magnesium steel but it had a lot of carbon in
it. I tried to heat it with a cutting torch. It just wouldn�t
melt. A cutting torch burns anywhere from 3200 to 3800 degrees
Fahrenheit and it would make the metal hot but it wouldn�t even
start the metal to yield." According to Willingham, some time
later he took the metal to the Marine Corps testing lab in
Hagarstown, MD and gave it to some person for testing. When he
returned for the results a few days later he was told there was
no such person working there. Later was told never to talk about
the incident he signed a secrecy oath (which he apparently broke
in 1977). Todd Zechel, who was active in UFO research in the
latter 1970�s, investigated Willingham�s story. In the middle
1980�s Zechel told me some of the information he had learned
from his investigation. According to Zechel this crash occurred
between Dec. 5 and Dec. 8, 1950. (Randle lists the date as
December 6.) It was Zechel�s opinion based on Willingham�s story
and a document (discussed below) that the crash occurred on
December 5, the recovery occurred on December 6, a general alert
to counterintelligence was sent out on December 7, and the FBI
learned about it on December 8. Zechel told this author that in
1978 he and a Japanese TV documentary team chartered a plane and
flew, with Col. Willingham, to the location of the crash. It was
roughly in the vicinity of Del Rio, Texas (Zechel did not tell
me the exact location.). Del Rio is about 230 air miles from
Abilene. According to Zechel, Willingham said that the UFO was
at an altitude of about 50,000 ft (nearly the maximum altitude
of the F-94) and traveling 3 to 4 times faster than the jet,
i.e., several times the speed of sound. It did a right angle
turn, then slowed and started wobbling. Then it dropped downward
continuously and went out of the pilot�s sight. Radar in Texas
tracked the object until it went off the screen in a manner
which suggested a crash. Willingham and the copilot returned to
Dyess AFB, landed and got a small civil air patrol plane and
flew to the border area where they thought it had crashed.
(Depending upon the speed of the small aircraft and the exact
location along the border, it could have taken two hours or more
from the time the object appeared to crash until Willingham
reached the site.) Willingham said that the Mexican military had
reached the site before he got there. The Mexican military
cordoned off the area and waited for US Air Force personnel to
arrive Zechel further told me that in 1975 he was fortunate to
obtain a declassified but formerly Top Secret document which
stated that Carswell Air Force Base, Fort Worth, Texas, had
recovered some foreign object on December 6 or 7. He said the
document referred to a high alert status because of the nature
of the recovery, but the document did not specify what had been
recovered. (Zechel did not provide me with a copy of this
document.) (For what it�s worth, the controversial "Eisenhower
Briefing Document" released in 1987 by Timothy Goode and,
independently, by William Moore, also claims a crash near
theTexas-Mexico border on December 6. ) There is a discrepancy
in Willingham�s story which probably is a result of faulty
memory. He said that the UFO was detected by "the radar control
station on the DEW (Distant Early Warning) line (NORAD - North
American Defense Command)" and that the DEW radar "kept
following it and they claimed that it crashed somewhere off
between Texas and the Mexico border." The DEW line was not
established until late 1953 and it was located in Alaska and
northern Canada, so it could not possibly have tracked an object
over Texas. The closest Air Defense Command radar at the time
was at Walker AFB at Roswell, NM. However, this was also too far
away. On the other hand there were Air Force bases in Texas
which probably had radar installations that could have tracked
the object reported by Willingham. Dyess AFB at Abeline is more
than 200 miles from the Del Rio area of Texas. This is beyond
the range of typical radar installations of the time (see
discussion below) and so a radar at Dyess would not have been
able to determine that an object went below the radar horizon or
crashed at the distance of Del Rio. However, a radar
installation at Kelly AFB, Brooks AFB or Randolph AFB, all near
San Antonio, could have tracked an object to the vicinity of Del
Rio without exceeding the range of the radar
................................................................
...........................................................

PART 4: DISCONNECTED EVENTS? So far we have three seemingly
disconnected events: a documentable (see below) "national
emergency" by the Defense Department on December 6, 1950, a
documentable immediate high alert for saucer related information
on December 8 and witness testimony about a flying saucer crash
near the Texas-Mexico border on or about December 6, 1950. Could
these be related? The existence of theFBI teletype message
raises (at least) two related questions: why an immediate high
alert, and why on December 8? Neither of these questions can be
definitely answered at the present time because the CIC and Air
Force records relating to this simply have not been found, even
after a search, at my request, of CIC records by the Army
Security agency. However, I can speculate that if a saucer had
crashed on December 6 and been retrieved on the 6th or 7th, the
Air Force intelligence may well have issued requests for
immediate information in order to find out if any sightings had
been made or if any other saucers had crashed. The high alert
condition could then have been communicated to the FBI in a
confidential way a day or so later (i.e., Dec. 8). Whether the
Air Force intelligence or the CIC received any special UFO
information is not known. However, there were sightings on
December 6 which are in the Blue Book file: one at West
Springfield, Massachusetts (near Westover AFB) at 8:16 AM (one
object, half-moon shaped, fast, flying in a southerly direction)
and one at Fort Myers, Florida at 5 PM (a former aircraft
purchasing agent and four boys, using 10-power binoculars, saw a
75' object, 3-4' thick with a bubble on top, silver colored with
a red rim and having two white and two orange jets along the
side; the center revolved when the object hovered and then it
flew away very fast). The first object was "identified" as a
aircraft by Project Blue Book; the second was unidentified. (The
next sighting listed in the Blue Book file was in London,
England, on December 9. Another of the only about 700
unidentified sightings in the Blue Book collection occurred on
December 11 in Alaska.)
................................................................

PART V: A RADAR EMERGENCY

So, what really happened on December 6 that nearly caused a
national emergency?. The full story is not known, but the
available information is intriguing. As you read the following
discussion keep in mind that the global political situation was
"hot". There were two wars and two races: a Cold War between the
USA and the Soviet Union and a Hot War in Korea, a missile race
and an atomic bomb race. Russia and China were becoming potent
Communist adversaries of the capitalist democracies. Their
states purpose was to overthrow the capitalism. They were
investing major portions of their country�s resources into
armaments and armies. The war in Korea was viewed as the first
real military contest between communism and capitalism, and it
was not going well for the USA and South Korea. Ever since the
beginning of the war in June, 1950, the U. S. government had
been worried about the Chinese response to the attempt of the
United Nations to preserve the independence of South Korea.
These worries increased after General MacArthur landed at Inchon
in September and succeeded in driving the North Korean army back
across the 38th parallel (the agreed-upon northern boundary of
South Korea). In October and November U. N. troops pushed into
North Korea under MacArthur�s orders to destroy the North Korean
army. Finally on November 25 the Chinese counterattacked with
about 200,000 men, a number which doubled over the next month.
U.N. forces, numbered at about one half the Chinese force, were
once again in danger of complete defeat. This was causing a near
panic situation in the USA. President Truman was worried about
the possibility that the war would widen, even bringing on World
War III, which could necessitate a nuclear response and "nuclear
armageddon." The Joint Chiefs of Staff (the "top brass" of all
the armed services) had sent a warning to U. S. forces
commanders throughout the world of a heightened possibility for
world war. It was against this background of war jitters that a
large group of "unidentified aircraft" was suddenly detected
approaching the USA from the north, from the general direction
of the Soviet Union! Was this the feared attack? Some important
people were afraid it was!

There are three published versions of what happened during the
morning of December 6. The version presented here first comes
from the autobiography of Secretary of State, Dean Acheson,
Present at the Creation (W.W. Norton Pub., NY; pages 479-480).
The second version, published in The Wise Men by Walter Isaacson
and Evan Thomas (Simon and Shuster, NY; 1986; pages 544-545) is
based in an interview with Mr. Acheson. It differs slightly from
Mr. Acheson�s own version. The third is in Memoirs of Harry S.
Truman: Years of Trial and Hope 1946-1952 (Vol. 2, page 405 ).
Looking first at Secretary Acheson�s autobiography we find that
on the morning of December 6, "soon after my arrival at the
(State) Department, Deputy Secretary of Defense Lovett
telephoned a report and an instruction from the President. Our
early warning radar system in Canada had picked up formations of
unidentified objects, presumably aircraft, headed southeast on a
course that could bring them over Washington in two or three
hours. All interception and defense forces were alerted. I was
to inform but not advise the Prime Minister (Clement Atlee of
Britain). The Pentagon telephones would be closed for all but
emergency defense purposes and he could not talk again. Before
he hung up, I asked whether he believed that the objects that
were picked up were Russian bombers. He said that he did not.
Getting Oliver Franks (the British ambassador) on the telephone
I repeated the message. He asked whether the President had
canceled the eleven-thirty meeting with Attlee, and was told
that he had not. We agreed to meet there. Before ending the
talk, he wondered about the purpose of my message. I suggested
fair warning and an opportunity for prayer. As we finished, one
of our senior officials burst into the room. How he had picked
up the rumor I do not know, perhaps from the Pentagon. He wanted
to telephone his wife to get out of town, and to have important
files moved to the basement. I refused to permit him to do
either and gave him the choice of a word-of-honor commitment not
to mention the matter to anyone or being put under security
detention. He wisely cooled off and chose the former. When we
reached the White House, Lovett told us that the unidentified
objects had disappeared. His guess was that they had been
geese."

There are several important points to keep in mind as you read
the following versions of what happened. Acheson said that
"early warning radar in Canada" had detected "formations"
(plural) of "unidentified objects, presumably aircraft" which
were headed "southeast" in a direction that could put them over
Washington, DC in 2 to 3 hours. Using an estimated top speed of
300 mph for Soviet bombers, this would put them a mere 600 - 900
miles from Washington. Acheson�s story indicates that President
Truman already knew about the unidentified aircraft and wanted
Acheson to inform the British ambassador. Acheson ended his
story by saying that, after he arrived at the White House, that
is, at about 11:30 AM, Defense Undersecretary Lovett told him he
"guessed" that the objects were geese.

The next version of the story, told in The Wise Men, is based on
an interview with Mr. Acheson:

"For a moment on the morning of December 6, he thought his
nightmare (of world war) had come true. At 10:30 AM Bob Lovett
called him from the Pentagon and abruptly informed him in his
laconic voice: �When I finish talking to you, you cannot reach
me again. All incoming calls will be stopped. A national
emergency is about to be proclaimed. We are informed that there
is flying over Alaska at the present moment a formation of
Russian planes heading southeast. The President wishes the
British ambassador to be informed of this and be told that Mr.
Attlee should take whatever measures are proper for Mr. Attlee�s
safety. I�ve now finished my message and I�m going to ring off.�
Acheson cut in, �Now wait a minute, Bob, do you believe this?�
�No,� Lovett replied, and hung up. Acheson sat in his office and
waited. The Air Force scrambled. A senior official burst in
asking permission to telephone his wife to get out of town and
wondering if he should begin moving files to the basement.
Acheson tried to sooth him. A few minutes later Lovett calmly
called back. The radar blips were not Soviet bombers after all.
They were flocks of geese."

This version makes it seem that the alert period was very short,
only a few minutes. However, by combining the information in
this version about the beginning time, 10:30 AM, with the
information in Acheson�s biography about the ending time (after
Acheson arrived at the White House), about 11:30 AM, we find
that the alert lasted about an hour. This version is more
specific as to where the objects were: they were detected over
Alaska, which is over 3,000 miles from Washington, D. C. If that
were true it would have taken not just two to three hours but
much more than 10 hours for the planes to arrive over
Washington.

President Truman wrote about the same episode:

"Shortly before we went into that morning meeting, Under
Secretary Lovett called from the Pentagon, reporting that the
radar screens of some air defense installations in the far north
were reporting large formations of unidentified planes
approaching. Fighter planes were sent up to reconnoiter and
alerts were flashed to air centers in New England and beyond.
But about an hour later -- while I was meeting with (Clement)
Attlee -- Lovett notified me that the report had been in error.
Some unusual disturbance in the Arctic atmosphere had thrown the
radar off."

President Truman�s version of the event suggests that the
objects may have been detected north of the eastern United
States rather than over Alaska. The fact that fighter aircraft
were scrambled indicates that this alert was treated as a
serious event by the Continental Air Command. Truman�s
explanation is somewhat different from Acheson�s. Here we learn
that the radar detections were caused by some sort of
atmospheric disturbance.

An unpublished version of this event is found in the official
transcript of the meeting between Truman and Atlee which is
preserved at the Truman library:

"At this point (in the meeting) Mr. Connelly entered the room
and handed the President a report from Deputy Secretary of
Defense Lovett. Mr. Lovett was reporting that the �alert� that
had reached the President an hour earlier when it was thought
that a large number of unidentified airplanes were approaching
the northeast coast of the United States, had now been due to
erroneous interpretation of atmospheric conditions. The
President informed the Prime Minister that the report of the
planes was in error. The Prime Minister expressed relief and
gratification."

This version, based on notes made at the time rather than upon
memories years afterward, says the unidentified objects were
approaching the northeast coast of the United States, clearly
contradicting Acheson�s assertion that they were detected over
Alaska, unless, of course, there were two groups of objects.
Furthermore, this version indicates Lovett was the source of the
"atmospheric effects" explanation mentioned by President Truman.
But Lovett was also the source of the "geese" explanation
reported by Acheson. So, which explanation was right? Or was
neither correct?

A report carried by the International News Service reported yet
another explanation:

"Washington D.C., 6 December 1950 (INS): A warning of an
impending air attack resulted in a false alarm in this capitol
city today. No air raid alarms were sounded, but functionaries
charged with the Civil Air Defense of Washington were alerted
that an unidentified aircraft had been detected off the coast of
the State of Maine at mid-day. Later, a spokesman for the Air
Force stated that interceptor aircraft had been dispatched , and
that the object in question had been identified shortly
thereafter as a North American C-47 aircraft which was
approaching the continent from Goose Bay, Labrador. The warning
was said to have been useful in verifying the efficiency of the
Washington Civil Defense System. Civil Defense officials
declined to comment on the incident."

This report, supposedly based on an Air Force statement, says
the radar target was from a single C-47 (capable of up to 220
mph at altitudes up to 24,000 ft) approaching from Goose Bay,
Labrador, a location about 500 miles north-northeast of the
northeastern "top" of Maine. It says nothing about unknown
aircraft over Alaska. Detection of planes near or over
northeastern Maine (coming from the direction of Goose Bay)
would be more compatible with the claim in Acheson�s
autobiography that the planes were several hours from reaching
Washington, DC (the northeastern corner of Maine is about 700
miles from Washington, D.C., 2 1/3 hours at 300 mph).

It appears that this supposed attack did have repercussions in
Alaska. The New York Times published a story with a December 7,
Anchorage Alaska, dateline which said that "All military
personnel in Alaska were called on �alert� tonight (i.e., Dec.
6), but Air Force officials said that the order was purely a
�precautionary measure.� Military police rounded up soldiers and
theatres and radio stations made special announcements that
troops were to return to their posts. Within a few hours there
were no military personnel to be seen on Anchorage streets.
Officials at Elmendorf Air Force Base said the alert had been in
effect since the outbreak of the fighting in Korea. But they
added that the air force had increased its vigilance here in
recent days."

Further evidence of the official "jitters" is in the statement
in the Washington Post on December 10 that "President Truman is
�seriously considering declaration of national emergency� which
could lead to an "immediate all-out mobilization."

Over Alaska? Over Labrador? Flocks of Geese? Arctic atmospheric
effects? A single C-47 aircraft? Or something else? Not until
1987 was further information on this event released by the Air
Force, and sparse information at that! What follows was found by
Don Berliner by accident during a search of declassified files
of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Record group 330,
July 1, 1950 to December, 1951 (at the National Archives).

On December 6, Air Force Colonel Charles Winkle, Assistant
Executive in the Directorate for Plans, wrote a memorandum for
Secretary of Defense George Marshall about this event. It
confirms the alert:

SUBJECT: Air Alert - 1030 Hours , 6 December 1950

1. The ConAC (Continental Air Command) Air Defense Controller
notified the Headquarters USAF Command Post that at 1030 hours a
number of unidentified aircraft were approaching the northeast
area of the United States and that there was no reason to
believe the aircraft were friendly.

2. This information was further amplified at 1040 hours as
follows. By radar contact it was determined that approximately
40 aircraft were in flight, at 32,000 feet, on a course of 200
degrees in the vicinity of Limestone, Maine.

3. The emergency alert procedure went into effect immediately.

4. The Office of the President was notified. Brigadier General
Landry returned the call and stated that the President had been
notified and that:

   a. All information in this matter was to be released by the
   Department of the Air Force.

   b. Office of the President would release no information.

   c. The substance of a and b above was to be passed to the
   Office of the Secretary of Defense.

5. At 1104 hours the ConAC Air Defense Controller state that the
original track had faded out and it appeared that the flight as
originally identified is a friendly flight.

6. ConAC took immediate action to dispatch inteceptors on the
initial contact.

................................................................


PART VI: RADAR ANALYSIS

The technical information in this document is sparse, but there
are details which, when combined with the known capabilities of
radar, call into question all of the previous explanations. In
order to understand why, one must learn about the capabilities
and locations of early warning radar installations in Maine.

By the beginning of WWII radar technology had developed to the
point that aircraft detections at 150 miles were common. After
the Japanese attack in December, 1941, the Army deployed, along
the east and west coasts of the US, radar sets capable of
detecting aircraft at 150 mile range at 20,000 ft elevation. By
the late 1940�s there were radar sets capable of a 200 mile
range at 40,000 ft. The question now becomes, what were the
capabilities and locations of the long-range search radar
installations in Maine?

A valuable reference in this regard is "Searching the Skies; The
Legacy of the United States Cold war Defense Radar Program"
published by the USAF Air Combat Command (David Winkler, June,
1997) which recounts the history of the early warning radar that
was set up by the Air Defense Command. These radar installations
were dedicated to the detection of incursions into US airspace
from the north. Generally they were located at sites where there
already were radar installations used for other purposes such as
air traffic control of military and civilian aircraft. Of
course, there were also search radar installations at civilian
airports and Air Force bases. One of these probably was at
Loring AFB at Limestone, Maine, or at Presque Isle AFB at
Presque Isle, Maine.

According to "Searching the Skies,", in December, 1950 there was
an AN/CPS-5 and also an AN/TPS-10A radar at Dow AFB near Bangor,
Maine. These are Army/Navy (AN) search radars. The CPS-5 was a
search radar and the TPS-10A was a "height finder." The
combination of these radars gave a "solid search of up to 60
miles at 40,000 ft" but often "had success tracking aircraft as
far as 210 miles away."

By combining the known radar capabilities with the information
in Winkle�s document one can make a crude estimate of the speed
of the objects. If we assume that the initial detection (10:30
AM) was made by the radar at Bangor, at the limit of its
detection range, then at that time the objects were about 200
miles north-northeast of Bangor. About 10 minutes later (10:40
AM) the objects were "in the vicinity of" (over?) Limestone,
Maine, which is about 150 miles north-northeast of Bangor. Hence
these objects would have traveled about 50 miles in 10 minutes
corresponding to a speed of 300 mph, the upper limit for long
range bomber aircraft in 1950, but easily attained by fighter
aircraft.

This speed calculation is based on the assumption that the
initial detection was not made by radar installations that were
closer to the northern border of Maine. The only reason for
making this assumption is that the existence of a long range
radar at Dow AFB is documented. I have no documentation on long
range radar installations that may have been at Loring AFB, or
at the nearby Presque Isle AFB, both of which are near the
northeastern border of Maine. The capabilities of these assumed
radars are unknown. However, according to "Searching the Skies,"
there was an AN/TPS-1B long range search radar that came "on
line" at Loring AFB for use by the Air Defense Command or by
ConAC in February, 1951. It is quite likely that this radar or
one like it was already operating as an air traffic control
radar at the Air Force Base in December, 1950. This type of
radar had a capability of detecting aircraft at altitudes up to
10,000 ft at a range of 120 miles. At closer ranges it could
detect aircraft at higher altitudes.

If we assume that a radar such as this made the initial
detection then the estimated speed will be considerably larger
than the 300 mph calculated above. Assume that at the initial
detection was made about 100 miles from Loring AFB at Limestone.
Then, ten minutes later the objects were "in the vicinity of
Limestone. Maine." That would mean they had traveled nearly 100
miles in 10 minutes for a speed of 500 - 600 mph, far in excess
of anything but the fastest fighter jets of the time. Similarly,
if the detection had been made from Loring AFB by a radar with a
range of 200 miles, then the initial detection could have
occurred when the objects were about 200 miles from Limestone.
To travel 200 miles in 10 minutes requires a speed of 1,200 mph.

SNAFU OR SAUCERS?
(SNAFU: situation normal: all fouled up)

As the preceding discussion shows, there is not enough
information about the radar detections to allow an exact
calculation of the speed of the objects. However, it appears
that they were traveling at least 300 mph and quite likely twice
that and perhaps over 1,000 mph.

The radar operators tracked the objects for ten minutes and
determined that there were 40 objects ("aircraft") flying at a
rather high altitude (32,000 ft) and traveling
south-southwestward (a course of 200 degrees). This course would
take them over the eastern USA, roughly toward Washington, D.C.

The fact that the air force bases scrambled aircraft to
intercept and identify the intruders" means the radar images
were so good that the operators were certain that these objects
were real, unidentifiable yet solid targets, presumably
aircraft, and not accidents of the radar. This is decidedly
different from what the operators would have concluded had the
radar showed relatively slow moving geese or "atmospheric
effects" such as a radar mirage due to temperature inversion.
Geese and atmospheric effects don�t travel at hundreds of miles
per hour along continuous tracks for many minutes.

The statement that there was "no reason to believe the aircraft
were friendly" means that the Continental Air Command radar
operators were not able to identify the aircraft from a known
flight plan, nor were they able to communicate with the aircraft
by radio. Had the aircraft been a single C-47 they certainly
could have identified it as friendly since it would have
responded to the numerous requests to identify itself.
Furthermore, it would not have been as high as 32,000 ft, flying
as fast as 300 mph and there likely would have been a flight
plan. The intruders, on the other hand, were flying high, fast
and were radio-silent.

According to Winkle�s document the radar track "faded out" at
11:04 AM, or about 24 minutes after the objects were near
Limestone. If the objects had continued on the 200 degree course
at a speed of 300 mph they would have traveled about 100 miles
from Limestone and would have been nearing the limit of a 120
mile radar range. If they had been traveling at 600 mph, they
would have been beyond the range of the of Limestone radar which
would explain the fading of the track. (One would expect,
however, that they would have been tracked by the Dow AFB radar
as they continued southward.)

The strangest statement in the document is: "it appears that the
flight as originally identified is a friendly flight." What does
that mean, "it appears?" Didn�t they know for certain? Didn�t
they track the "friendly aircraft" until they were positive? Are
we to believe that the Continental Air Command scrambled
aircraft and put the USA into a state of immediate high alert
and then weren�t able to positively identify the aircraft?

One would expect if there had been upwards of forty friendly
aircraft coming from the north toward the USA border someone
would have been aware of it. There would have been a flight
plan. At the very least these aircraft would have acknowledged
the attempts to contact them by radio, attempts which must have
been made numerous times starting with the first detection by
radar. Either the flight plan or the radio identification would
have been passed to the local commanders of the Continental Air
Command aircraft to prevent needless scrambling of aircraft.

If these intruders were group of friendly aircraft why did
Undersecretary of Defense Robert Lovett tell Dean Acheson that
flocks of geese flying over Alaska caused the radar targets? Why
did Undersecretary Lovett tell the President that arctic
atmospheric conditions caused the radar targets? Why did the Air
Force tell the press that a single C-47 caused the alert?

Presumably these were the explanations offered by the Top Brass
after being told the details by the people who were directly
involved with the radar detections and the scramble. Were the
Top Brass embarrassed by the initial misidentification of a
"friendly flight" and afraid to admit it? (I doubt that. They
"admitted" to the press that it was a single C-47.) Or did the
Top Brass, for whatever reason, not tell the President and the
Undersecretary of Defense what these targets really were? Or
were these people told but, when writing about it years later,
they could not recall or could not reveal the exact nature of
these objects to anyone else?

There must be other Air Force documents not yet released which
clarify this situation. However, based on the information
available in this document combined with the fact that CIC was
put on immediate high alert for flying saucer information only
two days later, I can suggest another explanation: perhaps the
radar targets were flying saucers!

Perhaps one of them caused the 5 PM sighting in Ft. Myers,
Florida.

And perhaps one of them flew somewhat erratically over Texas and
crashed in Mexico.

Perhaps. Will we ever know?



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I thank Don Berliner, Stanton Friedman, Kevin Randle, Todd
Zechel, the FBI, Charles Winkle, Dean Acheson, Harry Truman and
"approximately forty" high-flying "aircraft" for making this
mystery possible.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 13

                Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles -

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 15:43:12 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 11:08:42 +0000
Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles -


 >Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 21:21:05 -0500
 >From: Peter Brookesmith - Duke of Mendoza <DarkSecretPB@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>Forwarded from Nick Pope

 >>Issue 142 of Fortean Times contained a review of Georgina
 >>Bruni's new book on the Bentwaters case, "You Can't Tell
 >>The People". The review was written by Jenny Randles and
 >>as she's someone who has written extensively about the
 >>Rendlesham Forest mystery, I was expecting a fair and
 >>comprehensive assessment of the book. Sadly, this didn't
 >>happen.

 >I don't know how much of Jenny's original review of the Bruni
 >tome survived into print in FT #142, but for those too idle to
 >look up the full version, available at:

 >http://www.forteantimes.com/artic/rendlesham/rendlesham.html

Hi,

It had not been my intention to join this debate, as I am
naturally too involved to be impartial. So I will not engage in
a 'bitter' discussion if anyone feels inclined to provoke one.

But I will just say this.

I do thank Peter for publishing the full review (and FT for
letting him) so that you can all judge for yourself what I
did/did not say in this book review alongside the way Nick Pope
and Georgina Bruni respond to it.

I can add that the review reflects my honest opinion of the
book's stance and content and was, of course, less than a
comprehensive analysis of all its 450 plus pages because one
small reviews column of a magazine that covers a wide range of
paranormal phenomena (as is true of Fortean Times) could never
give me - or anyone else - that kind of remit.

No single review in FT ever runs to anything like the length of
the one that I actually wrote  - let alone the one I would have
had to write to do what Nick Pope wanted me to do. Any reader of
that magazine will quickly appreciate this fact from the
relatively small nature of all its reviews - save the book
chosen by FT as their book of the month - which gets a little
extra (but still not enormous) space.

As I appreciated they would require to do FT did need to cut
down massively for eventual use in the magazine, because that
was the amount of space that they believed that the book
justified given all other books they also had to cover that
month. But I asked for - and was allowed - permission for the
full/unedited review to be posted onto the FT web site.

All reviewers must comment honestly on how they see a book and
if this doesn't agree with the writers own perception (and as the
author of 47 books myself I do know that this is perfectly
possible!) that's the way of the world and what makes all reviews
interesting and different.

But it is curious that Nick/Georgina suggest that the review
discusses my personal opinions of this case when in fact it
makes no mention whatsoever of my view that the energy field
experiments local to the area are a key, nor indeed my suspicion
that a mirage was associated with parts of the sighting.

In fact, I don't actually see anywhere where my review debates my
own opinions on the nature of this case as Nick has suggested.
Only in the sense that the skeptical arguments put forward by
James Easton during the past three years - and that have without
doubt created a major stir in UFO circles - IMO had to be
addressed in any definitive overview of the case.

I don't agree with all of James Easton's views, not by any means,
but have always been willing to debate the issues with him in a
hopefully civilised manner and I see where he is coming from in
most of his discussions, recognise the rationale of his basic
argument and am well aware of his contribution to the case.

As such there is an obvious need to carefully assess what he is
saying if we are ever to get to the bottom of what happened. And
the total omission of this debate from the book was a factor
that I feel had to be reported to potential readers since it was
a glaring omission. But I don't think this was done in an
unreasonable manner and was certainly not done in a universally
condemnatory fashion.

If you disagree, fair enough. I can live with that.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 13

                        Re: Reluctant Viewers - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 09:35:57 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 11:10:48 +0000
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Evans


 >From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
 >Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 16:36:19 -0600
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Lehmberg

 >>Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 12:40:20 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Reluctant Viewers
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Elizabeth Hammond <lizzz@worldnet.att.net>
 >>>Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 13:53:05 -0500
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Hammond

Previously, Elizabeth wrote:

 >>>When are REAL researchers going to take the
 >>>step off the cliff? Actually examine some of us. Make use of all
 >>>the non-invasive technologies out there; cheek swabs for DNA,
 >>>MRI's and Cat scans looking for foreign bodies.Control groups
 >>>and all the other accoutrament that goes with real science?

 >>>Words are easy. It's easy to dismiss Abductee's as phony on the
 >>>basis of... still more words. It easy to call oneself an
 >>>Abductee, but we have a little head start, we also have
 >>>identifiable marks, which all should be collected, collated and
 >>>filed.

 >><snip>

 >>>Now, why is it that no one wants to step forward and
 >>>evaluate this very valuable piece of evidence? Are you that
 >>>afraid to be wrong?

 >>>The results, which ever way they may point, should
 >>>be very interesting!

I replied:

 >>Know what's even more interesting? Is why people like yourself
 >>don't go to a doctor and have the scans and examinations done
 >>and documented for all the world to see. Money is not the issue,
 >>since proof of ET life (by way of the evidence that you claim is
 >>contained within your body) would be worth mucho bucks. 24 Hours
 >>or 60 minutes would probably pick up the medical bills, just for
 >>the exclusive right to the story.

Alfred writes:

 >... cheap shot Mr. Evans! In parallel you ask an individual with
 >a mysteriously baffling malady shared by disparate persons all
 >over the globe to pay the freight for proving the existence of
 >that same malady, when -- if there are that many people
 >effected, it should be a _shared_ concern for everyone,
 >including yourself. Let's buy one less aircraft carrier and
 >investigate the whole problem, you agree?

<snip>

 >Moreover, the kind of effort you suggest has
 >been attempted by members of this list and is roundly ignored by
 >those same members, forgetting the dissmissal of the mainstream.
 >I think Velez can speak eloquently on this, as can Mack, Jacobs,
 >Hopkins, Friedman, et.al. Something damned weird -is- going on,
 >and is not addressed by your canted attack on one of the mere
 >messengers -- pretty easy words _you_ utter while shooting the
 >piano player for keying a tune you don't like to hear.

Hi, Alfred!

Hardly a cheap shot. On the contrary; immensely practical in
solving the answer about the existence of ET life. This is
particularly true in light of all the bellyaching about
"witnesses not being taken seriously" or "lack of evidence" or
"ignoring proof", etc. On the one hand, she claims that said
abductees have absolute proof buried in their collective bodies
and wishes someone would come forward and have scans done,
x-rays; anything "non-invasive".

Why?

If she had a rusty nail in her foot, would she take the same
"non invasive" approach? If she had a bullet lodged in her
belly, would she want it left there? Would she be satisfied with
"non-invasive" scans and x-rays only? Hell, no! She'd want that
stuff taken out of her body right away! So why live with
something alien in her body that she KNOWS is there?
Furthermore, why live in the shadow of the worlds' doubt when
she admits that she has the proof of her claims right at hand?

Regarding your references to Mack, Jacobs, Hopkins, etc. Please
refer me to any article, accompanied by photos, where an alien
object was extracted from an abductee where said object was
proven to be extraterrestrial in origin. I want to see a photo
of that object and what the analysis of it bears out.

I am not saying that all abductees claims are bogus. I am saying
that they are not helping their claims waiting for others to
solve their problems. If they know they have the proof in their
bodies, then get on with it and stop belly aching... literally.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 13

                        Re: Reluctant Viewers - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 09:44:09 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 11:12:56 +0000
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Evans


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 22:51:50 EST
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Gates

 >>Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 12:40:20 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Reluctant Viewers
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Elizabeth Hammond <lizzz@worldnet.att.net>
 >>>Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 13:53:05 -0500
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Hammond

Previously, Elizabeth wrote:

 >>>When are REAL researchers going to take the
 >>>step off the cliff? Actually examine some of us. Make use of all
 >>>the non-invasive technologies out there; cheek swabs for DNA,
 >>>MRI's and Cat scans looking for foreign bodies.Control groups
 >>>and all the other accoutrament that goes with real science?

I replied:

 >>Know what's even more interesting? Is why people like yourself
 >>don't go to a doctor and have the scans and examinations done
 >>and documented for all the world to see. Money is not the issue,
 >>since proof of ET life (by way of the evidence that you claim is
 >>contained within your body) would be worth mucho bucks. 24 Hours
 >>or 60 minutes would probably pick up the medical bills, just for
 >>the exclusive right to the story.

Robert now writes:

 >She could have all the examinations, scans, and documentation
 >done, and the skeptics would still dismiss it as some kind of
 >weird aborration and or that she was some kind of hoaxer,
 >attempting to get attention and so on. You would have another
 >group of folks claiming that the testimony of the various
 >doctors could reflect their personal bias, how the xrays and
 >scans were actually machine defects or anomallys.

 >Then you would have those who would maintain something along the
 >lines of "Well, since I can't/or didn't get the chance to
 >physically touch the proof, its a hoax and so on.

 >In the end, you would have people saying something like "See,
 >with all the evidence, and all the tests and scans, it proves
 >its real." The cronies from the skeptical tank would look at the
 >same evidence, same tests and same scans and tells us that it
 >can all be explained away.

Hi, Robert!

Since the above seems to be your standard answer to anything
written about on this list, I have to wonder why you even bother
participating. You seem content in your ability to predict the
future and read people's minds. I wish I had that gift.

I agree that the debate will never end. However, this issue
isn't about what extremists think. The issue is about people
like Ms. Hammond taking an active role in solving their own
problems. On the one hand, she complains that the UFO community
is all talk. Yet, to date, that appears that's all she's done,
as well. Go to a doctor, Ms. Hammond, just like you would if
there were anything else in your body that you did not want
there. No one is going to visit the doctor for you...

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 >
   Dec > Dec 14

                Re: Bigelow/NIDS Purchase Of Records - Kaeser

From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 11:25:31 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 07:41:46 +0000
Subject: Re: Bigelow/NIDS Purchase Of Records - Kaeser


Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 00:39:47 -0500
To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Subject: Re: Bigelow/NIDS Purchase Of Records

<snip>

 >The first time I brought this subject to the attention of the
 >List and the UFO community at large I had hopes that the end
 >result would be 'some kind' of new awareness about, and
 >attention to, the rights of abductees as witnesses. Strip away
 >the label "abductee" and what you have is a person. In America
 >"people" have certain rights of protection that are guaranteed
 >by the Constitution and insured by law. In the case of the sale
 >of client files by John Carpenter to Robert Bigelow I raised a
 >red flag and questioned the propriety and even the legality of
 >the transfer of such personal information without the knowledge
 >or consent of the client. At that time I told every body that
 >the rabbit hole went much deeper than just the one transaction
 >involving John Carpenter.

John-

A number of us were involved in this conversation several months
ago, and I think that many people were listening. I'm just not
sure that anyone is willing (or able) to confront the issues
involved. I, also, believe that the rights of abductees need to
be protected, but the accepted rules may be different for
research subjects than they are for clients seeking help from a
medical professional.

I'm still hoping that someone actually takes Carpenter to task
in a legal sense for his actions, so that the air can be cleared
one way or the other. I would also hope that MUFON would take a
stand on this issue, rather than simply point to an old (1994)
"agreement" that was in effect when John sold his information.

I would agree that this is an ongoing problem that will rear its
ugly head again, but I don't see much movement toward a
resolution and very little pressure from the abductees to deal
with it.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 14

                Persinger's 'The Field Biology of Unexplained

From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 23:11:06 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 13:45:38 +0000
Subject: Persinger's 'The Field Biology of Unexplained


I suggest you put this "thing" on the Net so that people don't
get a one-sided view (mine) about Dr. Persinger's UFO
'Research'. If they read the actual information, they will see
for themselves the true nonsense that it is, this theory of his.

BTW, I sent my reply (article) to the Neuroscience website at
Laurentian University, which includes the factual info about the
Falconbridge UFO Incident.

Cordially,

Michel

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

Laurentian University's Biology Society
presents

The Field Biology of Unexplained Events
by
Dr. M. A. Persinger, Professor
Departments of Biology and Psychology
Behavioral Neuroscience Program

4 December 2000

The physical and psychology worlds are composed of events and
processes. Stimuli produce these events and processes. Their
occurrence is distributed along a continuum that ranges from
unaltered continuance in large space and time to very brief (a
few sec) displays in very localized (a few meters) space.

Events and processes that are infrequent, brief, localized and
due to combinations of stimuli whose concurrences produce
synergisms are considered unusual.

To perceive a phenomenon as a whole, the events and processes
that create it must be viewed from the appropriate spatial
perspective integrated within the appropriate intervals of time.

Matter can be considered to display three properties: mass,
energy and information. This lecture exams two major classes of
space-time transients: luminous energetic phenomena and
information-dominated phenomena.

Phenomena that are described by the same label because of
apparent perceptual similarities often have many different
causes that are not related. These causes range from the mundane
to the unknown. Their complexity and apparent contradictions are
due to the overinclusion of diverse phenomena as the same
phenomenon.


I. Luminous Events

For hundreds of years single lights or clusters of lights with
unusual shapes and unexpected movements have been reported. They
have been labelled as ghosts, gods, airships, or aliens,
depending upon the beliefs of the culture of the observer.
However the vast majority of these events, now classified as
UFOs, are associated with natural processes such as tectonic
strain within the earth. Less than 1% of all recorded UFO
reports involve reports of close encounters with unexplained
sentient beings.

-tectonic strain is the complex of stresses that change over
time and space within the earth's crust. Luminous events
primarily precede the occurrence of the more intense
manifestations of tectonic strain earthquakes.

-example of luminous phenomena


A. Large Scale Relationships Between Luminous Phenomena

1.      Most of the variance over time in the reports of luminous
phenomena occur during the months that precede earthquakes in
the region. The optimal increment of space for the maximum
resolution of this relationship is in the order of thousands of
square kilometres (depending upon the features of local
geology). The optimal increment of time to reveal the pattern is
about 6 months. Principle: Areas with histories of the greatest
strain are associated with more unusual luminous phenomena.

                Examples: the correlations between luminous events and
                earthquakes around the New Madrid Area in the
                central U.S.A, within the Rio Grande Rift System
                (Colorado and New Mexico), within the Uintah Basin
                (Utah), and along the Yakima (Satus Peak Fault) Region
                (Washington State) have been between 0.7 and 0.8
                over decades.

One can predict when clusters of luminous events should have
occurred before 1940 and during the 1800s by an equation that
relates the historical earthquakes. The largest predicted peak
should have been in 1897. Historical records indicate this was
the period of the "massive airship invasion" where the luminous
phenomena were attributed to "airships from Cuba".

2.      Principle: Any geophysical or meteorological process that
affects rates of strain influences the numbers of strange
luminous phenomena. These processes, from least to most intense,
are lunar phase (distance), passage of air masses, and seasonal
water loads on river systems. Increases in geomagnetic activity
due to changes in the velocity of the solar wind is an additive
factor to the occurrence of luminous phenomena when strain is
accumulating within a region.

-the correlation has been 0.9 between the annual peak height of
the Mississippi River and UFO reports.

-the 1975 "flap" of bright, bobbing balls of red, orange or
white light in southern Manitoba around the Red River System
preceded the most energetic earthquake in the region (North
Dakota, Minnesota) and was associated with above average
hydraulic loads.

-Mary apparitions (Zeitoun, Egypt) were associated with river
loads and quakes while the Marian apparitions in Ontario
(Marmora) were very likely to be associated with water filling a
large open-pit magnetite mine.

3.      Quasi-experimental evidence of strain propagation: Although
correlations between numbers of luminous phenomena and later
earthquake activity within a region suggest a relationship,
third factors may be responsible for both. Optimally an
experiment, whereby the variables are manipulated randomly would
be optimal.

However the energetic demands are excessive. There have been
man-made simulations primarily associated with injecting fluid
into the crust.

-Derby, Colorado: the injection of between 2 and 10 millions of
gallons of fluid per month into the crust resulted in increased
earthquakes and the occurrence of luminous phenomena. The
occurrence of UFO reports increased systematically further and
further away from the injection site, each month, up to about
200 km. This suggests the diffusion of a process, a "strain
field", produced the luminous phenomena.

-Injection of large volumes of fluids into crust within the
following localities: Attica (New York, for brine extraction),
Derby (Colorado), Hanford (Washington), Rangely (Colorado),
associated with oil industry, Lake Meredith (Sanford Dam),
Texas, have been followed by increased luminous phenomena,
reported as UFOs, diffusing away from the site for up to 250 km!


B. The Individual Event

1.      The individual luminous event, singly or in clusters, is
about 1 m to 10 m in diameter with a life time of 10 sec to 1000
sec. Principle: The characteristics of the single event will
reflect the local topography, geology, and geophysical
conditions.

a.      the movement follows the course of the local
strain release geometry, e.g., fault lines, areas of natural
charge accumulation, e.g., tops of hills, buildings, or charge
accumulation from modern technologies, e.g., power lines, radio
towers.

b.      visibility requires emission of electromagnetic fields
within a narrow range of 400 to 800 rim wavelength (even a very
intense electromagnetic field beyond this range would be
invisible). If the frequency shifts over time the phenomenon may
appear, disappear, then reappear as the energy source moves.

c.      color reflects wavelength of the electromagnetic emission
which is a function of temperature; differences in color within
the phenomenon and over time indicate changes in temperature
that affected the emitted wavelength. Internal structure
reflects the phenomenon that contains the energy; these
phenomenon are similar to dense, vortices of magnetic fields
that can affect electronics, automobile ignition and lighting
systems.

d.      residual materials from rock within which the luminous
phenomena were formed, such as silicates, aluminum, manganese,
may remain as residua or affect the reflectance of the phenomena
producing metallic-like sheens.


C. Effects on the Observer

1.      Because the single event near the ground can be very
energetic, the effect will depend upon distance from the
luminous phenomenon and its size.

-from greatest to least distance the effects are: observation of
an usual light, normal perception of details within the light,
tingling sensations, dream-like/immobile states (first stage of
electric current induction), epileptic discharge (second stage
of current induction) and unconsciousness, death (similar to
electrocution), and carbonization.


II.     Localized, Weaker Phenomena With More Information and
Suggestions of Direct Interaction with the Brain Patterns
(Cognition) of the Observer

-there are three general classes of these phenomena: those
localized to a space, those localized to a person (a specific
type of matter, energy and information, and those distributed
statistically (epidemiological).


A. Phenomena Localized To A Space (often labelled as haunts)

-usually within an area between 1 m and 10 m; given episodes
occur for between I sec to 10 sec; clusters occur with periods
of 1 hr to 100 hr with periods of quiescence; episodes of
phenomenon can occur in different places within this space.

-loci upon which houses are built are often near fault lines or
their indicators, e.g. creeks, rivers, or near the tops of
hills.

-trigger stimuli: accumulating tectonic strain, sudden
geomagnetic activity, thunderstorms, rapidly moving air masses.

-the phenomena are combinations of: a) direct effects upon
objects, b) direct effects upon human brain, and c) changes in
interpretation due to the effects of b. on a.

1.      direct effects on objects: increased incidence of power
surges, electric light failures, disruption of electronic
equipment, recurrent displacement of balanced objects with
restricted movements (e.g., doors, cabinets, pictures on the
wall), "dancing" odd lights, odd smells, localized temperature
changes (Peltier effects), spontaneous fires, ultrasound
emission (dogs and rats are particularly responsive), radon
emission (and increased ion concentrations), object
dislocations. Many phenomena are localized to spaces where human
movement has been constrained and highly repetitive, such as
stairways, hallways (the latter suggest holographic-type
mechanisms).


Within the area of the phenomena there are both static magnetic
field anomalies and bursts of electromagnetic patterns. Hence
continuous field measurements are essential.

-given the complexity of natural forces involved and their
similarity to those generated by the normal human brain, the
possibility of as yet unknown mechanisms that allow the
persistence of residuals of previous events or processes from
the human brain within the area with the properties of partial
sentience (appearing to be interactive or a type of
consciousness) must still be considered.

2.      direct effects on the body: increased incidence of
illnesses, sleep paralyses, sudden awakening (with fear) at
night, cardiac instability (during dreaming), nocturnal
seizures, tingly sensations (or cold feelings), sense of being
touched ("hair standing on end") amplified sounds (e.g.,
footsteps, voices), bursts of anger, very sudden depression,
brief (less than 20 mm) episodes of forgetfulness (amnesia
without or without automatic or "trance-like behaviours) and,
most commonly the sensed presence (usually along the left side,
with fear), and the perception of humanoid or dark apparitions
along the left visual field while the percipient is engaging in
a focused task such as reading, washing dishes.

Individuals with temporal lobe sensitivity (writers, poets,
artists, musicians), a history of specific brain injury, or
limbic epilepsy are particularly sensitive to detecting these
natural magnetic fields. In some instance physical phenomena
occur as specific individuals move through the fields. Some
apparitional phenomena are reported to be repetitive with the
same sequence as if the same process is being repeated or
activated. Principle: The major content of the haunt experience
reflects the properties and functions of the temporal lobes and
hippocampus/amygdala within the right hemisphere of the brain.

3.   once the label of haunt, ghost, or spirit is given to the
phenomena, the label affects the perception and the
reconstruction of the events (memory) of the experiences.
Principle: To study these phenomena translate the geometry and
materials within the house, including the occupants, into
electromagnetic equivalents, e.g., conductors, semiconductors.
Positions of wires, pipes and plumbing within the house are
important.

-examples: of the 20 haunted places in Iceland, U.S.A., England,
and Denmark, recently measured by W. G. Roll, all of them
displayed marked elevations in time-varying magnetic fields
within the area associated with the experiences.

-Sudbury example: Young man and woman with elevated temporal
lobe sensitivity who lived in an extraordinary electronic house
with poor grounding. The man experienced apparitions of a woman
moving through his bed (from the left) and sensations of being
touched on legs and feet. Both experiehced sudden awakening at
night, "waves of fear", and sharp shocks like bites when in the
bathroom. There were odd sounds (breathing), whispers, smells,
shadows, and a sensed presence in one area that was associated
with a magnetic anomaly and transients with patterns similar to
those by which we experimentally induce the "sensed presence"
within the laboratory.

4. Experiment Evidence:

a.      There has not been a single subjective experience of haunts
that has not been evoked by electrical stimulation of the brain
by neurosurgeons.

b.      One noninvasive experience of a presence, which is the
prototype of the experience of an entity attributed to gods,
ghosts or aliens, can be evoked by stimulation of the right
hemisphere of the brain by weak but complex magnetic fields. The
presence is the experience of the right hemispheric equivalent
to the sense of self.

-Depending upon the intensity of the stimulation, the experience
can be positive (often attributed to gods, angels) or it can be
negative (attributed to devils, aliens or other "evils").
Because the conditions to produce positive experiences are
narrow and natural sources include a wide range of intensities
and durations, most experiences are fearful.

-We have found that stimulating the right hemisphere
experimentally with complex magnetic fields similar to those
produced in nature evokes the sensed presence. In one subject
who had experienced a haunt, the exposure to a frequency
modulated pulsed magnetic field with intensities equivalent to
those near your computer screen (10 mG or 1 microT) evoked the
sensation of fear, the experience of the haunt, and electrical
discharges within the right temporal lobe.


B. Phenomena Localized to a Person

-these phenomena usually involve brief energetic displays around
a person; they include percussive sounds (pops, bangs) and
object movements. The phenomenon are usually irritating rather
than fear-inducing. The average focus is a teenager or an adult
experiencing marked distress. The person is usually unaware he
or she is the focus. More than half of studied individuals
exhibited direct or indirect indicators of temporal lobe
(limbic) epilepsy.

-each event is about 1 sec in duration, occurs as clusters that
escalate over time (average duration 3 months) and often begin
with an episode of increased geomagnetic activity; these
phenomena usually cease when the focus sleeps.

1.      the energy involved with an event is small and within the
range produced normally within the body (moving your leg
requires more energy); the energies are discrete and very
localized (a few cm). The spaces in which the objects stop are
sometimes associated with MHz radiation (for a few tens of sec).

2.      dielectrics are more affected than conductors (they usually
display increased temperature or, if electronic, overload);
object movements decrease according to the inverse square of the
distance from the focus, movements are often behind the person
but in a systematic local direction, the same objects are
affected, each event has a discrete amount of force (hence
lighter objects are more accelerated than heavier objects),
there is evidence that the cognitive patterns of the person
affect the phenomenon.


C. Epidemiological Phenomena Involving the Sensed Presence

-these experiences are primarily involved with sensed presences
perceived as humanoids that occur on average between 0200 and
0400 hrs, within the sleeping room. They occur in clusters over
large spaces during global geomagnetic activity that exceeds 40
nT for individuals who are, at the time, experiencing personal
distress about their futures.

-the experiences reflect stimulation of the right hemisphere
within areas primarily associated with an altered state of
consciousness that occurs during dreaming. The experiences
include feeling a presence, bright lights, humanoid apparitions,
vibrations of the body and lifting movements, feeling somewhere
else, and sexual stimulation.

-These events occur in epidemics historically and have been
labelled succubi, incubi, phantom lovers, and demons. There is a
sex difference because of the sexual dimorphism in the
organization of the normal brains of men and women. Women can
experience uterine stimulation and pseudocyesis while men
experience more diffuse sensations of stimulation attributed to
anal regions.

Principle: The experiences reflect the enhanced and coherent
functions of the insula, right parietal lobe,
hippocampus/amygdala and ventral right temporal lobes that
normally occur during altered states. Although many of the
stimuli that produce these experiences have been isolated, there
are still stimulus sources that have not been identified.


III. Conclusion

Science is the pursuit of the unknown. Openness to any
possibifity is essential. The history of science has shown that
whereas phenomena don't change over time, explanations are
modified by experiments and the details of knowledge. Careful
measurement and the avoidance of labels, beliefs and exclusive
verbal arguments such as "prove it doesn't exist" are helpful
guides towards discovery. Because these phenomena are
multivariate, obtaining an explanation for one component or one
event within an episode by either mundane (dissociative
behaviours by the observer) or more exotic (measured energies)
processes may not be generalizable to all of the phenomena.



References (temporal order)

Roll, W. G. and Persinger, M. A. Investigations of poltergeists
and haunts: a review and interpretation. in J. Houran and R.
Lange (eds). Multidisciplinary perspectives of haunts and
poltergeists, in press.

Persinger, M. A. The UFO Experience: a normal correlate of human
brain function. In D. M. Jacobs (ed) UFOs and Abductions.
University Kansas Press: Kansas, 2000, pp. 262-302.

Persinger, M. A. Near-death experiences and ecstasy: A product
of the organization of the human brain. In S. Della Salla (ed),
Mind Myths, John Wiley: N.Y., 1999, pp. 85-99.

Persinger, M. A. Hypnosis and the brain: the relationship
between subclinical complex partial epileptic-like symptoms,
imagination, suggestibility, and changes in self-identity. In R.
G. Kunznedorff, N.P. Spanos, and B. Wallace (eds). Hypnosis and
Imagination, Baywood: N.Y., 1996, pp. 283-305.

Persinger, M. A. Subjective pseudocyesis in normal women who
exhibit enhanced imaginings and elevated indicators of
electrical lability within the temporal lobes: implications for
the missing embryo syndrome. Social Behavior and Personality,
1996,24,101-112.

Persinger, M. A., Hart, B. and Thomas, A. W. Periodicities and
energetic characteristics of a strobe-light luminosity during a
geomagnetic storm. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1996,82,
683-688.

Persinger, M. A. and Derr, J. S. Man-made fluid injections into
the crust and reports of luminous phenomena (UFO reports)-is the
strain field an aseismically propagating hydrological pulse?
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1993, 77, 1059-1065.

Derr, J. S. and Persinger, M. A. Quasi-experimental evidence of
the tectonic strain theory of luminous phenomena: the Derby,
Colorado earthquakes. Perceptual and Motor Skills,
1990,71,707-714.

Derr, J. S. and Persinger, M. A. Luminous phenomena and seismic
energy in the central U.S.A. Journal of Scientific Exploration,
1990,4,55-69.

Persinger, M. A. The tectonic strain theory as an explanation
for UFO phenomena: a nontechnical review of the research,
1970-1990. Journal of UFO Studies, 1990, 2, 105-137. (contains
most of the references by Persinger and Derr between 1970 and
1990).








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 14

                      Re: Gun Camera Footage? - Aldrich

From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 12:19:55 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 13:50:49 +0000
Subject: Re: Gun Camera Footage? - Aldrich


 >From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 06:33:52 +0000
 >Fwd Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 10:35:35 +0000
 >Subject: Gun Camera Footage?

 >Reading through some old UFO magazines today and Gun >Camera
 >Footage was mentioned.

 >I have one question; does anybody know if such evidence is in
 >existence? I understand this was mostly filmed in the late 40s
 >and through to the mid 50s period, by USAF planes.

 >Has anyone on the List ever dug into this area of UFO >research,
 >only I am quite interested to find out any revelations to such
 >possible data existing.

 >Is there an URL for any data?

 >Well I guess I will be the first, can I wish all List folk a
 >great X-mas!


Roy,

Greenwood and several others did extentive FOIA requests on gun
camera films with only slight sucess. If you have the first NOVA
presentation on UFOs, the 1953 gun camera film that Ruppelt
discusses in his book is shown. It runs at the beginning of the
program with no commentary on what it is. The jerks a NOVA
obtained it from Barry, but only used it as a lead in. For the
other available gun-camera film, Bellefontain, Ohio, 1952, we
only have a blurred photograph. There are four official UFO
categories that are very elusive despite literally hundreds of
FOIA requests:

1) Green Fire Ball investigation documents.

2) White Sand missile tracking film referred to in a number of
documents in and out BB files

3) CIRVIS-MERINT reports, US Navy Captain Bernard Baruch, Jr.,
Intelligence Officer for MATS told the press in Feb. 1954, he
was receiving 5 to 10 UFO reports a night through the system.
(Recently, several boxes of Hynek's records were recovered by
CUFOS. Among the documents was the Northeast Air Command's
analysis of CIRVIS reports made in the NAC area for 1952. This
was a subject of FOIA request based on the Air Force
Intelligence Report Index Card file, but getting it from Hynek's
papers probably saved a year of FOIA reviews. NAC's report
covered a number of JANAP 146 categories: UFOs, unknown
submarines, unknown aircraft, surface ships.)

4) Gun Camera films. Several are mentioned in BB UFO reports.

BTW just as an aside the Condon committee had zero success
getting this stuff...not that they tried very hard.


Jan Aldrich
Project 1947
http://www.project1947.com/
P. O. Box 391
Canterbury, CT 06331, USA
(860) 546-9135







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 14

                       Re: Corso & the COMETA - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 12:33:15 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 13:53:34 +0000
Subject: Re: Corso & the COMETA - Young


 >Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 20:06:03 EST
 >From: John W. Auchettl <Praufo@aol.com>
 >Subject: Re: Corso & the COMETA
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 20:27:16 -0800 (PST)
 >>From: Jan Aldrich <project1947@yahoo.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Corso & the COMETA - Aldrich
 >>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>> Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 23:43:42 EST
 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: Corso & the COMETA - Young
 >>>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>

<snip>

 >It was "Edward L. Daily" of Clarksville, Tenn, who told the lie
 >or better still "embellished his personal wartime behavior".

<snip>

Oops, I guess you're right about that. But, what does any of
this have to do with Mr. Corso's fairy tale?

 >I have no evidence that Corso is a Liar nor have you.

 >If you use the book to prosecute CORSO then you're doomed.

On the very first page of 'The Day After Roswell', Corso and his
co-author claimed that, "for two incredible years [Corso was]
heading up the Foreign Technology desk" of the Army's director
of research and development in the Pentagon.

Corso's military record shows that he served only one year in
the Foreign Technology Division (July 20, 1961 to July 18, 1962)
and headed the Division only for the last three months before
being transferred elsewhere, less than a year before his
retirement.

Corso claimed that after only a month of study of Roswell ET
debris, he found in his file cabinet, he came up with a plan to
introduce the Roswell microchip to industry. Problem is, Texas
Instruments had filed for a patent on Feb. 6, 1959, and
Fairchild Semiconductor (now Intel) filed a patent application
on July 30, 1959. This was _two years_ before Corso claimed to
have given this ET miracle product to industry.

You can read a lot more about this in Karl Pflock's article in
the July 1997 MUFON UFO Journal, and in Skeptics UFO Newsletter
#49, January 1998, and #52, July 1998, by Philip J. Klass.

 >the book was crap?

In my opinion, the Corso book was either a pathetic attempt by
an 80-year old man to garner some quick cash or notoriety in his
twilight, or it could have been nothing more than a joke to
garner some quick cash.

Three years later, it seems that the joke's mainly on you, now,
John.

 >As of the 12 Dec 2000: "The Day After Roswell"

 >[1]. Australia No1 selling UFO (topic) book.

Surely you're not judging the accuracy of a flying saucer book
by its popularity? By that standard, you must believe every word
of Adamski.

Clear skies,

The Grinch







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 14

                      Re: Gun Camera Footage? - Kaeser

From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 13:15:16 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 14:32:02 -0500
Subject: Re: Gun Camera Footage? - Kaeser


 >Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 06:33:52 +0000
 >From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Gun Camera Footage?


 >Hi All,

 >Reading through some old UFO magazines today and Gun Camera
 >Footage was mentioned.

 >I have one question; does anybody know if such evidence is in
 >existence? I understand this was mostly filmed in the late 40s
 >and through to the mid 50s period, by USAF planes.

 >Has anyone on the List ever dug into this area of UFO research,
 >only I am quite interested to find out any revelations to such
 >possible data existing.

 >Is there an URL for any data?

This has been a persistant annecdotal facet of the phenomenon
that has thus far remained elusive, as far as I can determine. I
believe that there are numerous statements by military pilots
and others that speak of such footage being taken, but to my
knowledge none has surfaced during FOIA requests. Indeed, I
believe that some FOIA documents refer to "gun camera" footage
being taken in conjunction with a sighting. But, again, no
actual film has been located.

I have to admit that this is somewhat surprising, since any
footage that would help to identify the "unknowns" would have
helped to show the public that they were explainable. On the
other hand, they might have filmed classified objects and the
film would have been classified as well.

I believe some gun camera footage was taken, but it may be less
than some annecdotal statements indicate.

BTW, I believe that some "gun camera" footage has been shown on
various documentaries, but the provenance of that footage has
been questioned and the military certainly hasn't claimed it to
be real.

 >Well I guess I will be the first, can I wish all List folk a
 >great X-mas!


Agreed. I hope that everyone has a Joyous Holiday season.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 14

                     Re: Reluctant Viewers - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 13:15:53 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 14:46:52 -0500
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Mortellaro


 >Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 09:44:09 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 22:51:50 EST
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Gates

 >>>Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 12:40:20 -0600
 >>>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>>Subject: Reluctant Viewers
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>>From: Elizabeth Hammond <lizzz@worldnet.att.net>
 >>>>Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 13:53:05 -0500
 >>>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Hammond

 >Previously, Elizabeth wrote:

 >>>>When are REAL researchers going to take the
 >>>>step off the cliff? Actually examine some of us. Make use of all
 >>>>the non-invasive technologies out there; cheek swabs for DNA,
 >>>>MRI's and Cat scans looking for foreign bodies.Control groups
 >>>>and all the other accoutrament that goes with real science?

 >I replied:

 >>>Know what's even more interesting? Is why people like yourself
 >>>don't go to a doctor and have the scans and examinations done
 >>>and documented for all the world to see. Money is not the issue,
 >>>since proof of ET life (by way of the evidence that you claim is
 >>>contained within your body) would be worth mucho bucks. 24 Hours
 >>>or 60 minutes would probably pick up the medical bills, just for
 >>>the exclusive right to the story.

 >Robert now writes:

 >>She could have all the examinations, scans, and documentation
 >>done, and the skeptics would still dismiss it as some kind of
 >>weird aborration and or that she was some kind of hoaxer,
 >>attempting to get attention and so on. You would have another
 >>group of folks claiming that the testimony of the various
 >>doctors could reflect their personal bias, how the xrays and
 >>scans were actually machine defects or anomallys.

 >>Then you would have those who would maintain something along the
 >>lines of "Well, since I can't/or didn't get the chance to
 >>physically touch the proof, its a hoax and so on.

 >>In the end, you would have people saying something like "See,
 >>with all the evidence, and all the tests and scans, it proves
 >>its real." The cronies from the skeptical tank would look at the
 >>same evidence, same tests and same scans and tells us that it
 >>can all be explained away.


 >Hi, Robert!

 >Since the above seems to be your standard answer to anything
 >written about on this list, I have to wonder why you even bother
 >participating. You seem content in your ability to predict the
 >future and read people's minds. I wish I had that gift.

 >I agree that the debate will never end. However, this issue
 >isn't about what extremists think. The issue is about people
 >like Ms. Hammond taking an active role in solving their own
 >problems. On the one hand, she complains that the UFO community
 >is all talk. Yet, to date, that appears that's all she's done,
 >as well. Go to a doctor, Ms. Hammond, just like you would if
 >there were anything else in your body that you did not want
 >there. No one is going to visit the doctor for you...

Hey Roger and EBK,

I speak only for myself in this post.

Roge, let me tell you how foolish you sound, to me and to others
on this List who perceive they are abductees. To others, I hope
you sound merely silly.

You think we've _not_ been to doctors? You think that simple
minded response answers all the questions about this phenom?
Wrong, buddy. I have visited many doctors, three or so
psychiatrists, neurologists, internists, dermatologists. None
have medical answers to the extant conundrums of my body, marks,
adhesions and other assorted anomalies which won't go away and
will not tolerate analysis or reasoned diagnosis.

Undoubtedly, Ms. Hammond might very well agree. Many of us, a
number too large to be statistically unimportant (in my opinion
after being a member of a support group now for months and
writing about my own experiences - speaking with abductees,
etc.), too large to deny that there are physical illnesses
common to us.

Women have their own set of special problems. Men share many of
the illnesses... most are immune or autoimmune system related.
There are scars which are not explainable. I have three marks on
a part of my arm not reachable to do it myself. And being a
lousy artist to begin with, I could not make three equally round
and placed scars in a triangle. And I could not do it in such a
way as to fool the dermatologists. MY doctor had not a clue. The
dermatologist told me what he knew it was not ... spider bites,
insect bites and he ran out of things to exclude. Because it
looks like nothing he has witnessed in his 35 years of practice.

It's the same all the time. Doctors do not know why we get the
illnesses we get or how to treat them even. It has affected my
wife who likely has had at least one experience with me. Her
body was infected with something called Clostridium Difficile.
Difficult indeed. After months of treatment on the magic bullet,
she continued to suffer from a huge population of the little
buggers. Until one day, they were gone. Within 24 hours.

No bacterium, no poisons from them, nothing. She also has a
serious autoimmune disease.

I suffered headaches without diagnosis. Four neurologists. Only
the very best. No results, no diagnosis. IBS, very common.
Adhesions in the abdominal cavity of women and some men. No
prior surgery. No reason for them. Colitis. Crohn's disease. So
many more. Little lumps in some cartilaginous parts of the body
(earlobes, etc.) - phobias which decry the life or lifestyle of
the individual ... in other words, there is no reason for such a
phobia which can be found.

But every single one of the diseases, marks, phobias, etc. all
fit the phenom which we perceive to have occurred. To a "T!" But
tell one doctor, just one doctor about that and you are
immediately thrown into the nut pile.

They don't prescribe thorazine any more do they? Maybe mood
altering drugs... whaddya think?

So, Roge, you think we have not been to doctors? And you think
that our disabilities so unusual that they demand the respect of
belief?

You, sir, are as foolish as you write. I suggest you speak with,
interview and otherwise pay closer attention to what is going on
around you. You are not paying attention.

As for your attitude, I cannot fault it, personally. As I've
seen and heard it in spades. Worse than yours. It comes from
some form of righteous indignation, that someone(s) can
literally step on the face or your paradigm with such alacrity
and without seeming malice, that it just seems wrong. All wrong.
You don't need to speak to us with respect. Why should you? When
we are not given the respect of words by some of our own? Hell,
pal, write away. It's nice when compared with what our own have
done to us and said to us. Which only means that some of us are
nuts. I would probably get quite a few votes myself.

We are not wrong. We are wronged.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 14

                       Re: Dust Bunny Results? - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 13:30:52 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 14:48:34 -0500
Subject: Re: Dust Bunny Results? - Velez

 >Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 21:00:24 -0600 (CST)
 >From: Brian Cuthbertson <bdc@fc.net>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Dust Bunny Results?

 >Folks,

 >Many moons ago now there was promoted, thru the List, a
 >comparative study of dust from the homes of experiencers and
 >non-experiencers, initiated by John Velez and some others whose
 >names I forget. I sent in my dust as a typical non-experiencer.
 >Results were to be reported back. Now maybe it was just me, but
 >I don't recall ever hearing them.

 >Anyone care to respond? What happened?

 >Hopefully this dust bunny research wasn't just swept under a rug


Hi Brian,

Both Nick Balaskas and I have posted a few updates to UpDates
that you must have missed. The project is on hold until Nick can
get the time and personell to get it done. There has been some
kind of student strike going on at York U. and it has thrown a
monkey wrench into the works in terms of getting our analysis
work completed. Please be patient.

Nick! Would you please comment on this for the benefit of all
those who participated by submitting samples?


Regards, and sorry for delay,

John Velez

Head Wabbit


******************************************************
                     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 >
   Dec > Dec 14

                       Re: Jonathan Reed Hoax - Myers

From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 10:48:46 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 14:51:10 -0500
Subject: Re: Jonathan Reed Hoax - Myers


 >From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Jonathan Reed Hoax
 >Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 20:06:35 -0800

<snip>

In an obvious turn of events, Reed apparently no longer has
possession of the "artifact." Convenience and much more...Reed
would have done better with some prop from the Star Trek set
than that piece of garbage he spray painted with a cna o' gold
from Wal Mart.

One person e-mailed me and sent me the following repy he
received from Reed, very defensive. It's obvious the good
"doctor" didn't pay much attention in his writing classes:
_____________________________________________________

Seriously,You've got to know... Its questions like this - that
truly waist everyone's time.

You Wrote:

 >I was wondering if you were aware of the very unflattering
 >review of you and your experiences at this Web page:

So what? It doesn't bother me.
Everyone has a right to be blind, ignorant and/or narrow minded.

 >I was wondering why you refused to have your evidence evaluated
 >by "independent investigators", and what your reaction is to this?

I was wondering WHERE did YOU get your information? I have never
refused to turn over anything. In-fact, I asked for help! IF you
knew anything about this case,  You'd know that ALL of the
evidence in-fact was turned over to several independent
investigators.

Respectfully, I think that YOU need to start getting your facts
straight. Once you've read ALL of the reports, listings,
findings and the book, -then you may be able to start to
somewhat understand the complexities within this case...  Or,
maybe not.

Good Luck.

============ END OF COPIED MESSAGE ===============



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
ufowatchdog@earthlink.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 >
   Dec > Dec 14

                       Re: Abduction 'Clues'? - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 12:36:45 -0600
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 14:53:41 -0500
Subject: Re: Abduction 'Clues'? - Evans


 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 01:51:10 -0500
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Abduction 'Clues'? [was: Reluctant Viewers]

 >>Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 12:40:20 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Reluctant Viewers
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Elizabeth Hammond <lizzz@worldnet.att.net>
 >>>Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 13:53:05 -0500
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Hammond

Previously, Elizabeth wrote:

 >>>When are REAL researchers going to take the
 >>>step off the cliff? Actually examine some of us. Make use of all
 >>>the non-invasive technologies out there; cheek swabs for DNA,
 >>>MRI's and Cat scans looking for foreign bodies.Control groups
 >>>and all the other accoutrament that goes with real science?

 >><snip>

 >>>The results, which ever way they may point, should
 >>>be very interesting!

 >>Hi, Elizabeth!

I replied:

 >>Know what's even more interesting? Is why people like yourself
 >>don't go to a doctor and have the scans and examinations done
 >>and documented for all the world to see. Money is not the issue,
 >>since proof of ET life (by way of the evidence that you claim is
 >>contained within your body) would be worth mucho bucks. 24 Hours
 >>or 60 minutes would probably pick up the medical bills, just for
 >>the exclusive right to the story.

John now writes:

 >First: You know Roger, you'd be a lot easier to take if you
 >could find a way to phrase questions and comments without the
 >snide and sarcastic overtones. It puts me off everytime I see
 >it.

Hi, John!

The day I take lesson on "tact" from John Velez is the day pigs
will rain from the sky. Please, John, stay away from lessons on
social etiquette and write about what you feel most qualified.

As such, you wrote:

 >Liz is quite correct Roger. I agree with her that the "proof"
 >that everyone is looking for is right under your noses in the
 >form of the abductees themselves. I and others have been saying
 >all along that the moment a multidisciplinary team of doctors is
 >permitted to have a go at a large enough sampling of abductees
 >that answers (as well as a million new questions) will begin to
 >flow immediately.

<respectful snip about serious medical issues>

 >I have had a physician tell me to my face that there is
 >something 'different' about how my body has responded (in this
 >situation) in comparison to 'everybody else.' Which doesn't
 >prove _anything_ in and of itself as far as abduction goes. But,
 >isn't it 'interesting' that this unusual medical anomaly should
 >turn up in someone who also claims to have been abducted by
 >aliens all of his life? <EG>

<snip>

 >He also found the scar from a "puncture-wound" deep inside my
 >right ear. (My ear has never been "punctured" by anything or
 >anybody at anytime.) And when he first examined my nose/sinuses,
 >he asked me what my (non-existent) "sinus surgery" was for? This
 >has come up three times in my life (with three different
 >doctors.)

 >All these anomalies discovered and noted in my permanent medical
 >record (at my request) during the two years I have been
 >monitored by him. See Roger, we're not _all_ 'asleep at the
 >wheel' as you like to think.

As you say, show me where I ever wrote such a thing. In fact, if
you look through the archives, I have never taken an issue with
abductees. What I do have an issue with is the notion that it is
"them against the world". While I am sorry for your health
issues, it does little to bolster the claims of any abductee,
including yourself. As you say, it doesn't prove that you were
abducted. In fact, there is no connection established one way or
the other.

My own daughter recovered from a life threatening illness that
doctors claim should have left her brain damaged or dead. Should
I start asking her about visits from ET's? Should I change my
staunch view against organized religion because of the
possibility that a "higher power" intervened on her behalf? You
tell me what it means.

I have no doubt that you know your abduction is real. But, by
your own admission, your medical examination proved nothing.
Still, it did not take a "multidisciplinary team of doctors
having a go at a large enough sampling of abductees". You went
to the doctor and they examined you. It's just that simple.

Regarding such, you wrote:

 >if you can come up with a
 >qualified and competent physician that is willing to review my
 >medical history in order to verify all these "anomalies,"
 >contact me with his/her name and I'll provide them with my
 >doctor's name and contact information.

 >Now it's _your_ turn to put up or shut up!

I'll do you one better, John. I'll state right here and now that
I believe your anomalies are 100% real. Now, in light of your
own admission that they do nothing to prove your claims of
abduction, where do we go from here?

Get my point?

Liz says that she and others like her need to have scans done to
find the "foreign objects" that exist in their collective bodies
and wish scientists and others would come forward to do such a
thing. You have proven by your own testimony that she (and
people like her) don't have to wait for others to do a damn
thing.

Finally, you wrote:

 >I'm telling you now Roger. Everytime you get heavy handed with
 >an abductee on this List I am going to jump on you with my BIG
 >BOOTS!

<snip>

 >I'm a 'wall' for you and people like you. I have nothing to
 >hide, I simply tell the truth without embellishing it and it
 >gives me all kinds of confidence when I'm dealing with folks who
 >blow a lot of smoke but know nothing about what they are talking
 >about.

This is most curious, John. On the one hand, you maintain that I
should keep my mouth shut because I don't know what I'm talking
about. On the other hand, you wrote of your examination:

 >Which doesn't
 >prove _anything_ in and of itself as far as abduction goes.

 >It won't prove whether I'm being abducted or not,
 >but it will demonstrate that there are some unusual anomalies
 >present. What causes them is anybodies guess. I don't pretend to
 >know.

So, you admit that your examination proves nothing and that what
causes your ailments is anybody's guess. Most importantly, "you
don't pretend to know". However, you also state emphatically:

 >How do I know? Why am I so 'cocksure' of my statements? Because
 >my opinions are based on _experience_ and not 'theories or
 >beliefs.'

It would seem, in the end, that you do pretend to know, John.
So, I guess we better both keep our mouths shut, eh? (not
likely)

For the record, I don't doubt all abductees' claims. Indeed, I
believe there is something odd going on since so many people are
involved. That said, however, it really is within the power of
the individual abductee to have tests done on themselves. In
fact, if anything, your above post only proves that very point.
I merely suggest that Ms. Hammond do the same.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 14

                      Re: Reluctant Viewers - Lehmberg

From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 13:02:07 -0600
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 14:59:10 -0500
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Lehmberg


 >Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 09:35:57 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
 >>Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 16:36:19 -0600
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Lehmberg

 >>>Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 12:40:20 -0600
 >>>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>>Subject: Reluctant Viewers
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>>From: Elizabeth Hammond <lizzz@worldnet.att.net>
 >>>>Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 13:53:05 -0500
 >>>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Hammond

 >Previously, Elizabeth wrote:

<snip>

 >Alfred writes:

 >>... cheap shot Mr. Evans! In parallel you ask an individual with
 >>a mysteriously baffling malady shared by disparate persons all
 >>over the globe to pay the freight for proving the existence of
 >>that same malady, when -- if there are that many people
 >>effected, it should be a _shared_ concern for everyone,
 >>including yourself. Let's buy one less aircraft carrier and
 >>investigate the whole problem, you agree?

 ><snip>

That's a snip that speaks volumes, Mr. Evans.

 >>Moreover, the kind of effort you suggest has
 >>been attempted by members of this list and is roundly ignored by
 >>those same members, forgetting the dissmissal of the mainstream.
 >>I think Velez can speak eloquently on this, as can Mack, Jacobs,
 >>Hopkins, Friedman, et.al. Something damned weird -is- going on,
 >>and is not addressed by your canted attack on one of the mere
 >>messengers -- pretty easy words _you_ utter while shooting the
 >>piano player for keying a tune you don't like to hear.

 >Hi, Alfred!

 >Hardly a cheap shot.

Actually -- the cheapest, if not the one with the least scope,
imagination, and (with all respect), courage, of a sort.

 >On the contrary; immensely practical in
 >solving the answer about the existence of ET life.

Even more "immensely practical" would be the serious
investigative look I essay about in my previous post, and to
which you provide no response at all, preferring instead to
dovetail off into the usual distraction of a previously
constructed, and so then very well digested, straw man.

 >This is
 >particularly true in light of all the bellyaching about
 >"witnesses not being taken seriously" or "lack of evidence" or
 >"ignoring proof", etc.

Most of it _is_ fake, Mr. Evans, but some of it is not. It is
likelihood such as _that_ that keep the interest of rational
individuals on this list fervently alive, and piques your own
interest, I would suspect. Moreover, your use of the word
"bellyaching" in the terse and featureless text above is a cache
of _answered_ questions. There ARE witnesses, there IS evidence,
and considered together (forgetting that it is reflexively
derided, irrationally dismissed by _official_ academia, and a
cultural laughing stock) the photographic, historical, and
physical reports point to a _proof_ of _some_ kind.

I'm a pretty smart guy, Mr. Evans, but something is raising the
hair on the back of _my_ neck. My anxiousness is not validated
by any mainstream entity or institution (bothersome all by
itself) and I KNOW serious people are risking being taken
seriously to peer into the null-space of a future I can feel
roaring down on me like a freight train... touch the track at
your feet - you'll feel it too.

 >On the one hand, she claims that said
 >abductees have absolute proof buried in their collective bodies
 >and wishes someone would come forward and have scans done,
 >x-rays; anything "non-invasive".

Truly! Why have _any_ interest in that which has been _officially_
pronounced to be of _no_ interest!

 >Why?

What would you have your strawman say, forgetting the apples and
oranges argument in the following?

 >If she had a rusty nail in her foot, would she take the same
 >"non invasive" approach? If she had a bullet lodged in her
 >belly, would she want it left there? Would she be satisfied with
 >"non-invasive" scans and x-rays only? Hell, no! She'd want that
 >stuff taken out of her body right away! So why live with
 >something alien in her body that she KNOWS is there?

This is not about _her_ (with all respect to Ms. H.) this is
about a heads-up, real world interest in how the universe is put
together, what its imperatives are, and an unwashed and neutral
appreciation of humankind's place in it. You argue against the
macrocosm with the microcosm. What works in your microcosm does
not necessarily scale up to an unguessed macrocosm.

 >Furthermore, why live in the shadow of the worlds' doubt when
 >she admits that she has the proof of her claims right at hand?

You know as well as I that if she had all the _proof_ that she'd
otherwise NEED to have - the evidentiary horizon would only
predictably recede in the spirit of the
extraordinary-event-requiring-the-extraordinary-evidence rubric.
Besides, Venus _and_ Jupiter were probably out that night, gassy
pelicans likely causing a serious temperature inversion, and, in
concert with ball lighting and Earth sprites, the Airforce was
testing classified aircraft.

 >Regarding your references to Mack, Jacobs, Hopkins, etc. Please
 >refer me to any article, accompanied by photos, where an alien
 >object was extracted from an abductee where said object was
 >proven to be extraterrestrial in origin. I want to see a photo
 >of that object and what the analysis of it bears out.

I very plainly spoke about persons on this List that have
offered themselves up for candid study by legitimate
researchers, and been ignored. I'm certain that Mack, Jacobs,
and Hopkins could provide many more. You dissemble and chose to
imply to the reader that I had made some claim that we can all
watch the evidentiary horizon recede from . . . no sir, come
back up here on the road.

I've seen UFOs, and I know quality people that profess to have
been abducted by aliens. I couple that up with the _fact_ that
the subject does not get serious attention from the mainstream -
and I have to scratch my head, wondering why you're not
scratching _yours_.

 >I am not saying that all abductees claims are bogus. I am saying
 >that they are not helping their claims waiting for others to
 >solve their problems. If they know they have the proof in their
 >bodies, then get on with it and stop belly aching... literally.

Are you saying, then, that _some_ abductees claims are factual?
If you are then I suggest you assist the cause and lobby
congress, like I do, to get serious about these strange reports
and occurrences. I suggest you stridently question, like I am
compelled to do, the courage and validity of our cultural
convictions. I suggest you JOIN the stuggle against the
aggregate ignorance, and not seem to take so much transparent
delight in your suspicious struggle AGAINST it.


Lehmberg@snowhill.com
--
~~~~
EXPLORE Alfred Lehmberg's Alien View" at his Fortunecity URL.
http://www.alienview.net
          __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 >
   Dec > Dec 14

                     Re: Dust Bunny Results? - Balaskas

From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 14:33:07 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 15:00:39 -0500
Subject: Re: Dust Bunny Results? - Balaskas


 >Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 21:00:24 -0600 (CST)
 >From: Brian Cuthbertson <bdc@fc.net>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Dust Bunny Results?

 >Folks,

 >Many moons ago now there was promoted, thru the List, a
 >comparative study of dust from the homes of experiencers and
 >non-experiencers, initiated by John Velez and some others whose
 >names I forget. I sent in my dust as a typical non-experiencer.
 >Results were to be reported back. Now maybe it was just me, but
 >I don't recall ever hearing them.

 >Anyone care to respond? What happened?

 >Hopefully this dust bunny research wasn't just swept under a rug
 >:-)

Hi Brian and fellow Dust Bunny Project participants!

It was not until early June of this year after I finally got the
last few dust samples by mail from most of the participants that
work began in earnest on the so-called Dust Bunny Project.

Material was acquired (specimen dishes with covers and labels
with numbers, not names, to identify the samples; film and video
equipment to record what was observed including all things noted
as unusual in the specimens submitted; etc.) and times booked at
the electron microscope lab in the Farquharson Biology Building
and a binocular microscope borrowed for quick visual
examinations in my own labs.

Two individuals, Karen and John, who have much previous
expertise in this type of work volunteered their time but the
bulk of the work so far has been done by myself.

I was away for about month during my annual vacation starting
early in August and since coming back I have been very busy with
hundreds of new first year science students at my job at York
University (and with another personal project - verifying that
video images obtained during my trip to Mount Ararat near the
borders of Armenia and Iran are indeed that of Noah's Ark and
arranging for wood samples collected from the Ark to be brought
here for analysis). Never-the-less, with the exception of a few
tightly clumped specimens of dust that were difficult to study
thoroughly, an initial examination of nearly all the dust
samples submitted has been completed.

Unfortunately, a strike by teaching assistants and contract
faculty at York University which started in October is still
going on and has disrupted nearly all new work planned with the
dust samples. In a few days I will be leaving for Ottawa to be
with my family for the Christmas/New Year break and do not
expect to resume work on the Dust Bunny Project until sometime
early in the new millennium (i.e second week of January, 2001).

Until the Dust Bunny Project is complete, I have refrained from
contacting other researchers who are doing similar work such as
Dr. William Levengood of Pinelandia Biophysics Laboratory and
Marilyn Ruben of Alien Abduction Experience and Research to
compare notes, other than what I have read on UFO UpDates. At
this time I can say that although many unusual things have been
observed visually under high magnifications in our dust samples,
as was expected, nothing like the artifical looking glassy
particles reported by them have been noticed so far. Of course,
there is still very much work to be done with our own numerous
dust samples. I will continue to update John Velez, the
individual who got the Dust Bunny Project started, about
anything important regarding this work and to ask for his
instructions or opinions before doing anything new or different
at this stage of the project such as loosening tightly clumped
dust specimens in distilled water.

If there are any UFO UpDates subscribers who are interested in
this project, live near Toronto and would like to volunteer your
services (of course, you cannot be one of the contributors of
the dust samples we are examining) or simply have further
questions or comments, please contact John Velez directly.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 14

                     Carl Sagan's 'Cosmos' Returns to TV

From: Steven L. Wilson Sr <Ndunlks@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 15:00:02 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 15:02:53 -0500
Subject: Carl Sagan's 'Cosmos' Returns to TV


Carl Sagan's 'Cosmos' Returns to TV


By JERRY SCHWARTZ
.c The Associated Press


NEW YORK (AP) - Twenty years after the broadcast of "Cosmos,"
Carl Sagan's love letter to the universe, Ann Druyan remembers
it all.

"I have the tape running in my head all the time," she says.

This makes a certain amount of sense. Druyan co-wrote the PBS
series with Sagan, her astronomer husband; she was there when it
became the most popular limited series in the history of public
television at that time, when it won Emmy and Peabody awards.

She saw it become a phenomenon, seen by more than 500 million
people in 60 countries. She witnessed how it made Sagan a
celebrity, caricatured in cartoons and parodied by comics who
seized on his references to "billions and billions" of stars.

But for those who do not have that tape running in their heads
all the time, Druyan has good news: The 13-part series is now
available - remastered and digitally restored - on video, with a
DVD version that offers subtitles in seven languages and Dolby
sound.

There is a two-CD set, "The Music of Cosmos - Collector's
Edition," featuring old and new music by Vangelis, composer of
the "Cosmos" theme.

And an hour-long distillation of the greatest moments of
original shows, "The Best of Cosmos," is being shown on PBS
stations through March.

Sagan is not here to see the "Cosmos" comeback; he died in 1996
after a long battle with bone marrow cancer. Druyan has devoted
herself to continuing his work, and she says "Cosmos" stands up
well "even after 20 of the most eventful years in science."

"Some of the haircuts, the style of the trousers - these kinds
of things are the only things that dated it," Druyan says.

If he had known then what is known now, she says, Sagan could
have been more definitive in his discussion of what caused the
extinction of the dinosaurs. But when Druyan watched the second
episode - her favorite, exploring the origins of life - she
found that "there wasn't a line that had to be withdrawn."

"Everything that Carl did was for the record," she says, noting
that he was a guiding force in the effort to place a phonograph
record filled with information about Earth on the Voyager
spacecraft, in the hope that it might communicate with alien
life sometime in the next billion years as it careened through
the universe.

Of course, a Carl Sagan in the new millennium would use a
compact disc. But no one has replaced him, and this saddens
Druyan. "There is no voice for the wise, long-term use of
science and technology," she says, no "voice for a deep
appreciation of the universe."

That voice - deep and sonorous, given to spiritual fulminations
while expressing skepticism about UFO sightings and the like -
is what makes "Cosmos" so watchable today.

"The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be," he
says.

"We ourselves are built of star stuff," he says.

"The cosmos is full beyond measure," he says.

He demonstrates man's small part in the universe by breaking all
of time into a "cosmic calendar." If all of time was broken into
365 days, all of mankind's recorded history would fit in the
last 10 seconds of that year, he says.

To understand "Cosmos," Druyan says, you have to remember that
it was made during the days of the nuclear arms race, when many
scientists were involved in building weapons of mass
destruction. "To him, science was a sacred enterprise and to see
it misused... it was a nightmare to him."

So with this series - filmed in 40 locations around the world
over two years - Sagan wanted to distill all he had learned, to
show the wonders of the universe and what might be lost if
nuclear weapons were unleashed.

His influence continues: "I wish I know how many people were
attracted to careers in science because they saw this series. I
hesitate to say that it would be astronomical, but it would be
very, very high," Druyan says. And she often receives e-mail
messages from teen-agers who have never seen Sagan on
television, but have come across one of his books.

Druyan and Internet entrepreneur Joe Firmage have created Cosmos
Studios to follow in Sagan's footsteps, "awakening one billion
people to our relationship with the cosmos by 2005," according
to its charter. One upcoming project: a miniseries based on
Sagan's life.

Druyan is also founder and president of The Carl Sagan
Foundation, which is building a Carl Sagan Discovery Center, a
pediatric hospital in the Bronx, with views across the Hudson to
New Jersey. In addition to its state-of-the-art medical
equipment, each room will have high-definition television sets
connected to computers.

And when the children pull down the shades at night, there will
be a surprise: Printed on each shade will be the same view of
New Jersey, but of New Jersey 100 million years ago, complete
with dinosaurs.

"Isn't that cool?" asks the widow of Carl Sagan.

On the Net:

Cosmos Studios: http://www.carlsagan.com.

AP-NY-12-13-00 1035EST
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 >
   Dec > Dec 14

                Re: Bentwaters Book Review By Jenny Randles -

From: Gary Anthony <garyant@mithrand.karoo.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 20:51:44 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 15:06:54 -0500
Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review By Jenny Randles -


 >From: Peter Brookesmith - Duke of Mendoza <DarkSecretPB@compuserve.com>
 >Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 21:21:05 -0500
 >Fwd Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 09:16:47 +0000
 >Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles


 >Compliments of the Duke:

 >>From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
 >>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles
 >>Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 20:57:39 -0000


 >>Forwarded from Nick Pope

 >>Issue 142 of Fortean Times contained a review of Georgina
 >>Bruni's new book on the Bentwaters case, "You Can't Tell
 >>The People". The review was written by Jenny Randles and
 >>as she's someone who has written extensively about the
 >>Rendlesham Forest mystery, I was expecting a fair and
 >>comprehensive assessment of the book. Sadly, this didn't
 >>happen.

<snip>

 >Nick Pope has overclaimed so much on his own behalf and without
 >protest let others boost his unfounded reputation as both a
 >government insider on UFOs and general expert on the subject
 >that it truly grates upon the soul to see him misrepresent,
 >traduce and vilify someone who has not only forgotten more than
 >Pope ever knew about UFOs but has collected more investigative
 >mud on her boots over the decades than this little shrimp
 >actually weighs (which is not much).

 >I don't know how much of Jenny's original review of the Bruni
 >tome survived into print in FT #142, but for those too idle to
 >look up the full version, available at:

http://www.forteantimes.com/artic/rendlesham/rendlesham.html

 >here it is, under the short dotty line. Knowing Jenny's various
 >views on the Ramblesham case, and disagreeing amicably with a
 >fair percentage of them (I am of course of the Lighthouse
 >Pelican persuasion) I can assure Nick Pope and Georgina, Suntan
 >of Bruni, both that I was amazed, and more than somewhat
 >admiring, at Jenny's sheer generosity in her review. If anyone
 >ever leant over backwards to give an opponent a fair hearing,
 >Jenny has here. In response to which, Bruni wheels on a crony
 >and third-rate windbag, with a lack of grace and, dare I say it,
 >honor, that tells us all we need to know about her.

<snip>

Georgina perhaps your friend Nick Pope should make himself
available for comment on these and other matters relating to the
hasty opinions that he bandies via this List, as I am sure a
number of researchers here have legitimate questions concerning
his UFO research? It seems very convenient that he ply his trade
through you? Even his assessment based on the printed version of
FT review seems very unfair to Jenny Randles. I cannot
understand why you have forwarded such a mail to this List,
sincerely hope that this has not been done in any way to further
publicise your book at someone's expense? Do you not think that
Jenny Randles review was fair and complimentary?

It would seem Mr. Pope is also in the habit of voicing his
obviously un-informed opinions through your magazine as well,
some of which, I note must stem from what I can only guess must
be a real *lack* of proper research and an ever-increasing air
of false superiority? For someone who has been involved for such
a short space of time, one might expect at least a more
open-minded and polite attitude. (Guess not!) Is this the shape
of things to come in British ufology; that we must accept
someone's viewpoints, simply because they are published... To
whit, I may add that publishers seem mostly interested in only
an ET hypothesis to explain the UFO and abduction phenomenon, to
satisfy what has even been classified in some circles as a
'modern pseudo-religious sociological urge.' If there is a
singular alternative explanation which does in fact apply to the
whole of the UFO and abduction phenomenon; then the current
circumstances in world-wide ufology may make an understanding of
this almost impossible to emerge.

Georgina, after reading your book and Jenny Randles full review,
I agree with that review and Peter's post. Should you indulge us
with your comments, I would be very interested to learn more
about the circumstances of Baroness Thatcher's comment 'You
can't tell the people' which titles your book and its context?
As your book gives scant mention; and much vague speculation in
this and perhaps some other regards... For example, what makes
you certain that an alternative interpretation of this comment,
as Jenny points out may be applicable, may not apply in this
case? I ponder now what Mrs Thatcher thinks? If you cannot put
this in clearer terms for us, then perhaps I may enquire..?

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 >
   Dec > Dec 14

                        Re: Two New UFO Maps - McCoy

From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 17:03:28 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 15:11:33 -0500
Subject: Re: Two New UFO Maps - McCoy


 >Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 02:02:09 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Two New UFO Maps

 >I have added two new maps to the *U* UFO database website.

 >One is for the Western USA:

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

 >The other for the Eastern states:

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

 >In the East, sightings tend to cluster along sea coasts and the
 >shores of the Great Lakes. Elsewhere in the eastern and central
 >states, sightings are more or less uniformly scattered in the
 >rural, farming and ranching areas.

 >In the West, there are fairly large areas devoid of sightings,
 >or nearly so. There seems no rhyme or reason to this. Why should
 >one patch of desert be (well) deserted, while another has
 >several sightings?

 >One nearly empty area centers on the point where Oregon, Idaho
 >and Nevada meet. SE Oregon is nearly vacant while SE Washington
 >state has numerous sightings. Both areas are thinly populated,
 >perhaps more so in Oregon, but not to the degree the map would
 >indicate.

I don't know for sure not having demographics in front of me
but, having actually been to and in my own case grew up in
Northeast Oregon-LaGrande to be exact - and seeing a 'nuts and
bolts' UFO there - but I do have a Theory - Military
Installations and activity, coupled with higher population
density and the economic activity associated with said activity.

 >SE Montana is quiet, unlike other parts of that state. There are
 >at most one or two sightings mapped within 100 miles of
 >Billings,MT for example. Central Nevada has several sightings in
 >a similar area .. and a small fraction of the population.

 >The northern edge of Nevada, everything North of Winnemucca and
 >Elko is completely vacant, and so are the sand hills area of
 >Western Nebraska until you near the Wyoming state line.

 >Wyoming has the lowest population density of any state but
 >Alaska, yet has a thin and nearly even sprinkle of sightings.
 >Leo Sprinkle who lives there kindly provided one or two of
 >these.

 >Maybe the vacant spots offer subtle clues just like the "busy"
 >areas might seem to.

 >I haven't drawn any conclusions yet. Much of this might be
 >attributed to circumstance, happenstance, local customs and
 >conditions. Discounting that, just maybe there are small
 >indications of the purpose or intent UFOs. Maybe not.

 >Any comments are welcome.

Southeast Oregon and Northern Nevada, are overwhelmingly
rangeland with some Hardrock and Openpit Mining activity and a
few scattered farms there are places like the Owyhee country
that have literally no one, there except for the odd Buckaroo
and Buckarette at various times tending cows.

Except for Military Operations Areas (Airspace) and the odd
Natn'l Guard activity little in the way of military
installation. Here are small towns, such as Denio Junction,
(home of some of the best Bloody Marys this side of Alpha
Centauri), but nothing like the area of S.E. Washington/N.E.
Oregon

Back when they were operational the SR-71 could be seen,always
refueling- in and around the Lakeview Oregon, area and over the
Alvord desert in Oregon- northbound. The '71 was unusual enough,
still can't get a UFO out one however,except frontally.


Now for Southeast Washington and Northeast Oregon: Completly
different scale and scope of economy and activity. One, I
noticed a correlation to Freeway corridors, I-84/Hwy 30 I-5/Hwy
99 . Two,the proximity of the Handford area and other
nuke-related activity could be a factor, Mountain Home in Idaho,
near Boise, Moses Lake and Spokane-SAC bases (formerly).

The area has many farms and small/medium size towns. Small
cities too: La Grande, University, rail yard,
Farming/Ranching/Timber (though not now at historic levels). The
Walla Walla Wa. (I've seen too many Warner Bro. Cartoons to
never laugh at the arrangement of words.) area has many Two
Private colleges and a Community College.

Wheat and Grass farming mostly, some timber, too. several small
towns in the Walla Walla Area to Lewiston Idaho, some 90 miles
away.Also, Pullman, Wa. and Moscow Id. have universities and are
approximately the same size /demographics as Walla Walla.

Of note is the Wenaha Wilderness replete with Bigfoot Sightings.
It appears by your map,this area along the SE/NE corners of
Washington and Oregon is home to more than a few sightings.
However there are quite a few ranches and farms in the
surrounding area. Almost to the border(s).

Correct me if I'm wrong but I'd say having been to the above
areas by Plane Train and Automobile,plus the occasional horse or
bicycle.I'd have to say the populations/economy /climate are
considerably different, and can account for the sighting
disparity.

Thanks,

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 >
   Dec > Dec 14

                      Re: A Most Interesting Discovery

From: Dave Vetterick <veterick@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 20:05:09 -0600
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 15:14:09 -0500
Subject: Re: A Most Interesting Discovery


 >From: Slava Shevtsov <slava_shevtsov@mail.ru>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: A Most Interesting Discovery (Dalnegorsk, Roswell...)
 >Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 18:36:17 +0300

 >>Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 16:58:24 -0800
 >>From: Paul Stonehill <rurc@earthlink.net>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: A Most Interesting Discovery (Dalnegorsk, Roswell...)

 >>...made by a Russian scientist who resides in the United States.
 >>http://village.globaldrum.com/rvlakeside/

 >I am sorry, but all links on this page on cases in Dalnegorsk and Roswell
 >not exist:

 >for Dalnegorsk:

 >http://www.execpc.com/vjentpr/roswwrig.html
 >-  Server not responding.

 >http://www1.tpgi.com.au/users/ron/alien/main_archive/s_upto_z/soviet.1989.txt
 >- Not found.

 >http://www.iac.net/~ariev/_ufo/ufonews1.html
 >- Not found.

 >for Roswell:

 >http://www.execpc.com/vjentpr/roswwrig.html

 >- Not found.

 >http://www1.tpgi.com.au/users/ron/alien/main_archive/s_upto_z/soviet.1989.txt

 >- Server not responding (view "for Dalnegorsk").

 >Can you check information before writing you messages?

 >Slava Shevtsov


The correct URL for the file on Roswell mentioned is as follows:

http://www.v-j-enterprises.com/roswwrig.html

The server was changed roughly 2 years ago.


Dave Vetterick

VJ Enterprises








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 14

                              Carlos Diaz Case

From: Michael Hesemann <MichaelHesemann@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 21:10:25 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 15:45:49 -0500
Subject: Carlos Diaz Case

Below is my reply to the latest effort to debunk the Carlos Diaz
case.

_________

As a historian, cultural anthropologist, UFO researcher, author
and film producer I investigated the Carlos Diaz contact case for
seven years. Since I wanted to be sure before I publish the case
that any possibility of a hoax can be excluded, I did not only
travel to Mexico twelve times for on-site field investigations,
but also consulted leading experts in the US, Belgium, Germany
and Italy, including:

Prof. Corrado Malanga, University of Pisa

Prof. Manfred Kage, University of Mannheim

Prof, Auguste Meessen, University of Louvain

Bob Shell, editor "Shutterbug" Magazine, photo technical
consultant to the FBI

Dr. Robert Nathan, Jet Propulsion Lab/NASA, Pasadena

Jim Dilettoso, The Village Labs


None of these photo-technical experts found any evidence of a
hoax in the films and footage shot by Diaz.

Field investigations were performed also by Prof. John E. Mack
of Harvard, who spent three days in Tepoztlan and extensively
talked to the witness, his family and local eyewitnesses. We
were able to verify that over 50 % of the population of the city
of Tepoztlan, in which Diaz lives, about 12.000 people, saw the
very same type of object filmed and photographed by Diaz, a fact
confirmed by the mayor of Tepoztlan. The Air Traffic Controllers
of Mexico City's International Airport confirmed on camera
regular UFO sightings over the area of Tepoztlan. Several
researchers who visited the place, including Dr. Roberto
Pinotti, saw the very same ship Carlos filmed and photographed.

Therefore the personal opinion of Mr. Pascal Lopresti, who was
never known as a UFO researcher in Mexico (actually he served as
a translator and organizer for Italian stigmatist Giorgio
Bongiovanni) is completely invalid. It was nice of Carlos to
show him some new material, which is in my possession for over a
year, but it has no news value. Nor does any of Lopresti's
"conclusions".

According to Carlos Diaz, "the aliens" are living among us for
thousands of years. They live there as normal Mexicans, drive in
terrestrial cars, have TV sets and cameras and maybe even
tripods. Therefore it is not a big surprise if one of them had a
tripod he lent to Diaz - nobody claimed it was an
extraterrestrial tripod!

But Lopresti is just wrong when he claims: "Carlos Diaz has
always refused to allow the video to be analyzed". He gave me a
copy a year ago, I analyzed it frame by frame and I will publish
it in our upcoming documentary "Ships of Light" which will be
presented at the International UFO Congress in Laughlin in March
2001. Even a bigger mystery to me is Lopresti's "conclusion":
"No human being from this planet can board a plasma ship with
his/her physical body and a camcorder." How the hell does he
know? Is Lopresti an Extraterrestrial?? Or how can he make such
a claim with the certainty of a dogma? We don't even know if the
ship really consists of plasma (although it looks like plasma),
"plasma-ship" is just a metaphor, so how can he ever make such a
statement?

Lopresti calls himself an "investigator". To my knowledge, he
has no education or background to make such a claim. He claims
to be the co-organizer of the Acapulco-conference, which was
ONLY set up by Jaime Maussan and his team of Tercer Milennio and
Los Vigilantes. Lopresti's job was that of a translator for
Giorgio Bongiovanni. Therefore, the one who obviously seeks
attention by big claims seems to be Lopresti, not Carlos Diaz.

Every investigator who ever met Carlos was impressed by his
willingness to share his material. Diaz was never interested in
money. He is very poor but he never charges anything, When Bill
Hamilton claims that "Carlos does video work and films weddings
and celebrations", it is just not true. Carlos did work as a
wedding (still) photographer as a young man but never did that
with video. He just has the Camcorder given to him by Jaime
Maussan. He doesn't have an external microphone, no light, no
editing equipment. He did not even have a monitor to view what
he shot before I bought him a TV set three years ago.

Bill Hamilton criticised that the object on the films "descended
in a jerky movement". This happens very often in UFO cases, we
call it "falling leaf movement", a detail mentioned by many
eyewitnesses in Tepoztlan and elsewhere. The UFO was obviously
NOT lowered by a cable, since its movements never had a center.

He criticised the "static interior illumination" of the object -
Jim Dilettoso called it "coherent light" and made a parallel to
laser light. Besides the fact that on one film the center of the
object is pulsating and the object increases and decreases its
brightness, the "uniformity" of the light of the craft indicate
a light quality very different from that of an illuminated model
or lamp. In that case namely the light would be most intense in
the center and less at the edges.

No, the object is not moving with the wind. The tree's movement
in one film is completely untypical for wind movement, since it
is too shaky, and seems to be caused by the ship. In the
sequence with the object firing a beam down to Earth, the beam's
light is too strong and too condensed to be that of a
flashlight.

In one case Diaz filmed a craft right behind a tree, partially
covered by it. We were able to identify the tree and verify it's
diameter and distance from the camera. From our calculation, the
object's diameter must have been at least 60 feet... too big for
a hoax with a small model!

Michael Hesemann Duesseldorf/Germany






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 14

              Re: Translation Of Hesemann's Report - Part III -

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 21:24:35 -0600
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 15:49:16 -0500
Subject: Re: Translation Of Hesemann's Report - Part III -


 >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 19:15:43 -0800
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Translation Of Hesemann's Report - Part III -

 >>Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 15:45:39 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Translation Of Hesemann's Report - Part III
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, Jim wrote:

 >>>There's one item of interest in it I hadn't thought about
 >>>before. It's the likelihood that hoaxers taking a panoramic
 >>>video segment onto which to dub in a UFO image, would have done
 >>>so on a clear day with minimal smog, and would have directed
 >>>their videocamera towards the two majestic volcanic peaks
 >>>visible from the top of the building. Also they wouldn't then
 >>>have to contend with making the UFO image look properly merged
 >>>into the smog, with brightness varying properly with variation
 >>>in the apparent distance of the UFO image.

I replied:

 >>So now you are going to "mind read" the intent of any proposed
 >>hoaxers as well as the intent of the proposed aliens? Shooting
 >>on a clear day would not make the job any easier than shooting
 >>on a hazy day. In fact, if anything, the more smog the better to
 >>obscure the detail in the fake UFO. Having the craft so close
 >>and behind the buildings only adds to the realism. I am
 >>unconvinced.

Jim now writes:

 >I'll side with Michael Hesemann on that. Recall that Bruce did
 >an analysis showing that the brightness of the UFO varied as
 >would be expected of a real object in haze/smog whose distance
 >from the camera varied somewhat. It wouldn't be necessary to
 >worry about that factor in a hoax starting with a clear-day
 >panorama, for a UFO that close. But the chances of a video
 >hoaxer going wrong there are probably greater than his getting
 >it right; he could well expect that the brightness of a UFO
 >image should diminish when it's simulated to be farther away.
 >It's one of many chances a hoaxer probably wouldn't want to
 >take.

Hi, Jim...

As always, your view gives little or no credit to human
capability. Or is it that, because you can't figure out how it
could be done, then it must be 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 >
   Dec > Dec 14

                        Re: Reluctant Viewers - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 00:55:36 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 17:53:00 -0500
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Gates



 >Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 09:35:57 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

 >Regarding your references to Mack, Jacobs, Hopkins, etc. Please
 >refer me to any article, accompanied by photos, where an alien
 >object was extracted from an abductee where said object was
 >proven to be extraterrestrial in origin. I want to see a photo
 >of that object and what the analysis of it bears out.

As I recall several photos of implants have been published in
years gone by, along with analysis of said "objects." Check in
back issues of the MUFON Journal.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 14

                            Re: Reluctant Viewers

From: Elizabeth Hammond <lizzz@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 01:08:14 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 18:09:46 -0500
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers


 >Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 12:40:20 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Reluctant Viewers
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >>From: Elizabeth Hammond <lizzz@worldnet.att.net>
 >>Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 13:53:05 -0500
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Hammond

 >Previously, Elizabeth wrote:

 >>When are REAL researchers going to take the
 >>step off the cliff? Actually examine some of us. Make use of all
 >>the non-invasive technologies out there; cheek swabs for DNA,
 >>MRI's and Cat scans looking for foreign bodies. Control groups
 >>and all the other accouterment that goes with real science?

 >>Words are easy. It's easy to dismiss Abductee's as phony on the
 >>basis of... still more words. It easy to call oneself an
 >>Abductee, but we have a little head start, we also have
 >>identifiable marks, which all should be collected, collated and
 >>filed.

 ><snip>

 >>Now, why is it that no one wants to step forward and
 >>evaluate this very valuable piece of evidence? Are you that
 >>afraid to be wrong?

 >>The results, which ever way they may point, should
 >>be very interesting!

 >Hi, Elizabeth!

 >Know what's even more interesting? Is why people like yourself
 >don't go to a doctor and have the scans and examinations done
 >and documented for all the world to see. Money is not the issue,
 >since proof of ET life (by way of the evidence that you claim is
 >contained within your body) would be worth mucho bucks. 24 Hours
 >or 60 minutes would probably pick up the medical bills, just for
 >the exclusive right to the story.

 >So, go ahead! Be a trend setter and have the tests done! As you >
say:

 >>Words are easy. It's easy to dismiss Abductee's as phony on the
 >>basis of... still more words.


Dear List:

First of all, thank you to all you Gentleman, John, Al (not even
an Abductee!) for making like Sir Walter Raleigh for me, you
know I deeply appreciate it! As to Roger, I am so shocked at the
tone of your post. We've corresponded in the past and it has
always been a true pleasure to deal with an "open-minded
skeptic".

Let's take things item by item, shall we? First, I have zero
interest in 24 Hours or 60 Minutes or The National Enquirer or
any other mode you might suggest I get the funding for this
from. You are, of course, well aware that to do so would be to
create the first piece of ammunition against me. That I sold my
story to tabloid journalism which will forever color any
results. John Velez was made promises for certain tests by a
very prestigious TV program which never developed. All thinking
abductees filed that one away for future use. I am totally
disabled Roger and I highly doubt my Managed Care Provider is
going to give the red-light to any tests, the purpose of which
is to rule out Alien involvement. I just have a sneaky feeling
that might come under the heading of "experimental procedures"
:)

Secondly, what good will the results of _one_ person be? A big
fat zero, in my opinion! Roger, I have no fear involving any of
this. Should it turn out that we are all suffering from some
heretofore unknown illness, then so be it. If it turns out that,
as we suspect, we have been interacting with another species,
then so be _that_. However, I know how highly educated you are
and that you are well aware that the only way to get enough data
to make any kind of study with useful results is to use a much
larger number of persons than _one_. Also, a control group would
be absolutely necessary.

Roger, I wonder what it was about my post that got you so heated
up! I never claimed to have foreign bodies inside me. I merely
suggested a cat scan to look for any. Really, Roger, what is it
that so inflamed you? I thought this to be a fairly innocuous,
well thought out post, that would neither upset Abductees _nor_
Skeptics. And it seems that you are the only one upset, at least
thus far. Why would an abductee coming forward, as skeptics have
long claimed they wanted, making a reasoned suggestion for a way
to determine if, in fact, any differences exist in this
population cause you so much anger? I _really_ am interested to
know Roger. Of all people on this List, you were the last person
I suspected such a nasty attack to come from. There MUST be
something behind it.

My Post was and remains very simple. I feel enough anecdotal
evidence has been garnered through the use of hypnosis, etc. I
feel it's long past time to move to the next step. Which, if
done logically, would be to administer the exact set of
non-invasive tests to two groups. One, alleged Abductees, two, a
control group with no "Abductee experiences" in there past. Now,
what is it that so enrages here? One would think this type of
suggestion would be universally welcomed with open arms! The
only thing I can think of is fear. Fear that we may be correct.
Fear that we may be incorrect, but fear none the less.

Again, John, Al and all others who rode so gallantly to my aid, I
thank you. The jungle grows louder these days, we must all stay
together!!

Yours,

Elizabeth Hammond









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 14

                        Re: Reluctant Viewers - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 01:18:31 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 19:51:33 -0500
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Velez


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 22:51:50 EST
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Evans
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 12:40:20 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Reluctant Viewers
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Elizabeth Hammond <lizzz@worldnet.att.net>
 >>>Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 13:53:05 -0500
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Hammond

 >>Previously, Elizabeth wrote:

 >>>When are REAL researchers going to take the
 >>>step off the cliff? Actually examine some of us. Make use of all
 >>>the non-invasive technologies out there; cheek swabs for DNA,
 >>>MRI's and Cat scans looking for foreign bodies.Control groups
 >>>and all the other accoutrament that goes with real science?

 >>>Words are easy. It's easy to dismiss Abductee's as phony on the
 >>>basis of... still more words. It easy to call oneself an
 >>>Abductee, but we have a little head start, we also have
 >>>identifiable marks, which all should be collected, collated and
 >>>filed.

 >><snip>

 >>>Now, why is it that no one wants to step forward and
 >>>evaluate this very valuable piece of evidence? Are you that
 >>>afraid to be wrong?

 >>>The results, which ever way they may point, should
 >>>be very interesting!

 >>Hi, Elizabeth!

 >>Know what's even more interesting? Is why people like yourself
 >>don't go to a doctor and have the scans and examinations done
 >>and documented for all the world to see. Money is not the issue,
 >>since proof of ET life (by way of the evidence that you claim is
 >>contained within your body) would be worth mucho bucks. 24 Hours
 >>or 60 minutes would probably pick up the medical bills, just for
 >>the exclusive right to the story.

 >She could have all the examinations, scans, and documentation
 >done, and the skeptics would still dismiss it as some kind of
 >weird aborration and or that she was some kind of hoaxer,
 >attempting to get attention and so on. You would have another
 >group of folks claiming that the testimony of the various
 >doctors could reflect their personal bias, how the xrays and
 >scans were actually machine defects or anomallys.

 >Then you would have those who would maintain something along the
 >lines of "Well, since I can't/or didn't get the chance to
 >physically touch the proof, its a hoax and so on.

 >>So, go ahead! Be a trend setter and have the tests done!

Hi Guys, hi All,

Five years ago I volunteered to have NOVA perform CAT scans,
MRI, whatever kind of medical and psychological exams including
a polygraph test that wished to perform with professionals of
their own choosing. They refused. I had posted to this List a
copy of the original letter from Denise DiIanni (the producer of
the segment) where she gives me her list of reasons why they
weren't going to perforn -any- tests at all. In the letter she
suggests that if I were to get my own doctor to order the scans
that they would be willing to send one of their "experts" down
here to "observe" and "evaluate" the results.

In other words, If I was willing to; use my own doctor, schedule
and take the tests myself, and _pay_for_them_ that they would
then be happy to send somebody to debunk it all afterwards. A
not too appetizing a deal for me. I'm just a working stiff. I'll
take any test you want to throw at me, but I'll be damned if I
have to pay for it too!

Roger did the same thing in his response to Liz. After he
insults her by dangling the idea of how much money she can make
in her face as if he were dangling a carrot in front of a hungry
donkey that'll do anything for $$$s, he says, "Go ahead! Be a
trend setter and have the tests done!"

Do you have any idea how much those kinds of tests cost? A CAT
scan of the head alone costs $1,000.00 and up, depending on
which lab your doctor is associated with. Insurance will not
cover "elective" CAT scans. Maybe Roger has that kind of money
to burn on "tests" but most of the rest of us don't. I guess we
could always inflict a head injury on ourselves to get the scans
paid for by our insurance carrier eh?

Not only must abductees be willing to subject themselves to all
kinds of tests (medical and other) but, they are apparently
expected to pay for them out of pocket as well. Would you ask a
victim of any other intrusive or traumatizing event to tend to
their own medical needs, investigate it themselves, and then pay
for it all whether they can afford to or not?

Talk about moving the goalpost farther and farther up field!
There is just nothing set up to 'tend to' abductees. There is
nothing in place where a person can be medically evaluated and
have their reports properly investigated. If some people weren't
operating under the assumption that all abductees are lying and
full of crap, they'd realize that if we're telling the truth,
then we've all been through some pretty heavy stuff. That what
is needed is the comfort and healing support of our fellows in
the form of;

a. Having the reports of credible people taken seriously.

b. Having the reports that lend themselves to investigation,
investigated.

c. Tending to the human needs of the individuals that have been
violated and traumatized in this way. (*Whether real or
imagined.) Offer counselling.

Since when don't we offer people help when they are in need or
asking us for it? Only in the case of abductees have I seen a
group segregated from the rest of humanity and almost
universally dismissed and ridiculed without the slightest bit of
consideration for the possibility that the person may simply be
telling the truth.

Never forget: those who dismiss and malign abductees 'may be'
completely wrong. If that is the case, then all they are really
doing is bullying people who have already been through more
trauma than many of them could stand if they were the ones that
were being subjected to the abductions. You know, the old, "Kick
em when they're down" crowd.

In consideration of the fact that [nobody knows for sure] just
what the hell is going on... why don't we cheat in favor of the
victims of these abductions and treat them as if they had
actually experienced what they claim. Isn't it better to shade
it in favor of the people reporting 'just in case' it turns out
that they are telling the truth? If at some point it turns out
that they are all liars then it's open season. Some folks do it
in the reverse order.

You wouldn't want to ridicule and scorn a person who may have
actually been violated in this way would you? Yet, full grown
adults on this List will demonstrate the cruelty of children
with their derision and ridicule, along with the kind of egotism
that allows them to believe that they "know what's going on"
when they talk to/treat abductees as if they weren't worth
wiping the soles of their shoes on.

It is my firm belief that those who throw the biggest stones at
the abductees are the ones that are most deeply threatened and
frightened by what we are reporting. They may project an
attitude and act all smug and above it all, but it's just a
_cover_ for good old fashioned Fear. They find it fun and easy
to bully the abductees and to treat them as if they were the
perpetrators and not the victims of this completely disturbing
business.

Anybody aside from me see anything wrong with treating people
that way?

What ever happened to understanding and compassion for our
brothers and sisters? I must have reached a time in my life when
I'm out of step with the world. It seems that those kind of
values are "old fashioned" and no longer have a usefullness or a
place. Old hippies die hard I guess!  <LOL> Peace man.


Regards,

John Velez

Abduction _victim_ not perpetrator! Give us a freakin break.


******************************************************
                     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 >
   Dec > Dec 15

                       Re: Reluctant Viewers - Hammond

From: Elizabeth Hammond <lizzz@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 01:21:06 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 06:13:53 -0500
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Hammond


 >Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 09:44:09 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 22:51:50 EST
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Gates

 >>>Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 12:40:20 -0600
 >>>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>>Subject: Reluctant Viewers
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>>From: Elizabeth Hammond <lizzz@worldnet.att.net>
 >>>>Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 13:53:05 -0500
 >>>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Hammond

 >Previously, Elizabeth wrote:

 >>>>When are REAL researchers going to take the
 >>>>step off the cliff? Actually examine some of us. Make use of all
 >>>>the non-invasive technologies out there; cheek swabs for DNA,
 >>>>MRI's and Cat scans looking for foreign bodies. Control groups
 >>>>and all the other accouterment that goes with real science?

 >I replied:

 >>>Know what's even more interesting? Is why people like yourself
 >>>don't go to a doctor and have the scans and examinations done
 >>>and documented for all the world to see. Money is not the issue,
 >>>since proof of ET life (by way of the evidence that you claim is
 >>>contained within your body) would be worth mucho bucks. 24 Hours
 >>>or 60 minutes would probably pick up the medical bills, just for
 >>>the exclusive right to the story.

 >Robert now writes:

 >>She could have all the examinations, scans, and documentation
 >>done, and the skeptics would still dismiss it as some kind of
 >>weird aberration and or that she was some kind of hoaxer,
 >>attempting to get attention and so on. You would have another>
 >group of folks claiming that the testimony of the various
 >>doctors could reflect their personal bias, how the x-rays and
 >>scans were actually machine defects or anomaly.

 >>Then you would have those who would maintain something along the
 >>lines of "Well, since I can't/or didn't get the chance to
 >>physically touch the proof, it's a hoax and so on.

 >>In the end, you would have people saying something like "See,
 >>with all the evidence, and all the tests and scans, it proves
 >>its real." The cronies from the skeptical tank would look at the
 >>same evidence, same tests and same scans and tells us that it
 >>can all be explained away.

 >Hi, Robert!

 >Since the above seems to be your standard answer to anything
 >written about on this list, I have to wonder why you even bother
 >participating. You seem content in your ability to predict the
 >future and read people's minds. I wish I had that gift.

 >I agree that the debate will never end. However, this issue
 >isn't about what extremists think. The issue is about people
 >like Ms. Hammond taking an active role in solving their own
 >problems. On the one hand, she complains that the UFO community
 >is all talk. Yet, to date, that appears that's all she's done,
 >as well. Go to a doctor, Ms. Hammond, just like you would if
 >there were anything else in your body that you did not want
 >there. No one is going to visit the doctor for you...

 >Roger

Dear Roger:

Please re-read my post. At _no_time_ do I make _any_ claims to
having anything of any foreign origin in my body. I merely
suggested this as one thing a scan could be used to look for.

Further, why should I, or any other person, volunteer for a
study using invasive techniques? Were anything noteworthy to be
found, each person, in either group, would then be free to take
copies of their records to a private Doctor where they could
then decide what should be done.

I doubt anyone with an IQ over 19 would volunteer for a study
the nature of which involved actual surgical entry into the
subjects person. It just isn't done, Roger.

Yours,

Elizabeth







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 15

                      Re: Abduction 'Clues'? - Hammond

From: Elizabeth Hammond <lizzz@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 01:25:13 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 06:16:05 -0500
Subject: Re: Abduction 'Clues'? - Hammond


 >Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 01:51:10 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Abduction 'Clues'? [was: Reluctant Viewers]

 >>Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 12:40:20 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Reluctant Viewers
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Elizabeth Hammond <lizzz@worldnet.att.net>
 >>>Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 13:53:05 -0500
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Hammond

 >>Previously, Elizabeth wrote:


Dear John;

Thank you for your kind defense. But more importantly, I am so
happy to hear that you are feeling better! Hooray for one of the
good guys, at least!

Love,

Elizabeth








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 15

               Re: 50th Anniversary of a UFO Invasion - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 01:33:17 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 06:37:05 -0500
Subject: Re: 50th Anniversary of a UFO Invasion - Hatch


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 17:34:19 EST
 >Subject: 50th Anniversary of a UFO Invasion
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 11:56:50 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
 >>From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: 50th Anniversary of a UFO Invasion

 >>Greetings everyone!

 >>In a few e-mails I got recently I was reminded that on my Name
 >>Day, December 6, was the 50th anniversary of an event that
 >>nearly brought about World War III but remains little known and
 >>still unexplained to this day. What really happened on December
 >>6, 1950?

 >>British Prime Minister Clement Attlee arrived in Washington,
 >>D.C. in December 4 with stories in the newspapers of an imminent
 >>nuclear attack on the U.S. by the Soviets since the U.S.
 >>military under General MacArthur was considering using their
 >>nuclear weapons against Chinese troops during the Korean War.

 >>To quote from one of the e-mails I got from a fellow researcher
 >>of the UFO phenomena, on December 5th, President Truman wrote in
 >>his diary, "It looks like World War III is here. I hope not -
 >>but we must meet whatever comes - and we will.". Secretary of
 >>State Dean Acheson went to bed thinking that he would not be
 >>surprised to ba awaken by an announcement of a global war. The
 >>following morning all hell seemed to break loose when the U.S.
 >>early warning system picked up a formation of unidentified
 >>objects flying in over Alaska on a southeast heading towards
 >>Washington, D.C. All interception and defense forces were
 >>alerted.

 >>As am sure you all know, WWIII did not happen that day. The
 >>official explanation given was it was a false alarm produced by
 >>a flight of geese (this was in the pre-pelican days). Was it
 >>something more serious than just birds? I think it was. That
 >>same day(?) U.S. military forces, not members of the SPCA,
 >>crossed into Mexico just across the border from Texas to recover
 >>one of these downed "geese". This UFO crash was confirmed by
 >>several credible individuals including a well known Mexican
 >>General who was in command of this specific area where the
 >>incident occurred. Many researchers, including Larry Bryant who
 >>last year petitioned Mexican officials for more information,
 >>have been frustrated in their attempts to find out what the U.S.
 >>military did with the UFO wreckage and at least one recovered
 >>E.T. alien body.

<snip>

 >>If anyone of you has any information, including possible new
 >>leads, insights or comments about this UFO crash/retrieval case
 >>(Item B-7 on page 22 in Leonard Stringfield's Status Report II),
 >>many researchers, including UFO UpDates subscribers and seekers
 >>of the truth such as myself, want to know.

 >Hi Nick,

 >The radar incident has been found in a number of sources,
 >including diaries of high officials such as Dean Acheson's if I
 >remember right, and there are strange unaccountable
 >discrepancies that no one has been able to resolve. One set of
 >data claims the unidentified aircraft were tracked approaching
 >Maine. Another claims Alaska (as you mentioned). One claims a
 >Dec. 6, 1950, date (if I recall correctly) another is adamant
 >about a Dec. 17 date (if I recall right).

 >As for the alleged UFO crash, this is the fraudulent Lt Col
 >Willingham story that he later admitted he had fabricated from a
 >rumor he had heard as a boy. It was investigated by Todd Zechel
 >who made a leap in conclusion as great as Moore and Friedman did
 >on Roswell. Moore & Friedman jumped to the conclusion that the
 >Barney Barnett story from Western New Mexico was connected to
 >the Roswell Incident in Eastern New Mexico even though it had no
 >date or even a year. The bogus Barnett story gave them alien
 >bodies and an obvious crashed saucer; the Roswell case gave it
 >all a date. Later they admitted there was no basis for linking
 >these two stories (see MUFON proceedings 1982 and 1985), but by
 >then it was too late, the connection was etched in people's
 >minds.

 >Zechel likewise jumped to the conclusion that the undated story
 >he got from the Bowen family was connected to Willingham's even
 >though it too was undated. All Zechel knew was that Col John
 >Bowen served as provost marshal at Carswell AFB, Ft. Worth,
 >Tex., 1948-52. Willingham's story had air defense radars
 >purportedly tracking the UFO from Alaska to Washington to a
 >90-degree turn over Colorado then a crash in Mexico just over
 >the border from Texas (Willingham claimed he flew to the landing
 >site, it was cordoned off, etc.) -- only problem was that there
 >were no air defense radars in Colorado or Texas that could have
 >tracked any such maneuvers until about 1952 or later. But,
 >without a shred of evidene. Zechel connected it all to the FBI
 >document of Dec. 8, 1950, saying the AF had declared an
 >"Immediate High Alert" on reporting flying discs. That gave the
 >dateless floating stories a date.

 >So Zechel started looking up newspapers around Dec 8, 1950, and
 >found the news about sightings of contrails in Alaska, Korean
 >War developments of the Chinese entering the war, etc.
 >Eventually the MJ-12 document hoaxers put it all together in the
 >bogus Eisenhower Briefing Document. Because Zechel had
 >reconstructed two different locations and two different
 >approximate dates, the MJ-12 hoaxers picked spots in the middle.


Hello Brad and Nick:

I still have the infamous "El Indio - Guerrero" UFO crash
listed, supposedly Mexican side of the Rio Grande across from
Texas. My credibility rating is 2 on a scale of 0 to 15. The
06DEC50 date is indefinite.

Here are a few database listings that might be relevant:

#1798: 1950/12/02 2100h 81:43W-33:28N 3331 NAM USA SCR
ELLENTON,SC:BRILL.UFO MNVRS/10min: >>SW: type unknown.
SITE = 1st H-BOMB PLANT ( not built yet )
Ref# 134 GROSS,L.:UFOs a HISTORY-1950: Book 3/6, Pg 62

#1800: 1950/12/05 1300h 84:15W-36:01N 3333  NAM USA TNS
OAK RIDGE,TN:BBK:SCR OVR POST OFFICE/60sec: >>E:
TURNS >>NW:SEP.OBS SEE it >>W
Ref# 134 GROSS,L.:UFOs a HISTORY-1950: Book 3/6, Pg 63

#1801: 1950/12/06?  ??h 99:27W-26:22N 3321  NAM MEX TML
EL INDIO><GUERRERO,MEX:UFO CRASH:MTL FRAGMENTS..
see /ref 189 pg.192:  [ very questionable -LH ]
Ref# 89 RANDLE,Kevin: The UFO CASEBOOK.   Pg.54

#1802: 1950/12/06 1700h: 81:50W-26:36N 3333 NAM USA FLR
Ft.MYERS,FL:5 OBS/BINOCS:75'SCR W/CLEAR DOME:
JETS/SIDES: EDGE ROTATES when it hovers
Ref# 185 BERLINER,DON: The BLUEBOOK UNKNOWNS  Pg.5

#1805: 1950/12/11 2210h:145:23W-62:16N 3333 NAM USA ALS
10mi. NW/GULKANA,AK:NW.AL CREW:2 FLASHES:
DRK CLOUD RISES+SPLITS/2:/LDLN #330p18
Ref# 185 BERLINER,DON: The BLUEBOOK UNKNOWNS  Pg.5

It does indeed look like somebody may have taken several
incidents and sewn them together into one.

If there was a radar blip report, I didn't list it. I generally
want some visual confirmation first.

Missing file numbers (#1799, 1803, 1804...) are unrelated
sightings reports overseas.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 15

                       UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 5 Number 50

From: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 15:40:49 +0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 06:43:24 -0500
Subject: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 5 Number 50


Posted on behalf of Joseph Trainor.

<Masinaigan@aol.com>
==========================

       UFO ROUNDUP
Volume 5, Number 50
December 14, 2000
Editor: Joseph Trainor

http://ufoinfo.com/roundup/


TEXAS SKYWATCHER SPOTS TWO UFOs NEAR THE SPACE SHUTTLE

On Saturday evening, December 9, 2000, Michael Hunted drove out
into the rangeland about 26 miles (42 kilometers) southwest of
Sonora, Texas (population 2,800) to observe the space shuttle
Endeavour as it crossed the sky.

With its newly-installed 240-foot (73-meter) solar wings and the
space shuttle Endeavour attached, the space station would be one
of the brightest objects in the clear night sky.

At precisely 7:10 p.m., Hunter reported, while watching the
space shuttle, which started in the west and moved to the east,
, which took about three to four minutes, I noticed two objects
moving at a high rate of speed, which took about two minutes to
go from the southwest to the northeast. They looked like two
very bright stars."

"They were only bright white lights. There was no flashing
(navigation) lights like on airplanes. I also noticed that they
did not have a white trail behind them like the shuttle. I do
not know the height (altitude) but I do know that they were much
higher than the shuttle because they passed over the white trail
that the shuttle left behind."

Sonora is on Highway 277 about 90 miles (146 kilometers) north
of Del Rio, Texas. (Email Form Report)

(Editor's Note: For more on Saturday's doings aboard Station
Alpha, see the Endeavour story in this issue.)

MYSTERIOUS FIREBALL CRASHES IN SALISBURY, NEW HAMPSHIRE

"Scientists from around the world are weighing in on the
mysterious fireball that landed in a Salisbury backyard this
week."

"Local neighbors say a softball-sized glowing object landed in
the woods behind the house Monday night," December 4, 2000,
"starting a small fire. The only proof that anything happened
was two small piles of burned leaves."

"Since then, the story has spread via the Internet around the
globe. But the far-flung scientists agree with the local experts
'it was probably' a meteorite."

"Russian scientist Andrei Olkhobatov says it may have been what
he describes as high-speed ball lightning, a rare electric
atmospheric discharge."

"An engineer at a U.S. Department of Energy lab in New Mexico
said he had heard of similar events caused by electrical
flickering."

"'This particular article is reminiscent of quite a number of
events I've looked into in which people claim they've seen a
fireball come all the way to the ground,' said Richard
Spaulding, 'I think they are electrical manifestations akin to
lightning but have nothing to do with thunderstorms.'" (See the
newspaper Foster's Democrat of Dover, N.H. for December 7, 2000.
Many thanks to Gerry Lovell for this newspaper article.)

(Editor's Comment: This incident is almost a replay of the
fireball crash in Guyra, New South Wales, Australia one year
ago. For more on the Guyra case, see UFO Roundup, volume 4,
number 34, "UFO crashes into dam in New South Wales," page 1.)

MIDWEST UFO FLAP SPILLS INTO MINNESOTA

On Tuesday, November 21, 2000, at 5:30 p.m., Tim D. saw a UFO
flying from south to north in Chatfield, Minnesota (population
900), a town on Highway 62 about 30 miles (48 kilometers)
southeast of Rochester, Minn.

"It was a very large square-shaped, sharp 'craft' with two red
lights and two white lights," he reported, " "One on each side,
alternating in red, white, red, white, in this sequence."

"It flew from behind my car and around us as we sat on a ridge
viewing the stars. We could not hear any sound, and could not
see any definition towards the center of the object."

"It appeared VERY LARGE and SQUARE, and it was approximately 500
feet (165 meters) off the ground. The temperature that evening
was about, say, 15 to 20 degrees (Fahrenheit). We had it in
sight for nearly one minute." (Email Form Report)

On Sunday, December 10, 2000, at 5:20 p.m., UFO Roundup editor
Joseph Trainor spotted a dark hovering delta-shaped UFO in
Duluth, Minnesota (population 85,000), a port city at the
western end of Lake Superior, which is located approximately 156
miles (249 kilometers) north of Minneapolis.

"I had attended a meeting of the Lake Superior Writers at the
DeWitt-Seitz building in Canal Park that afternoon," Trainor
reported, "I took the Duluth Transit Authority (DTA) bus home
and got off at the corner of Piedmont Avenue and West Seventh
Street at 5:20 p.m. It was dark but there was still a glimmer of
blue dusk at the summit of Spirit Mountain, on the western edge
of the city. As O crossed Piedmont Avenue, I looked downhill to
my left and saw that the full moon had just risen. It was about
10 degrees above the eastern horizon, over Lake Superior and
Park Point. It was very cold, about zero degrees Fahrenheit, and
the sky was completely clear."

"As I passed the Lakeside Ice Co. building, I saw what I thought
was a Christmas decoration through the pine trees, an arch of
multicolored lights. After walking about 100 feet (30 meters)
west on West Seventh, I saw the object more clearly."

"It was a black triangle, with its apex pointed upward at a one
o'clock angle, and the 'base' at the bottom. The object was in
mid-air, an estimated 35 degrees above the southwestern horizon.
It was the size of my thumbnail at arm's length. The color was
matte black, a shade darker than the surrounding night sky. The
object had no discernible motion and hovered silently. There was
no sound."

"The sides of the triangle were slightly rounded, a bit concave,
giving the object the look of a bulky arrowhead. Also there were
three sets or arrays of four lights each on either side of the
triangle. There were no lights at the bottom. Twelve lights in
all on either side. In descending order, the lights in each
array were red, green, gold and white."

"I halted at the corner of West Seventh and 22nd Avenue West and
observed the object for five minutes. It was hard to judge
distance, but my guess is that the object was a few miles away,
possibly over the Spirit Valley area in the West Duluth section
of the city. I was alone on the street. There was intermittent
traffic on Piedmont Avenue a block behind me. I walked on to my
home, went inside and grabbed a small camera. I wasn't sure the
object itself would show, but I knew the steady multicolored
lights would. However, when I reached the front porch again, the
object was gone."

Trainor added that this is the third UFO he's seen in his life.
The first was in Seekonk, Massachusetts in August 1963 and the
second was near Kingston, Ontario, Canada in August 1995. "This
is the first triangular UFO I've ever seen."

THREE BLUE UFOs SIGHTED IN SOUTHERN PENNSYLVANIA

On Sunday, December 3, 2000, at 5 p.m., Stephen C. Dorshimer and
his grandfather were having supper at the Effort Diner in the
west end of Brodheadsville, Pennsylvania. After paying for the
meal, they got into the grandfather's car and began driving east
on Route 115.

"I was the passenger," Steve reported, "We drove east-southeast
on Route 115. After a few minutes of driving," at about 5:30
p.m., "I looked out the (passenger) side window and saw three
bluish lights in a row straight across, coming from the south.
They caught my attention because the were so bright and were
only 100 to 150 feet (30 to 45 meters) above the treeline on the
mountain, a rather dangerous height for a plane to be flying at,
especially at night."

"After looking at them for awhile and turning my head to tell my
grandfather and then turning back, they seemed to change
formation (position) and form an upright triangle."

"Two (lights) were on the bottom, and one was still pointing
towards the sky. The triangle then started to move eastward. As
the triangle moved eastward, the three lights started to get
together and merge together to form one light, and it descended
downwards, still moving east."

"I saw it go down through the treeline on the top of the
mountain until it was below the treeline at ground level.,
almost as if somebody was using a very bright flashlight while
walking in the woods. I would say it moved at the speed of a
small plane on landing or approach."

Brodheadsville is located about 25 miles (40 kilometers) east of
Harrisburg, the state capital. (Email Form Report)

Y-SHAPED UFOs SEEN IN NORWALK, CALIFORNIA

On Sunday, November 19, 2000, Paul B. "was walking home from the
Norwalk, Cal. Greenline station after 10:30 p.m. I was walking
down Studebaker Road. I was just listening to music and keeping
an eye on anything or anyone that might get too close to me. At
this point, I noticed small lights low on the horizon. It looked
line an airport approach pattern in the way they were spaced out
in the distance."

At first, Paul dismissed them as approaching jetliners. But
then, "I forgot about them for a period of--I would say-- five
minutes. The next time I saw them was when I got concerned and
paid attention. The lights made like a Y pattern with the two
arms of the Y closest to me. I wish I had paid some more
attention, but I think there were six of these lights. I walked
under some trees, losing sight of them, and when they came back
into view, one of the lights was gone. I removed my ear buds and
focused on the sky. I tried to rationalise what I was seeing.
They were moving too slowly to be airplanes. The light source
was too steady to be commercial aircraft, as their (navigation)
lights blink. I was in shock, and I was getting chills all over
my body."

"The last three or four lights were still clear,. Their shining
became stronger, and I am getting chills just typing this. Two
lights closed in on one in the center and they rotated around
it...then settled in a horizontal plane position. Then three
lights suddenly vanished after that, leaving one remaining
light. I stopped walking. I watched and tried to focus on it. I
tried to follow where it was going but it blinked for a moment
or so and then vanished."

Norwalk (population 160,000) is in southern California,
northeast of Los Angeles. (Email Form Report)

WEIRD "ICE CIRCLE" FOUND IN DELTA, ONTARIO

A strange "ice ring" was found on a pond near the village of
Delta in eastern Ontario province, Canada. The weird formation
apparently was created during the night o Saturday, December 2,
2000.

According to Paul Anderson of Circles Phenomenon
Research-Canada, the "ice ring" was investigated by the group's
Ontario director, Drew Cauley.

"The ring is in pond ice about 15 feet (4.5 meters) in diameter
and three inches (7.5 centimeters) wide. The ice is very thin
and cannot support (the weight of) anyone walking upon it. The
surrounding area has a light covering of snow, and no footprints
were seen anywhere," Cauley and Anderson reported.

"Although not a 'crop circle,' this is the tenth report of
circle-type phenomena received this year," Anderson added, "I
have received three such reports of ice formations in Ontario
and Quebec since 1999." (Many thanks to Paul Anderson of
CPR-Canada for this report.)

ENDEAVOUR COMPLETES ITS FLIGHT TO STATION ALPHA

""Using a hook and their gloved hands, two spacewalking
astronauts an overly slack solar wing on the International Space
Station," also known as Station Alpha, on Thursday, December 7,
2000 "with surprising ease."

"'All finished!' exclaimed spacewalker Carlos Noriega, adding
that both tension cables were back on their pulleys and reels
within a matter of minutes."

Earlier in the week, the space station's right solar wing "was
extended in one fast release, causing its tension cables to pop
off their pulleys and reels. The left wing was unfolded more
slowly and was properly taut."

On Friday, December 8, 2000, "hatches separating the
International Space Station from the shuttle Endeavour flew open
and for the first time in the two-year history of the space
station, crewmen were waiting on either side to greet one
another."

The American station commander, Bill Shepherd, and his two
Russian shipmates, Yuri Gidzhenko and Sergei Krikalyov have been
living aboard the station for five weeks.

"The five-man Endeavour crew, led by shuttle commander Brent
Jett Jr., had been docked to the station for six days, but the
hatches remained closed for safety while Endeavour astronauts
Carlos Noriega and Joe Tanner made three spacewalks to install
massive new solar-power wings to the station."

"Shepherd and Jett are U.S. Navy officers and observed some Navy
formalities not often used in space."

"'The crew requests permission to come aboard,' Jett said."

"'Permission granted,' Shepherd replied."

(Editor's Comment: That's it, gentlemen. Show these landlubbers
the proper way to board a vessel.)

As the first station commander, "Shepherd has hoped to institute
some of the traditions he has brought with him from the Navy
where he is a captain and worked as a Navy SEAL before joining
the astronaut corps."

"As the two crews greeted one another at 8:36 a.m., the
station's Unity module was awash in smiles, hugs and
handshakes."

"Shepherd congratulated the Endeavour's crew for installing the
solar array, which when unfurled spans 240 feet (73 meters) from
tip to tip, longer than the rest of the 13-story station."

"After that, the Alpha crew made its way to the shuttle flight
deck for a better view of the enormous wings, the largest ever
in space."

"With Canadian Space Agency astronaut Marc Garneau on the
Endeavour's crew, three of the five partners in the $60-billion
venture were represented for the first time" on a mission, the
partners being the USA, Canada and Russia.

"Astronauts on the space shuttle Endeavour" disengaged from
Station Alpha on Saturday, December 9, 2000 and continued their
trip home Sunday," December 10, 2000, " after completing the
intricate installation of the International Space Station's
electricity-producing solar wings."

"'It's probably the most difficult, most complicated integrated
job to date, relative to what we do in human spaceflight
operations,' said Milt Heflin, NASA's deputy chief flight
director."

"The Space shuttle Endeavour and its crew of five returned to
Earth on Monday," December 11, 2000, " ending what NASA called
its most difficult space station construction mission."

"'Outstanding job. Welcome back,' Mission Control told
Endeavour's commander, Brent Jett Jr., after the shuttle landed
at Florida's Kennedy Space Center." (See the Chicago Tribune for
December 8, 2000, "Loose solar wing on station repaired by two
spacewalkers," and December 9, 2000, "Endeavour, space station
crews unite," page 3, and USA Today for December 11, 2000,
"Endeavour heads for home," page 24A and December 12, 2000,
"Shuttle back home from space station," page 13A.)


Chupacabras and Other Mysteries

This is an examination of the "goatsucker" which has been
mutilating animals and terrorizing the residents of Puerto Rico.
Other mysteries of the island are explored, including numerous
UFO encounters, subsequent government cover-ups, and much other
data.

Chupacabras and Other Mysteries is available from
Amazon.com and Amazon.co.uk


THE KEY LARGO MYSTERY

A curious phenomenon that has come out of the USA's convoluted
year 2000 presidential election has to do with a black-and-white
movie filmed over half a century ago.

The movie is Key Largo, which stars Humphrey Bogart and Lauren
Bacall. In the film, Bogart plays a World War II veteran who
reluctantly comes into conflict with a Chicago gangster, Johnny
Rocco, portrayed by Edward G. Robinson.

Aficionados of "the Key Largo mystery have pointed out several
curious linkages of the current election controversy. They
include:

(1) The film is set in Florida, the site of the disputed vote
count between Vice President Al Gore and his Republican
opponent, Gov. George W. Bush of Texas.

(2) Pre-production of the film began in April 1947, the month
Vice President Gore was born.

(3) In a scene explaining how he rigged an election in Chicago,
Edward G. Robinson says, "So if he doesn't win, we count the
votes again. And we count them again. And we keep on counting
until it comes out right."

(4) In another scene, a character says, "Let him be the
president."

(5) The film's title, Key Largo, is an anagram for the vice
president's name. If you scramble the letters KEY LARGO, you get
the name AL GORE with the letters K and Y left over.

Some have wondered if this is a kind of portent. If the
remaining letters are YK, this could refer to "Al Gore in 2000."

On the other hand, KY is the U.S. Postal Service code
designation for the state of Kentucky. Mr. Gore is from the
neighboring state of Tennessee. They wonder if AL GORE - KY
means that something will happen to Mr. Gore in Kentucky.

"I think the hand of the Lord was on this movie," a Christian
evangelist told radio talk show host Marlin Maddox on Monday,
December 11, 2000. (See Point of View for December 11, 2000.)


from the UFO Files...

1944: THE THREE NEPHITES...MINUS TWO

"To appreciate the stories of the Three Nephites, it is
necessary to know that the doctrine of the Church of Jesus
Christ of the Latter-Day Saints (also known as the
Mormons--J.T.) holds that" after Jesus ascended into heaven, "he
appeared in South America to a people known as the Nephites.
Jesus taught them that they had been chosen by God to know the
true gospel and to teach it to the unbelievers...Jesus appointed
twelve new apostles from among the Nephites, and then asked them
what they desired. Nine asked to be raised up when their earthly
work was finished, and three asked to remain on Earth forever,
doing his work."

So was born the legend of the Three Nephites. Every community in
the USA's state of Utah has a "Nephite encounter" story in its
local history book. And one of the strangest took place in the
Escalante Valley back in December of 1944.

Sam and Ella Mortensen were driving north on Highway 130,
heading home after a Christmas shopping trip to Cedar City. With
everybody using gasoline ration stamps during World War II, such
trips were a rarity, and the Mortensons had to buy food and
other necessities along with toys for their grandchildren.

As their black 1940 Ford pickup truck rumbled along, Sam spotted
a figure standing on the roadside. An old man with lengthy white
hair and a long white beard and wearing a work fleece-lined
denim jacket, patched corduroy pants and a battered
broad-brimmed felt hat.

"Who do you suppose that is?" his wife asked.

"Some old prospector, probably," Sam said, slowing the truck.
"There's a whole passel of 'em up there in the Mineral range."

As the truck rolled to a stop, Ella slid over on the seat and
pushed open the passenger-side door. The old man climbed in and
offered a thankful smile. "Appreciate it."

"Where you headed, mister?" Sam asked.

"Oh, just up the road a piece."

He was, Ella thought, "somewhat vague about his destination" but
"he was most knowledgeable about current events. He knew a lot
about the ongoing World War Ii."

Fascinated, Sam and Ella listened to his stories.

"You're worried about your boy," the old man said, "Don't be.
He'll be fine. The Germans are going to send their Panzers into
the Ardennes next week, but it's Hitler's last gasp. German will
surrender next May. The war with Japan will be over in August."

This really startled the Mortensens because they hadn't even
mentioned their son, who was serving in the U.S. Army overseas.

"The war will end in August!?" Sam echoed.

The old man nodded. "Right now there's a bunch of scientists
down in New Mexico working on a top-secret project. A kind of
bomb. They're going to test it down in the Jornada del Muerto
next July. Then they're going drop two of them on Japan." All at
once, his expression turned somber. "That Oppenheimer's a damned
fool. He's toying with forces he only barely understands."

"Two bombs...,: murmured Ella, "And the war's over. Just like
that?"

"Just like that," he echoed.

Sam added, "I guess President Roosevelt will be glad to see
that."

"He won't be here to see it. He'll die in Warm Springs, Georgia
on April 12. He has a cancer, but he'll die of...something
else." The old man sat up sharply. "Well, I do believe that's my
stop up yonder. Thank you kindly."

Looking out the windshield, Sam saw a desolate stretch of desert
dotted with sagebrush and ocotillo sweeping toward the far-off
Sevier Mountains.

"'Surely not here,' the driver said, 'Why, there's no house or
building in sight.' "The wind was picking up and blowing sand
and tumbleweeds across the hood of the truck."

"'This is the place,' insisted the odd passenger."

(Editor's Comment: Curious. Brigham Young used the exact same
words when the first Mormon wagon train arrived in Emigration
Canyon, just east of Salt Lake City, in 1847.)

"Since he couldn't be persuaded to ride on to the next town, the
driver let him out."

"The old man thanked the couple, then wagged a finger at them."

"'On your way back, you'll be hauling a dead man. And the war
will end in August,' he prophesied before disappearing from
sight."

"The couple soon came upon an automobile accident in which a
young man was killed. They hauled the body back to the nearest
town."

"Even though World War II did not end until August of 1945, the
man and his wife said the rider had been a Nephite." (See the
book Haunted America by Michael Norman and Beth Scott, Tor
Books, New York, N.Y. 10010, page 371.)


That's it for this week. We'll be back in seven days 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.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 15

                       Re: Reluctant Viewers - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 20:58:40 +0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 06:44:51 -0500
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Rimmer


 >From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 13:15:53 EST
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >I have three marks on
 >a part of my arm not reachable to do it myself.

Unless you only have one arm, how can this be? I've just tried
it out and I can reach every part of both my arms.

--
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 >
   Dec > Dec 15

                          Secrecy News -- 12/14/00

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@igc.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 15:42:35 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 06:47:52 -0500
Subject: Secrecy News -- 12/14/00


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
December 14, 2000

**WATCHING THE WATCHERS IN RUSSIA
**STATE DEPT WITHHOLDS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES
**SUPPORT SECRECY NEWS


One of the toughest institutional challenges that any democracy
faces is to hold its intelligence agencies accountable and to
subject them to the rule of law. Even in the United States,
which has the most fully elaborated intelligence oversight
system in the world, intelligence agencies routinely violate
constitutional norms, especially when it comes to budget
disclosure and treaty compliance. In the younger democracies of
Eastern Europe and Latin America, the challenge is immeasurably
greater.

So it is particularly encouraging to see the blossoming of
independent intelligence oversight initiatives in many corners
of the globe. One of those is a new Russian web site called
Agentura, which provides fresh material on the Russian security
services, along with a variety of other intelligence-related
items.

The Agentura web site, established last September, was profiled
today in the New York Times online in an article by Sally
McGrane entitled "A Web Site That Came in From the Cold to
Unveil Russian Secrets":

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/14/technology/14SPYY.html

"I'm impressed," former CIA analyst Allen Thomson told the
Times. "The site offers a good look at intelligence issues from
a Russian perspective. They're keeping up with current issues,
they've got a good balance and they can write. This is the best
site I've seen coming out of Russia."

Journalist Andrei Soldatov, who conceived the Agentura project,
told the Times that he was inspired by the web site of the
Federation of American Scientists.

Most of the Agentura site is naturally in Russian, but an
English language section may be found here:

http://www.agentura.ru/english/


STATE DEPT. WITHHOLDS HISTORICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES

In a regrettable capitulation to pressure from the Central
Intelligence Agency, the State Department Historical Advisory
Committee continues to withhold the minutes of its July 2000
meeting concerning declassification of 30 year old historical
records. However, the minutes of the September 2000 meeting were
released today, albeit in truncated form.

In place of what used to be detailed minutes, which typically
ran over twenty pages per meeting, the Committee has produced a
three page "summary of proceedings" that omits the kind of frank
discussion of declassification policy issues that made past
minutes so interesting.

Even so, there are some notable tidbits in the new minutes, such
as the fact that CIA is in the process of declassifying around
1,000 documents for a March 2001 conference on "CIA's Analysis
of the Soviet Union During the Cold War (1947-1991)" to be held
at Princeton University.

The September 2000 State Department Historical Advisory
Committee "summary of proceedings" may be found here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/advisory/state/hac0900.html


SUPPORT SECRECY NEWS

If you value Secrecy News and the work of the FAS Project on
Government Secrecy, and if you would like to express your
appreciation by contributing to our financial viability -- we
can accommodate your charitable impulses.

You could send a tax-deductible check, payable to FAS Fund (and
earmarked for "government secrecy") to:  Federation of American
Scientists, 307 Massachusetts Avenue N.E., Washington, DC 20002.

Secrecy News subscribers who choose to donate money to support
our work will receive nothing extra, except for our gratitude.


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

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 >
   Dec > Dec 15

                       Re: Abduction 'Clues'? - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 18:34:47 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 06:51:38 -0500
Subject: Re: Abduction 'Clues'? - Velez


 >Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 12:36:45 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: Abduction 'Clues'?
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 01:51:10 -0500
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Abduction 'Clues'? [was: Reluctant Viewers]

 >>>Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 12:40:20 -0600
 >>>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>>Subject: Reluctant Viewers
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>>From: Elizabeth Hammond <lizzz@worldnet.att.net>
 >>>>Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 13:53:05 -0500
 >>>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Hammond

 >Previously, Elizabeth wrote:

 >>>>When are REAL researchers going to take the
 >>>>step off the cliff? Actually examine some of us. Make use of all
 >>>>the non-invasive technologies out there; cheek swabs for DNA,
 >>>>MRI's and Cat scans looking for foreign bodies.Control groups
 >>>>and all the other accoutrament that goes with real science?

 >>><snip>

 >>>>The results, which ever way they may point, should
 >>>>be very interesting!

 >>>Hi, Elizabeth!

 >I replied:

 >>>Know what's even more interesting? Is why people like yourself
 >>>don't go to a doctor and have the scans and examinations done
 >>>and documented for all the world to see. Money is not the issue,
 >>>since proof of ET life (by way of the evidence that you claim is
 >>>contained within your body) would be worth mucho bucks. 24 Hours
 >>>or 60 minutes would probably pick up the medical bills, just for
 >>>the exclusive right to the story.

 >John now writes:

 >>First: You know Roger, you'd be a lot easier to take if you
 >>could find a way to phrase questions and comments without the
 >>snide and sarcastic overtones. It puts me off everytime I see
 >>it.

Hi Roger, hi All,

Roger responded:

 >The day I take lesson on "tact" from John Velez is the day pigs
 >will rain from the sky. Please, John, stay away from lessons on
 >social etiquette and write about what you feel most qualified.

<LOL!>It's true Roger, I can come on like a freight train. It's
a 'tool'. One of many in the bag. But if you're paying attention
you'll notice that I'm always very discreet and mindful about
when, with who, and under what circumstances I unleash the
monster.

I don't know you very well so I decided to take a pulse and see
just how well you take the same kind of stuff you serve up to
others.

 >For the record, I don't doubt all abductees' claims. Indeed, I
 >believe there is something odd going on since so many people are
 >involved. That said, however, it really is within the power of
 >the individual abductee to have tests done on themselves. In
 >fact, if anything, your above post only proves that very point.

It wasn't in vain then. Thank you for that. And you're wrong
about abductees being able to have these kinds of tests
performed for themselves. Medical costs for most tests are
prohibitive unless you're insured. Even then, unless it comes up
while pursuing a genuine medical condition you cannot simply
order your doctor to perform certain tests without a 'condition'
or some other justification that your insurance provider will
consider legitimate.

Roger the only reason all that 'other stuff' came up was because
I was ill. In persuit of the disease, all the other testing and
side issues about spontaneous remission etc. were able to
manifest. If I hadn't been ill I never would have known or been
aware of some of the unusual details pertaining to my body.

For the average Joe, it would require recruiting your doctor to
commit insurance fraud just so you can get CAT scans of your
mellon or your suspected "implant" sites, or even specialized
blood testing, DNA testing, whatever. It's just impractical and
beyond the means of most working family people.

Which is what abductees are for the most part.

You're a dad just like me. You know that (especially) when you
have kids, that all the resources and attention are focused on
them. Abductees families are no different. When Sally runs a
fever she gets hustled in to the doctor immediately. Unless
mommy or daddy are dying... there's just no time or money for
'elective testing' and 'medical investigating' of ones own case.
It's wrong and improper. It's also an unreasonable demand or
expectation to place on the shoulders of the witnesses.

 >I merely suggest that Ms. Hammond do the same.

Roger I keep saying it over and over, it's not 'what' you are
saying, (although at times that can be rough too) but 'how' you
choose to say it. You consistently adopt a tone of sarcasm and
condescention when relating to the experiencers on the List.
Hey, I could be wrong. Maybe you're just that way with
everybody! I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt
though.  We'll see.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 15

                       Re: Reluctant Viewers - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 19:12:42 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 06:53:29 -0500
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Sparks


 >From: Elizabeth Hammond <lizzz@worldnet.att.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 01:08:14 -0500


 >>Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 12:40:20 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Reluctant Viewers
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >>>From: Elizabeth Hammond <lizzz@worldnet.att.net>
 >>>Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 13:53:05 -0500
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Hammond

 >>Previously, Elizabeth wrote:

 >>>When are REAL researchers going to take the
 >>>step off the cliff? Actually examine some of us. Make use of all
 >>>the non-invasive technologies out there; cheek swabs for DNA,
 >>>MRI's and Cat scans looking for foreign bodies. Control groups
 >>>and all the other accouterment that goes with real science?

 >>>Words are easy. It's easy to dismiss Abductee's as phony on the
 >>>basis of... still more words. It easy to call oneself an
 >>>Abductee, but we have a little head start, we also have
 >>>identifiable marks, which all should be collected, collated and
 >>>filed.

 >><snip>

 >>>Now, why is it that no one wants to step forward and
 >>>evaluate this very valuable piece of evidence? Are you that
 >>>afraid to be wrong?

 >>>The results, which ever way they may point, should
 >>>be very interesting!

 >>Hi, Elizabeth!

 >>Know what's even more interesting? Is why people like yourself
 >>don't go to a doctor and have the scans and examinations done
 >>and documented for all the world to see. Money is not the issue,
 >>since proof of ET life (by way of the evidence that you claim is
 >>contained within your body) would be worth mucho bucks. 24 Hours
 >>or 60 minutes would probably pick up the medical bills, just for
 >>the exclusive right to the story.

 >>So, go ahead! Be a trend setter and have the tests done! As you >
 >say:

 >>>Words are easy. It's easy to dismiss Abductee's as phony on the
 >>>basis of... still more words.


 >Dear List:

 >First of all, thank you to all you Gentleman, John, Al (not even
 >an Abductee!) for making like Sir Walter Raleigh for me, you
 >know I deeply appreciate it! As to Roger, I am so shocked at the
 >tone of your post. We've corresponded in the past and it has
 >always been a true pleasure to deal with an "open-minded
 >skeptic".

 >Let's take things item by item, shall we? First, I have zero
 >interest in 24 Hours or 60 Minutes or The National Enquirer or
 >any other mode you might suggest I get the funding for this
 >from. You are, of course, well aware that to do so would be to
 >create the first piece of ammunition against me. That I sold my
 >story to tabloid journalism which will forever color any
 >results. John Velez was made promises for certain tests by a
 >very prestigious TV program which never developed. All thinking
 >abductees filed that one away for future use. I am totally
 >disabled Roger and I highly doubt my Managed Care Provider is
 >going to give the red-light to any tests, the purpose of which
 >is to rule out Alien involvement. I just have a sneaky feeling
 >that might come under the heading of "experimental procedures"
 >:)

 >Secondly, what good will the results of _one_ person be? A big
 >fat zero, in my opinion! Roger, I have no fear involving any of
 >this. Should it turn out that we are all suffering from some
 >heretofore unknown illness, then so be it. If it turns out that,
 >as we suspect, we have been interacting with another species,
 >then so be _that_. However, I know how highly educated you are
 >and that you are well aware that the only way to get enough data
 >to make any kind of study with useful results is to use a much
 >larger number of persons than _one_. Also, a control group would
 >be absolutely necessary.

 >Roger, I wonder what it was about my post that got you so heated
 >up! I never claimed to have foreign bodies inside me. I merely
 >suggested a cat scan to look for any. Really, Roger, what is it
 >that so inflamed you? I thought this to be a fairly innocuous,
 >well thought out post, that would neither upset Abductees _nor_
 >Skeptics. And it seems that you are the only one upset, at least
 >thus far. Why would an abductee coming forward, as skeptics have
 >long claimed they wanted, making a reasoned suggestion for a way
 >to determine if, in fact, any differences exist in this
 >population cause you so much anger? I _really_ am interested to
 >know Roger. Of all people on this List, you were the last person
 >I suspected such a nasty attack to come from. There MUST be
 >something behind it.

 >My Post was and remains very simple. I feel enough anecdotal
 >evidence has been garnered through the use of hypnosis, etc. I
 >feel it's long past time to move to the next step. Which, if
 >done logically, would be to administer the exact set of
 >non-invasive tests to two groups. One, alleged Abductees, two, a
 >control group with no "Abductee experiences" in there past. Now,
 >what is it that so enrages here? One would think this type of
 >suggestion would be universally welcomed with open arms! The
 >only thing I can think of is fear. Fear that we may be correct.
 >Fear that we may be incorrect, but fear none the less.

 >Again, John, Al and all others who rode so gallantly to my aid, I
 >thank you. The jungle grows louder these days, we must all stay
 >together!!

 >Yours,

 >Elizabeth Hammond

Hi Elizabeth & List,

My hat is off to you, Elizabeth, for boldly proposing serious
scientfic study of abductees including the all-important use of
"control groups". As you correctly point out a single sample
(one person) is not large enough statistically to determine much
of anything from physiological effects alone. It is true,
however, that if even a single genuine ET artifact is found
implanted in an abductee, as Roger indicates, this alone could
potentially yield useful results as this would go far beyond
merely physiological effects requiring statistical treatment.

It is also important to conduct such studies and their controls
using "double blind" procedures so that unconscious bias and
subtle cues do not influence the human subjects and the results.
This is especially important where the issue is so much more
important than routine medical studies -- i.e., finding
potential evidence for ET life or some other exotic explanation.
Surely even Roger would have to agree that using health-plan
doctors and 60 Minutes-financed researchers to openly look for
ET evidence would violate "double blind" protocols and
potentially bias or compromise the results. A research project
would have to be set up to investigate abductees medically in a
way that is much more careful and patient than tabloid
journalists are likely to put up with.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 15

                      Re: Reluctant Viewers - Salvaille

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 21:17:55 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 06:57:53 -0500
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Salvaille


 >Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 01:18:31 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers

 >>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com
 >>Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 22:51:50 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Evans
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 12:40:20 -0600
 >>>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net
 >>>Subject: Reluctant Viewers
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Hello John, Roger and List,

<snip>

 >Do you have any idea how much those kinds of tests cost? A CAT
 >scan of the head alone costs $1,000.00 and up, depending on
 >which lab your doctor is associated with. Insurance will not
 >cover "elective" CAT scans. Maybe Roger has that kind of money
 >to burn on "tests" but most of the rest of us don't. I guess we
 >could always inflict a head injury on ourselves to get the scans
 >paid for by our insurance carrier eh?

<snip>

I understand this is a major problem in America, which is the
land of what's not free.

Has anyone thought of finding an abductee in Canada and have the
tests made over here where they don't cost a penny?

Regards,

Serge







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 15

                        Re: Reluctant Viewers - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 21:30:29 -0600
Fwd Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 07:02:34 -0500
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Evans


 >From: Elizabeth Hammond <lizzz@worldnet.att.net>
 >Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 01:08:14 -0500
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers

 >>Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 12:40:20 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Reluctant Viewers
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, I had written:

 >>Know what's even more interesting? Is why people like yourself
 >>don't go to a doctor and have the scans and examinations done
 >>and documented for all the world to see. Money is not the issue,
 >>since proof of ET life (by way of the evidence that you claim is
 >>contained within your body) would be worth mucho bucks. 24 Hours
 >>or 60 minutes would probably pick up the medical bills, just for
 >>the exclusive right to the story.

 >>So, go ahead! Be a trend setter and have the tests done!

Elizabeth responds:

 >First of all, thank you to all you Gentleman, John, Al (not even
 >an Abductee!) for making like Sir Walter Raleigh for me, you
 >know I deeply appreciate it! As to Roger, I am so shocked at the
 >tone of your post. We've corresponded in the past and it has
 >always been a true pleasure to deal with an "open-minded
 >skeptic".

Hi, Elizabeth; hi all...

For starters, I did not consider the tone of my post to be
particularly nasty. If it seemed harsh to you, then I apologize.
However, I meant what I said. Why don't people like yourself go
and have the necessary tests done?

Addressing such, you wrote:

 >Let's take things item by item, shall we? First, I have zero
 >interest in 24 Hours or 60 Minutes or The National Enquirer or
 >any other mode you might suggest I get the funding for this
 >from. You are, of course, well aware that to do so would be to
 >create the first piece of ammunition against me. That I sold my
 >story to tabloid journalism which will forever color any
 >results.

Having worked in broadcast television for most of my career, I
disagree. 60 Minutes and 24 Hours are not "tabloid journalism"
by any stretch of the imagination and I _never_ suggested that
you deal with a rag as disreputable as the National Enquirer;
_you_ did. In fact, 60 Minutes and 24 Hours are _very_
influential when it comes to people getting the justice they
deserve. I stand my ground that consulting them is a good idea.
Just what do you see as the problem with this idea?

Possibly regarding such, you wrote:

 >John Velez was made promises for certain tests by a
 >very prestigious TV program which never developed. All thinking
 >abductees filed that one away for future use.

With all due respect, Liz, you are doing the very thing that you
do not want the general public to do; stereotyping. You take the
position that the attitude of one program represents the
attitude of all programs. What if I were to take the position
that, because one abductee's claims proved false, then all other
abductee's claims must typically be false. Frankly, I think you
are smarter than that. John's experience has no bearing on what
you should or should not do.

Moving on, you wrote:

 >I am totally
 >disabled Roger and I highly doubt my Managed Care Provider is
 >going to give the red-light to any tests, the purpose of which
 >is to rule out Alien involvement. I just have a sneaky feeling
 >that might come under the heading of "experimental procedures"

Again, with all due respect, this is a moot point if a reputable
program picks up the bills. If the proof in your body really
exists, then I don't see the gamble. Besides, the only real
effort you, or anyone, would have to make are phone calls. Lots
of phone calls, perhaps, but certainly well within your means if
you are serious about getting results.

Regarding said results, you wrote:

 >Secondly, what good will the results of _one_ person be? A big
 >fat zero, in my opinion! Roger, I have no fear involving any of
 >this. Should it turn out that we are all suffering from some
 >heretofore unknown illness, then so be it. If it turns out that,
 >as we suspect, we have been interacting with another species,
 >then so be _that_. However, I know how highly educated you are
 >and that you are well aware that the only way to get enough data
 >to make any kind of study with useful results is to use a much
 >larger number of persons than _one_. Also, a control group would
 >be absolutely necessary.

Come on, Liz, you know that is not true. That's like saying that
we have to prove a large group of UFO sightings as ET craft
before any one will be valid. If a single UFO is proven to be an
ET craft, then the cat is out of the bag. Likewise, if a
national program like 60 Minutes proves that one single person
is, in fact, an alien abductee by way of a "foreign object" of
ET origin, the benefits are obvious.

Continuing, your wrote:

 >Roger, I wonder what it was about my post that got you so heated
 >up! I never claimed to have foreign bodies inside me. I merely
 >suggested a cat scan to look for any.

I must admit, Liz, that your post certainly implied the
existence of foreign objects in your body and those like you.
Perhaps I was jumping the gun, but why suggest looking for
something that you _don't_ feel is there? To say that you
"merely suggested" looking for foreign objects is a bit of a
dodge, don't you think?

Finally, you wrote:

 >Really, Roger, what is it
 >that so inflamed you?

<snip>

 >I _really_ am interested to
 >know Roger. Of all people on this List, you were the last person
 >I suspected such a nasty attack to come from. There MUST be
 >something behind it.

Again, me thinks you protest a little too much, Liz. In fact,
here is the odd thing. You write:

 >My Post was and remains very simple. I feel enough anecdotal
 >evidence has been garnered through the use of hypnosis, etc. I
 >feel it's long past time to move to the next step. Which, if
 >done logically, would be to administer the exact set of
 >non-invasive tests to two groups. One, alleged Abductees, two, a
 >control group with no "Abductee experiences" in there past. Now,
 >what is it that so enrages here? One would think this type of
 >suggestion would be universally welcomed with open arms! The
 >only thing I can think of is fear. Fear that we may be correct.
 >Fear that we may be incorrect, but fear none the less.

However my suggestion, which costs you nothing, can be pursued
immediately, and would prove to the world on national television
that alien abduction is real is considered the remark of someone
"hostile"? Short of whipping out my checkbook, how much more
supportive am I supposed to be? Or am I only considered
"supportive" if I agree with the popular abductee notion that
everyone ELSE isn't doing enough?

You're a smart lady, Liz. Certainly you can see the truth in
what I've pointed out. You mentioned that you are disabled. I
did not know this. However, I won't apologize for my statements
because I now know you are. I have many disabled friends and the
last thing they want is special treatment. Everyone has to deal
with their own problems.

Think about it.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 15

                        Re: Reluctant Viewers - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 22:54:02 -0600
Fwd Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 07:07:41 -0500
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Evans


 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 01:18:31 -0500
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Velez

 >>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 22:51:50 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Evans
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, John wrote:

 >Five years ago I volunteered to have NOVA perform CAT scans,
 >MRI, whatever kind of medical and psychological exams including
 >a polygraph test that wished to perform with professionals of
 >their own choosing. They refused. I had posted to this List a
 >copy of the original letter from Denise DiIanni (the producer of
 >the segment) where she gives me her list of reasons why they
 >weren't going to perforn -any- tests at all. In the letter she
 >suggests that if I were to get my own doctor to order the scans
 >that they would be willing to send one of their "experts" down
 >here to "observe" and "evaluate" the results.

 >In other words, If I was willing to; use my own doctor, schedule
 >and take the tests myself, and _pay_for_them_ that they would
 >then be happy to send somebody to debunk it all afterwards.

Hello, John...

Why don't you post that letter again. And when you do, please
point out where she wrote that their intention was to "debunk"
you in advance. Short of that, it would seem that you are trying
to self-fulfill a prophecy of defeat. In other words, you
already know the outcome, so why bother taking the risk yourself
that you so righteously feel other's should take for you. Just
because you volunteered doesn't mean anything. NOVA isn't
required to fulfill your expectations. From what you've written,
the fact that they'd send someone down, at their cost, to spend
time and observe and evaluate is pretty generous, by anyone's
standards. They didn't ask you to pay for their air fare or
hotel accommodations. Go pout somewhere else.

Moving on, John wrote:

 >Roger did the same thing in his response to Liz. After he
 >insults her by dangling the idea of how much money she can make
 >in her face as if he were dangling a carrot in front of a hungry
 >donkey that'll do anything for $$$s, he says, "Go ahead! Be a
 >trend setter and have the tests done!"

Not what I said, at all. What I said is that a story that proves
ET life would be worth mucho bucks. Are you saying that it would
not? Beyond that, I never said that she should pay for the
examinations. What I clearly said is that 60 Minutes or 24 Hours
might pick up the bill, if interested. As usual, John, you bitch
about others misquoting you then turn around and swing the very
same stick. Typical.

Finally, John wrote:

 >Talk about moving the goalpost farther and farther up field!
 >There is just nothing set up to 'tend to' abductees. There is
 >nothing in place where a person can be medically evaluated and
 >have their reports properly investigated.

Yes there is, John. It's called a "hospital". If someone has
something in their body that should not be there, a person
called a "doctor" will examine them and extract said object,
regardless of where that object came from. I know of no
exclusions on insurance forms regarding objects of ET origin. In
fact, and this is the most important fact, the doctor would have
no way of knowing what the object is until after it has been
removed.

Of course, if there is no object to begin with then you have no
basis for complaint.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 15

                        Re: Reluctant Viewers - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 23:17:33 -0600
Fwd Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 07:09:50 -0500
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Evans


 >From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 13:15:53 EST
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers

 >>Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 09:44:09 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, I wrote:

 >>I agree that the debate will never end. However, this issue
 >>isn't about what extremists think. The issue is about people
 >>like Ms. Hammond taking an active role in solving their own
 >>problems. On the one hand, she complains that the UFO community
 >>is all talk. Yet, to date, that appears that's all she's done,
 >>as well. Go to a doctor, Ms. Hammond, just like you would if
 >>there were anything else in your body that you did not want
 >>there. No one is going to visit the doctor for you...

Jimmy replied:

 >Roge, let me tell you how foolish you sound, to me and to others
 >on this List who perceive they are abductees. To others, I hope
 >you sound merely silly.

 >You think we've _not_ been to doctors? You think that simple
 >minded response answers all the questions about this phenom?
 >Wrong, buddy. I have visited many doctors, three or so
 >psychiatrists, neurologists, internists, dermatologists. None
 >have medical answers to the extant conundrums of my body, marks,
 >adhesions and other assorted anomalies which won't go away and
 >will not tolerate analysis or reasoned diagnosis.

Hi, Jimbo.

First off, I think you need to re-read the context of my
remarks. I said:

 >>Go to a doctor, Ms. Hammond, just like you would if
 >>there were anything else in your body that you did not want
 >>there.

I understand that there are abductees that have marks on their
bodies that they can not explain. I am not now, nor was I ever,
referring to such things. What I clearly was referring to was
abductees that claim to have objects of ET origin in their
bodies. How simple does this have to be?

1) Go to doctor about pain in body.

2) Have scans done to locate object.

3) Have doctor remove said object.

4) Send the bills to the insurance company. (certainly, at least ONE
abductee has insurance, no?)

Why is such a suggestion heresy among abductees?

I understand that this issue is a sensitive one with you, Jimmy.
However, I really am on your side. I just get tired of the
communal notion that "everyone else" should be doing something
or that "everyone else" is ignoring obvious proof contained
within said abductees. I don't mean to be anymore blunt that
usual, but it can't be too obvious as long as it's still buried
in someone's gut. Perhaps if someone, anyone, that claimed to
have said object were to step up to the line and take the
plunge, then they'd be doing you and everyone like you a big
favor. Beyond that, don't expect "outsiders" to do anymore than
the members of your own group are willing to do.

Now, if you're simply asking me to _believe_ that the objects
are there...

Well, I think you see the problem.

take care,

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 >
   Dec > Dec 15

                      Re: Abduction 'Clues'? - Hammond

From: Elizabeth Hammond <lizzz@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 01:11:23 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 07:13:02 -0500
Subject: Re: Abduction 'Clues'? - Hammond


 >Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 12:36:45 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: Abduction 'Clues'?
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 01:51:10 -0500
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Abduction 'Clues'? [was: Reluctant Viewers]

 >>>Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 12:40:20 -0600
 >>>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>>Subject: Reluctant Viewers
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>>From: Elizabeth Hammond <lizzz@worldnet.att.net>
 >>>>Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 13:53:05 -0500
 >>>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Hammond

<snip

 >Liz says that she and others like her need to have scans done to
 >find the "foreign objects" that exist in their collective bodies
 >and wish scientists and others would come forward to do such a
 >thing. You have proven by your own testimony that she (and
 >people like her) don't have to wait for others to do a damn
 >thing.


Roger:

This is my last word on this subject. My point was made and was
not made for the purpose of some silly, sophomoric tit for tat.
I _never_ said that I and others like me _need_ to have scans
done to find foreign bodies. You seem stuck so on this point!
What I said was:

    "When are REAL researchers going to take the step off the
    cliff? Actually examine some of us. Make use of all the
    non-invasive technologies out there; cheek swabs for DNA,
    MRI's and Cat scans looking for foreign bodies. Control
    groups and all the other accouterment that goes with real
    science?"

I hope this clears that up for you Roger. There ARE Alleged
Abductees who believe that they have foreign bodies in there
persons. I am not one of those. However, it would be an
interesting study to see how many Alleged Abductees's, as
opposed to those in the Normal Population, had some sort of
foreign body or anomaly present.

Again, I've said all I wanted to say on this subject, just left
still wondering why all this gave rise to such a vitriolic
attack? It seemed like such a simple, innocuous starting point.
Well, maybe when I win the Lotto I'll take up your glove Roger
and have all these tests done myself. It won't prove a darn
thing, but at least I'll be making you happy!


Yours,

Elizabeth







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 15

                     Part IV of Hesemann's MC UFO Report

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 22:36:33 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 07:15:14 -0500
Subject: Part IV of Hesemann's MC UFO Report


Hello List,

Below is Part IV of Michael Hesemann's report. One more to go.

The two most interesting aspects for me of this Part IV were:

(a) the random manner in which Michael and his translator came
upon the eyewitness, Norma Orvelia and the two others; and

(b) her report on the rotating yellow lights, which agrees with the
independent report of Annie Lash. This was extremely significant because
the yellow lights that could be seen from below were not noticed on the
video, and because yellow isn't a color that UFOs use on us very often
compared with other colors.

Jim

_______________


Translation of Hesemann's Mexico-City UFO Report

Part IV

A House Full of Enigma

We went to the black office building and spoke with the
doorkeeper. Without an appointment with one of the proprietors
in the firm there is no admittance. He had also not seen
anything, but the manager of the complex was prepared to talk.
Yes, the video sequence was shot here; no, he did not know by
whom; no, the proprietors, who had their offices here, would not
have anything to do with the thing. Which proprietors are these?
Tupperware, a brokerage, a computer firm, a computer course
offered to children, a sales-promotion agency, which produces
slides for movie advertising, and others were situated here. No
video-production agency, no computer animation facility. The
German reader can probably hardly imagine the precautionary
measures in Mexico, which are the rule -- based on increased
big-city criminality. Private secret services keep watch over
each large supermarket, each bank, each jewelry store, each
hotel, office building or better dwelling place. Innocent
civilian institutions remind one of fortresses, with high walls,
barbed wire, surveillance cameras and electronic alarm systems.
On the roof of our mysterious black building, which looks like a
secret service center, an armed guard marches back and forth.
However, this was not all that unusual -- even the shopping
center across the way had its own private army. In any case it
becomes out of the question that an outsider went into this
building and pulled off his hoax without the knowledge of one of
the resident proprietors there.

Either a falsification has been planned here, and professionally
carried out, or a co-worker has recorded it fortuitously. Now we
find the fourth floor, of all places, as the highest probability
of where the film would have been shot from, precisely the
forementioned brokerage office. Their specialty is real estate
on video. It is thus to be expected that semi-professional video
cameras would be found in the business office. The original of
the film of 6 August would have been taken using such a
semi-professional camera in Hi-8 format (a digital camera is to
be excluded). It can thus be speculated that a co-worker of the
real estate office filmed the UFO, but for professional or
private reasons will not allow himself to become identified.


The First Eyewitness

We decided to go further along the "Paseo de los Laureles," the
street on which the office building lies (it has the address
458), and to look out for possible eyewitnesses. On the
righthand side of the street there were neat small houses with
small windows. We rang at a door, in hopes of meeting a further
witness, but unfortunately without success. At one house just
being built, we asked the construction workers, and one of them
knew of the case and even knew eyewitnesses: a woman and her
son, poor people, who lived in a wooden hut on the hillside
between all these middle-class stone houses, had seen it. We
followed the man and met the woman, Norma Orvelia. She told us:
"It was shortly before 5 o'clock. I saw this round object, which
flew with a certain speed. It appeared to want to fly between
the high rises. I was afraid it would collide with one of the
sky scrapers. Then it disappeared, after a few seconds, behind
one of the houses. Apparently it flew along the street
(Reforma). At any rate, I saw it no more." What did it look
like? "It was round, silvery, and it appeared to rotate quickly.
It was a very beautiful sight." I showed her a photo. Is that
what you saw? "Si, esto, esto, si, exactamente! That is what I
saw. However I also saw yellow lights, which it had on the rim,
and these rotated fast." Her son claims to have seen the same
object yet one time at night. Also on the afternoon of the 6th
of August he was there and with him his friend of the same age.
"It was round, it was thick in the middle and it was surrounded
by a rotating ring," said her son, Roman, 10. His friend
corroborated his statement. His mother estimated the diameter of
the UFO as 20-30 meters, in any case it would have been half as
wide as the apartment high-rise building (whose width, as we
later found out, was some 20 meters; thus the UFO at the most
had a diameter of ten meters). She admitted, however, to have
been very excited. It was logical that she could know more
details than were discernible from the video, as she had been
closer to it. The fact that she did not mention the UFO's dome
(and her son noticed only a thickening) speaks in favor of her
-- she saw it from a perspective more directly below but nearer,
thus from more obliquely underneath. Hence it is logical that to
her the object appeared rather round, while from the video it is
seen from the side as being a dome-shaped disk.

Roman knew another eyewitness, who lived on one of the side
streets of the Reforma where our search had begun. So we drove
back there with him. His friend was not at home; instead we
found a further eyewitness. Arturo Sierra saw it only briefly,
when it flew over his street. "I didn't pay it too much
attention. It was round, metallic; it flashed. It was perhaps
three, four meters in diameter. Somehow it appeared to rotate.
What do I believe it was? Naturally a flying saucer! When I
looked back, it was gone."

We brought Roman back home and continued our search at the
apartment houses, in whose proximity the object had maneuvered.
At the entrance to the housing complex we again ran into a
security post. A uniformed doorman explained to us that this was
private property and no one could enter without an appointment.
Out of a basement garage came a stylish car, in the background a
swimming pool was to be seen. This was a really elegant
apartment complex, that much was clear. Finally the doorman
admitted to knowledge about the event. Residents of the
apartments had seen the UFO. He named a name, but the lady was
not in. When a Jewish youngster in black clothes with the
typical cap of the Hasid came out, we spoke to him. He also knew
a witness, a girl. He tried calling her; again no success.
Finally, around 5 pm, we drove back on the Reforma to the
workshop of the two young men whose father, Alfredo Rodriguez
Fernandez, must now have returned.

"I was coming straight back to my youngsters, like today after 5
pm," began the mustached Mexican, "when I saw it. I have already
seen other UFOs, this was not my first. It was half as wide as
this high rise, perhaps 15 meters therefore (he had
miscalculated -- the width of the high rise was about 20 meters,
half would thus be ca. 10 meters, MH). It floated in a direction
towards the high rises. Then, when I blinked my eyes for a
second, it had suddenly disappeared."


-- End of Part IV --







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 15

                        Re: Two New UFO Maps - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 01:06:27 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 07:17:58 -0500
Subject: Re: Two New UFO Maps - Hatch


 >From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Two New UFO Maps
 >Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 17:03:28 -0800

 >>Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 02:02:09 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Two New UFO Maps

 >>I have added two new maps to the *U* UFO database website.

 >>One is for the Western USA:

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

 >>The other for the Eastern states:

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

 >>In the East, sightings tend to cluster along sea coasts and the
 >>shores of the Great Lakes. Elsewhere in the eastern and central
 >>states, sightings are more or less uniformly scattered in the
 >>rural, farming and ranching areas.

 >>In the West, there are fairly large areas devoid of sightings,
 >>or nearly so. There seems no rhyme or reason to this. Why should
 >>one patch of desert be (well) deserted, while another has
 >>several sightings?

 >>One nearly empty area centers on the point where Oregon, Idaho
 >>and Nevada meet. SE Oregon is nearly vacant while SE Washington
 >>state has numerous sightings. Both areas are thinly populated,
 >>perhaps more so in Oregon, but not to the degree the map would
 >>indicate.

 >I don't know for sure not having demographics in front of me
 >but, having actually been to and in my own case grew up in
 >Northeast Oregon-LaGrande to be exact - and seeing a 'nuts and
 >bolts' UFO there - but I do have a Theory - Military
 >Installations and activity, coupled with higher population
 >density and the economic activity associated with said activity.

 >>SE Montana is quiet, unlike other parts of that state. There are
 >>at most one or two sightings mapped within 100 miles of
 >>Billings,MT for example. Central Nevada has several sightings in
 >>a similar area .. and a small fraction of the population.

 >>The northern edge of Nevada, everything North of Winnemucca and
 >>Elko is completely vacant, and so are the sand hills area of
 >>Western Nebraska until you near the Wyoming state line.

 >>Wyoming has the lowest population density of any state but
 >>Alaska, yet has a thin and nearly even sprinkle of sightings.
 >>Leo Sprinkle who lives there kindly provided one or two of
 >>these.

 >>Maybe the vacant spots offer subtle clues just like the "busy"
 >>areas might seem to.

 >>I haven't drawn any conclusions yet. Much of this might be
 >>attributed to circumstance, happenstance, local customs and
 >>conditions. Discounting that, just maybe there are small
 >>indications of the purpose or intent UFOs. Maybe not.

 >>Any comments are welcome.

 >Southeast Oregon and Northern Nevada, are overwhelmingly
 >rangeland with some Hardrock and Openpit Mining activity and a
 >few scattered farms there are places like the Owyhee country
 >that have literally no one, there except for the odd Buckaroo
 >and Buckarette at various times tending cows.

 >Except for Military Operations Areas (Airspace) and the odd
 >Natn'l Guard activity little in the way of military
 >installation. Here are small towns, such as Denio Junction,
 >(home of some of the best Bloody Marys this side of Alpha
 >Centauri), but nothing like the area of S.E. Washington/N.E.
 >Oregon

 >Back when they were operational the SR-71 could be seen,always
 >refueling- in and around the Lakeview Oregon, area and over the
 >Alvord desert in Oregon- northbound. The '71 was unusual enough,
 >still can't get a UFO out one however,except frontally.

 >Now for Southeast Washington and Northeast Oregon: Completly
 >different scale and scope of economy and activity. One, I
 >noticed a correlation to Freeway corridors, I-84/Hwy 30 I-5/Hwy
 >99 . Two,the proximity of the Handford area and other
 >nuke-related activity could be a factor, Mountain Home in Idaho,
 >near Boise, Moses Lake and Spokane-SAC bases (formerly).

 >The area has many farms and small/medium size towns. Small
 >cities too: La Grande, University, rail yard,
 >Farming/Ranching/Timber (though not now at historic levels). The
 >Walla Walla Wa. (I've seen too many Warner Bro. Cartoons to
 >never laugh at the arrangement of words.) area has many Two
 >Private colleges and a Community College.

 >Wheat and Grass farming mostly, some timber, too. several small
 >towns in the Walla Walla Area to Lewiston Idaho, some 90 miles
 >away.Also, Pullman, Wa. and Moscow Id. have universities and are
 >approximately the same size /demographics as Walla Walla.

 >Of note is the Wenaha Wilderness replete with Bigfoot Sightings.
 >It appears by your map,this area along the SE/NE corners of
 >Washington and Oregon is home to more than a few sightings.
 >However there are quite a few ranches and farms in the
 >surrounding area. Almost to the border(s).

 >Correct me if I'm wrong but I'd say having been to the above
 >areas by Plane Train and Automobile,plus the occasional horse or
 >bicycle.I'd have to say the populations/economy /climate are
 >considerably different, and can account for the sighting
 >disparity.

 >Thanks,

 >GT McCoy

Hello GT!

I agree, population type and density plays a major role here.
Still, I find some areas ( Billing, MT ) oddly "unvisited" while
more sparsely populated areas have several or numerous
sightings.

Since the numbers are relatively small, at least in comparison
to the busier UFO spots, there is always the danger of false
correlations, dumb luck really.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 16

                        Re: Reluctant Viewers - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 07:25:32 -0600
Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 05:19:50 -0500
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Evans


 >Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 21:30:29 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Elizabeth Hammond <lizzz@worldnet.att.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 01:08:14 -0500
 >>Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 18:09:46 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers

 >>>Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 12:40:20 -0600
 >>>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>>Subject: Reluctant Viewers
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca


Dear Liz,

In a previous post, I believe EBK accidentally edited the ending
of my post which significantly changed the implied meaning. What
was posted by EBK read:

 >I have many disabled friends and the last thing they want is special
 >treatment. Everyone has to deal with their own problems.

I feel the above presents an unusually harsh image, even by my
standards.

What I originally wrote, however was:

 >I have many disabled friends and the last thing they want is special
 >treatment. Everyone has to deal with their own problems. Or do alien
 >abductees deserve special treatment that the rest of us don't deserve?

While you may not agree with this any more than my other
positions, I think the parallel I was attempting to draw is
clear. I have the utmost respect for the disabled and would
never "slam" anyone disabled just to make a point.

My apologies for the confusion.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 16

             Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles - Bruni

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 13:44:50 -0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 07:05:44 -0500
Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles - Bruni


 >Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 21:21:05 -0500
 >From: Peter Brookesmith - Duke of Mendoza <DarkSecretPB@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>


Peter

I'm jumping in here because this thread concerns me and my book.

When all else fails, turn to name calling, it seems. Well, it�s
not the first time that Nick Pope and myself have been under
attack with personal insults and I dare say that it won�t be the
last. As Nick pointed out in a recent interview, the book will
dent a few egos - and it certainly has done that.

 >I don't know how much of Jenny's original review of the Bruni
 >tome survived into print in FT #142, but for those too idle to
 >look up the full version, available at:

http://www.forteantimes.com/artic/rendlesham/rendlesham.html

Before I move on I should bring your attention to the fact that
Nick was referring to a book review that Jenny Randles wrote for
the hard copy of Fortean Times, and not the 2,500 word on-line
article entitled "Rendlesham Revisited" which you quote in its
entirety in your post. Anyone with any understanding of reviews
will know that such a long drawn out piece of editorial could
not possibly be considered a review, even though it is titled
such on the page, but however, placed in the articles section. I
am not averse to criticism, but this should be specific and not
generalised as it appears to be in Jenny's review and article.
Jenny barely mentions any of the content in her long article,
which in itself tells a story.

For the record I shall now challenge Jenny's comments:

Jenny writes:

 >In truth it is unlikely that anyone could yet write the
 >definitive account of a case still so shrouded in confusion and
 >dependent upon at least a dozen key witnesses - only some of
 >whom have yet told what they know. That said, the author makes
 >a decent stab at covering the interwoven events that spread out
 >over several nights.

Jenny fails to mention that I interviewed more than 100 people
and rather than making "a decent stab" my book covers
approximately 80% of material that has never been published
before.

Jenny claims that although I tracked down Cabansag, "he seems
to recall disappointingly little". However, she fails to mention
that Cabansag offered valuable new information. Not only does he
claim that the statement that she and her sceptical colleagues
have been promoting as fact, was not composed by him, but also
he is adamant that the UFO was not the lighthouse, which was
visible at the same time. Jenny's argument that the witness was
more likely mistaken and confused the UFO with the far off
lightship, is also erroneous and is ridiculous when you take
into account the witness testimony and his description of the
UFO. Add to this the fact that the deputy base commander of the
Bentwaters/Woodbridge Air Force Office of Special Investigations
(AFOSI) assured me that at no time would witnesses be asked to
"type" official statements, for reasons explained in the book.

Jenny writes:

 >Perhaps aided by her support from Nick Pope - the former MoD
 >UFO team officer - she has been able to chat to people of high
 >profile like Brigadier General Gordon Williams who was overall
 >commander of the East Anglian NATO base at the heart of these
 >sightings and so get him to talk about his role (minimal as it
 >was).

Whilst Nick and I occasionally socialise together and he was
indeed very helpful in putting me in touch with some important
British contacts, I too have very good contacts. Jenny failed to
mention (which is clearly written in my book) that General
Gordon Williams actually contacted me personally. Jenny also
fails to mention, which Nick states clearly in his foreword,
that I am well-connected and mix freely with politicians,
diplomats and other key movers and shakers. How else would I
have been invited to a dinner where the guest of honour was
Margaret Thatcher, or invited to a private house party where I
questioned former Secretary of State for Defence, Michael
Portillo MP. And more recently that I attended Michael
Heseltine's book launch (the Secretary of State for Defence when
the story broke in 1983) and questioned him on the Rendlesham
Forest case. Further, ask yourself how I managed to have a UFO
book launch party at the MOD? and this, I might add, had nothing
to do with Nick.

Jenny goes on to write:

 >Of course, there are disadvantages as well as advantages from
 >coming new to such a complex and problem riddled case. It
 >needs to be realised that there is one almighty battle raging
 >within ufology (let alone in the world outside of it) between,
 >on the one hand, those who foster the impression that this is
 >'Britain's Roswell' - the most well documented encounter of an
 >alien spacecraft to happen on these islands - and those who say
 >the whole thing is one huge misperception.

I disagree, the battle has been mostly instigated by a handful
of sceptics.Of course there are people who are confused about
this aspect but it's interesting to note that even hard nosed
sceptical journalists have changed their mind about lighthouse
type theories after reading my book.This is based on all the
evidence in favour of a UFO incident. It should be mentioned
that just because the term UFO is used, it does not necessarily
mean they were extraterrestrial in origin.

Jenny continues:

 >Unfortunately, the case has evolved into this contentious arena
 >across many long years of claim and counter claim and to fathom
 >why some experienced and respected ufologists have moved from
 >being former 'believers' into the camp of the 'skeptics'
 >requires a lot more than simply attending to what the various
 >witnesses report. It needs a depth of appreciation hard to
 >acquire without being immersed within the case lomg term. The
 >book inevitably lacks that understanding.

Who are these experienced respected ufologists? Have they ever
investigated the case? The answer is of course no, because if
these so called experienced ufologists had done any homework
they would not be so sceptical.

It's true the case was a shambles,  mostly because there had
never been a proper investigation into the case as a whole.
Jenny suggests that it "requires a lot more than simply
attending to what the various witnesses report," and adds: "The
book inevitably lacks that understanding." What she fails to
mention is that I have not relied on witness reports alone but
have taken their testimony and investigated it further.

Jenny writes:

 >(although, sadly, one of the most important of the key
 >witnesses - John Burroughs - could not be found to add to his
 >prior testimony). As such and as a recounting of the case this
 >book scores highly.

I know what Jenny is referring to here:

Approximately three weeks ago I received an e- mail from James
Easton advising me that he had since contacted someone who he
believes is John Burroughs and that this person had confirmed he
and others had chased the lighthouse. However, I fear Easton
will burden us with his usual selective quoting. It should be
understood that according to Halt and Penniston, Burroughs wants
nothing more to do with the incident, especially after his home
was raided and his Bentwaters files removed following his
appearance on "Strange But True?" in 1994. I am more inclined to
accept his original testimony and these include interviews with
Antonio Hunees, who I consider a very reputable researcher.
Burroughs is not the only one to be scared off, and if you read
my book you will understand why.

Jenny accuses me of only briefly mentioning the sceptics views
and her suggestion that I gloss over these, is nonsense. I
actually devote a whole chapter to these theories. In fact it is
appropriately titled "Challenging The Sceptics". Of course she
is really referring to the fact that her colleague James Easton
is not mentioned in the book. But as Nick Pope quite rightly
explained, it was impossible for me to include everybody's
theories. The lighthouse theory is covered in detail and
includes interviews with forester Vincent Thurkettle, the man
who originally suggested the lighthouse theory. I also
interviewed Ian Ridpath, who then adopted the same theory. For
me it is far more important to go back to the primary sources.

Jenny complains that I should have mentioned Easton because he
has published the witness statements on the Internet, and my not
having mentioned him, and I quote: "must detract from the worth
of this book in my opinion". She claims, based on that
exclusion, that my book is not the definitive account. But she
again fails to mention that I too had these statements and I
actually investigated them before I published them in full,
which includes far more information than Easton touched on. What
we must remember is that I didn't write this book to grease the
egos of ufologists. I wrote this book for those who were truly
involved in this case. If Easton had any intelligent new
material that he had actually investigated, rather than just
selectively posting endless quotes from the statements and the
now "out of date" Halt tape, I would of course have paid
attention and included it. But my book is not about the
"theories" of ufologists or sceptics. If you want to read these
kind of books then this book is not for you. One glance at the
long list of acknowledgements will show just how many people
contributed to this book. Easton was not one of them.

Jenny also makes a big thing about my conversation with
Thatcher.

 >What did Maggie say to Georgina? Two short sentences, thats
 >all. One was 'You can't tell the people' (hence the books
 >title) and the other 'You must get your facts right'.

No, that is not all! I had a ten minute conversation with
Margaret Thatcher and albeit that only the last part concerned
the subject of UFOs, she did not just say two sentences. Jenny
has not mentioned the fact (which again is clearly written in
the book) that Thatcher actually repeated those answers! This in
itself is important. Because Jenny was not present she cannot
have any insight into what took place that night. When Thatcher
gave these answers in my opinion (and I was the person
questioning her - not Jenny) she was clearly making a point that
the people should not be told the truth about UFOs. We were of
course also discussing scientists and military men allegedly
involved in the back engineering of alien technology. Jenny
forgets to mention this which again is referred to in the book.

I dare say there will be others who will challenge certain
things, but I am happy to answer questions on this case.

To conclude, Jenny points out that I am a relative newcomer to
ufology and Rendlesham.

Wrong in the first instance. I have been studying this subject
for 10 years, whilst that might not seem a long time to some, it
doesn't�t exactly make me a novice. She also fails to mention
that I have been investigating the paranormal for more than 25
years and in fact I was one of the SYSOPS who helped to launch
the UFO Forum on CompuServe 6 years ago. With regards to
Rendlesham, she is correct, I have only worked on the case for 3
years. But in that short time I have uncovered more information
than she has done in the 20 years she claims to have been
investigating the case. What does that tell you?

Georgina Bruni

YOU CAN'T TELL THE PEOPLE
The Definitive Account of the Rendlesham Forest UFO Mystery
By Georgina Bruni Published by Sidgwick & Jackson
Available on-line at: www.amazon.co.uk  www.whsmith.co.uk
View and listen to Georgina Bruni talking about the book at:
www.relaxwithabook.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 >
   Dec > Dec 16

                           Ever Heard A UFO Sound?

From: Holger Isenberg <H.Isenberg@ping.de>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 14:55:11 +0100 (CET)
Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 07:07:59 -0500
Subject: Ever Heard A UFO Sound?


Are there reports about strange sounds, even without any
sighting? I have heard on 3 different days a strange sound,
similar to the UFO-sound in the 70's TV-series U.F.O., but with
lower frequency.

After that, I found by coincidence in a book the same experience
the author had several years ago.

Do you know of any reports like this?

--
    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 >
   Dec > Dec 16

                       Re: Abduction 'Clues'? - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 08:11:33 -0600
Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 07:11:02 -0500
Subject: Re: Abduction 'Clues'? - Evans


 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 18:34:47 -0500
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Abduction 'Clues'? - Velez

 >>Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 12:36:45 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Abduction 'Clues'?
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, I wrote:

 >>The day I take lesson on "tact" from John Velez is the day pigs
 >>will rain from the sky. Please, John, stay away from lessons on
 >>social etiquette and write about what you feel most qualified.

John replies:

 ><LOL!>It's true Roger, I can come on like a freight train. It's
 >a 'tool'. One of many in the bag. But if you're paying attention
 >you'll notice that I'm always very discreet and mindful about
 >when, with who, and under what circumstances I unleash the
 >monster.

Hi, John!

So, basically, it's okay to be terse and to the point as long as
it's not directed toward abductees? Interesting use of "the
tool"...

Moving on, you wrote:

 >I don't know you very well so I decided to take a pulse and see
 >just how well you take the same kind of stuff you serve up to
 >others.

The truth is that I prefer my style over most people's tendency
to dance around the obvious. I wish more would treat me like I
treat them. I find it invigorating. No time for wimps.

Continuing, I wrote:

 >>For the record, I don't doubt all abductees' claims. Indeed, I
 >>believe there is something odd going on since so many people are
 >>involved. That said, however, it really is within the power of
 >>the individual abductee to have tests done on themselves. In
 >>fact, if anything, your above post only proves that very point.

You replied:

 >It wasn't in vain then. Thank you for that. And you're wrong
 >about abductees being able to have these kinds of tests
 >performed for themselves. Medical costs for most tests are
 >prohibitive unless you're insured. Even then, unless it comes up
 >while pursuing a genuine medical condition you cannot simply
 >order your doctor to perform certain tests without a 'condition'
 >or some other justification that your insurance provider will
 >consider legitimate.

However, you also write:

 >You're a dad just like me. You know that (especially) when you
 >have kids, that all the resources and attention are focused on
 >them. Abductees families are no different. When Sally runs a
 >fever she gets hustled in to the doctor immediately. Unless
 >mommy or daddy are dying... there's just no time or money for
 >'elective testing' and 'medical investigating' of ones own case.
 >It's wrong and improper. It's also an unreasonable demand or
 >expectation to place on the shoulders of the witnesses.

Honestly, John, these two statements seem to be in contradiction
with each other. On the one hand, you maintain that abductees
that suffer ailments can't go have tests done because insurance
won't cover it. On the other hand, you point out that when
anyone we love, including ourselves, gets ill we go to the
doctor and they test to see what the cause of this discomfort
is. Insurance companies wouldn't know the difference.

It would only be a difference if you MAKE it a difference.

Unless you go into a doctor's office and say ahead of time, "I
believe I have an alien artifact in my body" or the like, the
attending physician isn't going to treat you any different than
any other patient.

More to the point, you talk about "double blind testing" and
"control groups"... What could be more unbiased than to go to
the doctor about a real discomfort and let the doctor examine
you to find out what the cause of that discomfort is? If he
doesn't know in advance, then he can't be biased against you
because you are an abductee. And if he doesn't find anything,
the insurance company will still pick up the bill. So to say
that insurance companies won't cover such things just isn't
true.

Even if you aren't insured, there are comprehensive municipal
hospitals that have all the same equipment that other hospitals
do. I have a friend without insurance that had an entire
heart/lung replacement done and it never cost him a dime.

Now, on the other hand, if an abductee already knows that the
doctors won't find anything, then that's an entirely different
scenario. Can't help you there. Of course, why go to a doctor at
all if one already knows the answer?

Finally, you wrote:

 >Roger I keep saying it over and over, it's not 'what' you are
 >saying, (although at times that can be rough too) but 'how' you
 >choose to say it. You consistently adopt a tone of sarcasm and
 >condescention when relating to the experiencers on the List.
 >Hey, I could be wrong. Maybe you're just that way with
 >everybody!

You are correct. I am that way with everybody. I ask pertinent,
logical questions and expect no-nonsense answers. If anything
gets my dander up, it's the intentional avoidance of common
sense so flagrantly employed as a smoke screen to larger issues.
As such, my tone can become more terse than usual. You and I are
not so different, John. We both are looking for real answers to
the question of ET life. Neither of us likes to have our time
wasted dealing with fluff and evasive non answers.

take care,

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 >
   Dec > Dec 16

             Re: Persinger's 'The Field Biology of Unexplained'

From: Chris Rutkowski <rutkows@cc.UManitoba.CA>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 09:11:23 -0600 (CST)
Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 07:16:08 -0500
Subject: Re: Persinger's 'The Field Biology of Unexplained'


 >From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Persinger's 'The Field Biology of Unexplained Events'
 >Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 23:11:06 -0500

 >Laurentian University's Biology Society
 >presents

 >The Field Biology of Unexplained Events
 >by
 >Dr. M. A. Persinger, Professor
 >Departments of Biology and Psychology
 >Behavioral Neuroscience Program

<much arm-waving rhetoric snipped>

 >-the 1975 "flap" of bright, bobbing balls of red, orange or
 >white light in southern Manitoba around the Red River System
 >preceded the most energetic earthquake in the region (North
 >Dakota, Minnesota) and was associated with above average
 >hydraulic loads.

This is where it becomes very easy to show how weak the TST is
as an explanation for UFO reports in general.

I took the trouble to write and publish my own scientific paper
in the same journal which carried Persinger's TST claims. I
pointed out that the Carman UFO flap of 1975 saw hundreds of UFO
sightings reported - yet Manitoba has _never_had_an_earthquake_!
(Qualification: There is no area on Earth without seismic
activity, but Manitoba has never had anything detectable by
anything other than very sensitive seismographs.) It's in the
middle of the continent, nowhere near any active plate
tectonics!

But that little fact not stopping him, Persinger found sesimic
data for surrounding states and provinces and noted a fairly
weak event that occurred 800 kilometres away in Minnesota, not
even during the UFO flap but some time before it.

Two things: One, that if the balls of light were related to the
earthquake, why didn't the balls appear in Minnesota, not 800
kilometres away?

And two, most of the UFO reports associated with the Carman UFO
flap have _been_explained_ as aircraft, stars and meteors.

_This_ is an example which is supposed to support Persinger's
field biology paper?








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 16

                       Re: Carlos Diaz Case - Hamilton

From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
Date: 15 Dec 2000 06:38:30 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 07:21:05 -0500
Subject: Re: Carlos Diaz Case - Hamilton


 >Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 21:10:25 -0500
 >From: Michael Hesemann <MichaelHesemann@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Carlos Diaz Case
 >To: UFO Updates Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >Below is my reply to the latest effort to debunk the Carlos Diaz
 >case.

 >_________

 >As a historian, cultural anthropologist, UFO researcher, author
 >and film producer I investigated the Carlos Diaz contact case for
 >seven years. Since I wanted to be sure before I publish the case
 >that any possibility of a hoax can be excluded, I did not only
 >travel to Mexico twelve times for on-site field investigations,
 >but also consulted leading experts in the US, Belgium, Germany
 >and Italy, including:

 >Prof. Corrado Malanga, University of Pisa

 >Prof. Manfred Kage, University of Mannheim

 >Prof, Auguste Meessen, University of Louvain

 >Bob Shell, editor "Shutterbug" Magazine, photo technical
 >consultant to the FBI

 >Dr. Robert Nathan, Jet Propulsion Lab/NASA, Pasadena

 >Jim Dilettoso, The Village Labs

When Michael visited Village Labs with Carlos and family in 1997
I was there and while Michael was elsewhere in the building Jim
Dilettoso and I viewed his video footage of the so-called plasma
craft. One of the first things I noticed in one section was the
craft descending with a jerky motion as if it were being lowered
by rope or cable. In another section, the craft was near
branches that were moving with the wind. The craft also seemed
to be rocking with the wind as if it were a japanese lantern.
Then a narrow beam of light projected from this craft like a
focused mini-flashlight beam!

Another aspect of the craft was the unchanging light pattern as
if it were constantly illuminated from the interior with a light
source shining through a plastic shell. This is not
characteristic of plasma at all and was also uncharacteristic
for reported UFO lightings.

Jim and I concluded that the video was hoaxed. We could find
nothing in the footage to lend credence to the idea that this
was a large object far from the camera.

As I understood it Carlos does videography for weddings and
celebrations in Mexico and could have easily taped a controlled
model. His family and friends were not present to observe the
videotaping so I am afraid there is no evidence to authenticate
this case.

 >None of these photo-technical experts found any evidence of a
 >hoax in the films and footage shot by Diaz.

Jim and I saw evidence.

 >Field investigations were performed also by Prof. John E. Mack
 >of Harvard, who spent three days in Tepoztlan and extensively
 >talked to the witness, his family and local eyewitnesses. We
 >were able to verify that over 50 % of the population of the city
 >of Tepoztlan, in which Diaz lives, about 12.000 people, saw the
 >very same type of object filmed and photographed by Diaz, a fact
 >confirmed by the mayor of Tepoztlan. The Air Traffic Controllers
 >of Mexico City's International Airport confirmed on camera
 >regular UFO sightings over the area of Tepoztlan. Several
 >researchers who visited the place, including Dr. Roberto
 >Pinotti, saw the very same ship Carlos filmed and photographed.

 >Therefore the personal opinion of Mr. Pascal Lopresti, who was
 >never known as a UFO researcher in Mexico (actually he served as
 >a translator and organizer for Italian stigmatist Giorgio
 >Bongiovanni) is completely invalid. It was nice of Carlos to
 >show him some new material, which is in my possession for over a
 >year, but it has no news value. Nor does any of Lopresti's
 >"conclusions".

 >According to Carlos Diaz, "the aliens" are living among us for
 >thousands of years. They live there as normal Mexicans, drive in
 >terrestrial cars, have TV sets and cameras and maybe even
 >tripods. Therefore it is not a big surprise if one of them had a
 >tripod he lent to Diaz - nobody claimed it was an
 >extraterrestrial tripod!

 >But Lopresti is just wrong when he claims: "Carlos Diaz has
 >always refused to allow the video to be analyzed". He gave me a
 >copy a year ago, I analyzed it frame by frame and I will publish
 >it in our upcoming documentary "Ships of Light" which will be
 >presented at the International UFO Congress in Laughlin in March
 >2001. Even a bigger mystery to me is Lopresti's "conclusion":
 >"No human being from this planet can board a plasma ship with
 >his/her physical body and a camcorder." How the hell does he
 >know? Is Lopresti an Extraterrestrial?? Or how can he make such
 >a claim with the certainty of a dogma? We don't even know if the
 >ship really consists of plasma (although it looks like plasma),
 >"plasma-ship" is just a metaphor, so how can he ever make such a
 >statement?

 >Lopresti calls himself an "investigator". To my knowledge, he
 >has no education or background to make such a claim. He claims
 >to be the co-organizer of the Acapulco-conference, which was
 >ONLY set up by Jaime Maussan and his team of Tercer Milennio and
 >Los Vigilantes. Lopresti's job was that of a translator for
 >Giorgio Bongiovanni. Therefore, the one who obviously seeks
 >attention by big claims seems to be Lopresti, not Carlos Diaz.

 >Every investigator who ever met Carlos was impressed by his
 >willingness to share his material. Diaz was never interested in
 >money. He is very poor but he never charges anything, When Bill
 >Hamilton claims that "Carlos does video work and films weddings
 >and celebrations", it is just not true. Carlos did work as a
 >wedding (still) photographer as a young man but never did that
 >with video. He just has the Camcorder given to him by Jaime
 >Maussan. He doesn't have an external microphone, no light, no
 >editing equipment. He did not even have a monitor to view what
 >he shot before I bought him a TV set three years ago.

 >Bill Hamilton criticised that the object on the films "descended
 >in a jerky movement". This happens very often in UFO cases, we
 >call it "falling leaf movement", a detail mentioned by many
 >eyewitnesses in Tepoztlan and elsewhere. The UFO was obviously
 >NOT lowered by a cable, since its movements never had a center.

It did not have a "falling leaf" movement. It was definitely a
jerk similar to what you would see if an object were lowered by
a rope a little at a time.

 >He criticised the "static interior illumination" of the object -
 >Jim Dilettoso called it "coherent light" and made a parallel to
 >laser light. Besides the fact that on one film the center of the
 >object is pulsating and the object increases and decreases its
 >brightness, the "uniformity" of the light of the craft indicate
 >a light quality very different from that of an illuminated model
 >or lamp. In that case namely the light would be most intense in
 >the center and less at the edges.

Jim seemed to very clearly agree with me that the craft looked
fake, but I will solicit his statement if necessary. Many do not
agree with Jim's techniques, but some of what he does is very
good and I have stepped through the procedure and the image
analysis with him and the manual in hand.

 >No, the object is not moving with the wind. The tree's movement
 >in one film is completely untypical for wind movement, since it
 >is too shaky, and seems to be caused by the ship. In the
 >sequence with the object firing a beam down to Earth, the beam's
 >light is too strong and too condensed to be that of a
 >flashlight.

If someone could upload this tape for viewing with a media player,
then we could all get a look at it.

 >In one case Diaz filmed a craft right behind a tree, partially
 >covered by it. We were able to identify the tree and verify it's
 >diameter and distance from the camera. From our calculation, the
 >object's diameter must have been at least 60 feet... too big for
 >a hoax with a small model!

That has yet to be determined.

 >Michael Hesemann Duesseldorf/Germany


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 >
   Dec > Dec 16

             Re: Bentwaters Book Review By Jenny Randles - Bruni

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 15:18:07 -0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 07:25:46 -0500
Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review By Jenny Randles - Bruni


 >From: Gary Anthony <garyant@mithrand.karoo.co.uk>
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review By Jenny Randles
 >Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 20:51:44 -0000

Gary wrote:

 >Georgina perhaps your friend Nick Pope should make himself
 >available for comment on these and other matters relating to the
 >hasty opinions that he bandies via this List,

Nick is always available for comment but unfortunately he does
not have an e-mail address. However, anyone can write to him
care of his publishers, Simon & Schuster (London)

 >Even his assessment based on the printed version of FT review
 >seems very unfair to Jenny Randles. I cannot understand why you
 >have forwarded such a mail to this List, sincerely hope that this
 >has not been done in any way to further publicise your book at
 >someone's expense? Do you not think that Jenny Randles review
 >was fair and complimentary?

As explained above, Nick is not on-line, which is why I
forwarded, with his request, his message. Nick is not alone in
his thoughts on this matter, I have received several private
messages from other researchers who have read the book and have
commented on what they feel is a rather unfair review in the
hard copy of Fortean Times, considering the mass of new
information in the book and the fact that none of this was
mentioned, but rather space was given to only two subjects, the
theories of her sceptical friends and questions about the title.
Isn't a book review supposed to be about the content of the
book?

Certainly, Nick is not afraid to air his views openly even
though he realises that every time he does, he is open to
attack. And, no, it was not intended to further publicise my
book. The book is selling very well and has had lots of
publicity, which is still ongoing.

 >It would seem Mr. Pope is also in the habit of voicing his
 >obviously un-informed opinions through your magazine as well,
 >some of which, I note must stem from what I can only guess must
 >be a real *lack* of proper research and an ever-increasing air
 >of false superiority?

Nick is one of my editors, so obviously he has his own column. I
post it on Updates to share the information. Nick's column is
very popular and receives thousands of hits every month. Nobody
is suggesting that Nick's column has anything to do with actual
research, for that you should read his books or the dozens of
articles he has written in UFO magazines and in the national
press. Hot Gossip UK is a monthly magazine www.hotgossip.co.uk
that covers news and gossip on several subjects, Nick's is one
of twelve sections.

 >I would be very interested to learn more
 >about the circumstances of Baroness Thatcher's comment 'You
 >can't tell the people' which titles your book and its context?
 >As your book gives scant mention; and much vague speculation in
 >this and perhaps some other regards... For example, what makes
 >you certain that an alternative interpretation of this comment,
 >as Jenny points out may be applicable, may not apply in this
 >case? I ponder now what Mrs Thatcher thinks? If you cannot put
 >this in clearer terms for us, then perhaps I may enquire..?

Gary, my conversation with Thatcher was private. We discussed a
number of things, including something that concerned myself and
an international problem that the British Government assisted me
with more than 20 years ago, and for which I am eternally
grateful.

During the conversation Thatcher remarked that it is was these
private things that the public don't know about that make the
conservative party so great. For me it was a perfect lead into
other private things that the public don't know about. Hence the
lead up to my questions.

Does that help at all?

You may indeed enquire, I am somewhat surprised that nobody seems
to have done so as of now.


Best wishes

Georgina Bruni


YOU CAN'T TELL THE PEOPLE
The Definitive Account of the Rendlesham Forest UFO Mystery
By Georgina Bruni Published by Sidgwick & Jackson
Available on-line at: www.amazon.co.uk   www.whsmith.co.uk
View and listen to Georgina Bruni talking about the book at:
www.relaxwithabook.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 >
   Dec > Dec 16

                     Re: Reluctant Viewers - Strickland

From: Sue Strickland <strick@H2Net.net>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 08:25:33 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 07:28:01 -0500
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Strickland


Dear Jim, Roger, Liz, John, EBK and List Members,

Roger, you need to know, Jim is correct and whether you can
accept that or not, becomes _all_ of our problems. That's why
I'm writing now.

Roger, Liz, John, EBK and List Members, you may be working under
an erroneous assumption (then again, maybe I am): that docs
don't know, don't care and aren't knowledgeable about the
anamolous phenomena we abductees have been discussing on this
list for several years. I assure you, the docs talk between each
other, in confidence, about various patients who exhibit these
mysterious symptoms. And, because most of them have spent
$100,000.00 + to get through college, med school, internship and
residency, and worked hard to establish their practices based on
treating colds, flu and broken limbs, they are some of the most
discreet individuals you will ever meet.

That is _not_ to say they are _not_ interested, but most of them
cannot or will not risk their careers, reputations and marriages
to further study a phenomena that is _not_ universally accepted
as worthy of study, much less accepted as part of our physical
reality, which flies in the face of _all_ of their training, and
socially-accepted, defined cultural boundaries.

John Mack, M.D., and some other M.Ds, physicists, and
astronomers, who wish to remain anonomous, are examples of the
exceptions to this rule. Despite the fact that the "wheels have
come off their wagons" for many of them in their careers,
marriages and reputations, their determination and persistence
will be applauded...when they find the answers. And they will.

Roger, you are correct when you say it is necessary for
abductees to take responsibility for helping these docs find the
answers. And, thwarted efforts on the forefront by non-compliant
patient-abductees, like myself, won't help in the short-term. In
the long-term, it may, however, in my humble opinion, allow
these same docs the necessary tools (time and a growing
curiosity) to "get their heads around" the many and various
possibilities that may show cause-effect for these phenomena. In
the process, they open other docs and researcher's eyes to the
need for systematic study and a need for change in our
educational processes and scientific investigational procedures.

Like you, Roger, I would like _none_ of this to be true, I know
in my gut that it is. For me, it is not a matter of belief,
unless you want to argue and question your immediate, physical
reality. In which case, the writing of this note and the reality
of my typing it are also in question. Maybe I'm dreaming that
I'm typing this note. There comes a time when you accept
reality, the here and now, because it is happening; and, to
question what happens to you "outside of the norm" becomes as
equally ridiculous as questioning whether I am typing this note.
It does _not_ lessen the fear factor, however. Because you still
wish and pray that the "other experiences" were _not_ real.

Do you understand what I'm trying to say Roger, or am I just
babbling on here? Please respond. Then maybe I can tell you all
about something that _just_ reared it's ugly head for
me...another "snap to reality" thingie...to remind me that this
is all real.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 16

                     Re: Reluctant Viewers - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 10:56:54 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 07:31:27 -0500
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Mortellaro


 >From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 21:17:55 -0800

 >>Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 01:18:31 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net
 >>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers

 >>>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com
 >>>Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 22:51:50 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Evans
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>>Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 12:40:20 -0600
 >>>>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net
 >>>>Subject: Reluctant Viewers
 >>>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Hello John, Roger and List,

 ><snip>

 >>Do you have any idea how much those kinds of tests cost? A CAT
 >>scan of the head alone costs $1,000.00 and up, depending on
 >>which lab your doctor is associated with. Insurance will not
 >>cover "elective" CAT scans. Maybe Roger has that kind of money
 >>to burn on "tests" but most of the rest of us don't. I guess we
 >>could always inflict a head injury on ourselves to get the scans
 >>paid for by our insurance carrier eh?

 ><snip>

 >I understand this is a major problem in America, which is the
 >land of what's not free.

 >Has anyone thought of finding an abductee in Canada and have the
 >tests made over here where they don't cost a penny?


Hi Serge, long time no hear from, and EBK,

First, the problem is not necessarily finding someone to look at
the boo boos.... altho this is certainly an issue.

The largest problem is that when they DO look at the boo boos,
they usually cannot allow themselves the liberty of denying
their paradigms. The end result is more swamp gas.  Or the
planet Venus. Or whatever.

And say, when are you gonna take me up on that invite to my new
home upstate? You ain't that far away.


Nice hearing from you again,

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 >
   Dec > Dec 16

             Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles - Bruni

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 16:23:59 -0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 07:34:56 -0500
Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles - Bruni


 >From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles
 >Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 15:43:12 -0000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>


Jenny Randles wrote:

 >I can add that the review reflects my honest opinion of the
 >book's stance and content and was, of course, less than a
 >comprehensive analysis of all its 450 plus pages because one
 >small reviews column of a magazine that covers a wide range of
 >paranormal phenomena (as is true of Fortean Times) could never
 >give me - or anyone else - that kind of remit.

Two points here Jenny.

There was nothing whatsoever mentioned about the content of the
book in the magazine review. All you did was highlight the
sceptics theory, moan about your colleague not getting a mention
and question the incident that led to the title.

 >All reviewers must comment honestly on how they see a book and
 >if this doesn't agree with the writers own perception (and as the
 >author of 47 books myself I do know that this is perfectly
 >possible!) that's the way of the world and what makes all reviews
 >interesting and different.

Quite right, I would have understood a proper review based on
the content of the book, but this was not so. As the editor in
chief of a gossip magazine, I would consider this a perfect
gossip piece, but by no means a serious review.

 >But it is curious that Nick/Georgina suggest that the review
 >discusses my personal opinions of this case when in fact it
 >makes no mention whatsoever of my view that the energy field
 >experiments local to the area are a key, nor indeed my suspicion
 >that a mirage was associated with parts of the sighting.

Does this mean you have now adopted another series of
possibilities? Based on the evidence in my book, your mirage
theory is so far off the mark. Jenny, it is sad that you are
still looking for misconceptions when there is so much new
information to take into consideration. Having spent several
years promoting the 'Cobra Mist' theory, I hope you now realise
(based on information in my book) that this had nothing to do
with the incident/s, (because the project closed down in 1973).

 >In fact, I don't actually see anywhere where my review debates my
 >own opinions on the nature of this case as Nick has suggested.
 >Only in the sense that the skeptical arguments put forward by
 >James Easton during the past three years - and that have without
 >doubt created a major stir in UFO circles - IMO had to be
 >addressed in any definitive overview of the case.

That's exactly what they are, sceptical arguments. I don't
believe these arguments have created a major stir in UFO
circles. It's mostly just been discussed on a few e-mail groups.
I preferred to go to the core of the case by interviewing new
witnesses and people who were actually stationed at the bases,
police officers. MOD employees who worked on the base, managed
to produce new evidence, i.e.; USAF pictures, Moreland's
covering note entitled "UFOS", a more detailed version of the
Halt tape, investigate the witness statements, interview the
AFOSI and a great many other things. Now Jenny, if you are so
interested in this case, would it not be better to take this new
information and do something constructive with it instead of
trying to convince yourself and others that the case was nothing
more than a mirage or whatever new theory you favour at the
time.

After all I believe that researching and investigating a case is
more productive than simply writing about it.


Best wishes

Georgina Bruni


YOU CAN'T TELL THE PEOPLE
The Definitive Account of the Rendlesham Forest UFO Mystery
By Georgina Bruni Published by Sidgwick & Jackson
Available on-line at: www.amazon.co.uk www.whsmith.co.uk
View and listen to Georgina Bruni talking about the book at:
www.relaxwithabook.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 >
   Dec > Dec 16

                       Re: Gun Camera Footage? - Raabe

From: Jan-H. Raabe <y0001095@rzsrv2.rz.tu-bs.de>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 17:35:04 +0100 (MET)
Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 07:50:43 -0500
Subject: Re: Gun Camera Footage? - Raabe


 >From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@konsulting.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto  <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Gun Camera Footage?
 >Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 13:15:16 -0500

 >>Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 06:33:52 +0000
 >>From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Gun Camera Footage?

 >>Reading through some old UFO magazines today and Gun Camera
 >>Footage was mentioned.

 >>I have one question; does anybody know if such evidence is in
 >>existence? I understand this was mostly filmed in the late 40s
 >>and through to the mid 50s period, by USAF planes.

 >>Has anyone on the List ever dug into this area of UFO research,
 >>only I am quite interested to find out any revelations to such
 >>possible data existing.

 >>Is there an URL for any data?

 >This has been a persistant annecdotal facet of the phenomenon
 >that has thus far remained elusive, as far as I can determine. I
 >believe that there are numerous statements by military pilots
 >and others that speak of such footage being taken, but to my
 >knowledge none has surfaced during FOIA requests. Indeed, I
 >believe that some FOIA documents refer to "gun camera" footage
 >being taken in conjunction with a sighting. But, again, no
 >actual film has been located.

 >I have to admit that this is somewhat surprising, since any
 >footage that would help to identify the "unknowns" would have
 >helped to show the public that they were explainable. On the
 >other hand, they might have filmed classified objects and the
 >film would have been classified as well.

 >I believe some gun camera footage was taken, but it may be less
 >than some annecdotal statements indicate.

 >BTW, I believe that some "gun camera" footage has been shown on
 >various documentaries, but the provenance of that footage has
 >been questioned and the military certainly hasn't claimed it to
 >be real.


http://users.ev1.net/~seektress/key1.htm

shows a short strip of a gun camera film from 1952.

J.R.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 16

                       Re: Reluctant Viewers - Hammond

From: Elizabeth Hammond <lizzz@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 13:24:50 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 07:55:20 -0500
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Hammond


 >Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 23:17:33 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >>Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 13:15:53 EST
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers

 >>>Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 09:44:09 -0600
 >>>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Previously, I wrote:

 >>>I agree that the debate will never end. However, this issue
 >>>isn't about what extremists think. The issue is about people
 >>>like Ms. Hammond taking an active role in solving their own
 >>>problems. On the one hand, she complains that the UFO community
 >>>is all talk. Yet, to date, that appears that's all she's done,
 >>>as well. Go to a doctor, Ms. Hammond, just like you would if
 >>>there were anything else in your body that you did not want
 >>>there. No one is going to visit the doctor for you...

 >Jimmy replied:

 >>Roge, let me tell you how foolish you sound, to me and to others
 >>on this List who perceive they are abductees. To others, I hope
 >>you sound merely silly.

 >>You think we've _not_ been to doctors? You think that simple
 >>minded response answers all the questions about this phenom?
 >>Wrong, buddy. I have visited many doctors, three or so
 >>psychiatrists, neurologists, internists, dermatologists. None
 >>have medical answers to the extant conundrums of my body, marks,
 >>adhesions and other assorted anomalies which won't go away and
 >>will not tolerate analysis or reasoned diagnosis.

 >Hi, Jimbo.

 >First off, I think you need to re-read the context of my
 >remarks. I said:

 >>>Go to a doctor, Ms. Hammond, just like you would if
 >>>there were anything else in your body that you did not want
 >>>there.

 >I understand that there are abductees that have marks on their
 >bodies that they can not explain. I am not now, nor was I ever,
 >referring to such things. What I clearly was referring to was
 >abductees that claim to have objects of ET origin in their
 >bodies. How simple does this have to be?

 >1) Go to doctor about pain in body.

 >2) Have scans done to locate object.

 >3) Have doctor remove said object.

 >4) Send the bills to the insurance company. (certainly, at least ONE
 >abductee has insurance, no?)

 >Why is such a suggestion heresy among abductees?

 >I understand that this issue is a sensitive one with you, Jimmy.
 >However, I really am on your side. I just get tired of the
 >communal notion that "everyone else" should be doing something
 >or that "everyone else" is ignoring obvious proof contained
 >within said abductees. I don't mean to be anymore blunt that
 >usual, but it can't be too obvious as long as it's still buried
 >in someone's gut. Perhaps if someone, anyone, that claimed to
 >have said object were to step up to the line and take the
 >plunge, then they'd be doing you and everyone like you a big
 >favor. Beyond that, don't expect "outsiders" to do anymore than
 >the members of your own group are willing to do.

 >Now, if you're simply asking me to _believe_ that the objects
 >are there...

 >Well, I think you see the problem.


Dear Roger, John, Jim, Al, Nick and List: .

The first paragraph of my post mentioned Non-invasive
procedures, using cheek swabs for DNA, MRI'S and Cat Scans
looking for foreign bodies. These two words (foreigv Bodies)
seem to have gotten stuck in some brains. These were all "For
instances". I do not believe I have a foreign body (for the
second time), but am aware that there are others who do.

Also, mentioning the fact that I'm disabled was not, as you seem
to think, some sort of plea for mercy, but in answer to your
very rude suggestion that we should all just troop off for any
and all invasive procedures that someone (yourself perhaps?)
might wish to perform. Setting myself up for more of your
sarcasm regarding my health, I've had over 12 surgical
procedures to the pelvis and plan to have NO more unless the
strongest possibility of something life threatening exists.
Proving Alien Abduction is just not something I consider life
threatening!

You've managed to mire this discussion down into a cesspool of
sarcasm. Picking and choosing what to highlight for you're
arguments. What a hoot to actually suggest that evidence from
one person will be enough! Of course it won't. All this will
show is what I, personally, have going on. Without taking these
tests and looking at them in relation to other Alleged
Abductees, and then taking that data and comparing it to those
Allegedly Non-Abductees, what good is the data? We need to see
what a _group_ of us looks like, compared to a control group of
the rest of the population. For whatever reason, you've chosen
to ignore that part of my post.

And we don't need this done by a TV station during sweeps weeks
with a panel of pro and cons! We'd like to be treated, for once,
like human beings. With feelings, fears and a lot more questions
than we so far have answers for! We are NOT someone's side show,
ready to be trooped before the public like John Merrick, for the
masses kicks and giggles!

And, for the _last_ time, I don't feel I have a foreign body of
inexplicable origin anywhere in my body. I truly hope, Roger,
that you will get it, now. I've said it several times! I do not
have any foreign bodies in my person! Is this plain enough!

It was my very naive hope that some on this List were actually
serious when they talked about getting further into this
mystery. When it was discussed that Abductee's would need to
come forward for the purpose of serious research. It seems I was
greatly mistaken in this. This List, you "experts", all you Book
Writers, Lecture Givers, those who make there money selling
interviews, photographs, etc. It seems you're just not ready for
this. Some strong, unafraid person steps up to the plate and all
that comes back is vitriol, reasons why I can just do it all
alone and then put myself out there, again, alone, to be ripped
apart by a slew of others as Roger has spent the last few days
ripping me apart.

You don't know me Roger, you know nothing about me. Yet you
presume to make statement after statement regarding what I
should and shouldn't do or have and haven't done. I have zero
interest in writing about my personal health issues on a public
List of this nature. How many Doctor's I've seen, how often I
see them, what there diagnosis have been, what my current health
status is, what my prognosis may be. They are, and will remain
my business and mine alone. But, like your other disabled
friends, Roger, I get around just fine, live a full life and
consider being disabled nothing but a tiny nuisance to be
generally ignored.

In light of the fact that outside of other, like minded
abductees, the only person heard from here is someone who
clearly has his own agenda in all this, I'll withdraw my self
and my hopes for moving into the next phase until more,
enlightened people realize that the time is here to either "put
up or shut up" as Roger so daintily puts it. Until a qualified
staff of Research Scientists decides to take this project on.
I'll be happy to help set up the funding for such an endeavor if
and when the opportunity arises. Until then, this discussion,
for me, is over.


Thanks to All!

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 >
   Dec > Dec 16

                 Re: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 5 Number 50 - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 13:47:02 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 07:57:39 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 5 Number 50 - Young


 >Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 15:40:49 +0000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>
 >Subject: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 5 Number 50

 >Posted on behalf of Joseph Trainor.

 ><Masinaigan@aol.com>

 >UFO ROUNDUP
 >Volume 5, Number 50
 >December 14, 2000
 >Editor: Joseph Trainor

 >http://ufoinfo.com/roundup/

 >TEXAS SKYWATCHER SPOTS TWO UFOs NEAR THE SPACE SHUTTLE

 >On Saturday evening, December 9, 2000, Michael Hunted drove out
 >into the rangeland about 26 miles (42 kilometers) southwest of
 >Sonora, Texas (population 2,800) to observe the space shuttle
 >Endeavour as it crossed the sky.

 >With its newly-installed 240-foot (73-meter) solar wings and the
 >space shuttle Endeavour attached, the space station would be one
 >of the brightest objects in the clear night sky.

 >At precisely 7:10 p.m., Hunter reported, while watching the
 >space shuttle, which started in the west and moved to the east,
 >, which took about three to four minutes, I noticed two objects
 >moving at a high rate of speed, which took about two minutes to
 >go from the southwest to the northeast. They looked like two
 >very bright stars."

 >"They were only bright white lights. There was no flashing
 >(navigation) lights like on airplanes. I also noticed that they
 >did not have a white trail behind them like the shuttle. I do
 >not know the height (altitude) but I do know that they were
 >much higher than the shuttle because they passed over the white
 >trail that the shuttle left behind."


Since the Shuttle and its contrail was illuminated by sunlight
objects higher up would also be illuminated. There is not reason
to suppose that these two objects weren't just satellites. Two
minutes to cross the sky in a straight line seems about right
for satellites in low earth orbit.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 16

               Re: 50th Anniversary of a UFO Invasion - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 14:08:27 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 08:02:03 -0500
Subject: Re: 50th Anniversary of a UFO Invasion - Sparks


 >Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 01:33:17 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: UFO UpDate: 50th Anniversary of a UFO Invasion - Sparks


 >>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 17:34:19 EST
 >>Subject: 50th Anniversary of a UFO Invasion
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 11:56:50 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
 >>>From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: 50th Anniversary of a UFO Invasion

 >>>Greetings everyone!

 >>>In a few e-mails I got recently I was reminded that on my Name
 >>>Day, December 6, was the 50th anniversary of an event that
 >>>nearly brought about World War III but remains little known and
 >>>still unexplained to this day. What really happened on December
 >>>6, 1950?

 >>>British Prime Minister Clement Attlee arrived in Washington,
 >>>D.C. in December 4 with stories in the newspapers of an imminent
 >>>nuclear attack on the U.S. by the Soviets since the U.S.
 >>>military under General MacArthur was considering using their
 >>>nuclear weapons against Chinese troops during the Korean War.

 >>>To quote from one of the e-mails I got from a fellow researcher
 >>>of the UFO phenomena, on December 5th, President Truman wrote in
 >>>his diary, "It looks like World War III is here. I hope not -
 >>>but we must meet whatever comes - and we will.". Secretary of
 >>>State Dean Acheson went to bed thinking that he would not be
 >>>surprised to ba awaken by an announcement of a global war. The
 >>>following morning all hell seemed to break loose when the U.S.
 >>>early warning system picked up a formation of unidentified
 >>>objects flying in over Alaska on a southeast heading towards
 >>>Washington, D.C. All interception and defense forces were
 >>>alerted.

 >>>As am sure you all know, WWIII did not happen that day. The
 >>>official explanation given was it was a false alarm produced by
 >>>a flight of geese (this was in the pre-pelican days). Was it
 >>>something more serious than just birds? I think it was. That
 >>>same day(?) U.S. military forces, not members of the SPCA,
 >>>crossed into Mexico just across the border from Texas to recover
 >>>one of these downed "geese". This UFO crash was confirmed by
 >>>several credible individuals including a well known Mexican
 >>>General who was in command of this specific area where the
 >>>incident occurred. Many researchers, including Larry Bryant who
 >>>last year petitioned Mexican officials for more information,
 >>>have been frustrated in their attempts to find out what the U.S.
 >>>military did with the UFO wreckage and at least one recovered
 >>>E.T. alien body.

 ><snip>

 >>>If anyone of you has any information, including possible new
 >>>leads, insights or comments about this UFO crash/retrieval case
 >>>(Item B-7 on page 22 in Leonard Stringfield's Status Report II),
 >>>many researchers, including UFO UpDates subscribers and seekers
 >>>of the truth such as myself, want to know.

 >>Hi Nick,

 >>The radar incident has been found in a number of sources,
 >>including diaries of high officials such as Dean Acheson's if I
 >>remember right, and there are strange unaccountable
 >>discrepancies that no one has been able to resolve. One set of
 >>data claims the unidentified aircraft were tracked approaching
 >>Maine. Another claims Alaska (as you mentioned). One claims a
 >>Dec. 6, 1950, date (if I recall correctly) another is adamant
 >>about a Dec. 17 date (if I recall right).

 >>As for the alleged UFO crash, this is the fraudulent Lt Col
 >>Willingham story that he later admitted he had fabricated from a
 >>rumor he had heard as a boy. It was investigated by Todd Zechel
 >>who made a leap in conclusion as great as Moore and Friedman did
 >>on Roswell. Moore & Friedman jumped to the conclusion that the
 >>Barney Barnett story from Western New Mexico was connected to
 >>the Roswell Incident in Eastern New Mexico even though it had no
 >>date or even a year. The bogus Barnett story gave them alien
 >>bodies and an obvious crashed saucer; the Roswell case gave it
 >>all a date. Later they admitted there was no basis for linking
 >>these two stories (see MUFON proceedings 1982 and 1985), but by
 >>then it was too late, the connection was etched in people's
 >>minds.

 >>Zechel likewise jumped to the conclusion that the undated story
 >>he got from the Bowen family was connected to Willingham's even
 >>though it too was undated. All Zechel knew was that Col John
 >>Bowen served as provost marshal at Carswell AFB, Ft. Worth,
 >>Tex., 1948-52. Willingham's story had air defense radars
 >>purportedly tracking the UFO from Alaska to Washington to a
 >>90-degree turn over Colorado then a crash in Mexico just over
 >>the border from Texas (Willingham claimed he flew to the landing
 >>site, it was cordoned off, etc.) -- only problem was that there
 >>were no air defense radars in Colorado or Texas that could have
 >>tracked any such maneuvers until about 1952 or later. But,
 >>without a shred of evidene. Zechel connected it all to the FBI
 >>document of Dec. 8, 1950, saying the AF had declared an
 >>"Immediate High Alert" on reporting flying discs. That gave the
 >>dateless floating stories a date.

 >>So Zechel started looking up newspapers around Dec 8, 1950, and
 >>found the news about sightings of contrails in Alaska, Korean
 >>War developments of the Chinese entering the war, etc.
 >>Eventually the MJ-12 document hoaxers put it all together in the
 >>bogus Eisenhower Briefing Document. Because Zechel had
 >>reconstructed two different locations and two different
 >>approximate dates, the MJ-12 hoaxers picked spots in the middle.


 >Hello Brad and Nick:

 >I still have the infamous "El Indio - Guerrero" UFO crash
 >listed, supposedly Mexican side of the Rio Grande across from
 >Texas. My credibility rating is 2 on a scale of 0 to 15. The
 >06DEC50 date is indefinite.
<SNIP>

 >Best wishes

 >- Larry Hatch

Hi Larry, Bruce, Nick & List,

Bruce has posted a lot of the material I had been thinking of,
except that the Zechel data omits Zechel getting Willingham to
admit he had fabricated his whole story from a rumor he heard as
a boy involved in the Civil Air Patrol. Apparently the only
thing actually contained in the rumor was about a UFO crash in
Mexico, nothing about a radar tracking across the country, F-94,
etc. If I remember correctly Willingham heard this around 1953
and wasn't sure what date applied (of course the Scully hoax
stories circulated in early 1950 about a UFO crash in Mexico).
The full-blown made-up story conflicted with the actual
distribution of ADC radar station coverage -- I recall reading
in the declassified ADC History that the first radar station in
the interior of the country that was not on the nation's
perimeter was set up at Kirtland AFB, Albuquerque, N.Mex.., in
1951, and more followed elsewhere. But there were apparently
none available to track the purported UFO's exploits after
alleged detection in Washington State (a perimeter region) in
1950.

The ADC History explained that because of severe budget
limitations it was thought best to have early warning of Soviet
bomber attack by complete coverage of the U.S. periphery so that
at least the fact of an attack would be known some hours in
advance even if the exact targets remained unknown. Thus, enemy
bombers could cross our borders and we would see that on radar
but afterward we would have no sure knowledge of where the
bombers went, making fighter interception extremely difficult.
The plan was to fill in the interior of the country with radar
stations capable of directing fighter interception to attacking
bombers, as and when funds became available, beginning with
highest priority strategic areas, and then supplement radar
observations with Ground Observer Corps visual sightings to fill
in what was essentially a nation full of gaps in air defense
radar coverage. The Korean War opened up the funds for a more
in-depth ADC radar coverage.

As Bruce noted, the DEW Line part of Willingham's story was
complete garbage and so is the Zechel story of purportedly
seeing a declassified Top Secret document in 1975 supposedly
confirming his reconstruction of Willingham's story complete
with a DEW line in Dec 1950 when it did not yet exist, wasn't
even on the drawing boards. I was in contact with Zechel from
1977 to the early 80's on his hundreds of hours of long-distance
calls, plus letters, document copies, and book manuscripts, and
he never once mentioned such a document even in his treatments
of the Willingham story.

The DEW Line wasn't even conceived of until 1952, and
construction did not begin until late 1954 after Eisenhower
signed the authorization bill on Feb. 15, 1954. The first
station became operational in 1955. However, this crashed-saucer
falsehood is now enshrined in that great pastiche of
demonstrable lies (due to sloppy historical research by the
hoaxer), the MJ-12 1st Annual Report which claims that on Dec.
6, 1950, the (nonexistent) DEW line in Greenland tracked a
breach in our defenses headed SW. This pack of lies goes on to
say that a recovery team was sent from Projects STORK and MOON
DUST -- projects that did not yet even exist in 1950 (STORK at
Battelle was initiated in 1951 and MOON DUST after the Sputnik
launch of 1957).

As Bruce reported, the Dean Acheson (Secy. of State) accounts
refer to the unidentified aircraft traveling SE (not SW) which
would be more consistent with the Alaska version of the story.
But the other documents and accounts point to New England and
Maine as the source of the radar reports and thus a SW heading
implied. The actual declassified document Don Berliner found in
the OSD files gives a 200 degree heading or about SSW and
detection over or near Maine.

I seem to remember a Moore-Friedman article discussing this
incident in relation to the fraudulent EBD MJ-12 document and
quoting a Robert Lovett account, and I think this one had the
discrepant Dec. 17, 1950, date. It's been many years since I
read this and I could have this all scrambled or wrong. The
declassified AF-OSD document and the INS news story on Dec. 6,
1950, certainly clinch the date, unless there was a second
similar incident giving rise to the confusion.

As for the Zechel crash story itself and the EBD hoax, the EBD
hoaxers had two versions of Zechel's reconstructions: As I
recall there was a Dec. 8, 1950, date with a Laredo, Tex., crash
and a Dec. 5, 1950, date for a Del Rio, Tex., crash. The hoaxers
couldn't decide between the two so they took intermediate
positions: a Dec. 6 date and an El Indio-Guerrero location which
is almost exactly half way between Laredo and Del Rio.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 16

                        Re: Reluctant Viewers - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 15:59:25 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 08:06:15 -0500
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Velez


 >Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 22:54:02 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 01:18:31 -0500
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Velez

 >>>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 22:51:50 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Evans
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Previously, John wrote:

 >>Five years ago I volunteered to have NOVA perform CAT scans,
 >>MRI, whatever kind of medical and psychological exams including
 >>a polygraph test that wished to perform with professionals of
 >>their own choosing. They refused. I had posted to this List a
 >>copy of the original letter from Denise DiIanni (the producer of
 >>the segment) where she gives me her list of reasons why they
 >>weren't going to perforn -any- tests at all. In the letter she
 >>suggests that if I were to get my own doctor to order the scans
 >>that they would be willing to send one of their "experts" down
 >>here to "observe" and "evaluate" the results.

 >>In other words, If I was willing to; use my own doctor, schedule
 >>and take the tests myself, and _pay_for_them_ that they would
 >>then be happy to send somebody to debunk it all afterwards.

Hello Roger, hi All,

Roger Dodger writes:

 >Hello, John...
 >
 >Why don't you post that letter again. And when you do, please
 >point out where she wrote that their intention was to "debunk"
 >you in advance.

"Why don't you" do your own homework! Go to ufomind, look it up,
and download it. I have to earn a living. I haven't got scads of
time to rummage around my hard drive looking for those .jpegs.
You were a member of the list when they were posted. (just a
couple of months ago) Check your own UpDates files. I held up my
end by scanning and posting them, _you_ track em down.

As for the "debunking" remark, did you actually see that segment?
It was more than mere "debunking," it was a hatchet job executed
with extreme prejudice. If you don't understand what I meant by
that comment (after having seen how NOVA handled us and the
subject matter,) then what's the point in discussing this particular
use of a descriptive term any further.

 >Short of that, it would seem that you are trying
 >to self-fulfill a prophecy of defeat. In other words, you
 >already know the outcome, so why bother taking the risk yourself
 >that you so righteously feel other's should take for you.

1. I have never in my life asked anybody to "stand in" for me at
anything. You show how very little you know about me with
remarks like that. You can call me a lot of things Roger, but a
"coward" who hides behind others is not and will never be one of
them. I also seriously doubt that you would make such an
insinuation in my presence. Some of your 'implied' insults cross
'the line' Roger.

2. When I consented to participate I went in happy and excited
that finally some 'science' was going to be applied to our
cases. I naively thought that NOVA was going to 'look into'
abductions the same way they do with other topics. Man, was I
wrong! I not only went in there feeling positive and ready to
help in any way that I could, it was I that requested all the
tests as a condition of my appearance. At first Denise
(producer) was teling me, "Oh don't worry, we'll shoot these
interviews first and then we'll get to considering tests. I shot
the segments. Then I'm waiting and waiting to hear from them
about the tests and nothing. I had to write three letters before
I got a response. When I did, it was a laundry list of lame
excuses. They (not me) had made up their minds way in advance as
to 'how' they were going to present us, and the material. We
were set-up and knocked over by pros. As a result of that
experience I lost all respect for Denise DiIanni, NOVA, and
Paula Apsell, NOVA's executive producer. It was a sham of an
excuse for 'science reporting' of any stripe, and as 'textbook'
an example of "debunking" as any student of ufology could ask
for.

You've got it all bass ackwards Roger. I volunteered. I was
ready to 'put up.' My initial expectations were positive and
high because of 'who' I was dealing with. All of your
divinations as to what I thought or felt are all wrong. If
you're considering being a mind reader and deviner of the
motivations and intentions of others for a living, ..... don't
quit your day job!

 >Just because you volunteered doesn't mean anything.

You sound like a jealous kid. ;)

What I volunteered for was: to subject myself to psychological
evaluation, medical examinations including CAT scans or MRIs,
polygraph testing, I opened my home to them and offered them the
oportunity to interview my family members (off camera) so that
they could feel free to investigate me in any way they chose to
and with any experts/doctors of their own choosing.

Have _you_ ever (put it All on the line) for anything in your
life Roger? Have you ever "volunteered" to do anything that had
potentially life altering effects? I told you man, I have
nothing to hide. I am telling the truth of what has happened to
me and what I have experienced/lived through. I'm not going to
tell you what it takes to put it all on the line like that. You
wouldn't understand. To you, volunteering for something like
that is nothing, means nothing, and is easy to do. You have a
lot to learn Roger. You are not a good student of life, and you
are _no_judge of people or their character. Your comments and
opinions reveal a strongly egocentric view of people and the
world.

 >NOVA isn't required to fulfill your expectations.

Of course not Roger. NOVA is supposed to do "science reporting"
based on the research and empirical findings of others. That
didn't happen. If you think that what was presented on that
program was either "science" or "reporting" then you have missed
something very important. An important lesson.

 From what you've written,
 >the fact that they'd send someone down, at their cost, to spend
 >time and observe and evaluate is pretty generous, by anyone's
 >standards. They didn't ask you to pay for their air fare or
 >hotel accommodations. Go pout somewhere else.

You're just being ridiculous at this point. If you really
believe it is "fair" to expect abductees to spend thousands of
dollars testing themselves, then maybe we should ask rape
victims to pay for the DNA testing on the semen samples taken
after their assault. I know _you_ don't see it, but it is
tantamount to the same thing! You're just unreasonable. It's ok,
some folks are like that.

 >Not what I said, at all. What I said is that a story that proves
 >ET life would be worth mucho bucks. Are you saying that it would
 >not?

What I'm saying is, your remark insinuates/is based on, the
premise that Liz (or any other abductee) should go ahead and
invest in a personal medical investigation because she stands to
make scads of money on the other end.

Do you _ever_ listen to yourself and the things you say to
others? I get the feeling that all this is just 'stream of
consciousness' with you and that you don't really put very much
thought/ thoughtfullness into anything you say. The more I read
you the more evident it becomes.

 >Beyond that, I never said that she should pay for the
 >examinations. What I clearly said is that 60 Minutes or 24 Hours
 >might pick up the bill, if interested.

I see. I suppose the actual conversation might go like this:

Liz: Hello, can I speak to Charlie Rose or Mike Wallace Please?

Receptionist: Who may I say is calling? Does Mr Wallace or Mr.
Rose know who you are?

Liz: Oh no, they don't know me.

Rceptionist: What is the nature of your business with them? How
may we help you?

Liz: Well I'm an abductee. Every once in awhile, for of my life,
aliens have been coming into my home and taking me into their
flying saucers and performing all kinds of horrible procedures
on my body. I'd like to know if 60 Minutes is interested in
paying for a complete medical investigation of my claims.

Receptionist: "Click,... buzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz."

You ask people to do things that you would never do yourself.
Why don't _you_ call 60 Minutes and make the proposal? It's your
idea! Be sure to report back to us and let us know what kind of
reception you got. Let us know when their check for the medical
tests will be arriving Roger. <LOL> Tell you what, you get the
money out of Minutes and I'll take the tests! <Hee-Haw>

 >>Talk about moving the goalpost farther and farther up field!
 >>There is just nothing set up to 'tend to' abductees. There is
 >>nothing in place where a person can be medically evaluated and
 >>have their reports properly investigated.

 >Yes there is, John. It's called a "hospital". If someone has
 >something in their body that should not be there, a person
 >called a "doctor" will examine them and extract said object,
 >regardless of where that object came from. I know of no
 >exclusions on insurance forms regarding objects of ET origin. In
 >fact, and this is the most important fact, the doctor would have
 >no way of knowing what the object is until after it has been
 >removed.

I suppose they could. If someone suspects they have a foreign
object in their body it would be a legitimate reason to approach
their physician. Especially if the object is near the surface
and accessible without too much trauma being inflicted on a
large area. Or in a deep place where intrusive surgery is
required. It's up to the person if they want to pursue that as
an option.

 >Of course, if there is no object to begin with then you have no
 >basis for complaint.

Does 'stating the obvious' trigger some kind of hormonal release
in your brian that allows you to 'feel the act' as a reward?
<LMAO>


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 >
   Dec > Dec 16

             New Roswell Related Documents Added to Project 1947

From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 20:30:02 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 08:08:00 -0500
Subject: New Roswell Related Documents Added to Project 1947


Greetings,

Due to upgrades on the server, some documents got left out
during the last update of the Project 1947 website.

John Stepkowski has now been able to add a number of additional
Roswell related documents

http://www.project1947.com/roswell/rosdocs.htm

Included is the July 1947 extract from the 509th Bomb Group and
the Roswell Army Air Field Combined History, the July major
events chronology from the 8th Air Force History and a Joint
USA-CIS Anomaly Federation letter concerning inquires to the
Russian Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Security on
Roswell with the original answers in Russian. A special thanks
to Dr. Richard Haines for these Russian documents.


Jan Aldrich

Project 1947
http://www.project1947.com/
P. O. Box 391
Canterbury, CT 06331, USA
(860) 546-9135










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 16

                       Re: Reluctant Viewers - Ledger

From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 21:44:34 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 08:12:57 -0500
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Ledger


 >Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 20:58:40 +0000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers

 >>From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >>Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 13:15:53 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>I have three marks on
 >>a part of my arm not reachable to do it myself.

 >Unless you only have one arm, how can this be? I've just tried
 >it out and I can reach every part of both my arms.

 >--
 >John Rimmer
 >Magonia Magazine
 >www.magonia.demon.co.uk


I'll handle this one Jim. When you have a bottle of gripple in
the hand on the end of the other arm, it is impossible to check.
Did I get it right Jim?

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 >
   Dec > Dec 16

              Re: 50th Anniversary of a UFO Invasion - Balaskas

From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 21:16:20 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 08:28:11 -0500
Subject: Re: 50th Anniversary of a UFO Invasion - Balaskas


 >Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 01:33:17 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: UFO UpDate: 50th Anniversary of a UFO Invasion - Sparks

 >>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 17:34:19 EST
 >>Subject: 50th Anniversary of a UFO Invasion
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

 >>As for the alleged UFO crash, this is the fraudulent Lt Col
 >>Willingham story that he later admitted he had fabricated from a
 >>rumor he had heard as a boy. It was investigated by Todd Zechel

<big snip>

 >>So Zechel started looking up newspapers around Dec 8, 1950, and
 >>found the news about sightings of contrails in Alaska, Korean
 >>War developments of the Chinese entering the war, etc.

<snip>

 >I still have the infamous "El Indio - Guerrero" UFO crash
 >listed, supposedly Mexican side of the Rio Grande across from
 >Texas. My credibility rating is 2 on a scale of 0 to 15. The
 >06DEC50 date is indefinite.

 >Here are a few database listings that might be relevant:

<snip>

 >It does indeed look like somebody may have taken several
 >incidents and sewn them together into one.

<snip>

Hi Brad, Larry and list.

Below are two other additional items which may or may not be
pieces to the puzzle of the alleged 1950 UFO crash in Mexico.

The first item is a 1979 signed statement by William H. Draeger
of Austin, Texas that was mailed to UFO crash/retrieval
researcher Leonard H. Stringfield which he published in one of
his monographs (Status Report II, 1980, page 22). I will quote
part of it below.


I contacted the Mexican Army General who had command of that
specific area of the border abd initially talked with him by
telephone. I [Draeger] identified myself and my position
[formerly with the U.S. Air Force] and related that in 1950 a
UFO was reported to have crashed 30 miles northwest of Del Rio,
that we had along a pilot [retired Colonel Willingham?] who had
seen it in the air and later on the ground being guarded by
Mexican troops until American Air Force units arrived to
retrieve the craft and a body that was found aboard. Without
pause, the General answered in Spanish, "Yes, I know about that.
I don't have any papers or documents to prove it, but due to my
position I know about that." When I asked if he would consent to
an interview he paused and said he would be busy for 30 minutes
but afterwards would be free for an interview at his home. When
the 7-man crew, the retired colonel, and myself arrived and we
talked with him, he totally denied any knowledge of the incident
and on camera he denied and evaded any questions dealing with
the incident and UFOs. ... I believe the General is beyond
reproach and that he "slipped" on the telephone but maintained
strict security for the interview. I, William H. Draeger, do
hearby swear to God that the above statement is the truth, the
whole truth and nothing but the truth.

The second item may be related to the first item since it seems
to confirm that Americans did enter Mexico to retrieve a flying
saucer. This source is from a Flying Saucer Review correspondent
in Mexico (FSR Vol. 2, No. 1, January/February 1956, page 6).

Below are a few I think to be relevant quotes:

"The United States Authorities have established that flying
saucers are manned by visitors from outer space." [statement
made in 1951 by U.S. Secretary of State, General George Marshall
in Mexico, according to Gordon Creighton of FSR].....

'One morning during the summer of 1951, news reporters, news
photographers and movie camera men moved into the airport at
Mexico City to meet a V.I.P. [General Marshall] from the United
States. The group was gathered together, and waiting for the
visitor, when somebody looked up and gave a shout. Three saucers
were hovering over the airport at a height of about 5,000 feet.

'Immediately the cameras went into action, and many photographs,
in colour, black and white, stills, and movies were taken.
People poured out of the waiting rooms and restaurant, and
several hundred had a fine view of the saucers before they
darted off at high speed in a southerly direction. The day
following, the newspapers of Mexico broke the story but there
were no pictures. It was reported that the pictures had all been
taken by the authorities.....

"Asked why such emphasis had been imposed on denying their
existence, and on censoring reports, the V.I.P. official
[General Marshall] ... said that the U.S.A. wanted her people to
concentrate on the real menace, Communism; and not to be
distracted by the visitors from outer space.

"At Cuernavaco in Mexico later in the summer of 1951, flying
saucers came up in a conversation between our Special
Correspondent and a group of Mexican professional men. One of
them, an engineer engaged in highway construction, said that he
had actually helped to load a flying saucer and its dead crew
into an American 'Flying Box-Car' aeroplane down in an
uninhabited valley in the Sierra Madre, near where his crew were
working.

"'Ah, Senor,' he said, 'they were handsome, those little men,
with fine features and beautifully formed tiny hands. But there
must have beeb an explosion in their craft, for they were burnt
black, and when I touched the face of one of them the skin came
off under my finger as though it had been cooked!"


Has anyone seen any of these pictures or films of the three
flying saucers over Mexico City at the time of the arrival of
General Marshall in the summer of 1951? This was about half a
year after the alleged UFO crashed on Mexico which was retrieved
by American Air Force units according to Draeger. Was a Flying
Box-Car used in the retrieval of this crashed saucer?

Note also that Sierra Madre where these Mexican witnesses were
working is in the north central region of Mexico close to the Del
Rio, Texas border where the December 1950 UFO crash allegedly
happened.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 16

                        Re: Reluctant Viewers - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 23:38:51 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 08:30:43 -0500
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Velez


 >From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 21:17:55 -0800

 >>Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 01:18:31 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net
 >>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers

 >>>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com
 >>>Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 22:51:50 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Evans
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>>Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 12:40:20 -0600
 >>>>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net
 >>>>Subject: Reluctant Viewers
 >>>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Hello John, Roger and List,

 ><snip>

 >>Do you have any idea how much those kinds of tests cost? A CAT
 >>scan of the head alone costs $1,000.00 and up, depending on
 >>which lab your doctor is associated with. Insurance will not
 >>cover "elective" CAT scans. Maybe Roger has that kind of money
 >>to burn on "tests" but most of the rest of us don't. I guess we
 >>could always inflict a head injury on ourselves to get the scans
 >>paid for by our insurance carrier eh?

 ><snip>

 >I understand this is a major problem in America, which is the
 >land of what's not free.

 >Has anyone thought of finding an abductee in Canada and have the
 >tests made over here where they don't cost a penny?


Hi Serge,

Welcome to another episode of, "Head Injury Theater!"  <LOL>
"One" abductee isn't going to do it Serge. What is needed is a
small team of doctors from different specialties and disciplines
to thoroughly examine a 'group' of abductees. Oh, I don't know
say 25 or 50 experiencers. I'm no expert on such matters so I'm
not sure how many people would be required to compose a
statistically significant group. Whatever that number is, that's
how many people should be rounded up. "One" just ain't gonna get
it.

Although, all it would take is for 'one' person to produce a
genuinely unidentified artifact under strictly monitored
conditions for us to have some solid evidence/material to work
with. We may already have it in the form of the objects that
Lier recovered in 1995. If it wasn't for the bungling way that
the evidence was handled, we might have had something useful by
now. What a sorry bunch of incompetent morons. And all those
people they cut! Fifteen of em at last count. With 15 surgeries
behind him the surgically prolific foot doctor still has nothing
-solid- to show for the effort. Or for the pain and grief of the
volunteer subjects.

Show me one medical journal that he has published in. We need a
'team' of doctors. Not just one podiatrist with a dream and an
agenda.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 16

               Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Hale

From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 05:15:42 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 08:32:48 -0500
Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Hale


 >From: Terry Rhodes <UtterMole@cs.com>
 >Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 17:40:59 EST
 >Fwd Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 12:04:47 +0000
 >Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Rhodes

<snip>

 >Are you resigning from the List following your exposure as being
 >a talk and no action researcher?

 >Tel

Hi All,

I am honoured to know I have raised so much emotion in this
topic to have the above thrown at me.

As my investigations in to the Chris Martin Case is still on
going I will present my research and findings on this case in
due course to the List.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 16

                          'Appy Birfday Sir Arffer!

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 08:48:11 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 08:48:11 -0500
Subject: 'Appy Birfday Sir Arffer!



From: UFO UpDates - Toronto

Source: Space.Com

http://www.space.com/opinionscolumns/gentrylee/gentry_lee_001215.html


Gentry Lee: Happy Birthday, Arthur

By Gentry Lee
SPACE.com Columnist
posted: 02:58 pm ET

15 December 2000

On December 16, 2000, Sir Arthur C. Clarke will be 83 years
young. Acknowledged by nearly everyone as one of the true
visionaries of the 20th century, Sir Arthur has left an
indelible mark on history. He is probably best known for his
pivotal role in the creation of the 1968 science fiction motion
picture, 2001: A Space Odyssey, an Oscar-nominated, landmark
movie that had a powerful, lasting impact on both filmmakers and
audiences all over the world. For 2001, Arthur wrote the
original short story and was co-author (along with director
Stanley Kubrick) of the screenplay. The film simultaneously
enraptured, amazed and confounded its huge number of viewers.

At the time of its release the movie developed a substantial
cult following, especially among young people, many of whom
returned to see the film a dozen times or more. Elements of the
motion picture transcended the movie itself and became part of
the popular culture. In particular, the large rectangular black
monoliths suggesting an alien presence among us and the haunting
voice of the anthropomorphic computer HAL both became
significant icons on their own, with the ability to convey
special meaning in venues outside the confines of the film.

 From a purely historical point of view, however, Sir Arthur�s
most lasting contribution to humankind would not be that seminal
motion picture. For Arthur C. Clarke is rightfully recognized as
the "father of the communications satellite." In the late 1940s,
in a brilliant technical paper whose vision even today seems
breathtaking, Sir Arthur proposed that satellites could be
launched into specific orbits (we now call them geostationary
orbits) around Earth in which the satellites would remain
virtually fixed over a single spot on the surface. At that time,
almost a decade before the launch of Sputnik and the true
beginning of the Space Age, Arthur accurately predicted that
such geostationary orbits would be used to establish
far-reaching communications networks that would ultimately
connect the entire Earth. His predictions were correct. Now,
slightly more than 50 years later, the global village that has
emerged due to satellite communications has irrevocably
transformed our world.

To science fiction fans, of course, Sir Arthur C. Clarke is one
of the founding fathers of the genre. From Childhood�s End to
Rendezvous with Rama and Fountains of Paradise, his
award-winning novels, which have been translated into over 40
languages, have entertained and fascinated millions of readers.
Arthur�s novels, written in spare, accessible prose using the
English language with great felicity, are rich in ideas. His
facile, eclectic mind is apparent in almost every chapter of his
best novels. Sir Arthur deftly creates situations and characters
to move the stories forward, but the scenes and individuals in
his novels are generally subservient to the big, important ideas
he is trying to convey. His fiction is focused on the human
species and its destiny. His characters are thus more
metaphorical representations than specific individuals. He uses
plot and character development to show how possible major events
in space or the future will impact all of us.

In his several books of essays and other non-fiction pieces Sir
Arthur C. Clarke has shown an uncanny ability to predict future
developments in science, technology and even human affairs. Some
of his more epigrammatic observations have been widely quoted
for decades. Since I have always been fascinated by the possible
existence of intelligent beings elsewhere in the universe, one
of his remarks, often referred to as "Clarke�s Third Law," ranks
among my favorite quotations of all time. "Any sufficiently
advanced technology," Arthur once wrote, discussing the level of
technological development that might have been reached by some
other extraterrestrial species, "would be indistinguishable from
magic."

Arthur�s prolific writing career spans more than five decades
and 60 books, including novels, collections of essays and short
stories, and fictional collaborations. His place among the great
writers of our epoch is firmly established. Yet in spite of all
his outstanding achievements, the man Arthur C. Clarke has
remained one of the warmest, kindest and most generous human
beings that I have ever had the privilege to know.


I first met Arthur at his home in Sri Lanka in February of 1986.
At the time, I was the chief engineer on the Galileo project at
the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California. Two months earlier,
my colleagues and I had completed all the software and hardware
testing on the Jupiter-bound spacecraft and shipped it across
the country to Cape Canaveral in Florida for a scheduled launch
on board a shuttle in May 1986. Following the terrible
Challenger tragedy on January 28, 1986, all shuttle flights were
suspended for an indefinite period and the fate of future
payloads, including Galileo, became completely uncertain.

In 1985, during intermittent periods when the Galileo system
testing schedule was not overwhelming, I had been working with
Mr. Peter Guber, a famous and talented Hollywood film producer
with boundless energy, on the development of a science fiction
film project. It was Peter�s idea that we should travel together
to Sri Lanka to meet the esteemed grandmaster of science
fiction, Arthur C. Clarke, with the goal of obtaining Arthur�s
cooperation on our project. Peter felt that if Arthur placed his
imprimatur on our film idea, it would be much easier to obtain
additional development funding from one of the studios. Even
though I was intrigued, to say the least, by the possible
opportunity of meeting one of my personal heroes, by January
1986 I had still not yet been able to find sufficient time in my
Galileo schedule to make a commitment to travel halfway around
the world with Peter.


Within a week after the Challenger tragedy, we knew that the
Galileo launch would be delayed by at least a year. I phoned
Peter and we arranged, through Arthur�s literary agent Scott
Meredith, to meet with Arthur for a few days in his Sri Lankan
home in the middle of February. As a result of those meetings,
Arthur and I agreed to work together to add substance to the
science fiction idea that Peter and I had proposed to him. I
returned to Sri Lanka by myself a month later, and Arthur and I
retreated to a hotel on an old tea and clove plantation in the
highlands above Kandy to work for a week on what ultimately
became our first collaborative novel, Cradle. We originally
conceived our novel as a companion to a motion picture of the
same name, but the accompanying film perished in the Hollywood
development process.

Almost a year later, when I was again in Sri Lanka putting the
finishing touches on the manuscript for Cradle, I had a
conversation with Arthur during which I expressed my admiration
for his exceptional novel Rendezvous with Rama. It would be an
understatement to say that I was stunned and delighted when
Arthur suggested that perhaps he would be willing to collaborate
with me on a Rama sequel. We brainstormed for several days on
the ideas, characters and concepts that would be included in
such a sequel and quickly concluded that it would take at least
two, and possibly three, novels to cover all the material we had
discussed. Within days after my return to the United States, a
three-book contract that resulted in Rama II, The Garden of Rama
and Rama Revealed was sold to Bantam by our agent Russell Galen,
following a spirited auction among several different publishers.

During the next five years I traveled to Sri Lanka approximately
once a year to visit with Arthur and discuss various aspects of
the Rama novels. Of course we also corresponded regularly
throughout the entire period, by letter and fax and an
occasional long and expensive phone call. By mutual agreement, I
wrote all the text for the three novels, just as I had done for
Cradle. But the plot and the characters and the ideas were all
developed through recursive interaction between us. Arthur was a
wonderful editor. He would gently explain to me how scenes could
be improved or strengthened without ever making me feel inept.
Looking back at the time period, I cannot recall one single time
when his criticisms were strident or insensitive.


It has now been over six years since Arthur and I finished the
last of the Rama novels. I have managed to visit him three times
during this period and we still regularly exchange phone calls
and e-mail. Arthur has continued to live with his extended
family, Hector and Valerie Ekanayake and their three daughters
Cherene, Tamara and Melinda, all of whom call him "Uncle
Arthur," in the compound in Colombo where he has been for over
20 years. He now spends most of his days in a wheelchair, for
his strength has been sapped by post-polio syndrome, but his
mind and his wit are still as active as ever. Sir Arthur is
still engaged in dozens of projects, and is sought after more
than ever for his opinions about space, the future and a myriad
of other subjects. He also continues to play a mean game of
table tennis at the Otter Athletic Club in Colombo. Arthur props
himself up at the table with his left hand and demolishes most
opponents who abide by his rules and hit the ball within reach
of his wicked right-hand slam.

I have been extremely blessed to know this man so well. No human
being I have ever met has carried his fame with such grace. Yes,
Arthur has his eccentricities, like most brilliant people, but
at heart he is a gentle soul without meanness or rancor. In his
Alexandrian quartet of novels, the British writer and poet
Laurence Durrell, who is also famous for his epigrams, has one
character say about another, "It is not enough just to respect
the man�s genius � we must love him a little also." I believe
that Sir Arthur C. Clarke has justly earned both the respect and
the love of the people of the world.

So, Arthur, happy birthday to you from all your friends and
fans. You have enriched the lives of millions of people with
your imagination and your vision. And for those of us who have
been fortunate enough to know you well, you have admirably
demonstrated that it is possible to be, simultaneously, both a
creative genius of the highest magnitude and a warm and
compassionate human being.


_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/

Source: Space.Com

http://www.space.com/sciencefiction/clarke_un_tv_991124.html

Arthur C. Clarke: Aliens Cannot Coexist with TV

posted: 11:32 am ET

24 November 1999

The deplorable state of television programming proves that no
advanced extraterrestrial civilizations exist in Earth's
immediate vicinity, British writer Sir Arthur C. Clarke recently
told a United Nations forum.

Clarke, speaking by live satellite broadcast from Sri Lanka,
where he resides, praised technological advances in television
imaging but blasted programmers for creating a "great
wasteland."

He cited "brutality and sheer ugliness" as the underlying
culprits for clogging U.S. channels in particular with "moronic
panel shows, endless traffic and weather reports, interviews
with victims of petty crimes, ranting televangelists all selling
different brands of salvation, and fashion shows parading
half-starved models in hideous costumes."

Somewhat facetiously, he went on to note that since television
signals continue to radiate outward from the Earth at the speed
of light, our televised legacy now fills a sphere more than 100
light-years in diameter. Since no alien police force has yet
arrived to put an end to the nuisance, this proves that no
advanced civilization occupies that vast region, he said.

Clarke especially deplored the state of programming aimed at
children.

Still, despite the medium's cultural failures, he praised it for
unifying global cultures without destroying diversity. In fact,
he said, "perhaps only television could preserve the
multitudinous images and voices of our time for future ages."

Clarke is famous as the author of books including 2001: A Space
Odyssey and as the originator of the communications satellite.
He made his comments November 15 as part of the concluding
session of the United Nations' 1999 World Television Forum.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 16

                  The 'Truth Is Out There, In Shag Harbour'

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@post.cybercity.dk>
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 06:43:41 GMT
Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 09:01:32 -0500
Subject: The 'Truth Is Out There, In Shag Harbour'


Source: The Halifax Herald Limited,

http://www.herald.ns.ca/cgi-bin/home/displaystory?2000/12/15+119.raw+Entertainme
nt+2000/12/15

Stig

***

Friday, December 15, 2000

Truth is out there, in Shag Harbour

Documentary explores real Nova Scotian X-File case

By Pat Lee

**

On Oct. 4, 1967 many Nova Scotians saw something strange flying
through the sky with flashing lights.

The mysterious object plunged into the water off Shag Harbour,
leading fishermen and the RCMP to rush out in a frantic attempt
to find survivors.

But by the time boats arrived on the scene, all that was found
was a mysterious yellow foam that smelled like burned sulphur,
although a dark object was later spotted moving out to sea.
(Insert Twilight Zone music here.)

Some 33 years later the Shag Harbour UFO story continues to
fascinate believers and skeptics alike, mainly because of the
number of credible eyewitness accounts and the official
documentation that has been unearthed.

So it's not surprising that the story has lived on in books and
most recently has become the subject of a documentary by local
filmmaker Michael MacDonald.

Airing Sunday at 5 p.m. on cable's Space: The Imagination
Station, the hour-long The Shag Harbour UFO Story brings
together eyewitnesses and pieces together the X-Files tale,
which started that October night when those mysterious lights
were seen around the province.

Among those who spotted the odd sight from Dartmouth was then
12-year-old Chris Styles, who subsequently heard the same story
from his grandfather who lived in Shag Harbour.

"I literally felt cold inside," Styles says of seeing the
glowing object that night.

Also interviewed in the film is Don Ledger, who has written
extensively about the case with Styles. The pair's research
provided the framework for MacDonald's film, produced by
Halifax-based Ocean Entertainment.

Also providing input on the incident is local fisherman Laurie
Wickens, who also saw the strange lights that night, along with
fisherman Lawrence Smith.

Adding to the intrigue is a photograph taken by Wilber Eisnor,
which shows coloured lights glowing in the sky.

All fascinating stuff, made all the more interesting by
government documents, comic book illustrations, the usual jazz
about coverups and interviews with folks who prefer to have
their voices altered and to be filmed in silhouette.

Of course no one knows what really happened in Shag Harbour, but
speculation abounds, particularly since the event occured at the
height of the Cold War and the fact that nearby CFS Shelburne
was a top-secret submarine detection base.

There's something to make every conspiracy theorist happy.
MacDonald and producer Johanna Eliot have done a nice job in
touching all the mysterious bases, while presenting the
information in a visually interesting fashion.

It truly is a story that will not die.

Picture text: A 1970s comic book offers one interpretation of
the rumoured crash of a UFO near the Eastern Shore village of
Shag Harbour. The famous case is explored in a new documentary,
The Shag Harbour UFO Story, airing on Space on Sunday at 5 p.m.

<snip>

**

Pat Lee is television reporter for The Chronicle-Herald and The
Mail-Star.

E-mail address: plee@herald.ns.ca

Copyright

[Michael MacDonald & Johanna Eliot will be discussing their
  production on 'Strange Days... Indeed', available from
  22:00 Eastern on via RealPlayer at cfrb.com --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 >
   Dec > Dec 16

                     Re: Ever Heard A UFO Sound? - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 04:42:07 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 09:06:19 -0500
Subject: Re: Ever Heard A UFO Sound? - Hatch


 >Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 14:55:11 +0100 (CET)
 >From: Holger Isenberg <H.Isenberg@ping.de>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Ever Heard A UFO Sound?

 >Are there reports about strange sounds, even without any
 >sighting? I have heard on 3 different days a strange sound,
 >similar to the UFO-sound in the 70's TV-series U.F.O., but with
 >lower frequency.

 >After that, I found by coincidence in a book the same experience
 >the author had several years ago.

 >Do you know of any reports like this?

 >--
 > Holger Isenberg
 > H.Isenberg@ping.de
 > http://mars-news.de


Hello Holger!

After a 25 year absence, I moved back into the family house
following the death of my parents.

Strange and unfamiliar noises would occasionally occur, and I
well remember every familiar sight, sound and smell around here!

One scratching noise turned out to be roof rats. These are
common 'Norway' rats which hide in attics. I never had those
before. The cure is to cut away any tree branches which touch
the upper part of the house, any ivy, ropes... literally
anything the rats can climb. Nothing else worked.

A much more eerie, almost "haunted" set of sounds turned out to
be coming from the hot water heater! These were a complex group
of thumps, whines, whistles, cracks, moans and even 'UFO'
sounds.

Its fun to "believe" in ghosts, or at least to pretend to. If
every hot water heater in the world stopped tomorrow, I would
wager 10 DM that the spirit world would quiet down for a little
while.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 16

             Re: Persinger's 'The Field Biology of Unexplained'

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 05:21:15 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 09:09:28 -0500
Subject: Re: Persinger's 'The Field Biology of Unexplained'


 >From: Chris Rutkowski <rutkows@cc.UManitoba.CA>
 >Subject: Re: Persinger's 'The Field Biology of Unexplained'
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 09:11:23 -0600 (CST)

 >>From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Persinger's 'The Field Biology of Unexplained Events'
 >>Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 23:11:06 -0500

 >>Laurentian University's Biology Society
 >>presents

 >>The Field Biology of Unexplained Events
 >>by
 >>Dr. M. A. Persinger, Professor
 >>Departments of Biology and Psychology
 >>Behavioral Neuroscience Program

 ><much arm-waving rhetoric snipped>

 >>-the 1975 "flap" of bright, bobbing balls of red, orange or
 >>white light in southern Manitoba around the Red River System
 >>preceded the most energetic earthquake in the region (North
 >>Dakota, Minnesota) and was associated with above average
 >>hydraulic loads.

 >This is where it becomes very easy to show how weak the TST is
 >as an explanation for UFO reports in general.

 >I took the trouble to write and publish my own scientific paper
 >in the same journal which carried Persinger's TST claims. I
 >pointed out that the Carman UFO flap of 1975 saw hundreds of UFO
 >sightings reported - yet Manitoba has _never_had_an_earthquake_!
 >(Qualification: There is no area on Earth without seismic
 >activity, but Manitoba has never had anything detectable by
 >anything other than very sensitive seismographs.) It's in the
 >middle of the continent, nowhere near any active plate
 >tectonics!

 >But that little fact not stopping him, Persinger found sesimic
 >data for surrounding states and provinces and noted a fairly
 >weak event that occurred 800 kilometres away in Minnesota, not
 >even during the UFO flap but some time before it.

 >Two things: One, that if the balls of light were related to the
 >earthquake, why didn't the balls appear in Minnesota, not 800
 >kilometres away?

 >And two, most of the UFO reports associated with the Carman UFO
 >flap have _been_explained_ as aircraft, stars and meteors.

 >_This_ is an example which is supposed to support Persinger's
 >field biology paper?

Hello Chris and Michel:

I almost started a long diatribe of my own, dissecting
Persinger's paper mercifully snipped above. Then it occurred to
me that others could do a much better job.

I am after all mainly a librarian of UFO sightings, a programmer
and the like.

Persinger gave out percentages of this and that (in support of
his geo-earth-lights theories of course) with no supporting
documentation, not even a hint how he arrived at the figures.

Down at the bottom of the paper provided by Michel, was his list
of scientific references. These help make any paper look well
researched of course, so I was disappointed to see that the
majority of those footnotes were Persinger's other essays.

I can guess what many ufologists think of Persinger.

Here's a question: What do the geologists think of his theories?
How about the atmospheric scientists?

Leave UFOs out of it just for the moment. I really wonder what
mainstream science thinks of Persinger's theories, quite apart
from anything as controversial or taboo as UFOs.


Best wishes

- Larry Hatch

PS: Maybe I will have a little browse, unless I fall asleep
first of course. [burp!]








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 16

                      Re: Reluctant Viewers - Stevenson

From: Colin Stevenson <colin49@colin49.worldonline.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 13:41:13 -0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 09:18:09 -0500
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Stevenson


Hi Errol

Hopefully this area will be proved positive soon.

See:

http://www.colsweb.com/eyesonly.htm

This page is a plea to Medical Professionals to come forward
with their suspicions of ET/human cross breeding. Generalized
statements can be made without infringing Doctor-Patient
confidentiality.


Colin Stevenson

UK UFO/ET Researcher
reply only to col@colsweb.com
website http://www.colsweb.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 >
   Dec > Dec 17

                 Re: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 5 Number 50 - Young

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 06:22:02 -0800
Fwd Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 13:07:49 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 5 Number 50 - Young


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 13:47:02 EST
 >Subject: Re: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 5 Number 50
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 15:40:49 +0000
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>
 >>Subject: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 5 Number 50

 >>Posted on behalf of Joseph Trainor.

 >><Masinaigan@aol.com>

 >>UFO ROUNDUP
 >>Volume 5, Number 50
 >>December 14, 2000
 >>Editor: Joseph Trainor

 >>http://ufoinfo.com/roundup/

 >>TEXAS SKYWATCHER SPOTS TWO UFOs NEAR THE SPACE SHUTTLE

 >>On Saturday evening, December 9, 2000, Michael Hunted drove out
 >>into the rangeland about 26 miles (42 kilometers) southwest of
 >>Sonora, Texas (population 2,800) to observe the space shuttle
 >>Endeavour as it crossed the sky.

 >>With its newly-installed 240-foot (73-meter) solar wings and the
 >>space shuttle Endeavour attached, the space station would be one
 >>of the brightest objects in the clear night sky.

 >>At precisely 7:10 p.m., Hunter reported, while watching the
 >>space shuttle, which started in the west and moved to the east,
 >>, which took about three to four minutes, I noticed two objects
 >>moving at a high rate of speed, which took about two minutes to
 >>go from the southwest to the northeast. They looked like two
 >>very bright stars."

 >>"They were only bright white lights. There was no flashing
 >>(navigation) lights like on airplanes. I also noticed that they
 >>did not have a white trail behind them like the shuttle. I do
 >>not know the height (altitude) but I do know that they were
 >>much higher than the shuttle because they passed over the white
 >>trail that the shuttle left behind."

 >Since the Shuttle and its contrail was illuminated by sunlight
 >objects higher up would also be illuminated. There is not reason
 >to suppose that these two objects weren't just satellites. Two
 >minutes to cross the sky in a straight line seems about right
 >for satellites in low earth orbit.


Hello Bob:

At the risk of offending the weekly e-mail newsletters, they are
full of stuff like that. It ain't easy reporting UFOs every
week, and when the "real" ones (the more interesting sightings)
are scarce. Something has to take up the slack, even if its
astrology.

That's most every week I suppose. Whatever schedule the space
aliens may have, it probably doesn't coincide with our rather
unusual division of the year into 7-day periods!

The rest is perfectly predicable. John and Susie see a fireball.
Somebody's auntie hears strange noises while bigfoot and
chupacabras fight over hapless barnyard animals. Simon
Karbunckel cannot distinguish a star from a planet from a
satellite from a [gasp!] UFO. Ho hum.

When that peters out, there's always religion, UFO archives and
general mysticism.

Meanwhile, a very small trickle of genuinely interesting UFO
sightings does filter in, largely ignored by the public, and
almost indiscernible amidst the noise.

I'm gonna go to the fridge for another Dos Equis [ burp! ]

I dedicate this beer to the very few people who want to get
to the bottom of the UFO mystery, and who at least try to
see past all the foop.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 17

                        Re: Reluctant Viewers - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 11:26:39 -0600
Fwd Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 17:49:15 -0500
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Evans


 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 15:59:25 -0500
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Velez

 >>Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 22:54:02 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca


Previously, John had written of a letter from NOVA:

 >>>In other words, If I was willing to; use my own doctor, schedule
 >>>and take the tests myself, and _pay_for_them_ that they would
 >>>then be happy to send somebody to debunk it all afterwards.

I replied:

 >>Why don't you post that letter again. And when you do, please
 >>point out where she wrote that their intention was to "debunk"
 >>you in advance.

John now writes:

 >"Why don't you" do your own homework! Go to ufomind, look it up,
 >and download it. I have to earn a living. I haven't got scads of
 >time to rummage around my hard drive looking for those .jpegs.
 >You were a member of the list when they were posted. (just a
 >couple of months ago) Check your own UpDates files. I held up my
 >end by scanning and posting them, _you_ track em down.

For the record, I went to Ufomind before writing and could not
find the letter. I am not saying that isn't there; only that I
could not find it. THAT is why I suggested you repost it. For
someone that supposedly heads a group dedicated to helping other
abductees, you certainly aren't very organized if it would take
"scads of time" to find such an important document on your hard
drive. All you have to do is go to "find documents" and type in
"NOVA" or what ever title it was given. In fact, it would take
less time to find the letter than you spent telling me that you
don't have time to find it! It seems that you simply don't want
the content of the letter discussed because it doesn't support
your stated position about NOVA. I could be wrong, but I can't
find the letter; you can.

Continuing, you wrote:

 >As for the "debunking" remark, did you actually see that segment?
 >It was more than mere "debunking," it was a hatchet job executed
 >with extreme prejudice. If you don't understand what I meant by
 >that comment (after having seen how NOVA handled us and the
 >subject matter,) then what's the point in discussing this particular
 >use of a descriptive term any further.

What they did in the final program and what you could have done
to prevent it are two totally different issues, John. I think
that most people do not believe in the alien abduction scenario.
You have taken it upon yourself to try and convince people
otherwise. Given a chance to do such a thing on national
television, you decided it would be too expensive to have the
tests done yourself, even if it would prove to NOVA, and the
rest of the world, that you are telling truth and that alien
abduction really exists.

On the other hand, you admitted in a previous post that your own
examination did nothing to prove that you were really abducted,
even by your own standards. So just how much "debunking" would
NOVA or anyone else have to do? Not much, it would seem. Your
problem, therefore, isn't in how little other people believe
you, but in how little proof you really have at your disposal.
Because you admit that is true, you can't hold the rest of the
world responsible because you can't logically or convincingly
present your case.

And this is really the problem, here, John. In a previous post
you wrote:

 >Liz is quite correct Roger. I agree with her that the "proof"
 >that everyone is looking for is right under your noses in the
 >form of the abductees themselves.

But then you also wrote in another post:

 >I have had a physician tell me to my face that there is
 >something 'different' about how my body has responded (in this
 >situation) in comparison to 'everybody else.' Which doesn't
 >prove _anything_ in and of itself as far as abduction goes.

 >It won't prove whether I'm being abducted or not,
 >but it will demonstrate that there are some unusual anomalies
 >present. What causes them is anybodies guess. I don't pretend to
 >know.

So, while you claim there is "proof" right under everyone's
noses, it would seem that you really don't have any proof at
all, even by your own standards. In addition, after using the
existence of a letter as support of your claim about NOVA, you
then dodge the issue of presenting this evidence because "you
don't have scads of time" to find it.

I recall some time back when you chastised the List because we
were all ignoring an X-Ray of an abductee that you initially
claimed constituted "proof" of alien abduction. Then when we
pointed out that an X-Ray proved little, if nothing, you then
chastised the List for misquoting you. Then, when it was proven
that you were not misquoted, you took the position that you
never meant the X-Ray constituted proof of any kind.

Despite all of this posturing, you have the nerve to claim:

 >Talk about moving the goalpost farther and farther up field!
 >There is just nothing set up to 'tend to' abductees. There is
 >nothing in place where a person can be medically evaluated and
 >have their reports properly investigated. If some people weren't
 >operating under the assumption that all abductees are lying and
 >full of crap, they'd realize that if we're telling the truth,
 >then we've all been through some pretty heavy stuff.

As I said, hospitals can do all of the above, whether you have
insurance or not. To claim that "nothing can be done" in the
face of your own examination (which proved nothing), it would
seem that you're beef isn't about not being believed in the face
of overwhelming "proof". On the contrary, you just want to be
believed whether you have any proof or not; knowing all the time
that odds are against you coming up with any proof, even when
examined by a doctor as you were.

Addressing such attitude, I had written:

 >>Short of that, it would seem that you are trying
 >>to self-fulfill a prophecy of defeat. In other words, you
 >>already know the outcome, so why bother taking the risk yourself
 >>that you so righteously feel other's should take for you.

You replied:

 >I have never in my life asked anybody to "stand in" for me at
 >anything. You show how very little you know about me with
 >remarks like that. You can call me a lot of things Roger, but a
 >"coward" who hides behind others is not and will never be one of
 >them. I also seriously doubt that you would make such an
 >insinuation in my presence.

I am going to bow out of this discussion with you, John. Anyone
that resorts to veiled threats of violence when faced with a
logical debate is in serious need of psychological help. It is
no wonder that so many people have left your support group over
the years (see, I have done my homework, after all). It would
seem that if people aren't with you then they are simply against
you.

You previously wrote:

 ><LOL!>It's true Roger, I can come on like a freight train. It's
 >a 'tool'. One of many in the bag. But if you're paying
attention >you'll notice that I'm always very discreet and
mindful about >when, with who, and under what circumstances I
unleash the >monster.

Threats won't make people believe you, John. Making a logical
argument will. Your argument has little logic and too much
implied threat for your own good. Think about that the next time
you decide to use "the tool".

Make no mistake, John, I am not afraid of you. I am simply bored
with your brow-beating mantra that "everyone else" isn't doing
enough.

ZZZZZZZZ...

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 >
   Dec > Dec 17

                        Re: Reluctant Viewers - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 13:20:23 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 17:53:49 -0500
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Velez


 >From: Elizabeth Hammond <lizzz@worldnet.att.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 13:24:50 -0500

 >>Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 23:17:33 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 13:15:53 EST
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers

 >>>>Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 09:44:09 -0600
 >>>>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >>>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Previously, I wrote:

 >>>>I agree that the debate will never end.

<snip>

 >In light of the fact that outside of other, like minded
 >abductees, the only person heard from here is someone who
 >clearly has his own agenda in all this, I'll withdraw my self
 >and my hopes for moving into the next phase until more,
 >enlightened people realize that the time is here to either "put
 >up or shut up" as Roger so daintily puts it. Until a qualified
 >staff of Research Scientists decides to take this project on.
 >I'll be happy to help set up the funding for such an endeavor if
 >and when the opportunity arises. Until then, this discussion,
 >for me, is over.

 >Thanks to All!

 >Liz

Hi Liz, hi All,

In case you haven't figured this guy out yet (good ole Roger)
he's only 'baiting' everyone. In a kind of 'poke a stick in the
animal cages at the zoo' fashion, this is Roger's way of having
fun.

I don't mind debating him a little because he does manage to
raise the odd valid point or two in his tirades. But, it's a kid
with a kids mentality having us on for what passes for
entertainment in his life.

Take Roger with a grain of salt and _don't_ take him seriously.
He's not, and most of what he says doesn't merit serious
consideration. If he's really starting to get on your nerves
just don't respond to him at all. No response, no Roger. If
you're like me, and like to grab the stick he is poking us with,
and beating _him_ over the head with it, then by all means, grab
his stick and beat him with it.  It's fun! <LOL>

Roger is _easy_. You should try dealing with some of the
skeptics that used to populate this List. Those were some
bright/intelligent people that would challenge you on every
level. Compared to them, dealing with Roger is like dealing with
an annoying child in the backseat that keeps asking, "Are we
there yet?"

Warm regards,

John Velez, when the flies buzz to close, just shoo em off.


******************************************************
                     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 >
   Dec > Dec 17

                        Re: Reluctant Viewers - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 12:53:21 -0600
Fwd Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 18:00:44 -0500
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Evans


 >From: Elizabeth Hammond <lizzz@worldnet.att.net>
 >Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 13:24:50 -0500
 >Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 07:55:20 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Hammond

 >>Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 23:17:33 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, I had written:

 >>>>Go to a doctor, Ms. Hammond, just like you would if
 >>>>there were anything else in your body that you did not want
 >>>>there.

Liz replies:

 >The first paragraph of my post mentioned Non-invasive
 >procedures, using cheek swabs for DNA, MRI'S and Cat Scans
 >looking for foreign bodies. These two words (foreigv Bodies)
 >seem to have gotten stuck in some brains. These were all "For
 >instances". I do not believe I have a foreign body (for the
 >second time), but am aware that there are others who do.

Again, I felt you were implying that YOU had foreign objects in your
body. The way it was written certainly came off that way to me. But this
is all really a diversion from the real issue at hand: If ANYONE has a
foreign object in their body, of ET origin or not, then they don't have
to wait for a "team of specialists" to examine them. Simply go to the
doctor like you would in any other circumstance. There really is no
logical argument you can make against this, Liz. As far as it being
unbiased, the doctor need not know an abductee's suspicions about the
origin of the object or any other illness. Let the doctor do his job.

The results will be one of the following:

1) It's all in the persons' head
2) It's an object of terrestrial origin
3) It's an object of extraterrestrial origin

But NOTHING will be proved, one way or the other, if abductees keep
repeating the myth that "insurance won't cover it" or that "the medical
profession doesn't want to get involved" or such nonsense.

Having worked at the Texas Medical Center for a number of years as both
a medical illustrator and a cinematographer in the O.R., I can tell you
that the medical field is VERY keen on finding new and interesting cases
for the textbooks. If it was discovered that an object removed was ET in
origin, or that a medical condition was ET in nature, even interns would
fight for the credit.

The notion that doctors and hospitals aren't interested in nothing but a
myth used by many abductees to put off the inevitable issue of discovery
or lack thereof. To claim that it would take a team of doctors and
specialists to examine someone artificially raises the bar of difficulty
in order to delay dealing with real issues like, "Was I really abducted
by aliens?"

Finally, you wrote:

 >Also, mentioning the fact that I'm disabled was not, as you seem
 >to think, some sort of plea for mercy, but in answer to your
 >very rude suggestion that we should all just troop off for any
 >and all invasive procedures that someone (yourself perhaps?)
 >might wish to perform. Setting myself up for more of your
 >sarcasm regarding my health, I've had over 12 surgical
 >procedures to the pelvis and plan to have NO more unless the
 >strongest possibility of something life threatening exists.
 >Proving Alien Abduction is just not something I consider life
 >threatening!

Now THIS is something that really pisses me off, Liz. I
privately sent you the following email long before you wrote the
above post:

 >Dear Liz,

 >In a previous post, I believe EBK accidentally edited the ending of my
 >post which significantly changed the implied meaning. What was posted by
 >EBK read:

 >>I have many disabled friends and the last thing they want is special
 >>treatment. Everyone has to deal with their own problems.

 >I feel the above presents an unusually harsh image, even by my
 >standards.

 >What I originally wrote, however was:

 >>I have many disabled friends and the last thing they want is special
 >>treatment. Everyone has to deal with their own problems. Or do alien
 >>abductees deserve special treatment that the rest of us don't deserve?

 >While you may not agree with this any more than my other positions, I
 >think the parallel I was attempting to draw is clear. I have the utmost
 >respect for the disabled and would never "slam" anyone disabled just to
 >make a point.

 >My apologies for the confusion.

You replied:

 >Dear Roger:

 >No Problem,  forget about it.   I understand what you where
 >working towards.

 >Yours,

 >Liz

You clearly understood the meaning of my post. There is no
reason to skew the meaning just to make a hollow point. I never
said that your mentioning your disability was a plea for help or
special treatment. On the contrary, I clearly indicated that
abductees shouldn't be treated any differently than someone
disabled likes to be treated which is, of course, no different
at all.

You were made aware of the editing that EBK had done to my post
and you still capitalized on the confusion. And you question MY
ethics?

Moving on, you wrote:

 >You've managed to mire this discussion down into a cesspool of
 >sarcasm. Picking and choosing what to highlight for you're
 >arguments. What a hoot to actually suggest that evidence from
 >one person will be enough!

If it's proof, that's more than any of you have at your disposal
now. Why be picky, all of a sudden? It's like the on going
battle between SETI and Ufology. Who cares how we make contact,
as long as we make contact? I maintain that proof from one
person will be enough. You want more. In fact, you want more
than you know can be achieved. I have to wonder why?

You maintain:

 >And we don't need this done by a TV station during sweeps weeks
 >with a panel of pro and cons! We'd like to be treated, for once,
 >like human beings. With feelings, fears and a lot more questions
 >than we so far have answers for! We are NOT someone's side show,
 >ready to be trooped before the public like John Merrick, for the
 >masses kicks and giggles!

Liz, I think you are really going off the deep in about this.
Shows like 60 Minutes or 48 Hours have actually saved people's
lives. Their reports on a death row inmate innocent of a crime
or exposes on health risks or defective products or faulty
automobiles have served the viewing audience well and have never
escalated into a "freak show" for sweeps week. Your position is
the very foundation for more abductee "myths" as to why nothing
can be done and everything is hopeless.

Moving on, you write:

 >This List, you "experts", all you Book
 >Writers, Lecture Givers, those who make there money selling
 >interviews, photographs, etc. It seems you're just not ready for
 >this. Some strong, unafraid person steps up to the plate and all
 >that comes back is vitriol, reasons why I can just do it all
 >alone and then put myself out there, again, alone, to be ripped
 >apart by a slew of others as Roger has spent the last few days
 >ripping me apart.

For the life of me Liz, you are not making sense. If my position
is so weak, then how could I have "ripped you apart"? Why is it
vitriol for me to suggest that you are capable of solving this
problem? If I wanted to really insult you, I'd take the position
that you are helpless and couldn't do anything without
assistance from others. But I haven't. I have taken the position
that there are mechanisms at your disposal that you haven't
tried that would be within your reach.

I maintain that you CAN do something.
YOU are the one maintaining that you can't.

I don't know how much more supportive I can be. Or do you want
me to throw my hands in the air and chime in on the abductee
mantra that "nothing can be done" or that "everyone else isn't
doing enough" or what ever.

Finally, you write:

 >I have zero
 >interest in writing about my personal health issues on a public
 >List of this nature.

<snip>

 >But, like your other disabled
 >friends, Roger, I get around just fine, live a full life and
 >consider being disabled nothing but a tiny nuisance to be
 >generally ignored.

 >In light of the fact that outside of other, like minded
 >abductees, the only person heard from here is someone who
 >clearly has his own agenda in all this, I'll withdraw my self
 >and my hopes for moving into the next phase until more,
 >enlightened people realize that the time is here to either "put
 >up or shut up" as Roger so daintily puts it.

Never said any such thing.

Regarding your zero interest in writing about your personal
health issues; if your disability is but a tiny nuisance then
the only other health issue is, indeed, being an abductee! For
you to create the topic of being an abductee on this List, then
chastising me for discussing the related health issues YOU
brought up is silly! If you aren't prepared to talk about it,
then why make it a topic of discussion in a public forum? It's
no wonder you consider John Velez one of the "good guys".
Neither of you are really interested in dealing with issues
related to closure, discovery or solutions. All you seem to want
is the attention of the viewing audience while the myth goes on
and on and on...

I give up.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 17

                     Re: Reluctant Viewers - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 14:18:25 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 18:06:00 -0500
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Mortellaro


 >From: Elizabeth Hammond <lizzz@worldnet.att.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 13:24:50 -0500

 >>Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 23:17:33 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 13:15:53 EST
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers

 >>>>Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 09:44:09 -0600
 >>>>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >>>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Snip

 >Dear Roger, John, Jim, Al, Nick and List: .

 >The first paragraph of my post mentioned Non-invasive
 >procedures, using cheek swabs for DNA, MRI'S and Cat Scans
 >looking for foreign bodies. These two words (foreigv Bodies)
 >seem to have gotten stuck in some brains. These were all "For
 >instances". I do not believe I have a foreign body (for the
 >second time), but am aware that there are others who do.

 >Also, mentioning the fact that I'm disabled was not, as you seem
 >to think, some sort of plea for mercy, but in answer to your
 >very rude suggestion that we should all just troop off for any
 >and all invasive procedures that someone (yourself perhaps?)
 >might wish to perform. Setting myself up for more of your
 >sarcasm regarding my health, I've had over 12 surgical
 >procedures to the pelvis and plan to have NO more unless the
 >strongest possibility of something life threatening exists.
 >Proving Alien Abduction is just not something I consider life
 >threatening!

 >You've managed to mire this discussion down into a cesspool of
 >sarcasm. Picking and choosing what to highlight for you're
 >arguments. What a hoot to actually suggest that evidence from
 >one person will be enough! Of course it won't. All this will
 >show is what I, personally, have going on. Without taking these
 >tests and looking at them in relation to other Alleged
 >Abductees, and then taking that data and comparing it to those
 >Allegedly Non-Abductees, what good is the data? We need to see
 >what a _group_ of us looks like, compared to a control group of
 >the rest of the population. For whatever reason, you've chosen
 >to ignore that part of my post.

 >And we don't need this done by a TV station during sweeps weeks
 >with a panel of pro and cons! We'd like to be treated, for once,
 >like human beings. With feelings, fears and a lot more questions
 >than we so far have answers for! We are NOT someone's side show,
 >ready to be trooped before the public like John Merrick, for the
 >masses kicks and giggles!

 >And, for the _last_ time, I don't feel I have a foreign body of
 >inexplicable origin anywhere in my body. I truly hope, Roger,
 >that you will get it, now. I've said it several times! I do not
 >have any foreign bodies in my person! Is this plain enough!

 >It was my very naive hope that some on this List were actually
 >serious when they talked about getting further into this
 >mystery. When it was discussed that Abductee's would need to
 >come forward for the purpose of serious research. It seems I was
 >greatly mistaken in this. This List, you "experts", all you Book
 >Writers, Lecture Givers, those who make there money selling
 >interviews, photographs, etc. It seems you're just not ready for
 >this. Some strong, unafraid person steps up to the plate and all
 >that comes back is vitriol, reasons why I can just do it all
 >alone and then put myself out there, again, alone, to be ripped
 >apart by a slew of others as Roger has spent the last few days
 >ripping me apart.

 >You don't know me Roger, you know nothing about me. Yet you
 >presume to make statement after statement regarding what I
 >should and shouldn't do or have and haven't done. I have zero
 >interest in writing about my personal health issues on a public
 >List of this nature. How many Doctor's I've seen, how often I
 >see them, what there diagnosis have been, what my current health
 >status is, what my prognosis may be. They are, and will remain
 >my business and mine alone. But, like your other disabled
 >friends, Roger, I get around just fine, live a full life and
 >consider being disabled nothing but a tiny nuisance to be
 >generally ignored.

 >In light of the fact that outside of other, like minded
 >abductees, the only person heard from here is someone who
 >clearly has his own agenda in all this, I'll withdraw my self
 >and my hopes for moving into the next phase until more,
 >enlightened people realize that the time is here to either "put
 >up or shut up" as Roger so daintily puts it. Until a qualified
 >staff of Research Scientists decides to take this project on.
 >I'll be happy to help set up the funding for such an endeavor if
 >and when the opportunity arises. Until then, this discussion,
 >for me, is over.

Dear Liz,

I am reasonably sure that Errol will not mind if I address this
post to _us_ this time. It often seems we are the only ones
listening. But we are many are we not? Not just the two of us,
or three. We are in the millions.

Say, where have all the experts gone? Long time passing. Where
have all the experts gone, long time ago? Here on this
prestigious list, we have heard from the abductee and the
skeptic. Cheese! Strange fruit hangin' from the people tree. Out
here, where everyone can see.

But I suppose the experts are not responsive to this stuff.
After all it's just a few abductees. But what's strange, is the
manner in which all the pieces fit together. The pieces of the
puzzle which point to the high strangeness of shared illnesses;
physical, emotional and psychological. Not merely strangely
similar _experiences_ but strangely similar illnesses. And
X-Spurts need to make that connection a whole lot more than many
have.

Some people want to just write books. Others want to write the
truth, or get close enough to it to make the paper and ink
matter. Not important how many books sell or don't sell.

They will be there when needed. The books which convey the
greater truth. They always are. Then it will matter. It will
matter when some poor beleagured soul picks it up and says,
"Holy Cow, this is me!" And garners some greater truth than the
equivelent of swamp gas with which to light up a... well, you
know. One a those...

I'd print our list of illneses shared here, but it would be to
no avail. Right now, this list is the private property of
another Internet Org. Our own Cosa Nostra. We shall continue to
save it, compile it, discuss it, analyze it and work it to
death. And when the time comes, it will be ready. Along with a
host of anecdotal and other evidence which when combined with
the word of those having suffered through it, cannot easily be
denied.

However people will try.

I am still of the opinion that the best evidence and the best
research belongs with the abductee... those who have been
through it themselves and have the education, the brains and
intellect or any good combination of these, to decide a more
absolute version of the truth than that which we witness from
the experts, who are, no kidding, beginning to look more and
more like X-Spurts to me every day.

So Liz, withdraw. It's OK. A few of us will continue the battle
of words. But all of _us_ will continue our own battle of
discovery. On our own. But together. Oxymoron? Yup, but only to
morons. At least we'll be smart enough to find an expert when we
know we need one. I'm certain of that.

Just don't withdraw from what you guys have started and from
what we now participate in, at last, as a family. Not an odd
assortment of wannabees with the Gestapo lurking, wondering who
it is gonna be the bookieman this time.

And where you and I are now, we don' need no estinkin badges,
eh?

You are blessed Lizzzz. You have friends now. And you know who
they are. Of greater import, is the fact that knowing who your
friends are helps expose the real enemy.

Shoot, I almost wrote "enema!"  Another Freudian camisole.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 17

                     Re: Reluctant Viewers - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 15:13:02 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 18:09:54 -0500
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Mortellaro


 >Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 21:44:34 +0000
 >From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers

 >>Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 20:58:40 +0000
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers

 >>>From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 13:15:53 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>I have three marks on
 >>>a part of my arm not reachable to do it myself.

 >>Unless you only have one arm, how can this be? I've just tried
 >>it out and I can reach every part of both my arms.

 >I'll handle this one Jim. When you have a bottle of gripple in
 >the hand on the end of the other arm, it is impossible to check.
 >Did I get it right Jim?

 >Don

Thank you Don,

Saved by the (erp) man on the ledge. Notice that unlike my
friend Lawrence of Hatchdom, I do not (burp), I (erp). Of
course, you are quite correct.

Seriously, I tried photographing the marks with my digital
camera, but I can't seem to get my aim right.  Truth!  I keep
getting my shoulder, one mark of three, or the light is wrong.
And Hopkins has the originals in my file there.  Also, and
interestingly, it was when the marks were sort of festering.

That happens periodically.  Probably when in my cups I bump up
against some rough cut swamp gas.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 17

                     Part V of Hesemann's MC UFO Report

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 12:29:09 -0800
Fwd Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 18:19:19 -0500
Subject: Part V of Hesemann's MC UFO Report


                            Part V

                        16 EYEWITNESSES

After we had thus spoken to five eyewitnesses and heard from
seven more witnesses second hand, we came to the conclusion that
something had really happened on August 6th around 5 pm.

We knew of 12 witnesses; Maussan showed me later in Acapulco the
records of interviews with four more, which makes 16. Not bad
for a beginning. The witnesses stem from all levels of society,
they mostly don't know one another, and so it is impossible that
they agreed conspiratorially among each other on their accounts.
Their realistic accounts at times from their quite individual
perspectives, and the mention of details not to be seen on the
video (e.g., the yellow lights) speak for the case.

The only alternative explanation would be that someone, who
actually became the witness of a true UFO sighting, had
attempted by means of digital computer technology to simulate
just this. Yet, this seems rather improbable. The fact that all
the computer experts have miscalculated the apparent size of the
object (they calculated its diameter to be around 15 m) proves
once again how indispensable field studies are. Their source of
error was an exaggerated estimate of the diameter of the
building that served as the reference point.

Considering the fact that today using digital techniques almost
anything can be falsified, this case should be a lesson in UFO
research: to accept a video only if there are also trustworthy
eyewitnesses, and not to rely just on computer analyses. A solid
field study is always the more reliable method for ascertaining
the truth about a sighting case!

                                EVALUATION

The other question is whether it was actually a UFO or better:
an extraterrestrial spacecraft. With the exception of the
account by photographer Annie Lash, who spoke of burns, none of
the witnesses described overly unusual flight maneuvers. The
wobbling, rotating disk, which was not so very large - somewhere
between 4 and 10 meters, once we relativize the partially
exaggerated witness report; i.e., in a ratio using the actual
size of the reference length (the building) - could just as well
have been, theoretically, a remotely controlled flying
apparatus. However, it would have had to take off and land
somewhere, and for that there is no witness. We believe Annie
Lash, that the UFO emerged suddenly out of a dark cloud, and as
two of our witnesses stressed, that it also rather quickly
disappeared again.

The short duration of the sighting - at most 40 seconds, the
thick smog layer and the relatively small size of the object
explain why there were not so many eyewitnesses as one would
normally expect from a megapolis like Mexico City. Although we
reckon that thorough field studies with specific interviews of
all high-rise inhabitants could uncover at least 100
eyewitnesses, we must not overlook that the UFO, once again,
operated rather clandestinely. It emerged on a hazy day "as out
of nowhere" in direct proximity to a group of high rises, which
even hindered/concealed the sight of it, just to disappear again
after a very short time. Apparently "someone" staged the most
spectacular "daylight disk" sighting in UFO history as a limited
operation - as damage control, so to speak. In this sense also
the wobbling movements are perhaps deliberate, in order to leave
room for doubt. That again fits the customary behavior of the
UFO occupants, who appear to be following a strategy of gentle
approach towards contact. Perhaps the Bosques de las Lomas film
therefore actually involves an authentic video of an
extraterrestrial spacecraft, which occurred only for the purpose
of once again presenting to us a controversial and subtle
indication that we are not alone in the universe...


(c) 1998 by Magazin 2000/Michael Hesemann

Fig. 1:  Scene of the Bosques de las Lomas film

Fig. 1b: Composite of three scenes of the UFO video of 6 August
          1997

Fig. 1c: A further composite panorama, as posted by Mark Cashman
          on the Internet

Fig. 2:  The most impressive scene: The object disappears behind
          the high rise

Fig. 3:  Enlargement of the object

Fig. 3a: Computer investigation of the Bosque de las Lomas video
          by Prof. Victor Quesada: Outline

Fig. 3b: The edge analysis through false color shows: The object
          is somewhat nearer than the office building with the
          sloping roof. Its diameter thereupon amounts to at most
          seven meters. Since it is more distant than the
          apartment houses on the right, however, it is at least
          four meters long.

Fig. 4:  The original scene of action: At left the office
          building from whose 4th floor the video was taken

Fig. 4a: Close-up of the apartment houses
Fig. 5:  Jaime Maussan
Fig. 6:  Cassandra, Jaime Maussan's first eyewitness
Fig. 7:  The Taco stand of Cassandra's family
Fig. 8:  Eyewitnesses interviewed by Magazin2000: Norma Orvelia
Fig. 9:  Her son Roman
Fig. 10: Roman's friend Carlos
Fig. 11: Arturo Sierra
Fig. 12: Alfredo Rodriguez Fernandez





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 17

                        Re: Reluctant Viewers - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 14:49:30 -0600
Fwd Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 18:28:20 -0500
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Evans


 >From: Sue Strickland <strick@H2Net.net>
 >Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 08:25:33 -0700
 >Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 07:28:01 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Strickland

Previously, Sue wrote:

 >Roger, Liz, John, EBK and List Members, you may be working under
 >an erroneous assumption (then again, maybe I am): that docs
 >don't know, don't care and aren't knowledgeable about the
 >anamolous phenomena we abductees have been discussing on this
 >list for several years. I assure you, the docs talk between each
 >other, in confidence, about various patients who exhibit these
 >mysterious symptoms. And, because most of them have spent
 >$100,000.00 + to get through college, med school, internship and
 >residency, and worked hard to establish their practices based on
 >treating colds, flu and broken limbs, they are some of the most
 >discreet individuals you will ever meet.

 >That is _not_ to say they are _not_ interested, but most of them
 >cannot or will not risk their careers, reputations and marriages
 >to further study a phenomena that is _not_ universally accepted
 >as worthy of study, much less accepted as part of our physical
 >reality, which flies in the face of _all_ of their training, and
 >socially-accepted, defined cultural boundaries.

<snip>

 >Do you understand what I'm trying to say Roger, or am I just
 >babbling on here? Please respond. Then maybe I can tell you all
 >about something that _just_ reared it's ugly head for
 >me...another "snap to reality" thingie...to remind me that this
 >is all real.


Hi, Sue!

Let me see if I can simplify my position regarding the whole
abduction scenario.

1) I do believe that it is possible that alien abductions can be
real, not because of overwhelming proof or evidence that it is
happening, but because I believe in the existence of ET life and
I see nothing that would prevent them from performing such an
act.

2) I understand that the alien abduction issue encompasses
thousands and thousands of people, therefore, something odd is
going on. Does this, in itself, add validity to the idea of
alien abductions? No. It only means that a lot of people are
involved.

3) I understand that it would be terrific to have a whole team
of scientists and doctors investigating this phenomenon.
However, history has shown that, while it would be nice, it is
not a requirement in order to get solid answers. Research is
carried out all the time by sole individuals and discoveries by
individuals have been made throughout history. One patient that
proved to be an alien abductee would make the news and would do
a lot for all other real abductees.

4) I do not buy into the myth that insurance will not cover the
treatment of ailments caused by ET life. Insurance companies
would not know the difference between a cut caused by broken
glass in a fall or a cut caused by a sloppy alien incision.
Granted, elective surgery isn't covered by many insurance
carriers, but some do. But elective surgery is predicated on the
idea that one already knows what is going to be removed and that
it isn't life threatening. Going to the doctor for discomfort
caused by an "unknown" cause is, indeed, covered by all
insurance and could be taken advantage of by all abductees with
insurance, even if they secretly know what the object is. I know
of no exclusions in insurance for ailments caused by ET life
after the fact. That is to say, the insurance companies aren't
going to look at the alien implant and say,"Sorry, but we won't
pay for it now that we know what was in your body".

5) I also do not believe for a minute in the myth that all
"doctors, scientists and researchers do not want to get
involved" due to the stigma attached to the belief in ET life.
Having worked with doctors and researchers, I can tell you that
they are, as you pointed out, very interested in unique ailments
for the textbooks and journals. But far from being afraid of
risking their reputation, most are always looking for ways to
MAKE a reputation. As unpopular as abortion is with many people,
I see no void in the area of qualified doctors willing to
perform the procedure or be associated with the issue. The fear
of stigma about ET life may be present in some professionals,
but not enough to interfere with the help that abductees need or
deserve.

As I mentioned in another post, I used to work in the Texas
Medical Center as both an illustrator and a cinematographer in
the O.R. You would not believe the nature of some of the
research that goes on in that place. The things they do with
beagles, alone, is enough to make your skin crawl. The blind
testing done where terminally ill patients are given sugar pills
and left to die is enough to make most people cry foul. But no
one associated with these things gives them a second thought,
even though they are terrible, terrible crimes against nature
and humanity by most people's standards. Do you really think
that these people would care if they were associated with
something as sensational as belief in ET life?

But let's take a look at what would happen if someone with an
alien implant were to go to the doctor. And let's face it, with
the thousands of people claiming to have alien implants,
exploring that avenue is abductees' best bet for exoneration in
the eyes of the general public. The end result would be
something solid that could be looked at and studied by anyone.

Step one would be the examination where the doctor would ask
questions and look at the patient's body for obvious, external
signs of cause of discomfort. If that did not work, then scans
and xrays would be taken to help with the diagnosis.

In the case of an alien implant, the doctor would not look at
the xray and say, "Gee, that looks like an alien implant. Sorry,
your HMO does not cover extraction of such things. You'll just
have to live with the pain that it's causing." On the contrary,
he may not even know what he's looking at. But his experience
will tell him that it does not belong in your body and that its
existence is causing you pain.

So, the next step is surgery to remove said object. Now, even at
this point, there is still no issue of stigma attached to the
procedure. Why? Well, let's say that the object removed was a
bullet instead of an implant. Unless the doctor is a ballistics
expert, he isn't going to pull out the bullet and say, "This
looks like it came from a 32 caliber snub nose." Likewise,
unless the doctor is an expert in ET implants, he wouldn't
recognize one even if he held in his surgically gloved hand.
He'll just pull it out, sew you up, and drop the "thing" in a
jar for you to take home. What you do with it afterwards won't
affect his professional standing in the slightest. If the
"thing" looks biological in nature, then he'll send it to the
lab without you even asking him to; standard procedure to see if
the thing removed might be malignant.

And, most importantly, all of this is covered by the most basic
of insurance policies. Even if someone is NOT insured, municipal
hospitals have all the same equipment and staff as other
hospitals do. In the end, anyone with an ailment, whether ET
induced or not, can and should go to their doctor for what ever
treatment is necessary. Granted, there are some abductees that
have mental issues more than physical issues, but the same rules
apply. Insurance covers you if you are ill, mentally or
physically, and the myth that "doctors won't understand" or
"don't want to get involved" is a disservice to those abductees
that need treatment.

I support the needs of the abductees. I do not support abductees
that are simply needy.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 17

               Re: 50th Anniversary of a UFO Invasion - Stacy

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 16:40:40 -0600
Fwd Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 18:33:13 -0500
Subject: Re: 50th Anniversary of a UFO Invasion - Stacy


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 14:08:27 EST
 >Subject: Re: 50th Anniversary of a UFO Invasion
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

<much snipped>

 >Hi Larry, Bruce, Nick & List,

 >Bruce has posted a lot of the material I had been thinking of,
 >except that the Zechel data omits Zechel getting Willingham to
 >admit he had fabricated his whole story from a rumor he heard as
 >a boy involved in the Civil Air Patrol.

<more mucho snippo>

 >Brad Sparks

Brad, List,

This is very interesting, for reasons that will become apparent.

Unbeknownst to most of the UFO community, Tom Deuley and I have
made three trips over the years to the El Indio-Guerrero area,
interviewing locals in search of some shred of evidence that
would substantiate or refute the Dec 06, 1950, crash and
retrieval of a UFO (and thus the original MJ-12 documents)
somewhere along the border between Mexico and Texas.

We found a few tantalizing tales.

More to the point, we found that a Civilian Air Patrol spotter
plane was shot down in 1944, in a gunnery range accident, and
crashed in Mexico just outside Guerrero, killing the pilot and
observer. Mexico was neutral at the time.  What we had, then,
was an "international incident." Obviously, we would have wanted
to recover the bodies of our airmen, which was probably arranged
through diplomatic channels, and which no doubt involved both US
and Mexican military personnel.

I wrote to the historian of the CAP, requesting more information
about this particular incident, but never received a reply.

It's our studied opinion that it was this incident - and
subsequent joint-recovery of real bodies - that underlies tales
of a UFO crash and recovery along the Texas-Mexico border. I'm
in the process of moving, so all my files are not available for
ready review. To the best of my memory, the details (such as
they are) can be found in 'Wings Across the Border'. I can't
remember the author's name off-hand.

Maybe someone else can petition the CAP and its historian for
additional information.

Dennis









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 17

             NOVA, Science & Mr. Velez [was: Reluctant Viewers]

From: Wendy Christensen <christensen@catlas.mv.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 23:26:19 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 23:12:11 -0500
Subject: NOVA, Science & Mr. Velez [was: Reluctant Viewers]


 >Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 15:59:25 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers


 >>Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 22:54:02 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Mr. Velez states...

<snip>

 >Of course not Roger. NOVA is supposed to do "science reporting"
 >based on the research and empirical findings of others. That
 >didn't happen. If you think that what was presented on that
 >program was either "science" or "reporting" then you have missed
 >something very important. An important lesson.

An important lessen was indeed missed. But not by Mr. Evans. To
wit: NOVA  does not "do 'science reporting' based on the
research and empirical findings of others." NOVA, like
everything else on TV is, despite pretensions to the contrary,
entertainment. It is designed, written, produced and sold for
profit.The producers (not only of NOVA but of eveything on TV)
will put anything and every- thing on the air (that they think
they can get by with) that will pull in ratings and draw
advertising dollars. Period. That's their job.

Sometimes, no doubt, what they present is reliable and true.
Sometimes, no doubt, they even present legitimate scientific
information. But a viewer would be foolhardy to take the word of
any TV show as definitive without further coorboration from at
least one other non-entertainment medium, such as an
established, refereed professional scientific journal.

Given this, expecting a TV program to seriously and objectively
investigate and report on a claim so controversial as alien
abduction is a pipedream at best.

One must always expect, when appearing on TV, to be offered up
as the amusement of the moment, a brief diversion, a passing
fancy, a joke. Any other expectation is foolish. Grieving
families are entertainment. Disasters are entertainment. Why,
Mr. Velez, did you ever expect your claims to be taken seriously
in the first place? Someone who claims to be as streetwise and
savvy as you should surely have known better.

There are many who claim we live in an information society. They
err. We live in an entertainment society. TV is not a venue in
which one can reasonably expect science to be done, or even
reliably reported upon. Relying upon TV or anthing connected
with it for sound information, scientific investigation,
objectivity or truthful reporting is wishful thinking.

If you enjoy the entertainment offered by television, go ahead
and indulge. But never mistake it for anything other than what
it is. I trust Mr. Velez has learned his "important lesson."

Purrrrs...
Wendy Christensen









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 17

                       Re: Reluctant Viewers - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 08:26:29 +0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 23:13:44 -0500
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Rimmer


 >From: Colin Stevenson <colin49@colin49.worldonline.co.uk>
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 13:41:13 -0000

 >Hi Errol

 >Hopefully this area will be proved positive soon.

 >See:

 >http://www.colsweb.com/eyesonly.htm

 >This page is a plea to Medical Professionals to come forward
 >with their suspicions of ET/human cross breeding. Generalized
 >statements can be made without infringing Doctor-Patient
 >confidentiality.

 >Colin Stevenson

 >UK UFO/ET Researcher
 >reply only to col@colsweb.com
 >website http://www.colsweb.com

If anybody would like to know just why doctors and other medical
professionals refuse to get involved in abduction study, they
might well look at this sensationalist nonsense, complete with
winking alien graphics, pink bunny-ears and ludicrous,
unattributed, uncheckable stories.

I can guarantee that this is certainly not going to "be proved
positive soon".

--
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 >
   Dec > Dec 17

                     Re: Reluctant Viewers - St. Pierre

From: Greg St. Pierre <GregJenn95@email.msn.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 13:36:04 -0800
Fwd Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 23:15:45 -0500
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - St. Pierre


Dear List,

This thread is rather large, and would make a considerably sized
ball if wound, so I'll avoid quotes and just go at it generally.

About this reluctant viewer business...

Since several people have suggested that abductees will not or
can not foot the bill for medical testing, nor will their
insurance companies, we have basically ruled out two avenues of
funding. It's also patently obvious that the private sector,
lacking any motivation to provide such funding, will not be
getting in on the game any time soon so kiss avenue three
goodbye. This may be one of the occasions where a symbiotic
relationship with the skeptical community at large may be called
for. We know we'd like to have definitive proof of abductions if
we could, and they would like to have the chance to show once
and for all that there's nothing to it. Therefore, either we
gripe that the situation is at an impasse, or we contact the
skeptics and try to arrange some sort of joint project. Would
the readership, advertisers and/or enthusiasts of both sides
respond to a call for donations for such a worthy project?

The question is, of course, could skeptics be motivated to
attempt to disprove something that I think we can all agree is,
to much of the public, already unproven? There would have to be
rules of the game agreed to by both sides, with some sort of
mutually acceptable set of protocalls.

This all assumes one can draw from a sufficiently sized well of
medical and scientific experts willing to become involved,
potentially placing both reputation and occupation at stake.
Even if they weren't told what exactly it was they were looking
for, I doubt it would take them long to figure out where the
research was heading (if they won't participate, then abductees
are S.O.L.).

Anyone think this is possible?

Greg St. Pierre








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 17

               Re: 50th Anniversary of a UFO Invasion - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 14:31:06 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 23:20:45 -0500
Subject: Re: 50th Anniversary of a UFO Invasion - Sparks


 >Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 21:16:20 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
 >From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: 50th Anniversary of a UFO Invasion


 >>Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 01:33:17 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: UFO UpDate: 50th Anniversary of a UFO Invasion - Sparks

 >>>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 17:34:19 EST
 >>>Subject: 50th Anniversary of a UFO Invasion
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 ><snip>

 >>>As for the alleged UFO crash, this is the fraudulent Lt Col
 >>>Willingham story that he later admitted he had fabricated from a
 >>>rumor he had heard as a boy. It was investigated by Todd Zechel

 ><big snip>

 >>>So Zechel started looking up newspapers around Dec 8, 1950, and
 >>>found the news about sightings of contrails in Alaska, Korean
 >>>War developments of the Chinese entering the war, etc.

 ><snip>

 >>It does indeed look like somebody may have taken several
 >>incidents and sewn them together into one.

 ><snip>

 >Hi Brad, Larry and list.

 >Below are two other additional items which may or may not be
 >pieces to the puzzle of the alleged 1950 UFO crash in Mexico.

 >The first item is a 1979 signed statement by William H. Draeger
 >of Austin, Texas that was mailed to UFO crash/retrieval
 >researcher Leonard H. Stringfield which he published in one of
 >his monographs (Status Report II, 1980, page 22). I will quote
 >part of it below.

 >I contacted the Mexican Army General who had command of that
 >specific area of the border abd initially talked with him by
 >telephone. I [Draeger] identified myself and my position
 >[formerly with the U.S. Air Force] and related that in 1950 a
 >UFO was reported to have crashed 30 miles northwest of Del Rio,
 >that we had along a pilot [retired Colonel Willingham?] who had
 >seen it in the air and later on the ground being guarded by
 >Mexican troops until American Air Force units arrived to
 >retrieve the craft and a body that was found aboard. Without
 >pause, the General answered in Spanish, "Yes, I know about that.
 >I don't have any papers or documents to prove it, but due to my
 >position I know about that." When I asked if he would consent to
 >an interview he paused and said he would be busy for 30 minutes
 >but afterwards would be free for an interview at his home. When
 >the 7-man crew, the retired colonel, and myself arrived and we
 >talked with him, he totally denied any knowledge of the incident
 >and on camera he denied and evaded any questions dealing with
 >the incident and UFOs. ... I believe the General is beyond
 >reproach and that he "slipped" on the telephone but maintained
 >strict security for the interview. I, William H. Draeger, do
 >hearby swear to God that the above statement is the truth, the
 >whole truth and nothing but the truth.
<SNIP>

 >Has anyone seen any of these pictures or films of the three
 >flying saucers over Mexico City at the time of the arrival of
 >General Marshall in the summer of 1951? This was about half a
 >year after the alleged UFO crashed on Mexico which was retrieved
 >by American Air Force units according to Draeger. Was a Flying
 >Box-Car used in the retrieval of this crashed saucer?

<snip>

 >Nick Balaskas

Nick, Larry & List,

Bill Draeger was simply the Spanish language translator that
Zechel brought in to do the interviewing in Mexico in August
1979 for Nippon TV. He was not some expert on, or witness to,
the alleged 1950 UFO crash. Draeger had served in the US Air
Force Security Service, the AF component of the electronic
eavesdropping NSA, where he used his Spanish language skills. He
was also one of the witnesses to an intercepted military message
from Cuba in March 1967 about a Cuban MiG-21 that was allegedly
downed by a UFO, a message allegedly intercepted by his AFSS
squadron in Key West, Florida.

The Mexican general's "testimony" turns entirely on the exact
wording of Draeger's question put to him and, of course, his
answer - neither of which were recorded despite the available
resources of an international video crew from Nippon TV. There
were incidents such as aircraft and V-2 crashes from the U.S.
over the border into Mexico in the late 40's and 50's, so the
Mexican general may have misunderstood the question as relating
to that, so he confirmed "that," only to be embarrassed shortly
after with a whole video crew thinking he was proof of an ET
crash.

Notice that the Mexican General's response says nothing about
aliens or spacecraft or humanoid bodies or the like so
everything depends on the exact phrasing of Draeger's question
- which even Draeger does not give us (Draeger only
_paraphrases_ what he allegedly asked the general). The General
replied (as translated by Draeger): "Yes, I know about that. I
don't have any papers or documents to prove it, but due to my
position I know about that." Well what was the "that" he was
talking about? It depends entirely on Draeger, who doesn't give
us his own question to the general by direct q uotation.

The whole "1950" Texas-Mexico incident is a confabulation of
Zechel's investigative theories stringing together disparate
undated rumors, as I detailed in the portions of my posting that
Larry snipped out (see:

http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2000/dec/m16-014.shtml )

Zechel wanted his case to become ufology's number one proof
instead of the Roswell incident and he and Bill Moore were
intensely jealous of each other and in fierce competition for
book deals, TV/movie productions, etc. Zechel had to settle for
No. 2 place behind Roswell, maybe you can call the Texas-Mexico
case "Roswell II."

A Mexican connection to UFOs in 1950 can be found for entirely
different reasons having nothing to do with Zechel's case.
Hence, just because UFO cases and crashed-saucer tales can be
found in Mexico in 1950-1 has nothing necessarily to do with
Zechel's hypothesized incident. Here is what happened back then:

A wave of alleged UFO sightings in Mexico was triggered by the
publication of Keyhoe's TRUE magazine article in Mexico in March
1950. At about the same time the Scully hoax stories started
including Mexico in their scenarios, apparently to make the
scene more exotic and too remote to investigate and unravel as a
fraud. This is one of the few instances on record where the news
media in effect created a UFO flap by publicity, contrary to
Phil Klass' claim of a universal rule, a publicity-generated
"interactive effect" that "will" trigger spurious UFO flaps (he
missed the rare 1950 instance supporting his rule). Real UFO
events were going on farther north in the U.S. around this time
(e.g., White Sands cinetheodolite case April 27, Trent case May
11, Sperry case May 29, etc.), along with the Scully stories and
the US News & World Report controversy, leading to the White
House actually having to make a statement.

Another pilot involved with Zechel in his 1979 travels and
investigations was Lt. Col. Roland B. Evans, who as a DIA
officer wrote the glowing evaluation of the Iranian jet case as
a "classic UFO". Evans also leaked these and other military
documents such as the Loring AFB incident to NICAP in 1976-7
which broke the coverup. I suspect that Evans was the mastermind
of the MJ-12 Eisenhower Briefing Document hoax, that he was
Richard Doty's mysterious "DIA man" in Washington, D.C., and the
SAC colonel in Omaha who first contacted Bill Moore in Sept 1980
about contacts that led to Richard Doty and the MJ-12 fraud.
Evans had served at DIA then transferred to SAC in Omaha. Doty
told Klass in a phone interview in Jan 1988 that he believed the
DIA man fabricated the EBD. If correct, then Evans was the
original "Falcon" until Doty appropriated the codename.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 17

                Re: Bigelow/NIDS Purchase of Records - Mulvey

From: Ann Mulvey <compassionateagitator@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 12:10:39 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 23:23:31 -0500
Subject: Re: Bigelow/NIDS Purchase of Records - Mulvey


 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 00:39:47 -0500
 >Fwd Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 10:33:25 +0000
 >Subject: Re: Bigelow/NIDS Purchase Of Records - Velez

Greetings from whatthehell land ;)

 >The first time I brought this subject to the
 >attention of the List and the UFO community at large
 >I had hopes that the end result would be 'some kind'
 >of new awareness about, and attention to, the rights
 >of abductees as witnesses.

And that you did. There is a new awareness. It is,
unfortunately, for whatever reason, not being given the proper
care by those who could benefit by it the most - researchers and
abductees alike.

<snip>

 >At that time I told every body that the rabbit hole
 >went much deeper than just the one transaction
 >involving John Carpenter. Nobody picked up on it.
 >Nobody wanted to touch it with a ten foot cattle
 >prod.

I picked up on it! :-) [First message of'Our Children' thread] I
recall an air of 'sacred cow' which I didn't have much time to
wallow in because it quickly became obvious that the focus had
to be on those 120 families who didn't know their files had been
sold four years ago. That was a curious time indeed. I doubt we
could find another field who's reactions would be similar.
That's a good thing.<g>

 >Everyone was in such an uproar over the original
 >disclosure that persuing the possibility that it
 >involved more people, more files, more researchers,
 >was just beyond most folks ability to tolerate, spend
 >time on it or, in some cases, even to care. The point
 >is, nobody questioned my comment or chose to pursue
 >it any further.

It wasn't quite 'everyone' in an uproar as I recall. Wasn't it
more like six of us? The silence of the research community told
me in neon flashers that this was all but a common practice.
When I pushed on that issue in the begining I got nowhere. When
I pushed again towards the end, I got nowhere. However, if
you'll recall at that time, the real focus was on the 120
families being notified.

 >Here we are four months down the road and another
 >incident involving yet another abduction 'researcher'
 >where abductee files and personal information seem to
 >be a 'marketable commodity'. At least to Mr. Bigelow
 >and whoever has sold him the personal files of any
 >UFO witnesses/abductees.

 >Guess what? It won't be the last either.

Nope - it won't be the last incident. Although it's very
tempting to mistake silence for apathy I don't think that's what
we're witnessing here. Anybody with any whiff of ethics
understands why this is an issue. The only reason I can come up
with as to why there still isn't a constructive dialogue
happening is fear. I think the abductees are afraid for a
variety of reasons, many of which are probably based in privacy
issues. I think the researchers are afraid to say boo because
they risk saying the wrong thing to the wrong person and thus
putting themselves in an uncomfortable and unprofitable
position. I can only conclude that unless righteous dust is
sprinkled throughout our fair land, the only change to happen
will have to come from the market: NIDS. NIDS will have to be
the force that comes forward for the sake of common decency and
mandate abductee release forms. I've asked what their policy is
on that in a separate post, so hopefully that will at least be
addressed.

 >Until something is done (and done by the individuals
 >that were violated in this way) -nothing- is going to
 >change. It's going to be "business as usual" and
 >every once in awhile another of these so >called
"abduction researchers" is going to get
 >busted for having cashed in on their clients personal
 >files.

Experience tells me to have no faith in the 'so called'
abduction researchers to lift a finger to even disclose how they
administratively handle abductee files during these
transactions, let alone come forward and speak out for the
privacy rights of their clients. I challenge them to prove me
wrong.

As a result of this entire privacy issue being ignored by the
individuals who would benefit the most, I don't think I could
have more contempt for this field. One can tell a lot about an
organization or a group by how they treat their most vulnerable.
Ufology reminds me of a drive through the dairy farms: It
stinks.  I'm here soley because I care about the abductees and
saw an opportunity to push one more time for resolve.

 >BTW, John Carpenter has "explained" the "attack on his
 >character" as being motivated by our (myself and the
 >few others that confronted him about the sale of
 >client files to Bigelow originally) wish to "publicly
 >destroy the credibility" of his "disappearing night
 >watchman" videotape.

I guess I was included in that accusation as well. I'm rather
proudly out of tune with researchers abduction dramas, so that
particular accusatory note gave me a giggle. Besides, hadn't I
had disappeared by then?<g>


I'm back for a little while - still as a compassionate agitator.
:-)

Holiday hooplas your way,

Ann Mulvey








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 17

                         NIDS: Consent Form Policy?

From: Ann Mulvey <compassionateagitator@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 12:20:45 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 23:26:13 -0500
Subject: NIDS: Consent Form Policy?


To Colm Kelleher:

I read J.D.'s post regarding Dr. Leir's NIDS file transaction
with great interest as it again brings up a point which in my
opinion never received sincere consideration. As you all may or
may not recall, after learning of the four year old sale of the
140 files to Robert Bigelow by LCSW John Carpenter, I
specifically asked researchers to come forward with their
administrative protocol regarding the use of abductees files. I
never received a response.

Since researchers apparently don't want to disclose how they
treat the personal files of abductees [if I'm wrong, please
disclose away!], and since NIDS has come into the public eye
once again regarding these transactions, I'm redirecting my
question to NIDS:

Regarding abductee file transactions, does NIDS have a policy in
place which mandates having a signed release form from
individual abductees whose files or portions of files are being
sold to them by abductee researchers?

If not, is NIDS considering such a policy?

If no such policy is in place and no such policy is being
considered can you tell us why this is the case?

Thanks in advance,

Ann Mulvey








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 17

               Re: Part V of Hesemann's MC UFO Report - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 17:33:41 -0600
Fwd Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 23:30:19 -0500
Subject: Re: Part V of Hesemann's MC UFO Report - Evans


 >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 12:29:09 -0800
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Part V of Hesemann's MC UFO Report

Previously, Jim wrote:

 >Their realistic accounts at times from their quite individual
 >perspectives, and the mention of details not to be seen on the
 >video (e.g., the yellow lights) speak for the case.

 >The only alternative explanation would be that someone, who
 >actually became the witness of a true UFO sighting, had
 >attempted by means of digital computer technology to simulate
 >just this. Yet, this seems rather improbable. The fact that all
 >the computer experts have miscalculated the apparent size of the
 >object (they calculated its diameter to be around 15 m) proves
 >once again how indispensable field studies are.


Hi, Jim!

Maybe I'm a little dense (and many on this List might agree) but
on the one hand, you point out that the video doesn't match what
the witnesses supposedly saw in terms of detail. On the other
hand, this discrepancy somehow is supposed to validate the
video? Again, my density notwithstanding, wouldn't the video and
the sightings details need to match if validity is to be
established? Or is this more "alien magic" designed to confuse
us silly Earthlings?

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 >
   Dec > Dec 17

                     Re: Reluctant Viewers - Strickland

From: Sue Strickland <strick@H2Net.net>
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 17:45:41 -0700
Fwd Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 23:31:57 -0500
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Strickland


 >Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 14:49:30 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Sue Strickland <strick@H2Net.net>
 >>Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 08:25:33 -0700
 >>Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 07:28:01 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Strickland

Dear Roger,

Thanks for your response, Roger. It was clear, concise and
forthright. If I were in your shoes, I would feel the same way.
But, I'm not and you aren't in mine. I don't expect you to even
want to be in my shoes, because anyone who is an abductee
wouldn't wish *most* of their experiences on a dog, not even on
someone we may perceive as evil, not even someone like Charles
Manson. So, needy you may think some of us are, I probably do
not fall into that category. Personally, I think I'm more
courageous and together than most of the other 98% (guess) of
the population that very thankfully have not been abducted. I
have a feeling most abductees would agree with me. I may be
"very fragile" in the face of the ETs presence, but I've made it
through, so far. And, I intend to try to find some answers for
myself.

The fact that I am a very non-compliant patient has to do with
my ever-present fear of their imminent return AND the fact that
if (and I do say IF) I have implants, the desire to have them
removed may overpower both my own better judgment and those of
my doctors. I have been dead 4 times and returned. I'd like to
stop having these experiences (both types). So, in case I am in
a mundane car accident, I won't kick the bucket again. At that
point, I don't think I'll be thinking about ETs visiting, do
you?! I am truly a pragmatic individual. When I die, I want to
die. I don't want to keep coming back here.

I will be undergoing a series of allergy tests for anesthetics,
pain killers and antibiotics, so that IF I am in need of surgery
for some life-threatening situation, I will not have to die
again. The docs want to do an MRI, cat scan and x-rays as well.
I'm reluctant because I don't care if the implants are there or
not, but they certainly will (if they are there, and I think
they are)!. If we can't get 'em out, what the heck good is it to
know they're there? Maybe I'm not thinking clearly anymore? They
probably have their suspicions, by now, but have not said as
much to me.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 17

               C.E. Cases Involving Injury, Death, or Healing

From: Geoff Dittman <gdittman@autobahn.mb.ca>
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 05:01:26 -0800
Fwd Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 23:34:17 -0500
Subject: C.E. Cases Involving Injury, Death, or Healing


Hi All:

I have updated my website that is devoted to close encounter
cases involving injury, death, or healing.

It now contains the data in table form as well as a brief
summary for each of the 328 cases used in the report.

You can find the website at:

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Rampart/2653/sixthkind.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 >
   Dec > Dec 17

                       Re: Carlos Diaz Case - Hesemann

From: Michael Hesemann <MichaelHesemann@compuserve.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 20:36:57 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 23:40:22 -0500
Subject: Re: Carlos Diaz Case - Hesemann


 >Date: 15 Dec 2000 06:38:30 -0800
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
 >Subject: Re: Carlos Diaz Case

<snip>

It is absolutely right that I consulted Jim Dilettoso of the
Village Labs in Tempe/Arizona several times during my seven
years long investigation of the Carlos Diaz case - namely in
1994, 1996 and 1997. Jim analysed the Carlos photos in 1994, the
first four films in 1996, the next three films in 1997. It is
also true that Bill Hamilton, who worked with Jim on the Phoenix
Lights, was present on the first evening of our three-day-visit
to Phoenix in 1997.

With all respect, let me make clear that I highly esteem Bill
Hamilton as an excellent field investigator and great ufologist.
On the other hand, he is not an expert on photo/film analysis
and therefore noy one of the experts I consulted. I did consult
Jim Dilettoso, who gave me a long, detailed on-camera interview
afterwards, not Bill Hamilton. Therefore whatever his idea,
impression or belief was re. what he saw on that video is of no
more importance than anybody else�s personal opinion in this
question.

If Bill Hamilton would have done any more detailed study of the
material in question he would know that his claims are
completely wrong.

1. The object of course does not move like "being lowered from a
cable". If you study it careful enough you will see that there
is no axis. This fact is recognized by Jim Dilettoso as he
clearly states in our on-camera interview.

2. The craft does not move together with the branches of a tree
in the wind. Actually the object vibrates and this vibration
catches the branches of the tree. It is not wind movement at all
but a hasty vibration! We were able to identify the tree and
measure its diameter. It was 35 feet wide. Since the craft was
partially hidden by the tree and still had a wider diameter than
the treetop, we could calculate its size as at least 60 feet in
diameter - too large for a small model.

3. To call the pencil-thin beam of concentrated, laser-like
"solid light" shooting out of the craft on the third film "a
focused mini-flashlight beam" is not even funny. Anyone who will
watch this sequence on our documentary will still have a big
laugh about this "explanation".

4. "The unchanging light patterns" in several of these films
pulsate and vibrate. On others they are indeed solid, and Jim
Dilettoso described them as "coherent light" of the quality of
laser light. The term "plasma ship", used by early researchers
of the case, is just a metaphor. Nobody claims they are indeed
made of plasma. We therefore call them, as Diaz himself, "Ships
of Light".

Bill Hamilton is wrong when he claims that "Jim (Dilettoso) and
I concluded that the video was hoaxed". Jim never stated that
during the interview I did with him - not after the first,
superficial viewing of the material but after two more days of
hard work and analysis. Yes, he was sceptical. He stated that he
still tries to figure out IF it was hoaxed and why - or if it is
indeed a big ship. But he never claimed that he found any
evidence of a hoax. And he clearly stated that the object on the
photos shows all characteristics of a LARGE object. When I asked
him for a definition of "large", he replied: "As large as a
truck".

Bill Hamilton is wrong when he claims "Carlos does videography
for weddings and celebrations in Mexico". That�s just not true
at all. He never filmed ANY wedding or celebration. He worked as
a STILL photographer but only got a videocamera when researcher
and TV host Jaime Maussan gave him one.

We located an eyewitness who observed Carlos videotaping an
object in the sky. We even located an eyewitness, a Tepoztlan
Taxi driver on a night shift, who saw the very same large object
sending down a ray of light Hamilton described as "a japanese
lantern" with "a focused mini-flashlight beam". Well, that�s not
what the eyewitness saw.

Hundreds, if not thousands of Tepoztecos (the citizens of
Tepoztlan) saw the very same objects Carlos filmed and
photographed. When I asked the mayor of Tepoztlan of he ever
thought or heard rumors that Carlos might have faked his
material using models, he replied: "Why should he do anything
like that? We all saw these objects here many times". All these
interviews are documented on film and will be published in my
two-part documentary "Ships of Light" which I will present at
the International UFO Congress in Laughlin in March 2001. Then,
the complete Diaz material will be available to any interested
party - including the comments by Jim Dilettoso, which will
unfortunately prove Bill Hamilton�s memory wrong. But how could
he know, he only was there for a preliminary first viewing...


Michael Hesemann

Dsseldorf, Germany








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 17

                       Re: Sawers' Season's Greetings

From: William Sawers <syntax@i4free.co.nz>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 15:20:44 +1300
Fwd Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 23:50:06 -0500
Subject: Re: Sawers' Season's Greetings


Just to wish Errol and List-members a Merry Xmas and a Happy New
Year and to say thanks again for another, if nothing else
another interesting year.

O how they fly (urp...must be getting old) seeing as I hit the
half century a few weeks ago. Having been born in 1950 I
figure...50 years of last century and if all goes well with
transplants and Alien technology, there's a chance of getting in
50 yrs of this century too? (Ha!)

Weeellll it's a thought eh?  (burp) (g)


Regards

William aka SyntaX


"I'm not prejudiced.. I hate everybody equally!"








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 18

             Re: Persinger's 'The Field Biology of Unexplained'

From: Greg St. Pierre <GregJenn95@email.msn.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 21:47:03 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 11:55:40 -0500
Subject: Re: Persinger's 'The Field Biology of Unexplained'



 >Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 05:21:15 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Persinger's 'The Field Biology of >Unexplained'


 >Here's a question: What do the geologists think of his
 >theories? How about the atmospheric scientists?

Larry,

I'd bet that the answer is that they think his theories are fine
and dandy. All that tectonic stuff is rather like ball
lightning. Scientists never seem to ascribe misidentified status
to ball lightning, because it might be theoretically possible,
if only the right theory were to show up.

The point is, neither tectonic stress lights or ball lighting
threaten to reduce their status as "keepers of knowledge most
people don't know" as much as the presence of a technologically
advanced alien race.

Let's face it, if aliens show up, scientists will look rather
foolish.Who cares what they think if that happens? No one will
be beating a path to their doors for answers, because they said
all along that there _were_ no aliens. Not much of an incentive
to help solve the mystery.

No, they'll stick to the very terrestrial ball lightning and
earthlights, thank you.

Greg St. Pierre









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 18

                       Re: Reluctant Viewers - Hammond

From: Elizabeth Hammond <lizzz@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 22:15:45 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 11:59:59 -0500
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Hammond


 >Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 13:20:23 -0500
 >To: UFO Updates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers

 >>From: Elizabeth Hammond <lizzz@worldnet.att.net>
 >>To: UFO Updates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >>Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 13:24:50 -0500

 >>>Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 23:17:33 -0600
 >>>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>>From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >>>>Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 13:15:53 EST
 >>>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers

 >>>>>Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 09:44:09 -0600
 >>>>>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>>>>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >>>>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>Previously, I wrote:

 >>>>>I agree that the debate will never end.

 ><snip>

 >>In light of the fact that outside of other, like minded
 >>abductees, the only person heard from here is someone who
 >>clearly has his own agenda in all this, I'll withdraw my self
 >>and my hopes for moving into the next phase until more,
 >>enlightened people realize that the time is here to either "put>
 >up or shut up" as Roger so daintily puts it. Until a qualified
 >>staff of Research Scientists decides to take this project on.
 >>I'll be happy to help set up the funding for such an endeavor if
 >>and when the opportunity arises. Until then, this discussion,
 >>for me, is over.

 >>Thanks to All!

 >>Liz


 >In case you haven't figured this guy out yet (good ole Roger)
 >he's only 'baiting' everyone. In a kind of 'poke a stick in the
 >animal cages at the zoo' fashion, this is Roger's way of having
 >fun.

<snip>


John,

I have so little time during the day when I can do _anything_! I
refuse to waste any of it on someone who you now say is just
getting his jollies debating total strangers who he knows
nothing about.

He misquoted me and went on to browbeat me over a subject that
happens to be very important to me.

Like I said, whatever Roger may or may not be, I am finished
with this discussion until some of my fellows decide they have
positive feelings about what I've suggested and want to see the
ball start rolling. People like Roger do nothing but make a
laughingstock of _all_ of us, UFO Researchers, Abduction
Researchers, and most viciously, Abductees.

This is still a free country John. If I don't like Roger's free
speech, I don't have to listen!


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 >
   Dec > Dec 18

                       Re: Reluctant Viewers - Hammond

From: Elizabeth Hammond <lizzz@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 22:42:48 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 12:06:05 -0500
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Hammond


 >Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 12:53:21 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Reluctant Viewers -
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Elizabeth Hammond <lizzz@worldnet.att.net>
 >>Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 13:24:50 -0500
 >>Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 07:55:20 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Hammond

 >>>Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 23:17:33 -0600
 >>>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Previously, I had written:

 >>>>>Go to a doctor, Ms. Hammond, just like you would if
 >>>>>there were anything else in your body that you did not want
 >>>>>there.

 >Liz replies:

 >>The first paragraph of my post mentioned Non-invasive
 >>procedures, using cheek swabs for DNA, MRI'S and Cat Scans
 >>looking for foreign bodies. These two words (foreign Bodies)
 >>seem to have gotten stuck in some brains. These were all "For
 >>instances". I do not believe I have a foreign body (for the
 >>second time), but am aware that there are others who do.

<snip>

Dear Roger:

I'm going to reiterate the original hypothesis I made, and then,
as it seems we both agree, this discussion is over.

I would like to see a group of Scientists of different
disciplines set up the following for the purpose of researching
if ther is, in fact, any difference at all between Alleged
Abductees, and Non-Abductees. To use standard protocol, more
than one subject is necessary. A group is needed to form
percentages, statistics, etc. In my view, a good number to start
with would be 25 people for each group as I believe this will
give enough data for a starting point. Some suggestions for
tests would be all non-invasive (as I believe almost no one
would volunteer for invasive procedures) These could be DNA
Cheek swabs, Cat Scans or MRI's, checking for the presence of
foreign bodies, etc.

Depending on the results, I assume the medical group would want
to make a decision whether to go on from there, or, that there
was not enough data showing any differences to bother
continuing.

This seems very simple and straight forward to me. Roger, you
say that Doctors and Hospitals would be so interested in doing
something like this, but where are they? Also, Roger, I _make_
my disabilities what they are, pure mind over matter. And though
you claim to be misquoted and snipped you DID say:

 >I have many disabled friends and the last thing they want is special
 >treatment. Everyone has to deal with their own problems. Or do alien
 >abductees deserve special treatment that the rest of us don't
 >deserve?

Which is it Roger? Further, if I was sitting back doing nothing,
would I be trying to get something like this going? Would I own
my own, Abductees Only Group? Would I be doing the many other
things that are for the furtherance of gaining more knowledge on
this subject? Lastly, I stopped believing in the "Good Guys" at
the age of 3 when I was first Abducted.

So, having both had our day in the sun, with a "debate" now
degenerating into personal attacks, I suggest we give this baby
it's bottle and put it to bed!


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 >
   Dec > Dec 18

                        Re: Reluctant Viewers - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 20:45:57 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 12:08:31 -0500
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Hatch


 >From: Greg St. Pierre <GregJenn95@email.msn.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 13:36:04 -0800

 >Dear List,

 >This thread is rather large, and would make a considerably sized
 >ball if wound, so I'll avoid quotes and just go at it generally.

 >About this reluctant viewer business...

 >Since several people have suggested that abductees will not or
 >can not foot the bill for medical testing, nor will their
 >insurance companies, we have basically ruled out two avenues of
 >funding. It's also patently obvious that the private sector,
 >lacking any motivation to provide such funding, will not be
 >getting in on the game any time soon so kiss avenue three
 >goodbye. This may be one of the occasions where a symbiotic
 >relationship with the skeptical community at large may be called
 >for. We know we'd like to have definitive proof of abductions if
 >we could, and they would like to have the chance to show once
 >and for all that there's nothing to it. Therefore, either we
 >gripe that the situation is at an impasse, or we contact the
 >skeptics and try to arrange some sort of joint project. Would
 >the readership, advertisers and/or enthusiasts of both sides
 >respond to a call for donations for such a worthy project?

 >The question is, of course, could skeptics be motivated to
 >attempt to disprove something that I think we can all agree is,
 >to much of the public, already unproven? There would have to be
 >rules of the game agreed to by both sides, with some sort of
 >mutually acceptable set of protocalls.

 >This all assumes one can draw from a sufficiently sized well of
 >medical and scientific experts willing to become involved,
 >potentially placing both reputation and occupation at stake.
 >Even if they weren't told what exactly it was they were looking
 >for, I doubt it would take them long to figure out where the
 >research was heading (if they won't participate, then abductees
 >are S.O.L.).

 >Anyone think this is possible?

 >Greg St. Pierre


Hello Greg:

I agree this thread got awfully large.

I have a small suggestion, something that doesn't involve
forming groups, donations to a cause etc. Here is it:

1) Anyone who suspects an "alien implant" could simply go to
their regular doctor, perhaps in the course of a regular
checkup. Those with medical coverage should incur little or no
expense, maybe some nominal co-payment.

2) During the doctor visit, complain of a certain spot on your
body, explaining that you suspect you may have gotten something
stuck in there... the discomfort etc.

3) If asked what it might be, simply say you don't know. This
isn't even a fib. You do not know for sure after all, even if
you have an unstated suspicion or two.

4) Ask that any "foreign object" be saved in a small container
(specimen jar, test-tube... doctors always have something like
that). If asked why, its because you want to try and figure out
what it is, how it got there, to prevent similar "accidents" in
the future.

That seems simple and inexpensive to me.

If the object is ordinary, an irregular wood splinter perhaps,
then that's that. All sorts of wood, metal, glass etc. shards
wind up under the skin, this is to be expected.

If it looks interesting, you can then seek out some scientific
help. I would suggest avoiding any well known or controversial
figures who might have a stake in the matter.

Since any crank can scare up a silicon chip or whatever claiming
his doctor removed it from his arm/leg/nose... a
"chain-of-evidence" is required. Ask the doctor to examine the
object carefully himself, so he will remember it. Get witnesses
to see the object, still in the sealed container, before anybody
analyzes it.

The point is to learn something, not to prove something. That
comes later.



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 >
   Dec > Dec 18

              Re: Report Are UFOs an Air Safety Hazard - Keith

From: Rebecca Keith <xiannekei@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 21:39:45 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 12:11:12 -0500
Subject: Re: Report Are UFOs an Air Safety Hazard - Keith


Interesting article at space.com

http://www.space.com/sciencefiction/phenomena/ufo_safety_001201.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 >
   Dec > Dec 18

                        Re: Reluctant Viewers - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 01:06:34 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 12:15:38 -0500
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Velez


 >Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 11:26:39 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 15:59:25 -0500
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Velez

 >>>Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 22:54:02 -0600
 >>>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Previously, John had written of a letter from NOVA:

 >>>>In other words, If I was willing to; use my own doctor, schedule
 >>>>and take the tests myself, and _pay_for_them_ that they would
 >>>>then be happy to send somebody to debunk it all afterwards.

 >I replied:

 >>>Why don't you post that letter again. And when you do, please
 >>>point out where she wrote that their intention was to "debunk"
 >>>you in advance.

 >John now writes:

 >>"Why don't you" do your own homework! Go to ufomind, look it up,
 >>and download it.

<snip>

 >Check your own UpDates files. I held up my
 >>end by scanning and posting them, _you_ track em down.

 >For the record, I went to Ufomind before writing and could not
 >find the letter. I am not saying that isn't there; only that I
 >could not find it. THAT is why I suggested you repost it.

I thought you were a little 'sharper' than this Roger. If you'll
kindly take note; I placed quotes around the first three words
in my response to you. I was quoting you. You see I don't take
it well when people preceed a request with a command. "Why don't
you" (which is how you asked me) is a long way from, "John could
you," or "John would you do me the favor of reposting the letter
from NOVA" - or how about just "please?"

Now do you see where the response was coming from?

 >For someone that supposedly heads a group dedicated to helping
 >other abductees, you certainly aren't very organized if it would
 >take "scads of time" to find such an important document on your
 >hard drive.

1. You're not an abductee.

2. If the "document" is considered to be of such importance by
yourself, why did you trash it when it was posted originally?
It's not my "job" to provide you with any documents in my
possession whenever you 'command' me to produce them.

Did you grow up with wolves?

 >It seems that you simply don't want
 >the content of the letter discussed because it doesn't support
 >your stated position about NOVA. I could be wrong, but I can't
 >find the letter; you can.

What my statements "seem like to you" doesn't even jiggle the
indicator needle on my Westinghouse, "Give a Crap-o-Meter. ;)

 >Continuing, you wrote:

 >What they did in the final program and what you could have done
 >to prevent it are two totally different issues, John.

According to you, "all I would have had to do" was convince my
doctor to perform MRIs or CAT scans on my body, and whatever
'other' kind of testing he could think of, schedule and take a
series of psychological evaluations, schedule and take a
polygraph exam, and pay for it all out of pocket. Correct?

All I can say is; Geez, why didn't _I_ think of that! You're so
bright, I gotta wear Rayban shades just to talk to you. Thanks
Roger. I'll remember your suggestion for next time.

 >You have taken it upon yourself to try and convince people
 >otherwise.

Oh really? I'll have to check my notes Roger. I don't recall
seeing it on my "agenda." Let me do some checking and I'll get
back to you on it.

 >Given a chance to do such a thing on national
 >television, you decided it would be too expensive to have the
 >tests done yourself, even if it would prove to NOVA, and the
 >rest of the world, that you are telling truth and that alien
 >abduction really exists.

You got me Roger. Yes, I admit it, I'm _cheap_! God help me, my
friends have always complained about how I never offer to pick
up the tab, and how that time when Charlie needed that loan so
he wouldn't get thrown out of his apartment and I wouldn't lend
him the money knowing that I had millions just sitting in the
vaults at Citibank doing nothing! I know, I'm sorry, I can't
help it. I'm just afraid that if I start spending my family
fortune I will never be able to replace it. It's a sickness with
me.

You're so right. Because I wouldn't break down and spend a few
measely thousands of bucks from my coffers of millions, humanity
will never know the truth of alien abduction. I'm impressed
Roger. You really nailed me on that one. If I'd known I was
going to be debating such an imposing intellect, I would have
never taken up the banner.

 >I am going to bow out of this discussion with you, John.

It's what I was just saying! You _are_ smart! Quite a package!
;)

It was fun while it lasted.....

Regards,

John Velez, Hoarder of coin and important documents. ;)


******************************************************
                     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 >
   Dec > Dec 18

              Re: UFO UpDate: NOVA, Science & Mr. Velez - Velez

From: John <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 01:29:30 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 12:17:54 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: NOVA, Science & Mr. Velez - Velez

 >Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 23:26:19 -0500
 >From: Wendy Christensen <christensen@catlas.mv.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: NOVA, Science & Mr. Velez [was: Reluctant Viewers]

 >>Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 15:59:25 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers

 >>>Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 22:54:02 -0600
 >>>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Mr. Velez states...

 ><snip>

 >>Of course not Roger. NOVA is supposed to do "science reporting"
 >>based on the research and empirical findings of others. That
 >>didn't happen. If you think that what was presented on that
 >>program was either "science" or "reporting" then you have missed
 >>something very important. An important lesson.

 >An important lessen was indeed missed. But not by Mr. Evans.

<snip>

 >I trust Mr. Velez has learned his "important lesson."

 >Purrrrs...
 >Wendy Christensen

Hi Wendy,

I guess I just don't know as much about "appearing on
television" as some others.


John Velez

Proud of my ignorance of TV and its ways.


******************************************************
                     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 >
   Dec > Dec 18

             Re: Part V of Hesemann's MC UFO Report - Deardorff

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 23:15:58 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 12:19:30 -0500
Subject: Re: Part V of Hesemann's MC UFO Report - Deardorff


 >Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 17:33:41 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: Part V of Hesemann's MC UFO Report
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >>Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 12:29:09 -0800
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Part V of Hesemann's MC UFO Report

 >Jim wrote:

 >>Their realistic accounts at times from their quite individual
 >>perspectives, and the mention of details not to be seen on the
 >>video (e.g., the yellow lights) speak for the case.

 From Hesemann's report:
 >>The only alternative explanation would be that someone, who
 >>actually became the witness of a true UFO sighting, had
 >>attempted by means of digital computer technology to simulate
 >>just this. Yet, this seems rather improbable. The fact that all
 >>the computer experts have miscalculated the apparent size of the
 >>object (they calculated its diameter to be around 15 m) proves
 >>once again how indispensable field studies are.

 >Hi, Jim!

 >Maybe I'm a little dense (and many on this List might agree) but
 >on the one hand, you point out that the video doesn't match what
 >the witnesses supposedly saw in terms of detail. On the other
 >hand, this discrepancy somehow is supposed to validate the
 >video? Again, my density notwithstanding, wouldn't the video and
 >the sightings details need to match if validity is to be
 >established?

As Hesemann pointed out, they matched. The witnesses in question
had viewed the UFO from more nearly below, and reported it as
having a roughly circular shape. This agrees with the video as
viewed from the side: it seemed to have been circular in plan
form, which is why various ufologists had made estimates of its
diameter. From below the yellow lights could be seen, but not
from the side from the video images.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 18

                       Re: Reluctant Viewers - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks R<B47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 04:21:12 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 12:22:26 -0500
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Sparks


 >Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 14:49:30 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >>From: Sue Strickland <strick@H2Net.net>
 >>Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 08:25:33 -0700
 >>Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 07:28:01 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Strickland

<snip>

 >I support the needs of the abductees. I do not support abductees
 >that are simply needy.

 >Roger

Roger & List,

Your argument that alleged abductees can easily get scientific
medical investigation of their physiological condition and any
alien implants - two different issues that constantly get
confused - has only superficial plausibility and does not have
the benefit of practical reality. Your approach is riddled with
problems, some so serious that it makes it an outright
impossibility:

1. Physiological effects of alleged alien abduction are unlikely
to prove ET origin except possibly by an extensive round of
double-blind scientific-medical testing of a large number of
abductees and a control group (see my Point 4 below for an
example). I'm NOT talking about supposed alien implants here -
I'll deal with that separately further on (see below). Please
don't confuse the two issues here. So even if a single abductee
or several succeeded in getting extensive testing of
physiological effects that is not double-blind or single-blind,
or testing that is incomplete or limited, the results will be
automatically challenged as biased and/or discarded as
worthless.

2. Abductees will have a difficult if not impossible time of
getting health insurance to cover investigation of any symptoms
unless they are painful, obvious or crippling (and most coverage
is not 100% anyway). Getting _extensive_ testing done is well
known to be like "pulling teeth" from health insurers unless it
is a painful or crippling condition (and even then there are
horror stories of refused treatment every day in the media).
Obvious symptoms such as, say, strange markings on the skin that
don't hurt or cripple will not get rounds of world-class expert
physician study paid for by health insurers, in fact it will
most likely get nothing. If you believe otherwise in this
profit-margin business world you so callously describe, then you
are seriously deluded.

3. The requirement of justifying treatment to health insurers
automatically negates double-blind investigation right at the
outset. Abductees who suppress the suspected alien origin of
their conditions won't be able to arm-twist their single-blind
doctors into setting up other doctors to investigate them
(=double-blind) without knowing everything the first set of
doctors know, which turns the second set into single-blind by
definition. Abductees will have to explain the alleged ET origin
of their symptoms in order to even try to set up an experimental
protocol and that very fact obliterates any "blindness" by the
investigators. Doctors will in most if not all cases laugh off
the idea of patients suggesting or dictating experimental
protocols to them and health insurers will absolutely NOT pay
for any non-therapeutic procedures that are purely scientific in
nature - we all know how viciously resistant they are to
_experimental_ procedures that really are treatments.

4. Not too much thought has been given to how mere physiological
effects could possibly prove any ET origin. Short of abductees
having messages appear on their skin giving us complex
as-yet-undiscovered physics or math equations, it is difficult
of conceive of what could point to ETH. For example, suppose,
hypothetically, abductees frequently experienced radiation
sickness (I have never heard of that except in a few isolated
cases, e.g., Villas Boas, but I am giving an example of
physiological effects for illustration purposes). Tests could be
done on say 20 abductees all showing, say, 200-500 rem exposures
to ionizing radiation. Now what would that prove? Skeptics would
say that these people were cancer patients rather than visitors
aboard ET spaceships. Then all of a sudden the focus would turn
to the past medical histories rather than current conditions of
the abductees. Suppose nothing could be found showing oncology
radiation treatments or anything similar. What would skeptics
say? The medical histories are incomplete. At the end, skeptics
may end up saying that ionizing radiation is not automatically
alien in origin just because the abductees tell bizarre stories
of abduction, because such radiation is available here on earth.
Maybe the radiation medical evidence would be more convincing if
the UFO landing sites of the abductions also showed physical
traces of ionizing radiation - but that is way out of bounds for
medical insurance or any medical study.

You see what is going on here? It's an ongoing process to
develop a series of hypotheses and counter-hypotheses that a
scientific investigation would require but it is not one
susceptible of instant answers ala a 60 Minutes or NY Times
scoop. Health insurers will not subsidize such a process. To
develop something convincing will require a lot of expensive
testing and investigation of _many_ cases, not just one or two
here or there.

5. As for alleged "alien implants" we once again must confront
the fact that unless the artifacts are causing pain or are
interfering with bodily functions they will not garner health
insurance coverage of their investigation or removal. But there
is a greater possibility of bypassing some of the difficulties
associated with investigating the merely physiological, if just
one implant could be found that allows proof of an ET origin.

There are two logical possibilities here: (a) the implants are
so obviously alien that their structure and composition "speak
for themselves" or (b) the implants are unusual but in and of
themselves do not prove anything, they "don't speak for
themselves," and they require extraneous evidence of
physiological effects and sighting circumstances, etc. If case
(b), then we are right back where we were in Points 1 through 4
(above), requiring a large scale study of many abductees,
controls, double-blind protocols, no health insurance in pure
science, etc.

6. How will it be determined that an implant is category (a) or
category (b) and who will do so? Until someone can demonstrate
that an implant is "obviously" alien, it is effectively (b), an
artifact that has no value as proof of anything without a
massive amount of scientific-medical investigation, careful
attention to chain of custody (see below), double-blind studies
of statistical samples and control groups of abductees, etc.,
just as would be necessary for other categories of lesser
abductee evidence. Assuming the implant doesn't generate a
holographic projection with a message to earthlings, how will
its "obvious" alien character be _first_ shown by anyone? Will
it take electron microscopy showing some type of machinery or
circuitry? Who will arrange for and pay for such lab tests which
are not capable of being performed on standard medical
equipment? Who will determine that such machinery or circuitry
was not made on earth, perhaps in a highly classified
nanotechnology program of the U.S. Defense Dept. or possibly
some high-tech R&D effort of private industry, and how will they
do that? Will doctors have any expertise in such high-tech
engineering? Again, until such circuitry or machinery structure
is shown, the artifact will have no probative value.

7. If alien implants "don't speak for themselves" in proving ET
origin, then other problems arise such as Chain of Custody. If
the chain of custody of the alleged implant is not proven at
every step, skeptics will argue that there could have been a
"switch" at any point along the line.

8. Another problem is that if an abductee succeeds in getting an
implant removed, who then obtains possession of it? A health
insurer might argue that it "owns" the artifact because it paid
for its removal and then insists on controlling it, most likely
losing it due to carelessness or disposing of it, since it is of
no use for treatment and they are business people with no
interest in pure science. A similar problem is that such an
implant could very easily be stolen and its theft covered up as
an alleged loss or misplacement.

9. X-rays of an alleged implant prove nothing as resolution of
imaging is poor, and getting x-rays or CAT scans or MRI in the
first place requires money and therefore a painful or crippling
condition to get insurance coverage. Many people have foreign
objects embedded in their bodies that are terrestrial in origin.
Removal of a foreign artifact would require surgery, so if the
implant does not cause pain or crippling, then getting removal
paid for will be a problem and indeed most people would not want
to be operated on without a compelling health reason. Abductees
could walk into a public Emergency Room to get "free" treatment
but they'd have even less control over the possession of the
implant if it should be removed since they have no established
relationship to prevail upon and they don't pay for the
services. In any case, it is unlikely ER would perform such
surgery unless the implant was obviously life threatening.

10. Most doctors are not scientists or experimenters. Even if an
abductee paid for his/her own doctor to treat them, that does
not amount to scientific study of their symptoms or any implant.
The argument that doctors want to make names for themselves or
are unaffected by social stigmas associated with subjects such
as "alien abductions" or UFO's is hogwash. The _public_ stigmas
associated with performing abortions or using placebos on
patients who die are counteracted by a high percentage of
_physician_ support for such practices, whereas I would venture
to say there is nearly zero _physician_ support for a category
of treatment called "UFO abduction therapeutics."

11. It is purely a gamble to expect a surgically removed implant
to "speak for itself" in proving an ET origin - a gamble for
abductees to take with their health or even their lives in
allowing such surgery even if it could be financed. Even if such
a tiny artifact was removed, who would determine its function
and could do so before it is lost or stolen? The finding of such
an artifact is not a landing of a spaceship on the White House
lawn. It doesn't instantly force attention.

To sum up, there is no shortcut to obtaining a full-fledged
scientific study of abductees by the use of doctors, since most
doctors are not scientists, there is no easy way to finance such
shortcuts and there is no easy way to quickly and inexpensively
prove an ET origin of any implant that might be removed.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 18

                     Life Found In Australian Meteorite

From: John W. Auchettl <Praufo@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 07:19:15 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 12:24:19 -0500
Subject: Life Found In Australian Meteorite




               Oz & ASIA DATA RESEARCH
            Phenomena Research Australia


EBK & Researchers,


                        ***

See IMAGES and PRA Story:

http://members.nbci.com/praufo/praaustsky/murchisonlife001218.htm

                        ***

Life Found In Australian Meteorite
PROFESSOR HOOVER MELBOURNE LECTURE:


Professor Richard Hoover, head of NASA's astrobiology unit at
the "Marshall Space Flight Centre" in the US delivered a public
lecture on Friday 15 December called "Microbio-logical life in
the cosmos" at Melbourne University (1).


The lecture centred on possible Alien life in the Murchison
Meteorite that crashed in Victoria, Australia in 1969.

Minuscule fossilised organisms (bacterial) were found inside the
Meteorite. He said these organisms are "indigenous" to the
meteorite. Although there has been debate on possible
contamination of the original sample.

Professor Hoover's research showed promising verification of
extraterrestrial life in the Murchison Meteorite.

He said that due to innovative technology, the Victorian
Murchison Meteorite shows alien life that was previously missed.

In his lecture, Hoover demonstrated powerful proof of bacterial
cells, which show plausible detection to the origin of life in
the solar system.

The 1996 proclamation of microfossils in a Mars meteorite found
in Antarctica are very similar to those in this sample.


THE METEORITE FALL IN 1969

Approximately 100kg of rock fell over the township of Murchison,
NE of Melbourne, Victoria and 30km south of Shepparton at 10.58
on Sunday morning, September 18, 1969.

The largest fragment collected weighed approximately 7kg. The
meteorite contains high temperature and low temperature
minerals, water, as well as organic molecules such as amino
acids.

Classified as a carbonaceous chondrite, type II (CM2), this
meteorite is suspected to be of cometary origin due to its high
water content of 12%. An abundance of amino acids found. More
than 92 different amino acids have been identified within the
Murchison meteorite. Nineteen of these are found on Earth. The
remaining amino acids have no apparent terrestrial source.

Scientists believe the 4.6 billion-year-old meteorite may have
broken from a comet or asteroid 800,000 years ago, before
plunging into the central Victorian town.

   "The Murchison forms are interpreted to represent an
   indigenous population of the preserved and altered carbonised
   remains (microfossils) of micro-organisms that lived in the
   parent body of this meteorite". (2)

"Extremophiles" are microorganisms that live in extreme
environments such as deep ice under Antarctica, hot geysers,
hydrothermal vents, and even spent nuclear fuel rods.

At the lecture, Professor Hoovers electron microscope imaging of
the structures inside the Murchison meteorite are similar to
Earth extremophiles.


NEW DONATIONS

The Museum of Victoria has donated eight more samples of the
Murchison meteorite to Professor Richard Hoover, NASA's
astrobiology unit at the "Marshall Space Flight Centre" for
further research.

OTHER EVIDENCE

At preset Professor Hoover reports that NASA is studying about
six other meteorites believes to also hold microfossils. Not all
the result have been published in a scientific journal, however,
the Journal of Palaeontology covers the subject in detail.

   "Since the 1960s, when Bart Nagy published his photos,
   sceptics have invoked a 'Catch-22' against microfossils
   in meteorites. If they look earthly, they're judged to
   be contaminants. If they don't look earthly, they're
   deemed nonbiological altogether. In all versions of
   panspermia, earthly germs will resemble cosmic germs
   to which they are related." (3)

   "The same charge, contamination, was made against the
   left-handed amino acids in Murchison, in the 1990s.
   Subsequent isotopic analysis proved they are
   indigenous."(3)

Professor Hoover reported to the audience that the Murchison
meteorite was promptly picked up in precise collections by
scientists and placed in a controlled compilation to reduce
contamination.

He said that all reports that the deposits were of fungus
contamination was wrong.

   "I have found doing the research a whole sweep of
   large structures that I am convinced are biological
   structures within carbonaceous chondrite,(4) ...
   There is, in my opinion, strong evidence of
   biogenecity in meteorite cores. We have evidence of
   cell walls, things that look like cyanobacteria and
   purple sulphur bacteria," (5)


Professor Hoover, NASA astrobiologist left Melbourne on the 17th
of Dec 2000 with the 8 new Murchison Meteorite samples from the
Museum of Victoria.


                        ***


Regards,

John W. Auchettl - Director PRA Research

DR Ron Barnett   - Deputy Director


PRA WEB:
http://members.aol.com/praufo/PRA1/Pra1.htm



Reference:

1. Melbourne University, Lecture Theatre, Old Pathology.

http://www.unimelb.edu.au/ExtRels/Media/UN/archive/2000/545/whatson.html

2. Hoover, Richard B. "Meteorites, Microfossils,
    and Exobiology," in Instruments, Methods, and
    Missions for the Investigation of Extraterrestrial
    Microorganisms, Richard B. Hoover, Editor,
    Proceedings of SPIE Vol. 3111, p 115-136 (1997).

3. http://www.panspermia.org/whatsne12.htm#%20000127btxt

4. Carbonaceous chondrites are meteorites with a
    numerous atoms carbon in them.

5. Williams, Vanessa -" Fossils found in Victorian meteor",
    Herald Sun, Melbourne, Australia,18 Dec 2000, p1 & p6
    http://heraldsun.com.au/0,3546,1529559%255E2862,00.html


Thanks To:

1. Melbourne University Faculty Of Science:
    http://www.science.unimelb.edu.au/
2. Williams, Vanessa - Herald Sun, Melbourne, Australia.
3. News Limited - Herald Sun - Melbourne Australia.
4. Melbourne Museum, Museum Victoria.



Phenomena Research Australia [PRA]
P.O. Box 523, Mulgrave, Victoria, Australia, 3170
Australian & Asia UFO
1961-2000 - 39 YEARS OF RESEARCH SERVICE
========================================================








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 18

                Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles -

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 13:01:08 -0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 12:38:50 -0500
Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles -


 >From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles
 >Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 16:23:59 -0000

<snip>

 >Before I move on I should bring your attention to the fact that
 >Nick was referring to a book review that Jenny Randles wrote for
 >the hard copy of Fortean Times, and not the 2,500 word on-line
 >article entitled "Rendlesham Revisited" which you quote in its
 >entirety in your post. Anyone with any understanding of reviews
 >will know that such a long drawn out piece of editorial could
 >not possibly be considered a review, even though it is titled
 >such on the page, but however, placed in the articles section.

<snip>

Hi,

Sorry, but this is not correct.

FT will confirm that the above 'article' IS the original book
review that I wrote for them - not a separate article for the
web site as you suggest.

They had to cut back on copy available for inclusion in the
magazine - hence the much smaller piece in FT - but agreed to
include the original review on line at my request. This is why
there are two reviews. But that's what they are - two reviews (a
shorter and longer version). One is not an article as you infer.

I am sure that FT will confirm this fact to anyone who bothers
to ask them.

In any case, how can a review include all the things that you
want it to include without being 'long'? Or is it okay to be
long if it says entirely pro book things? And if it doesn�t then
it becomes 'gossip' or an 'article'? (Since you call it both
these things in your pieces - even though it is, was and remains
a review)

As a writer I know that it is a pity that book reviews have to
be written by pesky outsiders expressing their opinions on a
text - rather than simply being created under dictation from the
author (who of course knows much better what these people really
ought to say). Unhappily it rarely works like that.

I've felt frustrated myself in the past and criticised reviews
(even ones in FT) - so I do know where you are coming from. But
I've learned with time that you just accept reviews as the
honest opinions of the reviewer - unless it is obvious that they
have other agendas in writing them - and I doubt that you have
the slightest reason to think that here.

Really as a writer I am now just grateful that someone took an
interest in my work and wrote a review about it and that the
source in which it gets published cared enough to chose my book
out of hundreds of others that they might have reviewed.

For most writers you learn to be grateful for that.

Besides which, if the book is as successful as you suggest, then
what difference does a review in a small specialist magazine
make? This has a captive audience deeply into the paranormal and
anyone interested in the case is sure to want to see the book
simply by my altering them to its existence.

I would expect you would be more concerned over whatever anyone
is saying in the national media about your work as this would
effect the views of people not in the know, so to speak.

Reacting in a mean spirited way to a review that was hardly
unduly negative in the first place must leave anyone out there
thinking of reviewing any of your work in future wondering if
its worth the risk. After all they would do so now on the basis
that if they don't say what you want to hear then it will not be
considered good enough and may provoke a protracted debate.

 >Jenny fails to mention that I interviewed more than 100 people
 >and rather than making "a decent stab" my book covers
 >approximately 80% of material that has never been published
 >before.

So - are you saying that your book does not make a 'decent
stab'?

I report that the book makes 'a decent stab' at covering a broad
ranging complex case - as indeed IMO it does - but why isn�t
that acceptable as the fair and not unkind comment I perceive it
to be?

What should I have said? Perhaps I should have gone further with
- 'This book does more than make a decent stab - it makes a
complete stab and assassinates the case?'

Et tu, Bruni?

(Sorry this is a joke - a bad one I know!)

But - of course - I don't think that at all. However, really the
above silliness on my part merely illustrates how extraordinary
it is to criticise what were clearly positive words about your
book in the first place. If I criticised every review that said
my books did a reasonable job (the definition of a decent stab
for those unaware) then I'd be writing criticisms of other
peoples reviews for, oh well, at least ten minutes.

 >Who are these experienced respected ufologists? Have they ever
 >investigated the case? The answer is of course no, because if
 >these so called experienced ufologists had done any homework
 >they would not be so sceptical.

I don't intend to respond piece by piece to your lengthy diatribe
as it would send most Update readers to sleep. And I would get
accused (probably even by you) of writing War and Peace - The
Sequel - just to answer them all.

Basically, you seem to be arguing here that you can only
investigate a case like this and as a consequence not become
skeptical , because if you do become more skeptical by doing
this work then you cannot have investigated it properly or done
your homework.

This seems to me bizarre. And it is an amazingly circuitous
argument. Like saying - if you agree with my diagnosis then you
are right. If you don't agree then you are wrong. Therefore my
diagnosis is clearly right because only those people whom I
consider to be right agree with me.


 >Jenny complains that I should have mentioned Easton because he
 >has published the witness statements on the Internet, and my not
 >having mentioned him, But she
 >again fails to mention that I too had these statements and I
 >actually investigated them before I published them in full,
 >which includes far more information than Easton touched on.

This isn�t the main point at all. This argument really is that

(1) these statements are clearly significant to any
understanding of the case,

(2) prior to l997 they were unknown to all but a couple of US
Ufologists who had chosen not to reveal their existence,

(3) in l997 James Easton secured them (before you started work
on the case ) and made them available to other interested
researchers into this case,

(4) he then went on to publish a series of in depth studies - in
fact not merely net statements as you suggest but three major
published reports that together virtually constitute a book
length debate of the case - all assessing what these documents
might mean and revealing comments on them secured from new first
hand witnesses that he traced much as you came to do.

Now you may well choose to disagree with his arguments. I do not
share them all either as you well know. But it is inescapable
that these actions transformed many UFO researchers awareness of
this case (they certainly did mine) and to totally fail to even
mention this published output - three major reports on the case
during the past three years - was a glaring feature of your
book. It was your choice to shun comment on this work, of
course. But you cannot expect knowledgable Ufologists to miss
this blatant omission or refrain from commenting upon the lack
of completeness it thus provides.

Just as I am sure that you would (and quite rightly) expect
anyone who debates the case in future to take note of what you
now have to say.

 >No, that is not all! I had a ten minute conversation with
 >Margaret Thatcher and albeit that only the last part concerned
 >the subject of UFOs, she did not just say two sentences. Jenny
 >has not mentioned the fact (which again is clearly written in
 >the book) that Thatcher actually repeated those answers!

I noted that Mrs T said only two things that might be relevant
here - which you seem to confirm that she did. Saying two things
twice doesn't constitute saying four things, I would not think -
not even if your name is Fred Elliot. I said not even if your
name is Fred Elliot.

(British listers will understand this allusion to a hugely
popular TV soap character - others note merely that his fame
stems for repeating all his points twice)

 >This in
 >itself is important. Because Jenny was not present she cannot
 >have any insight into what took place that night. When Thatcher
 >gave these answers in my opinion (and I was the person
 >questioning her - not Jenny) she was clearly making a point that
 >the people should not be told the truth about UFOs.

And my review clearly says that I don't know what Margaret
Thatcher meant. But surely nor do you. Not unless she said other
things to you that you fail to report but which place her vague
remarks into a more extraordinary ufological frame - in which
case why don't you elaborate on what these were so we can share
in your conviction of what otherwise are just ambiguous words?

In any case, if Mrs T was happy to relate some incredible truth
about UFOs in public at a dinner and do so to a gossip column
writer (and you confirm that she knew this was your background)
- then clearly she will have no problem going on record again
and confirming precisely what she meant by these words. In fact,
no doubt we can expect to see her by your side next time you are
on TV discussing the case? If that happens then I certainly will
take great interest in the views of Mrs T . But until then it
really is anybody's guess what she really meant.

 >There was nothing whatsoever mentioned about the content of the
 >book in the magazine review. All you did was highlight the
 >sceptics theory, moan about your colleague not getting a mention
 >and question the incident that led to the title.

Firstly, the review I wrote obviously did report some of what
was in the book - that is your interviews with new witnesses,
like Cabansag and Williams, and your chat with Maggie Thatcher -
both of which are key features. So this isn�t true. Of course, it
did not go into everything in your 450 plus page book. But since
you define a long review as not a review and a long review would
be necessary to even attempt to cover this then how does one
win? You clearly have to express the 'ethos' of the book in just
a few hundred words, not psychoanalyse every sentence. And that's
precisely what I tried to do.

Secondly, the 'skeptics theory' is not a mere theory to explain
a case but a fundamental dispute about the entire provenance of
these events . It effects the essential judgement of the
evidence and the reporting of same. That's the point.

Whilst talking to people like the forester Vince Thurkettle is
useful in this regard, as I know from doing the same thing16
years ago, he is only speculating as to a theory and knows
little about the intricacies of the witness testimony. The
difference with James Easton is that he does know these and can
point out where and how witnesses contradict themselves and/or
offer data first hand that does appear to support these
skeptical arguments. That's the reason any ufologist has to take
informed speculation more seriously than idle comment - or at
least they do if they hope to offer a definitive study of a
case. And that applies even if you do not like what the other
party says.

That means that, frankly, asking Thurkettle for his views whilst
ignoring James Easton's arguments is rather like the famous
story of Low, the Condon team administrator, visiting the UK
during a UFO wave and later explaining why he followed up no UFO
cases for the tax payer funded government study whilst over here
but instead went to talk to people who thought they had seen the
Loch Ness Monster!

Low shunned the important and directly relevant stuff because he
believed UFOs did not exist and so to him it was more useful to
get info about the belief systems regarding another non
existent phenomenon whilst in the UK. Whereas, as a scientist,
he should have followed up the most direct and disconcerting
evidence that challenged his belief in the non reality of UFOs.

Just as here - regardless of how much we think this case is
insoluble (and I long have done this myself - as my writings on
the matter make very clear) - once faced with challenging data
that contradicts that view it is necessary to take it seriously
.

If Low had done this with the UFO cases happening around him
whilst he was in the UK then we might not now have to be
deconstructing the l967 wave at a distance of 33 years!

Thirdly, why is James Easton 'my colleague'? He is - in the
sense that I regard any fair minded people such and we share
several discussion forums on the net, certainly. So I don't
dispute that in general terms. But these words seem to almost
hint at crony-ism being at work . As if I defend him because he
is a colleague. And that certainly isn�t an issue here.

I don't think I have ever even met James Easton nor spoken to him
on the phone (at least if so then not in several years) And,
whilst I certainly respect his tenacity and admire his efforts
and appreciate his willingness to debate the case in depth, I
don't share his opinions on the conclusive resolution to this
case that he believes we now have. He knows this as we have
debated it amicably - agreeing on some things but not on others
- over recent months. You will see this - not least - in an IUR
report on the matter (out soon).

So why imply that I am somehow getting hot and bothered over a
'colleague'? Unless this is a form of skeptical prejudice - in
which all skeptics must think and act alike and thus be termed
colleagues.

Not that I would regard myself as a skeptic BTW.

I am in truth concerned because James Easton's numerous reports
on the case in the past three years should cause any serious
researcher to ask themselves fundamental questions. These are
questions that may be answerable. But they are clearly not
ignorable. Frankly if James Easton, Jack the Ripper or Bob The
Builder had raise these issues then my reaction would be the
same.

 >Having spent several years promoting the 'Cobra Mist' theory, I
 >hope you now realise (based on information in my book) that this
 >had nothing to do with the incident/s, (because the project
 >closed down in 1973).

I'm afraid you are guilty of what you accuse me of doing - not
reading the material before commenting upon it. I was well aware
of when Cobra Mist officially shut down. The year l973 is
actually cited by me as the date given for closure in my book
discussing this matter (UFO Crash Landing, l997) - so you don't
here set me right on this matter as you appear to suggest you
do.

Your confusion comes from the fact that ten years on from this
closure there was official comment about and announcements.
These surrounded the plans to site the new project (Cold
Witness) - one candidate home for which was then being touted as
Orford Ness. So in l983 there was public comment about the
closing of the original project now being dead - although locals
had been assured this was terminated in l973.

In addition it depends upon what - if anything - happened in and
around the forest between l973 and l980 - an area I have
explored a good deal. Just because a project is officially
closed doesn�t mean that all research has ended. As I report
there were signs of ongoing activity on the Ness and I was told
by two separate sources (one with the MoD - one with the USAF -
and both at very high level) that research was still occurring
during the period l973 - l981.

So your book hasn't got me to change my mind on this matter as
there is more to this research than you seem to realise. I don't
know if these experiments were involved in any way in the case.
But it has not been eliminated as an option by your book. So I
would suggest that you don't assume otherwise.

As for the mirage argument this is a separate issue and I raised
it because

(1) the lighthouse on its own clearly cannot - IMO - resolve
parts of this case as some think it does and I, personally, have
never suggested it can because being in the forest before its
character changed irrevocably has given me a perspective on what
the lighthouse looked like that few can grasp today - yourself
included,

(2) there were reasons - both physical and via other case
precedents - that infer the possible presence of a mirage
effect.

It is an arguable matter, certainly, but it is totally incorrect
to suggest I am raising the mirage idea after abandoning the
connection with the energy beam research. I am doing no such
thing. Both are still in play as potential partial answers.

A case as complex as this isn�t likely to have one simple
resolution.

So far from leaping from theory to theory, as you hack them down
via your research, in reality I am doing no such thing. Rather I
am refining several areas of exploration with time as new data
becomes available aware that there is likely to be a multi
aspect resolution to this case .

UFO cases are rarely as simple a choice as one theory versus
another - all in the mind or an alien landing, for example. This
is no exception. IMO there will be at least three key components
in its eventual understanding - if, of course, we ever get
there.

 >After all I believe that researching and investigating a case
 >is more productive than simply writing about it.

I was prompted to respond to these words. But I will merely
saying reply:

Miaow!


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 >
   Dec > Dec 18

                        Re: Reluctant Viewers - McCoy

From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 06:53:39 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 12:41:50 -0500
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - McCoy


Hello, All, EBK, John.

 >Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 08:26:29 +0000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers

 >>From: Colin Stevenson <colin49@colin49.worldonline.co.uk>
 >>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >>Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 13:41:13 -0000

 >>Hopefully this area will be proved positive soon.

 >>See:

 >>http://www.colsweb.com/eyesonly.htm

 >>This page is a plea to Medical Professionals to come forward
 >>with their suspicions of ET/human cross breeding. Generalized
 >>statements can be made without infringing Doctor-Patient
 >>confidentiality.


The Alien? Hybrid? Molded Plastic Alien Doll? Oh, Pleeze. Was
enough for me. Look not so carefully and you can see the mold
lines! As far as this site goes, the Truth ain't there.


 >>UK UFO/ET Researcher
 >>reply only to col@colsweb.com
 >>website http://www.colsweb.com

 >If anybody would like to know just why doctors and other medical
 >professionals refuse to get involved in abduction study, they
 >might well look at this sensationalist nonsense, complete with
 >winking alien graphics, pink bunny-ears and ludicrous,
 >unattributed, uncheckable stories.

Nonsense like this certainly doesn't help the whole of Ufology
either.

 >I can guarantee that this is certainly not going to "be proved
 >positive soon".

Yes I sadly agree, about the only thing to be proven is what
K-mart or Wal-Mart vending machine did the "alien" doll come
from.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 18

                       Re: Carlos Diaz Case - Hamilton

From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
Date: 18 Dec 2000 06:57:49 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 12:46:11 -0500
Subject: Re: Carlos Diaz Case - Hamilton


 >Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 20:36:57 -0500
 >From: Michael Hesemann <MichaelHesemann@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Re: Carlos Diaz Case
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>Date: 15 Dec 2000 06:38:30 -0800
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Carlos Diaz Case

 ><snip>

 >It is absolutely right that I consulted Jim Dilettoso of the
 >Village Labs in Tempe/Arizona several times during my seven
 >years long investigation of the Carlos Diaz case - namely in
 >1994, 1996 and 1997. Jim analysed the Carlos photos in 1994, the
 >first four films in 1996, the next three films in 1997. It is
 >also true that Bill Hamilton, who worked with Jim on the Phoenix
 >Lights, was present on the first evening of our three-day-visit
 >to Phoenix in 1997.

 >With all respect, let me make clear that I highly esteem Bill
 >Hamilton as an excellent field investigator and great ufologist.
 >On the other hand, he is not an expert on photo/film analysis
 >and therefore noy one of the experts I consulted. I did consult
 >Jim Dilettoso, who gave me a long, detailed on-camera interview
 >afterwards, not Bill Hamilton. Therefore whatever his idea,
 >impression or belief was re. what he saw on that video is of no
 >more importance than anybody else�s personal opinion in this
 >question.

I am still not an expert on image analysis, but I am learning
more and more. As a computer professional, this involves a
little further training.

 >If Bill Hamilton would have done any more detailed study of the
 >material in question he would know that his claims are
 >completely wrong.

 >1. The object of course does not move like "being lowered from a
 >cable". If you study it careful enough you will see that there
 >is no axis. This fact is recognized by Jim Dilettoso as he
 >clearly states in our on-camera interview.

I stand by this description. The movement was "jerky".

 >2. The craft does not move together with the branches of a tree
 >in the wind. Actually the object vibrates and this vibration
 >catches the branches of the tree. It is not wind movement at all
 >but a hasty vibration! We were able to identify the tree and
 >measure its diameter. It was 35 feet wide. Since the craft was
 >partially hidden by the tree and still had a wider diameter than
 >the treetop, we could calculate its size as at least 60 feet in
 >diameter - too large for a small model.

I do not have a copy of the video, but I would like to analyze
this for myself and also have this analyzed by someone like Jeff
Sanio.

 >3. To call the pencil-thin beam of concentrated, laser-like
 >"solid light" shooting out of the craft on the third film "a
 >focused mini-flashlight beam" is not even funny. Anyone who will
 >watch this sequence on our documentary will still have a big
 >laugh about this "explanation".

The appearance of this beam shooting out of the craft does look
funny.

 >4. "The unchanging light patterns" in several of these films
 >pulsate and vibrate. On others they are indeed solid, and Jim
 >Dilettoso described them as "coherent light" of the quality of
 >laser light. The term "plasma ship", used by early researchers
 >of the case, is just a metaphor. Nobody claims they are indeed
 >made of plasma. We therefore call them, as Diaz himself, "Ships
 >of Light".

 >Bill Hamilton is wrong when he claims that "Jim (Dilettoso) and
 >I concluded that the video was hoaxed". Jim never stated that
 >during the interview I did with him - not after the first,
 >superficial viewing of the material but after two more days of
 >hard work and analysis. Yes, he was sceptical. He stated that he
 >still tries to figure out IF it was hoaxed and why - or if it is
 >indeed a big ship. But he never claimed that he found any
 >evidence of a hoax. And he clearly stated that the object on the
 >photos shows all characteristics of a LARGE object. When I asked
 >him for a definition of "large", he replied: "As large as a
 >truck".

I am not sure what Jim has concluded, but he sent me this:
"There are some aspects of the Diaz case of which I am very
suspicious." and promises to send me a small report that I will
post here.

 >Bill Hamilton is wrong when he claims "Carlos does videography
 >for weddings and celebrations in Mexico". That�s just not true
 >at all. He never filmed ANY wedding or celebration. He worked as
 >a STILL photographer but only got a videocamera when researcher
 >and TV host Jaime Maussan gave him one.

This is what I was told by 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 >
   Dec > Dec 18

                  New Website On Controversial LRV Project

From: Kenny Young <ufo@fuse.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 11:32:00 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 12:48:04 -0500
Subject: New Website On Controversial LRV Project


EBK and UpDates readers:

A new website exploring the mysterious LRV [Lenticular Reentry
Vehicle] projeyct as recently described in Popular Mechanics
Magazine is now online.

The website contains new information regarding a Middletown, Ohio
event from 1979 thaty could be relevant to the LRV program, plus
additional comments from Bridgeport, Ohio researcher George
Belanus. A very interesting visual comparison has also been
installed, revealing a strange likeness of the LRV's proposed
escape module to an unexplained photograph said to have been
taken by satellite in 1978, reportedly causing NORAD to go on
full alert.

This website is located at:

http://home.fuse.net/ufo/LRVindex.html

Questions or comments are welcome and the page will be updated
if additional information warrants. Joel Carpenter, Larry Hatch
and Bill Chalker also contributed to the report.


Thanks for your attention,

Kenny Young

--
      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 >
   Dec > Dec 19

                Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles -

From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 13:30:13 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 12:16:11 -0500
Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles -


 >From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles
 >Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 16:23:59 -0000

 >>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles
 >>Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 15:43:12 -0000
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>


 >Jenny Randles wrote:

 >>I can add that the review reflects my honest opinion of the
 >>book's stance and content and was, of course, less than a
 >>comprehensive analysis of all its 450 plus pages because one
 >>small reviews column of a magazine that covers a wide range of
 >>paranormal phenomena (as is true of Fortean Times) could never
 >>give me - or anyone else - that kind of remit.

<snip>

 >After all I believe that researching and investigating a case is
 >more productive than simply writing about it.


To Georgina Bruni, Jenny Randles and the List

Thank you for your clear answers to Jenny Randles and others.
I am going to read your book with great interest.

I still have one question pending for Jenny Randles: when are
you going to publish your records of pilots who saw nothing at
Lakenheath? (the "COMETA boys" are still waiting). When you say
that publicly, in order to put in doubt the COMETA report a week
after its release in France, you _must_ produce them.

As for Nick Pope, who has just been labelled a "shrimp", or
something like that, I met him twice, in Leeds and San Marino,
and I can assure everyone that he is a perfect gentleman.

I cannot say the same of some British sceptics of the pelicanist
kind such as Peter Brookesmith and Gary Anthony. Your answers to
them are quite courteous.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 19

                        Re: Reluctant Viewers - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 15:31:04 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 12:25:46 -0500
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Velez


 >From: Brad Sparks R<B47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 04:21:12 EST
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 14:49:30 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Sue Strickland <strick@H2Net.net>
 >>>Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 08:25:33 -0700
 >>>Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 07:28:01 -0500
 >>>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Strickland

 ><snip>

 >>I support the needs of the abductees. I do not support abductees
 >>that are simply needy.

 >>Roger

 >Roger & List,

 >Your argument that alleged abductees can easily get scientific
 >medical investigation of their physiological condition and any
 >alien implants - two different issues that constantly get
 >confused - has only superficial plausibility and does not have
 >the benefit of practical reality. Your approach is riddled with
 >problems, some so serious that it makes it an outright
 >impossibility:

 >To develop something convincing will require a lot of expensive
 >testing and investigation of _many_ cases, not just one or two
 >here or there.

Hi Brad, hi All,

I just wanted to jump in long enough to make a couple of
comments. I agree with you Brad. What is required is a multi
disciplinary team checking out a group of abductees large enough
(sampling) to be considered 'statistically significant.' I
stated that as my 'opinion' to Roger in an earlier post.

If the academic/professional end of such a study could be
assembled, there would be -no problem- recruiting as many
abductees as they would need. I would be the _first_ to sign on
for such a study project. It would end 20+ years of circular
debates and provide the abductees with at least a few of the
answers they seek. The 'problem' is on the other end. There is
nothing 'in-place' (or even proposed) that can deal with this
kind of an investigation. No doctors waiting in the wings, no
funding sources, and no oversight committee composed of
representatives from both sides of the issue. That would be the
ideal situation.

Maybe Richard Hall and the fund for UFO Research can come up
with something. If they can assemble and fund the medical team,
(I know for a fact that FUFOR has contacts at certain 'medical'
institutions,) getting abductee volunteers would be like fishing
in a barrel. I know many of the abductees that participated in
the M.I.T. conference. All of them good, bulletproof, rock solid
people/cases. Put together an abductee group like that... and
you'd have "answers/results" flowing from the study in no time
flat.

 >if just one implant could be found that allows proof of an
 >ET origin.

I must be ahead of my time. Five years ago on this very List I
'had it out' with several people regarding the alleged
"implants" that have already been recovered by that knife
weilding podiatrist and his compadre Alien Hunter and "nemisis
of Mondoz" Derrel Sims.

To date: they have cut 15 (count 'em) abductees and they have
had the 15 (count 'em) objects recovered, some of them for five
years now. But wait, "where" did all of these recovered foreign
objects end up?

NIDS!

Bigelow,....again!

Because of the way the objects were handled and analysed any
"reliable" information that could have been gained has been
dumped in the crapper. Fifteen surgeries! (There but for the
grace of God go I) And nothing solid, or of any substance to
show for it.

Leir is in possession of 15 alleged implants. Before anybody
goes around recommending that even more abductees go under the
knife, how about pressuring Lier to have those objects examined
and analysed by an _independent_ set of researchers? I offered
Dr. Lier the oportunity to possibly have the objects examined at
the Columbia Univ. Medical Center here in New York. He got
'nervous' with me and declined. His rejection of the proposal
told me a lot back then. It still speaks volumes now. Lier is
the one who should be pressured to produce. He performed the
surgeries, he has the objects. S*it, or get off the pot Dr.
Lier.

BTW, I also asked some time back if anybody had heard anything
further about the alleged "implant" that Whitley Streiber
recovered from that old gentleman in his TV program
'Confirmation'. According to the guy who reported the analysis
results on air, the outer coating of the "implant" was composed
of an "unknown" substance. We all ended up getting into a
discussion about the meaning of the words "unknown substance"
and nothing was ever said afterwards. Has Streiber published
anything further on this object that anyone knows about?

Man, we're butt deep in "implants." What we really need to do is
to put public pressure on these people to get them properly
examined and tested by _independent_ experts. You don't need to
cut another person open. There are enough of these things
'in-hand' to make a determination one way or the other. Even if
only to find out if further study/examination is justified.


Regards,

John Velez

Volunteer number '1' for the scientific/medical study of
abductees.

******************************************************
                     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 >
   Dec > Dec 19

                Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles -

From: Brad Sparks  <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 16:20:29 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 12:44:14 -0500
Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles -


 >From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles
 >Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 13:01:08 -0000


 >>From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles
 >>Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 16:23:59 -0000

<snip>


 >>Jenny complains that I should have mentioned Easton because he
 >>has published the witness statements on the Internet, and my not
 >>having mentioned him, But she
 >>again fails to mention that I too had these statements and I
 >>actually investigated them before I published them in full,
 >>which includes far more information than Easton touched on.

 >This isn�t the main point at all. This argument really is that

 >(1) these statements are clearly significant to any
 >understanding of the case,

 >(2) prior to l997 they were unknown to all but a couple of US
 >Ufologists who had chosen not to reveal their existence,

 >(3) in l997 James Easton secured them (before you started work
 >on the case ) and made them available to other interested
 >researchers into this case,

 >(4) he then went on to publish a series of in depth studies - in
 >fact not merely net statements as you suggest but three major
 >published reports that together virtually constitute a book
 >length debate of the case - all assessing what these documents
 >might mean and revealing comments on them secured from new first
 >hand witnesses that he traced much as you came to do.

 >Now you may well choose to disagree with his arguments. I do not
 >share them all either as you well know. But it is inescapable
 >that these actions transformed many UFO researchers awareness of
 >this case (they certainly did mine) and to totally fail to even
 >mention this published output - three major reports on the case
 >during the past three years - was a glaring feature of your
 >book. It was your choice to shun comment on this work, of
 >course. But you cannot expect knowledgable Ufologists to miss
 >this blatant omission or refrain from commenting upon the lack
 >of completeness it thus provides.
<SNIP>

 >>There was nothing whatsoever mentioned about the content of the
 >>book in the magazine review. All you did was highlight the
 >>sceptics theory, moan about your colleague not getting a mention
 >>and question the incident that led to the title.

 >Firstly, the review I wrote obviously did report some of what
 >was in the book - that is your interviews with new witnesses,
 >like Cabansag and Williams, and your chat with Maggie Thatcher -
 >both of which are key features. So this isn�t true. Of course, it
 >did not go into everything in your 450 plus page book. But since
 >you define a long review as not a review and a long review would
 >be necessary to even attempt to cover this then how does one
 >win? You clearly have to express the 'ethos' of the book in just
 >a few hundred words, not psychoanalyse every sentence. And that's
 >precisely what I tried to do.

 >Secondly, the 'skeptics theory' is not a mere theory to explain
 >a case but a fundamental dispute about the entire provenance of
 >these events . It effects the essential judgement of the
 >evidence and the reporting of same. That's the point.

 >Whilst talking to people like the forester Vince Thurkettle is
 >useful in this regard, as I know from doing the same thing16
 >years ago, he is only speculating as to a theory and knows
 >little about the intricacies of the witness testimony. The
 >difference with James Easton is that he does know these and can
 >point out where and how witnesses contradict themselves and/or
 >offer data first hand that does appear to support these
 >skeptical arguments. That's the reason any ufologist has to take
 >informed speculation more seriously than idle comment - or at
 >least they do if they hope to offer a definitive study of a
 >case. And that applies even if you do not like what the other
 >party says.

 >That means that, frankly, asking Thurkettle for his views whilst
 >ignoring James Easton's arguments is rather like the famous
 >story of Low, the Condon team administrator, visiting the UK
 >during a UFO wave and later explaining why he followed up no UFO
 >cases for the tax payer funded government study whilst over here
 >but instead went to talk to people who thought they had seen the
 >Loch Ness Monster!

 >Low shunned the important and directly relevant stuff because he
 >believed UFOs did not exist and so to him it was more useful to
 >get info about the belief systems regarding another non
 >existent phenomenon whilst in the UK. Whereas, as a scientist,
 >he should have followed up the most direct and disconcerting
 >evidence that challenged his belief in the non reality of UFOs.

 >Just as here - regardless of how much we think this case is
 >insoluble (and I long have done this myself - as my writings on
 >the matter make very clear) - once faced with challenging data
 >that contradicts that view it is necessary to take it seriously

 >If Low had done this with the UFO cases happening around him
 >whilst he was in the UK then we might not now have to be
 >deconstructing the l967 wave at a distance of 33 years!

 >Thirdly, why is James Easton 'my colleague'? He is - in the
 >sense that I regard any fair minded people such and we share
 >several discussion forums on the net, certainly. So I don't
 >dispute that in general terms. But these words seem to almost
 >hint at crony-ism being at work . As if I defend him because he
 >is a colleague. And that certainly isn�t an issue here.

 >I don't think I have ever even met James Easton nor spoken to him
 >on the phone (at least if so then not in several years) And,
 >whilst I certainly respect his tenacity and admire his efforts
 >and appreciate his willingness to debate the case in depth, I
 >don't share his opinions on the conclusive resolution to this
 >case that he believes we now have. He knows this as we have
 >debated it amicably - agreeing on some things but not on others
 >- over recent months. You will see this - not least - in an IUR
 >report on the matter (out soon).

 >So why imply that I am somehow getting hot and bothered over a
 >'colleague'? Unless this is a form of skeptical prejudice - in
 >which all skeptics must think and act alike and thus be termed
 >colleagues.

 >Not that I would regard myself as a skeptic BTW.

 >I am in truth concerned because James Easton's numerous reports
 >on the case in the past three years should cause any serious
 >researcher to ask themselves fundamental questions. These are
 >questions that may be answerable. But they are clearly not
 >ignorable. Frankly if James Easton, Jack the Ripper or Bob The
 >Builder had raise these issues then my reaction would be the
 >same.

<snip>

 >As for the mirage argument this is a separate issue and I raised
 >it because

 >(1) the lighthouse on its own clearly cannot - IMO - resolve
 >parts of this case as some think it does and I, personally, have
 >never suggested it can because being in the forest before its
 >character changed irrevocably has given me a perspective on what
 >the lighthouse looked like that few can grasp today - yourself
 >included,

 >(2) there were reasons - both physical and via other case
 >precedents - that infer the possible presence of a mirage
 >effect.

 >It is an arguable matter, certainly, but it is totally incorrect
 >to suggest I am raising the mirage idea after abandoning the
 >connection with the energy beam research. I am doing no such
 >thing. Both are still in play as potential partial answers.

 >A case as complex as this isn�t likely to have one simple
 >resolution.

 >So far from leaping from theory to theory, as you hack them down
 >via your research, in reality I am doing no such thing. Rather I
 >am refining several areas of exploration with time as new data
 >becomes available aware that there is likely to be a multi
 >aspect resolution to this case .

 >UFO cases are rarely as simple a choice as one theory versus
 >another - all in the mind or an alien landing, for example. This
 >is no exception. IMO there will be at least three key components
 >in its eventual understanding - if, of course, we ever get
 >there.

 >>After all I believe that researching and investigating a case
 >>is more productive than simply writing about it.

 >I was prompted to respond to these words. But I will merely
 >saying reply:

 >Miaow!


 >Best wishes,

 >Jenny Randles


Hi Jenny, Georgina & List,

Well, Jenny, can you please tell what James Easton has
contributed to the direct understanding of the Rendlesham case
that still stands and hasn't been overturned, refuted or
superseded? You say he has written practically a book-length
in-depth study of the case which you chide Georgina for
omitting, but forgive me for asking, what _specifically_ in this
long study should she have mentioned of Easton's work that
hasn't been refuted? You credit him w ith bringing to public
light the unpublished Cabansag-Burroughs-Penniston statements,
so he should get a historical footnote for that, but in fact he
has never published the full texts of these documents so far as
I know (I just checked his website and he still has only an
image of the full Cabansag statement and only portions of that
and the others). He has jealously guarded the full texts for his
own selective quotation out of context -- e.g., he has continued
to suppress to this day in his publications the fact that the
C-B-P group had a repeat UFO sighting on their way back going in
the _opposite_direction_ which makes nonsense out of the
Lighthouse Theory.

Speaking of the Lighthouse Theory, originally suggested by local
Vince Thurkettle, which Easton has championed, where does it
stand now? Easton cried foul in his long articles about the
UFOlogist coverup of the "2 mile Orfordness lighthouse chase"
supposedly reported by Cabansag and Burroughs -- but denied by
Penniston he usually and conveniently fails to mention.

In his postings here on UFO UpDates, Easton has claimed and I
quote "how that three-man patrol ended up chasing the beacon
from Orford Ness lighthouse for an incredible two miles through
forest and countryside at 3 o'clock in the morning" and that two
nights later "Halt's own sighting of 'weird lights' was from the
same location" as the "three security policemen chasing the
beacon from Orford Ness lighthouse" and "in the identical
direction." See:

http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2000/sep/m04-002.shtml

But it is now known that this was a physical impossibility
because the land over the 2-mile trek drops down into lower
elevations so the lighthouse beacon is not visible for at least
1.9 miles if not the entire 2 miles. This fact of physical
optics and topography supports Georgina's report that the
Cabansag statement is at least a partial fabrication on that
very point of falsely claiming a 2-mile chase of the lighthouse.

So Jenny, do you agree or disagree that there were 2-mile chases
of the Orfordness Lighthouse by both of these USAF teams as
Easton claims? Recently you have been pointing out to Easton
that even from the one tiny location where the Orfordness
lighthouse beacon _is_ visible it is _above_ the trees and not
down in and between the trees where the UFO was seen. That is an
excellent point and I thank you for raising it -- I only wish
you would do so more widely.

Easton claims the Orfordness Lighthouse was in the "identical
direction" as the UFO. Shouldn't we have a _substantive_
discussion of that obviously crucial issue of allegedly
"identical direction" instead of long-winded colluquys about
what he said-she said? I wish you and others who attempt to deal
with the Lighthouse Theory would squarely deal with the
Directional Data and not avoid it, evade it or distort it (e.g.,
Easton's group almost always fail to mention the 120-deg compass
readings and only mention the 110-deg readings, in order to
twist the evidence 10 degrees closer to their erroneous compass
headings for the Orfordness lighthouse, and that's "distortion"
in my book, mind you I'm not accusing you of doing so, but
Easton, Ridpath and gang consistently do this).

How about the landing site? Isn't that up in the air now among
the Easton group, so to speak?

What else is left of Easton's contributions to the Rendlesham
case? He brought forth a new witness from the Central Security
Control and he should be credited with that. He straightened out
the date confusion in the case, assuming that wasn't done by
others, and he should get credit for that. Anything else? How
would that list of Easton's credits and discredits stack up to a
list of your contributions to the case or especially Georgina's?

You claim he has been "amicable" with you in discussions of the
case and I just have to ask why I or anyone should give a hoot
about that fact after his despicable posting right here on UFO
UpDates on Sept. 30, 2000, calling Georgina "you pitiable little
bitch" plus foul language curses of the 4-letter word variety
which has no business being posted here.

See:

http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2000/sep/m30-003.shtml

Why would you tell people on this List about his "amicable"
treatment of you and fail to mention his contemptible treatment
of Georgina? Frankly I don't think you have any business lauding
Easton for his "amicable" behavior while suppressing his vicious
conduct toward Georgina. You are known for gracious conduct
towards your correspondents but I think part of that has got to
include consideration for circumstances involving two parties
you are discussing in a post and reasons why one party might
be justified in avoiding the other whose conduct is so
outrageous towards her.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 19

                          Secrecy News -- 12/18/00

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@igc.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 15:02:03 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 12:45:47 -0500
Subject: Secrecy News -- 12/18/00


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
December 18, 2000

**      SENATOR KERREY BLASTS NUCLEAR TARGETING SECRECY
**      INTERNATIONAL CRIME THREAT ASSESSMENT
**      REVISITING THE ANTI-BALLISTIC MISSILE DEBATE
**      SENATOR MOYNIHAN BIDS FAREWELL


SENATOR KERREY BLASTS NUCLEAR TARGETING SECRECY

In an extraordinary letter to the Pentagon, Senator Robert
Kerrey has challenged the strict secrecy of the government's
nuclear warfighting plan known as the Single Integrated
Operational Plan, or SIOP.

The SIOP identifies the specific targets to be destroyed by U.S.
nuclear weapons in a nuclear war.  By defining U.S.
"requirements" for nuclear weapons, the SIOP in turn determines
the size and structure of U.S. nuclear forces.  Yet this
fundamental component of U.S. national security policy is
altogether exempt from accountability.

"For some time I have been asking for details of the [nuclear
weapons] targeting plan but I have been told on every occasion
that I am not entitled to know," Senator Kerrey wrote to Defense
Secretary Cohen, in a letter dated October 11 that has not
previously been reported.  "I believe strongly that no member of
Congress should be denied this information.  Further, I believe
the decision to limit access to the targeting plan does not make
the United States more secure; it makes us less secure."

Senator Kerrey described the various pretexts by which his own
access to the SIOP had been blocked by Pentagon officials, and
he asked Secretary Cohen "to change the policy so that all
members of Congress can receive a briefing providing them with
the details of our nuclear weapons targeting plan."

"The responsibility for setting our defense policy rests with
the elected, civilian representatives of the American people.
But how can we provide the policy guidance that is needed when
we are not given the information we need to decide if our
current course of action is the correct one."

The unstated alternative is that nuclear weapons are
intrinsically incompatible with democratic procedures.

See Senator Kerrey's letter here:

          http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2000/kerrey2.html


INTERNATIONAL CRIME THREAT ASSESSMENT

"The growing reach of international crime poses threats to
American citizens and American interests, both at home and
abroad.  Illegal activity from terrorism to trafficking in arms,
drugs or humans violates our values and threatens our safety.
Intellectual property theft, financial fraud and corruption also
can endanger our prosperity, and undercut public confidence in
democracy and free markets around the world," according to a
White House press statement.

Last week, the White House released an "International Crime
Threat Assessment."  It is the first such document to be
produced on an unclassified basis.  A classified assessment was
produced last year.

"The new assessment highlights the global dimensions of
international crime and the ways this pervasive problem
threatens U.S. interests."  It was prepared as part of an
initiative that began with the 1995 Presidential Decision
Directive 42.

The assessment is posted here:

          http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/pub45270index.html


REVISITING THE ANTI-BALLISTIC MISSILE DEBATE

The National Security Archive has prepared an interesting new
collection of declassified documents from the debate of the
1960s and 1970s over anti-ballistic missile (ABM) systems.

"These formerly top secret documents bring perspective to the
problems -- such as technical failures and criticisms from
allies and enemies alike -- that plague current efforts to
deploy national missile defense," said Archive nuclear historian
William Burr.

The new document collection can now be found here:

          http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB36/index.html


SENATOR MOYNIHAN BIDS FAREWELL

In a valedictory address on the final day of the 106th Congress,
Senator Daniel P. Moynihan covered lots of bases, but gave
special emphasis to his abiding concerns over government
secrecy.

He reiterated his often-expressed view of the CIA's failure to
predict the collapse of the Soviet Union, touched again on the
question of whether President Truman knew of Venona, and raised
many other issues that will be familiar to those who have heard
him speak in recent years.

But at least some of his points are not diminished by
repetition, particularly since there is no else in the Senate to
make them.

"I have tried to lay out the organizational dynamics which
produce ever larger and more intrusive secrecy regimes," he
said.  "I have sought to suggest how damaging this can be to
true national security interests.

"But this is a modest achievement.... I fear that rationality is
but a weak foil to the irrational. In the end we shall need
character as well as conviction."

See Senator Moynihan's "Reminiscence and Farewell" here:

          http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2000/s121500.html

******************************
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 >
   Dec > Dec 19

                        Re: Reluctant Viewers - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 16:07:51 -0600
Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 12:49:35 -0500
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Evans


 >From: Elizabeth Hammond <lizzz@worldnet.att.net>
 >Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 22:42:48 -0500
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Hammond

 >>Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 12:53:21 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Reluctant Viewers -
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, Liz wrote:

 >I would like to see a group of Scientists of different
 >disciplines set up the following for the purpose of researching
 >if ther is, in fact, any difference at all between Alleged
 >Abductees, and Non-Abductees. To use standard protocol, more
 >than one subject is necessary. A group is needed to form
 >percentages, statistics, etc. In my view, a good number to start
 >with would be 25 people for each group as I believe this will
 >give enough data for a starting point. Some suggestions for
 >tests would be all non-invasive (as I believe almost no one
 >would volunteer for invasive procedures) These could be DNA
 >Cheek swabs, Cat Scans or MRI's, checking for the presence of
 >foreign bodies, etc.

 >Depending on the results, I assume the medical group would want
 >to make a decision whether to go on from there, or, that there
 >was not enough data showing any differences to bother
 >continuing.

 >This seems very simple and straight forward to me. Roger, you
 >say that Doctors and Hospitals would be so interested in doing
 >something like this, but where are they?

Hi, Liz!

Well, the real question here is what the end purpose of all this
is. You call yourself an abductee, therefore, you personally do
not need proof for something that you already consider to be
true. That means that the medical exams and the such are for one
or both of two reasons:

1) To help find a cure for your ailments

2) To prove to the world that your claim of being an abductee is
true

If your end goal is only number "1", then you do not need a
whole team of specialists to help you with your problem(s).

If your end goal also includes number "2", then you still do not
need a whole team of specialists. Short of having something of
ET origin in your body, there is no way that your claims are
going to be validated, regardless of whether one person looks at
your body or one hundred do.

And whether only you are examined or if one hundred like you are
examined, the only thing that will come of it is going to be a
record of hundreds of claims. Without direct evidence of an ET
connection, such as an extracted implant that can be studied,
the number of claims won't increase the believability factor.
The number of UFO claims made over the last 50 years certainly
outnumbers the claims of abductees. Does that fact seem to
persuade the scientific world in favor of ET life? It would seem
not.

In the case of non-implant abductees, the demand for an increase
in the number of scientists and/or the number of abductees will
only result in disappointment or delay. The number won't make
any difference and insisting on a larger number only increases
the likelihood that it simply won't happen.

On the other hand, it would only take one implant abductee to
turn the tables. As we have discussed to no end, I mistakenly
felt you were implying that you had something foreign in your
body that you considered ET in origin. The simple truth is that,
since you do not, then there really isn't much that would come
of your increased demands that you couldn't achieve by simply
having a regular examination by your regular doctor. A dozen
more doctors in the room won't make a bit of difference.
Likewise, a single ET implant discovered by a single doctor
would make all the difference in the world.

Finally, your wrote:

 >Also, Roger, I _make_
 >my disabilities what they are, pure mind over matter. And though
 >you claim to be misquoted and snipped you DID say:

 >>I have many disabled friends and the last thing they want is special
 >>treatment. Everyone has to deal with their own problems. Or do alien
 >>abductees deserve special treatment that the rest of us don't
 >>deserve?

 >Which is it Roger?

You tell me, Liz. You are the one that introduced the fact that
you are disabled to this List. If, as you declared, it has no
factor in the discussion, then why bring it up? As I said, I
have many friends that are disabled and, like you, do not want
special treatment. Should abductees be treated any different?
Considering you made your disability a focal point of
discussion, I think my question was very reasonable since you
are both disabled and an abductee. I find it curious that, as a
disabled person you don't want special treatment. However, your
views regarding treatment of abductees isn't so clear, despite
the simplicity of the question put before you.

And lastly, you declared:

 >Further, if I was sitting back doing nothing,
 >would I be trying to get something like this going?

Frankly Liz, I do not believe for a minute that what you claim
as absolutely necessary to achieve your goals is practical,
probable or necessary. As such, it is my opinion that it is the
virtual equivalent of doing nothing since that is exactly what
you will achieve by taking this unrealistic approach.

Now, the following is a sincere suggestion:

You mentioned you were involved in an abductee support group. If
you have contact with someone that HAS insurance, _knows_ they
are an abductee; KNOWS they have an ET implant; _knows_ they are
in pain because of it (or can at least fake it); then get that
person to a doctor and get the proof you need instead of
demanding implementation of a plan so complicated that you know
it will never come about in your lifetime.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 19

                        Re: Reluctant Viewers - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 16:15:07 -0600
Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 12:51:34 -0500
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Evans


 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 20:45:57 -0800
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Hatch

 >>From: Greg St. Pierre <GregJenn95@email.msn.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >>Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 13:36:04 -0800

Previously, Larry wrote:

 >I have a small suggestion, something that doesn't involve
 >forming groups, donations to a cause etc. Here is it:

 >1) Anyone who suspects an "alien implant" could simply go to
 >their regular doctor, perhaps in the course of a regular
 >checkup. Those with medical coverage should incur little or no
 >expense, maybe some nominal co-payment.

 >2) During the doctor visit, complain of a certain spot on your
 >body, explaining that you suspect you may have gotten something
 >stuck in there... the discomfort etc.

 >3) If asked what it might be, simply say you don't know. This
 >isn't even a fib. You do not know for sure after all, even if
 >you have an unstated suspicion or two.

 >4) Ask that any "foreign object" be saved in a small container
 >(specimen jar, test-tube... doctors always have something like
 >that). If asked why, its because you want to try and figure out
 >what it is, how it got there, to prevent similar "accidents" in
 >the future.

 >That seems simple and inexpensive to me.

 >If the object is ordinary, an irregular wood splinter perhaps,
 >then that's that. All sorts of wood, metal, glass etc. shards
 >wind up under the skin, this is to be expected.

 >If it looks interesting, you can then seek out some scientific
 >help. I would suggest avoiding any well known or controversial
 >figures who might have a stake in the matter.

 >Since any crank can scare up a silicon chip or whatever claiming
 >his doctor removed it from his arm/leg/nose... a
 >"chain-of-evidence" is required. Ask the doctor to examine the
 >object carefully himself, so he will remember it. Get witnesses
 >to see the object, still in the sealed container, before anybody
 >analyzes it.

 >The point is to learn something, not to prove something. That
 >comes later.


Hi, Larry!

Dude! This is _exactly_ what I have been saying in every post so
far. It does not require a huge team and a huge budget. For some
reason, however, this approach seems to fall short of what many
abductees feels is enough attention to their collective
problem(s).

It would seem that it has to be all or nothing. The problem is
that they will never get "all" and anything less is considered
by them to be "nothing".

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 >
   Dec > Dec 19

              Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Rhodes

From: Terry Rhodes <UtterMole@cs.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 17:41:07 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 12:53:55 -0500
Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Rhodes


 >Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 05:15:42 +0000
 >From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark?

 >Hi All,

 >As my investigations in to the Chris Martin Case is still on
 >going I will present my research and findings on this case in
 >due course to the List.

So it would be fair to assume that you jumped the gun when
promoting this footage as a genuine UFO when your research had
not reached a conclusion?

Does your website still carry the case of the flying triangle
which made a crop circle, although Dave Bowden has already
identified the object as a helicopter?

 From your private emails you seem to think you under attack by
critisisms, yet you now admit you haven't finished investigating
the case. Can I suggest you investigate first, then promote UFOs
as this may keep you blood pressure a little more in check.

I can appreciate that your research is still underway, but your
first port of call should have been the airport which is so
close to where these sightings occur. Can you let us know
whether there were any reported UFOs at this airport? If you're
back sliding and bluffing that you've started investigating but
are actually starting from scratch you'll find the airport won't
be very helpful if the alleged UFO was some months ago.

Failing this can you at least reveal what known aerial objects
have been ruled out of your investigation and why.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 19

                        Re: Reluctant Viewers - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 16:52:22 -0600
Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 13:01:04 -0500
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Evans


 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 01:06:34 -0500
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Velez

 >>Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 11:26:39 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, I had written:

 >>For the record, I went to Ufomind before writing and could not
 >>find the letter. I am not saying that isn't there; only that I
 >>could not find it. THAT is why I suggested you repost it.

John wastes more time that he says he doesn't have by writing:

 >I thought you were a little 'sharper' than this Roger. If you'll
 >kindly take note; I placed quotes around the first three words
 >in my response to you. I was quoting you. You see I don't take
 >it well when people preceed a request with a command. "Why don't
 >you" (which is how you asked me) is a long way from, "John could
 >you," or "John would you do me the favor of reposting the letter
 >from NOVA" - or how about just "please?"

 >Now do you see where the response was coming from?

Of course I do. More song and dance while you claim you don't
have time to post the letter. Typical Velez soft-shoe.

I wrote:

 >>For someone that supposedly heads a group dedicated to helping
 >>other abductees, you certainly aren't very organized if it would
 >>take "scads of time" to find such an important document on your
 >>hard drive.

He replies:

 >1. You're not an abductee.

 >2. If the "document" is considered to be of such importance by
 >yourself, why did you trash it when it was posted originally?
 >It's not my "job" to provide you with any documents in my
 >possession whenever you 'command' me to produce them.

 >Did you grow up with wolves?

I haven't got a _clue_ what you are talking about, John!

I made no demand. I simply asked why don't you repost the
letter. I seemed to have got my answer: You want to talk about
posting etiquette again! Talk about the pot calling the kettle
black.

Look, John, it is apparent that we don't get along and never
have. All of a sudden _that_ becomes a reason as to why you
don't back up a claim? Considering the number of people on this
List that you chew out on a regular basis, how on earth do you
plan on a continued forum of debate, here? I guess the ground
rules are that _you_ can be rude and demand answers, but other
people can't even expect you to back up your ridiculous claims
with the proof you insist you have. But then what else are we to
expect? You constantly claim that we are ignoring proof, yet you
refuse to present said proof; choosing instead to veer off onto
other parts of the dance floor.

Considering the time it took you to formulate this post, it is
obvious that your previous claim about not having time to find
the letter was simply a lie. Regarding your question as to why I
"trashed the letter"; again, I don't have a clue what you are
ranting about. I access this list from the website, not as an
emailed list. Therefore, it was never in my possession to trash.
Again, YOU have the letter, I do not. If you made a claim that
the letter doesn't support, why don't you simply admit that you
lied as opposed to avoiding the entire issue with another
unwanted chapter out of "The Velez Book of Debate Etiquette".

(See the next chapters "Proper Use of The Tool" and "How to
Threaten People to Prove a Weak Point")

All absolutely essential debate material for the serious poster.

Continuing I wrote:

 >>It seems that you simply don't want
 >>the content of the letter discussed because it doesn't support
 >>your stated position about NOVA. I could be wrong, but I can't
 >>find the letter; you can.

Still, instead of presenting the letter in question, John writes:

 >What my statements "seem like to you" doesn't even jiggle the
 >indicator needle on my Westinghouse, "Give a Crap-o-Meter. ;)

Again, another spin around the Velez Ballroom. I don't know
about the rest of you guys, but I'm getting dizzy.

By the way... Are we there yet?

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 >
   Dec > Dec 19

               Re: New Website On Controversial LRV Project -

From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 15:15:03 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 13:04:35 -0500
Subject: Re: New Website On Controversial LRV Project -



Hello,All EBK, Listers.

 >Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 11:32:00 -0500
 >From: Kenny Young <ufo@fuse.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: New Website On Controversial LRV Project

 >EBK and UpDates readers:

 >A new website exploring the mysterious LRV [Lenticular Reentry
 >Vehicle] projeyct as recently described in Popular Mechanics
 >Magazine is now online.

 >The website contains new information regarding a Middletown, Ohio
 >event from 1979 thaty could be relevant to the LRV program, plus
 >additional comments from Bridgeport, Ohio researcher George
 >Belanus. A very interesting visual comparison has also been
 >installed, revealing a strange likeness of the LRV's proposed
 >escape module to an unexplained photograph said to have been
 >taken by satellite in 1978, reportedly causing NORAD to go on
 >full alert.

 >This website is located at:

 >http://home.fuse.net/ufo/LRVindex.html

 >Questions or comments are welcome and the page will be updated
 >if additional information warrants. Joel Carpenter, Larry Hatch
 >and Bill Chalker also contributed to the report.

 >Thanks for your attention,

 >Kenny Young

 >--
 >      U F O   R e s e a r c h
 >     http://home.fuse.net/ufo/

After reading the paper on the possible nature of said object,
yes the speeds, right the shapes, right for the LRV escape pod
and one more thing, if this is indeed an LRV escape pod - oy
vey! as a Jewsh friend of mine says (Yiddish has some good ways
of decribing the indescriable in English.) This means somthing
has happened to the rest of the Beast.

Small wonder the clangers and bells went off at NORAD you had
somthing very nasty either falling into the sea, off the coast
of the USSR, which if intact could give the Russians a very
interesting view of Ameriski Tech, or worse spreading radiation
all over that part of Russia or worse,the nuclear armed and
powered main body is now going to make Vladivostock visible from
orbit through heavy cloud cover-at night.

Who knows? maybe the photo was the only example of the LRV as it
for whatever reason broke up or destroyed by NORAD, possibly.
Just speculation mind you, sheilding from the reactor is still a
problem with me and the LRV and the weight reqiured.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 19

             Re: Persinger's 'The Field Biology of Unexplained'

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 23:55:41 +0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 16:19:43 -0500
Subject: Re: Persinger's 'The Field Biology of Unexplained'


 >From: Greg St. Pierre <GregJenn95@email.msn.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Persinger's 'The Field Biology of Unexplained'
 >Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 21:47:03 -0800

 >>Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 05:21:15 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Persinger's 'The Field Biology of >Unexplained'

 >>Here's a question: What do the geologists think of his
 >>theories? How about the atmospheric scientists?

 >Larry,

 >I'd bet that the answer is that they think his theories are fine
 >and dandy. All that tectonic stuff is rather like ball
 >lightning. Scientists never seem to ascribe misidentified status
 >to ball lightning, because it might be theoretically possible,
 >if only the right theory were to show up.

But lots of them did, and quite a few still do. What does this prove?

 >The point is, neither tectonic stress lights or ball lighting
 >threaten to reduce their status as "keepers of knowledge most
 >people don't know" as much as the presence of a technologically
 >advanced alien race.

 >Let's face it, if aliens show up, scientists will look rather
 >foolish.

I doubt it. If aliens show up I would bet that there presence
has nothing to do with the UFO phenomenon that we know and love!

 >Who cares what they think if that happens? No one will
 >be beating a path to their doors for answers, because they said
 >all along that there _were_ no aliens. Not much of an incentive
 >to help solve the mystery.

No they didn't. most scientists who have considered the matter
are quite happy with the idea of there being plenty of aliens
(wrongly, in my opinion) around in the universe. they're just
not too struck with the idea that they're buzzing round here in
UFOs.


--
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 >
   Dec > Dec 19

                     Re: Reluctant Viewers - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 19:44:21 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 16:22:21 -0500
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Mortellaro


No sense in taking all the bandwidth which requoting would
require. Let me address a few of the remarks some of you made
with a little abductee reality.

I have marks on arm and leg, small circles perfect in every way
which form a triangle. I went to the internist and
dermatologist. They did not know what or how the thing was or
got there. They were however, so strange, that both took
photographs of the marks at various stages along the way.
Festering, scar, back to festering wound and back to scar as
well as in between stages. So far, there have been three such
cylces.

Still no diagnosis. Even tho covered by the HMO.

Then there was the small apparently foreign bodies in my ear
lobe, both sides, and the signs of surgery in my nasal passages.

Surgery which I _never_ had. And no sign of entry for the
apparent foreign objects.

All of these "things" were preceded by "events" which I could
not easily admit to the Docs, as some of you pointed out.
However without that explanation, the docs say, "We don't know
what it is....." or "We don't think it should be removed
surgically, because it is not imflammed, causing you discomfort,
etc, etc."

And so, nothing is revealed. Yet again.

But tell them about your experiences, and sure as shootin' they
will refer you to a shrink. Well, I been there before, on my own
time and with my own money. that didn't work needer.

Again, nuttin was revealed. No clear diagnosis. Nothing which is
threatening, etc.

Same for the sightings, eh? No clear proof that it is an object
except the anecdotal evidence. And abductions, no clear proof
except anecdotal evidence. And in some cases, a real
disappearance. But many of you would not appreciate that either,
as a raison d'etre for making a case for abduction. And I really
cannot blame you.

Roger, if you are having fun with us for the art and pleasure of
the debate, fine business as we hams used to say. However I can
tell you that each and every argument you used, each one, has
been used and tried. Abused and fried. All well done to a turn.
And the bottom line is still, nothing is revealed.

I might add, that nothing is as simple as some of you guys make
it out to be. In the context of doctors and our problems. It's
still a conundrum. Some will believe. Some will not. Some, even
those who have experienced the phenom, cannot accept the proof
of our own senses. Like me. I know what I experienced vis a vis
my memory. But I still cannot actually believe that there is
nothing else which might have caused the phenom.

So I am stuck with the only thing any reasonable man or woman
could do in such a scenario, believe my memory, believe my
senses.

Wouldn't you guys do the same?

Probally.....


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 >
   Dec > Dec 19

              Falsifiability, Occam's Razor, UFOs & Abductions?

From: Charles Chapman <charlesrc@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 17:44:01 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 16:24:29 -0500
Subject: Falsifiability, Occam's Razor, UFOs & Abductions?


First, let me make clear where I stand as of now.  I am somebody
who believes both in ET intelligent life, and that "they" have
probably visited earth. I believe that at least some UFO reports
relate to real, actual, ET craft. While I am currently
unconvinced regarding the abduction phenomenon as a whole, I am
certainly open-minded about it, and willing to be persuaded. It
would neither shock nor surprise me if at least _some_ abduction
and/or contact cases turned out to be real -- i.e., by real,
existing, ETs.

Nonetheless, I find I frequently have a problem -- and the
problem is entirely my own -- when I talk to abductees,
contactees and/or UFO reporters. The problem is that while as an
intellectual matter I want to be appropriately rigorous,
rational, and skeptical (NOT a debunker), as an emotional and
interpersonal matter I don't want to be rude, much less a
debunker a-hole. :) Absence evidence to the contrary, I always
adopt the rebutable presumption that the person is telling me
what they honestly _believe_ to be the truth, and that they are
not hoaxing.  My problem is that their honest good faith
_belief_, based only upon their memories, is not enough to
convince me they have, in fact, been abducted by "real" ETs. I
don't know if I actually agree with Carl Sagan's assertion that
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but I do
know that, for me at least, such claims must: (a) be
falsifiable; (b) be supported by _some_ evidence; (c) pass some
version of Occam's razor -- i.e., we don't postulate aliens as
the explanation when more mundane explanations _adequately_ and
_completely_ explain the evidence.

Now comes my tough, rude, but hopefully not hurtful question.
[If the question is truly hurtful or disturbing, please forgive
me and I will not pursue it.] I know we have abductees on the
list. I am confident they honestly believe they were actually
abducted by aliens. I am neither arguing nor asserting that they
weren't, in fact, abducted. But what I want to ask them is as
follows. Is there any evidence, analysis, reasoning, or anything
else that would convince you that you had not in fact been
abducted by aliens? That instead you have your memories (and any
other abduction evidence such as scars, etc.) as a result of
some other, non-alien, terrestrial, relatively mundane
phenomenon (e.g., sleep paralysis, day dreams, dreams,
nightmares, hypnotic suggestion, delusions, social pressure,
repressed or screened memories of traumatic events, etc.).

I would pose similar questions to those who have not been
abducted, but have instead had alien contact, or seen a UFO
which they are convinced is of ET origin.

Please understand, I am not asserting that any abductee was in
fact not abducted, a contactee not contacted, a UFO reporter
mistaken, crazy, delusional, etc. What I'm trying to understand
is whether the subject is open to meaningful analysis and
discussion. For those who have "seen," can such claims be
disproved? Are they, in principle at least, falsifiable? Are
they subject to at least my interpretation of Occam's razor in
this context -- i.e., that we don't postulate the existence of
ETs as an explanatory cause unless necessary?

Quite frankly, if your answer is -- "I know what I saw, I know
what I perceived, I know what I experienced, I know what I
remember, I trust my own mind and my own experience." -- that is
obviously perfectly fine, reasonable, proper and acceptable. In
a similar situation, I would want to trust, above all else, my
own mind, perceptions and memories. I ask these questions not to
offend, but to understand what is realistically open to
analysis, debate and discussion.

__________

"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 >
   Dec > Dec 19

                       Re: Reluctant Viewers - Hammond

From: Elizabeth Hammond <lizzz@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 21:02:51 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 16:26:27 -0500
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Hammond


 >Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 20:45:57 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers


 >>From: Greg St. Pierre <GregJenn95@email.msn.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >>Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 13:36:04 -0800

 >Hello Greg:

 >I agree this thread got awfully large.

 >I have a small suggestion, something that doesn't involve
 >forming groups, donations to a cause etc. Here is it:

 >1) Anyone who suspects an "alien implant" could simply go to
 >their regular doctor, perhaps in the course of a regular
 >checkup. Those with medical coverage should incur little or no
 >expense, maybe some nominal co-payment.

 >The point is to learn something, not to prove something. That
 >comes later.


Dear Larry:

Although your suggestions are great, foreign bodies are just one
piece of this puzzle. Many, many Abductees are ill, some very
seriously. We have no idea why this is. Low immune systems, low
thyroid, low blood pressure along with a host of other shared
illnesses and syndromes are pretty much the norm. This should be
looked at. Is our DNA somehow different? Who knows. What make us
Abductees and not the next guy? Foreign objects, fine. But let
us not get mired down into one little piece of th epie!

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 >
   Dec > Dec 19

                        Re: Reluctant Viewers - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 20:11:52 -0600
Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 16:29:52 -0500
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Evans


 >From: Brad Sparks R<B47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 04:21:12 EST
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Sparks

 >>Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 14:49:30 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, Brad wrote:

 >Your argument that alleged abductees can easily get scientific
 >medical investigation of their physiological condition and any
 >alien implants - two different issues that constantly get
 >confused - has only superficial plausibility and does not have
 >the benefit of practical reality. Your approach is riddled with
 >problems, some so serious that it makes it an outright
 >impossibility:

Hi, Brad!

Actually, I am not going to debate this issue with you on a
total point by point basis because, for the most part, I agree
with your position as it relates to what is needed, in an ideal
world, to clarify the entire alien abductee issue.

However, with no disrespect intended, we do not live in an ideal
world. You maintain that my position has only "superficial
plausibility and does not have the benefit of practical
reality". Just what is so "practical" about waiting for a plan
so complicated and expensive that we all know isn't going to
happen?

That is the issue here: What can the abductees do on their own?

I think that you are one of the more intelligent people that
contribute to this list, Brad. Your post was obviously very well
written and thought out. However, stating the most comprehensive
way to get all the answers about all abductees, without regard
to likelihood of implementation, is not really much of an
answer; an interesting exercise in imagination, perhaps, but
hardly practical.

Better to concentrate on a single abductee using the mechanisms
at hand, I believe. Regarding such, you wrote:

 >5. As for alleged "alien implants" we once again must confront
 >the fact that unless the artifacts are causing pain or are
 >interfering with bodily functions they will not garner health
 >insurance coverage of their investigation or removal.

Well, you've created an either/or situation without considering
the important difference between the two.

Either the doctor knows the patient is in pain because of something as
yet to be discovered, using scans and xrays

-OR-

the doctor already knows there is something in the person's body
that is not supposed to be there even though there are no signs
of discomfort.

I checked with my insurance carrier and, if I am in pain due to
something in my body, then insurance will cover investigation
and removal of said object, if there is one. Even if they don't
find one, insurance still covers the examination to look for it,
IF I am in pain. What they will not do is entertain the notion
of someone walking in and saying, "I am an alien abductee and I
want you to look for an ET implant in my chest." Beyond that, if
the doctor already knows there is a foreign object in a
patient's body, he is obligated to remove it and the insurance
will cover that operation, too.

The factor that you forgot in your formulation is that Doctors
have insurance, also. NO doctor is going to knowingly leave a
foreign object in a patient's body unless the patient signs a
form absolving the doctor of all liability for doing so. In
short, once the doctor is aware of a foreign object in the
patient, action must be taken or the doctor must be released
from responsibility. A determined abductee with an implant can
milk this for all its worth, if necessary.

Now, what to do after surgery? You wrote:

 >There are two logical possibilities here: (a) the implants are
 >so obviously alien that their structure and composition "speak
 >for themselves" or (b) the implants are unusual but in and of
 >themselves do not prove anything, they "don't speak for
 >themselves," and they require extraneous evidence of
 >physiological effects and sighting circumstances, etc.

I agree completely. But, in either case, the most expensive
step, retrieval of the object in question, can be accomplished
via insurance. As far as who will test the object and who will
pay for the tests, that is going to differ from one insurance
carrier to the next. My sister had an object removed from her
shoulder and her insurance covered extensive testing to
determine what it was and how it might have come to rest in her
shoulder. (turned out to be a metal splinter jabbed in the
joint) So, while we may not know what other planet something is
from, it doesn't take much to tell if it is from THIS planet.

Regarding said object, you wrote:

 >8. Another problem is that if an abductee succeeds in getting an
 >implant removed, who then obtains possession of it? A health
 >insurer might argue that it "owns" the artifact because it paid
 >for its removal and then insists on controlling it, most likely
 >losing it due to carelessness or disposing of it, since it is of
 >no use for treatment and they are business people with no
 >interest in pure science. A similar problem is that such an
 >implant could very easily be stolen and its theft covered up as
 >an alleged loss or misplacement.

Well, this is a bit of a stretch, Brad. Whatever is in someone's
body belongs to them. Possession is 9/10th of the law, you know.
I can't imagine owning something any more than carrying it
around in your gut! ;)

You wrote:

 >10. Most doctors are not scientists or experimenters. Even if an
 >abductee paid for his/her own doctor to treat them, that does
 >not amount to scientific study of their symptoms or any implant.

Agreed. But this really doesn't matter if they don't need to be
scientists. The issue is whether or not the doctor would risk
removal of said object and become "tainted" due to the
association.

Regarding such, you wrote:

 >The argument that doctors want to make names for themselves or
 >are unaffected by social stigmas associated with subjects such
 >as "alien abductions" or UFO's is hogwash.

Unless I am wrong (and I could be), you seem to feel that all
doctors are going to be afraid. I see no basis for this, based
on my own personal experience working with dozens of doctors
over the years. In fact, it would seem that, short of a doctor
survey as big as the survey of abductees you propose, how could
you even presume to know that all doctors will react that way? I
know of no such survey. However, I do leave room for the fact
that some doctors are going to be afraid; just not enough to
prevent the required procedures to extract the ET artifacts in
question.

And let's not forget that, as you have pointed out so clearly,
verifying that an extracted object is ET in origin has its
difficulties, even after the operation. The doctor would be
unaware of the potential damage (if any) to his reputation if he
can't tell what the object is that he is about to remove! All he
cares about is getting it out of the patient. That's his job.
Therefore, regardless of what you or I feel about the stigma
attached to belief in ET life or alien abduction, it would have
bearing on the abductee's ability to have the necessary surgery
or insurance coverage since such determination would not occur
until after the procedure.

Continuing, you wrote:

 >11. It is purely a gamble to expect a surgically removed implant
 >to "speak for itself" in proving an ET origin - a gamble for
 >abductees to take with their health or even their lives in
 >allowing such surgery even if it could be financed.

Never said they HAD to do it. The issue here is how it can be
achieved.

Your write:

 >Even if such
 >a tiny artifact was removed, who would determine its function
 >and could do so before it is lost or stolen?

For Pete's sake, Brad. Police handle removed bullets from
patients by the thousands. Only occasionally are they "lost or
stolen". Sure, it could happen. But it is no more likely to
happen than not. In short, it's a non-issue to worry about
accidents.

Finally, you wrote:

 >The finding of such
 >an artifact is not a landing of a spaceship on the White House
 >lawn. It doesn't instantly force attention.

Depends on WHAT artifact. I could be wrong, but I believe that
finding a validated artifact of ET origin implanted in someone's
gut would get as much press as the fossils of Martian micro
organisms that dominated the media months ago. Fossils, no less.
Sheeesh.

Take care, Brad.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 19

                          Voyager Newsletter No. 16

From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 02:58:33 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 16:33:43 -0500
Subject: Voyager Newsletter No. 16


Voyager Newsletter No. 16


CONTENTS

1. Rendlesham: The Absurdity of 'Cover Up' Claims.

2. Rendlesham: Research Update.

3. Rendlesham: The 'UFO' Returns. Or does it...

4. Rendlesham and 'UFO' Encounters: The Symptoms of Fear.

5. Rendlesham: An Historic Revelation - USAF Attacked Landed 'UFO'!

6. Rendlesham: The Ice Melts.

7. Nick Pope Abducted by Aliens: We 'Probe' the Truth.

8. Ball Lightning and 'UFOs' - Remarkable Evidence.

9. The Reliability of Witness Testimony.

10. Triangular 'UFO' Sighting Solved - The 'Silent Vulcan'.


                         O0O~O0O~O0O~O0O


1. Rendlesham: The Absurdity of 'Cover Up' Claims.

A new book about the celebrated 'Rendlesham forest UFO'
incidents has recently been published, entitled, 'You Can't
Tell the People', by Georgina Bruni. It claims to prove an
alien spaceship landed in the forest and how this had been
'covered up' by Her Majesty's government, etc.

Pretty much standard 'UFO conspiracy' fare and, it goes without
saying, recognised as such by the mainstream media and
scientific community.

It is however unusual for a book which promises to 'reveal the
UFO cover up truth' that even 'UFO believers' realised how
specious the proclaimed evidence was.

Where was any, as in any, substance behind all the hype?

An exceptional, informed book review by Jenny Randles is
published on the 'Fortean Times' web site at URL:

http://www.forteantimes.com/artic/rendlesham/rendlesham.html


The case presented by Bruni is essentially that:

(1). Col. Halt did see an alien spacecraft.

(2). There's more to the 'Halt tape' than he has ever disclosed
and he can't release the 'secret' part because the world isn't
ready for it.

(3). The original witnesses statements which I publicly
revealed are fabricated.

(4). The 'lighthouse pursuit' documented therein definitely
never happened and was added by the MIB.

(5). Her Majesty's government, aided by it's nefarious US
allies, is covering-up the knowledge that ET landed in
Rendlesham forest, etc.


Let's resolutely debunk this nonsense for evermore and replace
it with some facts of real substance:

(1). Col. Halt did see an alien spacecraft.

Halt has been quite specific that he never, ever, witnessed a
craft. As he explained to American journalist Salley Rayl, in
landmark interviews during 1997:

"It would be more interesting I suppose if there had been some
alien beings, but I never saw any," he says. "I never
personally saw even a definite shaped craft. I wish I had".

[...]

RAYL: Is there any aircraft today similar to what you saw on
that day? In other words, now that we're 16 years on...

HALT: Well, I didn't see an aircraft. All I saw were lights. So
I really, I really don't know. [End]


(2). There's more to the 'Halt tape' than he has ever disclosed
and he can't release the 'secret' part because the world isn't
ready for it.

This purported missing portion of the 'Halt tape' is evidently
yet another myth. Again, Halt explained the background to
Salley Rayl:

RAYL: You had a, you made a copy. You had the copy of the
micro- cassette recording that you made that night and that also
found its way into the UFO community when the story broke
publicly with the release of the memo. We have already gotten a
question tonight, and I'm not really sure what the source of
this was, but somebody said that the micro-cassette recording
was actually two hours long and it's always been my
understanding from you that it was closer to twenty minutes.

HALT: It's closer to twenty minutes. I've never timed it.

RAYL: Okay. So, there...

HALT: Because I turn the machine off when I wasn't actually
talking...

RAYL: Right.

HALT: ...In fact, some times I talked and I didn't record. You
know, I only recorded what I thought was pertinent.

RAYL: Okay. So when you had something to say, you'd hit the
record button and speak into it.

HALT: Keep in mind, this is the recorder I use when I traveled
around the base to record things I saw that needed [to be]
fixed or whatever, and I would normally just when I went around
in a staff car you know, make a recording. Talk from time to
time. Flick it on and off and then go back and thread the tape
to the secretary and say, "Here, put it on your dictating
machine. Type it up and we'll mark it for who the pertinent
staff agency is that should take action on these items." That's
basically what I did.

RAYL: Okay.

HALT: It was very common to carry the tape recorder with me.
Sure beats taking notes.

RAYL: Sure does. And how did that get released into the UFO
community? I think a lot of people would be interested in that.

HALT: I made a copy for my boss then, Ted Conrad. He wanted a
copy of it so I made a copy and when he rotated and was re-
assigned, he left it in the desk unbeknownst to me, and Sam
Morgan came in to replace him. Sam Morgan found it and asked me
what it was. I played it for him and he thought it was
hilarious and he gave a copy to a British solicitor in the UFO
community named Harry Harris who, in turn, sold, distributed,
gave away, etc., copies until they're all over the world. [End
of extract]


The duration of a microcassette tape is typically 30 or 60
minutes. Back in 1980, maybe even 30 minutes was the maximum.

Unless Halt had taken one or more spare tapes with him, highly
unlikely as his stated intention was simply to debunk the 'UFO'
stories, then the maximum duration of any recording would be
limited by the length of the one tape he did have, less
anything already on it which he didn't want to record over.

His explanation to Salley seems to confirm Halt only recorded
comments when he considered it necessary, that's the full
recording he gave a copy of to his base commander and it's the
same one which Harry Harris made available and everyone is
familiar with.


(3). The original witnesses statements which I publicly
revealed are fabricated.

These early testimonies were central to any understanding of
the full picture as they astonishingly documented how the
initial 'UFO' incident, which was the catalyst for all that
followed, involved the pursuit of a nearby 'lighthouse' beacon,
misidentified as a 'UFO'.

During 1994, (if I recall correctly), the now defunct 'Omni'
magazine published an article by Salley Rayl, in which she
interviewed Halt and he confirmed:

"Around New Year's Eve, I took statements and interviewed the
men who had taken part in the initial incident".

This is the origin of those early testimonies, dated 2 January
1981.

As the copies in existence were provided to a 'UFO'
researcher/organisation by Halt many years ago and all contain
his hand-written notes, there was never any issue whether they
were genuine.

Furthermore, I'm aware that one of the actual participants
interviewed by Halt verifies being familiar with these
documents and that copies were made available by Halt when the
US media first took a serious interest in the story.


(4). The 'lighthouse pursuit' documented therein definitely
never happened and was added by the MIB.

Fundamentally substantiating it's indisputable why those
inaugural, pivotal witness statements are authentic, one of the
main participants has very recently acknowledged that the
abortive lighthouse pursuit did indeed occur.

Although my discussions with this central witness must remain
confidential at present, I can say he confirms the sequence of
events took place as documented. When the three man patrol -
Burroughs, Cabansag and Penniston [BC&P] - investigated those
unusual lights within Rendlesham forest, yes, they came across
a 'beacon light' and didn't know what it was. All three
security policeman proceeded through Rendlesham forest and
beyond until they could eventually see that the beacon
originated from a lighthouse.

They were entirely unfamiliar with this local landmark.

However, it was not believed to be the source of those
'unfamiliar lights' first noticed from 'east gate' sentry point
and subsequently within Rendlesham forest - which is exactly
what those early statements tell us.

There's substantially more to the issue of those enigmatic
lights in the early hours of 26 December, 1980 and subscribers
to the UFO Research List [UFORL] will appreciate the lengthy,
hugely productive discussions which have taken place there and
how these have positively narrowed down the probabilities for a
final resolution.


(5). Her Majesty's government, aided by it's nefarious US
allies, is covering-up the knowledge that ET landed in
Rendlesham forest, etc.

As the notion is so farcical, it's not really deserving of
further comment.

However, our man at the Ministry, Nick Pope, former incumbent
of the 'UFO desk', which it turns out was actually more of a
'diplomatic clearance for military flights abroad' desk, has
set this in context, as I explained in an open letter to Pope -
see 'Voyager Newsletter No. 8':

On the question of any 'cover-up', you helpfully confirmed and
have maintained this had no substance whatsoever. Typical of
your response was the one given to Michael Lindemann, editor of
'CNI News', on November 17, 1996, during a 'UFO conference' at
Blackpool.

Lindemann asked, "This seemingly irrational denial of
significant UFO events could be interpreted as evidence of a
deliberate cover-up. What are your views on that?".

To which you replied, "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,
not least because the one thing they would have needed beyond
anything else was access to the raw data of the witnesses, and
never once in three years had any witness complained that I had
sent someone around to the house".

 From your experiences, the Ministry of Defence's opinion on the
subject was emphasised in the 'UFO Magazine' interview. Asked,
"One gets the impression that the Ministry of Defence [MoD]
consider the UFO phenomenon totally irrelevant?", you accepted,
"That's correct".

Naturally, this included the 1980 'Rendlesham forest' case,
where it's now proven from the original witness testimonies I
obtained, that the 'UFO' sightings involved a two mile pursuit
of a light which turned out to be the Orford Ness (or
Orfordness) lighthouse beacon.

Your assessment on the MoD's reaction to Col. Halt's 'UFO'
report was again perhaps best clarified in that pivotal 'UFO
Magazine' interview:

"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".

Also from that interview:

UFO Magazine: Was there a cover-up?

Nick Pope: No. Not in the MoD - I think the MoD's response was
just ineffective.

UFO Magazine: 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?

[...]

There is not some great mysterious organisation which is
actually getting on with the bread and butter of investigation,
whilst I sent out standard letters". [End of extract]


The contentions in Bruni's book seem diametrically opposed to
Pope's above comments and I also publicly asked of Pope, in the
aforementioned October 1999 newsletter:

As you may know, there will be a book published on the
'Rendlesham' case next year, with the stated intention of
exposing a grandiose cover-up, witnessed threatened, etc.

We trust your 'inside knowledge' is a more reliable appraisal
and you can be called on to testify to same, although it has
been stated you will be writing the foreword to this book,
which seems difficult to equate. Does that imply you maybe
didn't have access to the 'secret' information after all, or is
it simply that any cover-up didn't involve the MoD? [End]

As Pope has indeed written the forward for Bruni's 'MIB UFO
cover up', perhaps this has more to do with their shared
publicists et al, than regard for anything else.


There can't be many 'MIB UFO conspiracy' books where the claims
can be so easily, factually, demolished and that have blatantly
ignored the revealing, factual, in-depth case research which
already existed.

Not since the last one, anyway. And not until the next one.


                         O0O~O0O~O0O~O0O


2. Rendlesham: Research Update.

To recap on some key facts and with the intention of updating
research breakthroughs -

BC&P first thought those 'strange lights' were located in a
'clearing', just within the forest, due east of east gate.
Given permission to investigate, they reached the clearing.
What happened next is the essence of any 'UFO' encounter and at
present the available participants' accounts are contradictory
and problematical. That's an issue on its own and can be left
aside for the purposes of summarising events.

Whether those lights perceived to be in the clearing 'took off'
or were never actually located there at all, the witness
accounts document that those same lights were next visible near
a 'farmhouse' beyond, still heading due east and in the
direction of Orford Ness lighthouse. As Burroughs wrote:

"We got up to a fence that separated the trees from the open
field and you could see the lights down by a farmers house. We
climbed over the fence and started heading towards the red and
blue lights and they just disappeared. Once we reached the
farmer's house we could see a beacon going around so we went
towards it. We followed it for about 2 miles before we could
see it was coming from a lighthouse".

When on the night of 27th December, Col. Halt and his team
investigated a report that the 'UFO was back', Halt hadn't yet
interviewed the three participants involved in this preceding
'UFO' scare.

Therefore, it seems likely he would be equally unfamiliar with
the 'beacon light' and where it originated. We also know from
the 'Halt tape' he was in that same clearing, the supposed
'landing site', when one of his team - who, we must remember,
were searching for 'UFOs' - suddenly observed a 'strange
flashing light', near the farmhouse, where the 'beacon light'
had previously proved to be from a lighthouse. As Halt related
to Salley Rayl:

"...suddenly the Lieutenant pointed off to the, toward, the
farmer's field, said, 'Look over here'."

"We saw a glowing red object, best I can describe it. It was,
it looked almost like a red eye with a black pupil and it was
sort of winking and dripping what appeared to be the equivalent
of molten metal. And we just stood there in awe and watched for
several minutes probably, and decided to try and approach it.
At that time, it started moving through the forest. We could
see it moving between the trees. It was moving in a horizontal
plane and moved probably 25, 30 maybe 40 degrees in between the
trees and back around. It was obviously moving and sort of
approached us a bit at one time and then it receded out into
the farmer's field. And, as we approached the fenceline to the
field, it literally exploded, only silently, and it broke into
multi-white objects.

Just prior to that, we had also noticed that the farmer's house
appeared to be glowing, as though there were a fire inside. All
the windows were bright red and sort of flickering and I was
quite concerned for the occupants of the house. And we stood
there and watched for quite awhile and the object, as it
exploded and broke into the multi-objects, disappeared".


We know from Ed Cabansag's written statements that the beacon
appeared to be yellow:

"The beacon light turned out to be the yellow light".

On the Halt tape we hear:

HALT: There is no doubt about it - there is some type of
strange flashing red light ahead.

VOICE: There! It's yellow.

HALT: I saw a yellow tinge in it, too. Weird! [End]

Halt was frequently using a 'starlight scope' image
intensifier. It's intended for night use and to amplify
available light, not for viewing a bright light at night! The
saturation and 'burn out' which would result is consistent with
Halt's observations, as recorded on tape:

"It looks like an eye winking at you. Still moving from side to
side. And when you put the Starscope on it, it sorta has a
hollow center, a dark center, it's like a pupil of an eye
looking at you, winking. And it flashes so bright to the
Starscope that it almost burns your eye".

Well, yes. It would do.

As I've highlighted before, Halt's recollections that the light
eventually exploded and broke into multiple white objects (in
his memo to the MoD he states there were five) is erroneous, as
can easily be proven from his tape recorded documentation that
night:

HALT: We've passed the farmer's house and are crossing the next
field and now we have multiple sightings of up to five lights
with a similar shape and all but they seem to be steady now
rather than a pulsating or glow with a red flash. [End]

No explosion, the white lights are an entirely separate
observation and then the light which has supposedly divided
into smaller lights is actually seen again:

HALT: 2:44. We're at the far side of the second farmer's field
and made sighting again about 110 degrees. This looks like it's
clear off to the coast. It's right on the horizon. Moves about
a bit and flashes from time to time. Still steady or red in
color.

HALT: 3:05. We see strange strobe-like flashes to the... rather
sporadic, but there's definitely something there. Some kind of
phenomenon. [End]

This 'second coming' of the 'UFO' - clear off to the coast - is
a sighting Halt has never mentioned in any of his accounts.

It seems this facet of the Rendlesham forest 'UFO' scares is
consummately resolved.


Those five white lights were almost certainly the lights atop
five tall radio masts, visible from where Halt was at the time
he made that observation.

Thanks to the diligent and exceptionally detailed on-site
investigations carried out during recent months by local
researcher Robert McLean, we can now understand even more of
Halt's misperceptions.

Incredibly, the 'house on fire' and 'strobe-like flashes'
witnessed "at the far side of the second farmer's field" can
still be seen today.

I'll leave the explanations aside - Robert may wish to publish
the story of his remarkable, ongoing, research.


                         O0O~O0O~O0O~O0O


3. Rendlesham: The 'UFO' Returns. Or does it...

The Lieutenant who drew Halt's attention to the flashing light
was Bruce Englund. Earlier that evening, Halt was attending a
belated officer's Christmas party when his festivities were
interrupted by Englund, who informed Halt the 'UFO was back'.

Why Englund believed the 'UFO' had returned, has recently
become much clearer.

The foundation was an incident which involved Airman Greg
Battram and his patrol.

As we shall see, Battram is about to be revealed as playing not
only a major role in the 'Rendlesham' story, it seems he merits
recognition for an action which would be one of the most
monumental incidents in the history of 'UFOs'.

After all, it's not every day the United States Air Force
attacks what is feared to be an alien spaceship...


Battram publicly come forward as a witness for the February,
1985 CNN special feature, presented by Chuck DeCaro. I have
acquired a transcript and Battram, at that time given anonymity
as 'Airman Greg', testified:

DeCaro: Airman Greg is a former Air Force security policeman
who says he was a witness to the second of the two UFO landings
within days of each other outside the USAF air base in
Woodbridge, England -- events documented in this official USAF
report released under The Freedom of Information Act. According
to the report, in the first encounter, before daybreak, three
security policemen saw a luminous metallic object and followed
it through the forest as it manoeuvred through the trees and
then disappeared... The following night, a four-man perimeter
patrol near the back gate of Woodbridge saw the UFO again.
Airman Greg was a member of the patrol.

Airman Greg: We were about halfway into the shift, I guess,
when we noticed some lights in the sky that, uh, didn't seem to
follow any pattern of aircraft we'd seen. And, uh, we, uh,
watched them for a while and they disappeared. And the next
thing we saw was, uh, the lights in the forest...in a clearing
off the end of the runway. And, uh, we called Central Security
Control to tell them we'd like to investigate it, and they gave
us permission to go on out. As we got in there, you could see
into the clearing and see a series of lights in there
surrounded by a ground fog. And when we got closer, you began
to feel the hair on your arms, and back of your heard, under
your hat even, stand on end. Like there was a real big static
charge in the air.

DeCaro: Were you carrying a weapon?

Airman Greg: Yes, an M-16.

DeCaro: Loaded?

Airman Greg: Yes, we didn't know what we were dealing with. And
about that time, we decided that we'd better get the heck out
of there 'cause we were getting a little scared to stand
around...

DeCaro: Bentwaters-Woodbridge air base complex in east England,
Christmas Week, 1980. Three U.S. airmen claim an encounter with
a UFO at close range. About a day later, this man, who asked
not to be identified, was on perimeter patrol at Woodbridge
airbase.

Airman Greg: The four of us saw...the object. We didn't know
what it was...we got panicky. When we got close enough to feel
our hair stand on end...ran back for our vehicle... [END]

Battram retold a similar account which was published in 'Left
at East Gate', co-authored by Larry Warren and Peter Robbins,
published in 1997. The interview with Battram was actually
undertaken on 7 February 1984 by 'UFO' researcher and author
Larry Fawcett and describing the 'strange lights', Battram
recalled they seemed to be "alternating, mostly between
oranges, red, blues and whites".

His story is almost a replay of events from that first night
and the scenario being posed is how 'something' returned to
that same clearing. It's extremely unlikely and infinitely more
probable that 'something' was simply still visible. As revealed
in newsletter No. 4, long after BC&P had gone to investigate
the 'red and blue' lights, Jerry Valdez and others could still
see 'strange lights' from east gate - 'red, blue and green'.
Also, in the interview with Chris Armold, published last
newsletter, he confirms some red and blue lights were still
visible from that same clearing, after BC&P had returned.

Battram states his patrol then met up with Lt. Bruce Englund
and told him about the forest apparition.

Presumably, this was the report which led Englund to inform
Halt that the 'UFO' had returned.

When Halt then assembled a "team of specialists" to
investigate, he included Englund [Duty Flight Lieutenant],
along with Sergeant Monroe Nevilles [Disaster Preparedness
NCO], Master Sergeant Bobby Ball [Shift Commander] and Master
Sergeant Chandler [Flight Chief], plus one other. Arriving at
the clearing, they didn't find anything unusual until Englund
noticed a distant, flashing light... which they did eventually
discover - although absent from any later retellings - was
'clear off to the coast'.

This brings us full circle and appears to set most of the 'UFO'
events from that night in their true context.


                         O0O~O0O~O0O~O0O


4. Rendlesham and 'UFO' Encounters: The Symptoms of Fear.

Recent research successes include identifying the almost
certain source of screams which had so alarmed BC&P. As
revealed in the preceding newsletter:

 From productive discussions on UFORL, Robert McLean, myself and
other subscribers seem to be in agreement that we may have
solved another of the Rendlesham forest mysteries.

It relates to the following, as recalled in Burroughs'
statement:

"We crossed a small open field that led into the trees where
the lights were coming from and as we were coming into the
trees there were strange noises, like a woman was screaming.
Also the woods lit up and you could hear the farm animals
making a lot of noise and there was a lot of movement in the
woods. All three of us hit the ground...".

It would appear that the source of those 'screams' was probably
the forest's Muntjac deer, also known as the 'barking deer',
which "click when alarmed and also squeak and scream when
frightened".

It seems the three man patrol were 'spooked' at this point and
'ate dirt' for no other reason. The light which 'lit up the
woods', later described as a white light, could have been the
sweeping beam from Orford Ness lighthouse, which was
intermittently visible in this extraordinarily deceptive
terrain.

Keith Seaman, responsible for maintenance of the automated
Orford Ness lighthouse and familiar with the 'UFO' stories,
told me:

...when you get right into the forest, the beam actually
traverses through the forest...

...you're getting well down [towards the coast] then, because
as I pointed out at the time, the lighthouse beam does not go
any further inland than the coast; the coast curves, it doesn't
follow a dead straight line and you obviously get a little bit
of overthrow from the beam.

[...]

The lighthouse is blanked off to a certain area, it's not a
completely visible light all the way round the 360 degrees,
it's blanked off towards the land. And that's when the light
disappears, because it's screened off. [End of Keith's comments]


Or it could have been headlights from a passing car or farm
vehicle on one of the nearby roads or farms, etc.

The 'screams' however, almost certainly came from Muntjac deer,
presumably alarmed by three men bearing down on them with
torches. Doubtless the deer were correspondingly spooked by
these approaching 'strange lights' and sweeping beams in the
forest.

There is much more to Robert's exceptional local research and
the aspects it has helped to explain. I'm sure we'll hear about
this in future. [End of newsletter extract]


Could the participants' palpable fear and alarm also perhaps
account for other 'phenomena' they reported?

Specifically, this relates to the following:

Burroughs: Everything seemed like it was different when we were
in that clearing... the sky didn't seem the same... it was like
a weird feeling, like everything seemed slower than you were
actually doing; and all of a sudden when the object was gone,
everything was like normal again.

Penniston: The air was filled with electricity. You could feel
it on your skin as we approached the object.

Burroughs: You felt like you were moving in slow motion, your
hair on the back of your head was standing up, you felt like
you had very little control over your body. [End]

Consider also Battram's comments:

As we got in there, you could see into the clearing and see a
series of lights in there surrounded by a ground fog. And when
we got closer, you began to feel the hair on your arms, and
back of your heard, under your hat even, stand on end. Like
there was a real big static charge in the air. [End]

Although we all appreciate fear can cause the reported 'hair
standing on the back of your head' symptoms, is there any
evidence it can also result in time apparently slowing down?

Recently, on UFORL, I draw attention to the following
commentary about 'the symptoms of fear':

'Adrenaline and Its Effects'

When you are frightened, the adrenal glands secrete adrenaline
into the bloodstream. The effect of the adrenaline boost is for
fight or flight, the effects of this are;

Blood is sent to the major muscles and organs (the reason for a
pale face - the blood draining to more important areas) -this
provides the muscles with more energy reserves to draw from:

- Increased strength
- Increased heart rate
- Increased breathing rate
- Heightened vision, hearing and sense of smell (but the eyes
suffer from tunnel vision. This enhances visual concentration,
but a negative by - product is the blinking of your peripheral
vision)
- Time distortion - everything seems to go into slow-motion (due
to the brain processing everything a lot faster)...
[End]

I was initially surprised to discover this last characteristic,
however, when some UFORL subscribers described 'time distortion'
they had experienced during traumatic car accidents and cited
similar documented occurrences, it was a reminder that indeed,
time can dramatically 'slow down' when fear, panic and/or
adrenaline [the generic/biological name is epinephrine] are
factors.

Another typical symptom is muscle tension and I wonder if this
has any correlation with a further reference from Penniston. In
the 'Strange But True?' book which accompanied the UK TV series,
he recalls how there was "a slowness with time...and it took
much effort for us to even walk those last 20 feet up to the
object".

All we can say with certainty is that BC&P were in the midst of
a dark, dense forest, faced with 'eerie lights', there was
movement from 'something' in the trees and then out of this
otherwise black silence came some piercing screams.

It was, quite understandably, sufficiently alarming for even
three security police to 'hit the deck' and not come up for a
while.

According to Burroughs, they waited 'a minute or two'.

However, he adds how during this time they perceived that
whatever was in the clearing began to move away and towards the
farmhouse:

"All three of us hit the ground and whatever it was started
moving back towards the open field and after a min or 2 we got
up and moved into the open field".

It's a hugely different version of events from Penniston's
increasingly more elaborate tales of examining a landed craft in
the clearing for some 20 minutes. There are underlying problems
with Penniston's claims. In his original written statement he
confirmed never having been closer than 50 metres to the
perceived 'object'. Suggestions he was 'playing down' what truly
happened must be viewed in the context that he was a senior
security policeman; his responsibility was to provide a fully
detailed account of events which could have been a threat to
base security. The reliability of his current 'recollections' is
compounded by the so-called 'regressive hypnosis' he later
underwent.

Burroughs, like Col. Halt, remains adamant he never witnessed a
'structured craft', only puzzling lights.

This also applies to Battram, who depicts a comparative
scenario, which was arguably even scarier. Not only were these
security police now aware of the previous 'UFO encounter', the
lights seemed to be surrounded by a 'ground fog'. It's no
surprise they steadily became "panicky" and fled in terror.

Perhaps we should keep in mind some invaluable insight from the
Chris Armold interview:

"Yes, there were what we initially interpreted as 'strange
lights' and in my opinion and contrary to what some people
assert, at the time almost none of us knew there was a
lighthouse at Orford Ness. Remember, the vast majority of folks
involved were young people, 19, 20, 25 years old. Consequently
it wasn't something most of the troops were cognizant of. That's
one reason the lights appeared interesting or out of the
ordinary to some people.

After it was discovered that a lighthouse was out there the
'strangeness' of the lights evaporated. The lights were
primarily white and were very small, far off in the distance.
Occasionally one would see a shade of blue or red but I
attribute that to refraction from stained glass windows in a
local church in addition to the fog and weather at the time".

Science writer Ian Ridpath, who first correctly suggested Orford
Ness lighthouse had been mistaken for a 'UFO', has a copy of the
base weather logs, which record 'ground fog' was present on the
night of 27 December.


                         O0O~O0O~O0O~O0O


5. Rendlesham: An Historic Revelation - USAF Attacked Landed
'UFO'!

Just how scary, terrifying and alarming a peak was reached would
be evidenced if the following claim is true. I'm unaware of any
reason to doubt it.

In the 'Left at East Gate' transcript of Fawcett's interview
with Battram, the dialogue is published as follows.

GB: We couldn't really see a distinct shape, but there were
alternating colours in it and the whole bit. It was really
strange. The closer we got, the worse the static electricity
feeling got, and we just said, "Fuck", and we turned around and
took off.

LF: Did you have weapons with you?

GB: Yes.

LF: You did?

GB: Yes. Guaranteed. I didn't know what the fuck was in there,
and I was not taking any chances. [End]


However, I have acquired a copy of the original transcript and
this contains an astounding statement by Battram, which for some
reason is omitted in the published version.

The original transcript reads:

Greg: We couldn't really see a distinct shape, but there were
alternating colours in it and the whole bit. It was really
strange. The closer we got, the worse the static electricity
feeling got, and we just said _ _ _ this. And we turned around
and took off.

Larry: Did you have weapons with you?

Greg: Yes.

Larry: Did you throw a round in at anytime?

Greg: Yes.

Larry: You did?

GB: Yes. Guaranteed, I didn't know what the _ _ _ was in there
and I was not taking any chances. [End]


Doubtless the only likely casualty would have been an innocent
pine tree, although we can surmise what might have happened...

"Police are searching for the callous killers of a deer in
Rendlesham forest. 'It was a cold-blooded, motiveless shooting
and obviously the work of a deranged individual' said a police
spokesman".

It might be worth checking the local papers...

Of course, if there had been as believed a 'UFO', we can only
hope it wasn't the reconnaissance craft from a far distant,
hostile, ET race and that they're not still sufficiently miffed
to be coming back with battlecruisers for a spot of retribution.


                         O0O~O0O~O0O~O0O


6. Rendlesham: The Ice Melts.

There's one other significant testimony within that CNN
transcript and it comes from an anonymous Master Sergeant who
visited the 'landing site' on the morning after BC&P's
adventures.

Both local forester Vince Thurkettle and the British police
concluded that the three ground indentations, claimed to be
'landing marks', were merely rabbit diggings. Thurkettle added
that the holes appeared old and were covered with a 'light
coating' of pine needles, fallen from the pine trees.

Naturally disputing this assertion, Penniston has cited as
substantiating evidence how the ground was frozen and explained
to Salley Rayl:

"The interesting thing about the impressions, or something
worthy of note, anyway, is that the ground temperature at the
time was such that our vehicles didn't even make impressions on
the ground because it was so cold or frozen, so whatever the
craft was, it had to be heavy".

We should perhaps note that if the 'craft' was so small as
Penniston alleges, it would have been about the same size as a
jeep, which isn't itself exactly a lightweight vehicle.

However, more important is that the Master Sergeant told CNN:

"...and in the location of this alleged craft landing, in the
wooded area, I found what appeared to be three depressions on
the ground. The ground was rather soft at that time...".


More sensational Rendlesham revelations in the next
newsletter...!


                         O0O~O0O~O0O~O0O


7. Nick Pope Abducted by Aliens: We 'Probe' the Truth.

A truly 'Unsolved Mystery' is Nick Pope's own alleged abduction
by ET.

The tale of his kidnap and who knows what else... let's not go
there... was reportedly contained in a draft copy of Pope's book
about 'alien abductions'.

As I also publicly queried of Pope:

It would be remiss not to take this opportunity to attempt one
final elucidation. In the 'Narkontakt' article, it's noted:

"Nick Pope is now completing the manuscript of his next book.
The theme is 'abduction'.

And we have information that the crescendo of the book will be
Nick Pope's own abduction. The previous defence-expert suspects
that he as well as his girlfriend was taken aboard a spaceship
when the passed a car-toll some years ago".

The transcript of an on-line question and answer conference
dated 23 May 1998, records that that your response to the
question 'why did you think you had been abducted by aliens',
was, "I don't recall ever claiming that I had been!"

Apparently _someone_ claimed you had been and the story was
included in the draft manuscript for your 'alien abductions'
book.

As you can imagine, a number of people are confused by this
paradox.

Is there an emphatic denial that this story was ever in the
draft
manuscript?
[End of extract]


Was this a fictitious tale, included because resultant publicity
could be guaranteed to increase book sales, and was it then
decided this was all 'too risky'?

Pope hasn't denied his own 'abduction' story was in the
manuscript and presumably can't, because it was seen.

We can only assume that this seeming reticence to explain the
truth, one hesitates to call it a 'cover-up', exists because,
for some reason... you can't tell the people.


                         O0O~O0O~O0O~O0O


8. Ball Lightning and 'UFOs' - Remarkable Evidence.

Some people who have revealed their claimed experiences are
witnesses to 'ball lightning' and the following web site
provides an abundance of data:

http://www.amasci.com/weird/unusual/bl.html

There are extraordinary experiences reported and which perhaps
aren't unrelated to a number of 'UFO' sightings.

Highly recommended research data.


                         O0O~O0O~O0O~O0O


9. The Reliability of Witness Testimony.

As with accounts of 'ball lightning', the reliability of
testimony is a recurring theme in 'ufology'.

A classic example, perhaps not well-known, illustrates the
extremity of how even a dramatic 'UFO' encounter, with multiple
witnesses who were 'trained observers', can have the most
nonsensical origin.

The. 'Louisville Courier-Journal' of March 4, 1993 apparently
reported:

Police Chopper Attacked By UFO In Kentucky!

"Two helicopter policemen patrolling the sky over Louisville
KY., said they were fired on during a harrowing, two minute
dogfight - with a pear-shaped UFO.

The strange craft reportedly shot three fireballs during the
encounter that also was witnessed by two other officers who
monitored the situation from their positions on the ground
below.

The cops involved have been tight-lipped, declining interview
requests, but official reports, which are a matter of public
record and available for any citizen to see, clearly suggest
that the airborne officers were lucky to have escaped with their
lives.

'I know what we saw and we were not hallucinating', Kenny
Graham, who was piloting the helicopter, said in his report. 'I
was afraid the UFO was going to collide with us', he continued,
'then it turned at the last second and roared away at a speed
I've never seen before'. Graham, 39, an 11 year police veteran,
and Kenny Downs, 39, a five year police veteran who was
operating the chopper's spotlight, were on routine patrol when
they saw what looked like a fire off to their left. Downs
instinctively aimed his spotlight on the object which was shaped
like a pear and drifting back and forth like a balloon on a
string. Without warning, the object sped toward the helicopter
and circled it several times before zooming off in the opposite
direction, Downs said. Then the UFO turned and headed straight
for the chopper, shooting fireballs that by luck or design
fizzled out before they hit, according to Graham.

Afraid the UFO would ram the helicopter's tail rotor, Graham
pushed his speed to more than 100 m.p.h. far from being outrun,
the UFO shot past the chopper, instantly climbing hundreds of
feet. It descended again momentarily, but when Graham steered
toward the craft for a closer look, it flew into the distance
and disappeared.

The amazing aerial manoeuvring of the UFO didn't go unnoticed on
the ground. Officer Mike Smith saw the object for about a
minute. He confirmed it fired three fireballs and disappeared.
Officer Joe Smolenski said he tried for more than minute to
catch up to the UFO in his patrol car. 'I've been looking for
UFOs for 14 years and I guess this is the closest I've come to
something I can't explain', Smolenski said.

A lieutenant described the two helicopter officers as solid guys
and good cops.

Downs said: Kenny and I both go to church every week. After
this, I might start going twice a week". [End]

Quite some story - a 'UFO' which could manoeuvre at 'fantastic'
speed, could easily outrun a helicopter, seemed to fire three
times at the helicopter and all of this was observed by multiple
witnesses, who were highly experienced police officers.

How could this be explained?

Surely it couldn't be misidentified stars or natural phenomena
such as a meteor, nor birds, not even fire-breathing pelicans,
or temperature inversions, mirages, a 'fire balloon', space
debris, 'black project' technology, etc.

It would rate as a foremost 'UFO' case - maybe even 'best
evidence' ...except for one thing...

[If you don't know the answer and would like to see if can
figure it out, then look away now!]

...incredibly, this astonishing 'UFO' _was_ in fact simply a
'fire balloon', launched as a 'UFO' hoax.

The explanation was published in Paul Fuller's excellent 'Crop
Watcher' magazine - see:.

http://www.overflite.com/news11.html

 From subsequent discussions on UFORL, I was advised:

"It seems the incident occurred on February 26, 1993 and the
story first published by the Louisville Courier-Journal on March
4, 1993. The Louisville Courier-Journal ran a follow-up on March
6th and discovered the source of the fire balloon was that of
Scott and Conchys Heacock. They had made it out of a dry
cleaning bag, balsa wood, and a dozen birthday candles".

I understand it also featured in 'UFO Invasion', by Joe Nickell
and an article in the 'Skeptical Inquirer' (#18 - Fall 1993).

Apparently, that article notes:

"'UFO Fires on Louisville, Ky. Police Chopper' was the Headline
on the Weekly World News's May 4 cover story, complete with
fanciful illustration".

[...]

"The encounter was a comedy of errors and misperceptions.
Likened to a cat chasing its tail, the helicopter was actually
pushing the light-weight device around with its prop wash. In
fact, as indicated by the officers own account, the UFO zoomed
away in a response to the helicopter's sudden propulsion -
behaviour consistent with a lightweight object. As to the
'fireballs', they may have been melting , flaming gobs of
plastic or candles that became dislodged and fell, or some other
effect. (Heacock says he used the novelty 'relighting' type of
birthday candles as a safeguard against the wind snuffing them
out. Such candles may sputter, then abruptly reflame.)"

"...a television reporter asked Scott Heacock how certain he was
that his balloon was the reported UFO. Since he witnessed the
encounter and kept the balloon in sight until it was caught in
the police spotlight, he replied: 'I'd bet my life on it'."
[End]


If the question is; are 'UFO' witnesses reliable, especially
trained observers, we seem to have one answer.

Conversely, many 'UFO' reports are resolved because the witness
accounts were relatively/entirely accurate and provided the
evidence which led to a confirmed answer.

Witness reliability? It covers the entire spectrum.


                         O0O~O0O~O0O~O0O


10. Triangular 'UFO' Sighting Solved - The 'Silent Vulcan'.

In July, 1997, I published an intriguing 'UFO' account which I
was researching:

The following story is absolutely true and describes my only
"close encounter".

As a Chartered Accountant, I often have to oversee audit
assignments with a strict timetable. This leads to the need to
work long hours. In March 1978, I was working on such an
assignment in my home county of Lincolnshire, UK. One Thursday
night, I finished work at about 10.30pm and drove a colleague
home to the village of Alford. In general, the coastal areas of
Lincolnshire are very flat. However, Alford lies on the edge of
gently rolling countryside - the Lincolnshire Wolds.

My route home took me up a hill on the A1104 towards Ulceby
Cross. Part way up the hill, at around 11:00 p.m., I was dazzled
by what I took to be the undipped headlights of an oncoming car.
I flashed my own headlights and slowed. To my astonishment, the
oncoming lights slowly "took off" from the road and gracefully
flew to my right. Excitedly, I stopped my car, wound down the
driver's side window and peered out. The sight that greeted me
will stay in my memory forever. I saw that the lights were
coming from a massive, beautiful aircraft which had now turned,
was flying at a height of about 50 feet and was now heading
towards the coast directly over my car!

The craft was shaped like a delta, very similar to the Vulcan
bombers based in Lincolnshire at the time. However, it was about
four times the size of a Vulcan, flew extremely slowly and was
absolutely silent! All leading edges of the delta were
beautifully rounded - there were no sharp protuberances such as
a tailplane. The underside of the craft was coloured sky blue.
It just glided over me and headed towards the coast - no noise,
no smoke, no vibrations, no smell - just an aircraft of sheer
gargantuan beauty.

It was very real; from the A16 I was able to watch this craft
making its slow, majestic way south towards Boston until I lost
sight of it just past Spilsby. I'd love to know what it was. It
seemed too real to be extraterrestrial. However, its immense
size, its low speed and above all, the sheer silence made it
unlike any aircraft known to me!

Paul H Hanmer FCA [End]


Although the most likely identification was a Vulcan bomber -
its profile matched and they were stationed nearby - as anyone
who knows these aircraft can testify, the last thing they could
be described as is silent!

That possibility seemingly ruled out, the answer would doubtless
have forever remained a mystery if it hadn't been for a UFORL
subscriber's experienced knowledge of military aviation and a
chance meeting he had with a Squadron Leader (Rtd.) who flew
Vulcans for most of his RAF career.

I was duly informed:

"A favourite trick of the Vulcan pilots was to reduce power and
use its massive wing area to glide for some miles before
applying power again, to conserve fuel. It was not officially
sanctioned and was never put on record as the public might have
kicked up a fuss (would you want a several tons of bomber
gliding over your town!!)".

So, incredibly, the 'Silent Vulcan' does exist!

Although Paul believed its size was much larger, that's
understandable under the circumstances outlined and another
corroborative factor is that Vulcans did employ a
grey/light-blue camouflage which was sometimes, although not
always, 'plain' underneath - see, for example the photograph at:

http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/mongsoft/vulcan.htm

Once again, what appeared to be a 'UFO' case which defied
explanation is found to have a probable, typically mundane
solution and the witness was mistaken about some observational
aspect, this time the object's size being perceived as four
times larger than it was.

However, resolving this sighting only proved possible because of
a sincere, objective, detailed account which was in the main
reliable and highlighted important features, particularly local
knowledge.


We can only wonder how many other 'inexplicable UFO sightings'
have an incredibly simple explanation which has been dismissed
because, to our knowledge, it seems implausible - as with a
Vulcan bomber which can fly silently.

Moreso, what percentage 'don't make sense' because we're not
aware the witness testimony contains a elementary, yet
significant, observational error. For example, Kenneth Arnold's
evident mistake that the objects he was observing momentarily
passed behind a distant peak and were therefore far away, large
and extremely fast. However, to have seen them as he described,
they absolutely must have passed in front of that peak and were
consequently of an undetermined distance, size and speed.

The latter would be something of a momentous miscalculation - it
give rise to the presumed 'secret jets' which Arnold first
excitedly told other pilots about, later believing that because
they were far, distant objects appearing to travel between two
mountains, he could accurately calculate their astonishing
airspeed.

It was that development which attracted concern and of course
when Arnold described how those undulating, fluttering and
gliding objects flew like 'saucers skipping across water', this
was completely misconstrued in the media frenzy and instead
resulted in popularised objects which resembled 'flying
saucers'.

Otherwise, would we ever have had any sightings of objects which
*looked like* 'flying saucers' at all!

Such a chain-reaction of misunderstandings has an equivalence in
the complex cocktail of misperceptions, confusion and fear which
characterises the Rendlesham forest case, where each 'strange'
experience had the potential to affect and perpetuate belief in
the 'unworldly' nature of others.


Welcome to our planet, gentle space travellers from another
world. We hope you come in peace.

Unfortunately, Greg 'Die Alien Scum' Battram is coming with a
loaded M-16...


                         O0O~O0O~O0O~O0O


The 'UFO Research List' (UFORL) is a moderated discussion forum
for related topics which can be evidenced to have a _scientific_
foundation, encompassing 'black projects'. There are currently
around 100 subscribers.

To join UFORL, you can sign up from UFO World's home page or by
sending a blank e-mail, with a blank subject line, to:

UFORL-subscribe@listbot.com

You will then be sent a verification message and a copy of the
list 'housekeeping rules'.


                         O0O~O0O~O0O~O0O


Editor: James Easton
E-mail: voyager@ufoworld.co.uk
www.ufoworld.co.uk

(c) James Easton
December 2000

This newsletter may be freely distributed provided the above
information and copyright notice are included.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 19

              Re: Report Are UFOs an Air Safety Hazard - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 13:56:15 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 16:35:02 -0500
Subject: Re: Report Are UFOs an Air Safety Hazard - Hatch


 >Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 21:39:45 -0800 (PST)
 >From: Rebecca Keith <xiannekei@yahoo.com>
 >Subject: Re: Report Are UFOs an Air Safety Hazard
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >Interesting article at space.com

 >http://www.space.com/sciencefiction/phenomena/ufo_safety_001201.html


Hello Rebecca:

Thank you for the URL!

One thing I don't know is why www.space.com put this under their
"science fiction" subheading.

Air safety issues are all too real, and Haines had carefully
specified "anomalous aerial phenomena", not UFOs in particular.
I couldn't even find the word UFO in his original press release,
and there was no allusion to fiction of any kind.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 19

             Re: Persinger's 'The Field Biology of Unexplained'

From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 23:52:49 +0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 16:37:13 -0500
Subject: Re: Persinger's 'The Field Biology of Unexplained'


 >From: Greg St. Pierre <GregJenn95@email.msn.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Persinger's 'The Field Biology of Unexplained'
 >Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 21:47:03 -0800

 >>Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 05:21:15 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Persinger's 'The Field Biology of >Unexplained'

 >>Here's a question: What do the geologists think of his
 >>theories? How about the atmospheric scientists?

 >Larry,

 >I'd bet that the answer is that they think his theories are fine
 >and dandy. All that tectonic stuff is rather like ball
 >lightning. Scientists never seem to ascribe misidentified status
 >to ball lightning, because it might be theoretically possible,
 >if only the right theory were to show up.

 >The point is, neither tectonic stress lights or ball lighting
 >threaten to reduce their status as "keepers of knowledge most
 >people don't know" as much as the presence of a technologically
 >advanced alien race.

 >Let's face it, if aliens show up, scientists will look rather
 >foolish.Who cares what they think if that happens? No one will
 >be beating a path to their doors for answers, because they said
 >all along that there _were_ no aliens. Not much of an incentive
 >to help solve the mystery.

 >No, they'll stick to the very terrestrial ball lightning and
 >earthlights, thank you.


Hi Larry, Greg,

Neat trick. Replace one unprovable theory with another.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 19

               CPR-Canada News: Update #1 - Delta, Ontario Ice

From: Paul Anderson <psa@direct.ca>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 19:53:00 -0700
Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 16:51:35 -0500
Subject: CPR-Canada News: Update #1 - Delta, Ontario Ice


CPR-CANADA NEWS
The E-News Service of Circles Phenomenon Research Canada

http://www.egroups.com/group/cprcanadanews
http://www.geocities.com/cpr-canada

December 18, 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 other information on
CPR-Canada-related projects and events. CPR-Canada News is
available free by subscription (see below).

_____________________________


UPDATE #1 - DELTA, ONTARIO ICE RING

Below is an article from The Mural newspaper
(http://www.themural.on.ca) in Athens, Ontario regarding the ice
ring, and attached is a photo taken by the editor's wife, also a
reporter for the paper (delta00.jpg, � TheMural.on.ca


[] delta00.jpg








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 19

                          Filer's Files #50 -- 2000

From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 22:31:25 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 16:55:14 -0500
Subject: Filer's Files #50 -- 2000


Filer's Files #50 -- 2000, MUFON Skywatch Investigations
George A. Filer, Director, Mutual UFO Network Eastern
December 18, 2000, Sponsored by Electronic Arts; Webmaster
C. Warren http://www.filersfiles.com. - Majorstar@aol.com.

UFO reports are few as UFO aircrews get ready for a MERRY
CHRISTMAS. Reports come in from New York, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Texas, Canada, Scotland, and Poland

ARE UFOs THE CLOUDS, ANGELS AND HEAVEN OF THE BIBLE?

At Christmas time it might be rewarding to review ancient
manuscripts that have resulted in most of the Western World
celebrating Christmas. As you know, the basis for all Christian
religion is the Bible and we shouldn't forget that the first
five books in the Bible are the Torah which is the basis for
Judaism. I'm well aware that many scientific readers feel that
UFOs have nothing to do with religion, but lets look at what the
Bible written over two thousand years ago actually says. For
example, we're told angels are sent to watch over you. You have
a choice to ignore this information, or to accept its full
meaning. We know the Torah and the Bible are filled with
references to angels, clouds, and heaven. The key to
understanding the true meaning of the Bible is to define the
important words that might be related to UFOs, so I looked up
some key words in the "Unger Bible Dictionary" that is
considered the best dictionary for 'defining the Bible and
clarifying unfamiliar names, places and objects.' Merrell F.
Unger Th.D., Ph.D., plus several other scholars wrote this
dictionary based on their life time of studies. Unger defines
Angel: "In its most common use in Scripture the word angel
designated certain spiritual and superhuman beings who are
introduced to us as messengers of God." Angels appear most
frequently and conspicuously in connection with coming and
ministry of our Lord. They are personal, sinless, immortal
beings, existing in great number, and in close relation not only
with individual men but also with the history of God's kingdom.
It is clear that Satan and his fallen angels (demons) were
created sinless and later fell." Another scholar who personally
spent over a 100,000 hours of study and 43 years of searching is
Finnis Jennings Dake and his family. "Dake's Annotated Reference
Bible" tells us angels have bodies similar to men, eat, walk,
fight, wrestle, fly and have intellectual powers and passions
similar to men but come from heaven. Angels are mentioned 298
times in the Bible and almost all are stories that relate to
helping man grow spiritually and morally.

Unger defines Heaven as follows, "Scripture evidently specifies
three heavens, since 'the third heaven' is revealed to exist and
it is logical that a third heaven cannot exist without a first
and second heaven." The first however, apparently refers to the
atmospheric heavens of the birds and clouds. The second heaven
may be the stellar spaces. It is the abode of all supernatural
angelic beings. The third heaven is the abode of the divine
plan at present to populate the third heaven. It is called
'Glory' those who enter will be perfected forever and made
partakers of Christ's fullness, which is all fullness and which
comprehends the very nature of the Godhead bodily. The apostle
John was called into heaven" "Dake's Reference Bible " goes on
to say heaven like Earth is a material round planet created by
God and is God's dwelling place that has great beauty, clouds,
cities, streets, mansions, inhabitants, temples, chariots,
horses, food, animals, armies, wars, and is located in the north
part of the universe. Men have been taken there and lived for
thousands of years." Apparently, angels travel from heaven to
Earth aboard a space ship called a 'cloud.'

Cloud: Dr.Unger says, "The allusions to clouds in Scripture, as
well as their use in symbolical language, can only be understood
when we remember the climate, where there is hardly a trace of
cloud from May to the end of September. During this season
clouds so seldom appear and rains so seldom fail as to seem
phenomenal, as was the case with the harvest rain. Clouds are
referred to as showing the power and wisdom of God in their
formation. (Psalms 135.6). They are called the clouds of
heaven. (Daniel 7-12) windows above (Isaiah 24:18) Figuratively
the clouds are symbols of armies. They are used to signify God's
presence." Two thousand years ago birds were virtually the only
flying objects in the sky, therefore anything that was not a
bird was called a cloud. Birds are only mentioned 27 times in
the Bible while a single cloud is mentioned 107 times and
multiple clouds 49 times. When I visited Israel there were no
clouds for almost half a year so it is my personal feeling that
a cloud is another name for Unidentified Flying Objects flown by
angels or messengers. Here are some typical statements about a
cloud or space ship from the Bible:

And the LORD went before them by day in a pillar of cloud to
lead them along the way, and by night in a pillar of fire to
give them light, that they might travel by day and by night;
(Exodus 13:21.13)

The Ten Commandments was brought in a cloud. And the Lord said
to Moses, "Lo, I am coming to you in a thick cloud, that the
people may hear when I speak with you, and may also believe you
for ever." (Exodus 19:9.16)

"The Lord rides on a cloud." (Isaiah 19).

The Bible in my opinion is a wonderful book about UFOs and their
messengers the angels. Regarding Christmas story the Bible
says, "In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to
Nazareth and a town in Galilee, to a virgin pledged to be
married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The
virgin's name was Mary. The angel went to her and said,
"Greetings you are highly favored! The Lord is with you." Mary
was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of
greeting this might be. But the angel said to her, "Do not be
afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. You will be with
child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name
Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most
High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his Father David,
and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, his kingdom
will never end. "How can this be" Mary asked the angel, "since
I am a virgin?' The angel answered, The Holy Spirit will come
upon you, and the power of the Most High will over shadow you.
So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God! (Luke
1-verses 26 to 35). Two thousand years later, much of world
celebrates this birth of Christ the Son of Man at Christmas.

And then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with
power and great glory. [Luke 21:27.13]

These extraterrestrial visitors or angels are sent from the
Third Heaven aboard amazing craft called clouds in the Bible.
These angelic visitors are real according to most of the great
historic religious writings of mankind. It seems reasonable that
the stories are not myths, but are based on actual visits by
messengers, visitors, watchers, ET, angels, or what ever you
choose to call them. They are given credit for bringing gifts
such as writing, and morality based on the Ten Commandments to
Earth. Thousands of books have been written describing their
interactions with Earth. If you visit the great temples and
churches around the world, almost all have the story of an angel
who oversaw their construction. Often there are similar stories
of strange UFOs in the sky. Several of my friends claim they
were visited and even healed by angels. All that happens in the
world may not be simply be by chance. Angels may be controlling
things more than we suspect. So remember when you enjoy
Christmas it all started with an angel. Here are some more
interesting quotes: "For he will command his angels concerning
you to guard you in all your ways.

And when he had said this, as they were looking on, he was
lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight." (Acts
1:9.18)

Then I saw another mighty angel coming down from heaven, wrapped
in a cloud, with a rainbow over his head, and his face was like
the sun, and his legs like pillars of fire. Then they heard a
loud voice from heaven saying to them, "Come up hither!" And in
the sight of their foes they went up to heaven in a cloud.
(Revelation 10 and 11)

"He (Christ) was still speaking, when lo, a bright cloud
overshadowed them, and a voice from the cloud said, "This is my
beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him."
(Matthew 17) Now that you know some of definitions of the Bible,
where thousands of prophesies have already been full filled it
becomes exciting reading. "Have a Merry Christmas!"

NEW YORK UFO SIGHTED

NEW YORK CITY -- Greg T. writes, "I had a sighting of a UFO on
December 15, 2000 at 4:15 PM, I went outside my office building
for a cigarette, and was looking east, above a tall crane and
the UPS office building when I saw a slow moving object. It was
black, and appeared to be very high up moving west like a flock
of birds flying in a "V" formation. The object stopped moving
and hovered remaining in the same position for about two
minutes. The shape changed and it looked more like a small black
square, with a protrusion on its side. I assumed it was a
helicopter but it seemed too high and was about the size of my
pinky finger's nail. It hovered, then moved westward again
slowly. At this point, I no longer had the feeling I was seeing
something identifiable, and decided that I needed to show
someone else what I was seeing. I got Phil the porter to come
out and have a look. Phil acted a little bewildered and stared
at it, then shrugged his shoulders and went inside. As it slowly
continued westward, it was approaching the top of the crane.
There were no smoke or contrails. I noticed a second object that
was the same as the first. This object didn't move and remained
stationary. The first object stopped again, not too far from the
second with the crane between the two. Mark a coworker came by
and I asked him to look and pointed out the objects. He saw them
and was as bewildered as I was. We both observed the objects for
two more minutes and we agreed they were not helicopters. Mark
went into work and I had to return, since I had been gone for
almost 15 minutes. People across the street and Mat another
engineer saw these bewildering things. Thanks to Greg T and
Larry Clark nymufon@NYCAP.rr.com

NEW JERSEY ENCOUNTER GROUP

TRENTON HAMILTON - MUFON's Pat Marcattilio, who is also called
Dr. UFO regularly holds a monthly UFO meeting on the first
Wednesday of the month at the Hamilton Library. Pat received a
half page write up in the Trenton Times on November 26. He and
President Jimmy Carter shared the front page of Section A. Pat
had his first encounter at the age of 22, when he and his wife
saw a "very bright, bluish white light" in the sky. "All of a
sudden, it took a right hand turn and shot to the horizon like a
bullet from a gun," explains Marcattilio. "Wow we both said,
that was no satellite!" Pat has had regular conferences since
1990.

PENNSYLVANIA DANCING LIGHTS

POCONO MOUNTAINS -- Pat Marcatillio provided me with the
following report that last August in the Pocono Mountains of
Pennsylvania a contractor was building a house in the mountains.
He stayed at the property during the night. On a very dark night
and he suddenly noticed dancing lights through the woods. He
happened to have a camera with him, so he took photos of the
strange lights. Later when the film was developed it showed six
human like figures that appeared to be dancing in the woods
wearing hoods. Three figures were red in color, one was blue,
one green and one yellow. The human like figures appear to have
their arms around each other dancing in a half circle. There
faces could not be seen. There are similar stories of
Leprechauns and other folk dancing in similar ways throughout
history. Thanks to Pat Marcattilio. See www.Filersfiles.com

NEW JERSEY FLYING TRIANGLE?

WALDWICK -- Joe Furando writes that on the evening of November
22, 2000, at 12:05 PM, I was on my way home to Montvale when I
spotted an unusually bright light just over the western
tree-line. I became concerned when I realized how low it was
flying. I slowed down and brought the car to a stop to get a
better look. The shape was triangular and this was NO plane. It
had a low, quiet jet engine sound almost inaudible over the
sounds of the cars on Route 17. It was moving slow, and I got of
the car as it flew over head! It was flying just over the trees
and was a solid triangle, with red and green lights and two
closely placed very bright white lights towards the center of
the craft. It was so close to the ground, I could even make out
the small bump in the back where it should have been flat like a
triangle. It followed Sheridan Avenue south and directly back
toward Waldwick. The double lights were striking! Thanks to Joe
Furando, jfurando@hotmail.com

OHIO DARK TRIANGULAR OBJECT

OREGON -- I was sitting in my living room Thanksgiving morning
watching TV, when I heard an unusual slow low frequency
modulating hum. I looked through the sheer drapes and noticed
quite a few lights directly east moving northbound. When I
parted the drapes, I had expected either helicopters or planes,
but was stunned by the enormity of the 'one' triangular object
that I saw. The object was bigger than a football field, had one
red light in the bottom middle with smaller white lights in each
of the corners. It was charcoal gray to black and surrounded by
a dull orangey faint glow. It moved slower than stall speed for
an aircraft in a northeastern direction. It just cleared a radio
tower, of which there are several in the direction it was
headed. The hum sound it emitted was neither a prop, or jet
engine as I am familiar with both of these. I am a 38 year old
music teacher, and have programmed sounds on synthesizers
regularly, and relate it to a low modulating frequency with a
slow sweeping resonance effect. I used up a little time trying
to look for a camera, and decided to give up the search for one,
and step outside to get a better look. By the time I was
outdoors it took about 20 seconds to disappear over the
northeastern neighborhood rooftops. The conditions that morning
were overcast, and still dark out at 6:30 AM. Thanks to Kenny
Young. ufo@FUSE.NET (Kenny Young)

LOUISIANA FLYING TRIANGLE

ELM GROVE - on November 27, 2000, a Triangle shaped craft flying
at 3,000 feet altitude, heading northeast was sighted at 10:30
PM by two witnesses. It had large with bright white lights on
all 'ends' of triangle and bright smaller red light off-center
of object. The husband was ex-military and familiar with various
aircraft, but could not identify the object. The object had an
extremely loud "droning" sound. The object was the size of a
thumbnail at arm's length. He was in his office when he heard
the craft and went on back porch to observe. There was an
extraordinary amount of air-traffic that day with 'angel hair'
falling for good part of day. My husband and I observed 10
similar triangle craft awhile back and reported same. Those
craft, also same droning sound, same shape, altitude, and
direction heading. The unusual "droning" is what first draws
attention. Never heard similar sound associated with any type
aircraft before. Thanks to Peter Davenport NUFORC
www.ufocenter.com

TEXAS SKYWATCHER SPOTS TWO UFOs NEAR SPACE SHUTTLE

SONORA -- On Saturday evening, December 9, 2000, Michael Hunter
drove out into the rangeland to observe the International Space
Station with its newly-installed 240-foot solar wings and the
space shuttle Endeavor attached. The space station is now the
third brightest object in the night sky. At 7:10 PM, Hunter
reported, while watching the space shuttle that was moving east,
"I noticed two objects moving at a high rate of speed, which
took about two minutes to go from the southwest to the
northeast." They looked like two very bright stars, only bright
white lights. There was no navigation flashing lights like on
airplanes. I also noticed they did not have a white trail behind
them like the shuttle. I do not know their altitude, but they
were much higher than the shuttle because they passed over the
white trail that the shuttle left behind. "Thanks to: UFO
Roundup Vol 5, #50 12/14/00 Editor: Joseph Trainor
http://ufoinfo.com/roundup/

Editor's Note: Jeff Challender reports that numerous UFOs have
been video taped from the Shuttle Endeavor, STS 97 during the
recent rendezvous with the International Space Station. It seems
likely that whoever is piloting the UFOs are interested in the
latest human activities in space. The UFOs have speed much
greater than the space station or shuttle and often operate
heading in the opposite direction of all manmade space objects.

OKLAHOMA HUGE BLACK FLYING TRIANGLE CRAFT SEEN

YUKON -- Shelley Ritter MUFON field investigator reports, "On
December 4, 2000, my friend and I went for a walk at 7:30 PM,
when we noticed this huge, black solid triangular shaped craft."
It was silently hovering over Yukon at 45 degrees above the
horizon. On the back end of the craft was a pulsating red light
that moved from right to left. We ran to my house to grab my
binoculars to get a better look. We saw yellow, white, blue and
green lights underneath of this craft, but I couldn't see how
the lights were fixed because of distortion. It started heading
east, so we jumped into my truck and drove to Czech Hall Road
but it had disappeared from sight. It was the size of a city
block square or larger. I have a sketch of what we saw that
night. Thanks to Shelley Ritter bbbritter@aol.com

CANADA INTERCEPT OF UFO

BRITISH COLUMBIA -- LT. Col Charles D. writes, "I had a very
interesting incident involving a UFO while flying an F-102 in
1958." While on alert duty with the 318th in British Columbia,
we scrambled to intercept two bogies on a 090 degree heading.
While being vectored to the location, I observed a white light.
I was flying on a 270 heading and the light was to my 1300
position. The light continued towards my aircraft. As it
approached, I noticed the light had a fuselage body behind it.
Just prior to the light hitting my aircraft it veered to the
south. My partner also observed it. After identifying the two
bogies as Canadian civilian aircraft, we returned to base. While
positioning my aircraft for final approach, I again observed
this white light directly ahead of me. I believe the runway we
were using was 29 so that would have put the light at about the
same heading. After landing, we were debriefed inside the Combat
Alert Control (CAC). We were told that radar at Blaine Air Force
Station also picked up this white light (object). I never did
find out what it was. Thanks to Charles Candlelite100

SCOTLAND SMOKING GUN UFO FOOTAGE

STIRLING -- Andrew Hennessey writes that, "The best most
convincing several hours of UFO camcorder footage was filmed by
Brian Macphee just north of one of the worlds busiest UFO
hotspots. Brian is an accomplished cameraman and filmed it all
in broad daylight in good light and on digital video at its
absolute best with various filters. The incredible footage which
includes hours of irrefutable silver discs maneuvering in the
skies. The video includes glowing orbs, and a detailed close up
of a rod shaped UFO. The images are clear. There are several
minutes footage of a massive glowing organic wriggling plasma
ship. Angel hair vapor that remains a solid spiral suspended in
the sky even after the vapor trails of passing jets have long
dispersed. The three hour video will be called UFOs over
Scotland. This is high resolution digital video in excellent
light and weather, filmed by a steady hand. Thanks toAndrew
Hennessey pegasus@easynet.co.uk

EDINBURGH CONTRAILS REPORT -

On December 11, 2000, on at least nine RAF fighter jets were
observed flying in a northerly direction over the Scottish
capital at 2:30 PM. The fighters were at very high altitude
emitting short length contrails that dissipated very rapidly. At
this time, other 'contrails' or cloud formations were observed.
The characteristics which made them so apparent were as follows:
1: The massive sheer size and scale of these formations as
opposed to the jet fighter contrails. 2: The shape and pattern
of these formations were absolutely dissimilar to any other
cloud formation in the sky. 3: These unusual formations or
contrails were observed to be at an angle of 90 degrees to the
direction that the aircraft were traveling in. 4: These unusual
formations were at a much lower altitude than the jet contrails,
but higher than the low level normal type of cloud. It should be
noted that the jet aircraft were not traveling in a group or in
formation. These were observed traveling singularly at
intermittent times of approximatly 5 minutes duration between
observations. No other craft or objects were observed in the
area during this entire period, which lasted for an hour. There
are no details as to what happened with these formations, due to
daylight rapidly dissolving into night. For comparison, the same
area of sky was observed on December 12, 2000, and no abnormal
activity was seen whatsoever. Conditions: Slight wind, clear
skies, dry, scattered low clouds. Thanks to Michael
www.sunrise.treeUK.com

POLAND CIGAR SHAPED UFO SIGHTED

LODZ -- Tomasz Wierszaowicz writes that John while driving saw a
UFO on December 1, 2000, not far from Warsaw in central Poland.
The UFO was the shape of a cigar at about three kilometers
distant. The large cigar was observed at sunset in a clear sky
and no clouds. John could see the reflection of the sun on the
object and could see that the object was in the shape of a
cigar. He stopped his car to watch the object that did not
appear to move. It stayed in the same position in the sky for an
extended period. He also saw two white streams coming from the
object towards the ground in a 'V' shape. The white streams
sometimes were shorter sometimes longer. We expect more detailed
information. Thanks to Tomasz Wierszaowicz in Poland.

THREE NEW WORLDS FOUND

SOUTHERN SKY - A group of southern astronomers have found three
new planets orbiting stars similar to our sun. The three new
planets are 150 light-years from Earth. They are the first to be
found by the Anglo-Australian Telescope in Australia. One of the
new planets is a gas giant, about the size of Jupiter. It is
circling Epsilon Reticulum in the 'habitable region' of its
parent star suggesting liquid water could exist on the planet's
surface. The smallest of the newly discovered planets is an
object called a "hot Jupiter" because it sits just six million
kilometers from its parent star, HD179949 in the constellation
Sagittarius. The planet, with a mass that's 84 per cent of our
Jupiter, orbits the star in only three days. The third of the
new planets is almost twice as massive as Jupiter and circles a
star called mu Ara, in the constellation Altar. The discovery
brings the total number of known exoplanets to over fifty.
http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?/news/2000/12/11/new_pl
anet001211


UFOs AND RELIGION

I get numerous letters from peoplewho feel there is a connection
between religion and UFOs. Here is a typical letter from Donna B
who writes, "When I started "investigating" and consciously
looking for UFO's I asked God to show me the way and keep me on
the path of truth." I sight UFOs pretty regularly, and have made
the statement in web postings that abductees could have control
over their situation by simply saying no while invoking the name
of Jesus Christ. I got a lot of laughter and debunking over that
one, but several weeks ago, I sighted a UFO in the western sky,
so thought I would try it myself. After watching it for a few
minutes, I said (outloud) "Leave my sight and my atmosphere in
the name of Jesus Christ." Immediately, it blinked out. Now my
prayers are "How are the UFO phenomena connected to God?" No
answers yet. But more and more I am leaning toward the belief
that as human beings, we are part of two worlds -- both the 3D
and dimensional world seen only in our peripheral vision,
dreams, etc. and have been since the beginning of history. The
only difference now is how perception has changed from belief in
the "supernatural" to belief in scientific reality. In my
opinion, now is the time for the two to merge into "supernatural
reality". The physical evidence will come when the timing is
right. Thanks to Donna B.

CD OF FILER'S FILES for the last four years 1997 through 2000 is
available for $25.00. PHOTOGRAPH BOOKLET of some of the best UFO
photographs available and data on their propulsion systems by US
Navy Commander Graham Bethune is $10.00. Send check or money
order to G. Filer 222 Jackson Road, Medford, New Jersey 08055.
Both for $30.00.

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. 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. To get a free copy of this
report, just call (609) 654-0020 or e-mail us at
Majorstar@aol.com.

MUFON UFO JOURNAL -- For more detailed monthly investigative
reports subscribe to the MUFON JOURNAL that costs only $30 per
year by contacting MUFONHQ@aol.com. Mention that I recommended
you for membership. Filer's Files is copyrighted 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 >
   Dec > Dec 19

               Re: CPR-Canada News: Update #1 - Delta, Ontario

From: Paul Anderson <psa@direct.ca>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 20:20:16 -0700
Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 16:58:40 -0500
Subject: Re: CPR-Canada News: Update #1 - Delta, Ontario


CPR-CANADA NEWS
The E-News Service of Circles Phenomenon Research Canada

http://www.egroups.com/group/cprcanadanews
http://www.geocities.com/cpr-canada

December 18, 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 other information on
CPR-Canada-related projects and events. CPR-Canada News is
available free by subscription (see below).

_____________________________


I am resending this, as once again the text file was corrupted
during the mailing, being cut off only part way down. If it
doesn't come through again this time, the report, with photo,
can also be seen here:

http://www.geocities.com/cpr-canada/delta00.html

The attached photo did apparently go through okay the first time
however, so I have not reattached it.

Apologies,

Paul Anderson



UPDATE #1 - DELTA, ONTARIO ICE RING

Below is an article from The Mural newspaper in Athens, Ontario
regarding the ice ring. � TheMural.on.ca

[Nope! --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 >
   Dec > Dec 19

             Re: Persinger's 'The Field Biology of Unexplained'

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 01:10:56 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 17:03:50 -0500
Subject: Re: Persinger's 'The Field Biology of Unexplained'


 >From: Chris Rutkowski <rutkows@cc.UManitoba.CA>
 >Subject: Re: Persinger's 'The Field Biology of Unexplained'
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 09:11:23 -0600 (CST)

 >>From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Persinger's 'The Field Biology of Unexplained Events'
 >>Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 23:11:06 -0500

<snip>

 >>Laurentian University's Biology Society >>presents

 >>The Field Biology of Unexplained Events
 >>by
 >>Dr. M. A. Persinger, Professor
 >>Departments of Biology and Psychology
 >>Behavioral Neuroscience Program

 ><much arm-waving rhetoric snipped>

 >>-the 1975 "flap" of bright, bobbing balls of red, orange or
 >>white light in southern Manitoba around the Red River System
 >>preceded the most energetic earthquake in the region (North
 >>Dakota, Minnesota) and was associated with above average
 >>hydraulic loads.

 >This is where it becomes very easy to show how weak the TST is
 >as an explanation for UFO reports in general.

 >I took the trouble to write and publish my own scientific paper
 >in the same journal which carried Persinger's TST claims. I
 >pointed out that the Carman UFO flap of 1975 saw hundreds of UFO
 >sightings reported - yet Manitoba has _never_had_an_earthquake_!
 >(Qualification: There is no area on Earth without seismic
 >activity, but Manitoba has never had anything detectable by
 >anything other than very sensitive seismographs.) It's in the
 >middle of the continent, nowhere near any active plate
 >tectonics!

 >But that little fact not stopping him, Persinger found seismic
 >data for surrounding states and provinces and noted a fairly
 >weak event that occurred 800 kilometres away in Minnesota, not
 >even during the UFO flap but some time before it.

 >Two things: One, that if the balls of light were related to the
 >earthquake, why didn't the balls appear in Minnesota, not 800
 >kilometres away?

<snip>

 >And two, most of the UFO reports associated with the Carman UFO
 >flap have _been_explained_ as aircraft, stars and meteors.

Hi, Chris:

Remember the Carmen "Charlie Red Star" UFO? That film had what
was claimed to have been a flash of light at the horizon. Turned
out that it probably was a light leak in the darkroom, according
to the technician who developed the film and noticed the same
thing in other film from the same camera. That film was also
doctored, according to my analysis.

I sent a copy of my report to Prof. Persinger, because I
suspected that maybe this "flash" would have ended up in his
pile of data. Never got any response. I have always wondered if
this flash on this widely broadcast, but doctored film, might
have been something which had suggested to him his geologic
theory.

My report was also published in the Ontario MUFON newsletter.
The only thing that I would add to it today is something that
you called to my attention: the double frame effect was probably
caused by the film being converted to video at some point, and
then back to film and really slowed down. As I pointed out in my
report, jump in the UFO image was likely caused by a splice of a
later generation film.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 19

                        Re: Reluctant Viewers - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 01:54:19 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 17:14:29 -0500
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Young


 >From: Greg St. Pierre <GregJenn95@email.msn.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 13:36:04 -0800

<snip>

 >Since several people have suggested that abductees will not or
 >can not foot the bill for medical testing, nor will their
 >insurance companies, we have basically ruled out two avenues of
 >funding. It's also patently obvious that the private sector,
 >lacking any motivation to provide such funding, will not be
 >getting in on the game any time soon so kiss avenue three
 >goodbye.

Greg, List:

Has anybody considered asking MR BIG to drop a couple small
bills to pay for a couple of these?


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 >
   Dec > Dec 19

                        Re: Reluctant Viewers - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 01:54:19 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 17:19:52 -0500
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Young


 >From: Greg St. Pierre <GregJenn95@email.msn.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 13:36:04 -0800

<snip>

 >Since several people have suggested that abductees will not or
 >can not foot the bill for medical testing, nor will their
 >insurance companies, we have basically ruled out two avenues of
 >funding. It's also patently obvious that the private sector,
 >lacking any motivation to provide such funding, will not be
 >getting in on the game any time soon so kiss avenue three
 >goodbye.

Greg, List:

Has anybody considered asking MR BIG to drop a couple small
bills to pay for a couple of these?


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 >
   Dec > Dec 19

             Re: Persinger's 'The Field Biology of Unexplained'

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 01:13:45 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 17:22:18 -0500
Subject: Re: Persinger's 'The Field Biology of Unexplained'


 >From: Greg St. Pierre <GregJenn95@email.msn.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Persinger's 'The Field Biology of Unexplained'
 >Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 21:47:03 -0800

 >>Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 05:21:15 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Persinger's 'The Field Biology of >Unexplained'

 >>Here's a question: What do the geologists think of his
 >>theories? How about the atmospheric scientists?

 >Larry,

 >I'd bet that the answer is that they think his theories are fine
 >and dandy. All that tectonic stuff is rather like ball
 >lightning. Scientists never seem to ascribe misidentified status
 >to ball lightning, because it might be theoretically possible,
 >if only the right theory were to show up.

 >The point is, neither tectonic stress lights or ball lighting
 >threaten to reduce their status as "keepers of knowledge most
 >people don't know" as much as the presence of a technologically
 >advanced alien race.

 >Let's face it, if aliens show up, scientists will look rather
 >foolish.Who cares what they think if that happens? No one will
 >be beating a path to their doors for answers, because they said
 >all along that there _were_ no aliens. Not much of an incentive
 >to help solve the mystery.

 >No, they'll stick to the very terrestrial ball lightning and
 >earthlights, thank you.


Hello Greg:

I have to respectfully disagree.

You have described _some_ scientists, yes. But, there is a wide
spectrum of opinion with regards to say the prospects for SETI,
the likelihood/possibility of alien life, even UFOs.

We just cannot paint them all with the same brush. Consider
people like Dr. Richard Haines, Dr. Peter Sturrock and numerous
other scientists who have gone out on a limb to study and even
defend the UFO phenomenon from the sort of pontificators that
you describe.

If Persinger uses the same logic with his tectonics and
Earth-lights that he uses to dismiss virtually all UFOs, then it
will show... even in matters not directly related to UFOs.

Thus, my original question above: What do the geologists think
of his theories? How about the atmospheric scientists?


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 >
   Dec > Dec 19

                               Alien Love Doll

From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 07:26:11 -0600
Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 17:24:55 -0500
Subject: Alien Love Doll


http://www.sextoy.com/dolls/alien.html

Provided to me! Honest! I was _not_ looking for vibrating butt
plugs! But this item _did_ look rather fetching <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.<x-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 >
   Dec > Dec 19

               Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Review Debate

From: Steven R. LaPlume <slaplume@recon-inc.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 08:08:13 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 17:32:07 -0500
Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Review Debate


[Non-Subscriber Post]

I am writing in regard  to the "Debate" that is going on between
Randalls and Bruni.

As one of the witnesses who was stationed on RAF Bentwaters at
the time I am actually taken back by the bickering that is going
on. Who is Randalls to talk about this like she is the
definitive authourity?

At least Ms Bruni has investigated this matter to the best of
her ability. I know this issue will most likely never be fully
known but at least give those of us that were there enough
credit to know the differance between a light house and a craft
that is in full view.

I mean, come on here, this is not rocket science. I saw
something, Busty saw something, Warren saw something. Everyone
there saw something. Perhaps on different nights perhaps with a
different perspective but we did not see a light house and
mistake it for a bloody UFO.

I was posted on the East Gate, due to my low rank, many times
and it was quite clear what the light house was, where it was
and the effect it had at night on clear and foggy nights.

I am personnaly offended by the fact that anyone can even think
that we are so stupid as to believe what we saw was a dammed
light house. Of course I maybe wrong I am not a woman and don't
think with emotions I am just a man and only have facts to go
on.

I think Georgina Bruni did a bang up job on presenting the case.
I have read the book word for word cover to cover (The parts
with me in it even twice) This book hit the nail on the head in
her portrayal of the climate of the base at the time and the day
to day operational procedures.

Take it for what its worth but no matter what something happened
there over those three nights and latter when SA Wendal Palmer
and myself had our sighting and unless that lght house learned
to fly, then it was not the light house.


Most sincerely,

Steven R. LaPlume
AIC USAF 81st SPS - RAF Bentwaters (Retired)
Mercenary (Not So Retired)










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 20

                       Re: Reluctant Viewers - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 13:32:58 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 10:34:23 -0500
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Sparks


 >Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 15:31:04 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers


 >>From: Brad Sparks R<B47Expert@aol.com>
 >>Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 04:21:12 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 14:49:30 -0600
 >>>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>>From: Sue Strickland <strick@H2Net.net>
 >>>>Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 08:25:33 -0700
 >>>>Fwd Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 07:28:01 -0500
 >>>>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Strickland

 >><snip>

 >>Roger & List,

 >>Your argument that alleged abductees can easily get scientific
 >>medical investigation of their physiological condition and any
 >>alien implants - two different issues that constantly get
 >>confused - has only superficial plausibility and does not have
 >>the benefit of practical reality. Your approach is riddled with
 >>problems, some so serious that it makes it an outright
 >>impossibility:

 >>To develop something convincing will require a lot of expensive
 >>testing and investigation of _many_ cases, not just one or two
 >>here or there.

 >Hi Brad, hi All,

 >I just wanted to jump in long enough to make a couple of
 >comments. I agree with you Brad. What is required is a multi
 >disciplinary team checking out a group of abductees large enough
 >(sampling) to be considered 'statistically significant.' I
 >stated that as my 'opinion' to Roger in an earlier post.

 >If the academic/professional end of such a study could be
 >assembled, there would be -no problem- recruiting as many
 >abductees as they would need. I would be the _first_ to sign on
 >for such a study project. It would end 20+ years of circular
 >debates and provide the abductees with at least a few of the
 >answers they seek. The 'problem' is on the other end. There is
 >nothing 'in-place' (or even proposed) that can deal with this
 >kind of an investigation. No doctors waiting in the wings, no
 >funding sources, and no oversight committee composed of
 >representatives from both sides of the issue. That would be the
 >ideal situation.

Hi John,

Thanks for your comments. One thing that has been overlooked in
all this is an article by Carl Sagan just before he died. I
think it was published in Parade magazine in 1996 (January??).
Of course, we all know Sagan was pretty skeptical about UFO's,
sometimes to the point of coming off like a Menzelian debunker.
What was surprising, indeed shocking to me, was that Sagan in
this article took the UFO abduction phenomenon very seriously
and urged full-scale _scientific_ investigation of it. I wish I
had the article in front of me to make sure I am not remembering
it wrong. I think he indicated he thought it was psychological
but that he was not sure and that it very definitely created
trauma for the abductees that was very real and deserved to be
looked into and not ignored.

As for what is "statistically significant" most statisticians
will tell you they prefer numbers in the 100's or 1,000's.
However, many medical studies are conducted with lesser numbers,
in the dozens, but at the cost of statistical reliability.

<snip>

 >>if just one implant could be found that allows proof of an
 >>ET origin.

 >I must be ahead of my time. Five years ago on this very List I
 >'had it out' with several people regarding the alleged
 >"implants" that have already been recovered by that knife
 >weilding podiatrist and his compadre Alien Hunter and "nemisis
 >of Mondoz" Derrel Sims.

 >To date: they have cut 15 (count 'em) abductees and they have
 >had the 15 (count 'em) objects recovered, some of them for five
 >years now. But wait, "where" did all of these recovered foreign
 >objects end up?

<snip>

 >Leir is in possession of 15 alleged implants. Before anybody
 >goes around recommending that even more abductees go under the
 >knife, how about pressuring Lier to have those objects examined
 >and analysed by an _independent_ set of researchers?

<snip>

Actually John I had 11 numbered points in my posting which you
have completely snipped off. Among those points I stressed that
the chain of custody of any alleged alien implants would be a
serious issue for those artifacts that are not "obviously"
extraterrestrial. As you indicated there is real doubt about
where Leir's 15 implants went. Unless one hits the jackpot with
at least one of these objects and can find something that is
obviously alien technology, the best one could hope for in
studying these 15 implants is to find interesting aspects to
look for in the future, in more rigorous and disciplined
investigations. I get the impression that what has happened so
far is more in the nature of "treasure hunting" as compared to
say "scientific archaeology."

 >BTW, I also asked some time back if anybody had heard anything
 >further about the alleged "implant" that Whitley Streiber
 >recovered from that old gentleman in his TV program
 >'Confirmation'. According to the guy who reported the analysis
 >results on air, the outer coating of the "implant" was composed
 >of an "unknown" substance. We all ended up getting into a
 >discussion about the meaning of the words "unknown substance"
 >and nothing was ever said afterwards. Has Streiber published
 >anything further on this object that anyone knows about?

<snip>

 >John Velez

I have not heard about this but I do laugh at nonsense I hear
about "unknown substances." It is "unknown" only because someone
doesn't want to do the tests to find out! Scientists will tell
you what they would do to find out and in a hurry - flame
spectroscopy, gas chromatography, electron or ion microprobe
analysis, and if isotope ratios may be an issue then AMS
(accelerator mass spectrometry). There are lists of probably 50+
standard tests that could be run. If there is an issue of
wanting nondestructive or minimally destructive testing there
are new techniques involving lasers that have been developed for
mass spectrometry, etc.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 20

               Re: New Website On Controversial LRV Project -

From: Kenny Young <ufo@fuse.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 13:50:33 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 10:36:20 -0500
Subject: Re: New Website On Controversial LRV Project -


 >From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: New Website On Controversial LRV Project
 >Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 15:15:03 -0800

 >After reading the paper on the possible nature of said object,
 >yes the speeds, right the shapes, right for the LRV escape pod
 >and one more thing, if this is indeed an LRV escape pod - oy
 >vey! as a Jewsh friend of mine says (Yiddish has some good ways
 >of decribing the indescriable in English.) This means somthing
 >has happened to the rest of the Beast.


I didn't want to go this direction with this thing but the
recent comments by GT McCoy gives us a prime moment for a dose
of groundless speculation: Consider that the photograph taken by
Satellite from the weather office at Elmendorff Air Force Base
in Anchorage, AK was supposedly made during October of 1978. It
shows what looks very similar to the proposed LRV escape module.
Now, as GT McCoy put it... where's the rest of the beast? If
this is something to do with an LRV, then somebody must be
escaping from something. Could we muse that there was some sort
of 'still classified' mishap that bedeviled a secret LRV flight
in October of 1978? And could the rain of molten hell falling
all over Middletown, Ohio in March of 1979 [five-months later]
be what was left of the unfortunate beast as it de-orbits,,,
purposefully or otherwise... in the vicinity of WPAFB?

But look at this from a different perspective: the original
story [if I'm not mistaken here] is that NORAD did not go on
alert until the picture came their way. This means they might
not have known about whatever mishap resulted in our speculative
escape attempt -- NORAD might not have known about the LRV thing
altogether, no need to. A good case of the left hand not knowing
what the right hand is doing.

Now this is all fun for speculation, but I fear there is no way
to really home-in on this issue as far as factual verification
goes. But it might be nice to try and verify if indeed NORAD
actually went on alert in Oct., '78.

I tried a FOIA to once NORAD before [unrelated issue] and the
response to me was that NORAD is exempt from FOIA, so I'm not
sure FOIA inquiries to NORAD would be productive. Would anyone
know if there is some report [obtainable or otherwise] that
documents an 'alert status' from some other agency accessible
through FOIA, such as U.S. Space Command?

Any finding of an increased alert posture or something similar
taking place during October of '78 may at least establish some
soft authenticity for the photograph and/or claim behind it.


Later,

Kenny Y.
--
      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 >
   Dec > Dec 20

                       Re: Reluctant Viewers - Felder

From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@digidezign.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 12:59:52 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 10:38:25 -0500
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Felder


 >Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 16:07:51 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Elizabeth Hammond <lizzz@worldnet.att.net>
 >>Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 22:42:48 -0500
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Hammond

 >>>Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 12:53:21 -0600
 >>>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>>Subject: Reluctant Viewers -
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

 >And whether only you are examined or if one hundred like you are
 >examined, the only thing that will come of it is going to be a
 >record of hundreds of claims. Without direct evidence of an ET
 >connection, such as an extracted implant that can be studied,
 >the number of claims won't increase the believability factor.
 >The number of UFO claims made over the last 50 years certainly
 >outnumbers the claims of abductees. Does that fact seem to
 >persuade the scientific world in favor of ET life? It would seem
 >not.

 >In the case of non-implant abductees, the demand for an
increase
 >in the number of scientists and/or the number of abductees will
 >only result in disappointment or delay. The number won't make
 >any difference and insisting on a larger number only increases
 >the likelihood that it simply won't happen.

 >On the other hand, it would only take one implant abductee to
 >turn the tables. As we have discussed to no end, I mistakenly
 >felt you were implying that you had something foreign in your
 >body that you considered ET in origin. The simple truth is that,
 >since you do not, then there really isn't much that would come
 >of your increased demands that you couldn't achieve by simply
 >having a regular examination by your regular doctor. A dozen
 >more doctors in the room won't make a bit of difference.
 >Likewise, a single ET implant discovered by a single doctor
 >would make all the difference in the world.

Reality bites sometimes, don't it........

I have to agree with Roger here. As much as I would love to see
abductees' claims validated, nothing short of an undeniable
artifact of ET origin is going to give abductees the irrefutable
right to say, "I told ya so".

And since it is the abductees who are making the claim on ET as
the culprit on the implants, it is the abductees who are
responsible for supplying the evidence to back up that claim.
Not a popular statement, I know, but a cold, hard, detail of
reality, I'm afraid.

My two cents.....

Bobbie


Bobbie "Jilain" Felder
   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 >
   Dec > Dec 20

                        Re: Reluctant Viewers - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 13:03:03 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 10:55:53 -0500
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Evans


 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 15:31:04 -0500
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Velez

 >>From: Brad Sparks R<B47Expert@aol.com>
 >>Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 04:21:12 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, John wrote:

 >I just wanted to jump in long enough to make a couple of
 >comments. I agree with you Brad. What is required is a multi
 >disciplinary team checking out a group of abductees large enough
 >(sampling) to be considered 'statistically significant.' I
 >stated that as my 'opinion' to Roger in an earlier post.

<snip>

 >Five years ago on this very List I
 >'had it out' with several people regarding the alleged
 >"implants" that have already been recovered by that knife
 >weilding podiatrist and his compadre Alien Hunter and "nemisis
 >of Mondoz" Derrel Sims.

 >To date: they have cut 15 (count 'em) abductees and they have
 >had the 15 (count 'em) objects recovered, some of them for five
 >years now.

<snip>

 >Man, we're butt deep in "implants." What we really need to do is
 >to put public pressure on these people to get them properly
 >examined and tested by _independent_ experts. You don't need to
 >cut another person open. There are enough of these things
 >'in-hand' to make a determination one way or the other. Even if
 >only to find out if further study/examination is justified.

Hi, John. Hi, all...

Well, on the one had, it would take a "multi disciplinary team
checking out a group of abductees large enough (sampling) to be
considered 'statistically significant."

On the other hand, it would seem that any "knife wielding
podiatrist" can do the job.

I do agree with you on your last point. If these implants exist,
then they should be studied before anyone else goes under the
knife.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 20

                Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles -

From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 20:39:20 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 10:58:54 -0500
Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles -


 >From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 13:30:13 EST
 >Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

Y'all,

Gildas wrote:

 >To Georgina Bruni, Jenny Randles and the List
 >Thank you for your clear answers to Jenny Randles and others.
 >I am going to read your book with great interest.
 >I still have one question pending for Jenny Randles: when are
 >you going to publish your records of pilots who saw nothing at
 >Lakenheath? (the "COMETA boys" are still waiting). When you say
 >that publicly, in order to put in doubt the COMETA report a week
 >after its release in France, you _must_ produce them.

No one _must_ do anything Gildas. Least of all in this starlit
mire we call ufology.

But....

Regarding Lakenheath I can tell that UFOIN researchers have now
located and interviewed _all_ the RAF Venom pilots, together
with looking at the relevant flight logs for the time. We have
also located and have material from the flight controller.

Additionally we have other contemporaneous material concerning
the Lakenheath 'radar visual' case. All will be revealed when
our research and investigations are complete. All in good time
Gildas, all in good time.

You can get your facts right and we will be telling the people.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 20

                  Re: Falsifiability, Occam's Razor, UFOs &

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 16:45:35 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 11:01:09 -0500
Subject: Re: Falsifiability, Occam's Razor, UFOs &

 >From: Charles Chapman <charlesrc@earthlink.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Falsifiability, Occam's Razor, UFOs & Abductions?
 >Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 17:44:01 -0800

 >First, let me make clear where I stand as of now.

<snip>

 >Quite frankly, if your answer is -- "I know what I saw, I know
 >what I perceived, I know what I experienced, I know what I
 >remember, I trust my own mind and my own experience." -- that is
 >obviously perfectly fine, reasonable, proper and acceptable. In
 >a similar situation, I would want to trust, above all else, my
 >own mind, perceptions and memories.

That was cool Charles! You asked and answered your own question
all in one post! At least for me you did.

Put me down for 1 of the above please. "I know what I saw," etc.
etc.


John Velez

Speaking strictly for myself. ;)


******************************************************
                     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 >
   Dec > Dec 20

             Re: Persinger's 'The Field Biology of Unexplained'

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 16:05:10 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 11:03:59 -0500
Subject: Re: Persinger's 'The Field Biology of Unexplained'


 >Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 23:55:41 +0000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: Persinger's 'The Field Biology of Unexplained'

 >>From: Greg St. Pierre <GregJenn95@email.msn.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Persinger's 'The Field Biology of Unexplained'
 >>Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 21:47:03 -0800

 >>>Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 05:21:15 -0800
 >>>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Persinger's 'The Field Biology of >Unexplained'


 >I doubt it. If aliens show up I would bet that there presence
 >has nothing to do with the UFO phenomenon that we know and love!

A touching expression of faith, especially when punctuated with
an exclamation point. Actually, if aliens are proved to be
present, scientists - at least those who never bothered to study
the question but dismissed it with extreme prejudice anyway -
will look not rather but fatally foolish.

 >>Who cares what they think if that happens? No one will
 >>be beating a path to their doors for answers, because they said
 >>all along that there _were_ no aliens. Not much of an incentive
 >>to help solve the mystery.

 >No they didn't. most scientists who have considered the matter
 >are quite happy with the idea of there being plenty of aliens
 >(wrongly, in my opinion) around in the universe. they're just
 >not too struck with the idea that they're buzzing round here in
 >UFOs.

What scientists have "considered the matter" - in the sense of
bothering to acquaint themselves with the serious literature and
therefore being able to express an informed, as opposed to
blissfully ignorant, opinion - and then rejected the UFO
phenomenon? With rare exception (the unfortunate Menzel, whom
most pelicanists sensibly prefer to keep buried in the memory
hole, being the most visible exception), most books by UFOphobic
scientists, in my observation, simply cite Philip J. Klass, who
is not a scientist in any sense of the word, as the last word on
the subject.

The testimony of UFO history shows that most scientists who have
"considered the matter" and bothered to read and investigate
have come to conclusions very much unlike those represented in
Rimmer's hopeful claim.

Where pelican science is concerned, one thinks of Orwell's
mordant observation about the totalitarian mindset, where
ignorance is strength.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 20

                        Re: Reluctant Viewers - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 16:10:44 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 11:07:38 -0500
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Evans


 >From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 19:44:21 EST
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Mortellaro

Previously, Jim wrote:

 >No sense in taking all the bandwidth which requoting would
 >require. Let me address a few of the remarks some of you made
 >with a little abductee reality.

 >I have marks on arm and leg, small circles perfect in every way
 >which form a triangle. I went to the internist and
 >dermatologist. They did not know what or how the thing was or
 >got there. They were however, so strange, that both took
 >photographs of the marks at various stages along the way.
 >Festering, scar, back to festering wound and back to scar as
 >well as in between stages. So far, there have been three such
 >cylces.

 >Still no diagnosis. Even tho covered by the HMO.

 >Then there was the small apparently foreign bodies in my ear
 >lobe, both sides, and the signs of surgery in my nasal passages.

 >Surgery which I _never_ had. And no sign of entry for the
 >apparent foreign objects.

<snip>

 >Roger, if you are having fun with us for the art and pleasure of
 >the debate, fine business as we hams used to say. However I can
 >tell you that each and every argument you used, each one, has
 >been used and tried. Abused and fried. All well done to a turn.
 >And the bottom line is still, nothing is revealed.


Hi, Jimmy!

Yes, I admit that I, like everyone else that participates in
this List, enjoy the debate over a variety of topics. This time
it happens to be about abductees.

Does that mean that I take the subject as a joke? No. Does that
mean the I don't respect the people involved? No. Does that mean
that I am poking fun at "mine enemies"? Nah. There are people on
this List that flat out don't care for my approach or my style
in dealing with issues. I can accept that. I sometimes play the
devil's advocate just to see if someone really has something to
contribute or is merely taking up bandwidth.

As such, only two things do I find to be offensive:

1) Intellectual cowards and self-appointed experts

2) Phonies that simply want a stage

The subject of alien abductees covers much of these two areas.
As I pointed out before, I believe that alien abduction can be a
real phenomenon. However, and I really don't know a delicate way
to put this, I also believe that most abductees are simply lying
and know they are lying.

In the end, this behavior serves as an injustice to people like
you that are firm in your beliefs of what happened to you and
why. If I can uncover the illogic that accompanies the fakers in
your group, then I feel I have contributed something, indeed.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 20

              Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Review Debate -

From: Kelly Peterborough <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 18:19:38 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 11:10:22 -0500
Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Review Debate -


 >From: Steven R. LaPlume <slaplume@recon-inc.com>
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Review Debate
 >Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 08:08:13 -0800

 >[Non-Subscriber Post]

 >I am writing in regard to the "Debate" that is going on between
 >Randalls and Bruni.

<snip>

 >Of course I maybe wrong I am not a woman and don't
 >think with emotions I am just a man and only have facts to go
 >on.

Well, this witness just blew any credibilty with me - until he
admits that he thinks with his 'other' head!

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 >
   Dec > Dec 20

                     Re: Reluctant Viewers - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 18:51:56 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 11:13:41 -0500
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Mortellaro


 >Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 16:07:51 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Elizabeth Hammond <lizzz@worldnet.att.net>
 >>Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 22:42:48 -0500
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Hammond

 >>>Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 12:53:21 -0600
 >>>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>>Subject: Reluctant Viewers -
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Previously, Liz wrote:

 >>I would like to see a group of Scientists of different
 >>disciplines set up the following for the purpose of researching
 >>if ther is, in fact, any difference at all between Alleged
 >>Abductees, and Non-Abductees. To use standard protocol, more
 >>than one subject is necessary. A group is needed to form
 >>percentages, statistics, etc. In my view, a good number to start
 >>with would be 25 people for each group as I believe this will
 >>give enough data for a starting point. Some suggestions for
 >>tests would be all non-invasive (as I believe almost no one
 >>would volunteer for invasive procedures) These could be DNA
 >>Cheek swabs, Cat Scans or MRI's, checking for the presence of
 >>foreign bodies, etc.

<snip>

 >Well, the real question here is what the end purpose of all this
 >is. You call yourself an abductee, therefore, you personally do
 >not need proof for something that you already consider to be
 >true. That means that the medical exams and the such are for one
 >or both of two reasons:

Dear Lizz, Roge, List and Errol,

I hope Lizz doesn't mind if I jump in here with my pair of
dimes, but I feel compelled to answer Roge from _my_
perspective, which is all I got. OK? Thanks.

 >1) To help find a cure for your ailments

 >2) To prove to the world that your claim of being an abductee is
 >true

First, and this is really important, at least to me, we
abductees certainly _DO_ need proof of our experiences, if not
for any other reason (again, this is me speaking) but to vilify
that nagging little doubt in our minds, the one which says,
"Hey, maybe this really did not happen! Maybe my reality is not
absolute!?" We need to know that our truth, the truth of our
memories, is real. I doubt that anyone in our club would agree
with you, that we need no proof merely because of the seeming
truth of memory.

And, this here perceived abductee doesn't think much of your two
conclusions either Roge. To help find a cure for our ailments by
a medical exam. Yup.

But your number number two (which is what I had to tell my
teacher when I raised my hand to go to the bathroom, and
coincidently what I think of your reasoning. Number two. Poop.
Too bad your name ain't John. Then I could say, "Straight poop
from the John" about your argument.

Anyway, I ain't got nuttin' to prove to the world. Just to the
"A" orifices who insist on debunking that which they do not
understand. Maybe them. But the world? Personally, I could care
less. I just want "me" to know the absolute truth. It'd be neat
if everyone could agree with us but that is highloy unlikely.

 >If your end goal is only number "1", then you do not need a
 >whole team of specialists to help you with your problem(s).

Oh yes we do. Because many of the illnesses shared by us are
multidisciplinary when it comes to the docs. Gastroenterologists
will often send us to immunologists, and the like. See? Besides,
what presents as an illness is not always indicative of it's
cause.

 >If your end goal also includes number "2", then you still do not
 >need a whole team of specialists. Short of having something of
 >ET origin in your body, there is no way that your claims are
 >going to be validated, regardless of whether one person looks at
 >your body or one hundred do.

 >And whether only you are examined or if one hundred like you are
 >examined, the only thing that will come of it is going to be a
 >record of hundreds of claims. Without direct evidence of an ET
 >connection, such as an extracted implant that can be studied,
 >the number of claims won't increase the believability factor.
 >The number of UFO claims made over the last 50 years certainly
 >outnumbers the claims of abductees. Does that fact seem to
 >persuade the scientific world in favor of ET life? It would seem
 >not.

If what I believe to be true, is... then the shared illnesses
which we present to medical science point to common source(s).
Your argument is rather childish, in my view.

 >In the case of non-implant abductees, the demand for an increase
 >in the number of scientists and/or the number of abductees will
 >only result in disappointment or delay. The number won't make
 >any difference and insisting on a larger number only increases
 >the likelihood that it simply won't happen.

Well, yah, but a wet bird never fly at night.

 >On the other hand, it would only take one implant abductee to
 >turn the tables. As we have discussed to no end, I mistakenly
 >felt you were implying that you had something foreign in your
 >body that you considered ET in origin. The simple truth is that,
 >since you do not, then there really isn't much that would come
 >of your increased demands that you couldn't achieve by simply
 >having a regular examination by your regular doctor. A dozen
 >more doctors in the room won't make a bit of difference.
 >Likewise, a single ET implant discovered by a single doctor
 >would make all the difference in the world.

Well, yah, but one in the bird is worth at least two of those.
And, I'll raise you one regular doctor and three no trump. Which
is about as sensible an argument as the above.

Say, are we having fun yet?

 >Finally, your wrote:

 >>Also, Roger, I _make_
 >>my disabilities what they are, pure mind over matter. And though
 >>you claim to be misquoted and snipped you DID say:

 >>>I have many disabled friends and the last thing they want is special
 >>>treatment. Everyone has to deal with their own problems. Or do alien
 >>>abductees deserve special treatment that the rest of us don't
 >>>deserve?

 >>Which is it Roger?

 >You tell me, Liz. You are the one that introduced the fact that
 >you are disabled to this List. If, as you declared, it has no
 >factor in the discussion, then why bring it up? As I said, I
 >have many friends that are disabled and, like you, do not want
 >special treatment. Should abductees be treated any different?
 >Considering you made your disability a focal point of
 >discussion, I think my question was very reasonable since you
 >are both disabled and an abductee. I find it curious that, as a
 >disabled person you don't want special treatment. However, your
 >views regarding treatment of abductees isn't so clear, despite
 >the simplicity of the question put before you.

My wife is disabled. I am a perceived abductee. According to
Boolean Algebra, if "A" and "B" are equal to "C" then A+B+C =
A+B+C. Well, gollee, which am I? A or B? Maybe C? What the hell
does all of this have to do with the price of bananas is
Swali-Land?

Have I got that right?

 >And lastly, you declared:

 >>Further, if I was sitting back doing nothing,
 >>would I be trying to get something like this going?

 >Frankly Liz, I do not believe for a minute that what you claim
 >as absolutely necessary to achieve your goals is practical,
 >probable or necessary. As such, it is my opinion that it is the
 >virtual equivalent of doing nothing since that is exactly what
 >you will achieve by taking this unrealistic approach.

 >Now, the following is a sincere suggestion:

 >You mentioned you were involved in an abductee support group. If
 >you have contact with someone that HAS insurance, _knows_ they
 >are an abductee; KNOWS they have an ET implant; _knows_ they are
 >in pain because of it (or can at least fake it); then get that
 >person to a doctor and get the proof you need instead of
 >demanding implementation of a plan so complicated that you know
 >it will never come about in your lifetime.

That support group is what may some day bring about that
complicated plan you so easily slough off as being impossible.
Maybe not. But I must say, Roge, that you are out of your
element in this discussion, merely because you do not seem to
understand the full implication of either, your suggestions or
your opinions, as they relate to the life of an abductee.

However it has been really real writing this. I am quite happy,
not withstanding your attitudes. I am high on Gripple and Mood
Altering Drugs, alternating with heroin and grass. Sometimes I
add a smigeon of mushroom from a can of Campbells Cream of same.
Sometimes, observing the changes in my 60's mood ring (which
still works), I can add a little Thorazine to the pot. And like
the Pepto Bismal of old, I feel GOOOOD again.


Jimmy "The Lithium Doc" 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 >
   Dec > Dec 20

                    Blood Predator - New Chupacabra Data

From: Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo <ufomiami@prodigy.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 20:20:22 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 11:18:55 -0500
Subject: Blood Predator - New Chupacabra Data


Hi All.

We have updated our website that is devoted to the Blood
Predators Chupacabras:

http://bloodpredator.homestead.com/index.html

with new data. We are still receiving reports of UFOs and Blood
Predators sighting in Calama, Northern Chile.

Our associate Jaime Ferrer, of the Calama UFO Center, is
conducting an outstanding field investigation; interviewing
witnesses and making plaster casts of the animal tracks, some
shown in 'Tracks', our new web page.

At 'Tracks', you will find the latest physical evidence.
Please, be patient, it takes some time to load.

You can find the new page at:

http://bloodpredator.homestead.com/TRACKS.html

Your comments are welcome!



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 >
   Dec > Dec 20

                Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles -

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 01:30:55 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 11:22:01 -0500
Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles -


 >From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 13:30:13 EST
 >Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

 >I still have one question pending for Jenny Randles: when are
 >you going to publish your records of pilots who saw nothing at
 >Lakenheath? (the "COMETA boys" are still waiting). When you say
 >that publicly, in order to put in doubt the COMETA report a week
 >after its release in France, you _must_ produce them.

<snip>

Hi,

The Lakenheath investigation has been taking up a great deal of
our time within UFOIN during the past year. Myself, Andy
Roberts, David Clarke and others have been pursuing it
rigorously and with considerable success.

Indeed I think it is fair to say we have uncovered more on this
case in this research effort than the rest of Ufology did on the
case during the past 44 years. And that is not intended as a
boast - simply a statement of what has happened. Some of this
has been down to fortune. Some thanks to tenacity and
persistence. But we have uncovered considerable new material on
this famous old case and that's what we will be publishing when
we are ready.

All of this is not contrary to the initial indications that I
reported last year. I did that not as an attempt to shoot down
COMETA, as you seem to think, but simply as a warning to anyone
who bases judgements on the Lakenheath case purely on what they
have read about it in the past UFO literature. And that means
pretty well everybody. The old versions of what happened in l956
are very inaccurate - and that includes the Condon report and
James Mcdonald's reports on it, too, unfortunately. That's now
an absolutely confirmed fact.

But this research has moved on so far from the point where we
were at when I reported what the air crew had told me in l996
that it would have been premature to publish this part of the
story in isolation as you have asked - since any holes you would
no doubt attempt to pick in this part of the testimony would be
answered by the subsequent investigations and breakthroughs of a
more extensive nature.

As such it makes the most sense to publish all of the now very
considerable material on this case together. And UFOIN has every
intention of doing that as a full scale report when we are
ready. It cannot be rushed as there are still i's to dot and t's
to cross. But we are very far advanced on all of this.

Believe me, the work we have done will revolutionise the
understanding of this case by Ufologists so it will be worth
waiting for. We are not making egotistical claims that this is
some genius investigation. Merely that we have been fortunate to
make significant progress on this famous case.

And this isn't being held over for use in a book or anything
like that - before anyone asks. As soon as UFOIN has all of this
material properly together we will issue a report for all to
see. That remains a firm promise.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 20

                    The Twelve Days of [Alien] Christmas

From: Kelly Peterborough <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 23:34:47 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 11:27:19 -0500
Subject: The Twelve Days of [Alien] Christmas

Source: AlienZoo.Com

http://www.alienzoo.com/features/x/200012210001.cfm

Date: 12/21/2000


The Twelve Days of [Alien] Christmas
By Varies


On the first day of Christmas, an alien gave to me:
A crashed flying saucer and crew.

On the second day of Christmas, an alien gave to me:
Two men in black,
and a crashed flying saucer and crew.

On the third day of Christmas, an alien gave to me:
Three implants,
Two men in black,
and a crashed flying saucer and crew.

On the fourth day of Christmas, an alien gave to me:
Four mother ships,
Three implants,
Two men in black,
and a crashed flying saucer and crew.

On the fifth day of Christmas, an alien gave to me:
FIVE MISSING HOURS
Four mother ships,
Three implants,
Two men in black,
and a crashed flying saucer and crew.

On the sixth day of Christmas, an alien gave to me:
Six cattle corpses,
FIVE MISSING HOURS
Four mother ships,
Three implants,
Two men in black,
and a crashed flying saucer and crew.

On the seventh day of Christmas, an alien gave to me:
Seven books from Whitley,
Six cattle corpses,
FIVE MISSING HOURS
Four mother ships,
Three implants,
Two men in black,
and a crashed flying saucer and crew.

On the eighth day of Christmas, an alien gave to me:
Eight funny rashes,
Seven books from Whitley,
Six cattle corpses,
FIVE MISSING HOURS
Four mother ships,
Three implants,
Two men in black,
and a crashed flying saucer and crew.

On the ninth day of Christmas, an alien gave to me:
Nine hoaxers hoaxing,
Eight funny rashes,
Seven books from Whitley,
Six cattle corpses,
FIVE MISSING HOURS
Four mother ships,
Three implants,
Two men in black,
and a crashed flying saucer and crew.

On the tenth day of Christmas, an alien gave to me:
Ten men debunking,
Nine hoaxers hoaxing,
Eight funny rashes,
Seven books from Whitley,
Six cattle corpses,
FIVE MISSING HOURS
Four mother ships,
Three implants,
Two men in black,
and a crashed flying saucer and crew.

On the eleventh day of Christmas, an alien gave to me:
Eleven grays intruding,
Ten men debunking,
Nine hoaxers hoaxing,
Eight funny rashes,
Seven books from Whitley,
Six cattle corpses,
FIVE MISSING HOURS
Four mother ships,
Three implants,
Two men in black,
and a crashed flying saucer and crew.

On the twelfth day of Christmas, an alien gave to me:
Twelve hybrids mating,
Eleven grays intruding,
Ten men debunking,
Nine hoaxers hoaxing,
Eight funny rashes,
Seven books from Whitley,
Six cattle corpses,
FIVE MISSING HOURS
Four mother ships,
Three implants,
Two men in black,
and a crashed flying saucer and crew.


Thanks to the Sedona MUFON Chapter.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 20

                   Re: Voyager Newsletter No. 16 - Ledger

From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 00:45:46 +0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 11:35:12 -0500
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter No. 16 - Ledger


 >From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Voyager Newsletter No. 16
 >Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 02:58:33 -0000

 >Voyager Newsletter No. 16

 >CONTENTS

<snip>

 >10. Triangular 'UFO' Sighting Solved - The 'Silent Vulcan'.

<snip>

Ah Jesus James,

I like a good joke as well as the next guy... but stop it...
you're killing me. I'm still wiping the tears from my eyes over
the sight of a Vulcan Bomber flying at 50 feet with its power
pulled back to low idle unless its right over a nice long
runway. And even at that a 125 ton MTOW with four 20K pound
thrust RR Olympus 301 turbo jets at low idle would still sound
like a 5 unit freight train going through a canyon at 80 miles
an hour. The only time a Vulcan bomber would have been quiet was
when it was shut down at the airfield.

Let me see now, a 125 ton aircraft with a high ratio wing with a
glide ratio of about 8:1 at 50 feet at low idle and 15 seconds
of time to spool up from low idle before it plows into the
ground - oops! Too late!!

This informant friend of yours, the S/L ret'd, wants to get back
to work in the RAF Mess if he bought into this scenario.

I can see a nice glide going at altitude, 10,000 feet [3,000
meters] and above but at 50 feet his career in the RAF would be
cut short fairly quickly by the firey crash or by his crew
finking on him because they were fond of getting up in the
morning [as were their families] and didn't want to have
anything to do with a jackass who would pull back power 50 feet
above the ground in a 125 ton bomber.

Come on now James, your Squadron leader didn't say anything
about these Vulcans doing this stunt at 50 feet did he? He said
it was a maneouver they used at safe altitudes didn't he? Or
when they were on their glide-slope.

Or did you even ask him?

MOD know you're doing comedy on the side?

Thanks for the belly laugh, James.

I leave the other 9 topics for others to tear apart.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 20

               Re: Little Community With A Big Mystery - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 00:30:40 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 11:54:45 -0500
Subject: Re: Little Community With A Big Mystery - Young


 >Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 23:28:42 -0500
 >From: Kelly Peterborough <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
 >Subject: Little Community With A Big Mystery
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >December 9, 2000
 >http://www.dailycourier.com/CNkeck1209.html

<snip>

 >Bernadette Myers
 >For The Daily Courier

 >Today marks the 35th anniversary of the strangest night in
 >Kecksburg's history.

 >According to Kecksburg resident Bob Bittner Sr., a metallic,
 >acorn-shaped, unidentified flying object fell to earth near
 >Kecksburg, and the event was followed by a military recovery of
 >the object.

Kelly, List:

Bittner told this story to local UFO investigators, including
Stan Gordon and the late Leonard Stringfield, for nearly ten
years. In his version of the story he was the Kecksburg Fire
Chief and a central figure in the tale.

When Unsolved Mysteries brought a film crew and producers
to Kecksburg in the summer of 1990 to shoot their segment on
the Kecksburg "UFO Crash" they filmed a long interview with
Bittner, who was portrayed in the segment by a well-known
Pittsburgh actor.

The next day, UFO investigator Stan Gordon called up Edward
Myers, who had been the real 1965 Fire Chief and admitted that
they had the wrong fire chief. Bittner's interview was not
included on the program, even though he had been a central
source for the story.

 >Bittner was there when the military came in: "Forty-five minutes
 >later, they came out of the ravine. I saw a truck with a tarp on
 >it, but I couldn't tell if anything was on it."

During my investigation I was told my several witnesses that
Bittner was working the night of the incident and never arrived
until all of the excitement was over.

 >He says, however, other witnesses say they saw an object on the
 >truck.

 >"No one will ever tell me there wasn't something. They didn't
 >send all that military out there to look at shooting stars,"
 >states Bittner.

This is an often repeated canard by the promoters of this
incident. They know, but never mention, that the meteor
explanation came _after_ unsuccessful searches for debris. First
reports to the police had an airplane crashing. Then the
fireball was described as a UFO. The Air Force also may have
hoped to collect some returning satellite debris, three airmen
were sent, according to Blue Book records, to pick up something
which reportedly had fallen to earth and started a fire. After
searches turned up nothing by 2 A.M., they returned to their
base.

The only proven military involvement were these three Air Force
men sent from a Pittsburgh radar site of the 662nd Radar
Squadron, the nearest Air Force installation. This seems to have
been in conformity with a routine UFO report investigation from
the nearest Air Force base, as called for by Air Force
Regulation 200-17.

 >Despite the story being featured on national television and
 >efforts by local researchers such as Stan Gordon of Greensburg,
 >what actually happened that December night remains unexplained,
 >and Kecksburg remains a little community with a big mystery.

The December 9, 1965, fireball has been known to have been a
meteor for more than thirty years. It was visible over ten
states and Ontario and its cloud train was photographed
independently by two photographers in Michigan. Two of these
pictures were published in the Cleveland Plain Dealer and in Sky
& Telescope magazine. The magazine article, with one picture,
and a letter with report from the photographer are in the
Project Blue Book files in the National Archives. Also, the
sonic boom was recorded by a seismometer at the University of
Michigan Geophysics Lab at Ypsilanti.

This and more than 100 written eyewitness reports allowed
Michigan astronomers Von Del Chamberlain and David J. Krause to
triangulate the position of the cloud train to determine the
path of the object in the atmosphere. They estimated its speed
at about 14.5 kilometers per second. This is well within the
speed of meteors entering the Earth's atmosphere and is about
twice as fast as returning man-made objects in low orbits.

Using the pictures and seismic recording for triangulation, they
found that the object fell steeply over southwestern Ontario as
it moved toward the Northeast (not toward Pennsylvania). It fell
too steeply to be reentering low orbit debris, such as the
Soviet Cosmos 96, which is often mentioned in connection with
the incident. This failed Venus probe was in a nearly circular
orbit. This and the fact than the satellite reentered some
thirteen hours before the Kecksburg incident means that Cosmos
96 is out as an explanation. This conclusion was also reached in
the 1967 Sky & Telescope article, a fact which has never been
revealed by Gordon or his associates, who have promoted their
exciting Cosmos 96 connection for thirteen years.

The Michigan astronomers found that a possible orbit took the
object out to between Mars and Jupiter, in the asteroid belt,
where many bright meteors originate. An article was submitted
and published in the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada
Journal (Vol. 61, no. 4, 1967). Another article by Chamberlain
was published in Meteorites of Michigan, Bulletin 5, Geological
Survey of Michigan, 1968.

On April 21, 1992, I sent a copy of the Chamberlain and Krause
article to Stan Gordon and asked for his comments. Eight and a
half years have passed but he has never responded. Gordon has
never discussed this hard data and research, nor has he even
publicly revealed its existence or discussed the implications of
the Michigan photographs in his many articles, press releases,
interviews or in the video he is now selling promoting this
incident as a mysterious crash and recovery.

The coverup of documents and photographs proving the true nature
of the Kecksburg fireball has not been conducted by the
Government, USAF, Pennsylvania State Police or by the many local
doubters. The continuing coverup is by those who are using this
old solved mystery to fill news copy and perpetrate a phony old
mystery for the express purpose of making money or for personal
aggrandizement.

May you have beautiful 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 >
   Dec > Dec 20

               Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Hale

From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 06:07:43 +0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 12:03:16 -0500
Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark? - Hale


 >From: Terry Rhodes <UtterMole@cs.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 17:41:07 EST
 >Subject: Re: Misperception Or Too Near The Mark?

<snip>

 >I can appreciate that your research is still underway, but your
 >first port of call should have been the airport which is so
 >close to where these sightings occur.

<snip>

Dear Colleagues,

As I have mentioned my research into this case is pretty
extensive in all areas and far reaching at that. This report
will be presented in due course to the UFO and Scientific
community respectively. I have been given great assistance in
all fields of Science and Astronomy regarding my investigation
and also weather experts. I am also in contact with UFO groups
in and around London for sightings on that day. Airports have
also been contacted, as well as the Military.

So far I have some interesting findings, but as I mentioned my
investigation is no way finished. I have made some vast contacts
regarding the Chris Martin UFO Film Footage. *Please also note
my investigations are focused on the Aldgate UFO film of 13th
June 1999 taken at 5:17PM*. Once I have completed this case
report and investigation, I will then focus my efforts on other
film footage that Chris has taken.

This investigation has given myself great leads and insights
into the known object's that are being used in around our UK
cities, this will all be disclosed in my final report. I have
also kept Chris Martin informed of my progress into this
investigation of which he is fully supportive.

I thank you once again for your interest and also look forward
to your report in the future now that you have a copy of the
footage, I wish you well on your investigation. Perhaps you will
present your findings to the list in due course.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 20

                         Re: Alien Love Doll - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 02:53:34 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 12:07:02 -0500
Subject: Re: Alien Love Doll - Velez


 >Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 07:26:11 -0600
 >From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Alien Love Doll

 >http://www.sextoy.com/dolls/alien.html

 >Provided to me! Honest! I was _not_ looking for vibrating butt
 >plugs! But this item _did_ look rather fetching <g>.

 >Lehmberg@snowhill.com

Only _you_ Alfred! <LOL>

Kind of like an "Unidentified Fellatio Object" eh?  :O

And, now that we all know what you want from Santa this
year, ....!  ;)

Ho,ho, ho!

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 >
   Dec > Dec 20

                       Re: Reluctant Viewers - Hammond

From: Elizabeth Hammond <lizzz@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 04:25:01 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 12:23:49 -0500
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Hammond


 >From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 19:44:21 EST
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >No sense in taking all the bandwidth which requoting would
 >require. Let me address a few of the remarks some of you made
 >with a little abductee reality.

 >I have marks on arm and leg, small circles perfect in every way
 >which form a triangle. I went to the internist and
 >dermatologist. They did not know what or how the thing was or
 >got there. They were however, so strange, that both took
 >photographs of the marks at various stages along the way.
 >Festering, scar, back to festering wound and back to scar as
 >well as in between stages. So far, there have been three such
 >cycles.

 >Still no diagnosis. Even tho covered by the HMO.

 >Then there was the small apparently foreign bodies in my ear
 >lobe, both sides, and the signs of surgery in my nasal passages.

 >Surgery which I _never_ had. And no sign of entry for the
 >apparent foreign objects.

 >All of these "things" were preceded by "events" which I could
 >not easily admit to the Docs, as some of you pointed out.
 >However without that explanation, the docs say, "We don't know
 >what it is....." or "We don't think it should be removed
 >surgically, because it is not inflamed, causing you discomfort,
 >etc, etc."

 >And so, nothing is revealed. Yet again.

<snip>

 >So I am stuck with the only thing any reasonable man or woman
 >could do in such a scenario, believe my memory, believe my
 >senses.

 >Wouldn't you guys do the same?

 >Probally.....


Dear Jim:

It's such a pleasure to have someone like you "backing me up" in
all this. It's truly sad that someone cannot come onto a List
like this, pose a simple hypothesis and do so without having
every aspect of themselves and there lives attacked. Maybe some
people's lives are so empty that picking on others is the most
enjoyment they can find. For that, I feel truly sorry for them.

As we are very good friends (a little disclosure, here) we have
discussed with each other not only our Abduction events, but the
ways these have impacted every facet of our lives. I believe
only you, and others friends like you, can truly understand the
way my Alleged Abductions have negatively impacted so many areas
of my life. You, of course, understand why I won't go into any
details about my health, disabilities, and other problems on a
List that is read by who knows how many people. Certainly, I
won't be badgered into it by anyone who apparently is not an
Abductee, but enjoys some sadistic pleasure derived from baiting
and insulting people they know nothing whatever about.

Although I know what has happened to me because my memory of
certain events is as clear to me as my memories of say, my
wedding, or son's birth. Hypnosis and the like isn't needed to
bring out some things that have always been present. I do,
however, always refer to myself and others as "Alleged
Abductees". I do this only for those who are not yet able to
overcome there fears and begin to see the reality of what's
happening. It's my belief that a point has been reached when
Abductees need to be formally recognized. That need is present
solely because of what you and I and so many of our fellows are
finding. We are almost _all_ becoming seriously ill.

There are many, many, Abductees, as we speak, suffering from a
host of ailments, many not getting proper treatment because so
many are afraid to tell a Doctor what they are. They fear the
Doctors reaction, the insurance companies inability to hold
records confidential. In short, they fear!

We DO need help, though. As a body, where a syndrome, if any
exists, might be recognized. Out of the 25 or so Abductees I
have daily contact with, I estimate that 20 of these are very
seriously ill. Many totally disabled. These people are literally
scattered over the globe, and have only one thing in common.
They are Alleged Abductees. My reasons for wanting to get
something going are not to prove anything to anyone. What others
think is there own business. My reason is to get some help, for
all of us. And, by the way, I _have_ Doctors. I see three every
month, like clockwork. All for treatment of ailments that _may_
be Abduction related to some degree.

So, believe us or not Jim, we know what we know. We are aware of
what's happening, not just what comes out in these books. And we
know what should be done. It's true, it probably will never
happen. This is the second time I've suggested this on this
List. But it would be nice if, instead of being attacked for
speaking out, people started acting like human beings and at
least listened to what we have to say. It's easy to attack
someone you don't know or know nothing about. It becomes more
difficult when you stop game playing long enough to realize
you're attacking another human being.


Talk to you later, Jimbo my Man!

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 >
   Dec > Dec 20

                  Re: Falsifiability, Occam's Razor, UFOs &

From: Sean Liddle <gortrix@kos.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 14:23:21 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 12:31:57 -0500
Subject: Re: Falsifiability, Occam's Razor, UFOs &


 >From: Charles Chapman <charlesrc@earthlink.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Falsifiability, Occam's Razor, UFOs & Abductions?
 >Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 17:44:01 -0800

<snip>

 >Nonetheless, I find I frequently have a problem -- and the
 >problem is entirely my own -- when I talk to abductees,
 >contactees and/or UFO reporters. The problem is that while as an
 >intellectual matter I want to be appropriately rigorous,
 >rational, and skeptical (NOT a debunker), as an emotional and
 >interpersonal matter I don't want to be rude, much less a
 >debunker a-hole. :) Absence evidence to the contrary, I always
 >adopt the rebutable presumption that the person is telling me
 >what they honestly _believe_ to be the truth, and that they are
 >not hoaxing. My problem is that their honest good faith
 >_belief_, based only upon their memories, is not enough to
 >convince me they have, in fact, been abducted by "real" ETs. I
 >don't know if I actually agree with Carl Sagan's assertion that
 >extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but I do
 >know that, for me at least, such claims must: (a) be
 >falsifiable; (b) be supported by _some_ evidence; (c) pass some
 >version of Occam's razor -- i.e., we don't postulate aliens as
 >the explanation when more mundane explanations _adequately_ and
 >_completely_ explain the evidence.

 >Now comes my tough, rude, but hopefully not hurtful question.
 >[If the question is truly hurtful or disturbing, please forgive
 >me and I will not pursue it.] I know we have abductees on the
 >list. I am confident they honestly believe they were actually
 >abducted by aliens. I am neither arguing nor asserting that they
 >weren't, in fact, abducted. But what I want to ask them is as
 >follows. Is there any evidence, analysis, reasoning, or anything
 >else that would convince you that you had not in fact been
 >abducted by aliens? That instead you have your memories (and any
 >other abduction evidence such as scars, etc.) as a result of
 >some other, non-alien, terrestrial, relatively mundane
 >phenomenon (e.g., sleep paralysis, day dreams, dreams,
 >nightmares, hypnotic suggestion, delusions, social pressure,
 >repressed or screened memories of traumatic events, etc.).


For the most part I agree with what you say. I for one would
like to believe that abductions occur, but if you question the
falsability of any report in abductee circles, you are treated
as uncaring, debunker-scum. It is like religion to many
people. You would never think to question a member of an
ultra-fundamentalist sect of Christianity as to the possibility
that they may be wrong or ask them to prove there is a God.
I have done this and I tell you, it is not the makings of a fun
lunch hour. :)

As I have stated numerous times, if we are going to take a
purely scientific view of ufology, we must follow true
scientific method. For an idea or an opinion to be considered a
hypothesis, you require some proof (either physical or
observed). For this hypothesis to become a theory, you require
more evidence, sufficient to gain the support of a significant
number of science professionals. For a theory to become a fact,
it must be further researched and sufficient proof and
observations be accumulated, proven and documented for a
majority of appropriate scientific persons to agree with and not
dispute it.

So far, we have been seriously lax in taking our UFO related
hypotheses and move forward with them. If we wish at any point
in the future to be respected by the science world, the media
and the public in general, we need to pull up our socks and get
moving.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 20

               Re: New Website On Controversial LRV Project -

From: Loy Pressley <lkpres@koyote.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 10:32:31 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 12:33:24 -0500
Subject: Re: New Website On Controversial LRV Project -


 >Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 13:50:33 -0500
 >From: Kenny Young <ufo@fuse.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: New Website On Controversial LRV Project

 >>From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: New Website On Controversial LRV Project
 >>Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 15:15:03 -0800

<snip>

 >But it might be nice to try and verify if indeed NORAD
 >actually went on alert in Oct., '78.

I was in Alaska NORAD Region at Elmendorf AFB, AK, from 1974
through 1981. I don't remember any alert there in 1978.

Loy








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 20

                        Seeking Info On Triangle UFOs

From: Stefan Duncan <bward3@nc.rr.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 11:58:48 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 12:35:17 -0500
Subject: Seeking Info On Triangle UFOs


Could anyone recommend several websites that have information
about the triangle/delta UFO and military stealth fighters?


Thanks,

Stefan Duncan

American UFO News (UFO news wire)
http://www.aufon.com
aufon-subscribe@egroups.com
The Stefan Duncan Show
7-9p.m. M-F  UFO sightings/political/current event talk
11p.m.-1a.m. SAT.  to listen http://www.previewnet.com/program_posting.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 >
   Dec > Dec 20

                Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles -

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 12:18:26 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 12:37:13 -0500
Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles -


 >From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles
 >Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 20:39:20 -0000


 >>From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
 >>Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 13:30:13 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Y'all,

 >Gildas wrote:

 >>To Georgina Bruni, Jenny Randles and the List
 >>Thank you for your clear answers to Jenny Randles and others.
 >>I am going to read your book with great interest.
 >>I still have one question pending for Jenny Randles: when are
 >>you going to publish your records of pilots who saw nothing at
 >>Lakenheath? (the "COMETA boys" are still waiting). When you say
 >>that publicly, in order to put in doubt the COMETA report a week
 >>after its release in France, you _must_ produce them.

<snip>

 >Regarding Lakenheath I can tell that UFOIN researchers have now
 >located and interviewed _all_ the RAF Venom pilots, together
 >with looking at the relevant flight logs for the time. We have
 >also located and have material from the flight controller.


Well this will be very interesting because the last I heard "the
time" was dead wrong, something like 3 hours after or later than
the Venom intercept with the sudden UFO maneuver around 12
Midnight that was reported by the Lakenheath RATCC controller
Forrest Perkins and the RAF Neatishead GCI controller F.H.C.
Wimbledon - whose shifts only overlapped at around midnight so
the time could not have been later, and could not have been
after the 2-3 AM takeoff times shown on these new Venom logbooks
that I last heard about. Since the events at Bentwaters and
Lakenheath reportedly lasted some 6 hours that night till about
3:30 AM, Aug. 13-14, 1956, it isn't surprising that there might
have been multiple intercept attempts. We know of at least one
more about 2 hours before the midnight Venom intercept, a T-33
flight.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 20

             Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 11:37:37 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 12:43:24 -0500
Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles - Clark


 >From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles
 >Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 01:30:55 -0000

 >>From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
 >>Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 13:30:13 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >The Lakenheath investigation has been taking up a great deal of
 >our time within UFOIN during the past year. Myself, Andy
 >Roberts, David Clarke and others have been pursuing it
 >rigorously and with considerable success.

 >Indeed I think it is fair to say we have uncovered more on this
 >case in this research effort than the rest of Ufology did on the
 >case during the past 44 years. And that is not intended as a
 >boast - simply a statement of what has happened. Some of this
 >has been down to fortune. Some thanks to tenacity and
 >persistence. But we have uncovered considerable new material on
 >this famous old case and that's what we will be publishing when
 >we are ready.

 >All of this is not contrary to the initial indications that I
 >reported last year. I did that not as an attempt to shoot down
 >COMETA, as you seem to think, but simply as a warning to anyone
 >who bases judgements on the Lakenheath case purely on what they
 >have read about it in the past UFO literature. And that means
 >pretty well everybody. The old versions of what happened in l956
 >are very inaccurate - and that includes the Condon report and
 >James Mcdonald's reports on it, too, unfortunately. That's now
 >an absolutely confirmed fact.


Jenny,

Given who's involved in this investigation, and given hints Andy
Roberts has already given out, we may safely assume that you
will be issuing a debunking report. Unless, of course, a camel
has finally figured out how to pass through the eye of a needle.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 20

                Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles -

From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 12:38:40 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 12:45:14 -0500
Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles -


 >From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles
 >Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 01:30:55 -0000

 >>From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
 >>Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 13:30:13 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 ><snip>

 >>I still have one question pending for Jenny Randles: when are
 >>you going to publish your records of pilots who saw nothing at
 >>Lakenheath? (the "COMETA boys" are still waiting). When you say
 >>that publicly, in order to put in doubt the COMETA report a week
 >>after its release in France, you _must_ produce them.

 ><snip>

 >Hi,

 >The Lakenheath investigation has been taking up a great deal of
 >our time within UFOIN during the past year. Myself, Andy
 >Roberts, David Clarke and others have been pursuing it
 >rigorously and with considerable success.

Let's hope it will be better than on Rendlesham.

<snip>

 >All of this is not contrary to the initial indications that I
 >reported last year. I did that not as an attempt to shoot down
 >COMETA, as you seem to think, but simply as a warning to anyone
 >who bases judgements on the Lakenheath case purely on what they
 >have read about it in the past UFO literature.

Oh yes you did!

You did not have to attack the "Cometa boys", without having
read their document and without giving the proof of what you
said.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 20

                Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles -

From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 12:38:39 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 12:47:20 -0500
Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles -


 >From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles
 >Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 20:39:20 -0000

 >>From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
 >>Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 13:30:13 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Y'all,

 >Gildas wrote:

 >>To Georgina Bruni, Jenny Randles and the List
 >>Thank you for your clear answers to Jenny Randles and others.
 >>I am going to read your book with great interest.
 >>I still have one question pending for Jenny Randles: when are
 >>you going to publish your records of pilots who saw nothing at
 >>Lakenheath? (the "COMETA boys" are still waiting). When you say
 >>that publicly, in order to put in doubt the COMETA report a week
 >>after its release in France, you _must_ produce them.

 >No one _must_ do anything Gildas. Least of all in this starlit
 >mire we call ufology.

If I understand well, everything is permitted in ufology ?
For instance put in doubt the work of others with alleged documents
that you don't show.

 >But....

 >Regarding Lakenheath I can tell that UFOIN researchers have now
 >located and interviewed _all_ the RAF Venom pilots, together
 >with looking at the relevant flight logs for the time. We have
 >also located and have material from the flight controller.

 >Additionally we have other contemporaneous material concerning
 >the Lakenheath 'radar visual' case. All will be revealed when
 >our research and investigations are complete. All in good time
 >Gildas, all in good time.

 >You can get your facts right and we will be telling the people.

What does that mean?

My answer is:

Don't tell the people as long as you cannot, or will not, give
the facts. Get your facts right and, only then, tell the people.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 20

                        Re: Carlos Diaz Case - Myers

From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 07:11:30 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 13:02:24 -0500
Subject: Re: Carlos Diaz Case - Myers


[Filter's doing strange things again, here.
  My apologies to Royce--ebk]

 >Date: 15 Dec 2000 06:38:30 -0800
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
 >Subject: Re: Carlos Diaz Case

 >>Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 21:10:25 -0500
 >>From: Michael Hesemann <MichaelHesemann@compuserve.com>
 >>Subject: Carlos Diaz Case
 >>To: UFO Updates Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>Below is my reply to the latest effort to debunk the Carlos Diaz
 >>case.

 >>_________

 >>As a historian, cultural anthropologist, UFO researcher, author
 >>and film producer I investigated the Carlos Diaz contact case for
 >>seven years. Since I wanted to be sure before I publish the case
 >>that any possibility of a hoax can be excluded, I did not only
 >>travel to Mexico twelve times for on-site field investigations,
 >>but also consulted leading experts in the US, Belgium, Germany
 >>and Italy, including:

 >>Prof. Corrado Malanga, University of Pisa

 >>Prof. Manfred Kage, University of Mannheim

 >>Prof, Auguste Meessen, University of Louvain

 >>Bob Shell, editor "Shutterbug" Magazine, photo technical
 >>consultant to the FBI

 >>Dr. Robert Nathan, Jet Propulsion Lab/NASA, Pasadena

 >>Jim Dilettoso, The Village Labs

 >When Michael visited Village Labs with Carlos and family in 1997
 >I was there and while Michael was elsewhere in the building Jim
 >Dilettoso and I viewed his video footage of the so-called plasma
 >craft. One of the first things I noticed in one section was the
 >craft descending with a jerky motion as if it were being lowered
 >by rope or cable. In another section, the craft was near
 >branches that were moving with the wind. The craft also seemed
 >to be rocking with the wind as if it were a japanese lantern.
 >Then a narrow beam of light projected from this craft like a
 >focused mini-flashlight beam!

 >Another aspect of the craft was the unchanging light pattern as
 >if it were constantly illuminated from the interior with a light
 >source shining through a plastic shell. This is not
 >characteristic of plasma at all and was also uncharacteristic
 >for reported UFO lightings.

The Diaz films that I have seen are a joke. I remember seeing
one piece on FOX's Greatest UFOs Caught On Tape. The size of the
'UFO' was so out of proportion to the house that it was
allegedly filmed next to that it was ridiculous. I'm amazed that
anyone would believe this shyster for five seconds after seeing
his so-called evidence. Diaz is Mexico's Billie Meier without a
doubt...

 >>None of these photo-technical experts found any evidence of a
 >>hoax in the films and footage shot by Diaz.

 >Jim and I saw evidence.

Here we go again with quoting sources that have a different
story to tell about the entire incident.

 >>Field investigations were performed also by Prof. John E. Mack
 >>of Harvard, who spent three days in Tepoztlan and extensively
 >>talked to the witness, his family and local eyewitnesses. We
 >>were able to verify that over 50 % of the population of the city
 >>of Tepoztlan, in which Diaz lives, about 12.000 people, saw the
 >>very same type of object filmed and photographed by Diaz, a fact
 >>confirmed by the mayor of Tepoztlan. The Air Traffic Controllers
 >>of Mexico City's International Airport confirmed on camera
 >>regular UFO sightings over the area of Tepoztlan. Several
 >>researchers who visited the place, including Dr. Roberto
 >>Pinotti, saw the very same ship Carlos filmed and photographed.

So what? There were a lot of people that saw UFOs in the area
and Diaz capitalized on it. This doesn't lend any credibility to
Diaz's bogus UFO footage.

 >>Therefore the personal opinion of Mr. Pascal Lopresti, who was
 >>never known as a UFO researcher in Mexico (actually he served as
 >>a translator and organizer for Italian stigmatist Giorgio
 >>Bongiovanni) is completely invalid. It was nice of Carlos to
 >>show him some new material, which is in my possession for over a
 >>year, but it has no news value. Nor does any of Lopresti's
 >>"conclusions".

Hesseman's conclusion in this case is then "invalid" if he
didn't report all the facts - ala Dilettoso and Hamilton's
analysis and conclusions. And if Hesseman is in possession of
other materials in this case why is it that it has "no news
value"?

 >>According to Carlos Diaz, "the aliens" are living among us for
 >>thousands of years. They live there as normal Mexicans, drive in
 >>terrestrial cars, have TV sets and cameras and maybe even
 >>tripods. Therefore it is not a big surprise if one of them had a
 >>tripod he lent to Diaz - nobody claimed it was an
 >>extraterrestrial tripod!

Let me guess, Diaz ran out of video tape and the aliens just
happened to have an extra tape for him to use, though he didn't
know tha aliens had actually played a cruel joke on him by
switching the tape out for a bogus UFO film the aliens had
actually made. "Hey, I'd like to film your extraterrestrial
craft, but my filming isn't very steady. What's that? Oh, you
have a tripod I can borrow? Great!" How about some pictures of
the aliens handing Diaz a tripod from the craft...if the aliens
were handing out money then I'm sure Diaz would never have made
it into the public realms with his bogus UFO footage and
claims...

 >>But Lopresti is just wrong when he claims: "Carlos Diaz has
 >>always refused to allow the video to be analyzed". He gave me a
 >>copy a year ago, I analyzed it frame by frame and I will publish
 >>it in our upcoming documentary "Ships of Light" which will be
 >>presented at the International UFO Congress in Laughlin in March
 >>2001.

Two questions: What credentials besides filmmaking does Hesseman
have as a video imaging analyst and how much is he charging for
the video?

Regards,

Royce J. Myers III
eXpos: The Watchdog of UFOlogy
"Don't Trip On Your Open Mind...or that pole with a wire holding up a UFO
model...
eXpos News    http://home.sprintmail.com/~rjm3
UFO Hall o' Shame   http://home.earthlink.net/~ufowatchdog
ufowatchdog@earthlink.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 >
   Dec > Dec 20

                       Re: Alien Love Doll - Lehmberg

From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 11:49:52 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 13:55:33 -0500
Subject: Re: Alien Love Doll - Lehmberg


 >Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 02:53:34 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Alien Love Doll

 >>Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 07:26:11 -0600
 >>From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Alien Love Doll

 >>http://www.sextoy.com/dolls/alien.html

 >>Provided to me! Honest! I was _not_ looking for vibrating butt
 >>plugs! But this item _did_ look rather fetching <g>.

 >>Lehmberg@snowhill.com

 >Only _you_ Alfred! <LOL>

 >Kind of like an "Unidentified Fellatio Object" eh? :O

 >And, now that we all know what you want from Santa this
 >year, ....! ;)

 >Ho,ho, ho!

 >John Velez

GSBZ!!! Haul one load and you're a trashman!

I'm glad _you_ have a sense of humor about this. I fubared with
extreme prejudice and failed to tell Errol that the alien love
doll URL I sent in the purest jest was not meant for posting to
the List (like I thought I HAD to!).

Transparently then, it's Errol that's the likely serial
pre-vert, a fact made all the more obvious in strident
proclamation, and forgetting for a moment his understandable
preference for women with hair on their nipples,
notwithstanding.

[Confucious say "When caught with pants down pass the fu..,
  uh, buck!" Looks like a seriously Merry Holiday you've
  got planned there Alfred <VBG>--ebk]

But, no more time to play. One of my erotic agitators is out of
position.

Lehmberg@snowhill.com
--
~~~~
EXPLORE Alfred Lehmberg's Alien View" at his Fortunecity URL.
http://www.alienview.net
          **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 >
   Dec > Dec 21

                         Re: Alien Love Doll - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 14:27:44 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 10:42:00 -0500
Subject: Re: Alien Love Doll - Velez


 >Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 11:49:52 -0600
 >From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Alien Love Doll

 >>Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 02:53:34 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Alien Love Doll

 >>>Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 07:26:11 -0600
 >>>From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Alien Love Doll

 >>>http://www.sextoy.com/dolls/alien.html

 >>>Provided to me! Honest! I was _not_ looking for vibrating butt
 >>>plugs! But this item _did_ look rather fetching <g>.

 >>>Lehmberg@snowhill.com

 >>Only _you_ Alfred! <LOL>

 >>Kind of like an "Unidentified Fellatio Object" eh? :O

 >>And, now that we all know what you want from Santa this
 >>year, ....! ;)

 >>Ho,ho, ho!

 >>John Velez

 >GSBZ!!! Haul one load and you're a trashman!

Sorry man, dems de rules!  :)

 >I'm glad _you_ have a sense of humor about this. I fubared with
 >extreme prejudice and failed to tell Errol that the alien love
 >doll URL I sent in the purest jest was not meant for posting to
 >the List (like I thought I HAD to!).

The bellowing laughter that must have echoed through his office
as he allowed the full weight of that posting to fall squarely
on _your_ shoulders must have shook the rafters and caused his
keester to hit the floor.

 >Transparently then, it's Errol that's the likely serial
 >pre-vert, a fact made all the more obvious in strident
 >proclamation, and forgetting for a moment his understandable
 >preference for women with hair on their nipples,
 >notwithstanding.

Yes, Errol _is_ a prevert, but that doesn't negate _his_ source
for the material Alfred. Bottom line, no matter how much you try
to shift the weight, -he got it from you!

 >[Confucious say "When caught with pants down pass the fu..,
 > uh, buck!" Looks like a seriously Merry Holiday you've
 > got planned there Alfred <VBG>--ebk]

'K-Y' under the tree for all, and to all a merry x-mas!!!  <LMAO>

 >But, no more time to play. One of my erotic agitators is out of
 >position.

I wouldn't mess with it Alfred. Your 'agitators' have always
been out of position. Move it now, and at your age you might
break it!

"Shake it but don't break it!" (*By, Blind Avocado Diddley or
one of those guys.) ;)

My very best wishes to you mi amigo (and to All) for a happy,
healthy, holiday season.

"Fetching" Indeed!  <LOL>


John Velez
Enough wind for the List but not for blow-up dolls!

******************************************************
                     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 >
   Dec > Dec 21

                       Re: Carlos Diaz Case - Hamilton

From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
Date: 20 Dec 2000 11:59:08 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 10:46:24 -0500
Subject: Re: Carlos Diaz Case - Hamilton


More comments including Diletosso's analysis follow...

 >From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Carlos Diaz Case
 >Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 07:11:30 -0800


 >[Filter's doing strange things again, here.
 > My apologies to Royce--ebk]

 >>Date: 15 Dec 2000 06:38:30 -0800
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Carlos Diaz Case

 >>>Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 21:10:25 -0500
 >>>From: Michael Hesemann <MichaelHesemann@compuserve.com>
 >>>Subject: Carlos Diaz Case

 >>>Below is my reply to the latest effort to debunk the Carlos Diaz
 >>>case.

 >>>_________

 >>>As a historian, cultural anthropologist, UFO researcher, author
 >>>and film producer I investigated the Carlos Diaz contact case for
 >>>seven years. Since I wanted to be sure before I publish the case
 >>>that any possibility of a hoax can be excluded, I did not only
 >>>travel to Mexico twelve times for on-site field investigations,
 >>>but also consulted leading experts in the US, Belgium, Germany
 >>>and Italy, including:

 >>>Prof. Corrado Malanga, University of Pisa

 >>>Prof. Manfred Kage, University of Mannheim

 >>>Prof, Auguste Meessen, University of Louvain

 >>>Bob Shell, editor "Shutterbug" Magazine, photo technical
 >>>consultant to the FBI

 >>>Dr. Robert Nathan, Jet Propulsion Lab/NASA, Pasadena

 >>>Jim Dilettoso, The Village Labs

Jim is a big-hearted guy and is willing to give people the
benefit of the doubt, but I remember our analysis done in 1997.
What I remember is correct. Here is what Jim just sent me:

Hi Bill,

I tested the Diaz pictures in _two_ cycles.

The first cycle was in 1996. At that time I stated that I found
no evidence of a hoax. This was interpreted as endorsing the
photographs. This was also while Michael H. was at Village Labs
and I gave him statements on Videotape. I do not believe that I
created a printed report.

The second cycle was in 1997. Michael H. came to Village Labs
with Carlos Diaz and his family. At that time, I not only had
new software for testing, but I had the opportunity to have
re-tested the photos from 1996 with my new system and my new
considerations.

It was during that visit, that I asked you to come look at 'new'
images. AS you recall, I was skeptical of the video's on three
fronts.

1- The software filters had isolated issues of lighting and
surface texture that were similar to the properties of a light
bulb inside of a painted object.

The Videos of the " moving object" were also examined.... . 2-
The optical characteristics of the edges of the unknown compared
to the ladder and other objects in the image area, provided
information that the unknown was smaller and closer than if it
had been a large flying object.

3- The "rays' coming from the bottom of the unknown object, when
illuminated, seem to be illuminated from the side. In other
words they were not "light emitting" rays, but were objects
(like sticks) being lighted from an outside source.

I do have the data from the test results, on one of our old
computers. I hold the position, that Carlos Diaz may have had a
real experience; and then used his expertise in photography to "
better illustrate' his experiences OR " create a hoax" to
perpetuate his story.

I need more time and better images to have a complete position
on this, but at this time, I feel rather certain that these
'newer' images are photo composites based on the original
experiences.

Too bad, I really like the guy, Carlos, and his family. It takes
a while to perform all the tests that can be done, but I am
willing to take another look.

---

Jim is saying that if a dark stick was placed near the object
then illuminated intermittently, it would appear to be a beam
that looked like mini-flashlight beam that was well focused, but
now I realize that the "stick" explanation might be a good one
as then the so-called beam looks like it is non-dispersive like
a laser. The only problem is that it did not have the intensity
of a laser beam.

My conclusion is that the footage is hoaxed and Jim considers
that a probable conclusion.

-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 >
   Dec > Dec 21

                Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles -

From: Gary Anthony <garyant@mithrand.karoo.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 21:28:50 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 10:49:27 -0500
Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles -


 >From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 13:30:13 EST
 >Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 12:16:11 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles

<snip>

 >As for Nick Pope, who has just been labelled a "shrimp", or
 >something like that, I met him twice, in Leeds and San Marino,
 >and I can assure everyone that he is a perfect gentleman.

 >I cannot say the same of some British sceptics of the pelicanist
 >kind such as Peter Brookesmith and Gary Anthony. Your answers to
 >them are quite courteous.

 >Gildas Bourdais


Gildas your view of a gentleman is far removed from mine I
suspect. A gentleman does not insult a lady at _any_
opportunity. (Jack the Ripper was called a gentleman). Regarding
Mr. Pope, to reiterate there are good questions regarding his
research and posts; and when time and opportunity permits, I
shall indeed be putting them to him. Since Mr. Pope(as Georgina
informs us) does not use the Internet, this will needs be
accomplished some other way - perhaps at some future venue.

As to your labelling me a pelicanist and sceptic; it may
surprise you to learn my involvement in this topic over fifteen
years ago, stems from three extraordinary experiences I had, for
which I do not have adequate explanations.  If you call being a
sceptic, someone who does not _believe_ everything that parades
in the melee of 'ufology' then you are right and I raise my
hands up high in admission... However, I am always willing to
give someone the benefit of doubt and a second chance,
especially those I don't know, unlike your hasty self it would
seem? How did you manage to make an assessment about Mr. Pope
after only meeting him a couple of times and yet make a further
one about me, seeing how we have never met or corresponded?

Don't mind being tarred with the same brush as Peter though, I
am assured I may be in good company.

Regarding being courteous; the same has been said of the devil
before he steals your soul away, so please don't presume too
much, especially in 'ufology.'

I am sure there are a few people, who will want to ask Georgina
further questions about her book and research; and how she has
arrived at her conclusions in 'You Can't Tell The People.'  In
fact on that very subject, Larry Warren, who will be speaking at
a Hull UFO Society Meeting in January is stating he has spotted
over 100+ mistakes from reading Georgina's book. So yet again,
we see the wheel of Rendlesham turn. If Warren is right, can
Georgina's book still be called a 'definitive account?' And this
is the point 'who is right?' And at best 'what can be stated
about this case with any certainty?' And is all of this covered
in Georgina's book (no I don't think so) I don't think, either
that this will be the last book we shall see on Rendlesham and
perhaps this case will twist and turn quite some more, in
'ufological' metamorphis as all good tales do, but what of
truth? Ah! That is a horse of a different colour me thinks!!

Anyone foolish enough to ignore _conflicting_ statements and
confusing aspects of this case - is not tackling the puzzle or
stating all the facts. The same applies on both sides of this
argument. Sceptics and believers alike.

Perhaps the Greeks are right 'ariston metron,' a path seldom
trodden in 'ufology' for many excuses. (mostly to do with
researchers having amicable communication problems). Let's hope,
all will out, in the end! Even the truth.

Meanwhile, Gildas, I hope you do not mind my calling you by your
given name, seeing how despite the fact that we have never met
or corresponded before, you _seem_ to know me enough, already,
to label me?  May I suggest that you first go and do a bit more
reading, albeit through your rose tinted specs view of ufology,
if necessary - before commenting. At least, then you will know
whether Nick Pope was called a shrimp or not..?

All best regards,


Gary Anthony

Wouldbe pelicanist, if it's choosing between the lesser of two
evils. Don't take it too seriously folks it's only 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 >
   Dec > Dec 21

                                UFO Con Game

From: Todd Lemire <tlemire@HOME.COM>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 17:13:13 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 10:52:37 -0500
Subject: UFO Con Game


Hello Members,

I thought I'd send this along, to give some of you a laugh, or
possibly make you shed a tear, as an example of what extent some
people will go to take advantage of others. Below is the first
message I received, which was intended to 'set the hook'. Of
course I replied, just to see what the next message was going to
offer, for which I received a PROMPT reply to of course.

(First 'Con' Message)
--------------

I have a project which will enable its participants to actually
photograph a U.F.O. In addition you will be able to send
representatives, from your company or organization, to study the
U.F.O. In other words, an " Area 51 " has recently been found
where a U.F.O. has settled. For a small fee your
group/company/organization will be shown where the U.F.O. has
been hiding from the public. " THIS IS " the chance you have
been looking for to find a U.F.O. If you are interested send a
reply to:

AARAGUA@ALTAVISTA.COM


Here's his reply to my 'message of interest'!

(Second Reply 'Con' Message)

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

Thank You Mr. Lemire for your quick response. The U.F.O. has
settled in an area around the U.S. "PAVE PAWS" Radar Station.
"PAVE PAWS" is a radar system which is used for Space
Surveillance and Missile Warning. The project involves traveling
to the Pave Paws site and filming the U.F.O. as it hovers over
the area. The U.F.O. has been there for over two weeks and is
always in the same place.

The camera we will be using for the project is called a "cooled
long-wave infra-red" camera. This particular camera is used for
heat signature analysis of jets, missiles, and other military
systems. It is easy to see the U.F.O. using this camera.

The fee is $2200.00 This is primarily the cost of the equipment
rental. This will allow for your group to use the equipment for
an entire week. This is just about the amount of time you will
need to study the U.F.O. to your heart's content. You should be
able to make your money back quickly with the film footage you
take here. ( I plan to make most of my money after you file your
report!) Do not be put off by the cost. The U.F.O. is there
waiting for my first ufologist to officially report its
location. The project is first come first served!! This offer
began to circulate 12/17

Send a reply ASAP to AARAGUA@ALTAVISTA.COM Include a telephone
number so we can include a date for your visit

----------------
(End of 'Con' Message)


I sincerely hope that everyone on this List will let this
idiot know how you feel when you see something of this sort.


Thank you,

Todd Lemire
--
"We are all led to the truth for which we are ready"

-Neal Walsch-







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 21

                     Re: Reluctant Viewers - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 18:08:30 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 10:55:21 -0500
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Mortellaro


 >Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 16:10:44 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >>Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 19:44:21 EST
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Mortellaro

 >Previously, Jim wrote:

 >>No sense in taking all the bandwidth which requoting would
 >>require. Let me address a few of the remarks some of you made
 >>with a little abductee reality.

 >>I have marks on arm and leg, small circles perfect in every way
 >>which form a triangle. I went to the internist and
 >>dermatologist. They did not know what or how the thing was or
 >>got there. They were however, so strange, that both took
 >>photographs of the marks at various stages along the way.
 >>Festering, scar, back to festering wound and back to scar as
 >>well as in between stages. So far, there have been three such
 >>cylces.

<snip>

 >Yes, I admit that I, like everyone else that participates in
 >this List, enjoy the debate over a variety of topics. This time
 >it happens to be about abductees.

 >Does that mean that I take the subject as a joke? No. Does that
 >mean the I don't respect the people involved? No. Does that mean
 >that I am poking fun at "mine enemies"? Nah. There are people on
 >this List that flat out don't care for my approach or my style
 >in dealing with issues. I can accept that. I sometimes play the
 >devil's advocate just to see if someone really has something to
 >contribute or is merely taking up bandwidth.

Dear Roger, bListers and Errol,

Especially Errol, who up with us, puts.

During the banquet scene in Dune, Paul Leto's enemies were
trying to get him to say something stupid, which would have
allowed his enemies to call him out and kill him. They lost.
Paul won.

The bottom line was, "One baits an Atreides at his own risk."

The same is true on UpDates. One baits certain people at his own
risk. In your case, not me. I suspect that you are not what you
are necessarily representing yourself to be. On the negative
side. I mean. And my guts never lie to me. So I shall go along
on the assumption that you are not the bad guy you want yourself
to be on this list.

Having said that...

 >As such, only two things do I find to be offensive:

 >1) Intellectual cowards and self-appointed experts

Ah, CRIPES, Roge. You forgot the "culpably ignorant!" Now I am
disappointed. However I agree with you. Except that I would add
a word to the sentence above.

"Intellectual cowards and self-appointed X-Spurts."

You're welcome.

 >2) Phonies that simply want a stage

As for the stage; some people just need one. They are so
impotent in their own estimation, that without one, they might
perish.

 >The subject of alien abductees covers much of these two areas.
 >As I pointed out before, I believe that alien abduction can be a
 >real phenomenon. However, and I really don't know a delicate way
 >to put this, I also believe that most abductees are simply lying
 >and know they are lying.

Sorry, but I cannot agree with your choice of words. You say
most claimants are lying. Not in my experience. During the
course of the past three years, since I've been researching my
own experiences, I've found that those who claim to be
experiencers really are. Very few are not. That is, are not
lying about the phenom in their lives. Some may be mistaken.
Some actually find out that they are not experiencers, but most
find that in their memory and in their honest assessment, they
are. What makes you say the opposite. I _am_ interested in why
you said that?

 >In the end, this behavior serves as an injustice to people like
 >you that are firm in your beliefs of what happened to you and
 >why. If I can uncover the illogic that accompanies the fakers in
 >your group, then I feel I have contributed something, indeed.

To those who lie, this is true.

 >Take care,
 >
 >King Roger

No offense meant Roge, but who the hell died made you "King!?"
And how did you become "King" and not just "king?" Huh?

I for example, am PRINCE. Prince Mortellaro. However I have no
portfolio. There are a few "Kings" on this list. But thus far, I
ain't never heard nuttin about your being one.

Let's clear this up, OK?!


Jim Mortellaro

Illigitumi, non carborundum.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 21

                Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles -

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 00:57:29 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 10:58:44 -0500
Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles -



 >From: Brad Sparks  <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 16:20:29 EST
 >Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles
 >>Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 13:01:08 -0000

 >>>From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles
 >>>Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 16:23:59 -0000

 ><snip>


 >Hi Jenny, Georgina & List,

 >Well, Jenny, can you please tell what James Easton has
 >contributed to the direct understanding of the Rendlesham case
 >that still stands and hasn't been overturned, refuted or
 >superseded? You say he has written practically a book-length
 >in-depth study of the case which you chide Georgina for
 >omitting, but forgive me for asking, what _specifically_ in this
 >long study should she have mentioned of Easton's work that
 >hasn't been refuted? You credit him with bringing to public
 >light the unpublished Cabansag-Burroughs-Penniston statements,
 >so he should get a historical footnote for that, but in fact he
 >has never published the full texts of these documents so far as
 >I know

 >So Jenny, do you agree or disagree that there were 2-mile chases
 >of the Orfordness Lighthouse by both of these USAF teams as
 >Easton claims? Recently you have been pointing out to Easton
 >that even from the one tiny location where the Orfordness
 >lighthouse beacon _is_ visible it is _above_ the trees and not
 >down in and between the trees where the UFO was seen. That is an
 >excellent point and I thank you for raising it -- I only wish
 >you would do so more widely.


Hi,

Briefly, I do appreciate your views on this and will simply
note:

1: None of this matter regarding the review is to do with how
James Easton conducts himself with others. I was personally not
impressed with his outburst against Georgina Bruni on this list.
It was inappropriate, in my opinion. But that is a personal
thing between the two of them and Updates does at time engender
strong feelings, of course.

2: Neither is any of this is to do with the ultimate truth or
non truth of the lighthouse theory - which will be proven or
disproved in the fullness of time.

As you point out above, and as I have gone on record more than
once in various places, I am not personally persuaded that this
case resolves into something as simple as just a misperception
of the lighthouse. Whilst I am more amenable to the possibility
than I once was the resolution of all the evidence does not as
yet convince me. Although that the lighthouse had a part to play
in the case is something that I think more likely to be proven
true. And that there are aspects to this case that seem likely
to now have resolution is, I think, inescapable.

3: As such in my review  I was not defending James Easton
personally nor championing the lighthouse theory - except that I
regard his research as important enough to require proper debate
- and the non UFO theory for this case to require proper
analysis. So IMO, and that's all it is, anyone seeking to address
the complex issues surrounding this case has an obligation to
study the written reports that James Easton has produced since
l997 and contemplate the questions that he poses from them. We
must resolve issues such as Charles Halt's testimony in which he
pretty clearly seems to describe seeing the Shipwash lightship
whilst thinking he was looking at the Ness lighthouse. As such a
situation, if proven true, clearly would have major implications
for this case.

4:  I was not aware that James Easton is suppressing data. I'll
let him answer that charge directly. All I can say is that he
was the first to bring to my attention the existence of these
documents, has freely supplied them to me in full and asked
nothing in return. I have not witnessed any suppression on his
part - merely an attempt to persuade me that his view on this
case is right. Whilst I see where he is coming from and have
certainly reappraised my stance by my debate with him, I have
not - as yet - been utterly convinced that this case is now
fully resolved.  In particular the 'close encounter' phase -
during which Burroughs and Penniston apparently experienced
physiological effects and reality distortions infers more than a
misperception of the lighthouse at work to me. But I feel I am
more aware of the subtleties of the case and the likelihood that
some parts of it are potentially resolvable as a consequence of
the questions that I forced to ask myself - and this was in part
thanks to James Easton's research.

In my book review, therefore, I merely noted - not that the case
is solved  - as I do not contend that  it is - but that the
arguments and data put into the arena by James Easton have had a
profound effect on the views of several Ufologists, at least
three of whom have told me that they have become skeptics on
this matter as a consequence. This surely indicates that the
material was sufficiently powerful that it should not simply be
ignored. If it is changing the views of Ufologists it cannot be
an irrelevance.

Yes, much of it is going to be debatable and is rightly being
contested. But the debate is one that is necessary to have when
reviewing this case. Really that was my only point.

Whilst, as I noted, Georgina's book is a fine addition to the
analysis of this case and it has some good points, it fails to
address these issues to the degree that I believe they deserve
and I merely pointed that out.

By all means disagree. But it is what I genuinely believe, hence
its appearance in my review.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 21

                  CPR-Canada News: Another Ice Circle - Lac

From: Paul Anderson <psa@direct.ca>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 18:35:27 -0700
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 11:00:23 -0500
Subject: CPR-Canada News: Another Ice Circle - Lac


CPR-CANADA NEWS
The E-News Service of Circles Phenomenon Research Canada

http://www.egroups.com/group/cprcanadanews
http://www.geocities.com/cpr-canada

December 20, 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 other information on
CPR-Canada-related projects and events. CPR-Canada News is
available free by subscription (see below).

_____________________________


ANOTHER ICE CIRCLE - LAC PELLETIER, QUEBEC

Preliminary Report - December 20, 2000

Lac Pelletier, Quebec
November 19, 2000

Another "ice circle" reported, on Lac Pelletier, a small lake in
the Laurentian mountains in Quebec. Thanks to UK crop circle
researcher Francine Blake for her report, who learned of the
formation while on a recent visit to Quebec. Found November 19,
the formation is a single circle or ring, similar to the one
reported at Delta, Ontario on December 2, on the ice-covered
lake. Further details when available. Attached is a ground photo
(lacpelletier00.jpg, � Normand Pelletier). In November of last
year, a more complex series of circles and rings was seen on the
same lake (also just recently reported, details pending).

Whether these ice formations (which have been reported
infrequently before) are part of the same or similar phenomenon
as the crop circles is unknown at this point, but perhaps we
should be keeping a more watchful eye on our frozen ponds and
lakes during the winter?

Paul Anderson








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 21

             Re: Persinger's 'The Field Biology of Unexplained'

From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 04:07:07 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 11:02:59 -0500
Subject: Re: Persinger's 'The Field Biology of Unexplained'


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Persinger's 'The Field Biology of Unexplained'
 >Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 16:05:10 -0600

 >>Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 23:55:41 +0000
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>Subject: Re: Persinger's 'The Field Biology of Unexplained'

 >>>From: Greg St. Pierre <GregJenn95@email.msn.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Persinger's 'The Field Biology of Unexplained'
 >>>Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 21:47:03 -0800

 >>>>Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 05:21:15 -0800
 >>>>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Persinger's 'The Field Biology of >Unexplained'

 >>I doubt it. If aliens show up I would bet that there presence
 >>has nothing to do with the UFO phenomenon that we know and love!

 >A touching expression of faith, especially when punctuated with
 >an exclamation point. Actually, if aliens are proved to be
 >present, scientists - at least those who never bothered to study
 >the question but dismissed it with extreme prejudice anyway -
 >will look not rather but fatally foolish.

 >>>Who cares what they think if that happens? No one will
 >>>be beating a path to their doors for answers, because they said
 >>>all along that there _were_ no aliens. Not much of an incentive
 >>>to help solve the mystery.

 >>No they didn't. most scientists who have considered the matter
 >>are quite happy with the idea of there being plenty of aliens
 >>(wrongly, in my opinion) around in the universe. they're just
 >>not too struck with the idea that they're buzzing round here in
 >>UFOs.

 >What scientists have "considered the matter" - in the sense of
 >bothering to acquaint themselves with the serious literature and
 >therefore being able to express an informed, as opposed to
 >blissfully ignorant, opinion - and then rejected the UFO
 >phenomenon? With rare exception (the unfortunate Menzel, whom
 >most pelicanists sensibly prefer to keep buried in the memory
 >hole, being the most visible exception), most books by UFOphobic
 >scientists, in my observation, simply cite Philip J. Klass, who
 >is not a scientist in any sense of the word, as the last word on
 >the subject.

 >The testimony of UFO history shows that most scientists who have
 >"considered the matter" and bothered to read and investigate
 >have come to conclusions very much unlike those represented in
 >Rimmer's hopeful claim.

 >Where pelican science is concerned, one thinks of Orwell's
 >mordant observation about the totalitarian mindset, where
 >ignorance is strength.


Hi Jerry and my fellow Listerions,

Jerry, thanks for a fine post on scientists and UFOs. It caused
me to ponder and then propose the idea of educating scientists
so they can be informed in serious UFOlogy. Perhaps Mr. Bigelow,
and or Mr. Rockefeller would put up the funds to prepare a
briefing for scientists (something new and beyond the previous
"UFO Briefing Document"), and carrying the NIDS seal of
approval.

This briefing could be emailed out to all scientists who are
members of a variety of scientific organizations. It could help
answer that crazy old conundrum of "Ufology needs real
scientific investigation in a number of areas, so why do so few
scientists take it seriously while there is ample evidence to
encourage them to do so"?

I'd like to know if anyone thinks it would ne a worthy project.
If so, I wonder who would be interested in initiating it?


Thanks,

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 >
   Dec > Dec 21

                 Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 00:28:27 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 11:04:51 -0500
Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles


 >From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles
 >Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 20:39:20 -0000

 >>From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
 >>Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 13:30:13 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Y'all,

 >Gildas wrote:

 >>To Georgina Bruni, Jenny Randles and the List
 >>Thank you for your clear answers to Jenny Randles and others.
 >>I am going to read your book with great interest.
 >>I still have one question pending for Jenny Randles: when are
 >>you going to publish your records of pilots who saw nothing at
 >>Lakenheath? (the "COMETA boys" are still waiting). When you say
 >>that publicly, in order to put in doubt the COMETA report a week
 >>after its release in France, you _must_ produce them.

 >No one _must_ do anything Gildas. Least of all in this starlit
 >mire we call ufology.

 >But....

 >Regarding Lakenheath I can tell that UFOIN researchers have now
 >located and interviewed _all_ the RAF Venom pilots, together
 >with looking at the relevant flight logs for the time. We have
 >also located and have material from the flight controller.

 >Additionally we have other contemporaneous material concerning
 >the Lakenheath 'radar visual' case. All will be revealed when
 >our research and investigations are complete. All in good time
 >Gildas, all in good time.

 >You can get your facts right and we will be telling the people.


I "predict" that the final report, that is released will be
along the lines of pelicans and lighthouses in a figurative
sense.

Don't have to be very bright to figure out what conclusion the
report will end with..... :)

I hope they prove me wrong, but alas, I highly doubt it.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 21

               Re: Little Community With A Big Mystery - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 00:50:37 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 11:08:01 -0500
Subject: Re: Little Community With A Big Mystery - Hatch


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 00:30:40 EST
 >Subject: Re: Little Community With A Big Mystery
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 23:28:42 -0500
 >>From: Kelly Peterborough <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
 >>Subject: Little Community With A Big Mystery
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>December 9, 2000
 >>http://www.dailycourier.com/CNkeck1209.html

 ><snip>

 >>Bernadette Myers
 >>For The Daily Courier

 >>Today marks the 35th anniversary of the strangest night in
 >>Kecksburg's history.

<snip>

 >The December 9, 1965, fireball has been known to have been a
 >meteor for more than thirty years. It was visible over ten
 >states and Ontario and its cloud train was photographed
 >independently by two photographers in Michigan. Two of these
 >pictures were published in the Cleveland Plain Dealer and in Sky
 >& Telescope magazine. The magazine article, with one picture,
 >and a letter with report from the photographer are in the
 >Project Blue Book files in the National Archives. Also, the
 >sonic boom was recorded by a seismometer at the University of
 >Michigan Geophysics Lab at Ypsilanti.

 >This and more than 100 written eyewitness reports allowed
 >Michigan astronomers Von Del Chamberlain and David J. Krause to
 >triangulate the position of the cloud train to determine the
 >path of the object in the atmosphere. They estimated its speed
 >at about 14.5 kilometers per second. This is well within the
 >speed of meteors entering the Earth's atmosphere and is about
 >twice as fast as returning man-made objects in low orbits.

 >Using the pictures and seismic recording for triangulation, they
 >found that the object fell steeply over southwestern Ontario as
 >it moved toward the Northeast (not toward Pennsylvania). It fell
 >too steeply to be reentering low orbit debris, such as the
 >Soviet Cosmos 96, which is often mentioned in connection with
 >the incident. This failed Venus probe was in a nearly circular
 >orbit. This and the fact than the satellite reentered some
 >thirteen hours before the Kecksburg incident means that Cosmos
 >96 is out as an explanation. This conclusion was also reached in
 >the 1967 Sky & Telescope article, a fact which has never been
 >revealed by Gordon or his associates, who have promoted their
 >exciting Cosmos 96 connection for thirteen years.

 >The Michigan astronomers found that a possible orbit took the
 >object out to between Mars and Jupiter, in the asteroid belt,
 >where many bright meteors originate. An article was submitted
 >and published in the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada
 >Journal (Vol. 61, no. 4, 1967). Another article by Chamberlain
 >was published in Meteorites of Michigan, Bulletin 5, Geological
 >Survey of Michigan, 1968.

 >On April 21, 1992, I sent a copy of the Chamberlain and Krause
 >article to Stan Gordon and asked for his comments. Eight and a
 >half years have passed but he has never responded. Gordon has
 >never discussed this hard data and research, nor has he even
 >publicly revealed its existence or discussed the implications of
 >the Michigan photographs in his many articles, press releases,
 >interviews or in the video he is now selling promoting this
 >incident as a mysterious crash and recovery.

 >The coverup of documents and photographs proving the true nature
 >of the Kecksburg fireball has not been conducted by the
 >Government, USAF, Pennsylvania State Police or by the many local
 >doubters. The continuing coverup is by those who are using this
 >old solved mystery to fill news copy and perpetrate a phony old
 >mystery for the express purpose of making money or for personal
 >aggrandizement.

 >May you have beautiful clear skies, Bob Young


Hello Bob:

I suppose I'm caught blind-sided by the Kecksburg incident.

I still have it listed, with two sources other sources at least:
FSR Vol. 37 #1 and UFO Magazine (Calif.) Vol. 6 #1.

Here, as in the usual books, I read of a 12-foot tall acorn
shaped object recovered. If memory serves, it was supposedly
trucked away under tight and unusual security.

Have those details been explained also? Are they a complete
fabrication as well? If so, I will definitely need to change
certain ratings in my database.

I had once suspected a downed spy satellite, even though the
size and post-crash condition would seem to rule this out. If I
recall, the recovered 12-foot object was in one piece,
relatively intact. I cannot imagine anything like a satellite
crashing to earth at those speeds without being pulverized if
not vaporized.

Was the big acorn complete fiction? I wouldn't be too terribly
surprised!

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 >
   Dec > Dec 21

              Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Review Debate -

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 14:35:20 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 11:35:34 -0500
Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Review Debate -


 >From: Steven R. LaPlume <slaplume@recon-inc.com>
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Review Debate
 >Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 08:08:13 -0800

 >[Non-Subscriber Post]

 >I am writing in regard to the "Debate" that is going on between
 >Randalls and Bruni.

 >As one of the witnesses who was stationed on RAF Bentwaters at
 >the time I am actually taken back by the bickering that is going
 >on. Who is Randalls to talk about this like she is the
 >definitive authourity?


Hi,

With respect, I don't honestly think that I am doing any such
thing.

I wrote one review of one book for a paranormal magazine in the
UK. It offered my opinion of that book - basically saying that
it had many good points, was a useful overview, added some new
data found by Ms Bruni's tenacity but lacked the perspective I
thought was necessary in addressing the recent challenges to the
case put forward by skeptics such as James Easton.

Really that is all. It was a personal commentary on the book -
as reviews are supposed to be. And so far as I was concerned
that ought to have been that. But the 'bickering' - as you cite
- was not of my doing, since the review was raised onto this
list as the subject of criticism by others, you will note.

All I have said - and still say - is that the review reflected
my honest opinion of the book and people should take it or leave
it. I don't actually think what I said merits this level of over
reaction.

Similarly I would not presume to challenge your perspective on
the book, since you are well entitled to have a view about what
it says. I don't think that I have ever pretended to be an
'authority' on the case. I was only fulfilling a request made to
write a review of a book - one of, literally, hundreds that I
have written over the years.  I find it astounding that it is
precipitating such a fuss since no others - including ones I
have really slated (!) - have done the same.

 >At least Ms Bruni has investigated this matter to the best of
 >her ability.

A point I do actually affirm in my review, if you read it. Its
one of the many positive things I say - things that seem to be
forgotten - in a review that you (very unfairly) (in a private
message to me) term a 'trashing'.

Certainly it raises a couple of legitimate concerns but makes
very obvious that I think it is a useful addition to the
literature on the case. If anyone 'trashed' a book of mine with
words like:

...

  So how well does Georgina Bruni marshal these opposing forces?
  She listens to what the witnesses tell her very carefully
  indeed and describes their own words in a well executed manner.
  She expertly paints the picture of events that some of them
  transcribe (although, sadly, one of the most important of the
  key witnesses - John Burroughs - could not be found to add to
  his prior testimony ). As such and as a recounting of the case
  this book scores highly.

The well structured documentation of the case adds much that was
not on record from witnesses with new things to say. This is
without doubt a valuable service ...

I think I'd be fairly pleased!

I know this issue will most likely never be fully
 >known but at least give those of us that were there enough
 >credit to know the difference between a light house and a craft
 >that is in full view.


And I reiterate - for the benefit of those on this list - that
I don't state that the lighthouse was what you saw. Indeed I have
long argued 'against' that very thing based on first hand
observation in the forest at the appropriate time and an
overview of the facts. All that I have come to appreciate of
late is that there are legitimate questions to be asked that
make the skeptical arguments more valid than I certainly once
thought them to be. That based on newly acquired data - made
public largely by James Easton.

Anyone unmoved by the implications simply needs to look at what
their true motives are - to resolve UFO cases or perpetuate
mysteries. That's a huge can of worms but is - frankly - at the
heart of 99% of Ufology IMO.

Parts of this case do appear to be resolvable (eg as
astronomical phenomena, none anomalous radiation readings etc)
and it is hard to argue against the evidence powerfully pointing
that way. This is an admission Ufologists (and witnesses) should
make - not run away from. But the problem is that there is this
bizarre idea that Ufologists (and witnesses) seem to share that
regards any attempt to resolve a case as some sort of crime
against the community. Yet surely our primary function is to try
to solve cases. If we can - even in part - we are obligated to
say so. Just as we are obligated to admit where problems remain
and puzzles are lefty standing - as they indeed sometimes are -
and some certainly are with regards to this case.

I don't think that anybody can demonstrate that I have ever done
other than fulfill that philosophy.

Yes - we have to face up to questions being asked about what
some of the witnesses saw - for instance when they tell us on
the one hand they were familiar with the lighthouse during their
encounter and yet admit in written statements soon afterwards
that they were temporarily fooled by it. Or, in one case,
describe seeing what they believed was the lighthouse when
clearly they were actually seeing the Shipwash lightship.

To me these are issues any serious Ufologist has to contemplate
alongside a willingness to accept the possibility that there
could be an IFO resolution to this case. That's all I argue. Not
that there IS a resolution or that the case is explained away as
the lighthouse. My review said that the book should have faced
up to the issues such as those mentioned above.

If you want to see this as me debunking the case out of
existence as a lighthouse - fine - but you are completely
misreading the situation. I suggest you all read the next issue
of International UFO Reporter and quiz me again then, if you
like, but don't, please, attack things you are assuming to be my
views on this case because many of them are evidently misguided.

That IUR commentary was written before Georgina Bruni's book
appeared so is not influenced by it, as Jerry Clark will I am
sure affirm.

I have also made clear that there are aspects to this case that
- if honestly reported (as I have no reason to doubt they are) -
are utterly incompatible with a sighting of the lighthouse -
notably the close encounter effects of electrostatic charge and
reality distortion reported by several airmen in close
proximity.

The irony is that on other lists that don't degenerate into
oblique bickering or personality squabbles, James Easton and
others have actually had sensible discussions with me over this
case in far more depth than here. And anyone reading this
material (as Brad Sparks noted the other day) would see that
whilst James and I agree on some issues regarding the possible
solutions to this case we clearly do not see eye to eye on
others and it would be very obvious that I am not a convinced
believer in the lighthouse resolution as yet. Only in the need
to take it seriously.

But Listers might bear in mind that this review needs to be seen
as just one commentary by me out of a vast amount of material
that I have written on this case - even in recent years. You
might like to check out my book 'UFO Crash Landing?' - written
in l997 about the case - or the extensive work that David Alpin
and I did when putting together the 'Strange But True?' TV
documentary on this case in l994. Georgina doesn't mention me in
connection this in her book - but mentions the documentary and
David Alpin . I am not interested in being given credit for
this. But I do want Listers to realise that this programme
reflects my input from start to finish - over four months of it
in fact - and should be seen - along with 'Crash Landing' - and,
of course, 'The UFOs that Never Were' - as part of my extensive
discussion of this case in recent years.

'The UFOs that Never Were' needs not to be seen in isolation as
it takes a very rational view of the case, assessing all the
recent skeptical data, and argues - in deliberately provocative
terms -  that we can now define plausible answers for various
parts of this case, and notes that the value of the case has
diminished as a consequence.

This is an honest statement and obviously true, so far as I am
concerned, when you objectively assess the evidence as we had it
when I wrote that text a year ago. But it is just as clear that
you cannot write the whole case off as a misperception of the
lighthouse without twisting parts of the evidence so far that
they would audibly creak.

It is right to try to resolve a case. It is wrong to adhere to
the opinion that it is solved at all costs in face of contrary
evidence.

I don't think anyone can fairly accuse me of doing the latter.

 >I was posted on the East Gate, due to my low rank, many times
 >and it was quite clear what the light house was, where it was
 >and the effect it had at night on clear and foggy nights.

And I have frequently made the point that from the East Gate you
could see the beam sweeping over the trees and anyone who had
been there had to have been aware of its presence. So you are
really arguing at a disadvantage here - as I assume you have not
read my quite extensive writings on this case. If you had then I
don't think you would be chiding me over things that are simply
not in keeping what anything that I am really saying.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 21

             Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles - Bruni

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 15:42:06 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 11:37:44 -0500
Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles - Bruni


 >From: Brad Sparks  <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 16:20:29 EST
 >To updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles


 >Well, Jenny, can you please tell what James Easton has
 >contributed to the direct understanding of the Rendlesham case
 >that still stands and hasn't been overturned, refuted or
 >superseded? You say he has written practically a book-length
 >in-depth study of the case which you chide Georgina for
 >omitting, but forgive me for asking, what _specifically_ in this
 >long study should she have mentioned of Easton's work that
 >hasn't been refuted?

Brad, I couldn't agree with you more. I certainly would not have
wanted to include outdated material from someone who clearly is
not credible in my eyes.

 >Why would you tell people on this List about his "amicable"
 >treatment of you and fail to mention his contemptible treatment
 >of Georgina? Frankly I don't think you have any business lauding
 >Easton for his "amicable" behavior while suppressing his vicious
 >conduct toward Georgina. You are known for gracious conduct
 >towards your correspondents but I think part of that has got to
 >include consideration for circumstances involving two parties
 >you are discussing in a post and reasons why one party might
 >be justified in avoiding the other whose conduct is so
 >outrageous towards her.

.....and that just says it all... thank you for stepping in.


Georgina

YOU CAN'T TELL THE PEOPLE
The Definitive Account of the Rendlesham Forest UFO Mystery
By Georgina Bruni Published by Sidgwick & Jackson
Available on-line at: www.amazon.co.uk  www.whsmith.co.uk
View and listen to Georgina Bruni talking about the book at:
www.relaxwithabook.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 >
   Dec > Dec 21

              Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Review Debate -

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 15:42:09 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 11:39:52 -0500
Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Review Debate -


 >From: Steven R. LaPlume <slaplume@recon-inc.com>
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Review Debate
 >Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 08:08:13 -0800


[Non-Subscriber Post]

 >I am writing in regard  to the "Debate" that is going on between
 >Randalls and Bruni.
 >As one of the witnesses who was stationed on RAF Bentwaters at
 >the time I am actually taken back by the bickering that is going
 >on. Who is Randalls to talk about this like she is the
 >definitive authourity?

 >At least Ms Bruni has investigated this matter to the best of
 >her ability. I know this issue will most likely never be fully
 >known but at least give those of us that were there enough
 >credit to know the differance between a light house and a craft
 >that is in full view.

What I find interesting is how the sceptics have totally
disregarded this post. Here we have a first hand witness who has
taken the trouble to come forward and not one comment or
question is asked regarding his sighting!

Could this have anything to do with the fact that he is pointing
out that it wasn't the "lighthouse"?

Steve La Plume had a genuine sighting not once - but twice. His
encounter was confirmed by Charles Halt and not denied by
General Williams. Albeit that it took place approximately two
weeks after the December encounters, it is still an important
part of the case. Steve was on duty at the east gate when he and
Wendel Palmer spotted a UFO, they called CSC and Lt Bruce
Englund turned up followed by Williams, Halt, an officer's wife
(presumed to be Mrs Bill Sawyer) and Colonel Conrad's son.

After the group left the area, the UFO returned again, only this
time it was right over the east gate, flying low! Now, you
cannot see the lighthouse from the east gate - so tell me this,
what was the huge object? A flying lighthouse?

This is just one of the many important cases in the book which
clearly have been dismissed by the sceptics. And it's such a
pity.

Jim Penniston is willing to do a live media debate with any
sceptics who think they can argue the lighthouse case. As Jim
rightly says. 'Not one sceptic has ever questioned me.'

I hope that more of the witnesses will come forward and take a
stand against these ridiculous theories that have wasted so much
time and set this case back- that is until now. The sceptics and
debunkers have dismissed the content of my book simply because
it is clear that the evidence is stacked against their theories.

Georgina Bruni

YOU CAN'T TELL THE PEOPLE
The Definitive Account of the Rendlesham Forest UFO Mystery
By Georgina Bruni Published by Sidgwick & Jackson
Available on-line at:
www.amazon.co.uk  www.whsmith.co.uk
View and listen to Georgina Bruni talking about the book at:
www.relaxwithabook.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 >
   Dec > Dec 21

                     Re: Bentwaters Book Review - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 10:21:48 -0600
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 11:41:59 -0500
Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review - Clark


 >From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles
 >Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 00:57:29 -0000

 >>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 16:20:29 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles
 >>>Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 13:01:08 -0000

 >>>>From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles
 >>>>Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 16:23:59 -0000

Jenny,

 >1: None of this matter regarding the review is to do with how
 >James Easton conducts himself with others. I was personally not
 >impressed with his outburst against Georgina Bruni on this list.
 >It was inappropriate, in my opinion. But that is a personal
 >thing between the two of them and Updates does at time engender
 >strong feelings, of course.

With all due respect, Easton went far beyond "strong feelings"
in his vicious - and, one might add, sexist - outrburst against
Georgina. Discussions on this List are often vigorous and
sometimes even heated, and most have no trouble with that, but
what Easton did was well beyond the pale, and I'm surprised that
the best you can manage is a feeble "inappropriate" to
characterize such outrageous conduct.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 22

                       UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 5 Number 51

From: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 16:20:58 +0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 09:39:56 -0500
Subject: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 5 Number 51


Posted on behalf of Joseph Trainor.

<Masinaigan@aol.com>
==========================

      UFO ROUNDUP
Volume 5, Number 51
December 21, 2000
Editor: Joseph Trainor

http://ufoinfo.com/roundup/

STAR-LIKE UFOs HOVER OVER BOISE, IDAHO

On Sunday, December 17, 2000, at 6:45 p.m., Greg Murrell was at
his home in Boise (population 135,000), the state capital of
Idaho, when he decided to step outdoors for a moment.

"I walked out my front door to cool off. It was a very clear
night, and I noticed how bright the stars were," Greg reported.
"What I assume was the North Star was very bright and directly
in front of me. About 15 degrees to the left and about at the
same height (elevation) on the horizon, I noticed another fairly
bright star. Also noticed it seemed to move. I stayed still,
using one of my trees as a referenc point and confirmed that the
light was moving. It had a reddish tint to it and was moving
like if you pointed one of them laser pointers at a wall, and
had shaky hands."

"I went inside and asked my girl friend to come look. She did
and agreed with me that the thing was moving around but not in
any particular direction. We went in the house, and I went out
my back door."

"I was now facing south to southeast. I was looking around the
sky and saw two additional similar objects. They looked like
stars, but I noticed two of them moving erratically. Then a
third would appear very quickly, then disappear. I again went
and got my girl friend. She agreed they were moving and then
went back in the house, a little rattled., and I stayed and
watched. My 13-year-old daughter then came out, and I pointed to
what I was watching. She saw the movement, as well."

"When I went back in, both girls said the color they saw was
red, with occasionally blue. I never saw any blue, but I am
relatively color blind." (Email Form Report)

TRIANGULAR UFO SIGHTED IN COLUMBIA, MISSOURI

On Monday, October 29, 2000, at about 10:30 p.m., Mrs. M and her
daughter were driving through Columbia, Missouri (population
70,000) when they saw an unusual light in the sky.

""My daughter and I were driving west on Ash Street in Columbia
at about 10:30 p.m.," Mrs. M reported. "She pointed up through
the moon roof of the car, and we saw a triangular shaped UFO
with a white light at each corner."

"We stopped the car and got out to see it better. The UFO was
traveling in a straight line at about 70 miles per hour (112
kilometers per hour), about 1,500 feet up (450 meters) and
making no noise."

"We recently watched a TV program that reported a triangle UFO
over western Illinois by several police departments around the
first of the year."

"We didn't know whether to call the police or what."

Columbia is on Interstate Highway I-70 approximately 31 miles
(50 kilometers) north of Jefferson City, the state capital.
(Email Form Report)

LARGE HOVERING UFO SEEN OVER NEW YORK CITY

On Thursday, December 14, 2000, at 7 p.m., the witness, who
wishes to remain anonymous, was driving south on the West Side
Highway, in New York City's Manhattan borough.

""I noticed it on the West Side Highway near 125th Street," he
reported. "I was driving south and eventually got off in
Midtown."

He described the condition of the sky as "low and thick
overcast." He did not see the object itself, but "saw one big
light in the middle and four smaller lights going into and out
of the big light. It was dark and cloudy at 7 p.m. Five circular
lights visible in the low overcast."

When he reached the Midtown North exit, he added, "It was still
there" near 125th Street. (Email Form Report)

(Editor's Comment: Now what do the aliens want in Spanish
Harlem?)

LARGE TRIANGULAR UFO FLIES OVER YUKON, OKLAHOMA

On Monday, December 4, 2000, at 7 p.m., Mrs. B. was entertaining
a friend at her home in Yukon, Oklahoma (population 21,000). She
reports, "That evening a friend of mine came over. She and I
went for a walk. We left approximately at 7 p.m. and were
walking back towards my house at 7:30 p.m. when she and I
watched the large, black, solid, triangular-shaped craft that
was silently hovering over Yukon. It was 40 degrees from (above)
the horizon from where she and I was at. On the back end of the
craft was a red light that was ricocheting from right to left."

"So we took off running towards my house, ran in and grabbed my
binoculars to get a better look. We saw yellow, white, blue and
green lights underneath of the craft, but I couldn't see how the
lights were fixed (arrayed) because of tree distortion. Then it
started heading east, and she and I jumped into my truck and
drove to South West 29th (Street) and Czech Hall Road. It had
disappeared from sight. It was the size of a city block, (town)
square or larger. I have a sketch of what we saw that night."

Yukon is on Interstate Highway I-35 approximately 14 miles (23
kilometers) north of Oklahoma City. (Many thanks to ufologist
Jim Hickman for this report.)

MYSTERIOUS WHITE ORB SEEN IN DUNDEE, SCOTLAND

On Thursday, December 14, 2000, at 11:45 p.m., Kevin Roy spotted
a mysterious descending white object in Dundee, Tayside,
Scotland, UK.

""It was a white light similar to a flare but too high for that
and too low for a meteor," Kevin reported. "It was descending
towards the ground at a steep angle. It blinked out after two or
three seconds."

"Its heading would have taken it into the Sidlaw Hills. It speed
would have been consistent with a meteor but there was no dip or
arc in the flight path, which was straight all the way down. Too
low to be a plane. No noise from the object at a distance of
approximately three miles (5 kilometers). The object was
approximately two to three inches (5 to 7.5 centimeters) in size
at this distance. No tail or tracers behind it, just the white
orb." (Email Form Report)

SPORADIC UFO SIGHTINGS CONTINUE IN ITALY

Sporadic UFO sightings continue to be reported in Italy,
especially on the island of Sardinia.

On Saturday, November 11, 2000, at 6:30 p.m., witnesses in
Calca, a town near Pisa, "spotted a silvery globe in the sky
which emitted intermittent flashes of bright white light. The
object moved away to the northeast behind the summit of a
mountain."

On Thursday, December 7, 2000, at 3:30 a.m., three automobile
salesmen in Sorso, on the northern coast of the island of
Sardinia, "observed in the sky, in a west- southwest direction,
a 'ball' of a bright yellow color, with a very intense molten
luminosity like a 'little sun.'"

Upon closer observation, "the salesmen noticed that the object
was actually a round disc with a small triangular cupola on the
top. It flew away at an extreme velocity in the direction
(north) of the coast."

On Saturday, December 9, 2000, at Susa, a town near Torino
(Turin) in northern Italy, at 7 p.m., "a local man witnessed a
star-like luminous object spiralling towards the ground, then
levelled off and then departed at low altitude and silently to
the southwest. The witness added that the object's shape was
'similar to that of the (USA's) F117 Stealth fighter.' but with
flashing lights." (Grazie a Edoardo Russo e Antonio Cuccu di
Centro Italiano di Studi Ufologici per questi rapporti.)

GALILEO DISCOVERS AN OCEAN ON GANYMEDE

"Scientists are reporting that a third moon of Jupiter,
Ganymede, may also have an ocean sloshing beneath its frozen
exterior."

"NASA's Galileo spacecraft has detected undulations in
Ganymede's magnetic field. Planetary scientists had previously
found indications of under- ice oceans on Europa and Callisto."

"'It looks pretty persuasive to me,' said Dr. Margaret Kivelson,
a professor of space physics at the University of California at
Los Angeles."

Dr. Kivelson presented her Ganymede findings on Sunday, December
16, 2000 at the meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San
Francisco.

"'I think it's an exciting result,' said Dr. Robert Papparlardo
of Brown University" in Providence, R.I. "'It makes sense, if
Callisto has really retained a liquid water layer over the age
of the solar system, that Ganymede should, too.'"

"In recent years, planetary scientists have found much evidence
of an under-ice ocean on Europa, including its fractured surface
and areas which look as if water had erupted from below the
surface. In 1998, Kivelson and her colleagues offered additional
evidence by looking at how the direction and strength of
Jupiter's magnetic field shifted somewhat each time the Galileo
spacecraft, in orbit around Jupiter, passed over Europa."

The Jovian moon, researchers noted, "was generating electrical
currents as it swept through Jupiter's powerful field, the way
an electric motor generates electricity. The new electrical
currents, in turn, generate additional magnetic fields that
alter Jupiter's field."

"For electrical current to flow on Europa, some part of Europa
must conduct electricity, and ice is not a good conductor. But
salty liquid water is, and the magnetic field fluctuations
therefore pointed to an ocean five to 10 miles (8 to 16
kilometers) below the surface. To their surprise, the
researchers also found swings in the magnetic field around
Callisto, smaller and farther away from Jupiter than Europa."

"The new findings, based on data from two visits by Galileo to
Ganymede in 1996 and in May (2000), found similar magnetic
fluctuations. At 3,270 miles (5,232 kilometers) in diameter,
Ganymede is the largest moon in the solar system, larger than
the planet Mercury and three-quarters the diameter of Mars."

"Photos of Ganymede's surface have shown channels of smooth ice
that might have flowed out of 'ice volcanoes' billions of years
ago and patches of relatively flat terrain that might have been
formed by ancient flooding. Kivelson's findings are the first
evidence that liquid water might still exist on Ganymede,
although it would now be tens of miles beneath the surface."

"The data indicates either a thin ocean,--half a mile
deep--within 20 miles (48 kilometers) of the surface or a
thicker ocean deeper down."

"'It's all consistent with what we know about Ganymede's
structure,' she said." (See the Duluth, Minn. News-Tribune for
December 17, 2000, "Third moon of Jupiter may have an ocean
under its ice," page 16A.)

ROUNDUP CORRIGENDA:

UFO eyewitness Timothy Dust sent us some corrections to the
recent story about the UFO seen in Fountain City, Wisconsin.
(See UFO Roundup, Volume 5, number 49, "Major UFO flap breaks
out in Wisconsin," page 3.)

"The (town's) population is 975, not 400. And the UFO we sighted
was off to the north, not in the southwest, and it danced around
the sky like a leaf in the wind or a boat on the water for
approximately 40 to 45 minutes, going up and down, left and
right and then taking off as if going away and then returning to
the original spot, and then dropping into the treeline as if it
were hiding, still going back and forth as it dropped out of
sight into an adjacent valley."

"It never reappeared."

"The Pleiades star cluster was directly behind me during the
sighting. The weather was clear, except for the area above the
treeline where the 'orb' was located. There were some clouds
above the 'orb.' The 'orb' was above a ridgeline that was only
approximately one-quarter of a mile, not two miles as was stated
in the article."


from the UFO Files...

CHRISTMAS DOUBLE FEATURE

For the year 2000 Christmas edition, UFO Roundup presents two
true accounts of the paranormal Enjoy the holiday season!

1925: AN UNUSUAL PHENOMENON IN HARTVILLE, MISSOURI

"Two days before Christmas 1925 (December 23, 1925--J.T.) four
of us were sitting in plain view of Little Creek cemetery, and
there appeared a pillar of fire about ten feet (3 meters) high
with a flaming star at the top of it."

"It occurred at 4:15 p.m., and it was there at the same time
three days later (December 26--J.T.). It appeared four times. I
have lived here fourteen years and have lived in sight of other
cemeteries, but that is the first ghost I ever saw. I am 75
years old, and I have been a preacher 55 years A ,an went to the
cemetery to watch for it and be there when it came; said he
would throw his coat over it. Well, it came, but he ran like a
turkey. Yours in Jesus' name...A. J. Graves, Hartville, Mo."
(See the Springfield, Mo. News and Leader for February 7, 1936.
Also the book Ozark Superstitions by Vance Randolph, Columbia
University Press, New York, N.Y., 1947, page 235.)

1975: ALIEN FOOTPRINTS?

"When Donna and Bill Wentworth moved to a house in rural Nobles
County" just west of Worthington in the southwestern corner of
Minnesota, "they noticed something strange."

There "was a visual happening in winter, with snow on the
ground. There were footprints in the snow, and they came to the
back porch. They were neither Donna's nor Bill's. There were
definite tracks, though, as of someone who had walked up to the
back door and never left. The size of the prints was normal, a
medium size. If they were made by an overshoe (rubber
boot--J.T.) the soles were worn smooth," i.e. there was no
discernible tread pattern in the footprint.

"There was no snow inside (the house) on the floors, melted or
otherwise. There was just the one short path, starting in the
middle of the backyard and continuing to the back door. And no
backtracking in the same prints as to make them confusing."

"No one had gone in. The Wentworths weren't even using that door
at the time; it was secured and weatherproofed for winter." (See
the book Ghostly Tales of Southwest Minnesota by Ruth D. Hein,
Quixote Press, Sioux City, Iowa, 1991, pages 141 and 142.)

MERRY CHRISTMAS FROM UFO ROUNDUP

While many of us are getting together with our families and
friends this weekend, we should take a moment to remember those
gallant men and women who are on active duty serving in the
various armed forces all around the world. No matter the uniform
you wear nor the flag you salute nor the nation you proudly
servee, whether you're at a radar screen aboard ship or fueling
an aircraft on the flight line or standing guard at a sentry
post-- if you're on active duty during the holidays, then on
behalf of all UFO Roundup readers, let me wish you "Merry
Christmas!"


We'll be back next week 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 news groups provided that they credit the
newsletter and its editor by name and list the date of issue in
which the item first appeared.


E-Mail Reports to: Joseph Trainor <Masinaigan@aol.com>
or use the Sighting Report Form at:

http://ufoinfo.com/forms/form_sighting.htm

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Website comments: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>

UFOINFO: http://ufoinfo.com

Official Archives of 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 >
   Dec > Dec 22

                Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles -

From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 17:19:35 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 09:43:22 -0500
Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles -


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 00:28:27 EST
 >Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

Robert wrote, regarding the UFOIN investigation of the
Bentwaters/Lakenheath 'radar visual'

 >I "predict" that the final report, that is released will be
 >along the lines of pelicans and lighthouses in a figurative
 >sense.

 >Don't have to be very bright to figure out what conclusion the
 >report will end with..... :)

 >I hope they prove me wrong, but alas, I highly doubt it.

So Robert, let's get this right, based on the above.....

* You can predict the future

* You have clearly never done any investigation into the
   case yourself

* You clearly state that you are 'not very bright'

* If a case report doesn't agree with your believer position it
   is wrong even though it is based on primary sources and in
   depth investigation

Lawdy!

I rest my valise.


Happy Trails

Andy

Sorry he can't join in the fun as much as usual - that old demon
work unfortunately.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 22

                          Secrecy News -- 12/21/00

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@igc.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 11:46:31 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 09:59:04 -0500
Subject: Secrecy News -- 12/21/00


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
December 21, 2000

**      FAS REQUESTS CIA INSPECTOR GENERAL INVESTIGATION
**      PRINCIPLES FOR CLASSIFICATION OF INFORMATION
**      ...AND CLASSIFIED GOOD WILL TOWARDS MEN


FAS REQUESTS CIA INSPECTOR GENERAL INVESTIGATION

The Federation of American Scientists yesterday asked the CIA
Inspector General to initiate an investigation of classification
policy and practice at the Agency after CIA officials claimed
that all historical intelligence budget information from the
earliest days of the cold war through 1970 is properly
classified today.

In 1997 and 1998, the CIA declassified the intelligence budget
totals for those years (under pressure of litigation).  But last
week CIA officials said in response to a Freedom of Information
Act request that the same information from several decades
earlier could cause damage to national security and must remain
classified.

The latest CIA claim "is so far outside the bounds of reasonable
disagreement over information disclosure policy that it appears
to constitute official misconduct," FAS wrote in a December 20
letter to CIA Inspector General L. Britt Snider.

"If the CIA personnel involved here are not dishonest, then they
actually believe that 50 year old budget data could damage
national security -- in which case they are dangerously
incompetent.  No one who holds such an opinion should be
permitted to serve the nation in an official intelligence
capacity."

"When CIA uses transparently false claims to obstruct good faith
requests for information through established legal channels, it
undermines the legitimacy of the national security
classification system," FAS wrote.

"Your office could do a great public service by helping to
ground CIA classification policy on a legitimate foundation of
national security requirements," FAS wrote.  "The CIA's
violation of the FOIA in this case brings the larger problem of
classification abuse into sharp relief and would make an
excellent starting point for investigation and remedial action."

The FAS letter to the CIA Inspector General is posted here:

        http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2000/12/ciaig.html


PRINCIPLES FOR CLASSIFICATION OF INFORMATION

The principles underlying national security classification and
declassification policy were explored with unusual rigor and
insight by Arvin S. Quist in a book-length study that he
authored in 1993 under contract to the U.S. Department of
Energy.  It is now available online.

Quist posed the fundamental questions about classification and
declassification practice and answered them with surprising
depth, historical nuance and occasional dry humor.  Under
exactly what conditions is classification justified? (Chapter 3)
How does one evaluate the costs and benefits of classification
(Chapter 5) and balance one against the other? (Chapter 6) Quist
explored the underpinnings of the various classification levels
(Chapter 7), examined the duration of classification (Chapter
8), and even provided mathematical models of how unauthorized
disclosures occur and propagate (Appendix G).

Though it does not encompass the upheavals in classification and
declassification that occurred in the 1990s, the Quist study
provides an unsurpassed account of the roots of classification
theory that continue to define secrecy policy today.

"Principles for Classification of Information," which is volume
2 of Quist's opus entitled "Security Classification of
Information," is now posted here:

        http://www.fas.org/sgp/library/quist2/index.html

The preceding volume, "Security Classification of Information:
Introduction, History, and Adverse Impacts," is available here:

        http://www.fas.org/sgp/library/quist/index.html


...AND CLASSIFIED GOOD WILL TOWARDS MEN

The vast bulk of classified government files are documents of
crushing banality that are not worth the time it would take to
read them.  Often, however, they are of interest as the
definitive record of official action.  Occasionally, they are of
particular importance when classification is used improperly to
hide malfeasance, criminal activity, or embarrassment.

But every once in a while declassification shows that
classification has concealed official acts of surprising
generosity and nobility of character.

In a classified December 17, 1965 memo, President Lyndon B.
Johnson told his Secretary of Agriculture that "I am deeply
concerned on humanitarian grounds with the near famine
conditions which are developing in India, and which may require
a dramatic rescue operation on the part of those nations able to
assist."

President Johnson directed the Secretary "to examine urgently
how to cope with the looming Indian famine problem.  I want you
to regard all available resources of the U.S. Government as
being at your disposal for such an effort."

"After assessing the likely dimensions of the crisis and what
would be required to meet it, you and your group should
recommend whatever imaginative emergency techniques and devices
which may be necessary to help prevent mass starvation in
India."

President Johnson's directive, National Security Action
Memorandum 339, like nearly all such memoranda, was classified
Secret as a matter of course.  It may be viewed here:

        http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nsam-lbj/nsam-339.htm

This document and numerous others concerning the Indian food
crisis were published on December 4 by the State Department in
Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964-1968, Volume XXV,
South Asia, which is posted here:

        http://www.state.gov/www/about_state/history/vol_xxv/index.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 >
   Dec > Dec 22

                            Re: Reluctant Viewers

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 12:55:07 -0600
Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 10:19:14 -0500
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers


 >From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 18:08:30 EST
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Mortellaro

 >>Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 16:10:44 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca


Previously, I had written:

 >>As I pointed out before, I believe that alien abduction can be a
 >>real phenomenon. However, and I really don't know a delicate way
 >>to put this, I also believe that most abductees are simply lying
 >>and know they are lying.

Jim replies:

 >Sorry, but I cannot agree with your choice of words. You say
 >most claimants are lying. Not in my experience. During the
 >course of the past three years, since I've been researching my
 >own experiences, I've found that those who claim to be
 >experiencers really are. Very few are not. That is, are not
 >lying about the phenom in their lives. Some may be mistaken.
 >Some actually find out that they are not experiencers, but most
 >find that in their memory and in their honest assessment, they
 >are. What makes you say the opposite. I _am_ interested in why
 >you said that?

Hi, Jim!

Well, in my opinion, the odds are against the majority telling
the truth, especially if they have proof within their own bodies
as so many claim to do. For instance, let's say we had as many
people that claimed to have a carburetor from a downed UFO. Now,
if these same people were complaining that no one ever believed
them, we certainly wouldn't listen to such endless proclamations
over the years without, at _some_ point, saying, "Okay, let's
see it." Likewise, why would the majority of abductees suffer
the indignations that they say are heaped on them by an
unbelieving public if the "proof" to exonerate them lies within
their own bodies? I understand your position about abductees
that are either afraid or confused or don't exactly know how to
go about finding answers. But consider this:

With all the claims of abduction and implants that are out
there, doesn't it seem a little unlikely that there isn't at
least _one_ abductee that has the courage to deal with the
issues, has insurance, has a doctor that understands and is
interested in the problem, has the resources to find the "proof"
that so many would benefit from?

Because so many make the claim, and none seem to come up with
the answer, I feel that the lack of results indicate that the
majority already knows the truth and have merely jumped on the
wagon for moral support. I don't mean to imply that they are bad
people; just that they already know the problems they face have
nothing to do with ET intervention.

Again, just my opinion.

Finally I wrote:

 >>In the end, this behavior serves as an injustice to people like
 >>you that are firm in your beliefs of what happened to you and
 >>why. If I can uncover the illogic that accompanies the fakers in
 >>your group, then I feel I have contributed something, indeed.

 >>Take care,
 >>
 >>King Roger

Lord Jim asks:

 >No offense meant Roge, but who the hell died made you "King!?"
 >And how did you become "King" and not just "king?" Huh?

 >I for example, am PRINCE. Prince Mortellaro. However I have no
 >portfolio. There are a few "Kings" on this list. But thus far, I
 >ain't never heard nuttin about your being one.

 >Let's clear this up, OK?!

Don't you know? Jerry made me King!


Happy holidays to all!

king Roger
(Is that better?)







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 22

             Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles - Bruni

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 19:47:57 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 10:26:42 -0500
Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles - Bruni


 >From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles
 >Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 13:01:08 -0000

 >>From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles
 >>Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 16:23:59 -0000

 >Before I move on I should bring your attention to the fact that
 >Nick was referring to a book review that Jenny Randles wrote for
 >the hard copy of Fortean Times, and not the 2,500 word on-line
 >article entitled "Rendlesham Revisited" which you quote in its
 >entirety in your post. Anyone with any understanding of reviews
 >will know that such a long drawn out piece of editorial could
 >not possibly be considered a review, even though it is titled
 >such on the page, but however, placed in the articles section.


Jenny wrote:

 >Sorry, but this is not correct.
 >FT will confirm that the above 'article' IS the original book
 >review that I wrote for them - not a separate article for the
 >web site as you suggest.

I would not doubt that they would confirm that it was your
original review, but when has FT ever published a 2,500 word
book review? Furthermore, what's a review on my book doing with
a title "Rendlesham Revisited". Jenny, this is clearly an
article about your theories and an excuse to have a sceptical
pop at my book.

Re: your ongoing argument on James Easton and his "series of in
depth studies and major published reports" and why I should have
mentioned him in my book.

Well, I hate to say this but those "major" published reports are
nothing more than a series of selective quoting from the now out
of date Halt tape, old interviews and old theories. In fact,
take a look at his latest - sorry, it's just the usual stuff -
selective quoting from old interviews and the out of date Halt
tape.

 >and revealing comments on them secured from new first
 >hand witnesses that he traced much as you came to do.

You mean Chris Armold?

Raine and Crow were the first to hear from Armold on 6 July
1997. I contacted him 28 May 1998. Have you ever seen the full
text he sent to Raine & Crow? Easton has only posted selective
quotes:

 >>Having spent several years promoting the 'Cobra Mist' theory, I
 >>hope you now realise (based on information in my book) that this
 >>had nothing to do with the incident/s, (because the project
 >>closed down in 1973).

 >I'm afraid you are guilty of what you accuse me of doing - not
 >reading the material before commenting upon it. I was well aware
 >of when Cobra Mist officially shut down. The year l973 is
 >actually cited by me as the date given for closure in my book
 >discussing this matter (UFO Crash Landing, l997) - so you don't
 >here set me right on this matter as you appear to suggest you
 >do.

Oh, but I did read the material.

In the aforementioned book you actually wrote:

'...locals were told it closed in 1973 but there were numerous
signs of ongoing activity on the island and strong opinion that
the project simply went underground after major breakthroughs.'

In the next paragraph you continue:

'Intriguingly, the official closure of Cobra Mist on the Ness
was announced in June 1983 - the very month that the Halt memo
was squeezed out under the US Freedom of Information.'

The truth is:

Cobra Mist shut down for good in 1973. The files on Cobra Mist
were in the public domain in 1993, thanks to CUFON, but you
continued to promote the Cobra Mist theory, even suggesting that
a similar project had replaced it, called Cold Witness. Recall
your 1997 public debate with a local? If anything Cobra Mist was
a victim, it never functioned satisfactory! Sorry to dispel your
theory that these two projects may have been responsible for the
incident.

You should also know that your understanding that "the official
closure of Cobra Mist on the Ness was announced in June 1983" is
erroneous!

The official closure was publicly announced by the Ministry of
Defence on 29 June 1973!

 >Your confusion comes from the fact that ten years on from this
 >closure there was official comment about and announcements.
 >These surrounded the plans to site the new project (Cold
 >Witness) - one candidate home for which was then being touted as
 >Orford Ness. So in l983 there was public comment about the
 >closing of the original project now being dead - although locals
 >had been assured this was terminated in l973.

What official comment and announcements? Can you be more
specific. Where are records of these? The only thing to move
into Orfordess after Cobra Mist closed down was the BBC World
Service!

 >In addition it depends upon what - if anything - happened in and
 >around the forest between l973 and l980 - an area I have
 >explored a good deal. Just because a project is officially
 >closed doesn�t mean that all research has ended. As I report
 >there were signs of ongoing activity on the Ness and I was told
 >by two separate sources (one with the MoD - one with the USAF -
 >and both at very high level) that research was still occurring
 >during the period l973 - l981.

Who are these high level people? You quoted Halt in your
book!!!hmm Please read the CUFON files and my book with the
history of Cobra Mist (including the 70 year history of
Orfordness. I assure you there was no ongoing research as you
suggest. Those were just rumours! all that took place was that
equipment was being dismantled and bombs from WWII were still
being cleared from the area. The locals complained that they had
lost their livelihood when Orfordness stopped doing research.

Jenny, you clearly did not do your research on this project - or
the area in question. For months before my book was published
you publicly pushed that it was based on gossip - even though
you had no idea of the content. Yet, you yourself base your
theories on "local gossip" concerning the Cobra Mist project.

 >So your book hasn't got me to change my mind on this matter as
 >there is more to this research than you seem to realise. I don't
 >know if these experiments were involved in any way in the case.
 >But it has not been eliminated as an option by your book. So I
 >would suggest that you don't assume otherwise.

Well it should change your mind! Why don't you study the chapter
on Orfordness and whilst you are at it, check out the dozens of
US Freedom of Information files on the CUFON site concerning
Cobra Mist. There's nothing more to do on this concerning your
theory that the incident had anything to do with this project.
UFO encounters at Bentwaaters (as reported in my book) were
taking place as early as 1946, long before Cobra Mist was
installed at Orfordness.

 >So far from leaping from theory to theory, as you hack them down
 >via your research, in reality I am doing no such thing. Rather I
 >am refining several areas of exploration with time as new data
 >becomes available ...

But you had the new data in "You Can't Tell The People", but
what did you do with it? Debunk it in favour of more theories!


Georgina Bruni


YOU CAN'T TELL THE PEOPLE
The Definitive Account of the Rendlesham Forest UFO Mystery
By Georgina Bruni Published by Sidgwick & Jackson
Available on-line at: www.amazon.co.uk www.whsmith.co.uk
View and listen to Georgina Bruni talking about the book at:
www.relaxwithabook.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 >
   Dec > Dec 22

                Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles -

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 20:33:20 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 10:50:49 -0500
Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles  -


 >From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 13:30:13 EST
 >Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles


 >To Georgina Bruni, Jenny Randles and the List

 >Thank you for your clear answers to Jenny Randles and others.
 >I am going to read your book with great interest.

I hope you enjoy it Gildas.

 >I still have one question pending for Jenny Randles: when are
 >you going to publish your records of pilots who saw nothing at
 >Lakenheath? (the "COMETA boys" are still waiting). When you say
 >that publicly, in order to put in doubt the COMETA report a week
 >after its release in France, you _must_ produce them.

I included a couple of interesting pieces about the
Bentwaters/Lakenheath incident in my book. I'm sure you know the
names of the pilots that Jenny wouldn't name, due allegedly for
security reasons or something. Well, I published them. Also I
learnt that during the same month as the sightings a major
experiment was being carried out at Orfordness... Not Cobra
Mist:-)

 >As for Nick Pope, who has just been labelled a "shrimp", or
 >something like that, I met him twice, in Leeds and San Marino,
 >and I can assure everyone that he is a perfect gentleman.

With regard to Peter Brookesmith's ungentlemanly comments about
Nick Pope's ufological knowledge, I should say this: they have
met head to head in a debate only once at the Oxford Union, on
28 January 1999. The motion "This house believes that we are not
alone" was debated, with Nick speaking for the motion and
Brookesmith opposing. Nick's side won by 290 votes to 191.


Best wishes

Georgina

YOU CAN'T TELL THE PEOPLE
The Definitive Account of the Rendlesham Forest UFO Mystery
By Georgina Bruni Published by Sidgwick & Jackson
Available on-line at:
www.amazon.co.uk www.whsmith.co.uk
View and listen to Georgina Bruni talking about the book at:
www.relaxwithabook.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 >
   Dec > Dec 22

             Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles - Bruni

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 21:37:18 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 12:21:31 -0500
Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles - Bruni


 >From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles
 >Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 00:57:29 -0000

 >>From: Brad Sparks  <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 16:20:29 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >Whilst, as I noted, Georgina's book is a fine addition to the
 >analysis of this case and it has some good points, it fails to
 >address these issues to the degree that I believe they deserve
 >and I merely pointed that out.

The sceptics points are covered extensivly in a whole chapter
entitled "Challenging the Sceptics". Why do you continue to
ignore this?

Georgina Bruni

YOU CAN'T TELL THE PEOPLE
The Definitive Account of the Rendlesham Forest UFO Mystery
By Georgina Bruni Published by Sidgwick & Jackson
Available on-line at: www.amazon.co.uk www.whsmith.co.uk
View and listen to Georgina Bruni talking about the book at:
www.relaxwithabook.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 >
   Dec > Dec 22

              Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Review Debate -

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 21:37:20 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 12:26:50 -0500
Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Review Debate -


 >From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Review Debate
 >Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 14:35:20 -0000

 >>From: Steven R. LaPlume <slaplume@recon-inc.com>
 >>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Review Debate
 >>Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 08:08:13 -0800

 >>At least Ms Bruni has investigated this matter to the best of
 >>her ability.

 >A point I do actually affirm in my review, if you read it. Its
 >one of the many positive things I say - things that seem to be
 >forgotten - in a review that you (very unfairly) (in a private
 >message to me) term a 'trashing'.

Many positive things? Really Jenny, who you kidding? I agree
with Steve La Plume (who, as a first hand witness, should have a
better opinion) that you trashed it!

 >Certainly it raises a couple of legitimate concerns but makes
 >very obvious that I think it is a useful addition to the
 >literature on the case. If anyone 'trashed' a book of mine with
 >words like:

   ..... So how well does Georgina Bruni marshal these opposing
   forces? She listens to what the witnesses tell her very
   carefully indeed and describes their own words in a well
   executed manner. She expertly paints the picture of events
   that some of them transcribe (although, sadly, one of the most
   important of the key witnesses - John Burroughs - could not be
   found to add to his prior testimony ). As such and as a
   recounting of the case
   this book scores highly.....

   The well structured documentation of the case adds much that
   was not on record from witnesses with new things to say. This
   is without doubt a valuable service.....

Less than 100 words out of 2,500 words which does not cover any
of the content! What about the other 2,400 words? Not much else
to quote.....

 >Yes - we have to face up to questions being asked about what
 >some of the witnesses saw - for instance when they tell us on
 >the one hand they were familiar with the lighthouse during their
 >encounter and yet admit in written statements soon afterwards
 >that they were temporarily fooled by it. Or, in one case,
 >describe seeing what they believed was the lighthouse when
 >clearly they were actually seeing the Shipwash lightship.

Jenny, are you familiar with the investigation I did on the
so-called statements? Why do you always ignore this very
important research in the book as if it doesn't exist?

How do you know what the witness saw when you were not a witness
yourself?

 >To me these are issues any serious Ufologist has to contemplate
 >alongside a willingness to accept the possibility that there
 >could be an IFO resolution to this case. That's all I argue. Not
 >that there IS a resolution or that the case is explained away as
 >the lighthouse. My review said that the book should have faced
 >up to the issues such as those mentioned above.

My book did face up to these issues and very much more. This is
why the serious researchers and indeed the witnesses are so
amazed by your unfair review, that you should ignore all the
detailed research and investigation in the book and dedicate
your reviews to complaining about how your colleague didn't get
a mention.

 >You might like to check out my book 'UFO Crash Landing?' - written
 >in l997 about the case - or the extensive work that David Alpin
 >and I did when putting together the 'Strange But True?' TV
 >documentary on this case in l994. Georgina doesn't mention me in
 >connection this in her book - but mentions the documentary and
 >David Alpin . I am not interested in being given credit for
 >this. But I do want Listers to realise that this programme
 >reflects my input from start to finish - over four months of it
 >in fact - and should be seen - along with 'Crash Landing' - and,
 >of course, 'The UFOs that Never Were' - as part of my extensive
 >discussion of this case in recent years.

Well Jenny I am so glad you clarified all that to the List
because I will now explain why I didn't give you a mention with
regard to the Strange But True? programme.

The producer, David Alpin was a guest at my book launch party
and I discussed the programme with him, explaining that there
was one hell of an error, which was used to give credit to the
programme. David had to agree. I told him that his researcher
had got it wrong  - that was you Jenny!

I didn't mention you in the book so as not to discredit you
because there were already several faults I had found with your
research on this case and I didn't want to add to them.

But the truth is that Malcolm Scurrah's incident had nothing to
do with the December 1980 incident. It was a separate issue.
Malcolm told me he had explained all this to the researcher and
it had been ignored in favour of making his case fit in with the
Rendlesham case. He even offered, according to him, the names of
two other witnesses, but the researcher didn't bother to contact
them.

So in fact, I was trying to do you a favour. But there you have
it!

 >>I was posted on the East Gate, due to my low rank, many times
 >>and it was quite clear what the light house was, where it was
 >>and the effect it had at night on clear and foggy nights.

 >And I have frequently made the point that from the East Gate you
 >could see the beam sweeping over the trees and anyone who had
 >been there had to have been aware of its presence. So you are
 >really arguing at a disadvantage here - as I assume you have not
 >read my quite extensive writings on this case. If you had then I
 >don't think you would be chiding me over things that are simply
 >not in keeping what anything that I am really saying.

How on earth can you accuse a witness of arguing at a
disadvantage! My goodness Jenny, where are you going with this?

Not everyone agrees with you. Did you actually walk up that long
road to the east gate post and stand there before the trees were
felled?

Anyway, Steve didn't see a beam - he saw a huge object hovering
above his head. Read the book for the full report.

You have gone on and on about your theories and yet you have a
perfect opportunity here to question the witness. But no, you
claim that he is at a disadvantage because he probably hasn't
read your extensive writings.

That, my friends, has to be the quote of the millennium!

That is just the kind of thing that makes me realise just how
ridiculous the sceptics theories are.


Georgina Bruni

YOU CAN'T TELL THE PEOPLE
The Definitive Account of the Rendlesham Forest UFO Mystery
By Georgina Bruni Published by Sidgwick & Jackson
Available on-line at: www.amazon.co.uk www.whsmith.co.uk
View and listen to Georgina Bruni talking about the book at:
www.relaxwithabook.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 >
   Dec > Dec 22

             Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles - Bruni

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 20:33:22 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 12:31:10 -0500
Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles - Bruni


 >From: Gary Anthony <garyant@mithrand.karoo.co.uk>
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles
 >Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 21:28:50 -0000

 >I am sure there are a few people, who will want to ask Georgina
 >further questions about her book and research; and how she has
 >arrived at her conclusions in 'You Can't Tell The People.'  In
 >fact on that very subject, Larry Warren, who will be speaking at
 >a Hull UFO Society Meeting in January is stating he has spotted
 >over 100+ mistakes from reading Georgina's book. So yet again,
 >we see the wheel of Rendlesham turn. If Warren is right, can
 >Georgina's book still be called a 'definitive account?' And this
 >is the point 'who is right?' And at best 'what can be stated
about this case with any certainty?' And is all of this covered
 >in Georgina's book (no I don't think so)


Now that doesn't surprise me in the least. As is usual with
Larry, the story grows and grows and grows! Last week it was
over 100 mistakes, then a few days later it turned into an
incredible 400 +.

Larry is obviously upset with me because I uncovered a number of
things that didn't please him. For anybody who has a list of
these 100 or 400 errors I will be glad to respond.

You must remember that Larry was only in the Air Force for a
period of six months... and at the time of the incident he had
only been at the base for a couple of weeks or less. Larry's
claims that General Gordon Williams was out in the forest
communicating with entities is not an issue - it never happened.


Best wishes

Georgina Bruni

YOU CAN'T TELL THE PEOPLE
The Definitive Account of the Rendlesham Forest UFO Mystery
By Georgina Bruni Published by Sidgwick & Jackson
Available on-line at: www.amazon.co.uk  www.whsmith.co.uk
View and listen to Georgina Bruni talking about the book at:
www.relaxwithabook.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 >
   Dec > Dec 22

                    Re: Bentwaters Book Review - Randles

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 22:29:31 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 12:33:43 -0500
Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review - Randles


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review
 >Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 10:21:48 -0600

 >>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles
 >>Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 00:57:29 -0000


 >Jenny,

 >With all due respect, Easton went far beyond "strong feelings"
 >in his vicious - and, one might add, sexist - outrburst against
 >Georgina. Discussions on this List are often vigorous and
 >sometimes even heated, and most have no trouble with that, but
 >what Easton did was well beyond the pale, and I'm surprised that
 >the best you can manage is a feeble "inappropriate" to
 >characterize such outrageous conduct.

 >Jerry Clark

Hi,

I thought I made clear that I did not approve of or support what
he did. It 'was' an inappropriate response that he posted. But
unlike some I don't feel the need to descend into personal
conflict over such an issue - dragging out what was a deeply
unfortunate message (that I hope he now regrets) at the expense
of more 'appropriate' discussions that this List is designed to
facilitate.

If he had posted any such comment like that about me then I
would have defended myself defiantly in reply and made clear to
him directly (but off List) that he had gone too far. That would
have been the appropriate reaction IMO.

Having a debate over the right words to use to properly describe
what was a clearly very misguided post some months ago would not
serve much of a purpose in my view.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 22

                Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles -

From: Dwight Connelly <bookdc@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 22:37:11
Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 12:37:13 -0500
Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles -


 >From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles
 >Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 01:30:55 -0000


 >>From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
 >>Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 13:30:13 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 ><snip>

 >>I still have one question pending for Jenny Randles: when are
 >>you going to publish your records of pilots who saw nothing at
 >>Lakenheath? (the "COMETA boys" are still waiting). When you say
 >>that publicly, in order to put in doubt the COMETA report a week
 >>after its release in France, you _must_ produce them.

 ><snip>

 >The Lakenheath investigation has been taking up a great deal of
 >our time within UFOIN during the past year. Myself, Andy
 >Roberts, David Clarke and others have been pursuing it
 >rigorously and with considerable success.

 >Indeed I think it is fair to say we have uncovered more on this
 >case in this research effort than the rest of Ufology did on the
 >case during the past 44 years. And that is not intended as a
 >boast - simply a statement of what has happened. Some of this
 >has been down to fortune. Some thanks to tenacity and
 >persistence. But we have uncovered considerable new material on
 >this famous old case and that's what we will be publishing when
 >we are ready.

<snip>

 >Believe me, the work we have done will revolutionise the
 >understanding of this case by Ufologists so it will be worth
 >waiting for. We are not making egotistical claims that this is
 >some genius investigation. Merely that we have been fortunate to
 >make significant progress on this famous case.

 >And this isn't being held over for use in a book or anything
 >like that - before anyone asks. As soon as UFOIN has all of this
 >material properly together we will issue a report for all to
 >see. That remains a firm promise.


Jenny,

This sounds very interesting. I hope you can share this with
MUFON Journal readers in some way without compromising your
other commitments. I would, of course, be prepared to give it a
lot of space.

Dwight







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 22

                           "The Truth's In Here!"

From: Wendy Christensen <christensen@catlas.mv.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 21:51:39 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 12:40:07 -0500
Subject: "The Truth's In Here!"


This will be of particular interest to certain denizens of UFO
UpDates:

http://www.cropcirclebeer.com/


Happy Holidays!

Wendy Christensen








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 22

                Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles -

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 02:49:33 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 12:46:52 -0500
Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles -


 >From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles
 >Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 00:57:29 -0000


 >>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 16:20:29 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles
 >>>Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 13:01:08 -0000

 >>>>From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles
 >>>>Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 16:23:59 -0000

 >><snip>


 >>Hi Jenny, Georgina & List,

 >>Well, Jenny, can you please tell what James Easton has
 >>contributed to the direct understanding of the Rendlesham case
 >>that still stands and hasn't been overturned, refuted or
 >>superseded? You say he has written practically a book-length
 >>in-depth study of the case which you chide Georgina for
 >>omitting, but forgive me for asking, what _specifically_ in this
 >>long study should she have mentioned of Easton's work that
 >>hasn't been refuted? You credit him with bringing to public
 >>light the unpublished Cabansag-Burroughs-Penniston statements,
 >>so he should get a historical footnote for that, but in fact he
 >>has never published the full texts of these documents so far as
 >>I know

Hi Jenny,

Before I even get to the first part of your reply (below) I must
respectfully point out that you do _not_ answer my questions
above. You do not explain what Easton has _specifically_
contributed to the understanding of the Rendlesham case that
hasn't been overturned, and which of these contributions
Georgina should have mentioned in her book. I tried hard to come
up with something more than an historical footnote for Easton
making known the Cabansag-Burroughs-Penniston statements, though
only partially and select ively, but I could not come up with
much of anything but one new witness he found, Sgt. Randy Smith
(but how many more did Georgina find? how many did you find? now
compare to how many Easton found).

All you say is that Easton changed some others' opinions and
raised some questions (which I will get to) but you don't say
_what_ it was specifically that had this effect and what facts
or new evidence he brought out to do so -- other than the
factually and scientifically false Lighthouse Theory, which you
allude to as if it still has some validity (e.g., when you claim
Col Halt mistook lighthouses). Yet I pleaded with you in the
part of my post you snipped out to not ignore or evade the
Directional Data on the supposedly "identical direction" to the
Orfordness Lighthouse and the UFO -- which in fact is not true
and that fact totally refutes the theory. I also mentioned the
Terrain Visibility data which you avoid discussing. More on this
below.

Because so much of my posting wassnipped out without even
indicating by "<snip>" or ellipses (. . .) that it had been
done, I must give the link to my full posting so that readers
may easily refer back to it:

http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2000/dec/m19-003.shtml


 >>So Jenny, do you agree or disagree that there were 2-mile chases
 >>of the Orfordness Lighthouse by both of these USAF teams as
 >>Easton claims?

Again, Jenny, you didn't answer this question of mine. Please do
not refer to momentary observations of the lighthouse beam from
the East Gate as that is _irrelevant_ to the purported
2-mile-long "chase" of the lighthouse through woods and fields,
which Easton claims. I know that you personally witnessed how
the beacon was visible from Woodbridge base's East Gate at night
and you have reiterated that many times I'm afraid to the point
of ad nauseam, and it just doesn't have any bearing on an
alleged (and in fact physically impossible) 2-mile-long "chase"
of the lighthouse east-southeast of there. It certainly does not
have anything to do with Cabansag -Burroughs-Penniston
experiencing a repeat UFO visitation heading back _WEST_ after
the 2-mile eastward journey as that is in the opposite direction
from Orfordness Lighthouse. Easton suppresses this westward UFO
encounter from his near-book-length articles.

Again, recall that Easton asserts "how that three-man patrol
ended up chasing the beacon from Orford Ness lighthouse for an
incredible two miles through forest and countryside at 3 o'clock
in the morning." Easton goes on to allege that two nights later
"Halt's own sighting of 'weird lights' was from the same
location" as the "three security policemen chasing the beacon
from Orford Ness lighthouse" and "in the identical direction."
See Easton's posting with these claims:

http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2000/sep/m04-002.shtml

This is where the Terrain Visibility issue comes into play. I
have pointed out repeatedly that the Orfordness Lighthouse
beacon was not visible for at least 1.9 miles of the 2 mile trek
by the two different USAF teams of Dec 26 and 28, 1980. If this
wasn't true I am sure Easton & Co. would come down on me like a
ton of bricks to correct my egregious error and chastize me from
now till eternity on the falsity of my claim.

Why won't you and Easton and others who support _some_ or all of
the Lighthouse Theory deal with this fact? Why won't you
respond? I have not couched this in the abusive language and
vicious tones that some have used on this List. I have kept this
very factual and objective but I must admit that I'm getting
frustrated here. I do not think this is intellectually proper to
just continue to dodge the issue.

 >>Recently you have been pointing out to Easton
 >>that even from the one tiny location where the Orfordness
 >>lighthouse beacon _is_ visible it is _above_ the trees and not
 >>down in and between the trees where the UFO was seen. That is an
 >>excellent point and I thank you for raising it -- I only wish
 >>you would do so more widely.


 >Hi,

 >Briefly, I do appreciate your views on this and will simply
 >note:

 >1: None of this matter regarding the review is to do with how
 >James Easton conducts himself with others. I was personally not
 >impressed with his outburst against Georgina Bruni on this list.
 >It was inappropriate, in my opinion. But that is a personal
 >thing between the two of them and Updates does at time engender
 >strong feelings, of course.

Jenny, this is very pertinent to your criticism of Georgina for
failing to discuss in her book Easton's alleged contributions to
the Rendlesham case. Why should she mention someone who is so
foulmouthed and has so little of substance to contribute? In my
post I pointed out that in her book Georgina might have been
justified in ignoring the marginal contributions from a
character who was so outrageous as to refer to her in public on
this List as "you pitiable little bitch" and "you're so full of
shite [sic]" and more (and other venomous personal attacks long
before and since, publicly and privately). I am willing to
consider that even "a Jack the Ripper" (as you put it) might
have something to say substantively in an intellectual debate
but he deserves very little personal consideration in view of
the seriousness of the breach of civilized conduct and there
ought to be some immediate demonstration of this supposed
substance rather than waste any further time with it.


 >2: Neither is any of this is to do with the ultimate truth or
 >non truth of the lighthouse theory - which will be proven or
 >disproved in the fullness of time.

It has everything to do with the Lighthouse Theory whose main
defender and apologist is James Easton, and whose principal
contribution to the Rendlesham case is apparently this bogus
theory, and who evades, dodges and distorts the scientific
evidence demolishing this theory. And by that "scientific
evidence" I mean the Directional Data and the Terrain
Visibility. Instead he attacks the strawmen of the witnesses,
which no matter how inaccurate, cannot possibly see something
that was physically impossible to see or was flatly in the wrong
direction during the incident, or both.

 >As you point out above, and as I have gone on record more than
 >once in various places, I am not personally persuaded that this
 >case resolves into something as simple as just a misperception
 >of the lighthouse. Whilst I am more amenable to the possibility
 >than I once was the resolution of all the evidence does not as
 >yet convince me. Although that the lighthouse had a part to play
 >in the case is something that I think more likely to be proven
 >true. And that there are aspects to this case that seem likely
 >to now have resolution is, I think, inescapable.

In short, Jenny, you think the Lighthouse Theory is an
"inescapable" explanation for at least "part" of the Rendlesham
case. Am I right?

So here are the Directional Data, based on (a) compass bearings
taken by Halt's men and the independent evidence of (b) the
route taken by the USAF parties, and I again request that you
respond on this issue since Easton keeps saying the UFO and
Orfordness Lighthouse were in the "identical direction":

Col. Halt's team repeatedly measured first a 120-degree magnetic
heading to the UFO at the near-landing site, then consistently
110-120-degree magnetic bearings throughout the 2-mile trek,
which they followed to the end, except of course when the UFO
maneuvered by up to forty degrees in direction and they could
not follow it. Easton and gang almost always omit the 120-degree
figures and emphasize the 110-degree headings as much as
possible so they can get the bearings 10 degrees closer to the
Orfordness Lighthouse. Problem is that at the _beginning_ of the
alleged lighthouse chase, that lighthouse was at 95-96 degrees
magnetic, depending on the exact landing site (which doesn't
matter much as it accounts for only about a 1 degree variation).
And at the _end_ of the purported 2-mile chase, the Orfordness
Lighthouse would have been at about 83 degrees magnetic,
depending on the exact end point east of the Butley Farm.

This is not rocket science, Jenny, you can do the math as to how
far off the UFO heading was from the Orfordness Lighthouse. At
the beginning, the UFO and lighthouse would have been about 25
degrees apart, assuming the lighthouse beacon could even be
seen. At the end the directions would have deviated even further
because the USAF men were not heading towards the lighthouse,
till they were about 30 degrees apart. Sure, lay witnesses who
merely guess at directions and have no training in the use of
compasses and maps can make errors this great, but _not_
military personnel making actual _repeated_ real-time
_measurements_ of the UFO's direction with a magnetic compass
over and over again throughout the two-hour encounter. These are
real-time quantitative measurements, not estimates made after
the fact.

Suppose we just throw out the compass readings entirely, chalk
it off as some kind of weird error, the lighthouse directional
data is still a physical impossibility for another devastating
reason: The ultimate fatal blow to the Lighthouse Theory is the
fact that the USAF teams on either night could not possibly have
followed the Orfordness Lighthouse, not just because it was
invisible, but also because if they could have somehow followed
the correct 95-96-degree compass direction towards the
lighthouse they would have run straight into the Butley Abbey at
about 0.7 mile into their 2-mile course -- which they manifestly
did not do. They would have been forced to steer farther to the
east-southeast avoiding the Abbey, going through the Stonebridge
Marshes, in exactly the compass direction they recorded, about
120 degs magnetic, otherwise if they'd gone on too southeasterly
a heading they would have entered the Oak Wood or run into Capel
St. Andrew.

Likewise, the USAF teams on either night could not possibly have
followed the oceanic lighthouse called the Shipwash Lightship to
the south -- another recent and desperate grasping at straws by
Easton and gang -- because by following its approximate
162-degree magnetic heading the USAF parties would have run
right into the town of Boyton at about 1.3 miles into their
journey, which they patently did not do. (At the end of the two
miles the Orfordness Lighthouse, in comparison, would have been
at an even more absurdly discrepant bearing of about 73 degrees.
The Shipwash Lightship's location in 1980 as best as I can
measure on Trinity House's online map was about 17 miles S and 2
miles E of Orfordness Lighthouse. Easton and Ridpath. et al.,
have never obtained the exact coordinates to my knowledge, and
from here in the U.S. I cannot find out more.)

Thus, the actual course followed by the two USAF teams utterly
falsifies the Lighthouse Theory by independently providing
evidence of an approximately 120-degree magnetic course that was
followed through the Stonebridge Marshes, even if we ignored the
actual compass measurements showing just such a heading. It is
glaringly obvious that the UFO these teams followed on this
course could not possibly have been the invisible Orfordness
Lighthouse at about 83-96 degs magnetic on the left, or the
Shipwash Lightship at about 162-165 degs magnetic on the right.
And the UFO seen to the West on the return of the
Cabansag-Burroughs-Penniston group obviously could not have been
a lighthouse.

Jenny, it is incumbent on everyone else who still holds to any
aspect of the Lighthouse Theory to deal with these facts. If
they are not "facts" then there had better be some scientific
proof of it, and not a pseudoscientific evasion requiring a
massive violation of the laws of physics as to geodesy and
geophysics or an endless stream of vacuous opinion. I note that
the Brits promoting the Lighthouse Theory have superior access
to topographic maps of Rendlesham than those of us here in the
States and they have been taking full advantage of that to
posture all sorts of nonsense that has been difficult to double
check. I have finally found an online source of topo maps of the
area at the following web address:

http://www.streetmap.co.uk/

The landing site is near the letter "G" in "Capel Green" on this
online version of the Ordnance Survey maps. Fastest way to get
to the correct grid location is to enter as "UK Place" the name
Capel St. Andrew and then move north one click, go west to see
the East Gate area of Woodbridge Airfield, go east several
clicks to see Orfordness Lighthouse. I use the
latitude-longitude coordinates for exact directions because the
map is laid out on the Ordnance Survey's frustrating Grid North
which is several degrees off of True North. Magnetic bearings
can be found by adding the 5-degree declination for Dec 1980 in
the Rendlesham area to the true azimuths (declination value from
the International Geomagnetic Reference Field).

 >3: As such in my review I was not defending James Easton
 >personally nor championing the lighthouse theory - except that I
 >regard his research as important enough to require proper debate

Jenny, please, please tell me _what_ "research" of Easton's is
"important"? Can you please spare me a few lines out of your
105-line post to tell me what these items of his research
are, as I have begged you to do? How can it be "properly
debated" if we don't know what it is? Surely you can list out
these points of his that you consider so important to debate --
so they can be debated! Or are you saying the Lighthouse Theory
is "it," that that is indeed Easton's main contribution to the
Rendlesham case?

 >- and the non UFO theory for this case to require proper
 >analysis. So IMO, and that's all it is, anyone seeking to address
 >the complex issues surrounding this case has an obligation to
 >study the written reports that James Easton has produced since
 >l997 and contemplate the questions that he poses from them. We
 >must resolve issues such as Charles Halt's testimony in which he
 >pretty clearly seems to describe seeing the Shipwash lightship
 >whilst thinking he was looking at the Ness lighthouse. As such a
 >situation, if proven true, clearly would have major implications
 >for this case.

Wait a minute here, Jenny, let's resolve this here and now. Did
Col Halt actually say he was talking about the _Orfordness_
Lighthouse? As I recall the question put to him by Salley Rayl
was ambiguous and merely asked about "the lighthouse" without
specifying _WHICH_ lighthouse (I could be wrong but this can be
checked). Halt's answer was that "the lighthouse" was about
30-40 degrees to the right or south of the UFO from the initial
landing site, which is a dead on bullseye for the location of
the Shipwash Lightship about 42 degs to the right of the UFO (if
the UFO was at about 120 degs magnetic, Shipwash at about 162
degs).

It should be painfully obvious to all but the most narrowminded
obscurantist that Halt clearly and accurately distinguished
between the UFO and the Shipwash Lightship lighthouse and
actually had the difference in directional bearings accurate to
within a few degrees -- a remarkable testimony to the accuracy
of his testimony. What name Halt attached to "the lighthouse,"
if even he knew the name for it back in 1980 during the sighting
is irrelevant, call it XYZ Lighthouse or whatever you want, the
only thing important to a discussion of the directional data is
obviously its _direction_. Halt may have given it the wrong
name in later years due to interviewers suggesting it to him,
but that doesn't affect his observational data from 1980.

It doesn't matter what name Halt gave to "the lighthouse," as
the only one he could have seen _at length_ at the same time as
the UFO and been familiar with was the Shipwash beacon. The
Shipwash Lightship was reportedly visible pretty much everywhere
along their UFO pursuit and was seen way off to the right of the
UFO in the south. If the Orfordness Lighthouse was invisible
from virtually every location Halt was at, except at the end of
the 2-mile hike, how could it possibly have been relevant except
at that end point? If it was visible only at the end how could
they possibly have "followed" it for the preceding 2 miles
through the forest and fields? But I can safely predict that
debunkers will continue to dishonestly make mischief out of this
business of the wrong lighthouse name, despite the truth.

I have studied Easton's written reports and I find the questions
he raises are based on misunderstandings or, after he is
corrected on these misunderstandings and he persists in them,
then what may once started as honest misunderstandings become
deliberate misrepresentations calculated to mislead the public.
I have corrected him on many such points, such as visibility,
directional data, Halt's observations, etc., and he continues to
promote the original misinformation and confusion, totally
ignoring the corrections and totally failing to prove me wrong
if in fact I am in error.


 >4: I was not aware that James Easton is suppressing data. I'll
 >let him answer that charge directly. All I can say is that he
 >was the first to bring to my attention the existence of these
 >documents, has freely supplied them to me in full and asked
 >nothing in return. I have not witnessed any suppression on his
 >part - merely an attempt to persuade me that his view on this
 >case is right.

Easton suppresses the fact that Cabansag and Burroughs had a
repeat UFO sighting on their way back to their vehicle looking
to the West, the opposite direction from the Orfordness
Lighthouse. He only discusses this on his restricted email list
and not in his published articles, since it obviously
contradicts his Lighthouse Theory. He suppresses the fact that
Chandler and Buran both report in their Jan 1981 statements that
_during_ the UFO sighting while they were in radio relay contact
with Penniston that Penniston vehemently denied that he was
being confused by a lighthouse beacon which he could also see.
This is a very damaging fact that the Lighthouse Theory was
actually proposed and investigated and rejected as the sighting
transpired in December 1980!

He has selectively quoted from these Jan 1981 witness statements
for _years_ now and refuses to provide the public with the
_full_ texts of _all_ of them. (Unless he has just now taken
down his website in response to my posting so he can modify what
is posted on it.) It is very convenient for him that
independent researchers are unable to read these documents in
full for themselves and thus cannot give a full critical
evaluation of his theories.

He continues to suppress or distort the Directional Data and
Terrain Visibility data in his published articles on his
website. There is more discussion on his restricted list but
even there it still engages in massive distortion such as trying
to suppress most mentions of the 120-degree compass readings by
Col Hart's team in preference to the 110-degree readings.

Easton for a long time suppressed Halt's interview testimony
about how the southern UFO that shined the laser-like
pencil-thin beam on the ground near him had shot to an overhead
position above Halt at an estimated altitude of about 2,000 to
4,000 feet when it shined the beam, before moving on to the
north where the beam was projected onto the Bentwaters nuclear
Weapons Storage Area (WSA). Easton continues to minimize,
downplay or suppress the fact that it was this startling
maneuver that caused Col Halt to radio Eastern Radar Control at
3:25 AM to report the potentially threatening event.

I wasted a lot of time trying to correlate the southern UFO with
astronomical objects oblivious to this vital witness testimony
that makes such explanations utter nonsense.


 >Whilst I see where he is coming from and have
 >certainly reappraised my stance by my debate with him, I have
 >not - as yet - been utterly convinced that this case is now
 >fully resolved. In particular the 'close encounter' phase -
 >during which Burroughs and Penniston apparently experienced
 >physiological effects and reality distortions infers more than a
 >misperception of the lighthouse at work to me. But I feel I am
 >more aware of the subtleties of the case and the likelihood that
 >some parts of it are potentially resolvable as a consequence of
 >the questions that I forced to ask myself - and this was in part
 >thanks to James Easton's research.

Again, what "questions" arose thanks in part to Easton's
"research"?

 >In my book review, therefore, I merely noted - not that the case
 >is solved - as I do not contend that it is - but that the
 >arguments and data put into the arena by James Easton have had a
 >profound effect on the views of several Ufologists, at least
 >three of whom have told me that they have become skeptics on
 >this matter as a consequence. This surely indicates that the
 >material was sufficiently powerful that it should not simply be
 >ignored. If it is changing the views of Ufologists it cannot be
 >an irrelevance.

What are these "arguments and data" put into the "arena" by
Easton? What was it of Easton's that had such a "profound
effect" on several UFOlogists that it turned them into skeptics
on Rendlesham?

 >Yes, much of it is going to be debatable and is rightly being
 >contested. But the debate is one that is necessary to have when
 >reviewing this case. Really that was my only point.

 >Whilst, as I noted, Georgina's book is a fine addition to the
 >analysis of this case and it has some good points, it fails to
 >address these issues to the degree that I believe they deserve
 >and I merely pointed that out.

Well, Jenny, I am still baffled as to what these crucial
"issues" are, unless it's just the exploded Lighthouse Theory.
Do you mean every nitpicking distortion, misrepresentation or
misunderstanding of the case details that Easton has ever put
forward? Legitimate questions are helpful but illegitimate ones
waste valuable research time. And even better than questions
are _answers_., if they are reliable and scientific.

 >By all means disagree. But it is what I genuinely believe, hence
 >its appearance in my review.

 >Best wishes,

 >Jenny Randles

I hope for substantive answers and discussion on this case now
that Georgina's book has brought things to a head. I am frankly
tired of disagreeing opinions. Let's have the facts and focus
on them rather than opinions.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 22

                          Human Microwave Heating?

From: Ken Kelly <elprospero@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 01:42:46 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 12:52:14 -0500
Subject: Human Microwave Heating?


Does anyone know of UFO reports in which the witness was
internally heated?

As James McCampbell noted, sufficiently intense microwave
radiation will cause internal heating similar to medical
diathermy.

I have been able to find about a dozen UFO reports in which the
witness described a feeling of warmth that seemingly originated
inside their body, as opposed to being radiated from the outside.


If there are other such cases in the UFO literature, I would be
extremely grateful to hear of them.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 22

                Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles -

From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 09:02:30 -0600
Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 13:05:08 -0500
Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles -


 >From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles
 >Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 17:19:35 -0000

 >>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 00:28:27 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Robert wrote, regarding the UFOIN investigation of the
 >Bentwaters/Lakenheath 'radar visual'

 >>I "predict" that the final report, that is released will be
 >>along the lines of pelicans and lighthouses in a figurative
 >>sense.

 >>Don't have to be very bright to figure out what conclusion the
 >>report will end with..... :)

 >>I hope they prove me wrong, but alas, I highly doubt it.

 >So Robert, let's get this right, based on the above.....

 >* You can predict the future

 >* You have clearly never done any investigation into the
 >  case yourself

 >* You clearly state that you are 'not very bright'

 >* If a case report doesn't agree with your believer position it
 >  is wrong even though it is based on primary sources and in
 >  depth investigation

 >Lawdy!

 >I rest my valise.


Best snatch that puppy back up before somebody uses it for a
porta-potty, Mr. Young. Tabling Mr. Gates "believer position"
for just a moment, it is not difficult for _anyone_ to be twice
shy after being bitten once, and we've all been bitten many,
many times. Ooops! Looks like you were late getting that
valise up. <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 >
   Dec > Dec 22

                            Web-Based Translation

From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 16:58:58 +0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 13:15:32 -0500
Subject: Web-Based Translation


Hi All,

If any one out there is in need of a Translation Program for
most European Languages, have a look at this site.

It is handy to have a translation program if you are receiving
UFO magazines etc., in languages other than English.

www.systransoft.com

Hope this may be of some help to you.



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

Bonjour Tous,

Si n'importe quel l a dehors besoin d'un programme de
traduction pour la plupart des langues europennes, allez voir
ce site.

Il est maniable pour avoir un programme de traduction si vous
recevez les magazines etc. d'UFO dans d'autres langages que
www.systransoft.com anglais

Esprez que ceci peut se produire d'aide  vous.


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

Hallo Alle,

Wenn irgendein heraus dort ein bersetzungsprogramm fr die meisten
europischen Sprachen bentigt, haben Sie einen Blick an dieser
Site.

Es ist handlich, ein bersetzungsprogramm zu haben, wenn Sie
UFO-Zeitschriften etc. in anderen Sprachen als englisches
www.systransoft.com empfangen

Hoffen Sie, da dieses von etwas Hilfe zu Ihnen sein kann.

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

Hi Tudo,

Se qualquer para fora l estiver na necessidade de um programa da
traduo para a maioria de lnguas europias, tenha um olhar neste
local.

 acessvel ter um programa da traduo se voc estiver recebendo
os compartimentos etc. do UFO em outras lnguas do que
www.systransoft.com ingls

Espere que isto possa ser de alguma ajuda a voc.

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

Hi Tutti,

Se qualunque fuori l  necessitante un programma di traduzione per
la maggior parte dei linguaggi comunitari, abbia uno sguardo a questo
luogo.

 pratico avere un programma di traduzione se state ricevendo gli
scomparti ecc. del UFO in altri linguaggi che www.systransoft.com
inglese

Speri che questo possa essere di un certo aiuto a voi.

-----------

Hi Todos,

Si hacia fuera all est en necesidad de un programa de la
traduccin para la mayora de los lenguajes europeos, tenga una
mirada en este sitio.

Es prctico tener un programa de la traduccin si usted est
recibiendo los compartimientos etc. del UFO en otros lenguajes que
www.systransoft.com ingls

Espere que esto pueda estar de una cierta ayuda a usted.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 23

               Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Peterborough

From: Kelly Peterborough <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 13:25:04 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 07:46:46 -0500
Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Peterborough


 >From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Review Debate
 >Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 21:37:20 -0000

 >>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Review Debate
 >>Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 14:35:20 -0000

 >>>From: Steven R. LaPlume <slaplume@recon-inc.com>
 >>>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Review Debate
 >>>Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 08:08:13 -0800

 >>>At least Ms Bruni has investigated this matter to the best of
 >>>her ability.
 >
 >>A point I do actually affirm in my review, if you read it. Its
 >>one of the many positive things I say - things that seem to be
 >>forgotten - in a review that you (very unfairly) (in a private
 >>message to me) term a 'trashing'.

 >Many positive things? Really Jenny, who you kidding? I agree
 >with Steve La Plume (who, as a first hand witness, should have a
 >better opinion) that you trashed it!

<snip>

Oh for crying out loud Georgina, I don't know either you or
Jenny (and by the way I am also invited to many functions - who
cares?), howver, it seems to me, as an impartial observor, that
you can't take the heat of the kitchen. In fact, when I read the
review, I had a favorable and interesting overview of your book
- unfortunately, your posts here have made me wonder about you
as an author and/or journalist.

A few years ago a young writer asked me for help, and I did -
for free of charge - and he had extreme difficulty with any
suggestions. I told him that to survive as a writer, you have to
accept criticism, editing, and reviews. It is - for better or
worse - being a part of a writer's life.

I find it astonishing that you are so sensitive to Jenny's very
favorable review. I don't understand that. Perhaps this is the
first book you've written? Perhaps, because you believe in
yourself and your book so much you cannot tolerate anything less
than total acceptance?

I'm just guessing here, as I cannot figure out why you are so
upset with Jenny's review. In fact, to me, you come across as a
amateur writer and have damaged your reputation in my eyes.

That may not be a big deal to you - after all I am just a reader
of fortean books, but you have turned me off enough that
although I was going to buy your book based on Jenny's review, I
now have second thoughts. I will buy it, but with reservations,
and your attitude towards Jenny's review will colour my reading
of it.

Sorry, but you have made your book ridiculously personal now.
And you have only yourself to blame for that. If you wish to be
an admired author, I suggest that you somehow learn to not make
war over what was a very positive review of your book.

Don't worry! As Empress of the Universe, I get complaints all
the time too!

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 >
   Dec > Dec 23

                    Re: Human Microwave Heating? - Liddle

From: Sean Liddle <gortrix@kos.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 12:31:23 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 07:48:29 -0500
Subject: Re: Human Microwave Heating? - Liddle


 >Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 01:42:46 -0800 (PST)
 >From: Ken Kelly <elprospero@yahoo.com>
 >Subject: Human Microwave Heating?
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Does anyone know of UFO reports in which the witness was
 >internally heated?

 >As James McCampbell noted, sufficiently intense microwave
 >radiation will cause internal heating similar to medical
 >diathermy.


I believe that is why many abductees report strange cuts and
markings on their body. Everyone knows you have to poke holes in
potatoes and sausages before you nuke em else they will pop.

Maybe the mutilated cows we find are experiments with non-pokes
lifeforms and microwave radiation.

:)







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 23

                     Re: Bentwaters Book Review - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 13:04:07 -0600
Fwd Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 07:51:24 -0500
Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review - Clark


 >From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review
 >Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 22:29:31 -0000


 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review
 >>Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 10:21:48 -0600

 >>>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles
 >>>Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 00:57:29 -0000


Jenny,

 >>With all due respect, Easton went far beyond "strong feelings"
 >>in his vicious - and, one might add, sexist - outrburst against
 >>Georgina. Discussions on this List are often vigorous and
 >>sometimes even heated, and most have no trouble with that, but
 >>what Easton did was well beyond the pale, and I'm surprised that
 >>the best you can manage is a feeble "inappropriate" to
 >>characterize such outrageous conduct.

 >I thought I made clear that I did not approve of or support what
 >he did. It 'was' an inappropriate response that he posted.

No, it was not just "inappropriate." It was and is unacceptable,
and it should be condemned. And this is a man you call a
"colleague"?

 >But
 >unlike some I don't feel the need to descend into personal
 >conflict over such an issue - dragging out what was a deeply
 >unfortunate message (that I hope he now regrets) at the expense
 >of more 'appropriate' discussions that this List is designed to
 >facilitate.

I am not talking about "personal conflict," just a response to
uncivilized behavior appropriate to the crime. Note that Easton
has never retracted or apologized, leaving you only to "hope he
now regrets" his words. There is no evidence that he harbors any
such sentiment. At the least, he owes Georgina - and perhaps
List members as well - an apology.

Your defense of James Easton, who seems by any measure
indefensible, frankly baffles me. You're a better researcher
than he is, and - if we may judge by the offensive List message
we're discussing - you're a better person, too.

Anyway, enough on that subject. This is the holiday season, and
we should all endeavor to think the best of our fellows. Merry
Christmas and Happy New Year to you, my friend.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 23

                        Re: Reluctant Viewers - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 15:07:23 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 07:58:02 -0500
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Velez

 >Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 12:55:07 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >>Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 18:08:30 EST
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Mortellaro

 >>>Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 16:10:44 -0600
 >>>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

Roger writes:

 >With all the claims of abduction and implants that are out
 >there, doesn't it seem a little unlikely that there isn't at
 >least _one_ abductee that has the courage to deal with the
 >issues, has insurance, has a doctor that understands and is
 >interested in the problem, has the resources to find the "proof"
 >that so many would benefit from?

You don't ask for much do you?

Dr. Roger Leir claims to have recovered (15) alleged implants.
He is a "doctor." Yet rather than badger _him_ for "proof," your
chosen course of action is to yakity-yak (empty, egocentric,
'debate for debate's sake') at the abductees on this List. If
the "truth" is what you're after regarding alleged alien
implants, hasn't it occured to you that communicating your
demands for medical/scientific proof stand a better chance of
being addressed if you dealt directly with those people who
claim to have recovered "implants"? (ie; Roger Lier, Whitley
Streiber, Derrel Sims, NIDS, etc.)

I'm not familiar with your situation. Maybe you are a housebound
individual and you need this kind of interaction with people to
help pass the hours. If so, that's ok. Unless there is some
burning "need" that is being fulfilled by your insistance on
making sure that all the abductees on this list know your
personal 'take' on what is happening to us, your "purposes"
(whatever _they_ are) are best served dealing with the likes of
the Sims/Lier duet, NIDS, or Whitley Strieber - because of the
claims he made in "Confirmation" regarding the object that was
surgically recovered from the old man.

You have made your points clearly and stated your personal
opinions to those of us on this List repeatedly. Make your case
to the aforementioned individuals. EBK will forward a copy of
your post to Dr.Lier (or whoever) and if they wish to address
your questions and opinions on the List they will be free to do
so. I have already been around that carousel with both Derrel
Sims and Roger Lier (on this List) 4 or 5 years ago to no avail.
"Why don't you" <eg> have a go at _them_ Roger. Maybe you'll be
able to get more out of them than I did. You love to "debate."
Debate them!

Or, does it (have to be) one of us here on the List that
produces an implant for you?

Mr. Evans, I'm here because myself and my family have been
having experiences/UFO sightings/waking up with frightening
looking marks and fully healed scars for all of our lives. I've
also been willing to participate in any kind of 'reputable'
study from day one. This is all terribly urgent, serious, (and
because of my family's involvement,) a very personal business
for me. I participate in UFO UpDates because I am an abductee
and because many moons ago EBK _invited_ me to participate.

I'm just not clear on what your field of expertise or UFO
related experience, involvement/motivation is for being in
ufology. Idle curiosity? Or is it related to a 'professional'
interest?

Personal note:

Although it may bring you some kind of psychological comfort to
think that, I "don't like" you personally - as you mentioned in
a previous post - the simple truth is; I don't have any feelings
for, or about you, one way or the other. You have developed the
bad habit of believing your own press when it comes to what
_you_ think it is that "I think and feel."

You can lose the, "he hates me" excuse Roger.

It's _not_ "personal" and never has been! <LOL> We're not in
Kansas or Jr. High any more!  ;)



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 >
   Dec > Dec 23

                Roger Leir guest on Horizons Tonight 12/22/00

From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@digidezign.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 14:19:58 -0600
Fwd Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 08:54:22 -0500
Subject: Roger Leir guest on Horizons Tonight 12/22/00


Horizons Webcast tonight |  8 PM CST |  Guest Dr. Roger Leir

Horizons returns tonight with a live webcast, starting at
approximately 8 PM CST.  Tonight's guest will be Dr. Roger
Leir.....author, co-host of Millenium Mysteries Radio, and
researcher into alien implants. You can visit Dr. Leir's website
at:

http://www.alienscalpel.com/main.htm

Dr. Roger Leir will be joining us for an hour long conversation
on alien implants and his work in this mysterious field. We
don't really know if we buy into the belief of implants, or from
where they come from. But, Dr. Leir makes a compelling argument
that they just might be extraterrestrial in origin. Join us at
8:00 PM CST tonight!

And as always, we'll have some of the news of what's weird for
today, and some thoughts on whatever is on our minds.  You can
access the webcast by clicking on the "on air" icon at the
Horizons webpage at:

http://www.oklahomasky.com

You can call in to the webcast and be heard live on the air
yourself!!  Call toll-free at 1-866-834-5753 tonight!  We'll all
hear your voice on the internet and talk about you tomorrow  :)


Bobbie "Jilain" Felder
    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 >
   Dec > Dec 23

             Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles - Young

From: Bob Young YoungBob2@aol.com
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 20:01:11 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 08:55:36 -0500
Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles - Young


 >Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 09:02:30 -0600
 >From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles

 >>From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles
 >>Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 17:19:35 -0000

 >>>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 00:28:27 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>I rest my valise.


 >Best snatch that puppy back up before somebody uses it for a
 >porta-potty, Mr. Young

Hey, Al:

I don't have a dog in this fight.


Clear skies and A Merry Holiday,

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 >
   Dec > Dec 23

                     Re: "The Truth's In Here!" - McCoy

From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 17:53:14 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 08:57:36 -0500
Subject: Re: "The Truth's In Here!" - McCoy


Hello all, Burp!


 >Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 21:51:39 -0500
 >From: Wendy Christensen <christensen@catlas.mv.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates List <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: "The Truth's In Here!"


 >This will be of particular interest to certain denizens of UFO
 >UpDates:

 >http://www.cropcirclebeer.com/

 >Happy Holidays!

 >Wendy Christensen

After a long, long, long, day Christmas Shopping and
experiencing missing time and confusion whist doing so,( along
with missing money in my Bank account) all in the same store I
might add.

I second the toast with a cold Oz (Foster's) waiting in the
fridge.

Happy Holidays!

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 >
   Dec > Dec 23

                Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles -

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 01:51:41 -0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 09:00:10 -0500
Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles -


 >From: Dwight Connelly <bookdc@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles
 >Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 22:37:11

 >>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles
 >>Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 01:30:55 -0000

 >>>From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 13:30:13 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >><snip>

 >>>I still have one question pending for Jenny Randles: when are
 >>>you going to publish your records of pilots who saw nothing at
 >>>Lakenheath? (the "COMETA boys" are still waiting). When you say
 >>>that publicly, in order to put in doubt the COMETA report a week
 >>>after its release in France, you _must_ produce them.

 >><snip>

 >>The Lakenheath investigation has been taking up a great deal of
 >>our time within UFOIN during the past year. Myself, Andy
 >>Roberts, David Clarke and others have been pursuing it
 >>rigorously and with considerable success.

 >>Indeed I think it is fair to say we have uncovered more on this
 >>case in this research effort than the rest of Ufology did on the
 >>case during the past 44 years. And that is not intended as a
 >>boast - simply a statement of what has happened. Some of this
 >>has been down to fortune. Some thanks to tenacity and
 >>persistence. But we have uncovered considerable new material on
 >>this famous old case and that's what we will be publishing when
 >>we are ready.

 ><snip>

 >>Believe me, the work we have done will revolutionise the
 >>understanding of this case by Ufologists so it will be worth
 >>waiting for. We are not making egotistical claims that this is
 >>some genius investigation. Merely that we have been fortunate to
 >>make significant progress on this famous case.

 >>And this isn't being held over for use in a book or anything
 >>like that - before anyone asks. As soon as UFOIN has all of this
 >>material properly together we will issue a report for all to
 >>see. That remains a firm promise.

 >Jenny,

 >This sounds very interesting. I hope you can share this with
 >MUFON Journal readers in some way without compromising your
 >other commitments. I would, of course, be prepared to give it a
 >lot of space.

 >Dwight

Hi,

Its not my decision alone, but I am sure that wont be a problem.

Best wishes,

Jenny








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 23

                  Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Randles

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 02:05:37 -0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 09:07:29 -0500
Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Randles


 >From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Review Debate
 >Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 21:37:20 -0000

<snip>

 >Well Jenny I am so glad you clarified all that to the List
 >because I will now explain why I didn't give you a mention with
 >regard to the Strange But True? programme.

 >The producer, David Alpin was a guest at my book launch party
 >and I discussed the programme with him, explaining that there
 >was one hell of an error, which was used to give credit to the
 >programme. David had to agree. I told him that his researcher
 >had got it wrong - that was you Jenny!

 >I didn't mention you in the book so as not to discredit you
 >because there were already several faults I had found with your
 >research on this case and I didn't want to add to them.

 >But the truth is that Malcolm Scurrah's incident had nothing to
 >do with the December 1980 incident. It was a separate issue.
 >Malcolm told me he had explained all this to the researcher and
 >it had been ignored in favour of making his case fit in with the
 >Rendlesham case. He even offered, according to him, the names of
 >two other witnesses, but the researcher didn't bother to contact
 >them.

 >So in fact, I was trying to do you a favour. But there you have
 >it!


Hi,

I'm afraid it really is frustrating trying to talk to someone
who may try to score points and mislead this List.

Suffice it to say I doubt David Alpin would say anything to
suggest to you that I deceived him over this issue as that would
imply that he is a liar - and in my experience he isn't.

I dare say he will recall what happened over this incident. So
do I.

Malcolm Scurrah told us only that the event occurred late that
year (he had not been able to be more specific ). At no point
during the interviews did he indicate that he was positive these
two events were not connected as he had only then narrowed it
down to the November/December period of l980. That is he was
sure that it had happened at around the same time as the then 14
year old case.

David chose not to make clear that the date of the radar
incident was not precisely known to be coincident during the
script read by Michael Aspel on screen during the documentary.
But he certainly knew the facts. He had his reasons for not
stating there was a proven link which he explained to me and
they were not connected with seeking to deceive viewers. They
were technical.

I argued it out with him when writing this case up into the book
of the series - which I wrote in parallel with the TV scripting.
I said that I felt we had to make the uncertainty of the dates
more clear in the written text - and indeed I always have
ensured that occurred. As such I have 'never' hidden that there
is uncertainty over the date in any of my writings.

To even suggest otherwise is quite simply false.

To demonstrate this all anyone has to do is read this book -
'Strange But True?' (Piatkus) - that I wrote in l994 alongside
the editing by David Alpin of his documentary. This book was
written from the interview material with people - including Mal
Scurrah - and appeared in shops two months 'before' the TV
programme itself went on air - coincident in fact with the
launch of the entire first series of which this documentary was
the final programme.

In my text I state what Mal Scurrah told us - namely

'Although Scurrah is not absolutely certain of the precise date
when these events occurred, he is sure that it was around the
same time.'

And indeed that is what he told us. He did not know exactly when
the radar event had happened but it was towards the end of that
same year. I have letters from him discussing the date and this
does not misrepresent what he said in them. If he subsequently
told a researcher something else I certainly did not know about
it at that time.

That's the position as it was given to us by the witness in l994.
And as you can clearly see I could not have deceived the
programme editor by suggesting that the radar incident was
positively connected directly with this case because otherwise I
would have written that into my text and not the above words.

This text was written first - remember - because of the longer
schedules of publishers and printers and the need to have the
book in shops alongside transmission - this meaning I had to
write it in a few weeks between the interviews being conducted
and the last date the publishers could possibly get the book
out. In other words it was written several months 'before' the
programme was ready.

David proof read my book text alongside his writing of the
scripts so as to ensure that the two were not wildly at variance
and so he could not be unaware of the true situation over the
dating of this event because he read these words at least four
months before the programme was actually transmitted. In fact he
read them some weeks before he handed the script to Michael
Aspel to record the documentary.

Thus your claim is simply groundless.

Since Mal Scurrah has indicated his unhappiness with the lack of
uncertainty expressed by the TV script I have, as a consequence,
been a little more general in my own future references - just
for his benefit. For example, in 'The UFOs that Never Were' -
written last year - I refer to the event as occurring in 'late
November' - which tied in with the best estimate I had got
directly from the witness at our last contact.

So your suggestion to this List that I have mislead any people
over the date is again seen to be baseless.

This List can make their own mind up over this issue but if they
do some homework first and check out for themselves what I have
written then they will immediately realise that your charge has
no validity. I have _never_ deceived anyone as to what we
did/did not know about the date of this event.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 23

                     Re: "The Truth's In Here!" - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 12:56:09 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 09:08:54 -0500
Subject: Re: "The Truth's In Here!" - Hatch


 >Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 21:51:39 -0500
 >From: Wendy Christensen <christensen@catlas.mv.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates List <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: "The Truth's In Here!"

 >This will be of particular interest to certain denizens of UFO
 >UpDates:

 >http://www.cropcirclebeer.com/



Hello.

I didn't see any Crop Circle Beer at the store, I suppose its a
local brand in the UK. [burp!]

- 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 >
   Dec > Dec 23

                     'How To Make FLYOBRPTS' Now On-Line

From: Jim Klotz <jklotz77@foxinternet.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 22:38:11 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 09:14:31 -0500
Subject: 'How To Make FLYOBRPTS' Now On-Line


Please circulate the following:

Just to let you know, the Air Technical Intelligence Center
guide 'HOW TO MAKE FLYOBRPTS' [FLYing OBject RePorTS] is now
available on-line.

This guide was located among the papers of Edward Ruppelt, head
of Project Grudge (later renamed Blue Book) from 1951 through
1953 and author of the seminal UFO work 'The Report on
Unidentified Flying Objects' (Doubleday, 1956.)

Written in 1953, this guide was intended for US Air Force
intelligence officers and others who might have to make UFO
reports and contains all of the reporting forms then current.

Dr. Michael Swords who, in association with The UFO Coalition,
is the custodian of the papers of Edward Ruppelt, provided a
copy of this guide to Jan Aldrich of Project 1947 and in turn,
Jan provided it to CUFON for on-line publication.

This document is provided in Adobe Portable Document Format
(PDF) at:

http://www.cufon.org/cufon/FLYOBRPT.pdf

- 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 >
   Dec > Dec 23

                Re: Subject: Re: Little Community With A Big

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 02:49:19 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 09:17:47 -0500
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: Little Community With A Big


 >Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 00:50:37 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Little Community With A Big Mystery

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 00:30:40 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Little Community With A Big Mystery
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 23:28:42 -0500
 >>>From: Kelly Peterborough <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
 >>>Subject: Little Community With A Big Mystery
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>>December 9, 2000
 >>>http://www.dailycourier.com/CNkeck1209.html

 >I suppose I'm caught blind-sided by the Kecksburg incident.

 >I still have it listed, with two sources other sources at least:
 >FSR Vol. 37 #1 and UFO Magazine (Calif.) Vol. 6 #1.

 >Here, as in the usual books, I read of a 12-foot tall acorn
 >shaped object recovered. If memory serves, it was supposedly
 >trucked away under tight and unusual security.

 >Have those details been explained also? Are they a complete
 >fabrication as well? If so, I will definitely need to change
 >certain ratings in my database.

 >I had once suspected a downed spy satellite, even though the
 >size and post-crash condition would seem to rule this out. If I
 >recall, the recovered 12-foot object was in one piece,
 >relatively intact. I cannot imagine anything like a satellite
 >crashing to earth at those speeds without being pulverized if
 >not vaporized.

 >Was the big acorn complete fiction? I wouldn't be too terribly
 >surprised!

Larry, List:

Excluding the fireball and its cloud train in the sky, there is
no record of anyone in 1965 reporting that they saw anything but
flashing lights in the woods. The local newspaper, the
Greensburg (now Pittsburgh) Tribune-Review, reported a couple
days later the result of its staff's on the scene investigation,
that there were flashing lights reported, but that they were
probably camera flashes or lights from a Pittsburgh TV news
camera. But, it seems that a group of local teenagers ran
through the woods flashing a camera strobe (I have a long,
detailed, signed statement from one participant), which could
account for the 1965 accounts of blue flashing lights.

The first account of an object (not visible but covered on a
truck) seems to have surfaced in 1979 from Bittner. The covered
object on the truck was reported as being about 6 feet in
diameter and about 17 feet long (What did they know, this is
what they thought that a Soviet "rocket" might look like?) Two
other firemen also called into a KDKA-Radio (Pittsburgh) program
and reported seeing lights, but no object.

Only in 1987, 22 years after the incident, did a first account
surface from someone who claims to have seen the acorn-shaped
object, itself, in the woods. This man surfaced at a UFO Week
display at a mall, where local UFO investigators were talking
about the 1965 fireball and incident. About this time UFO
investigators, some of whom had a hunch that a Soviet spacecraft
may have been involved, were circulating a Soviet artist's
drawing of what was purported to have been Cosmos 96.

Actually, the object was at first described by this first
Kecksburg witness as being partially buried, and there were some
differences in the description of the object in different
published accounts. But, once the "Unsolved Mysteries" segment
was broadcast, the acorn shape of the TV "UFO" seems to have
become "standardized".

There is some doubt about this first witness' account. First, he
took local UFO investigators to the wrong gully, about 1/2 mile
away from the actual 1965 search. This did, however, seem to
match the location the UFO investigators had guessed the event
occurred because it had been the location _erroneously_ given by
the local paper in 1965. This was, until a few years ago, the
only specific location of the "crash" ever published. Locals
roar with laughter about this, claiming that this is how they
can tell if one of the newly surfacing "witnesses" were actually
present in 1965.

When the "UM" film crew were at Kecksburg filming, a second man
came out of the crowd, claiming that he saw the object in the
woods, too. Two years later he admitted to three other men that
he had told the story only to get on TV.

I think that one or two other local people have now surfaced who
claim that they saw the acorn, itself. But this tiny handful of
people are the same ones who claim to have seen armed troops
occupying locations in Kecksburg, the acorn, itself, and the
armed convoy escorted by armed, machine-gun wielding jeeps, as
portrayed in the imaginative and dramatic UM TV version.

The other 200 or so witness accounts that I have seen, including
_all of the original 1965_ published or broadcast accounts,
don't included any of these details. There were TV, radio and
newspaper reporters, who reported every other 1965 rumor, it is
inconceivable that they would not have reported frightening
details such as this.

Then there are two other questionable accounts of the acorn at
Ohio Air Force Bases. One man, who refuses to be identified (why
is this even taken seriously?) told the late Leonard Stringfield
and Stan Gordon that he saw the acorn at Wright Patterson AFB in
1965. Only recently has he claimed that he also saw a
lizard-like alien laying on a bench near the object. Other
aspects of his story are positively uninspiring. He drove a
truck loaded with special bricks to entomb the UFO at WPAFB.
While the truck was unloaded by hand (go to any brickyard and
see how bricks are loaded by pallets with cranes) he roamed the
secret areas of the base where he stumbled onto the UFO. His
cousin was also there, but told Stringfield that he didn't
remember anything like that happening, then changed his story a
couple months later.  All records of the family business burned
some years ago (aw, shucks).

Then, let's see. Oh, yes. When the UM program was first
broadcast in 1990 more than 100 people called their phone
hotline to report that they, too, witnessed the incident. There
were hundreds of people there, and the fireball was seen by many
thousands, but one man's story was too hard to pass up. UFO
researcher retired Army Sergeant Clifford E. Stone called up and
said that he had been a witness to the armed convoy with its
mysterious covered object (with blue flashing light) at
Lockbourne AFB in 1965.

I asked Stan Gordon what Stone was doing talking about this
supposed "top secret" operation. Len Stringfield later published
the rest of the tale. Stone, who was a 16-year old high school
student in northern Ohio, about 90 miles away from Lockbourne,
said that he was called the night of the incident by a fried who
worked at the base and asked if he wanted to see the UFO which
had crashed that day. His friend picked him up at home, drove 90
miles to the base, where Stone hid in a car in the parking lot
by a back gate where he claims to have watched the armed convoy
(just like the one he saw on Unsolved Mysteries) arrive. It
stayed for some time, then left, presumably to Wright Patterson.
And, presumably, young Clifford Stone got home in time to go to
school the next day.

Curiously, although Stone has been on the radio, TV and been
interviewed for magazine articles where he has discussed in
detail his searches for UFO proof using Freedom of Information
Act requests, and has written a book with an entire chapter on
the Kecksburg crash, he has never again mentioned the most
exciting part of the story: that he was a personal witness to
the armed convoy bearing the Kecksburg UFO at an Ohio Air Force
Base.

I wonder why?

So, to answer your question, Larry. The hour is late and I do
like to tell a good saucer story on a cold winter night: There
were searches by the Pennsylvania State Police, roads blocked in
a couple places by local Fire Police (not troops), there were
fire trucks and at least one truck used by the police, but I
personally use reports of armed troops, an armed convoy and an
acorn in the woods to separate the 35-year old memories of
people who were probably there from the accounts of people who
probably weren't, or may have been but are telling tall tales.

Time to finish my glass of sherry and go to bed.

Hey, have a great holiday, everyone and enjoy the Christmas Day
Solar Eclipse


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 >
   Dec > Dec 23

                    Re: Human Microwave Heating? - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 23:51:15 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 09:20:04 -0500
Subject: Re: Human Microwave Heating? - Hatch


 >Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 01:42:46 -0800 (PST)
 >From: Ken Kelly <elprospero@yahoo.com>
 >Subject: Human Microwave Heating?
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Does anyone know of UFO reports in which the witness was
 >internally heated?

 >As James McCampbell noted, sufficiently intense microwave
 >radiation will cause internal heating similar to medical
 >diathermy.

 >I have been able to find about a dozen UFO reports in which the
 >witness described a feeling of warmth that seemingly originated
 >inside their body, as opposed to being radiated from the outside.

 >If there are other such cases in the UFO literature, I would be
 >extremely grateful to hear of them.

 >Ken Kelly


Hello Ken:

I just went thru my database and tagged all records with "heat"
in the brief-synopsis line, maybe 100 records out of 17,754 ( as
of 23 DEC 2000 ).

I then UNtagged the words containing "heat" (heath, theater...
etc.) and still have 54 left tagged.

While none of these refer to microwave heating, or heating from
inside in so many words, a few of them might well apply to your
interesting question.

If you write to me off-List and I can send you a file containing
these 54 listings. Each will have at least one good reference,
often more.

A quick scan shows perhaps 3 or 4 incidents where an odd heat
and cold were felt during the same sighting. Others show "heat
rays", one of them white in color.

There are incidents where water was heated, sometimes to the
boiling point. A few refer to simultaneous heat and paralysis.
One listing has NORAD tracking some UID heat source in the sky.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 23

                 [canufo] Next Batch Of CIRVIS Documents Up

From: Yogi <yogi@glacierweb-bc.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 00:59:02 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 09:26:41 -0500
Subject: [canufo] Next Batch Of CIRVIS Documents Up


Hi List,

The CIRVIS Documents have been obtainded through the Canadian
Freedon Of Information Act from the National Defence
Headquarters. These documents contain sighting reports from
throughout Canada - some are only a line or two. Others give a
little more detail.

Thank you to my friend Don in Burns Lake who converted them all
into PDF files for me, to share with you. You'll need the
Acrobat Reader to view these files.

These are from 1998 - 1997

Again, thanks Don

Take care

Brian










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 23

                   Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 05:02:05 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 09:31:18 -0500
Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Hatch


 >Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 13:25:04 -0500
 >From: Kelly Peterborough <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People'

 >>From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Review Debate
 >>Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 21:37:20 -0000

 >>>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Review Debate
 >>>Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 14:35:20 -0000

 >>>>From: Steven R. LaPlume <slaplume@recon-inc.com>
 >>>>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>Subject: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Review Debate
 >>>>Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 08:08:13 -0800

 >>>>At least Ms Bruni has investigated this matter to the best of
 >>>>her ability.

 >>>A point I do actually affirm in my review, if you read it. Its
 >>>one of the many positive things I say - things that seem to be
 >>>forgotten - in a review that you (very unfairly) (in a private
 >>>message to me) term a 'trashing'.

 >>Many positive things? Really Jenny, who you kidding? I agree
 >>with Steve La Plume (who, as a first hand witness, should have a
 >>better opinion) that you trashed it!

 ><snip>

 >Oh for crying out loud Georgina, I don't know either you or
 >Jenny, (and by the way I am also invited to many functions - who
 >cares?) howver, it seems to me, as an impartial observor, that
 >you can't take the heat of the kitchen. In fact, when I read the
 >review, I had a favorable and interesting overview of your book
 >- unfortunately, your posts here have made me wonder about you
 >as an author and/or journalist.

<snip>

 >Kelly

= = = = = = = = =

Dear Readers:

I found Jenny's explanations quite reasonable.

If I have any complaint about Jenny, it is that she uses 200
words to refute a nit-wit when twenty would do.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 23

                   Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Bruni

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 13:33:02 -0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 09:33:31 -0500
Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Bruni


 >Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 13:25:04 -0500
 >From: Kelly Peterborough <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People'


 >I find it astonishing that you are so sensitive to Jenny's very
 >favorable review. I don't understand that.

Dear Kelly

I am not sensitive to proper reviews but the argument here was
that the review was not about the book but about Jenny's
theories of the case in general and complaints about the fact
that I didn't mention her colleague. You might not have seen the
FT magazine review, which is what Nick Pope was referring to.

 >I will buy it, but with reservations, and your attitude towards
 >Jenny's review will colour my reading of it.

 >Sorry, but you have made your book ridiculously personal now.

Maybe when you read it, you might understand why people are
saying the review was "personal" on Jenny's part

I seem to recall that just a few days ago you took something to
be very personal! Instead of seeing the overall post from a
military witness - you pointed out something totally unrelated
to the case and suggested that because of this - he was not
credible.

So the fact that I am no longer credible in your eyes does not
concern me too much Kelly. If a witness, who's story is backed
up by others, is not credible, then your opinions, to me at
least, do not count for much. Who's being sensitive here?

This book was not written to promote the theories or egos of
ufologists. It was written for the witnesses and the reason I am
replying to these posts is because I will support their case as
much as I can against the debunkers.

Hope this helps.


Merry Christmas,

Georgina Bruni

"You Can't Tell The People".The Definitive Account of the Rendlesham
Forest UFO Mystery by Georgina Bruni. Published by Sidgwick & Jackson
Available on-line at: www.amazon.co.uk
Countries outside UK: www.netstoreusa.com
View and listen to Georgina talking about the book at:
www.relaxwithabook.com
Radio interviews: James Whale: www.clarkey.com/Whale.htm
Sightings: www.sightings.com UFO Magazine: Exclusive Interview
www.ufomag.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 >
   Dec > Dec 23

                        Re: Reluctant Viewers - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 08:56:01 -0600
Fwd Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 16:51:18 -0500
Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Evans


 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 15:07:23 -0500
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers - Velez

 >>Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 12:55:07 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Reluctant Viewers
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, I wrote:

 >>With all the claims of abduction and implants that are out
 >>there, doesn't it seem a little unlikely that there isn't at
 >>least _one_ abductee that has the courage to deal with the
 >>issues, has insurance, has a doctor that understands and is
 >>interested in the problem, has the resources to find the "proof"
 >>that so many would benefit from?

John replies:

 >Dr. Roger Leir claims to have recovered (15) alleged implants.
 >He is a "doctor." Yet rather than badger _him_ for "proof," your
 >chosen course of action is to yakity-yak (empty, egocentric,
 >'debate for debate's sake') at the abductees on this List.

John,

You have truly raised hypocrisy to a fine art form. No more than
a month ago, you wrote:

 >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.)

Despite this grand proclamation, your tirades against anyone
that isn't a "believer" are the most egocentric pieces on this
List. Considering that you, by your own admission, have no proof
and what caused your own ailments is "anybody's guess", you seem
to, indeed, be "jumping to conclusions and adopting unfounded or
unproven beliefs".

The obvious rule is that John Velez is the only one allowed to
voice an opinion about alien abduction or be critical of other
abductees' behavior. "Outsiders" aren't allowed in the club,
especially if they ask simple, hard questions that make you
uncomfortable. You want to play intellectual "king of the hill"
but get ticked off if anyone dares to push back.

Regarding such, you wrote:

 >I participate in UFO UpDates because I am an abductee
 >and because many moons ago EBK _invited_ me to participate.

 >I'm just not clear on what your field of expertise or UFO
 >related experience, involvement/motivation is for being in
 >ufology. Idle curiosity? Or is it related to a 'professional'
 >interest?

EBK didn't invite me to your party, John. Does that mean that my
opinions are worth less than yours? If so, then that must apply
to most of the participants of this List. No one, and I mean no
one, has _any_ proof or solid answers regarding ET visitations. As
such, your opinions are worth no more than mine or anyone elses.
The fact that you were invited is no more significant than the
fact that EBK doesn't kick me off the List for opinions that you
don't approve of. You simply don't carry the weight that you
think you do.

Regarding expertise; I have a genuine interest in UFOs and try
to apply my professional knowledge of photography to what
evidence is available. As such I can prove my expertise. Just
what is _your_ field of expertise besides unproven claims of
abduction?

Finally, you wrote:

 >Although it may bring you some kind of psychological comfort to
 >think that, I "don't like" you personally - as you mentioned in
 >a previous post - the simple truth is; I don't have any feelings
 >for, or about you, one way or the other. You have developed the
 >bad habit of believing your own press when it comes to what
 >_you_ think it is that "I think and feel."

 >You can lose the, "he hates me" excuse Roger.

Never said that you hated me, John; but you certainly don't
approve. Regarding such, you previously wrote:

 >Take Roger with a grain of salt and _don't_ take him seriously.
 >He's not, and most of what he says doesn't merit serious
 >consideration. If he's really starting to get on your nerves
 >just don't respond to him at all. No response, no Roger.

Heaven forbid that Brother John practice what he preaches!

Are we there, yet?

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 >
   Dec > Dec 23

                  Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Ledger

From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 11:04:43 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 16:58:47 -0500
Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Ledger


 >Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 13:25:04 -0500
 >From: Kelly Peterborough <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People'

 >>From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Review Debate
 >>Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 21:37:20 -0000

 >>>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Review Debate
 >>>Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 14:35:20 -0000

 >>>>From: Steven R. LaPlume <slaplume@recon-inc.com>
 >>>>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>Subject: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Review Debate
 >>>>Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 08:08:13 -0800

 >>>>At least Ms Bruni has investigated this matter to the best of
 >>>>her ability.

 >>>A point I do actually affirm in my review, if you read it. Its
 >>>one of the many positive things I say - things that seem to be
 >>>forgotten - in a review that you (very unfairly) (in a private
 >>>message to me) term a 'trashing'.

 >>Many positive things? Really Jenny, who you kidding? I agree
 >>with Steve La Plume (who, as a first hand witness, should have a
 >>better opinion) that you trashed it!

 ><snip>

 >Oh for crying out loud Georgina, I don't know either you or
 >Jenny (and by the way I am also invited to many functions - who
 >cares?), howver, it seems to me, as an impartial observor, that
 >you can't take the heat of the kitchen. In fact, when I read the
 >review, I had a favorable and interesting overview of your book
 >- unfortunately, your posts here have made me wonder about you
 >as an author and/or journalist.

 >A few years ago a young writer asked me for help, and I did -
 >for free of charge - and he had extreme difficulty with any
 >suggestions. I told him that to survive as a writer, you have to
 >accept criticism, editing, and reviews. It is - for better or
 >worse - being a part of a writer's life.

 >I find it astonishing that you are so sensitive to Jenny's very
 >favorable review. I don't understand that. Perhaps this is the
 >first book you've written? Perhaps, because you believe in
 >yourself and your book so much you cannot tolerate anything less
 >than total acceptance?

 >I'm just guessing here, as I cannot figure out why you are so
 >upset with Jenny's review. In fact, to me, you come across as a
 >amateur writer and have damaged your reputation in my eyes.

 >That may not be a big deal to you - after all I am just a reader
 >of fortean books, but you have turned me off enough that
 >although I was going to buy your book based on Jenny's review, I
 >now have second thoughts. I will buy it, but with reservations,
 >and your attitude towards Jenny's review will colour my reading
 >of it.

 >Sorry, but you have made your book ridiculously personal now.
 >And you have only yourself to blame for that. If you wish to be
 >an admired author, I suggest that you somehow learn to not make
 >war over what was a very positive review of your book.

 >Don't worry! As Empress of the Universe, I get complaints all
 >the time too!


Dear Empress,

I think you have missed the point of this thread. It has less to
do with artistic temperment than it does with the integrety of
the facts.

This thread started with Jenny having taken Georgina to task for
not paying lip service to James Easton's investigation of the
Rendlesham affair. Georgina, rightly so I think, defended
herself by stating that she was not about to include something
that had little or no value in the first place. Knowing the
quality of Easton's contributions to these lists over the last
couple of years I can understand why. He is great at pumping out
volumes of rhetoric while generating little in the way of
information or proof.

Just a couple of days ago I took him to task over his childlike
explanation for an accountant's sighting - from which I have
seen no rebuttle so I assume he had no recourse. Easton's talent
seems to be in taking a small detail, like the piece of a jigsaw
puzzle, shaving away at it with a razor blade and trying to make
it fit where it does not fit. Barring this he then attempts to
to use thumb tacks, craft glue and sticky-tape to hold this
piece in place despite the attempts of more adept puzzle solvers
to keep him on the straight and narrow.

Kelly, you should keep in mind that Easton is the reason why the
word Pelicanist was coined due to his unshakable [to him anyway]
theory that 1,200 mile per hour pelicans were what Kenneth
Arnold saw on that day in 1947. Despite the fact that this
theory was shot full of holes, Easton decided to go 'public'
with his findings.

Some of his explanations, as far as I'm concerned, are outright
nonesense, as seems to be the case in the Rendlesham Incident.
Here, the little piece of the puzzle is a lighthouse which could
only have been relevant for less than 5 percent of the
sighting's duration - yet has taken on a life of its own by
careful avoidance of the facts. Easton went to work with his
little craft knife and made it fit, for a brief time-but that's
good enough for him because now he had his foot in the door and
could begin to spin his yarn.

I have no problem whatsoever in Georgina duking it out with
Jenny over who is right or wrong about facts and details as they
pertain to the Rendlesham affair. It's healthy, I think.

Like Jerry said. It's Christmas. My sense of good will is
getting in the way of my really speaking my mind. And now I'm
guilty of having created this lengthy, Easton-ian style email,
which I dislike reading myself.

Just one other thing though... Kelly, you mentioned first time
writers as it might apply to Georgina. Several first time
writers have made their mark and two come to mind. Remember
Harper Lee and Margaret Mitchell?

Merry Christmas everyone.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 23

                               Merry Christmas

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 15:34:16 -0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 17:01:39 -0500
Subject: Merry Christmas


A very Merry Christmas to Errol and all the List members.

And a very special thank you to Errol for all your hard work
over the years - and your patience - and for making this List so
special.

Have a wonderful Christmas


Best wishes
Georgina Bruni

"You Can't Tell The People".The Definitive Account of the
Rendlesham Forest UFO Mystery by Georgina Bruni.
Published by Sidgwick & Jackson Available on-line at: www.amazon.co.uk
Countries outside UK: www.netstoreusa.com View and listen to Georgina
talking about the book at: www.relaxwithabook.com Radio interviews:
James Whale: www.clarkey.com/Whale.htm Sightings: www.sightings.com
UFO Magazine: Exclusive Interview www.ufomag.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 >
   Dec > Dec 23

                Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles -

From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 12:19:53 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 17:06:03 -0500
Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles -


 >From: Gary Anthony <garyant@mithrand.karoo.co.uk>
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles
 >Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 21:28:50 -0000

 >>From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
 >>Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 13:30:13 EST
 >>Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 12:16:11 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles

 ><snip>

 >>As for Nick Pope, who has just been labelled a "shrimp", or
 >>something like that, I met him twice, in Leeds and San Marino,
 >>and I can assure everyone that he is a perfect gentleman.

 >>I cannot say the same of some British sceptics of the pelicanist
 >>kind such as Peter Brookesmith and Gary Anthony. Your answers to
 >>them are quite courteous.

 >>Gildas Bourdais

 >Gildas your view of a gentleman is far removed from mine I
 >suspect. A gentleman does not insult a lady at _any_
 >opportunity. (Jack the Ripper was called a gentleman).

Do you mean that Nick Pope insulted Jenny Randles?

His comments on her article looked quite decent and correct to
me.

On the other hand your colleague James Easton gravely insulted
Georgina Bruni on this List. What is your comment on that ?

<snip>

 >As to your labelling me a pelicanist and sceptic; it may
 >surprise you to learn my involvement in this topic over fifteen
 >years ago, stems from three extraordinary experiences I had, for
 >which I do not have adequate explanations.

Sorry, I am not aware of that. Have you published them
somewhere?

 >If you call being a
 >sceptic, someone who does not _believe_ everything that parades
 >in the melee of 'ufology' then you are right and I raise my
 >hands up high in admission... However, I am always willing to
 >give someone the benefit of doubt and a second chance,
 >especially those I don't know, unlike your hasty self it would
 >seem? How did you manage to make an assessment about Mr. Pope
 >after only meeting him a couple of times and yet make a further
 >one about me, seeing how we have never met or corresponded?

I did more than meet Nick Pope a couple of times. I read his two
books on UFOs (not the novels). I think they are good, serious
books, well worth reading. Pope was courageous to write them, in
view of his career as a public officer at the ministry of
Defence.

<snip>

 >Larry Warren, who will be speaking at
 >a Hull UFO Society Meeting in January is stating he has spotted
 >over 100+ mistakes from reading Georgina's book.

I see that Georgina has already answered that. May I add that I
find comical that you quote Warren here, the man who labelled
"Sky Trash" the book of Jenny Randles 'Sky Crash'! (see "Left
at East Gate", page 203).

<snip>

 >Meanwhile, Gildas, I hope you do not mind my calling you by your
 >given name, seeing how despite the fact that we have never met
 >or corresponded before, you _seem_ to know me enough, already,
 >to label me?

But you call yourself a pelicanist ! (see below).

 >May I suggest that you first go and do a bit more
 >reading, albeit through your rose tinted specs view of ufology,
 >if necessary - before commenting. At least, then you will know
 >whether Nick Pope was called a shrimp or not..?

Nick Pope was called "this little shrimp" by your colleague
pelicanist Peter Brookesmith in a message (December 12) that you
warmly approved (December 14). So I took the liberty to
associate you both in my own post.

Just one more word, to thank Brad Sparks, and again Georgina,
for their excellent contributions. Some people muddy the waters
and others work hard at cleaning them.


Merry Christmas to all,


Gildas Bourdais








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 23

                   Re: "The Truth's In Here!" - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 14:14:09 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 17:10:54 -0500
Subject: Re: "The Truth's In Here!" - Mortellaro



 >From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: "The Truth's In Here!"
 >Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 17:53:14 -0800

 >Hello all, Burp!

 >>Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 21:51:39 -0500
 >>From: Wendy Christensen <christensen@catlas.mv.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates List <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: "The Truth's In Here!"


 >>This will be of particular interest to certain denizens of UFO
 >>UpDates:

 >>http://www.cropcirclebeer.com/

 >>Happy Holidays!

 >>Wendy Christensen

 >After a long, long, long, day Christmas Shopping and
 >experiencing missing time and confusion whist doing so,( along
 >with missing money in my Bank account) all in the same store I
 >might add.

 >I second the toast with a cold Oz (Foster's) waiting in the
 >fridge.

 >Happy Holidays!

Dear GT, bListers and Errol,

Not a Grippler in the bunch! Not one. And I thought you guys
liked Gripple an' Me! This _is_ a tough room, Errol. Oh well,
yesterday evening, whilst passing the spirit shoppe in my old
neighborhood, having gotten my one hair cut at last, and gotten
all the shopping done in the Gesundt and Morty households, I
stopped a while, glanced into the jernt, spotted a lonely and
morose bottle of Stoly standing alongside my new Gripple n'
Missile Toes fresh holiday wine.

It looked so, I dunno, alone. And with visions of Alistair
Simm's smoldering in my flashback visions, a tear appeared off
my left eyeball. It was snowing in Hartsdale, and the wind was
blowing hard. A little like some of the hard blowing we read
here often.

No offense meant, Errol. We ain't your fault.

Uh, where was I? Oh, yah, I was weeping for the Russian
potato(e) what gave it's life for this expensive bottle of brew.
I rushed in and bought it straight away. It was happier than I
was at my decision, as I am a Grippler, myself.

And of course, no self respecting Stoly would stand for becoming
Martinis on Christmas Day, without being accompanied by stuffed,
green Spanish olives, it aksed me for some. I bought them. It
looked shyly and forlorn when I merely suggested it have the
company of some vermouth. So I just got an old cork from an
empty bottle of some Sicilian vermouth, and promised to only
wave that cork over the glass of Stoly and stuffed Spanish
olives.

It was VERY happy at that.

So, I shall toast all of yous on Christmas Day. Even them
skeptibunkies, the maroons, Kings, Queens and those who think
they've seen God, even them. With nothing but love _and_ Russian
potato(e) love, Merry Christmas, Happy New Year and to those who
celebrate other ways and other means, love and health. And even
if you don't believe, God bless us, everyone.

Even you, you bastard!


Jim, Rosemarie and our stupid dog, Stupid, Mortellaro
 From the North Country
Go Bush








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 23

                              Christmas Truce?

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 20:21:31 -0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 17:14:22 -0500
Subject: Christmas Truce?


Hi,

Wouldn't it be a nice idea - as it is Christmas - if we called a
truce on some of the battles being fought on this List?

To Georgina, I say, my review was just that - one review. It
will not effect your book and its undoubted success one jot. And
I do respect your efforts. I know its hard to see that. But lets
just agree to disagree. After all, you've said things I really
don't like either - and which I don't think are true - regarding
my own writings on matters like the Mal Scurrah radar case and
the Cobra Mist research. So why not just accept that we cannot
ever agree on everything and that we have both tried, in our own
different ways, to understand this case and published what we
believed (and still believe) to be the truth. Most people out
there will gain things from what we both say. That should be
enough.

To Brad, I say, I don't actually disagree with much of what you
argue. And I am really not trying to defend the lighthouse as
the proven answer to this case. I think its an issue we have to
debate. But let's do that in a civilised way after Christmas and
see if we can get to the bottom of things. We probably wont ever
all agree. But maybe we can at least all accept that, regardless
of our own views, the opinions of others, even if they differ
markedly from our own, should be tolerated. We learn most - I
find - from friendly debate than if we all agree . And - after
all - nobody knows what is really going on in UFO land -
whatever they may claim on this list. Believer, debunker,
rationalist, open minded, researcher, skeptic, investigator,
abductee - ultimately we are all just seekers after the truth.
And there may actually be more than one truth to seek.

To Jerry, I say, I am not supporting any nasty messages on this
list. Simply not wishing to dwell on them as I think this list
needs positive vibes. Not negative ones.

To James, I say, ponder your message. Even those of us who
respect your work seem to all feel it was not proper to use such
language and it does not help get your words across. It would be
a terrific start to our space odyssey in 2001 if you could see
fit to say sorry. We all probably should say this word sometimes
- I know I should - but the true test comes with having the
courage to accept that and say it.

To Gildas, I say, don't prejudge what UFOIN will publish in 2001
on Lakenheath (l956) as we don't even know ourselves yet. We are
still researching this case, making real progress and will
publish exactly what we find when that work is done. If it is
any way pro UFO - and I suspect some of it will be - we
certainly wont be holding back. I am not a debunker out to
demolish every case - only those which are demolished as a
consequence of the research carried out - and so whatever needs
to be said will be said by me. No MIB has shut me up as yet. No
debunker stands a chance!

To the believers out there, I say, we all respect your views and
also that you may have had personal experiences that convince
you what is going on. I certainly know how you feel. I have had
experiences of phenomena such as precognition that cause me to
be treated as you perceive yourself to be treated by the
skeptical amongst us. This teaches me to appreciate how
experience conveys a perspective that is impossible without
having it, but, equally, to realise that witnessing something
and understanding what it means are two quite different things.
So listen to what the skeptics say. They are not always right
but they are sometimes insightful and if you don't open your
mind to rational explanations you will never persuade the world
that your experiences have merit. For they need to see that you
can accept reasoned answers and agree that not everything has a
strange explanation. Because, of course, much of it doesn't.

To the skeptics, I say, it is tempting to assume that because
many things can be then everything can be explained in prosaic
terms and history shows that often this conclusion is the right
conclusion. What seems mysterious is in fact not mysterious in
the long run. However, equally history shows that sometimes a
phenomenon that was written off by science as nonsense or
something readily solved in known terms actually takes us in a
new direction. We do not know everything there is to know - not
by a long way. It is certain that new surprises wait around the
corner. To deny the wonder of discovery of new things from your
life is to stop living. Whilst it is absolutely right to expect
strong evidence and well argued justification to persuade you it
is wrong to deny the chance that something odd might really be
going on. Just because you do not think so, or you have never
experienced it yourself, does not mean that these things are
impossible. They can be possible and sometimes they are true.

We all are enquiring into fascinating phenomena in our own
different ways. And we all have things that we can contribute.

At Christmas it is the perfect time to learn the lessons of give
and take and give of our opinions - in a civilised manner - and
take of the views of others in the spirit that they are offered.

If only some of us decide to make that one of our New Years
resolution this list can look forward to a wonderful 2001.

Happy Christmas everybody.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 23

                         Holland Radar-Visual Case?

From: Todd Lemire <tlemire@home.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 10:47:22 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 17:25:06 -0500
Subject: Holland Radar-Visual Case?


Hello List members,

Does anyone here have the September 1994 Issue of the MUFON UFO
Journal that you could rummage through for me.

I'm looking for an article by then Michigan State director
Shirley Coyne, concerning the Holland Radar-Visual Case of March
8, 1994 which involved the Muskegon NWS Operator.

If so I'd really appreciate a copy of that article sent either
via e-mail (tlemire@home.com) or preferably faxed to
305-422-8075.

I'll gladly try and return the favor if needed.


Sincerely,

Todd Lemire

Michigan UFO CENTRAL
http://members.home.net/tlemire/UFOCENTRAL.html
--
"We are all led to the truth for which we are ready"

-Neal Walsch-







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 24

              Re: [canufo] Next Batch Of CIRVIS Documents Up -

From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 11:16:45 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 10:59:55 -0500
Subject: Re: [canufo] Next Batch Of CIRVIS Documents Up -

[canufo] Next Batch Of CIRVIS Documents Up

 >From: Yogi <yogi@glacierweb-bc.com>
 >Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 00:59:02 -0800
 >To: <canufo@egroups.com>
 >Subject: [canufo] Next Batch Of CIRVIS Documents Up


 >Hi List,

 >The CIRVIS Documents have been obtainded through the Canadian
 >Freedon Of Information Act from the National Defence
 >Headquarters. These documents contain sighting reports from
 >throughout Canada - some are only a line or two. Others give a
 >little more detail.

 >Thank you to my friend Don in Burns Lake who converted them all
 >into PDF files for me, to share with you. You'll need the
 >Acrobat Reader to view these files.

 >These are from 1998 - 1997

 >Again, thanks Don

 >Take care

 >Brian


CIRVIS/MERINT Reports in the US are rare as hen's teeth.  Could
we please have the URL for these things?

I talked to a researcher who submitted large number of FOIA
requests for CIRVIS/MERINT reports during the last 30 years.
The only one's he ever got involved the "Northern Tier" base
sightings in 1975.

There are a few C/M in Blue Book and one or two in the 4602d
AISS files. FUFOR got a few fromt the National Military Command
Center.  Recently, CUFOS recovered some more of Hynek's
papers....There was a declassified report by the North East Air
Command for 1952 summarizing CIRVIS reports in that area....this
is the largest collection of CIRVIS reports from the US, I have
seen.

Jan Aldrich
Project 1947
http://www.project1947.com/
P. O. Box 391
Canterbury, CT 06331, USA
(860) 546-9135












   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 24

                         Merry Christmas - Lamphere

From: Lan Lamphere <lan@oklahomasky.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 17:27:15 -0600
Fwd Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 11:05:08 -0500
Subject: Merry Christmas - Lamphere


Hello folks,

It is rare that I get a chance to address all of you at once due
to my personal and professional schedule. But Christmas is just
around the corner and I wanted to take time to thank all of you
for supporting Horizons continued growth.

Our mission has been to bring what facts we can find via our
guest, or through the wonderful researchers that we have on
staff, to you concerning all of the issues that we choose to
investigate at Horizons. We know, and understand, that this
field can become very cloudy and confusing during the course of
your own investigations and interest. It is for this reason that
we go out of our way to make our program as reliable and
fundamental as possible. Everyone benefits from this line of
thought, and it helps to bring the subjects of the unexplained
and paranormal a bit closer to those who have little if any
interest in these subjects.

You, our listeners, have played a very large part in that
success. Your kind words and moral support in the exploration of
these areas of interest have encouraged all of us to push harder
to bring you our programming. You have all become our own cyber
family and we find it difficult to articulate our heart felt
words in which to express how much we appreciate all of you. We
can not thank you all enough for your support, kind words,
suggestions and sometimes your open criticism... it keeps us all
on our toes.

We wish you, and yours, a very merry Christmas and a happy and
joyous New Year!


Sincerely

Lan 'BladeRunR' Lamphere

Host: Horizons
Three Horizons Broadcasting


"Don't underestimate the power of stupidity."
                     Robert A. Heinlein








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 24

                           Merry Christmas - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 17:41:21 -0600
Fwd Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 11:06:00 -0500
Subject: Merry Christmas - Evans


Hi all!

A bit o' spirit from me to thee...

Perhaps Santa will bring the answers we seek,
About ET's and Saucers and abductions - EEK!
Or maybe the truth is still out there (trust no one)
And we'll just have to wait for next summer's re-runs
To see for ourselves if "they" are now here
Or if we're alone, as some of us fear.

So, for those whose feathers I've ruffled, nay, plucked,
To those on the fence of indifference and stuck,
For all the believers and skeptics that balk,
As well as the lurkers that don't want to talk,
I say, here and now, that I wish you the best,
As December's cold sun sinks in the west.

Merry Christmas everyone!

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 >
   Dec > Dec 24

                         Christmas Greetings - Bott

From: Murray Bott <murrayb@win.co.nz>
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 14:17:23 +1300 (NZDT)
Fwd Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 11:08:19 -0500
Subject: Christmas Greetings - Bott


Greetings List Members

I would like to wish everyone a Very Merry Christmas and a Happy
New Year.

Certainly I hope everyone has a great time celebrating with family
with plenty of "Christmas Cheer"


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 >
   Dec > Dec 24

                 Re: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 5 Number 51 - Hale

From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 01:30:50 +0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 11:11:23 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 5 Number 51 - Hale


 >Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 16:20:58 +0000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>
 >Subject: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 5 Number 51

 >UFO ROUNDUP
 >Volume 5, Number 51
 >December 21, 2000
 >Editor: Joseph Trainor


 >MYSTERIOUS WHITE ORB SEEN IN DUNDEE, SCOTLAND

 >On Thursday, December 14, 2000, at 11:45 p.m., Kevin Roy spotted
 >a mysterious descending white object in Dundee, Tayside,
 >Scotland, UK.

 >""It was a white light similar to a flare but too high for that
 >and too low for a meteor," Kevin reported. "It was descending
 >towards the ground at a steep angle. It blinked out after two or
 >three seconds."

 >"Its heading would have taken it into the Sidlaw Hills. It speed
 >would have been consistent with a meteor but there was no dip or
 >arc in the flight path, which was straight all the way down. Too
 >low to be a plane. No noise from the object at a distance of
 >approximately three miles (5 kilometers). The object was
 >approximately two to three inches (5 to 7.5 centimeters) in size
 >at this distance. No tail or tracers behind it, just the white
 >orb." (Email Form Report)



Hi Joe,

If you have any more info on this sighting, could you send it to
me at royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk  it would be much
appreciated.


Regards,

Roy








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 24

                    Re: Voyager Newsletter No. 16 - Hale

From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 02:12:51 +0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 11:12:53 -0500
Subject: Re: Voyager Newsletter No. 16 - Hale


 >From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Voyager Newsletter No. 16
 >Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 02:58:33 -0000

 >Voyager Newsletter No. 16


 >Let's resolutely debunk this nonsense for evermore and replace
 >it with some facts of real substance:


Perhaps an admission at last!

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 >
   Dec > Dec 24

                     Re: "The Truth's In Here!" - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 18:53:40 -0800
Fwd Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 11:15:25 -0500
Subject: Re: "The Truth's In Here!" - Hatch


 >From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 14:14:09 EST
 >Subject: Re: "The Truth's In Here!"
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: "The Truth's In Here!"
 >>Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 17:53:14 -0800

 >>Hello all, Burp!

 >>>Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 21:51:39 -0500
 >>>From: Wendy Christensen <christensen@catlas.mv.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates List <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: "The Truth's In Here!"

 >>>This will be of particular interest to certain denizens of UFO
 >>>UpDates:

 >>>http://www.cropcirclebeer.com/

 >>>Happy Holidays!

 >>>Wendy Christensen

 >>After a long, long, long, day Christmas Shopping and
 >>experiencing missing time and confusion whist doing so,( along
 >>with missing money in my Bank account) all in the same store I
 >>might add.

 >>I second the toast with a cold Oz (Foster's) waiting in the
 >>fridge.

 >>Happy Holidays!

 >Dear GT, bListers and Errol,

 >Not a Grippler in the bunch! Not one. And I thought you guys
 >liked Gripple an' Me! This _is_ a tough room, Errol. Oh well,
 >yesterday evening, whilst passing the spirit shoppe in my old
 >neighborhood, having gotten my one hair cut at last, and gotten
 >all the shopping done in the Gesundt and Morty households, I
 >stopped a while, glanced into the jernt, spotted a lonely and
 >morose bottle of Stoly standing alongside my new Gripple n'
 >Missile Toes fresh holiday wine.

 >It looked so, I dunno, alone. And with visions of Alistair
 >Simm's smoldering in my flashback visions, a tear appeared off
 >my left eyeball. It was snowing in Hartsdale, and the wind was
 >blowing hard. A little like some of the hard blowing we read
 >here often.

 >No offense meant, Errol. We ain't your fault.

 >Uh, where was I? Oh, yah, I was weeping for the Russian
 >potato(e) what gave it's life for this expensive bottle of brew.
 >I rushed in and bought it straight away. It was happier than I
 >was at my decision, as I am a Grippler, myself.

 >And of course, no self respecting Stoly would stand for becoming
 >Martinis on Christmas Day, without being accompanied by stuffed,
 >green Spanish olives, it aksed me for some. I bought them. It
 >looked shyly and forlorn when I merely suggested it have the
 >company of some vermouth. So I just got an old cork from an
 >empty bottle of some Sicilian vermouth, and promised to only
 >wave that cork over the glass of Stoly and stuffed Spanish
 >olives.

 >It was VERY happy at that.

 >So, I shall toast all of yous on Christmas Day. Even them
 >skeptibunkies, the maroons, Kings, Queens and those who think
 >they've seen God, even them. With nothing but love _and_ Russian
 >potato(e) love, Merry Christmas, Happy New Year and to those who
 >celebrate other ways and other means, love and health. And even
 >if you don't believe, God bless us, everyone.

 >Even you, you bastard!

 >Jim, Rosemarie and our stupid dog, Stupid, Mortellaro
 >From the North Country
 >Go Bush

Dear Jim:

I'm not much of a boozer any more, usually its some fancy beer
when I can afford it. I avoided bourbon for years in favor of
scotch for a long time. But, the holidays are different!

I found this half-gallon (give or take) of Old Crow on sale at
the Supermarket. It wasn't lonely or anything, but rather lost
in a crowd of plastic blottles.

It was kinda like another lost dog in a pound full of dogs,
maybe the 12-dollar dog tag made it catch my eye.

Only a hick can take that stuff straight, so I got some orange
juice, some egg-nog and other savoryt diluents just in case.

I once got an (empty) bottle of Stoly from the neighborhood bar
and refilled it with Safeway Vodka .. you know, poor man's
anti-freeze.

Some folks came to visit and fixed themselves a shot or two.

One of them said: "No way that's Stoly. It ain't rank enough."


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 >
   Dec > Dec 24

               Re: Little Community With A Big Mystery - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 19:39:31 -0800
Fwd Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 11:20:40 -0500
Subject: Re: Little Community With A Big Mystery - Hatch


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 02:49:19 EST
 >Subject: Re: Little Community With A Big Mystery
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 00:50:37 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Little Community With A Big Mystery

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 00:30:40 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: Little Community With A Big Mystery
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>>Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 23:28:42 -0500
 >>>>From: Kelly Peterborough <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
 >>>>Subject: Little Community With A Big Mystery
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>>>December 9, 2000
 >>>>http://www.dailycourier.com/CNkeck1209.html

 >>I suppose I'm caught blind-sided by the Kecksburg incident.

 >>I still have it listed, with two sources other sources at least:
 >>FSR Vol. 37 #1 and UFO Magazine (Calif.) Vol. 6 #1.

 >>Here, as in the usual books, I read of a 12-foot tall acorn
 >>shaped object recovered. If memory serves, it was supposedly
 >>trucked away under tight and unusual security.

 >>Have those details been explained also? Are they a complete
 >>fabrication as well? If so, I will definitely need to change
 >>certain ratings in my database.

 >>I had once suspected a downed spy satellite, even though the
 >>size and post-crash condition would seem to rule this out. If I
 >>recall, the recovered 12-foot object was in one piece,
 >>relatively intact. I cannot imagine anything like a satellite
 >>crashing to earth at those speeds without being pulverized if
 >>not vaporized.

 >>Was the big acorn complete fiction? I wouldn't be too terribly
 >>surprised!

 >Larry, List:

 >Excluding the fireball and its cloud train in the sky, there is
 >no record of anyone in 1965 reporting that they saw anything but
 >flashing lights in the woods. The local newspaper, the
 >Greensburg (now Pittsburgh) Tribune-Review, reported a couple
 >days later the result of its staff's on the scene investigation,
 >that there were flashing lights reported, but that they were
 >probably camera flashes or lights from a Pittsburgh TV news
 >camera. But, it seems that a group of local teenagers ran
 >through the woods flashing a camera strobe (I have a long,
 >detailed, signed statement from one participant), which could
 >account for the 1965 accounts of blue flashing lights.

 >The first account of an object (not visible but covered on a
 >truck) seems to have surfaced in 1979 from Bittner. The covered
 >object on the truck was reported as being about 6 feet in
 >diameter and about 17 feet long (What did they know, this is
 >what they thought that a Soviet "rocket" might look like?) Two
 >other firemen also called into a KDKA-Radio (Pittsburgh) program
 >and reported seeing lights, but no object.

 >Only in 1987, 22 years after the incident, did a first account
 >surface from someone who claims to have seen the acorn-shaped
 >object, itself, in the woods. This man surfaced at a UFO Week
 >display at a mall, where local UFO investigators were talking
 >about the 1965 fireball and incident. About this time UFO
 >investigators, some of whom had a hunch that a Soviet spacecraft
 >may have been involved, were circulating a Soviet artist's
 >drawing of what was purported to have been Cosmos 96.

 >Actually, the object was at first described by this first
 >Kecksburg witness as being partially buried, and there were some
 >differences in the description of the object in different
 >published accounts. But, once the "Unsolved Mysteries" segment
 >was broadcast, the acorn shape of the TV "UFO" seems to have
 >become "standardized".

 >There is some doubt about this first witness' account. First, he
 >took local UFO investigators to the wrong gully, about 1/2 mile
 >away from the actual 1965 search. This did, however, seem to
 >match the location the UFO investigators had guessed the event
 >occurred because it had been the location _erroneously_ given by
 >the local paper in 1965. This was, until a few years ago, the
 >only specific location of the "crash" ever published. Locals
 >roar with laughter about this, claiming that this is how they
 >can tell if one of the newly surfacing "witnesses" were actually
 >present in 1965.

 >When the "UM" film crew were at Kecksburg filming, a second man
 >came out of the crowd, claiming that he saw the object in the
 >woods, too. Two years later he admitted to three other men that
 >he had told the story only to get on TV.

 >I think that one or two other local people have now surfaced who
 >claim that they saw the acorn, itself. But this tiny handful of
 >people are the same ones who claim to have seen armed troops
 >occupying locations in Kecksburg, the acorn, itself, and the
 >armed convoy escorted by armed, machine-gun wielding jeeps, as
 >portrayed in the imaginative and dramatic UM TV version.

 >The other 200 or so witness accounts that I have seen, including
 >_all of the original 1965_ published or broadcast accounts,
 >don't included any of these details. There were TV, radio and
 >newspaper reporters, who reported every other 1965 rumor, it is
 >inconceivable that they would not have reported frightening
 >details such as this.

 >Then there are two other questionable accounts of the acorn at
 >Ohio Air Force Bases. One man, who refuses to be identified (why
 >is this even taken seriously?) told the late Leonard Stringfield
 >and Stan Gordon that he saw the acorn at Wright Patterson AFB in
 >1965. Only recently has he claimed that he also saw a
 >lizard-like alien laying on a bench near the object.

Hey! A soviet satellite reptilian! Those are relatively
scarce.

 >Other aspects of his story are positively uninspiring. He drove
 >a truck loaded with special bricks to entomb the UFO at WPAFB.
 >While the truck was unloaded by hand (go to any brickyard and
 >see how bricks are loaded by pallets with cranes) he roamed the
 >secret areas of the base where he stumbled onto the UFO.  His
 >cousin was also there, but told Stringfield that he didn't
 >remember anything like that happening, then changed his story a
 >couple months later.  All records of the family business burned
 >some years ago (aw, shucks).

 >Then, let's see. Oh, yes. When the UM program was first
 >broadcast in 1990 more than 100 people called their phone
 >hotline to report that they, too, witnessed the incident. There
 >were hundreds of people there, and the fireball was seen by many
 >thousands, but one man's story was too hard to pass up. UFO
 >researcher retired Army Sergeant Clifford E. Stone called up and
 >said that he had been a witness to the armed convoy with its
 >mysterious covered object (with blue flashing light) at
 >Lockbourne AFB in 1965.

 >I asked Stan Gordon what Stone was doing talking about this
 >supposed "top secret" operation. Len Stringfield later published
 >the rest of the tale. Stone, who was a 16-year old high school
 >student in northern Ohio, about 90 miles away from Lockbourne,
 >said that he was called the night of the incident by a fried who
 >worked at the base and asked if he wanted to see the UFO which
 >had crashed that day. His friend picked him up at home, drove 90
 >miles to the base, where Stone hid in a car in the parking lot
 >by a back gate where he claims to have watched the armed convoy
 >(just like the one he saw on Unsolved Mysteries) arrive. It
 >stayed for some time, then left, presumably to Wright Patterson.
 >And, presumably, young Clifford Stone got home in time to go to
 >school the next day.

 >Curiously, although Stone has been on the radio, TV and been
 >interviewed for magazine articles where he has discussed in
 >detail his searches for UFO proof using Freedom of Information
 >Act requests, and has written a book with an entire chapter on
 >the Kecksburg crash, he has never again mentioned the most
 >exciting part of the story: that he was a personal witness to
 >the armed convoy bearing the Kecksburg UFO at an Ohio Air Force
 >Base.

 >I wonder why?

 >So, to answer your question, Larry. The hour is late and I do
 >like to tell a good saucer story on a cold winter night: There
 >were searches by the Pennsylvania State Police, roads blocked in
 >a couple places by local Fire Police (not troops), there were
 >fire trucks and at least one truck used by the police, but I
 >personally use reports of armed troops, an armed convoy and an
 >acorn in the woods to separate the 35-year old memories of
 >people who were probably there from the accounts of people who
 >probably weren't, or may have been but are telling tall tales.

 >Time to finish my glass of sherry and go to bed.

 >Hey, have a great holiday, everyone and enjoy the Christmas Day
 >Solar Eclipse

 >Bob Young



Hello Bob and Wow!

That's an amazing amount of legwork on your part, and
I really appreciate it!

I take it we have a fireball incident, and a lot of local
fuss... but nothing like the tall tales in the popular media,
naturally.

I don't much care if it was a soviet satellite or a meteor, but
the prospect of a sat-recovery might explain some of the fuss.

You have made my little job a lot easier, just a few keystrokes
really.


Best wishes and Sherrys!


- 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 >
   Dec > Dec 24

             Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 03:00:48 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 11:23:16 -0500
Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles - Gates


 >From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles
 >Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 17:19:35 -0000

 >>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 00:28:27 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Robert wrote, regarding the UFOIN investigation of the
 >Bentwaters/Lakenheath 'radar visual'

 >>I "predict" that the final report, that is released will be
 >>along the lines of pelicans and lighthouses in a figurative
 >>sense.

 >>Don't have to be very bright to figure out what conclusion the
 >>report will end with..... :)

 >>I hope they prove me wrong, but alas, I highly doubt it.

 >So Robert, let's get this right, based on the above.....

 >* You can predict the future

I hope I am wrong, but I have a pretty good idea that the final
report from this investigation will prove my prediction.

 >* You have clearly never done any investigation into the
 > case yourself

Just making a prediction as to what this investigation will turn
out to be, long before the published paper.

 >* You clearly state that you are 'not very bright'

It doesn't take a great deal of brain power to predict, or
figure out what the skeptics opinion will likely be. But like I
said, I do hope I get proven wrong.....

 >* If a case report doesn't agree with your believer position it
 > is wrong even though it is based on primary sources and in
 > depth investigation

The skeptics position has been, and probably always will be that
all cases are to be explained along the lines of venus, weather
balloons, witness misidentification, not to mention pelicans, or
light houses. If it can't be explained away, we usually hear
that somewhere, sometime it will and can be explained away.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 24

                   Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Manso

From: Luis R. Gonzlez Manso <lrgm@arrakis.es>
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 09:17:09 +0100
Fwd Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 11:26:46 -0500
Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Manso


 >Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 11:04:43 +0000
 >From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People'

 >>Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 13:25:04 -0500
 >>From: Kelly Peterborough <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People'

<snip>

 >Kelly, you should keep in mind that Easton is the reason why the
 >word Pelicanist was coined due to his unshakable [to him anyway]
 >theory that 1,200 mile per hour pelicans were what Kenneth
 >Arnold saw on that day in 1947.

<snip>

I must remind this List that the first one who wrote about an
avian explanation for Arnold's case was my friend Martin
Kottmeyer. But he suggested geese. Easton has done his homework
and proposed an improved theory, even if many do not agree with
him (or them).


Merry Christmas to all, from Spain

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 >
   Dec > Dec 24

                        Merry Christmas - Chippendale

From: Anthony Chippendale <anthonyc@ufon.org>
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 09:37:06 -0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 11:29:20 -0500
Subject: Merry Christmas - Chippendale


Merry Christmas to all UFO UpDates subscribers from Anthony
Chippendale & The UFO Network (UK).

-Anthony Chippendale,
  The UFO Network (UK).
  http://www.ufon.org.uk
  http://www.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 >
   Dec > Dec 24

                       Merry Xmas From Italy - Lissoni

From: Alfredo Lissoni <retecun@tiscalinet.it>
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 11:24:44 -0800
Fwd Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 11:30:50 -0500
Subject: Merry Xmas From Italy - Lissoni



Merry Xmas from Italy

Best wishes,

Alfredo Lissoni

Italy's National UFO Center
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 >
   Dec > Dec 25

                  Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Ledger

From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 12:50:37 +0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 23:11:32 -0500
Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Ledger


 >From: Luis R. Gonzlez Manso <lrgm@arrakis.es>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People'
 >Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 09:17:09 +0100

 >>Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 11:04:43 +0000
 >>From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People'

 >>>Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 13:25:04 -0500
 >>>From: Kelly Peterborough <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People'

 ><snip>

 >>Kelly, you should keep in mind that Easton is the reason why the
 >>word Pelicanist was coined due to his unshakable [to him anyway]
 >>theory that 1,200 mile per hour pelicans were what Kenneth
 >>Arnold saw on that day in 1947.

 ><snip>

 >I must remind this List that the first one who wrote about an
 >avian explanation for Arnold's case was my friend Martin
 >Kottmeyer. But he suggested geese. Easton has done his homework
 >and proposed an improved theory, even if many do not agree with
 >him (or them).

 >Merry Christmas to all, from Spain

 >Luis R. Gonzlez Manso

In no way has Easton done his homework. He has left many
questions unanswered and wide gaping holes in his theory. It
shows an amateurish and limited understanding of airplanes and
their behavior in the skies and the way pilots navigate through
the skies and the engineering involved in moving a mass through
the skies for that matter. Most people addressing this problem
have no appreciation or understanding of the environment that
Arnold was working, the speeds involved [straight and level,
banking, climbing descending etc.], the layout of the cockpit,
its instrumentation, and the difference between seeing over the
ground and seeing at altitude.

The best that Easton has been able to come up with is that
pelicans fly and there are pelicans in Washington state. That's
not doing your home work. The first is a given and the second
can be proved easiliy by looking in the Audubon's[sp]Societies
Handbook. From this he solves the puzzle?

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 >
   Dec > Dec 25

                         Colorado Sightings Article

From: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 15:49:53 +0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 23:14:41 -0500
Subject: Colorado Sightings Article


Dear Errol,

The following article is online at:

http://ufoinfo.com/news/colorado.shtml

It was sent to me by Deborah Lindemann and is being forwarded in
the hope that readers might be able to provide more information:

Two Colorado Sightings... By Deborah Lindemann C.H.T.

On 10/12/2000, I received a call regarding two major sightings
which took place in Estes Park, Colorado September and October
of this year.  Estes Park is roughly 55 miles northwest of
Denver, Colorado in the Rocky Mountain National Park area. The
call came from a woman, Marie (pseudonym), who was a member of
my monthly abduction support group meetings in Colorado, which
was active until my recent move to northern California. Both
sightings were witnessed by members of her family.

On the evening of Wednesday, September 6th, 2000, Marie's son
(Jim) and daughter-in-law had dropped by their mother's house.
Marie lives in the far southeast part of Estes Park, about 4
miles south of highway 34 and Estes Lake. Highway 34 is a main
highway running east/west up from Loveland below into Estes
Park.

It was the night before Marie and her husband were to leave on a
vacation to Michigan and Marie simply wanted to go over a few
house sitting instructions before leaving the next day.

It was around 9:00 - 9:30 PM (Mountain Daylight Time), that the
sighting occurred. Marie's son and daughter-in-law were leaving.
They had all briefly stepped out onto the front porch to say
goodbye. They had no sooner done so when Marie related that this
"big white light came up from behind the hills directly west of
us, or between the hills in front of our house. It was about the
size of a full moon". The following is a direct transcript of
our conversation which followed:

DL = Deborah Lindemann M =Marie

M: This thing came so fast right towards us, and here is my
husband, and my new daughter-in-law and myself, we were all
there on the front porch saying "What is that?" It came right up
over the top of our heads. We were getting ready to go on
vacation and of course...everything was packed: cameras,
everything! So, I just stood there and tried to see everything
about it I could, because it came right over my head! I kept
watching it; and as it went over my head, I attempted to look up
into it, and I could see a triangular shape inside this big
white light. It had kind of curved edges, I'm assuming I'm
looking at the bottom it, and the [triangular] points of it were
curved. And, it had kind of squiggly markings on it around the
edges.

DL: You could see all that?

M: Yes, it was close!

DL: How close do you believe you were to it? I know that's
difficult, especially at night.

M: It is hard, but it was close enough to see this detail on the
bottom of it.

DL: How long would you say the sighting lasted?

M: About fifteen to maybe thirty seconds.

DL: And what was the direction that it was moving? From where to
where?

M: From West to East.

DL: If you were to measure it's size visually, at arms distance
by stretching your forearm out at full, and using your index
finger and thumb to determine it's visual size, what size would
you say the distance would be between your two fingers? For
example when we do this with a full moon, the distance between
our two fingers might measure an inch or so in size.

M: About the same size as a full moon. I was looking at the full
moon the other day thinking that this was about how large this
UFO was. Maybe a little bigger actually. Actually that's the
size it was at a distance, but as it came closer to us, it grew
even larger. When it was above our heads it was probably about
the size of my fist.

DL: Was there any sound related to this?

M: No, totally silent.

DL: I want to go back to your description of it when you began
relating some type of squiggly design or writing on it. Can you
tell me any more about that?

M: Well, as this white ball of light came over our heads, you
could look right into it. It wasn't like looking into the
brightness of the sun, where you would have to squint your eyes.
You could actually look at it. And I was making every effort to
look inside it, to see what was in this ball. And what was in it
was this triangle with rounded triangular edges instead of sharp
ones. Around the edges of it then were these squiggly lines, I
could almost say hieroglyphic.

DL: That's pretty amazing that you could see such detail on this
thing which seemed to be moving pretty fast.

M: Well, that's how close it was.

DL: When you looked into the light and saw this triangular
shape, was it's shape quite dark, or what shade would you say it
was despite the bright light around it?

M: It was dark gray.

DL: When you looked at it's shape within the light, would you
say the shape was completely void of light, or would you say the
light more or less engulfed around it?

M: The light was all around it. It was like it was within the
light. Unless you were really tempting to see what was within
the light, I don't think you would notice.

DL: And would you say this UFO was a perfect triangle in shape,
with all sides being equal, other than the fact that the edges
were rounded?

M: No, two sides were longer, and one side was shorter. It was
like the end was shorter.

DL: So it was more like an elongated triangle. All right, now
describing the squiggly lines further, or hieroglyphic-like
markings, can you describe that any further? How did that show
up against that dark gray body?

M: The squiggly's were a bit lighter than the body color and I
think that's how it showed up.

DL: Was it only on one side or where?

M: All the way around.

DL: Describe once more how you saw it, how it moved and how it
disappeared from your line of sight?

M: It seemed to come at continual speed. Later my friend and I
drove to the area where we believe it first came into view,
which was about 2 miles away. It was just a little south of the
mountain tram that runs in Estes Park. When it first appeared it
didn't come from just out of the sky, but seemed to come up from
behind the hills that were in front of us. In that direction we
have several mountain ranges that sort of ripple in front of
each other. This thing appeared to come up from between two sets
of mountains. Because when we saw it rise up, there was a larger
mountain chain behind it, and a lower set of mountains in front
of it. It came at us so fast, that we had no time to think. As
it got closer, it just passed directly over our house and over
my head. That's why I had such a good view of it.

DL: And after it passed over your heads, what happened then?

M: It just continued on at the speed it was traveling, and none
of us even thought to run out back and see if it was still
visible.

(Second sighting)

Marie's son and daughter-in-law shared a second Estes Park,
Colorado sighting. This just involved the two of them, and took
place less than a month later on Sunday October 1, 2000.
Ironically, the two would never have related or remembered the
second sighting, except that Marie had unintentionally triggered
their memories. Marie casually mentioned their family's earlier
sighting and this suddenly jogged their memories of it all. They
were amazed that they had forgotten this. They began to relate
the following. They both stated that this sighting was even more
frightening than the one they all witnessed together. The
following is a direct transcript of what Marie stated they told
her.

M: They were both round eyed as my daughter-in-law told this
story. "We were both heading home from your house. We were just
going by Mary's Lake [one of many Lakes just outside the Rocky
Mountain National Park area] and had gone by the lodge and were
driving home, and suddenly Jim slammed on the breaks and said,
'Look over there!' "

What they saw was this absolutely huge thing "just hanging in
the sky!" He said it looked like "two giant eighteen wheelers,
with trailers, end to end. That's how big it was!" It was in the
sky just below mountain level. When I asked him the shape, he
said "I don't think I can tell you because I think we were
looking at the side of it". [note: Estes Park is a valley, and
if you're up high on one mountain side of the valley looking
across the valley, a UFO could be airborne above the ground, and
below the mountains, yet be at eye level to the observer across
the valley.] Then they told me, "We looked at each other in
disbelief, and when we looked back over it was gone...just that
quickly!" The UFO would have been quite a few miles south of
highway 34.

DL: Was this at night?

M: Yes. This was also probably 7 - 9:00 PM. They come over quite
often to visit and typically leave around that time. I asked my
daughter-in-law what they did after the UFO disappeared and she
said, "Well, we went on home, but all I could do was hold on to
Jim and shake." I asked them whether they told anyone about the
sighting and they said, "No, we just forgot all about it." I
said, "And you two never thought of it again?" And she stated,
"No, not until you just asked us about our earlier sighting". I
asked whether they had any missing time, and they said "No, we
just went right home and that was it".

DL: Was there any other descriptive detail about this thing,
besides just "two eighteen wheelers"?

M: They said it had two blue lights and a red light on it.

DL: But it was the size of two eighteen wheeler with trailers
end to end?

M: Yes. It scared them so badly. My son actually said, "I'm
going to get guns; I'm going to be ready". This is so strange,
because this is my son who I've raised to be a pretty peaceful
guy. I was shocked at his militant reaction but then he said,
"Oh I've seen a lot of them now". I asked him what he meant and
he related, "Well, I didn't tell you, but a few weeks ago I saw
another one. It was a regular typical disc. It was over by Lake
Estes, but this one didn't scare us like this last sighting".

They both told me that as they were looking at this thing just
hanging in the sky, that they instinctively felt "It knew we
were there, that we had noticed it". If you knew my son, you'd
know how weird this is to hear coming from him.

DL: So, did they relate how it left or disappeared? Did it just
shoot away?

M: No, it just winked out, or at least left quickly enough that
it was gone when they immediately looked back.

I would be open to any feedback on this sighting or if other's
have seen anything similar in the area or elsewhere. You can
email me at: CNIDebra@aol.com or visit my website (Center For
Extraordinary Explorations) at: http://www.cfree.org.

=====

Regards,

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 >
   Dec > Dec 25

              Re: [canufo] Next Batch Of CIRVIS Documents Up -

From: Kenny Young <ufo@fuse.net>
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 11:38:57 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 23:18:39 -0500
Subject: Re: [canufo] Next Batch Of CIRVIS Documents Up -


 >From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: [canufo] Next Batch Of CIRVIS Documents Up
 >Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 11:16:45 -0500

 >I talked to a researcher who submitted large number of FOIA
 >requests for CIRVIS/MERINT reports during the last 30 years.
 >The only one's he ever got involved the "Northern Tier" base
 >sightings in 1975.

 >There are a few C/M in Blue Book and one or two in the 4602d
 >AISS files. FUFOR got a few fromt the National Military Command
 >Center.  Recently, CUFOS recovered some more of Hynek's
 >papers....There was a declassified report by the North East Air
 >Command for 1952 summarizing CIRVIS reports in that area....this
 >is the largest collection of CIRVIS reports from the US, I have
 >seen.

 >Jan Aldrich
 >Project 1947

Jan:

In '97 I filed a FOIA to the Director of Naval Intelligence
requesting info regarding CIRVIS reports to the Department of
Navy. According to Air Force Manual 10-206 [dated Sept. 1, 1995]
section 5.7.4., the Air Force Operational Reporting System
[AFROP] policy states that all photographic documentation of
CIRVIS incidents are to be forwarded to the Department of Navy
for processing. A specific address is given in the instruction
manual for sending photographic CIRVIS documentation: Director
of Naval Intelligence, Department of the Navy, Washington, DC
20305

So I felt my FOIA was very specific and very targeted but they
still shot me down. My FOIA appeal was also a fairly routine
'denial of records' reply so I called the person who handled the
request and they said that what I needed to provide them with
was "the originating agency" responsible for passing along the
aforementioned CIRVIS photographic documentation. Of course that
is what I was looking for, though, and without a specific CIRVIS
report in hand, how could I provide that?

But the fella I spoke with did not inform that there were *no*
CIRVIS info, photographic or otherwise, he simply said I had to
cite a specific originating agency responsible for submitting
the material to them. Not that this particular officer
necessarily knew of anything in particular, which he probably
didn't have access to himself, but I am still left with the
suspicion that there may be a little treasure trove of CIRVIS
info unceremoniously tucked away somewhere.

AFROP manual is at:

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usaf/10-206.htm

Merry Christmas,
Kenny Young
--
      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 >
   Dec > Dec 25

              Re: Little Community With A Big Mystery - BYoung

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 12:41:21 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 23:21:23 -0500
Subject: Re: Little Community With A Big Mystery - BYoung


 >Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 19:39:31 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Little Community With A Big Mystery

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 02:49:19 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Little Community With A Big Mystery
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >I take it we have a fireball incident, and a lot of local
 >fuss... but nothing like the tall tales in the popular media,
 >naturally.

 >I don't much care if it was a soviet satellite or a meteor, but
 >the prospect of a sat-recovery might explain some of the fuss.

Larry, List:

Yup, that's about it.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 25

                    UFO Over Erupting Popocatpetl Volcano

From: Dan Geib <DanGeib@ArtGomperz.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 14:10:13 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 23:25:47 -0500
Subject: UFO Over Erupting Popocatpetl Volcano

Hello

I received this image scanned from a local Mexican newspage of
an alleged UFO over the volcano

Tought I would share

It is here

http://www.qtm.net/~geibdan/a2000/dec/mex.htm


Happy Holidays

Dan


--
FREE Music Win PRIZES
Art Gomperz Bluegrass & Rockabilly
http://www.artGomperz.com/

UFO Folklore !
http://www.qtm.net/~geibdan/framemst.html

Dan's Flatpicking in Michigan
http://www.qtm.net/~geibdan/flatpicking.htm


Dan's Magic in Michigan !
http://www.qtm.net/~geibdan/magician

Dantronix !
http://www.qtm.net/~geibdan/testwave.html







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 25

                Re: Bentwaters Book Review By Jenny Randles -

From: Gary Anthony <garyant@mithrand.karoo.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 19:34:13 -0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 23:34:32 -0500
Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review By Jenny Randles -


 >From: Gary Anthony <garyant@mithrand.karoo.co.uk>
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles
 >Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 21:28:50 -0000

 >>From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
 >>Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 13:30:13 EST
 >>Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 12:16:11 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles

 ><snip>

 >>As for Nick Pope, who has just been labelled a "shrimp", or
 >>something like that, I met him twice, in Leeds and San Marino,
 >>and I can assure everyone that he is a perfect gentleman.

 >>I cannot say the same of some British sceptics of the pelicanist
 >>kind such as Peter Brookesmith and Gary Anthony. Your answers to
 >>them are quite courteous.

 >>Gildas Bourdais

 >Gildas your view of a gentleman is far removed from mine I
 >suspect. A gentleman does not insult a lady at _any_
 >opportunity. (Jack the Ripper was called a gentleman).

 >>Do you mean that Nick Pope insulted Jenny Randles?

 >>His comments on her article looked quite decent and correct to
 >>me.

 >>On the other hand your colleague James Easton gravely insulted
 >>Georgina Bruni on this List. What is your comment on that ?

It cuts both ways Gildas, both Nick Pope and James Easton were
ungentlemanly and my own view on James' post, was that it was
despicable, that is why I previously wrote of insulting a lady
'at any opportunity' but I also understand some of the
background ufological clutter connected with this case (which
you may not be aware of?) and people do make mistakes in
frustration.They vent their frustrations at the people they are
mad at; and sometimes in nasty ways because they feel that they
are not being heard. And I suspect the motives behind the
scences are much different and I certainly am not going to enter
into any lengthy arguments about either -- or take sides -- it's
plain and let's leave it at that. Don't think apologies will be
forthcoming from either camp.

You say that Pope's comments about Randles were fair but did you
read the full review? It was certainly *not* in my opinion and
Randles brings up poignant questions in this review, and is
falsely accused of neglect, if you cannot see these, perhaps it
is time to abandon the rose tinted specs. (no maliciousness
intended).

<snip>

 >As to your labelling me a pelicanist and sceptic; it may
 >surprise you to learn my involvement in this topic over fifteen
 >years ago, stems from three extraordinary experiences I had, for
 >which I do not have adequate explanations.

 >>Sorry, I am not aware of that. Have you published them
 >>somewhere?

Apology accepted. My experiences have been known by few, and
only briefly mentioned in local or obscure publications. I have
my own reasons for not letting them be widely known.

 >If you call being a
 >sceptic, someone who does not _believe_ everything that parades
 >in the melee of 'ufology' then you are right and I raise my
 >hands up high in admission... However, I am always willing to
 >give someone the benefit of doubt and a second chance,
 >especially those I don't know, unlike your hasty self it would
 >seem? How did you manage to make an assessment about Mr. Pope
 >after only meeting him a couple of times and yet make a further
 >one about me, seeing how we have never met or corresponded?

 >>I did more than meet Nick Pope a couple of times. I read his two
 >>books on UFOs (not the novels). I think they are good, serious
 >>books, well worth reading. Pope was courageous to write them, in
 >>view of his career as a public officer at the ministry of
 >>Defence.

I have seen Nick Pope too and have read *all* (even the
fictional ones) of his books. That is why I have a stack of
questions for him... You suggest Pope's books are serious and
that he is courageous for writing them. I suggest that if Mr.
Pope had anything serious to say, worthy of research, it would
have been fully undertaken by now? And we would certainly know
about this (not as part of some secret government agenda, which
Mr. Pope himself is opposed to). Indeed I know others who have
followed Pope's tack and have arrived at opposing viewpoints.
How can we explain both? These viewpoints are as necessary to
any serious understanding of matters relating to this topic as
others are.

Also, since it is probable that Mr. Pope may have 'taken the
Queens shilling.' (signed the official secrets Act); I do think
it would be some time before he could state anything definite
about his work at MoD without permission or without breaching
this Act. (A very serious offence, as far as I am aware). One
which publishers would also love to 'skirt' around in publicity
surrounding any book put out by Pope. Come on, let's put all our
cards on the table. Specifically, what do you deem are in Mr.
Pope's books, that are worthy of further attention? Which of the
cases mentioned in his book are cast iron? Do you perceive Mr.
Pope as a reliable witness because he was a former employee of
the government; and have you considered exactly what his role in
this capacity was? The argument still remains weak when
Brigadier General's make similar admissions, in view of this and
the lack of tangible proof. Going back to the old chestnut,
where is the proof and why haven't we seen it by now..? (I will
concede here that there are those who would not still accept ET,
if they landed on the proverbial White House lawn - but
nonetheless don't you think we would have something more
concrete by now, after all this time?).

I see from previous posts on this and other lists, that these
matters have already been fiercely debated to some degree; and
as usual nothing is settled but the drawing of lines and the
rattling of sabres.

One thing too frequently forgotten, is that public opinion is
shaped by the media and by what individuals and even governments
put out. If a culture is bombarded by a particular stimulus, it
will become the norm' said stimulus will play a significant role
in altering culture. In this way often one lie is replaced with
another or the truth and other vital links are lost. I think
anyone or group who perpetuate this type of behaviour without
weighing up what the consequences may be, do not really
understand themselves or what they are doing, certainly not any
favours to those in this respect, who may have experienced
anomalous phenomenon. Far too many in this game are out to make
a fast buck!! And they are willing to springboard their notions
off people to do it. Time and time again we see that if you
conduct a serious Poll of what most cultures think about ET
visiting us; then it will be in favour of ET on nearly all
counts, previous polls tell us this, but that does not make it a
fact. (Unless of course our own minds shape reality). Sceptics
have a valid point when they ask; where is the 'smoking gun' or
where is the proof? Sadly, ufology is mostly a case of witness
testimony, dubious government papers etc etc... What do you
accept as proof? (I have spoken to people who I think are
telling the truth when they say they have experienced something
but the problems begin when we rationalise what that experience
was).

<snip>

 >Larry Warren, who will be speaking at
 >a Hull UFO Society Meeting in January is stating he has spotted
 >over 100+ mistakes from reading Georgina's book.

 >>I see that Georgina has already answered that. May I add that I
 >>find comical that you quote Warren here, the man who labelled
 >>"Sky Trash" the book of Jenny Randles 'Sky Crash'! (see "Left
 >>at East Gate", page 203).

Has she? Do you mean that Georgina has satisfactorily covered
this? I don't think she explains why a major protagonist in this
case, is making further contrary statements? (Because that is
the nature of ufology everyone has their own views and
frequently air them). As to Jenny Randles 'Sky Crash', I stated
in my last mail I do not think this will be the last book we see
on Rendlesham? There is no wonder why this case has been called
the English Roswell. I perceive from your statements you may
think I am taking sides, if you think I agree with everything
Jenny Randles says or writes, you are mistaken and I am sure she
will tell you herself, if you were to ask. One thing I will say
in her favour though is that 'Sky Crash' was written a long time
ago (in ufoland terms) and at least in respect of Rendlesham,
she has learned a lot by what has transpired since. Books are
fallible Gildas, as fallible as the people they stem from.

Just trying to be objective and put matters into some *sensible*
perspective. If I remember correctly 'Sky Crash' was the first
book written on Rendlesham; and would add to this -- what book
has done this case justice so far? My opinion of Georgina's
book, is that it does not state enough for the sceptics case
(again you can take this as the 'pelicanist' view if you wish --
but no amount of arguing is going to change this). I am not
referring solely to an appraisal of the lighthouse theory... in
this statement. Just for the record, I don't think that Arnold's
case was pelicans; but I do not think it was ET either and yet I
would not be stupid enough to rule out either explanation
without good cause. What we have to do is figure out is what is
most likely and have a good basis and argument for such. As
Willie Shakespoke said 'there are more things in heaven and
earth' etc etc... But at the same time we need a 'good rule of
thumb'

Given the above facts I don't think you can call me a
pelicanist, unless we are going to get a clearer definition on
this, (if it's for the above reason then no, I am not a
pelicanist but I am sceptical).

<snip>

 >>Nick Pope was called "this little shrimp" by your colleague
 >>pelicanist Peter Brookesmith in a message (December 12) that you
 >>warmly approved (December 14). So I took the liberty to
 >>associate you both in my own post.

Peter, I know, is a very good researcher, he follows up on
*everything*. I know, because I have read his books and have
seen that he has covered the groundwork, read all the reference
and personally interviewed everyone, professionally. I know,
because I have done similarly myself, to great expense, in my
search for a better understanding of this topic and I have been
told the same things by the same people, read the same
reference. As with all books, Peter's views, opinions and
conclusions are his own and I agree with much he states.

As to linking my post with his, I put my hands up again, guilty
on all counts your honour? In my own defence, I would ask have
you read Jenny Randles books? Have you read Peter Brookesmith's
books? If so, which ones? Are you familiar with all the massive
accumulative reference, now stockpiling on the Rendlesham case?
If not then I may suggest that your own view may be one-sided,
especially if you are willing to trust the word of only one or
few sources? My philosophy is 'let's get all the facts together
and see what Rendlesham is really about.' Let's not sweep
anything under the carpet; but let it all be known and let
everyone decide *for themselves* what they think it may
represent. Let's do this with every case and get as much expert
involvement to see what can be learned..? (If there are
applicable explanations for UFO and related cases, then let's
find a way to test them, and apply or rule them out). Maybe this
is not possible, but I for one would hope in a positive way that
it could be, or else serious academic study and acceptance of
this phenomenon is dead in the water.. Who knows with the
current decline in academia, which may just sink enough to
accept 'ufology' in a socially acceptable way, even as the
people perceive it to be whether true or no.

Sincerely,

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you Gildas and all on the
List.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 25

                          The Happiest of Holidays

From: Fran Walton <LWalton55@cs.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 14:54:48 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 23:38:33 -0500
Subject: The Happiest of Holidays


To Errol and the List:

The happiest of holidays to all of you no matter which
holiday(s) you may observe.

May the joy and peace and serenity of all the music ring not
only in your ears but in your hearts.

Fran Walton







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 25

                  Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 15:22:46 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 23:41:16 -0500
Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Sparks


 >From: Luis R. Gonzlez Manso <lrgm@arrakis.es>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People'
 >Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 09:17:09 +0100


 >>Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 11:04:43 +0000
 >>From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People'

 >>>Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 13:25:04 -0500
 >>>From: Kelly Peterborough <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People'

 ><snip>

 >>Kelly, you should keep in mind that Easton is the reason why the
 >>word Pelicanist was coined due to his unshakable [to him anyway]
 >>theory that 1,200 mile per hour pelicans were what Kenneth
 >>Arnold saw on that day in 1947.

 ><snip>

 >I must remind this List that the first one who wrote about an
 >avian explanation for Arnold's case was my friend Martin
 >Kottmeyer. But he suggested geese. Easton has done his homework
 >and proposed an improved theory, even if many do not agree with
 >him (or them).

 >Merry Christmas to all, from Spain

 >Luis R. Gonzlez Manso


Hi Luis,

Easton has _NOT_ done his "homework" on the absurd pelican
theory for Arnold's case. I posted here and on his own
restricted UFO Research List an extensive analysis of pelican
flight characteristics and appearance in comparison to Arnold's
sighting, based on Easton's so-called "homework" and there was
very little correlation.

Merry Christmas,

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 >
   Dec > Dec 25

                Italian Christmas, Was "The Truth's In Here!"

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 18:11:49 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 23:44:35 -0500
Subject: Italian Christmas, Was "The Truth's In Here!"


Dear Larry, Errol and all,

I wish to impart to you a sample of Christmas in the home of a
perceived abductee ... a Sicilian one at that.

Take tomorrow. Soup followed by pasta followed by sauce soaked
Italian sausages, meatballs and other porky/beefy thingies all
cooked along with the tomato sauce. Then comes the salad. I
know, I know, but salad in our tradition, is 'tween courses, not
at the beginning.

After the salad which more often than not, is left forgotten in
the fridge (gramma always used to forget the salada) then comes
the turkey or other roast. Tomorrow it will be Roast Leg of
Lamb. Sometimes it's roast stuffed breast of veal. Always was a
breast man. Then come the seven fishes.

Then come the pastries. Oh God the pastries. When gramma was
with us in the flesh, she would make this stuff called a
Cassatta pie. I won't bother you guys with the joy that stuff
made in my heart, not to mention my mouth, but her's was the
best.

Of course, after the deserts come the roasted nuts.

Not the family ones, the real nuts ... almonds, peanuts,
walnuts... like that. Followed by Italian Coffee and regular
American kind, for those with weak stomachs or worse, weak
bladders.

This year our coffee will be thanks to Elio Barbera, a member of
this august list, who, disguised as Clark Kent, sent us a Care
package from Sicily. Thank you Elio, for thinking of us. And I
can't wait to taste the chocolate covered coffee beans you make.
Someday, Elio, your pictures taken during the eclipse, will have
as we call, "Ragione!" I shall send them along to Errol to see
if he feels as I do, that they show anomalous objects or images
which are just not explainable. Not easily anyway.

During this feast, there is ample wine, beer, apperitifs and
other assorted beverages such as my all time favorites, wine and
Coka Cola. I know, I know.... grampa is turning over in his
drawer. But it's because he made such wonderful wine at home.

I never developed a taste for good wine because that's the way I
drank it when I was a kid. And when I was an adult. As I am
rapidly becoming a kid again, I am reverting to wine and Coke
--- A Cola - again.

So, there is no turning back once the family sits down for
Christmas dinner. None. Once in that seat, you are there for the
duration. Destined to clog at least two arteries. I got one left
and am saving it for tomorrow.

For in our home, wherever that may be, it's family, lots of love
and thanksgiving for having that love in our house. We Itralians
are a special people. And the Sicilian versions even more
special. Not just because I am one. But with us, weeping is what
we do, even when we are happy. So tears are on that table too,
tears of joy.

And with us, there is nothing more important that the family
and the love the family brings to us. I would like to give you
all a helping of that love. Alas, I cannot. And I couldn't fit you
all at our table. So in lieu of a place at the Morty Christmass
table, I make each and every one of you, even the ones I don't
get along with, my family for just this one day.

And maybe, JUST MAYBE, it'll last a little longer this year than
last. And maybe, must maybe, that's the reason we are all here.
To extend our love a little longer each time. So that one time,
it'll really keep.

Merry Christmas, Larry, Errol and the UpDates List. Even you,
you rotten no good, hateful little bastard. I even love you too.


Jim, Rosemarie and our dog, Stupid. She loves everybody.





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 25

                     Two Requests from Gary Mangiacopra

From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 18:48:24 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 23:49:10 -0500
Subject: Two Requests from Gary Mangiacopra


Greetings List

Gary Mangiacopra requested the following be posted:


"I am inquiring to my many contacts if any of you may have in
your possession the replicas that were sold in the mid-1970s of
those small, 1 and 1/2 inch long bronze duplicates of the
controversial claimed 1,000 year old Columbia (South America)
Indian artifact that looks like a delta-shaped aircraft and
which the critics say is nothing more than the representative of
the skate fish.

"The late Ivan Sanderson wrote several articles on the
controversial Indian artifact in 1969-1971.

"In the mid-1970s replicas of the delta shaped glider artifact
could been bought through the INFO society. Several individuals
did.

"If you or you know anyone who did buy one of these 1,000 year
old delta glider replicas and still has it after nearly three
decades, please contact me! I am helping with a request of
another researcher who wants to borrow this glider replica to
photograph it. But he needs an actual replica and not just past
photographs of it.

"Please help in this request!

"Reimbursement of mailing cost and safe return of this Fortean
aviation replica will be on our part. All inquires answer

  "Gary S. Mangiacopra
  7 Arlmont Street
  Milford, Connecticut 06460"

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

Gary's other request involves a rather strange aviation story:


As everyone knows, the Wright Brothers have the credit for the
first heavier than air flight. There were a number of obscure
other claims previous to the Wrights, however not are given much
credibility. One is here, in Connecticut, a German immigrant,
Gustave Whitehead. Whitehead's flight was reported in a number
of newspapers as taking place on 14 August 1901. Of course,
there are no pictures. There are numerous claims that people did
witness the flight. Whitehead was a poor man and never was able
to push his claim or repeat his flight. He faded into obscurity.

In the 1980s a replica of Whitehead's plane did fly here in
Connecticut, however, with engines used in ulta-light aircraft.
The Connecticut Legislature in 1986 asked the Smithsonian to
consider the Whitehead claim. They declined.

In any case, Gary is looking for aviation expert or aeronautical
engineer to go on camera and discuss the possibility of
Whitehead's flight based on mechanical drawings of the aircraft.
Please contact Gary at the above address.

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

Gary is also conducting an extensive research project into the
movie "U. F. O." He has collected various memorabilia, scores of
reviews, interviews with principals and actors. He would also
welcome material or information on this film.


Sincerely,

Jan Aldrich

Project 1947
http://www.project1947.com/
P. O. Box 391
Canterbury, CT 06331, USA
(860) 546-9135







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 25

                          Merry Christmas - Seaburg

From: Steve Seaburg <Steve72284@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 18:59:13 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 23:51:13 -0500
Subject: Merry Christmas - Seaburg


To all,

Merry Chrismas from Traverse City Michigan......


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 >
   Dec > Dec 25

                    Merry Xmas From Australia - Harrison

From: Diane Harrison <tkbnetw@powerup.com.au>
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 10:50:18 +1100
Fwd Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 23:52:48 -0500
Subject: Merry Xmas From Australia - Harrison


Merry Christmas to all.

 From the Land Down Under

--

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 >
   Dec > Dec 25

                          Filer's Files #51 -- 2000

From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 17:44:10 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 23:57:26 -0500
Subject: Filer's Files #51 -- 2000


Filer's Files #51 -- 2000, MUFON Skywatch Investigations
George A. Filer, Director, Mutual UFO Network Eastern
December 25, 2000, Sponsored by Electronic Arts; Webmaster
Chuck Warren http://www.filersfiles.com. Majorstar@aol.com.


NORTH POLE -- Christmas Eve night there was a flurry of UFO
reports describing a bright red nosed vehicle seen heading south
from the North Pole. Relatively few UFO sightings have been
reported throughout December. UFO aircrews seem to be on a
holiday the last several weeks. The few sightings have come from
New York, Florida, New Mexico, Mexico and England. We review
letters from New Jersey and Australia about their insight into
what is happening.

Many readers have sent Christmas cards and I wish to thank you all, and I
hope you will consider this as Christmas card in return. May all the joys of
the season bring you health and happiness throughout the New Year.

MERRY CHRISTMAS AND THE ANGELS

We celebrate Christmas throughout much of the world based on the
birth of Jesus Christ 2000 years ago. The logical question is
what has this to do with UFOs? I suggest there is a connection.
Carl Sagan in his book, " Intelligent Life in the Universe"
indicated Earth had likely been visited by extraterrestrials. He
states: "Sumer was an early--perhaps the first -civilization the
contemporary sense on the planet Earth. It was founded in the
forth millennium B.C. or earlier. We don't know where the
Sumerians came from. I feel that if the Sumerian civilization is
depicted by the descendents of the Sumerians themselves to be of
non-human origin, the relevant legends should be examined
carefully." (page 456) He goes on to ask, "What might an
advanced extraterrestrial civilization want from us?"......He
answere his own question by stating, "One of the primary
motivations for the exploration of the New World was to convert
the inhabitants to Christianity -- peacefully if possible --
forcefully if necessary. Can we exclude the possibility of an
extraterrestrial evangelism?" (Page 463)

Few remember that Angels and their glowing craft had a key role
in history of diverse nations. the Christmas story. Angels are
celestial beings believed to be a messenger or mediator between
God and humankind. In ancient Mesapotomia, ancient Greece,
Judaism, Christianity and in Islam angels were sent as divine
messengers to humans to instruct, inform, or command. An angel
visited Mohammed and directed the introduction of Islam. Angels
also function as heavenly warriors and as guardians. Many
abductees claim healing, love and miracles from the angels.
Angels are often called the Sons of God. In traditional
Israelite thought, angels were assumed to have the form of human
males, and as a consequence they were sometimes mistaken for
men.

Billy Graham, the evangelical minister and the friend of US
Presidents in his book, "Angels," makes the following surprising
statements, "Some have speculated that UFOs could very well be a
part of God's angelic host who preside over the physical affairs
of universal creation. While we cannot assert such a view with
certainty nothing can hide the fact that these unexplained
events are occurring with greater frequency around the entire
world. Some take the detailed descriptions of a highly credible
airline crew and lay them alongside Ezekiel and put forth a
strong case ---- such theories are now being given serious
attention even by people who make no claim to believe in the God
of the Bible. UFOs are astonishingly angel-like in some their
reported appearances."

Most of the description of angels compares nicely with our
available data of at least one group of the alien visitors. In
Genesis, the first book of the Bible and Torah; angels are
described as having bodies with parts such as hands, feet, eyes,
head, voices, mouths, hair, faces and other human body parts. A
few years ago, I had dinner with Zecharia Sitchin the best
selling author of books called the "Earth Chronicles." He told
me that Genesis is true and ought to be read as a historic and
scientific document rather than just a religious one. He felt
ancient civilizations are older and much more technically and
scientifically oriented than we once believed. Ancient Sumerian
texts as well as the Bible reveal the existence of angels or
Anunnaki, 'Those who from Heaven to Earth Came.' He felt that
only in recent years has modern science caught up with ancient
scientific knowledge.

One interesting fact is that the Bible often mentions the angels
in Glowing Metal craft. The Hebrew word 'hashmal' refers to
glowing metal in the description of the divine glory and
brightness and the appearance of fire from the craft. The
descriptions of Ezekiel in the Bible (1:4, 8:2) clearly indicate
brilliant highly polished glowing yellow like brass or electrum
an alloy of silver and gold.

Throughout the Bible and Torah we are told that the angels were
able to introduce life into old women and even virgins. For
example, of Abraham at the age of ninety was barren. Part of
God's covenant with Abraham and Sarah his barren 90 year old
wife was to give them a son Isaac. The covenant also established
circumcision as a sign that the Jewish people were part of God's
people and in turn they would be blessed with numerous
descendants, material wealth and spiritual prosperity. Some of
these births that appeared supernatural may have been
accomplished by advanced technology. John the Baptist was also
born after the angel Gabriel appeared before Zechariah and his
barren wife Elizabeth. Gabriel said," Do not be afraid
Zechariah, your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will
bear you a son, and you are to give him the name John. He will
be a joy and delight to you, and many will rejoice because of
his birth, for he will be great in the sight of the Lord." (Luke
1:13-25) According to the testimony of modern-day abductees
similar births are occurring today.

The immaculate conception of Mary almost certainly occurred just
as the Bible states; "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and
the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one
to be born will be called the Son of God." (Luke 1:35) The
immaculate conception could be explained with the use of modern
medical technology. The angel Gabriel could have artificially
inseminated Mary so that she retained her virginity as the Bible
indicates. Jesus would have been the result, and would in fact
be the Son of God and the Son of Man (Mary).

The Living Bible states, these are the facts concerning the
birth of Jesus Christ. "His mother Mary, was engaged to be
married to Joseph. But while she was still a virgin she became
pregnant by the Holy Spirit. Then Joseph, her fianc being a man
of stern principle, decided to break the engagement and to do it
quietly, as he did not want to disgrace her. As he lay awake
considering this, he fell into a dream and saw an angel standing
beside him. "Joseph son of David," the angel said, "don't
hesitate to take Mary as your wife! For the child within her has
been conceived by the Holy Spirit. And she will have a Son and
you will name him Jesus (meaning 'Savior') for he will save his
people from their sins. This will fulfills God's message through
his prophets. Listen! The virgin shall conceive a child! She
shall give birth to a Son, and he shall be called 'Emmanuel'
(meaning God is with us)" When Joseph awoke, he did as the angel
commanded, and brought Mary home to be his wife, but she
remained a virgin until her Son was born, and Joseph named him
'Jesus'." (Matthew 1-18 to 25).

"That night some shepherds were in the fields outside the
village, guarding their flocks of sheep. Suddenly an angel
appeared among them, and the landscape shone bright with the
glory of the Lord. They were badly frightened, but the angel
reassured them. "Don't be afraid! I bring you the most joyful
news ever announced, and it is for everyone! The Savior-yes the
Messiah, the Lord-has been born tonight in Bethlehem! How will
you recognize him? You will find a baby wrapped in a blanket,
lying in a manager! Suddenly the angel was joined by a vast host
of others--armies of heaven-praising God: Glory to God in the
highest heaven, they sang, "and peace on earth for all those
pleasing him." When this great army of angels had returned again
to heaven, the shepherds said to each other. "Come on! Let's go
to Bethlehem! Let's see this wonderful thing that has happened,
which the Lord has told us about. (Luke 2) The armies of heaven
may describe UFOs that are often seen in large numbers.

The Bible states, "Jesus was born in the town of Bethlehem, in
Judea, during the reign of King Herod." At about that time some
astrologers (wise men) from eastern lands arrived in Jerusalem,
asking, 'Where is the new born King of the Jews?' for we have
seen his star in far-off eastern lands, and have come to worship
him." (Mathew-2.) It would be difficult to follow a star for
many nights to a small town of Bethlehem. One possible
explanation is that the wise men followed the light of a UFO. If
you care to make the assumption that angels and
extraterrestrials exist, perhaps they are the same.

NEW YORK SIGHTINGS OF FLYING TRIANGLES CONTINUE

MONTICELLO, SULLIVAN COUNTY -- On December 4, 2000, a large a
triangular flying object was observed in the daytime sky with
numerous bright lights. The object was sighted at 3:00 PM for
about a minute. Cloud cover appeared to limit the sighting to a
relatively short time. The object was 500 feet or less in
altitude and appeared different from normal aircraft. Thanks to
the MUFON Worldwide UFO Database.

BUFFALO -- Roger Hoeft III writes, "About July of 1998 at 11:00
PM, I was returning home from my job at a major trauma center
and noticed slow moving lights in the sky." I live 15 miles due
east of the city of Buffalo in a rural community. As I was
turning down a road near my home I noticed slow moving lights in
the sky to my right. They were coming from an extremely huge
"ship" that floated over me. I had turned off my engine to my
truck so that I could hear any sounds. There was a low hum
coming from it. There were 3 or 4 white lights either on the
edge or near the bottom. Although it was dark, there had been
enough moon light for me to see the outline of this thing. It
was at least 100 yards long, and 80 feet wide. It was about 200
to 250 feet in the air as it passed over head. I couldn't help
but yell "wow" "this is it!! You've finally seen one!" I wanted
to follow it, but by the time I turned, it was gone. The next
day when I was back at work, and after I had gotten my officers
out to their respective posts, I turned to my friend and said,
"Dave, you won't believe what I saw!"-- and he said, "Wait until
I tell you what I saw!" He proceeded to describe the same UFO to
me. He lives ten miles due north of me, and was driving home at
about the same time and we apparently saw the same craft. Last
month, the Discovery Channel ran a story on "UFOs over
Illinois." This is what we saw! Thanks to Roger Hoeft and Dave
Marracino rhoeft@buffnet.net

FLORIDA BRIGHT OBJECTS MOVING TOGETHER

ORLANDO -- On December 9, 2000, a 49 year old manager stepped
outside to let his dogs out and spotted two bright star like
objects moving together from the southwest to the northeast. It
was a very clear night with an almost a full moon in the eastern
sky. The witness reports he saw two star like objects moving
across the sky and ran inside to grab his binoculars to look up
at them. It still looked like stars moving. The light from them
was extremely bright. One was right behind the other. (Example '
' ) They disappeared behind some tall trees and that was the
last I saw of them at 16:32 hours. It lasted about three minutes
in total time seen. The objects were glowing brightly and were
last sighted in the northeast. Thanks to the MUFON Worldwide UFO
Database

NEW MEXICO BRIGHTLY LIT OBJECTS

CARLSBAD -- On December 9, 2000, we saw two brightly lit objects
take off in the east. We were just getting home at 6:00 PM and
my husband was unloading the truck. I turned and looked to the
east at the moon. I saw what appeared to be 4 stars in a row
above the moon. I thought that was interesting so I watched and
told my husband to look. As I was pointing out the stars to my
husband, suddenly two of them began to move. They accelerated so
rapidly that within 2 or 3 seconds, they were completely gone.
The objects took off flying in a straight path. There was no
noise, they were just gone. We were both elated at seeing these
UFOs. Thanks to the MUFON Worldwide UFO Database.

NEW MEXICO'S WALTER HAUT SAW UFO CRASH SITE

ROSWELL -- Researcher Fred Wilcox called to tell me that he was
in the Army Air Force for 21 months in World War II. He worked
at Roswell Air Force Base in 1948 as a civilian. He met Walter
Haut who had been the Public Relations Officer at Roswell Air
Base and announced the crash of a flying saucer to the press in
1947. Walter became friendly with mutual friend in 1955, who
claimed Walter Haut told her that he had been in charge of the
first crash site and saw the bodies. The wreck of the craft was
in tact, and the 30 feet in diameter craft was taken to Roswell.
Apparently, Walter Haut has told others this story through the
years, but only after getting to know them exceptionally well.
At least one other person who is still alive was also told
Walter's story in the early 50s. Later this person also told
Fred Wilcox about Walter's first hand observation of the crash
site. Walter had been warned to keep his mouth shut and was very
careful in telling only trusted friends. Fred Wilcox claims the
New Mexico State Police also had a picture of the crash site and
likely helped escort the craft back to Roswell. Later the craft
was transported to Wright Field aboard a railroad train. Fred
believes the craft had been flying out of a secret base near
Orogrande, New Mexico since 1941. Thanks to Fred Wilcox of
Amalogordo, New Mexico.

MEXICO UFO PHOTO NEAR POPOCATEPETL VOLCANO

MEXICO CITY -- Francisco Trujillo of the NTX Mexican News agency
contacted me to determine MUFON's opinion of a photograph taken
on Tuesday, December 19, 2000, by a professional photographer
Alfonso Reyes of Notimex. Reyes has taken a remarkable
photograph of a brightly lit object racing toward the
Popocatepetl Volcano near Mexico City. He was capturing the
awakening and explosive eruption of the volcano that is in the
background of the photo. Reyes claims he did not see the object
while shooting the volcanic eruption at 6:10 AM. The object was
not observed until after the picture was developed. The photo is
a 20 second time exposure taken with a 24 MM lens. The time
exposure accounts for the streak that reveals the object's
trajectory that appears to descend towards the volcano. It is
difficult to discern if the object is moving toward or away from
the camera or how it came to be in the film. Popocatepetl means
" Smoking Mountain" and the volcano started new eruptions the
previous day. The object may be the result of Earth Lights;
volcanic related earthquakes, pyro plastic flows, or plasmas
caused by titanic earth stresses. Of course the object may be
simply a UFO and detailed analysis is under way. Volcanologists
have been concerned that the volcano may explode, but shortly
after the photo was taken the volcano mysteriously stopped its
eruptions.

Many UFOs have been seen and photographed in the area in the
past. For example, on June 29, 1999, the surveillance camera of
the CENAPRED, the government agency for disasters prevention was
monitoring Popocatepetl taking time lapse photos at intervals. A
disk shaped dark object was photographed near the volcano crater
emerging from the smoke clouds at 1:20 PM. Other photos and
video of UFOs have been seen. UFOs seem to have a strange
fascination with volcanoes so if the eruptions continue there
are likely to be more photos and video. Now Popocatepetl does
not appear dangerous but
chances for 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 >
   Dec > Dec 25

                                   Humbug

From: Mendoza Peter Brookesmith <DarkSecretPB@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 21:15:52 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 23:59:04 -0500
Subject: Humbug


The Duke of Mendoza presents his compliments.

 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 13:04:07 -0600
 >Fwd Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 07:51:24 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review - Clark

Collectors of Canby Gems will, of course, have archived the
whole of this delicious message, but I shall address only a few
sentences. One:

 >I am not talking about "personal conflict," just a response to
 >uncivilized behavior appropriate to the crime.

Jerome, Boy Bishop of Canby as it irritates him to be known,
often expresses his puzzlement as to the meaning of his
interlocutors' comments. I cannot make sense of this one of his.
Rather than merely [sic] it, or even sub it, I request a gloss.
Others' opinions of its meaning (if any, and whether any) are of
course equally welcome to me. This isn't a personal conflict,
you understand.

And now second:

 >Note that Easton
 >has never retracted or apologized, leaving you only to "hope he
 >now regrets" his words. There is no evidence that he harbors
 >any such sentiment. At the least, he owes Georgina - and
 >perhaps List members as well - an apology.

E.M. Forster, whose name English Major and, I presume, graduate,
Jerome Clark ought to recognize, once famously offered the
advice: "Never apologize, and never explain." Sometimes this is
not such a bad wheeze. If "pathetic bitch" is James Easton's
honest appraisal of the Suntan of Bruni, why should he
apologize?

The one indisputable fact is that we only learned of this
opinion of James through the admitted and publicly regretted
oversight of our beloved moderator. Without that, James's
opinion would have remained a private one. So James is really
being asked to apologize for having *posted* a form of words not
generally acceptable in polite society - not for holding that
opinion, note, but for being so rash as to try to state it in
public.

I find something strangely amiss here. Jerome Clark is, I happen
to know, perfectly capable of being just as rude in private
(that is, behind peoples' backs) about individuals as James was
revealed to be in this instance. A few months ago I was
forwarded a note from him to someone (details were omitted from
the FW: - the message seems to have been bounced fairly
thoroughly around the globe before it got back to me) in which
he apostrophized me as "What an asshole". Now, I have been
called worse things than that - "Not worth a cup of cold piss"
(Winter 1963), or "Jewish gold digger" (Autumn 1999) being among
treasured examples from an extensive experience of variegated
abuse from lower orders and cheaper seats. So the Diocesean
Opinion of Mendoza is itself neither a matter of dispute nor a
cause of, er, personal conflict. What's rather rich is that J.
Clark seems to think it's fine to slag someone off in private in
such terms, but baulks when someone else does the like in
public.

This is the same person who *appears* to think that ad hominem
attacks are fine when made in response to (perceived) ad hominem
attacks, but are otherwise verboten or at least uncouth. I
always thought this was lowering yourself to the level of your
opponents, but some people have more flexible moral approaches,
it seems.

My own view, for what it's worth, is that one shouldn't say
anything in private about other people that one isn't prepared
to say to their face. Consequently I find this (my third Gem)
following a singular piece of Yuletide Hum Buggery.

 >This is the holiday season, and >we should all endeavor to
think the best of our fellows.

O, really. Why? After all, you - and the rest of the world no
doubt - will be thinking the worst of them next week, won't you?

What's this got to do with ufology? Nothing and everything.

For is there not something rather pathetic about a subject, or a
person representing it, that values expression over content? To
judge from other posts I've bothered to look at on this List
lately, this isn't an uncommon frame of mind. There's a juicy
irony here however: in that bitchiness and flouncing are highly
developed arts among ufologists ("You are clearly incapable of
nuanced discussion" - whose catchphrase is that?) - but that is
acceptable rhetoric, of course, when attempting to trounce the
opposition, aka "skeptics and debunkers".

Above, below and beyond the pathos and the flames, I suggest, is
a deep insecurity about the value of what's at issue. You see
the same behaviors in all fringe groups. And the same hubris,
amour propre, and pomposity. Read Lenin, sometime, and mark
those same characteristics; and reflect on what happens in those
mercifully rare instances that such a denizen of the fringes
attains real power. Then tremble.

Best wishes and sod the season
Piguerao D. Morrigan
Mythical Beast






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 26

                       Re: Carlos Diaz Case - Hesemann

From: Michael Hesemann <H130437@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 23:28:55 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 01:21:52 -0500
Subject: Re: Carlos Diaz Case - Hesemann


 >Date: 20 Dec 2000 11:59:08 -0800
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
 >Subject: Re: Carlos Diaz Case


Merry Christmas from Germany


Bill Hamilton is right when he states that Jim Dilettoso was and
still is sceptical or suspicious re. the Carlos Diaz case. But
this is his full right. Still, he did not uncover any evidence
of a hoax. Nor does or did he ever claim so, as Bill did.

It is true that Jim had the hypothesis that the ray of light
shooting from the object might have been a stick painted with
fluorescent colour. But he clearly stated in the interview that
he has no evidence that this was the case. Indeed, if you study
the footage frame by frame you find several good reasons that
this is highly unprobable. One is the perspective, another one
the fact that the light of the ray is extremely bright, too
bright to be reflected light, and too regular to come from a
rounded surface of a stick.

I have all computer images Jim created during our work on the
footage, since I recorded them on digital video. In none is any
indication of a brighter light in the center of a disc,
indicating the use of a light bulb.

Since the Diaz objects are nighttime shots of pure light
objects, I do not see any possibility to do the edge comparison
Jim mentioned in his statement, especially since on two of the
three videos tested NO reference points are visible at all -
certainly not the "ladder" he remembers.

On the third video, indeed a reference point is visible - a
large tree which partially COVERS the object. We were able to
identify this tree plus a smaller one next to it which is also
slightly "touched" by the object�s light, after we artificially
brightened the original footage up and enhanced the contrast by
the use of false colour (a legitimate method). We furthermore
verified by zoom comparison the distance of the trees to the
cameras which turned out to be 345 feet. The diameter of the
tree was 65 feet. Therefore we had to conclude that the craft
had a diameter of at least 60 feet. Since Carlos brought his
original camera tapes to the Village Labs -the reason why we
flew him in- Jim had the possibility to scan and copy the
original footage in the best possible quality.

If he is willing to do further work especially on the tree
footage -which I think is more important than any other of the
Diaz films because of the clearly identifyable reference point-
I would be more than happy to send him our comparative shots,
taken at the same location about three years later. With all
respect to Jim, whom I highly respect as a true pioneer and
expert on the field, let me remember everyone that even in this
latest statement he does not claim that he "found evidence of a
hoax". Instead he "was skeptical" on the base of uncertain
("found similar", "seem to be", "may have had", "feel
rather"...).

As he states rightly and truly, he might "need more time and
better images to have a complete position".

Therefore, his position at the moment, to do him justice, is
rather INCONCLUSIVE - positive on the first photos, sceptical on
the latest films.

Alright, Jim, let�s do more work!

Michael Hesemann
Duesseldorf, Germany







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 26

              Re: [canufo] Next Batch Of CIRVIS Documents Up -

From: Jan Aldrich <project1947@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 21:34:22 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 07:59:18 -0500
Subject: Re: [canufo] Next Batch Of CIRVIS Documents Up -


 >Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 11:38:57 -0500
 >From: Kenny Young <ufo@fuse.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: [canufo] Next Batch Of CIRVIS Documents Up

 >>From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: [canufo] Next Batch Of CIRVIS Documents Up
 >>Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 11:16:45 -0500

 >>I talked to a researcher who submitted large number of FOIA
 >>requests for CIRVIS/MERINT reports during the last 30 years.
 >>The only one's he ever got involved the "Northern >Tier" base
 >>sightings in 1975.

 >>There are a few C/M in Blue Book and one or two in the 4602d
 >>AISS files. FUFOR got a few fromt the National Military Command
 >>Center. Recently, CUFOS recovered some more of Hynek's
 >>papers....There was a declassified report by the North East Air
 >>Command for 1952 summarizing CIRVIS reports in that area....this
 >>is the largest collection of CIRVIS reports from the US, I have
 >>seen.

 >>Jan Aldrich
 >>Project 1947

 >Jan:

 >In '97 I filed a FOIA to the Director of Naval Intelligence
 >requesting info regarding CIRVIS reports to the Department of
 >Navy. According to Air Force Manual 10-206 [dated Sept. 1, 1995]
 >section 5.7.4., the Air Force Operational Reporting System
 >[AFROP] policy states that all photographic documentation of
 >CIRVIS incidents are to be forwarded to the Department of Navy
 >for processing. A specific address is given in the instruction
 >manual for sending photographic CIRVIS documentation: Director
 >of Naval Intelligence, Department of the Navy, Washington, DC
 >20305

 >So I felt my FOIA was very specific and very targeted but they
 >still shot me down. My FOIA appeal was also a fairly routine
 >'denial of records' reply so I called the person who handled the
 >request and they said that what I needed to provide them with
 >was "the originating agency" responsible for passing along the
 >aforementioned CIRVIS photographic documentation. Of course that
 >is what I was looking for, though, and without a specific CIRVIS
 >report in hand, how could I provide that?

 >But the fella I spoke with did not inform that there were *no*
 >CIRVIS info, photographic or otherwise, he simply said I had to
 >cite a specific originating agency responsible for submitting
 >the material to them. Not that this particular officer
 >necessarily knew of anything in particular, which he probably
 >didn't have access to himself, but I am still left with the
 >suspicion that there may be a little treasure trove of CIRVIS
 >info unceremoniously tucked away somewhere.

 >AFROP manual is at:


http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usaf/10-206.htm

 >Merry Christmas,
 >Kenny Young
 >--
 >   U F O  R e s e a r c h
 >  http://home.fuse.net/ufo/



Thanks, Kenny, one of my next actions was to follow up on the
same thing you already did. Getting much out of the Navy is
always a chore. Now, I just go back and banging my head against
the CIA's stonewall. ("We don't know nuthin' we ain't dun
nuthin' and yuz can't prove nuthin'!")

The CIA's answers are always more creative than the Navy's (We
don't have any files, if we had any files we gave them to the
Air Force or we destroyed them, or lost at sea or the dog eat my
homework.) No, good creative excuses are becoming rarer, I am
waiting for this one: "a meteor hit our records holding area and
destroyed the files you want."

Regards,

Jan








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 26

                  Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 05:14:35 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 16:37:07 -0500
Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Sparks


 >Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 12:50:37 +0000
 >From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People'


 >>From: Luis R. Gonzlez Manso <lrgm@arrakis.es>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People'
 >>Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 09:17:09 +0100


 >>>Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 11:04:43 +0000
 >>>From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People'


 >>>>Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 13:25:04 -0500
 >>>>From: Kelly Peterborough <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People'

 >><snip>

 >In no way has Easton done his homework. He has left many
 >questions unanswered and wide gaping holes in his theory. It
 >shows an amateurish and limited understanding of airplanes and
 >their behavior in the skies and the way pilots navigate through
 >the skies and the engineering involved in moving a mass through
 >the skies for that matter. Most people addressing this problem
 >have no appreciation or understanding of the environment that
 >Arnold was working, the speeds involved [straight and level,
 >banking, climbing descending etc.], the layout of the cockpit,
 >its instrumentation, and the difference between seeing over the
 >ground and seeing at altitude.

 >The best that Easton has been able to come up with is that
 >pelicans fly and there are pelicans in Washington state. That's
 >not doing your home work. The first is a given and the second
 >can be proved easiliy by looking in the Audubon's[sp]Societies
 >Handbook. From this he solves the puzzle?

 >Don Ledger


Hi Don,

Actually, you are quite right but it is even worse than you
describe.  Pelicans apparently show up very rarely if ever
around Mt. Rainier at 10,000 feet.


Brad Sparks







                         The UFO UpDates Archive
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 26

                      Transcript Of Halt Tape (part I)

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 13:36:56 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 19:44:11 -0500
Subject: Transcript Of Halt Tape (part I)


TRANSCRIPT OF THE HALT TAPE (Part I)
Investigating the landing site

The following full transcript is of a tape recording that was made
by Lt Colonel Halt during his investigation into the Rendlesham
Forest incident in December 1980. This was taken from the
original copy, which is much clearer than the one in the public
domain. It was sent to me by Colonel Sam Morgan, via General
Gordon Williams. I post here for discussion.

Permission to publish as long as the source is quoted:
Halt transcript from "You Can't Tell The People".

This transcript and many more details relating to the "Halt tape" are
featured in my book.

Notes:

There are background radio conversations throughout the recording;
most feature radio transmissions between Sgt Bustinza and Central
Security Control. Due to these messages being in the background
however, more often than not they are overpowered by Colonel
Halt�s voice talking into his pocket recorder, so only those that are
clear are translated here. My own comments are in brackets.

Rendlesham Forest, December 1980

LT COLONEL HALT: (Officer in charge) 150 feet or more from
the initial, I should say suspected impact point. Having a little
difficulty,
we can�t get the light-all to work. There seems to be some kind of
mechanical problem. Let�s send back and get another light-all.
Meantime, we�re gonna take some readings from the Geiger counter,
and err, chase around the area a little bit waiting for another light-all to
come out again.

SGT BUSTINZA: [on a radio in the background, obviously trying to
organise more light-alls] ...to security control.........that�s mark ....
155...number.....

LT COLONEL HALT: OK, we�re now approaching an area within
about 25-30 feet. What kind of readings are we getting.....err

Break in tape

SGT NEVILLES (Geiger Operator)  Just minor clicks,

LT. COLONEL HALT minor clicks

Break in tape

VOICE OVER: [These voice overs are recorded over the initial
recording and are not related to incident. It is the voice of Colonel
Conrad, the Base Commander] Do you think it�s going to be a nice
day today?

VOICE OVER: Yeah, I think so

LT COLONEL HALT: What are the impressions?

SGT NEVILLES: Just one, but....

LT COLONEL HALT: Is that all the bigger they are?

SGT NEVILLES: Well, there�s one more well defined over here.

SGT BUSTINZA: [on a radio] ...Sergeant Bustinza to security
control....

LT COLONEL HALT: We�re still getting clicks

SGT BUSTINZA: �.. Sergeant Bustinza. Well we�re outta gas...
we�re at east gate...east gate, over

LT COLONEL HALT: Can you read that on the scale?

SGT NEVILLES: [examining the area with a Geiger counter]
Yes Sir. We�re now on a five tenths scale and we�re reading
about..er..third, fourth���

LT COLONEL HALT: OK, we�re still comfortably safe here?

SGT BUSTINZA: [on a radio] you don�t have a light-all or [?] �
.....or anything....duty security. Can you hear me?....Sergeant....
a light all, with gas please.

LT ENGLUND: [the on duty Flight Chief] We�re still getting
minor readings.......we�re getting a good indentation.

SGT BUSTINZA [on radio] ... security D to security

SGT NEVILLES: This one�s dead

LT ENGLUND: Let�s go to the third one over here

SGT NEVILLES: Sort of, whatever it is.

SGT BUSTINZA: [on radio] ....Sergeant Bustinza .....security.....

SGT NEVILLES: Yes, now getting some residual.

LT. COLONEL HALT: How can you read that? The meters
definitely giving off pulse.

LT ENGLUND: About the centre

LT COLONEL HALT: Yes, I was gonna say, let�s go to the
centre of the area next, see what kind of reading we get out there.
Keep reading the clicks. I can�t hear the clicks. Guess you all....
is that about centre Bruce [asking Lt Bruce Englund]

LT ENGLUND: Yes

LT COLONEL HALT: OK let�s go to the centre.

SGT NEVILLES: Yes I�m getting more.......

LT COLONEL HALT: That�s about the best deflection of the
needle I�ve seen yet. OK, can you do an estimation? We�re on a
point five scale, we�re getting ....having trouble reading the scale.

LT ENGLUND: At err, approximately 0125 hours

Break in tape

NOISE OVER: Deep cough

SGT NEVILLES: We�re getting rad at err a half a [sounds like
milliren]

UNKNOWN VOICE: Chuck. [This is Colonel Halt�s name,
Charles, known as Chuck]

Break in tape

NOISE OVER: Loud gong noise. [Not connected with the forest
recording]

LT COLONEL HALT: ......... best point, I haven�t seen it go any
higher.

LT ENGLUND: Well, it�s still flying around

LT COLONEL HALT: OK we�ll go out toward the....

LT ENGLUND: Now it�s picking up ...

LT COLONEL HALT: This out toward the indentation were we
first got the strongest reading. It�s similar to what we got in the centre.

SGT NEVILLES: Right near the pod. It�s right near the centre.

LT ENGLUND: This looks like an area here across where there could
be a blast. It�s in the centre.

LT ENGLUND: It jumped up towards seven.....

LT COLONEL HALT: What?

LT ENGLUND: It just jumped towards seven tenths there.

LT COLONEL HALT: Seven tenths, right there in the centre?

LT ENGLUND: Ah, Ah.

LT COLONEL HALT: We found a small blast what looks like a
blasted or scruffed up area here. We�re getting very positive readings.
Let�s see, is that near the centre?

LT ENGLUND: Yes it is.

SGT NEVILLES: Well, we assume it is..

LT ENGLUND: This is right in the centre....dead centre...

SGT NEVILLES: picking up more as you go along the whole area there
now...

LT COLONEL HALT: Up to seven tenths.......

SGT BUSTINZA: [on radio, still struggling with the transmissions] .....
55, this is our last call......

LT COLONEL HALT: .......or seven units. It�s going on the point five
scale.

Break in tape

LT COLONEL HALT:  OK why don�t we do this, why don�t we make
a sweep now I�ve got my gloves on now. Let�s make a sweep out around
the whole area about ten foot out and make a perimeter run around it,
starting right back at here at the corner, back at the same first corner
where we came in. Let�s go right back here.... now I�m gonna have to
depend upon you counting the clicks.

LT ENGLUND: Right.

LT COLONEL HALT: OK, get the light-all on it.

LT ENGLUND: Lets sweep around it

SGT NEVILLES: It was flying

Break in tape

LT COLONEL HALT: Put it on the ground every once in a while.

BACKGROUND: We have lights nearby.......

LT ENGLUND: This looks like an abrasion on the tree......

LT COLONEL HALT: OK, we�ll catch that on the way back,
let�s go around

LT ENGLUND: We�re getting interest right over here. It looks like
it�s an abrasion pointing into the centre......

LT COLONEL HALT: It is

LT ENGLUND: .....of the landing area.

LT COLONEL HALT: it may be old though. There�s some sap
marks or something like that. Let�s go on back around.

UNKNOWN VOICE: Err

Break in tape

SGT NEVILLES: It also gives some extension on it.

LT COLONEL HALT: Hey, this is an awkward thing to use, isn�t it?

SGT NEVILLES: Normally you see I carry it on my...on my ears
but this one broke.

LT COLONEL HALT: Are we getting any further? I�m gonna shut
this recorder off until we find something.

SGT NEVILLES: Picking up

LT COLONEL HALT: Pickin up.. What are we up to? We�re up
to two-three units deflection. You�re getting in close to the pod?

SGT NEVILLES: Picking up something...picking up.

LT COLONEL HALT: OK. It�s still not going above three to four
units.

SGT NEVILLES: Picking up more though, more frequent.

LT COLONEL HALT: Yes, you�re staying - you�re staying steady
up around two to three to four units now.

SGT BUSTINZA: [still struggling with the radio] 155

LT ENGLUND: Each one of these trees is facing at a blast, what we
assume is a landing site, all have abrasion facing in the same direction
towards the centre. The same.......

LT COLONEL HALT: Let�s go around a circle here. Turn back down
here.

MASTER SGT BALL: Try the other tree.

SGT NEVILLES: Picking up something ...a ........

LT COLONEL HALT: Let me see that. You know I�ve got a funny .......
you�re worried about the abrasion. I�ve never seen a tree that�s, err..

MASTER SERGEANT BALL: That�s a small sap mark

LT COLONEL HALT: I�ve never seen a pine tree that�s been
damaged, react that fast. [Interference, voices all talking together]

SGT NEVILLES: You got a bottle to put that in?

LT COLONEL HALT: You got a sample bottle?

LT ENGLUND: Yes put out the...that�s for the soil sample.....
[interference]

SGT NEVILLES: Yes Sir.

VOICES: [excited]

LT COLONEL HALT: From now on let�s [gap] let�s....

LT ENGLUND: You�ll notice they�re all at the same...

LT COLONEL HALT: Let�s, lets, lets identify that as point number
one. That stake there. So you all know where it is if we have to
sketch it. You got that Sergeant Nevilles?

SGT NEVILLES: Yes Sir. Closest to the Woodbridge......

LT COLONEL HALT: Closest to the Woodbridge base.

SGT NEVILLES: Be point one?

LT COLONEL HALT: Be point one. Let�s go clockwise from there.

SGT NEVILLES: Point two?

LT ENGLUND Go ahead.........

LT COLONEL HALT: Point two. So this tree is between two and
point three.

MASTER SGT BALL: Burroughs and two other personnel requesting
..... riding on a jeep, that err, your location. [Airman John Burroughs
arrives with a patrol]

LT COLONEL HALT: Tell them negative at this time. We�ll tell them
when they can come out here. We don�t want them out here right now.

Break in tape

LT COLONEL HALT: OK the sample, you gonna want this sample
number one? Have em cut it off, include some of that sap and all.....
is between indentation two and three on a pine tree about err.....about
five feet away...about three and half feet off the ground.

SGT NEVILLES: ........I�ll just put it in there for now, I�ve got some
more..........

LT COLONEL HALT: There�s a round abrasion on the tree about three
and a half, four inches diameter. It looks like it might be old, but er,
strange
there�s a crystalline....pine sap that�s come that fast.

SGT FRAIL: [seems in the distance] .��Sergeant Frail��

LT COLONEL HALT: You say there are other trees that are damaged
in a similar fashion?

LT ENGLUND:........centre of the landing site............[interference]

LT COLONEL HALT: OK, why don�t you take a picture of that and
remember your picture. Hey, I hope you�re writing this down. It�s gonna
be on the tape.

SGT NEVILLES: You got a tape measure with you?

LT COLONEL HALT: This is your picture, the first picture will be at the
first tree, the one between err...mark two and three. Meantime, I�m gonna
look at a couple of those trees over here.

Break in tape

UNKNOWN VOICE: We are getting some.....

Break in tape

LT COLONEL HALT: We are getting readings on the tree. You�re
taking samples from on the side facing the suspected landing site?

LT ENGLUND: Four clicks max.

LT COLONEL HALT: Up to four. Interesting. That�s right were
you�re taking the sample now.

LT ENGLUND: Four

LT COLONEL HALT: That�s the strongest point on the tree?

SGT NEVILLES: Yes sir, and if you come to the back, there�s
no clicks whatsoever.

LT COLONEL HALT: No clicks at all in the back

SGT NEVILLES: Maybe one or two

LT COLONEL HALT: It�s all on the side facing the....interesting.

LT COLONEL HALT: Looks like it f.....� twisted as it got....as it
sat down on it, looks like something twisted it from side to side.

LT ENGLUND: Ah, Ah

LT COLONEL HALT: Very strange. We�re at the same tree we
took a sample of with this, what do you call it.....the starscope.

LT ENGLUND: Ah ah, Stargazer

LT COLONEL HALT: Getting a definite heat reflection off the tree,
about three to four feet off the ground?

LT ENGLUND: Yes...the same side in....

LT COLONEL HALT: the same place were the ......is

LT ENGLUND: .....we�re getting heat directly behind us. I think we
got the same thing off to your right.

LT COLONEL HALT: There are three trees in the area immediately
adjacent to the site within ten feet of the suspected landing site; we�re
picking up heat reflection off the trees.

LT ENGLUND: Shine the light on that Bob [Sgt Bob Ball]

LT COLONEL HALT: What�s that again?

LT ENGLUND: Well, shine the light on again Bob

LT COLONEL HALT: Why, you having trouble finding it...turn the
light on.

LT ENGLUND: ...then when you want em you�ll notice the white

[Suddenly there is a very strange humming sound and the men are silent]

LT COLONEL HALT: Hey...........[long silent gap apart from humming
noise]

LT COLONEL HALT: You�re right there�s a white streak on the tree.

LT ENGLUND: Indicates er.............

LT COLONEL HALT: Let�s turn around and look at this tree over
here now. Just a second. Watch, because you�re right in front of the tree.
I can see it. OK, give me a little side light so I can find the tree. OK,
ahh...

SGT BUSTINZA: [still on the radio] Alpha 2 security.......

LT COLONEL HALT: I�ve lost the tree.

LT COLONEL HALT: OK stop! Stop! Light off.  Hey, this is eerie.

MASTER SGT BALL: Why don�t you do the pods spots..............

LT COLONEL HALT: This is strange! Hey, does anyone wanna look
at the spots on the ground? Whoops! Watch you don�t step.....

BACKGROUND: Five beeps from a vehicle arriving on the scene

LT COLONEL HALT............you�re walking all over them. OK, let�s
step back and don�t walk all over em. Come back here - somebody and
put a beam on em. You�re gonna have to be back about ten, fifteen feet.
You see it ....

LT ENGLUND: OK fine.......

LT COLONEL HALT: OK, lights off.

Break in tape

VOICE OVER: [Colonel Conrad] He took this long to document......


LT COLONEL HALT: What do you think about the spot?

[Radio interference in background]

LT COLONEL HALT: Yeah

Break in tape

LT COLONEL HALT: ....ready at the first spot? OK, that�s what
we�ll call spot number three. Let�s go in the back corner and get
spot number one. Spot number one, here�s spot number one right
there, spot number one right there. Do you need some light? There
it is right here. ...you focused?

SGT NEVILLES: Focused

LT COLONEL HALT: OK......looking at spot number one through
the starlight scope.

LT ENGLUND: Picking up a slight increase in light as I go over it

LT COLONEL HALT: Slight increase in light in spot number one.
Let�s go look at spot number two. Spot number two�s right over here.
Right here, see it?

LT ENGLUND:...........................Slight increase

LT COLONEL HALT: OK, get focused on it. Tell me when,
OK lights on. Let�s see what we get on it.

LT ENGLUND: Slight increase

LT COLONEL HALT: Just a slight increase?

LT ENGLUND: Try the centre

LT COLONEL HALT: The centre spot, not really centre,
slightly off centre. It�s right there.

LT ENGLUND: Right here

LT COLONEL HALT: OK, we�re gonna get your reading on it
right there.

LT ENGLUND: OK

LT COLONEL HALT: Tell me when you�re ready.

LT ENGLUND: Ready

LT COLONEL HALT: OK lights on. It�s the centre spot we�re
looking at now; almost the centre.

LT ENGLUND: Getting a slight increase.

LT COLONEL HALT: Slight increase there. This is slightly off centre
toward the err..one - two side. It�s er..some type of abrasion or
something in the ground were the pine needles are pushed back were
we get a high radiact...err high reading about a deflection of er, two to
three, maybe four, depending on the point of it.

Note:
[this abrasion corresponds with the exact same position-just off centre
in landing site photographs taken by Ray Gulyas]

LT ENGLUND: Someone wanna check it?

Break in tape

SEGEANT NEVILLES: Yes

LT COLONEL HALT: Are you sure there�s a positive after effect?

SGT NEVILLES: Yes, there is, definitely. That�s on the centre spot,
there is an after effect.

LT ENGLUND: What does that mean?

SGT NEVILLES: It means that when the lights are turned off, once
we all focused in, allowed time for the eyes to adjust, we are getting an
indication of heat source coming out of that centre spot...as err.........
which will show up on the ...........

LT COLONEL HALT: Heat or some form of energy, it�s hardly heat
at this stage of the game.

SGT NEVILLES: But it is still heat......

Break in tape

LT COLONEL HALT: Looking directly overhead, one can see an
opening in the trees, plus some freshly broken pine branches on the





                         The UFO UpDates Archive
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 26

                      Transcript Of Halt Tape (Part II)

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 13:36:35 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 19:45:50 -0500
Subject: Transcript Of Halt Tape (Part II)


TRANSCRIPT OF THE HALT TAPE (Part II) Investigating the UFOs

The following full transcript is of a tape recording that was
made by Lt Colonel Halt during his investigation into the
Rendlesham Forest incident in December 1980. This was taken from
the original copy, which is much clearer than the one in the
public domain. It was sent to me by Colonel Sam Morgan, via
General Gordon Williams. Permission to publish as long as the
source is quoted:

Halt transcript from "You Can't Tell The People".

This transcript and many more details relating to the "Halt
tape" are featured in my book.

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

Rendlesham Forest, December 1980

LT COLONEL HALT: 01.48. We�re hearing some strange sounds out of
the farmers...

SGT NEVILLES: Twenty eight....seven...

LT COLONEL HALT: ...... barnyard animals. They�re very very
active and making an awful lot of noise.

SGT NEVILLES: .......definite pigmentation...........

LT COLONEL HALT: You saw a light? Slow down. Where, where?

SGT NEVILLES: Right on this position here. Straight ahead in
between the trees...[Adrian Bustinza pointed out that someone
saw a light going through the trees]

LT ENGLUND: There it is again......beginning of the gap...right
there

SGT NEVILLES: It throw the hell off my flashlight there.

LT COLONEL HALT: Hey I see it too. What is it?

SGT NEVILLES: We don�t know sir.

LT COLONEL HALT: OK, it�s a strange small red light, looks to be
out maybe a quarter - half mile, maybe further out. I�m gonna
switch off for a.......

Break in tape

LT COLONEL HALT: The light is gone now. It was approximately 120
degrees from the site.

SGT NEVILLES: It�s back again

LT COLONEL HALT: Is it back again?

SGT NEVILLES: Yes sir

LT COLONEL HALT: Well douse flashlights then. Let�s go back to
the edge of the clearing then, so we can get a better look at
it. See if you can get the starscope on it. The light�s still
there and all the barnyard animals have gotten quiet now. We�re
heading about 110 -120 degrees rom the site, out through the
clearing now. Still getting a reading on the meter about 2
clicks. Needles jumped 3-4 clicks getting stronger. [Bustinza
said that when he returned with the light-all the patrol were in
a clearing on the edge of the forest]

SGT NEVILLES: Now it�s stopped. Now it�s coming up. Hold on,
here we go. Now it�s coming up about approximately 4 foot off
the ground. The compass has 110 degrees.

Break in tape

LT COLONEL HALT: Right, I just turned the meter off. Better say
that again, about 4 feet off the ground, about a 110 degrees,
getting the reading of about 4 clicks.

SERGEANT NEVILLES: Yes sir............................[????]
Cough; excuse me, now it�s died.

LT COLONEL HALT: I ......I think it�s something here on the
ground. I think it�s something.....very large....

SGT NEVILLES: ....a tree right over......

Break in tape

LT COLONEL HALT: We just bumped into the first light that we�ve
seen.

We�re about a 150 -200 yards from the site. Everything else is
just deathly calm. There�s no doubt about it, there�s some kind
of strange flashing red light ahead.

SGT NEVILLES: Yeah, It�s yellow.

LT COLONEL HALT: I saw a yellow tinge in it too. Weird. It
appears to be making a little bit this way?

SGT NEVILLES: Yes sir

LT COLONEL HALT: It�s brighter than it has been........It�s
coming this way. It�s definitely coming this way.

MASTER SERGEANT BALL: Pieces are shooting off.

LT COLONEL HALT: Pieces of it are shooting off.

MASTER SERGEANT BALL: at about 11 o clock..... [referring to its
position]

LT COLONEL HALT: There�s no doubt about it; this is weird.

MASTER SGT BALL: Look to the left

SGT NEVILLES: There�s two lights. One light to the right and one
light to the left.

LT COLONEL HALT: Keep your flash light off. There�s something
very very strange. Check the headset out see if it gets any
stronger. Give us....

SGT NEVILLES: OK, I have an indication that this is a vague
reading too

LT COLONEL HALT: A vague reading?

SGT NEVILLES: The cable has been removed

LT COLONEL HALT: OK.. pieces are falling off it again

MASTER SERGEANT BALL: It just moved to the right...went off to
the right

LT COLONEL HALT: Yeah ....strange, Auh.

LT ENGLUND: Went off to the right.

LT COLONEL HALT: Strange. Ahhh. One again left. Let�s approach
the edge of the woods at that point. Can we do without lights?
Let�s do it carefully, come on.. OK we�re looking at the thing,
we�re probably about 2-3 hundred yards away. It looks like an
eye winking at you, it�s still moving from side to side and when
we put the starscope on it, it�s sorta a hollow centre right, a
dark centre, it�s....

LT ENGLUND: It�s like a pupil...

LT COLONEL HALT: It�s like the pupil of an eye looking at you,
winking . ....and the flash is so bright to the starscope, that
err.... it almost burns your eye.

Break in tape

Added Note:

[There is now a huge gap and no indication of what happened
next]

LT COLONEL HALT: We�ve passed the farmer�s house and are
crossing the next field and we now have multiple sightings of up
to five lights with a similar shape and all, but they seem
steady rather than pulsating a glow with a red flash.  We�ve
just crossed the creek...

LT ENGLUND: Here we go...

LT COLONEL HALT: What kinda readings are we getting now? We�re
getting three good clicks on the meteor and we�re seeing strange
lights in the sky.

Break in tape

LT COLONEL HALT: 2.44: We�re at the far side of the farmers, the
second farmers field and made sighting again about 110 degrees.
This looks clear out to the coast. It�s right on the horizon.
Moves about a bit and flashes from time to time.  Still steady
and red in colour. Also, after negative readings in the field,
we�re picking up slight readings 4-5 clicks now on the meter.

Break in tape

LT COLONEL HALT: 3.05: We see strange err, strobe like flashes
to the err ... almost sporadic, but there�s definitely something
there, some kind of phenomena. 3.05: At about err..10 degrees
horizon err directly north, we got two strange objects,
err..half moon shape, dancing about with coloured lights on
them. but err. it has to be about 5-10 miles out, maybe less.
The half moons have now turned into full circles as though there
was an eclipse or something there for a minute or two.

Break in tape

LT COLONEL HALT: 3.15: Now we�ve got an object about ten degrees
directly south...

SGT NEVILLES: There�s one to the left

LT COLONEL HALT: 10 degrees off the horizon, and the ones to the
north are moving, one�s moving away from us.

SGT NEVILLES: It�s moving out fast

LT COLONEL HALT: They�re moving out fast.

MASTER SGT BALL: There�s one on the right heading away too.

LT COLONEL HALT: Yeah, they�re both heading north. Hey, here he
comes from the south; he�s coming in toward us now.

MASTER SERGEANT BALL: Shit

LT COLONEL HALT: Now were observing what appears to be a beam
coming down to the ground.

[Excited shouting in the background]

MASTER SGT BALL: Look at the colours...shit

LT COLONEL HALT: This is unreal

Break in tape

LT COLONEL HALT: 3.30: And the objects are still in the sky,
although the one to the south looks like it�s loosing a little
bit of altitude. We�re turning around and heading back toward
the base. The object to the sou...the object to the south is
still beaming down lights to the ground.

Break in tape

LT COLONEL HALT: 0:400 Hours one object still hovering over the
Woodbridge base at about 5-10 degrees off the horizon. Still





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 26

                        Re: Christmas Truce? - Bruni

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 13:36:42 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 19:46:31 -0500
Subject: Re: Christmas Truce? - Bruni


 >From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Christmas Truce?
 >Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 20:21:31 -0000

 >Wouldn't it be a nice idea - as it is Christmas - if we called a
 >truce on some of the battles being fought on this List?

It would indeed Jenny and I hope you are enjoying the season. I
don't think you and I are fighting a battle, but simply
discussing the case.

 >To Georgina, I say, my review was just that - one review. It
 >will not effect your book and its undoubted success one jot.

True. I thought how funny it was though, that you should lecture
me when you yourself commented on a negative review that you
received for one of your books on Rendlesham. In fact, Jenny you
actually posted a letter of complaint  to Magonia, the sceptic
magazine. Surf down the page at:

http://www.magonia.demon.co.uk/ethbull/mms14.html

 >And I do respect your efforts. I know its hard to see that. But lets
 >just agree to disagree. After all, you've said things I really
 >don't like either - and which I don't think are true - regarding
 >my own writings on matters like the Mal Scurrah radar case and
 >the Cobra Mist research.

Please read my reply to your post on Malcolm Scurrah. We can
agree to disagree but isn't it better that the facts should be
presented so that people don't get confused between what is fact
and what is fiction?

 >So why not just accept that we cannot ever agree on everything
 > and that we have both tried, in our own >different ways, to
 >understand this case and published what we believed (and still believe)
 >to be the truth. Most people out there will gain things from what we
 >both say. That should be enough.

No Jenny, that's not enough. My book is not about my theories,
it is about the facts. It is full of facts and statements from
people (first-hand) who were there at the time! What you and I
believe is not the issue here, it's not about us, it's about
presenting the case with as many facts as possible, not
theories. So I have to disagree.

Now let's take another look at the Halt tape and lighthouse
theory.


Best wishes

Georgina

"You Can't Tell The People".The Definitive Account of the Rendlesham
Forest UFO Mystery by Georgina Bruni. Published by Sidgwick & Jackson
Available on-line at: www.amazon.co.uk Countries outside UK:
www.netstoreusa.com
View and listen to Georgina talking about the book at:
www.relaxwithabook.com
Radio interviews: James Whale: www.clarkey.com/Whale.htm
Sightings: www.sightings.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 >
   Dec > Dec 26

                   Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Bruni

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 13:36:47 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 19:49:08 -0500
Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Bruni


 >From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People'
 >Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 02:05:37 -0000

 >From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Review Debate
 >Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 21:37:20 -0000

 >>Well Jenny I am so glad you clarified all that to the List
 >>because I will now explain why I didn't give you a mention with
 >>regard to the Strange But True? programme.
 >>The producer, David Alpin was a guest at my book launch party
 >>and I discussed the programme with him, explaining that there
 >>was one hell of an error, which was used to give credit to the
 >>programme. David had to agree. I told him that his researcher
 >>had got it wrong - that was you Jenny!
 >>But the truth is that Malcolm Scurrah's incident had nothing to
 >>do with the December 1980 incident. It was a separate issue.
 >>Malcolm told me he had explained all this to the researcher and
 >>it had been ignored in favour of making his case fit in with the
 >>Rendlesham case. He even offered, according to him, the names of
 >>two other witnesses, but the researcher didn't bother to contact
 >>them.
 >So in fact, I was trying to do you a favour. But there you have
 >it!

<snip>

 >I'm afraid it really is frustrating trying to talk to someone
 >who may try to score points and mislead this List.

This has nothing to do with scoring points Jenny, I don't work
that way. It has to do with presenting facts.

 >Suffice it to say I doubt David Alpin would say anything to
 >suggest to you that I deceived him over this issue as that would
 >imply that he is a liar - and in my experience he isn't.

No, David did not suggest anything of the kind. I merely pointed
out that the Scurrah story was not anything to do with the 1980
Rendlesham case - and he agreed. Now, he might have been updated
on that because after the programme aired Malcolm Scurrah went
public complaining about how his evidence was used in that
programme, even though he explained it was not connected.

 >Malcolm Scurrah told us only that the event occurred late that
 >year (he had not been able to be more specific ). At no point
 >during the interviews did he indicate that he was positive these
 >two events were not connected as he had only then narrowed it
 >down to the November/December period of l980. That is he was
 >sure that it had happened at around the same time as the then 14
 >year old case.

According to Scurrah, he said it was either October or November,
more likely November.This was confirmed by Brenda Butler (one of
the original investigators on the Rendlesham Forest case) who
said she had made you aware of this at the time.

 >David chose not to make clear that the date of the radar
 >incident was not precisely known to be coincident during the
 >script read by Michael Aspel on screen during the documentary.
 >But he certainly knew the facts. He had his reasons for not
 >stating there was a proven link which he explained to me and
 >they were not connected with seeking to deceive viewers. They
 >were technical.

So what were these technical problems that would have any
bearing on a certain date?

 >I argued it out with him when writing this case up into the book
 >of the series - which I wrote in parallel with the TV scripting.
 >I said that I felt we had to make the uncertainty of the dates
 >more clear in the written text - and indeed I always have
 >ensured that occurred. As such I have 'never' hidden that there
 >is uncertainty over the date in any of my writings.

Then if you were so uncertain about the date, why did you
dedicate 3 pages to Malcolm Scurrah's December incident in UFO
Crash Landing (1997)?

You wrote:

"Scurrah is not absolutely certain of the date or time, but it
was very late at night during December 1980 and would appear to
have been during the few day period when Rendlesham Forest was
buzzing with UFOs."

But in 1995, a few months after the Strange But True? programme,
Scurrah gave an interview to UFO Magazine - to quote:

"Unfortunately, what the programme makers failed to point out,
much to Malcolm's own personal annoyance, is that the unusual
UFO activity he spoke of, occurred in either late October or
early November 1980 and not December 1980.

Said Malcolm when referring to the programme:

"They tried to link it up as being the same thing. I
specifically told them that I couldn't guarantee it was the
same."

 >To even suggest otherwise is quite simply false.

Well, who's responsible for the error then? I thought
researchers were responsible for the research and producers
hired them to do this job!

 >To demonstrate this all anyone has to do is read this book -
 >'Strange But True?' (Piatkus) -

 >In my text I state what Mal Scurrah told us .....

 >'Although Scurrah is not absolutely certain of the precise date
 >when these events occurred, he is sure that it was around the
 >same time.'

 >And indeed that is what he told us. He did not know exactly when
 >the radar event had happened but it was towards the end of that
 >same year. I have letters from him discussing the date and this
 >does not misrepresent what he said in them. If he subsequently
 >told a researcher something else I certainly did not know about
 >it at that time.

Towards the end of the year! It doesn't specifically mean it was
connected with the Rendlesham case.

 >Since Mal Scurrah has indicated his unhappiness with the lack of
 >uncertainty expressed by the TV script I have, as a consequence,
 >been a little more general in my own future references - just
 >for his benefit. For example, in 'The UFOs that Never Were' -
 >written last year - I refer to the event as occurring in 'late
 >November' - which tied in with the best estimate I had got
 >directly from the witness at our last contact.

So after 9 years you finally got it right Jenny. Why then did
you still promote it as December in your 1997 UFO Crash Landing
book when in 1995 UFO Magazine published Scurrah's story?

 >So your suggestion to this List that I have mislead any people
 >over the date is again seen to be baseless.

 >This List can make their own mind up over this issue but if they
 >do some homework first and check out for themselves what I have
 >written then they will immediately realise that your charge has
 >no validity. I have _never_ deceived anyone as to what we
 >did/did not know about the date of this event.

I don't know how to answer that, but let's just say that you
were mistaken. Based on the information above, will you now
accept that you made a mistake?


Best wishes,

Georgina Bruni

"You Can't Tell The People".The Definitive Account of the
Rendlesham Forest UFO Mystery by Georgina Bruni. Published by
Sidgwick & Jackson Available on-line at: www.amazon.co.uk
Countries outside UK: www.netstoreusa.com View and listen to
Georgina talking about the book at: www.relaxwithabook.com Radio
interviews: James Whale: www.clarkey.com/Whale.htm Sightings:
www.sightings.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 >
   Dec > Dec 26

             Re: Bentwaters Book Review By Jenny Randles - Bruni

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 15:48:59 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 19:51:16 -0500
Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review By Jenny Randles - Bruni


 >From: Gary Anthony <garyant@mithrand.karoo.co.uk>
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review By Jenny Randles
 >Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 19:34:13 -0000

 >>Larry Warren, who will be speaking at
 >>a Hull UFO Society Meeting in January is stating he has spotted
 >>over 100+ mistakes from reading Georgina's book.

 >>>I see that Georgina has already answered that. May I add that I
 >>>find comical that you quote Warren here, the man who labelled
 >>>"Sky Trash" the book of Jenny Randles 'Sky Crash'! (see "Left
 >>>at East Gate", page 203).

 >Has she? Do you mean that Georgina has satisfactorily covered
 >this?

Gary

No, I have not, but I did suggest that Larry or anyone else
present the so-called 100 or 400 errors I am supposed to have
made. Larry is telling everyone that he is not happy with the
way I presented his story - but it was all based on fact. I
delved deep into his case going back right to the time of the
incident and followed it through to the present day. I spent
considerable time giving him the opportunity to answer his
critics, which is also presented in the book. So, if anybody has
a list of these so-called errors I would be very happy to
address them.

 >My opinion of Georgina's book, is that it does not state enough
 >for the sceptics case (again you can take this as the 'pelicanist'
 >view if you wish -- but no amount of arguing is going to change
 >this).

I cannot believe what you are saying here! I'm amazed.

I wrote a whole chapter entitled "Challenging the Sceptics",
actually challenging them, but not one of the sceptics on this
list has referred to the content of the book or to this
particular chapter.

With regard to the lighthouse theory, stars, mirages, lightships
etc, the evidence I produce against this is remarkable. Here's
just some of the factual arguments against these theories.

1. Witnesses, such as Cabansag, who has never spoken before, but
insists that the witness statement was not written or typed by
him. He was just told to sign it. He was too scared to disobey
that order. Cabansag saw the lighthouse - he also saw the UFO,
which was right there in front of him. He said it was not the
lighthouse!

2. Penniston, claims he actually walked up and touched the
object. He also did not type his statement and wrote to me
pointing out that it had been summarised. Penniston said it was
not a lighthouse!

Note: I also interviewed the deputy commander of the AFOSI at
Bentwaters and he confirmed that witnesses were never asked to
"type" statements.

3.Witness Adrian Bustinza was interrogated and forced into
saying that the UFO was a lighthouse. He was told: "Bullets are
cheap, a dime a dozen'. He remembers those threats and is still
having nightmares. He knows what he saw, and it wasn't anything
to do with a lighthouse!

4. I interviewed Lt Fred "Skip" Buran several times. He was the
officer who sent Penniston's patrol out to investigate. He
talked about how they received word from London airport that
there was something unusual tracked on radar. He said that
because of the late hour and holidays, there were no aircraft
flying, so they usually shut down their department at Bentwaters
and left it to Heathrow to deal with.

5. I also interviewed Nigel Kerr, a radar operator at RAF
Watton, who tracked the UFOs on radar.

Can you track a lighthouse, stars, mirage, lightship!

6. Vince Thurkettle is the forester who originally suggested the
lighthouse theory, and it was just that - a theory. Vince told
me, when we were discussing the sceptic lighthouse theory:

'They take a cluster of facts and only pick up those that suit
the situation.'

How true are his words, because that's exactly what the sceptics
do. They ignore the case as a whole and pick up on the pieces
that fit into their theories. Now, that my friend, is not
research, that's wearing blinkers.

7. Former police officer Dave King who originally thought it
could have been the lighthouse the witnesses saw, has now had
second thoughts. Dave was at a talk I did in Woodbridge recently
and for the benefit of the audience, I took the liberty of
asking him why he had thought it was the lighthouse. He replied
that when he arrived (almost 5 hours after the first reported
sighting) there was nothing to see but the lighthouse beacon.
His full report is in the book.

8. I produced six photographs (see close ups in this month's UFO
magazine) which depict a British police officer and a USAF
captain (both names known to me) examine the landing marks.
These pictures were taken by Master Sergeant Ray Gulyas when he
was tasked with the job of measuring and photographing the
landing site. They clearly prove that there was an
investigation. Note that none of the sceptics have even
mentioned this important evidence. There's even the scuffed up
area that Halt discusses in his tape. Now, if this was a
lighthouse, then how did it land on the forest floor, and if
these were so-called rabbit scratchings how did these animals
manage to leave 3 perfectly formed ground indentations (12ft
triangular) at the very site where all this took place. And why
would USAF officers spend time measuring animal marks?

9. I produce a letter from the RAF officer who asked Halt to
write the memo. This letter , addressed to the Ministry of
Defence, is titled "Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOS)". When I
asked Moreland why he had done that, he said, 'That's what Halt
called them, he called them UFOs.' Now ask yourself why a Lt
Colonel with the USAF and a Squadron Leader with the RAF, would
go to all the trouble of sending word to Her Majesty's Defence
agency if it was nothing more than a lighthouse or anything as
mundane!

10. I also name many of the senior officers who actually went
out to check out the initial landing site. Why would these very
experienced officers go to all this trouble if it was a
lighthouse, lightship, mirage etc?

11. Civilian witness Gary Collins, saw the UFO from a country
road - he is familiar with the lighthouse and explained how the
object hovered over his head and lit up the whole area in front
of him.

12. Marjorie Wright (the lady who changed Dave King's mind
before he read the book) tells how her father saw the UFO moving
low across the sky, he was 10 miles away in Ipswich, nowhere
near the lighthouse!

These are just some of the examples in the book, and there are
many more. I ask any serious researcher to consider the list
here and then look back at the enormous amount of time that has
been spent wasted on the sceptics theories. I ask this because
if they had really done their homework and looked into the
evidence then they would have learnt far more than they have.

It is a pity that Jenny Randles continues to dwell on
alternative theories. I believe this is why Jenny never
progressed with this case. The very idea that it could now be a
mirage (Jenny's latest theory) is really digging into the
barrel, especially when there is so much new evidence available
to work with.

However, as I have always stated, I did not write this book for
ufologists, I wrote it for those who were actually involved. So
far, apart from Larry Warren, I have received praise from many
of those people who say I have done a good job of presenting
their case. That's what is important to me. Of course I hope
that researchers will take what is now available and use it to
further their research on this case, but I must stress that the
tired old theories (and tired they are) are of no importance
when you consider this case as a whole.

To continue searching for scraps that might prove it was a
mirage or indeed a lighthouse, is not, at least in my eyes,
behaving like a proper researcher. When I began investigating
this case I did not know where it would take me. If it had been
a lighthouse, stars, mirage or whatever, I would have had to
accept it - but it wasn't and isn't anything to do with those
theories.

Jenny Randles and colleagues in the sceptics domain, have made
it abundantly clear that my book is not that good because it
does not offer the sceptics views. But this is all discussed in
the book and I even went out to the area and investigated
myself. James Easton is not a sceptic - he is a debunker. There
is a profound difference. I don't consider his theories a
contribution to the subject, but more of a time wasting
exercise. Jenny disagrees, but as I already pointed out, Jenny
claims to have been on this case for 20 years, but during that
time, what has she offered up - just theories, which change with
the wind!

My book is not about theories, it's about fact! And I challenge
the sceptics to discuss any of the aforementioned points, others
that are in the book and the updated Halt recording. So far they
haven't touched on the importance of the new information, just
ignored it, and that for somebody like Jenny who claims to have
been so involved in this case -it  is remarkable.

I therefore challenge the sceptics to prove their theories. I
have offered factual evidence and let's see them demolish it if
they can!


Georgina Bruni

"You Can't Tell The People".The Definitive Account of the Rendlesham
Forest UFO Mystery by Georgina Bruni. Published by Sidgwick & Jackson
Available on-line at: www.amazon.co.uk Countries outside UK:
www.netstoreusa.com
View and listen to Georgina talking about the book at:
www.relaxwithabook.com
Radio interviews: James Whale: www.clarkey.com/Whale.htm
Sightings: www.sightings.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 >
   Dec > Dec 26

                   Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Bruni

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 17:39:37 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 19:53:53 -0500
Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Bruni


A thought for the witnesses

For the last few weeks we have been discussing the Rendlesham
Forest case that actually took place during Christmas week,
1980.

Whilst ufologists and sceptics argue the case, we tend forget
the real story of what happened to those who were involved in
these unfortunate events.

How do you think it affected them?

For years afterwards, and even today, witnesses are still having
nightmares and, they are still hoping for some real answers -
not from ufologists - but from the USAF and the MOD.

They gave up on ufologists a long time ago.

As well as having to suffer the memories of these unusual
events, the witnesses have to contend with the sceptics views,
which are not always kind. In fact the witnesses have even been
branded liars by some sceptics and debunkers - this based on
theories with no firm foundations.

They have been accused of mistaking a mirage, a lighthouse,
stars, lightships, police car headlights and any number of
things that they witnessed that Christmas week, for UFOs.

Do you really think that military witnesses, and recall that
there were some old hands involved, would make mistakes such as
these?

As Admiral of the Fleet Lord Hill-Norton GCB, rightly expressed
in his letter to Lord Gilbert at the MOD (full version featured
in my book with Lord Hill-Norton's permission)

'My position both privately and publicly expressed over the last
dozen years or more, is that there are only two possibilities,
either:

1. An intrusion into our Air Space and a landing by unidentified
craft took place at Rendlesham, as described.

or

2. The Deputy Commander of an operational, nuclear armed, US Air
Force Base in England, and a large number of his enlisted men,
were either hallucinating or lying.'

Needless to say, Hill-Norton does not believe the men were
hallucinating or lying.

Witness Steve La Plume actually posted on this list but nobody
even acknowledged his post. Jenny Randles responded but only to
point out that he was mistaken. Jenny thought La Plume ought to
read her writings on the case to get a better idea.

But can Jenny or any other sceptic explain how Steve's case
could be anything to do with the lighthouse theory. Jenny has
never to my knowledge visited the actual east gate post, which
is where Steve had his sighting. From here you cannot see the
beam from the lighthouse and according to Brenda Butler, who
investigated the case right from the beginning (Jan 2nd 1981),
the lighthouse or its beam was and is not visible from the east
gate. In fact I did that research myself and could only see the
beam as I began walking up the logging road into the forest.My
witnesses were a former police officer with the Metropolitan
police and Colonel Al Brown's wife ( Al Brown was at the bases
in 1980 and a good friend of General Gordon Williams)

So, sceptics, give the witnesses a break. Either acknowledge
that they do exist and stop trying to belittle them by
dismissing their testimony and replacing it with your theories -
or give them something constructive that they, as intelligent
human beings can consider.

After all, you guys weren't there, go figure!


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 >
   Dec > Dec 26

                             Re: Humbug - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 14:45:32 -0600
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 19:56:36 -0500
Subject: Re: Humbug - Clark


 >Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 21:15:52 -0500
 >From: Mendoza Peter Brookesmith <DarkSecretPB@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Humbug
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 13:04:07 -0600
 >>Fwd Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 07:51:24 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review - Clark


Patient and gentle listfolk:

After expessing my disdain for James Easton's crude, sexist List
remarks, which our correspondent finds to be acceptable
discourse (on the grounds, I infer, that all [excluding himself,
of course] have sinned and fallen short of the glory of the Lord
and that, moreover, there is no difference between the private
sphere and the public one*), I learn that our correspondent's
nose is out of joint because of a characterization I once made
of him to a mutual acquaintance. Allow me a great big
post-Christmas yawn.

Let the record show, for those (if any) who may be interested, I
have never called our correspondent a profane name on this List.
I haven't even called him the Boy Bishop of Pelicanism.  All I
will say is that it is a struggle to stay awake during, much
less respond to, anything from his quarter, and I now resume my
holiday slumber.

Sorry for disturbing the rest of you.

Jerry Clark

*Or as we used to say in the 1960s, a decade from which our
correspondent evidently has never emerged, "The personal is the
political."







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 26

                           Re: Humbug - Salvaille

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 15:52:47 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 19:58:25 -0500
Subject: Re: Humbug - Salvaille


 >Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 21:15:52 -0500
 >From: Mendoza Peter Brookesmith <DarkSecretPB@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Humbug
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 13:04:07 -0600
 >>Fwd Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 07:51:24 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review - Clark

Hello List,

What's this? Peter the Flipper?

<snip>

 >If "pathetic bitch" is James Easton's
 >honest appraisal of the Suntan of Bruni, why should he
 >apologize?

<snip>

Your assessment of Easton's comments earns the Rudeness of the
Year award and make you a self-appointed gentleman. I am
surprised Errol let that one slip in.

Answering your question requires a jump in time...

... back to the instant you were born and fast forward onwards,
slipping in a few pertinent spices of decency and respect and,
sometimes, a foot in the mouth and a wee touch of civility - not
forgetting gentlemanship and its prerequisite: there are things
you don't say to a lady.

Confused by the imagery? OK, let's just rewind to the top of
your post.

<snip>

 >The Duke of Mendoza presents his compliments.

<snip>

BS.

And Merry Christmas to you too.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 26

                 Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Salvaille

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 17:54:55 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 20:01:25 -0500
Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Salvaille


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com
 >Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 05:14:35 EST
 >Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People'
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 12:50:37 +0000
 >>From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People'

 >>>From: Luis R. Gonzlez Manso <lrgm@arrakis.es
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People'
 >>>Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 09:17:09 +0100

Hello Brad, Don and List,

<snip>

 >>The best that Easton has been able to come up with is that
 >>pelicans fly and there are pelicans in Washington state. That's
 >>not doing your home work. The first is a given and the second
 >>can be proved easiliy by looking in the Audubon's[sp]Societies
 >>Handbook. From this he solves the puzzle?

 >>Don Ledger

 >Hi Don,

 >Actually, you are quite right but it is even worse than you
 >describe.  Pelicans apparently show up very rarely if ever
 >around Mt. Rainier at 10,000 feet.

<snip>

Actually, one will find at this site on CCRT's Bird Strike
Research:

http://www.ccrt.org/HTML/birdstrike.html

Those American White Pelicans do fly at altitudes of 10,000 feet
when thermal updraft depth allows it. A few studies have been
conducted to predict Pelican hazard for aerial navigation.

at:
http://www.i-bird.com/LowGraphic/LGAmerWhtPelican.htm

We find the distribution of the AWP in US. In Washington state
it is considered "common... usually seen daily in proper habitat
and season." It is considered accidental or absent in Eastern
United States.

We could argue that this lends to believe that Arnold would have
been a perfect moron not to recognize the AWPs for what they
were. But the Pelican theory fits the case only in gentleman
Easton's mind. All guano, no facts.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 27

               Pelicans [Was Re: 'You Can't Tell The People']

From: Brad Sparks <B47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 22:47:36 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 10:07:37 -0500
Subject: Pelicans [Was Re: 'You Can't Tell The People']


 >From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People'
 >Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 17:54:55 -0800


 >>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com
 >>Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 05:14:35 EST
 >>Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People'
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 12:50:37 +0000
 >>>From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People'

 >>>>From: Luis R. Gonzlez Manso <lrgm@arrakis.es
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>>Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People'
 >>>>Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 09:17:09 +0100


 >Hello Brad, Don and List,
 ><snip>

 >>>The best that Easton has been able to come up with is that
 >>>pelicans fly and there are pelicans in Washington state. That's
 >>>not doing your home work. The first is a given and the second
 >>>can be proved easiliy by looking in the Audubon's[sp]Societies
 >>>Handbook. From this he solves the puzzle?

 >>>Don Ledger


 >>Hi Don,

 >>Actually, you are quite right but it is even worse than you
 >>describe. Pelicans apparently show up very rarely if ever
 >>around Mt. Rainier at 10,000 feet.

 ><snip>


 >Actually, one will find at this site on CCRT's Bird Strike
 >Research:

 >http://www.ccrt.org/HTML/birdstrike.html

 >Those American White Pelicans do fly at altitudes of 10,000 feet
 >when thermal updraft depth allows it. A few studies have been
 >conducted to predict Pelican hazard for aerial navigation.

Hi Serge,

You'll notice I was careful to say that pelicans would have been
_rare_ at 10,000 feet near Mt. Rainier, not that it was
impossible for them to fly at that altitude. This was based on
info developed by Kathleen Anderson as well as James Easton's
inability to document the prevalence of pelicans in the Mt.
Rainier area.

Now we have a good reason why pelicans might be rare at 10,000
feet around Mt. Rainier: It may be difficult to impossible for
thermals to form around a glacier-covered snow-capped mountain
where sunlight does not warm the ground to create "thermals."

 >at:

 >http://www.i-bird.com/LowGraphic/LGAmerWhtPelican.htm

 >We find the distribution of the AWP in US. In Washington state
 >it is considered "common... usually seen daily in proper habitat
 >and season." It is considered accidental or absent in Eastern
 >United States.

I notice that all of the data collection sites are near _lakes_
in Eastern Washington, roughly from Moses Lake to Pendleton,
Ore., not along the west coast or around Mt. Rainier or over
rugged mountainous areas. Three of the four sites report only
"Uncommon" occurrence "Not likely to be seen except by extensive
searching over several days."

 >We could argue that this lends to believe that Arnold would have
 >been a perfect moron not to recognize the AWPs for what they
 >were. But the Pelican theory fits the case only in gentleman
 >Easton's mind. All guano, no facts.

Thanks for these great links. The CCRT project may well sound
the death knell for the Pelican Theory of the Arnold case by
compiling scientific data on the daily, seasonal and geographic
habitats of American White pelicans as correlated with weather
patterns -- they may be compiling flight characteristics as
well. The project tries to predict frequency when and where such
birds may be found which could prove dangerous for air travel
due to collisions with aircraft (bird strikes). The "prediction"
could be done in reverse to project when and where pelicans
would have been found on June 24, 1947.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 27

                Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles -

From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 05:32:10 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 10:11:22 -0500
Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles -


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 02:49:33 EST
 >Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 12:46:52 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles -

Brad wrote:

 >Hi Jenny,

 >Before I even get to the first part of your reply (below) I must
 >respectfully point out that you do _not_ answer my questions
 >above. You do not explain what Easton has _specifically_
 >contributed to the understanding of the Rendlesham case that
 >hasn't been overturned...

Brad,

Although I've naturally been infinitely more concerned with
'Christmas' of late, your comments have been brought to my
attention.

If the question is - can I please summarise what my own research
may have brought to light, I'm pleased to assist.

That question is best directed to myself directly, rather than
to a lady who, although obviously broke the ground in so many
fundamental respects re 'Rendlesham', isn't best placed to
answer.

Whilst I have never expressed a view we understand all
occurrences which are the basis of our perceived 'Rendlesham
forest UFO encounters', what I have highlighted is existing
evidence, often largely unknown.

Central in that respect was my involvement with those pivotal
'Project: watchfire' interviews undertaken via the Microsoft
Network in 1997. If I hadn't realised the magnitude of that
progressive undertaking, would the exceptional research
contributions of Salley Rayl and Diana Botsford ever have been
so comprehensively appreciated?

The resulting landmark material didn't magically appear outwith
that intrinsic MSN genesis, it resulted from Diana's commitment
and considerable endeavours in response to my request those
transcripts were critical evidence which demanded a wider
audience.

Although Charles [Col.] Halt is a recipient of all material I
have published concerning this case, he has chosen not to
comment, however, he did for the first time provide an answer to
one key question, which Salley Rayl asked on my behalf:

RAYL: We received an e-mail earlier in the day from a fellow by
the name of James Easton who lives in Scotland and apparently
has been researching this case during recent months.

[...]

One thing that he mentioned and a question that I would like to
pass on to you is why have there been variances in the dates
given for both incidents? Your memo claims that the dates were
on the evening, early morning of the 26th, 27th and 28th, 29th
of December, respectively. But elsewhere, you know, the dates
have been given as 25 to 26 and 29 to 30, he says. So why, why
are there differences in those dates?

HALT: Well, I tried to go back and recover the police blotter
and the security blotter think I mentioned to you earlier to
re-affirm the dates. Keep in mind, I wrote the memo several
weeks later. And it was not a really important memo. The date
was not critical. The critical portion was, you know, what
happened and are you interested? And how about getting involved
and let's investigate this. It's possible that I, I put the date
down wrong. But I don't believe so. I tried to verify later and
the police blotters had been taken from repository, probably by
a, how shall I say, curiosity seeker... [END]

Importantly, this offered an explanation why, as was now known,
both 'UFO encounter' dates in Halt's memo to the Ministry of
Defense were unquestionably wrong.

The opportunity to directly ask further meaningful questions of
Halt and obtain what should have been critical answers, were
lamentably, as revealed in 'Voyager Newsletter No. 15',
obstructed by people from a 'UFO organisation' called 'FUFOR',
who were in contact with him.

It's imperative to read the newsletter to confirm how utterly
pathetic this particular 'UFOs are real[ly alien spacecraft]'
fortification actually was.

Georgina Bruni, who has recently written a book about the
Rendlesham forest 'UFO cover up by MIB', also statedly, "alerted
Colonel (Ret) Charles Halt to the fact that Easton had been
provided with these statements".

This being a reference to those inaugural witness testimonies I
uncovered and which, incredibly, documented that nearby Orford
Ness [Orfordness] lighthouse had been mistaken for a 'UFO'.

Any further 'BRUNI/FUFOR' related comment is somewhat
superfluous...

What more requires to be factually evidenced re what 'ufology'
actually is?


Despite those handicaps, I was able to speak with Geraldo
Valdes- Sanchez ['Jerry Valdes'], Security Specialist, 81st
Security Police Squadron [SPS], who was a member of the patrol
sent to check on the whereabouts of Burroughs, Cabansag and
Penniston that first night.

Valdes' account is significant in many respects, confirming that
similar 'strange lights' were still visible from east gate,
apparently long after these should have been if they belonged to
a 'craft' which had 'taken off'.

Valdez also provided a still unique recollection of scenes the
next morning:

"Shift change in the morney for 'B' flight was extremely late.
'A' Flight relieved us at 9:30 am, very late.

When we went out the East gate back to Bentwaters, leaving
Woodbridge, there were many people, including numerous people in
typical lab coats making an analysis of the area. You could see
out the vehicle to the right side, that there were many people
examining the area, searching, looking for something. Some of
these people were in white overcoats, that's why I say that they
looked like typical techs in lab coats.

They were searching the area in front of the forest".

Surprisingly, perhaps the relevance of this hasn't been
recognised.

I hope to say more in due course.


Another key witness was Airman Chris Armold. In a letter dated
27 October 1988, to UK researcher Nick Redfern, the Suffolk
Constabulary confirmed that "shortly after 4 a.m. on 26th
December 1980", they received a call about "unusual lights being
seen in the sky near R.A.F. Woodbridge". In 'Above Top Secret',
by Timothy Good, he wrote:

"Chuck de Caro of Cable News Network was shown the logbook at
Woodbridge Police Station which shows that on the night of 25/26
December, Airman Armold from the Woodbridge base law enforcement
desk called the Woodbridge police concerning 'lights in the
woods'".

The person who made the call was Chris Armold. In a detailed
interview, Armold explained what happened when he then met up
with Airman John Burroughs and was taken to the 'landing site',
where anomalous 'blue and red' lights were still visible in the
distance, long after comparative lights were allegedly attached
to a 'craft' which had 'taken off'.

Armold was evidently also in the forest during the purported
second night's 'UFO' encounters, which he relates as several
hours spent in an abortive hunt for 'UFOs'.

Crucially, Arnold clarified:

"Yes, there were what we initially interpreted as 'strange
lights' and in my opinion and contrary to what some people
assert, at the time almost none of us knew there was a
lighthouse at Orford Ness. Remember, the vast majority of folks
involved were young people, 19, 20, 25 years old. Consequently
it wasn't something most of the troops were cognizant of. That's
one reason the lights appeared interesting or out of the
ordinary to some people.

After it was discovered that a lighthouse was out there the
'strangeness' of the lights evaporated".


Amongst other personnel who were stationed on base at the time
of the 'UFO' excitement, I have also been able to contact [rank
stated if known]:

Lori E. Rehfeldt, O-2 First Lieutenant
William A. Kirk Jr. "Bill", E-5 Staff Sergeant
Bernard E. Donahue, O-3 Captain
Charles "Chuck" J. Dalldorf, E-5 Staff Sergeant
Dale Wagner, E-7 Master Sergeant
Terry L. Malzi, E-5 Staff Sergeant
Trae Swann, E-4 Senior Airman
Danny Wills, E-8 Senior Master Sergeant
John Taylor, E-3 Airman 1st Class
John Smith, E-5 Staff Sergeant
Barney B. Pate, E-9 Chief Master Sergeant
Tony Messina
John R. McGinnis "McToucan" or "American John"
LeRoy Jessen, E-3 Airman 1st Class
David A. Jenkins, E-6 Technical Sergeant
Julian E Hazen (BUD), E-5 Staff Sergeant
William P. Ferris, E-4 Sergeant
Werner Bauder, E-5 Staff Sergeant


Additionally, one of the most insightful and astonishing
accounts came from another member of the 81st SPS, Sergeant
Randy Smith, who was stationed in the Weapons Storage Area [WSA]
during a 'UFO' alert which I demonstrated could be correlated
with that same 'second night'.

It is a significant testimony in further evidencing that,
contrary to Col Halt's assertions, no 'beams of light' from
unidentified aerial objects were seen 'coming down' in the WSA,
nor was any such astounding occurrence ever mentioned
thereafter.

This would seem to consummately indicate that simply never
happened.

Yet, Sgt Smith's recollection of how at some point he was, "on
top of the structure near the bunker where you'd go if you were
under attack", remains enigmatic.

However, I haven't publicised all that was disclosed by Sergeant
Smith...

Obviously, I have discussed the case in-depth and drawn on the
related experience of foremost researchers such as Jenny
Randles, Ian Ridpath, Peter Brookesmith, Steuart Campbell,
Philip Klass and Adrian Berry [apologies to others not
mentioned]. This has been aided by significant contributions
from Keith Seaman - responsible for maintenance of the automated
Orford Ness lighthouse and familiar with the UFO stories, Jim
Speiser and John Powell, who encouraged some of the first
witnesses to 'come forward', especially concerning John
Burroughs.

A direct participant in our first night's 'UFO' encounter,
involving Airman Ed Cabansag, Staff-Sergeant Jim Penniston and
himself, the then 'Airman 1st Class' Burroughs was also involved
in that 'second night', when Lt. Col. Halt went in search of the
'UFO' which, apparently Airman Greg Battrom believed 'had come
back'.

It's been many years since John Burroughs publicly commented on
events, and never before in the light of all that's been
unravelled.

Burroughs, is simply one of the most important 'UFO' witness of
all time.

When, and if, my ongoing discussions with John are, to our
mutual extent, resolved... and yes, I have been in contact with
Burroughs for some time... then you'll know what the final score
is.

Although presently, and ultimately, I don't believe I'm
losing...

I trust this answers your question.

__Please_ realise that no further correspondence is pertinent.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 27

              Re: Pelicans [was: 'You Can't Tell The People'] -

From: Jim Klotz <jklotz77@foxinternet.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 22:19:57 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 10:19:47 -0500
Subject: Re: Pelicans [was: 'You Can't Tell The People'] -


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 05:14:35 EST
 >Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People'
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 12:50:37 +0000
 >>From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People'

 >>>From: Luis R. Gonzlez Manso <lrgm@arrakis.es>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People'
 >>>Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 09:17:09 +0100

 >>>>Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 11:04:43 +0000
 >>>>From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>>Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People'

 >>>>>Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 13:25:04 -0500
 >>>>>From: Kelly Peterborough <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
 >>>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>>Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People'

 >Actually, you are quite right but it is even worse than you
 >describe.  Pelicans apparently show up very rarely if ever
 >around Mt. Rainier at 10,000 feet.


Now you guys are in my territory.

I live within sight of mount Rainier and grew up here. I've seen
and heard of many birds of the area, but do not remember over my
50+ year life anyone even speaking of Pelicans, and have never
seen one here.

I realize this is not science, but only my perspective from
western Washington State.

- Jim Klotz







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 27

                     Blast in Sky Said May Be Meteorite

From: Steven L. Wilson, Sr <Ndunlks@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 10:08:38 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 10:55:48 -0500
Subject: Blast in Sky Said May Be Meteorite


Blast in Sky Said May Be Meteorite

.c The Associated Press


SYDNEY, Australia (AP) - A small meteorite's fall to Earth was
the likely cause of a sonic boom and streaks of light over
southeastern Australia which sparked dozens of calls to police,
an expert said Wednesday.

"It is most likely to be a meteorite," said Ian Warren,
operations supervisor at the Deep Space Communications Complex
in the national capital, Canberra. "The size of the meteorite
would probably be about coffee cup size, that would cause a
sonic boom and would also cause some good flares around it."

Callers in Batemans Bay, 155 miles south of Sydney, compared the
mysterious lights in the sky Tuesday night to flares, police
inspector Peter Volf said. The callers said the lights were
accompanied by an explosion strong enough to shake buildings.

Fire authorities in Canberra, about 62 miles west of Batemans
Bay, said they were investigating whether debris from the
meteorite was the cause of three grass fires which began
overnight Tuesday.

AP-NY-12-27-00 0214EST

Copyright 2000 The Associated Press.


Researcher Steven L. Wilson, Sr
To submit paranormal activity email Ndunlks@aol.com








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 27

                          Manitoba Balloon Flights

From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 11:22:53 +0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 11:03:26 -0500
Subject: Manitoba Balloon Flights


Hello List,

While going through some of this years advisories in the
Airman�s Information Publications [hereinafter I�ll call it the
AIP] I came across the following for the Lynn Lake, Manitoba
region.

These were pertinent from July 20 to September 15, 2000. UFO
researchers might be wise to cross check UFO sightings against
the following considering the description of the devises.

1] Large Radiosonde Balloon Flights

A series of up to 15 large radiosonde balloons will be launched
from Lynn Lake from July 20 to September 15, 2000. The balloons
have the capacity of 141,000 cubic feet [4,000 cu.meters] and
will carry a 4 lb. [1.4 kg] payload to an altitude of 138,000
feet [42,000 meters] ASL. The balloon payload system which is
approx. 159 ft [48 meters] in length at launch ascends at the
rate of 820 feet per minute and will reach 60,000 ft [18,000]
ASL approx. 75 minutes after launch. The nominal flight duration
is 2 hours 48 minutes and termination of flight is affected by a
burst panel in the balloon. The balloon is highly conspicuous,
silvery white during hours of daylight and will be marked with
three lights [unspecified] during hours of darkness.

2] Heavy Scientific Balloon Flights

A series of up to three heavy scientific balloon flights will be
launched from Lynn Lake from July 20 to September 15, 2000. The
balloons will vary in size from 28.40 million cu.ft. in volume
and will ascend at the rate of approx. 900 ft/min. to float
altitudes of 117,000 to 136,000 feet [35.600 to 41,450 meters]
ASL. Each flight will drift in airspace bounded by latitudes 50
degrees N and 63 degrees N and longitudes 90 W and 124 W.
Durations of flight from 12 to 40 hours. At the time of
termination a radio command will release the payloads which will
descend by parachute taking about 48 minutes.

Each balloon is highly conspicuous silvery white during daylight
hours and will be marked with a flashing light [unspecified
color] during hours of darkness below 60,000 feet [18,000
meters] ASL. A radar reflector will be attached to each balloon
system and each balloon will be fixed with its own reflective
tape. A transponder will be set to operate during ascent and
descent in the airspaces below 60,000 feet ASL. A chase craft
will monitor each balloon flight. The chase craft is a Cessna
441* [Conquest II] with U.S. Identification number N6860C.

*The Cessna 441 is a low wing ,twin engine, 5-11 seat
executive/business aircraft with a maximum speed of 340 mph at
16,000 feet. Wing span 49 ft. 4 in., length 39 ft.

Someone with the mathematical capability to do so , might
convert the cubic feet sizes to approximate diameters. These
balloons were large. The AIP supplements arrive about every four
months and are clipped into a 6 ring binder while the previous
pages of the same number are deleted. The circulars such as the
above are included and to be removed after the effective dates.
Usually if you know you aren�t going to be flying in that area [
in this case it was titled Lynn Lake, Manitoba and I�m flying
locally most times in Eastern Canada-2,000 mile away] you toss
them anyway because there is only so much space in the binder.
Had I read further I would have caught the balloon references.
 From here on in I�ll be sure to screen the supplements each time
to determine if any are pertinent to our field.

The Scientific Balloons particularly were expected to cover an
area [east to west] from North of Thunder bay, Ontario to Powell
River, British Columbia. And [south to north] from the latitude
of southern Lake Winnipeg to approximately mid Great Bear Lake,
affecting an area in the hundreds of thousands of square miles.

Given the time of the year, the altitudes, sizes and
descriptions of these balloons, I can see this impacting UFO
reports in Martin Jasek�s, Gavin MacLeod�s, Chris Rutkowski�s
[et al] areas of interest - perhaps explaining some of the UFO
sightings reported in that time frame.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 27

                                Re: Pelicans

From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 08:08:29 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 12:04:22 -0500
Subject: Re: Pelicans


 >From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People'
 >Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 17:54:55 -0800

 >>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com
 >>Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 05:14:35 EST
 >>Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People'
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca


 ><snip>

 >Actually, one will find at this site on CCRT's Bird Strike
 >Research:

 >http://www.ccrt.org/HTML/birdstrike.html

 >Those American White Pelicans do fly at altitudes of 10,000 feet
 >when thermal updraft depth allows it. A few studies have been
 >conducted to predict Pelican hazard for aerial navigation.

 >at:
 >http://www.i-bird.com/LowGraphic/LGAmerWhtPelican.htm

 >We find the distribution of the AWP in US. In Washington state
 >it is considered "common... usually seen daily in proper habitat
 >and season." It is considered accidental or absent in Eastern
 >United States.

 >We could argue that this lends to believe that Arnold would have
 >been a perfect moron not to recognize the AWPs for what they
 >were. But the Pelican theory fits the case only in gentleman
 >Easton's mind. All guano, no facts.


Right on, Serge, I have been a Birder, Pilot and Aficionado of
things in the Sky all my years, Boy and Man oh 43, years (It
took me at least four years to realize which way was up, as I am
47.)  I have seen strange things too, a metallic flock of night
flying pelicans that were of the rare light emitting kind.

As I have said before, I have actually been to, over, around
-and in some cases, under the areas that Arnold has been. I am
very familiar with AWP's. They almost put a friend's Cessna down
in Klamath Lake (S. Oregon). When she broke out of an overcast,
she flew into the heart of a flock, and the Cessna was damaged
seriously she barley made it to Kingsley field ( the airport at
Klamath Falls).

A local bank uses the AWP as its symbol.  Pelicans are quite
common in the Columbia Basin. They do occur in the Lake Chelan
area that extends into the north Cascades, I have seen them at
Stehekin (as it is spelled) on the nw end of the long, narrow
Lake.

One more thing, Pelicans when soaring to gain altitude, circle,
as a sailplane would, the Wenatchee and the Mt Baker/ Snoquaime
Natl. forests offer little in that respect. The open areas of
the Columbia Basin do. The only possible conveyance for AWP's in
the Cascades would be Mountian Wave effects - I guarantee you
that wasn't well "cooking" the Day of Arnold's sighting. I know
he would have been aware of it, and would have had a wild ride-I
know- been there done that many times.

Years ago, I had a friend of mine, a national champion sailplane
Pilot riding the "Wave" over Mt. Rainier. at 18,000 feet he
looked out and saw a Redtail Hawk! and he and the Hawk shared
the same Airspace for oh, three hours working the Mountain.
Finally, O2 running low, my friend left the hawk behind, he a
true scientist, could only come up with one conclusion-The Hawk
was just having fun! as there would be no predatory reason to be
over Rainier at 18,000 feet. He had a hard time with that
conclusion, as if he'd seen ah UFO.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 27

               Re: Blast in Sky Said May Be Meteorite - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 11:05:18 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 12:06:41 -0500
Subject: Re: Blast in Sky Said May Be Meteorite - Young


 >From: Steven L. Wilson, Sr <Ndunlks@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 10:08:38 EST
 >Subject: Blast in Sky Said May Be Meteorite
 >To: . (mysteries@egroups.com)

 >Blast in Sky Said May Be Meteorite

 >.c The Associated Press

 >SYDNEY, Australia (AP) - A small meteorite's fall to Earth was
 >the likely cause of a sonic boom and streaks of light over
 >southeastern Australia which sparked dozens of calls to police,
 >an expert said Wednesday.

 >"It is most likely to be a meteorite," said Ian Warren,
 >operations supervisor at the Deep Space Communications Complex
 >in the national capital, Canberra. "The size of the meteorite
 >would probably be about coffee cup size, that would cause a
 >sonic boom and would also cause some good flares around it."

<snip>

 >Fire authorities in Canberra, about 62 miles west of Batemans
 >Bay, said they were investigating whether debris from the
 >meteorite was the cause of three grass fires which began
 >overnight Tuesday.

Steve, List:

While grass fires and the like are often thought associated with
meteorite falls, I don't believe that there has ever been a
proven case of a meteorite starting a fire. These reports are
almost certainly coincidental, if these "flares" were indeed a
meteor.


Clear skies,

Bob Young







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 27

                            Re: Pelicans - Ledger

From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 12:23:20 +0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 12:09:43 -0500
Subject: Re: Pelicans - Ledger


 >From: Jim Klotz <jklotz77@foxinternet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Pelicans [was: 'You Can't Tell The People']
 >Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 22:19:57 -0800

 >>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 05:14:35 EST
 >>Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People'
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 12:50:37 +0000
 >>>From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People'

<snip>

 >Now you guys are in my territory.

 >I live within sight of mount Rainier and grew up here. I've seen
 >and heard of many birds of the area, but do not remember over my
 >50+ year life anyone even speaking of Pelicans, and have never
 >seen one here.

 >I realize this is not science, but only my perspective from
 >western Washington State.


Hi Jim,

It's not surprising that you would have little chance of seeing
something that for the most part exists only in Easton's
imagination.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 27

                         Advertising Plane Companies

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 12:13:57 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 22:34:50 -0500
Subject: Advertising Plane Companies


Ladies & Gents:

Does anybody know where I might get a list of companies which
have advertising airplanes, helicopers, blimps, and the like?


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 >
   Dec > Dec 27

                            Re: Pelicans - Ledger

From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 13:53:10 +0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 22:38:35 -0500
Subject: Re: Pelicans - Ledger


 >From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Pelicans
 >Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 08:08:29 -0800

 >>From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People'
 >>Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 17:54:55 -0800

 >>>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com
 >>>Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 05:14:35 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People'
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >><snip>

 >>Actually, one will find at this site on CCRT's Bird Strike
 >>Research:

 >>http://www.ccrt.org/HTML/birdstrike.html

 >>Those American White Pelicans do fly at altitudes of 10,000 feet
 >>when thermal updraft depth allows it. A few studies have been
 >>conducted to predict Pelican hazard for aerial navigation.

 >>at:
 >>http://www.i-bird.com/LowGraphic/LGAmerWhtPelican.htm

 >>We find the distribution of the AWP in US. In Washington state
 >>it is considered "common... usually seen daily in proper habitat
 >>and season." It is considered accidental or absent in Eastern
 >>United States.

 >>We could argue that this lends to believe that Arnold would have
 >>been a perfect moron not to recognize the AWPs for what they
 >>were. But the Pelican theory fits the case only in gentleman
 >>Easton's mind. All guano, no facts.

 >Right on, Serge, I have been a Birder, Pilot and Aficionado of
 >things in the Sky all my years, Boy and Man oh 43, years (It
 >took me at least four years to realize which way was up, as I am
 >47.)  I have seen strange things too, a metallic flock of night
 >flying pelicans that were of the rare light emitting kind.

 >As I have said before, I have actually been to, over, around
 >-and in some cases, under the areas that Arnold has been. I am
 >very familiar with AWP's. They almost put a friend's Cessna down
 >in Klamath Lake (S. Oregon). When she broke out of an overcast,
 >she flew into the heart of a flock, and the Cessna was damaged
 >seriously she barley made it to Kingsley field ( the airport at
 >Klamath Falls).

 >A local bank uses the AWP as its symbol.  Pelicans are quite
 >common in the Columbia Basin. They do occur in the Lake Chelan
 >area that extends into the north Cascades, I have seen them at
 >Stehekin (as it is spelled) on the nw end of the long, narrow
 >Lake.

 >One more thing, Pelicans when soaring to gain altitude, circle,
 >as a sailplane would, the Wenatchee and the Mt Baker/ Snoquaime
 >Natl. forests offer little in that respect. The open areas of
 >the Columbia Basin do. The only possible conveyance for AWP's in
 >the Cascades would be Mountian Wave effects - I guarantee you
 >that wasn't well "cooking" the Day of Arnold's sighting. I know
 >he would have been aware of it, and would have had a wild ride-I
 >know- been there done that many times.

 >Years ago, I had a friend of mine, a national champion sailplane
 >Pilot riding the "Wave" over Mt. Rainier. at 18,000 feet he
 >looked out and saw a Redtail Hawk! and he and the Hawk shared
 >the same Airspace for oh, three hours working the Mountain.
 >Finally, O2 running low, my friend left the hawk behind, he a
 >true scientist, could only come up with one conclusion-The Hawk
 >was just having fun! as there would be no predatory reason to be
 >over Rainier at 18,000 feet. He had a hard time with that
 >conclusion, as if he'd seen ah UFO.

 >GT McCoy

Hi GT,

Arnold made particular mention of the fact that it was one of
those days when it was a joy to fly. Air extremely stable. No
upslope convection currents there-more likely some sink around
the moutains as cool air descended.

I've run across large soaring birds upwards of 9,000 feet during
my travels. During one flight I flew by an American Bald Eagle [
American because it was diplaying an N number] -thousands of
which emmigrated to the Maritimes some 40 years or so ago. This
one was big-wingspan about 8 feet I'd say. He eyed me once
probably to see if I was a possible food source and didn't get
in its way. It must have been just thermaling because there
wouldn't have been much visible on the ground from 9 grand.

Seagulls are in great supply up here but we don't usually see
them at the higher altitudes tho they are capable of it. They
are a real hazard where landfill sites are located on approaches
to airports and airfields.Ospreys and hawks are another bird
likely to be seen several thousand feet up.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 27

               Re: Blast in Sky Said May Be Meteorite - Kaeser

From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 13:39:19 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 22:46:10 -0500
Subject: Re: Blast in Sky Said May Be Meteorite - Kaeser


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 11:05:18 EST
 >Subject: Re: Blast in Sky Said May Be Meteorite
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

Bob wrote:

 >While grass fires and the like are often thought associated with
 >meteorite falls, I don't believe that there has ever been a
 >proven case of a meteorite starting a fire. These reports are
 >almost certainly coincidental, if these "flares" were indeed a
 >meteor.

I guess that depends on whether or not you consider the Tunguska
event to have been caused by a meteorite or comet (or
whatever)..... <g>

There has also been a theory presented that would indicate that
the great Chicago fire was not caused by Mrs. O'Leary's cow (as
popularly thought) but was actually the result of a scaled back
version of the Tunguska event that caused a heat blast, but no
massive structural damage. I can't recall the television program
that promoted that theory, but it was interesting (albeit
far fetched..... <g>)

That being said, I have to agree that the link, between the
grass fire and the objects seen in the sky, is quite tenuous.
One report that Jan posted indicated that a woman saw something
"silver" hit the ground, which is I suppose the linkage. If
that's the case, I would hope that someone would search for
fragments of whatever it was.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 27

                    01-05-00 Illinois UFO Reconstruction

From: Colm Kelleher - NIDS <nids@earthlink.net>
Date: 27 Dec 2000 19:17:44 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 23:02:11 -0500
Subject: 01-05-00 Illinois UFO Reconstruction


National Institute for Discovery Science - http://www.nidsci.org

Many people have contacted NIDS who did not see the computer
generated forensic reconstruction of the craft seen and
described by four police officers on Jan 5, 2000 on the
Discovery Channel program entitled 'UFO over Illinois' (shown on
11/30/00 and 12/2/00). NIDS has obtained permission from the
production company and from the animation company to show
selected streaming video views of the craft as shown on the
program.

As viewers of the Discovery Channel program know, the
reconstruction was done on location with the original
eyewitnesses and is deemed an accurate simulation of the flight
of the UFO. The animation company routinely constructs these
animations of accident scenes and other events that are then
presented by prosecution or defense and are routinely admissible
in a court of law. The animation company has conducted similar
reconstructions in over 175 legal cases and accuracy is their
business. The methodology used in the present reconstruction by
the company used the same exacting standards. Thus the
reconstruction is not hypothetical or imaginary, it is accurate.

There were four main phases to the reconstruction:

1. A survey crew was hired to take physical measurements of all
locations from the different eyewitnesses. In this way an exact
series of measurements regarding the location, direction, and
distance of the flying object from the observers was possible.

2. A professional interviewer was hired who conducted
face-to-face interviews with each witness at all locations.
Photographs were taken of each location.

3. A 40 watt Argon laser with steering optics was used at each
location with the help of each eyewitness to take the exact
flight path of the object as determined from the perspective of
each eyewitness. The eyewitnesses each determined the specific
placement of the laser beams.

4. The reconstructed testimony was used to construct a series of
3D aerial grids for each location. Then a 3D CAD package was
used to create a rough model of the object as seen by the
different eyewitnesses. A second animation modeling software
package was used to fine-tune the details. Each eyewitness was
consulted on a regular basis to verify the accuracy of the
computer modeling process. With multiple iterations, the
modeling tools fine-tuned the recreation into a final animation.
The computer-generated models were then merged with live footage
so that the exact scale, size, and flight path of the object was
precisely reconstructed to the satisfaction of each eyewitness.

The reconstruction is a further aid in dismissing NIDS
hypothesis #1 that the aircraft seen by the eight eyewitnesses
was a B-2 bomber. The reconstruction also helps in examining
NIDS hypothesis #2, since it now gives the physical parameters
for future eyewitness reports of an alleged military stealth
craft.

Finally, it is of interest to compare the craft shown in this
video footage to a second independent reconstruction of a
separate low flying, large, wedge-shaped craft as seen by an
eyewitness in Port Washington, Wisconsin in October 1998.

See:

http://www.nidsci.org/news/wisconsin_sighting.html

The video clips of the UFO reconstruction are posted on the NIDS
website at:

http://www.nidsci.org/news/illinoisvideoclips.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 >
   Dec > Dec 28

                            Re: Pelicans - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 14:28:32 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 10:07:54 -0500
Subject: Re: Pelicans - Sparks


 >From: Jim Klotz <jklotz77@foxinternet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Pelicans [was: 'You Can't Tell The People']
 >Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 22:19:57 -0800

 >>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 05:14:35 EST
 >>Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People'
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

 >>Actually, you are quite right but it is even worse than you
 >>describe. Pelicans apparently show up very rarely if ever
 >>around Mt. Rainier at 10,000 feet.

 >Now you guys are in my territory.

 >I live within sight of mount Rainier and grew up here. I've seen
 >and heard of many birds of the area, but do not remember over my
 >50+ year life anyone even speaking of Pelicans, and have never
 >seen one here.

 >I realize this is not science, but only my perspective from
 >western Washington State.


Hi Jim,

That is basically what Kathleen Anderson says. Thanks for your
observational inputs which I think are significant.

Please see my subsequent posting where I point out that the
pelican observations Serge mentions are from _lakes_ not
mountains in Eastern Washington and even then are mostly rare or
"Uncommon." I also argue that thermals may be difficult or
impossible to form over snow and glacier covered Mt. Rainier
(because the white surface does not heat up in sunlight) and
thus pelicans could not possibly have soared up to 10,000 feet
when Arnold had his sighting. Also, soaring on a thermal is a
spiralling motion completely unlike the linear flight path of
the 9 objects Arnold saw. See my posting at:

http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2000/dec/m27-001.shtml

Also please note that G.T. McCoy's post seems to support this
and he indicates that the pelicans are generally seen over large
_lakes_ and rivers in Eastern Washington and Oregon. Apparently
he has never seen pelicans around Mt. Rainier despite extensive
flying around it.

There are no large lakes southwest of Mt. Rainier near where
Arnold was flying.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 28

                          Re: Pelicans - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 18:39:40 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 10:12:46 -0500
Subject: Re: Pelicans - Mortellaro


 >Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 12:23:20 +0000
 >From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Pelicans

 >>From: Jim Klotz <jklotz77@foxinternet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Pelicans [was: 'You Can't Tell The People']
 >>Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 22:19:57 -0800

 >>>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 05:14:35 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People'
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>>Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 12:50:37 +0000
 >>>>From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>>Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People'

 ><snip>

 >>Now you guys are in my territory.

 >>I live within sight of mount Rainier and grew up here. I've seen
 >>and heard of many birds of the area, but do not remember over my
 >>50+ year life anyone even speaking of Pelicans, and have never
 >>seen one here.

 >>I realize this is not science, but only my perspective from
 >>western Washington State.

 >Hi Jim,

 >It's not surprising that you would have little chance of seeing
 >something that for the most part exists only in Easton's
 >imagination.

 >Best,

 >Don Ledger

I am so sorry to have to tell you guys this, but Don, GT and the
rest of you, you who have no faith in Pelicans... you are all
in for a shock.

If you doubting Thomas' would only take your medication, your
mood altering drugs, your Gripple, you too, would see what is
really there.

Pelicans, the planet Venial and fried pork rinds.

Slim Jims








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 28

                Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles -

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 19:27:36 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 10:17:13 -0500
Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles -


 >From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles
 >Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 05:32:10 -0000


 >>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 02:49:33 EST
 >>Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 12:46:52 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles -

 >Brad wrote:

 >>Hi Jenny,

 >>Before I even get to the first part of your reply (below) I must
 >>respectfully point out that you do _not_ answer my questions
 >>above. You do not explain what Easton has _specifically_
 >>contributed to the understanding of the Rendlesham case that
 >>hasn't been overturned...

James, you are still the master of the selective quote. Right
above you snip off the part of my paragraph explaining the whole
point of this exchange was to figure out why Jenny Randles
thought you should have been credited for _something_ in
Georgina Bruni's book, and I logically asked _what_? What should
you have been credited by Georgina for? That's why I asked the
questions of Jenny and not you, as she was the one making the
complaint in her book review about Georgina's book. You also
snipped off my own attempt to come up with _something_ you might
have contributed to the Rendlesham case.

Here for the record is the rest of my paragraph you deleted:

 >. . . and which of these contributions Georgina should have mentioned
 >in her book [<--that was my question of Jenny]. I tried hard to come
 >up with something more than an historical footnote for Easton
 >making known the Cabansag-Burroughs-Penniston statements, though
 >only partially and selectively, but I could not come up with
 >much of anything but one new witness he found, Sgt. Randy Smith
 >(but how many more did Georgina find? how many did you find? now
 >compare to how many Easton found).

I still see nothing more than an historical footnote for you in
this case, James, but I will go over your tedious posting
(below) with a fine-tooth comb looking for anything significant.

Let me spare the readers on this List who want to avoid pouring
over this tome, and get to what I think is the bottom line after
several go-arounds with Jenny Randles, Ian Ridpath (privately)
and others, which seems to be that whenever I ask about your
contributions it's the Lighthouse Theory that is brought up.

Your main contribution to the Rendlesham case is in promoting
the Lighthouse Theory that Ridpath was first to publish way back
in 1985 -- so who should get the credit, you or Ridpath? This
theory doesn't withstand even elementary scientific scrutiny,
just on Directional Data and Terrain Visibility alone, to say
nothing of the color and appearance. The Orfordness Lighthouse
beam would have been invisible for more than 95% of the 2 mile
hikes made by the two USAF teams because the ground dips down in
elevation going east to the Butley River and there is a long
high ridge on the other side blocking the view (dominated by
Gedgrave Hall). Proponents still suppress and distort the
magnetic compass evidence to get the bearing of the UFO measured
by Col Halt and his team 10 degrees closer to the Orfordness
Lighthouse.

You also suppress the devastating fact that the Lighthouse
Theory was actually investigated _during_ the sighting on Dec.
26, 1980, by orders from Lt. Fred Buran at Bentwaters Central
Security Control, and it was _ruled out_ as the explanation for
the UFO sighting then under way. Buran radioed Sgt. Jim
Penniston to check out the "marker beacon" (lighthouse) to see
if it was causing the UFO phenomena, Penniston did so and
reported back that it did _not_. Penniston was the ranking
military man in charge of the three-man team that night, not
Airmen Cabansag and Burroughs whose statements you always
overemphasize.


 >Brad,

 >Although I've naturally been infinitely more concerned with
 >'Christmas' of late, your comments have been brought to my
 >attention.

 >If the question is - can I please summarise what my own research
 >may have brought to light, I'm pleased to assist.

Nope, that _isn't_ the question. The question was and is: What
have you contributed of significance to the Rendlesham case that
still stands (hasn't been overturned or refuted) that Georgina
should have cited in her book?

Your research may have merely turned up what others had
previously turned up, in which case you would not get the
credit. You may have turned up plenty of things in your research
on this case that have no direct relevance or significance in
interpreting it and thus had no reason to be cited in Georgina's
book. For example, further down in your posting you list 18
military personnel at some base (which one you don't say) whom
you contacted. This has no significance to the case itself
because you don't indicate these are actually witnesses to
_anything_ and you don't indicate what if anything they had to
say of relevance. And since this is the first time you've ever
mentioned these 18 names publicly so far as I can tell, Georgina
would not have known about the 18.


 >That question is best directed to myself directly, rather than
 >to a lady who, although obviously broke the ground in so many
 >fundamental respects re 'Rendlesham', isn't best placed to
 >answer.

As I said before, Jenny Randles was the one complaining in her
book review that Georgina should have credited you in her book,
but Jenny didn't explain _what_ you should have been credited
with. Jenny is the one who needs to explain her book reviw.
Please note the subject line of this thread: "Re: Bentwaters
Book Review by Jenny Randles."

 >Whilst I have never expressed a view we understand all
 >occurrences which are the basis of our perceived 'Rendlesham
 >forest UFO encounters', what I have highlighted is existing
 >evidence, often largely unknown.

In fact, you posted here on UFO UpDates on Aug. 17 that the
Lighthouse Theory was the "thoroughly comprehensive" explanation
of the case and its solution has always been your posture,
explicit and implied, for the past two to three years. What part
of "thoroughly comprehensive" do you not understand?

Here is your posting of Aug. 17:

http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2000/aug/m17-005.shtml

And just in case you try to split hairs and claim that you
somehow didn't mean the Second Night group led by Col. Halt, in
your website article "Rendlesham Unravelled" you claim that "the
Orford Ness lighthouse explains MOST of the light phenomena"
seen by Col Halt and company (my capitalization). (See
http://www.ufoworld.co.uk/rend2.htm, for some reason not online
now.)

 >Central in that respect was my involvement with those pivotal
 >'Project: watchfire' interviews undertaken via the Microsoft
 >Network in 1997. If I hadn't realised the magnitude of that
 >progressive undertaking, would the exceptional research
 >contributions of Salley Rayl and Diana Botsford ever have been
 >so comprehensively appreciated?

Bibliographically speaking what on earth would Georgina have
been able to cite since this was Salley Rayl's interview of Col
Halt, not yours? I don't know if Rayl's interview would have
been as well known without your promotion of it, or whether it
would have routinely turned up in an in-depth research such as
Georgina's. This is getting really derivative here. This is not
even historical footnote material, but something for an
Acknowledgments page with a long list of contributors.

I mean _what_ in the Rayl interview of Halt is so highly
significant to the Rendlesham case other than helping to refute
the Lighthouse Theory? But the Lighthouse Theory is
scientifically bankrupt anyway.

The Rayl interview proves that Halt knew exactly where the
Shipwash Sunk Lightship (lighthouse) was located with respect to
the UFO he saw -- 30-40 degrees to the right of the UFO, thus
had nothing to do with each other. This is extraordinarily
accurate for angular estimation by a witness not using
instruments on both objects (the correct figure is 46 degrees to
the right if the UFO was at 120 magnetic as Halt measured with
his compass). Halt might have been misled by interviewers as to
the name of the beacon (which he didn't mention) but that
doesn't affect the validity of his observational data.


 >The resulting landmark material didn't magically appear outwith
 >that intrinsic MSN genesis, it resulted from Diana's commitment
 >and considerable endeavours in response to my request those
 >transcripts were critical evidence which demanded a wider
 >audience.

Sorry to have to be blunt, but so what? What of all this should
Georgina have included in her book? What is so "landmark" about
it?

If you want to be a service to the UFOlogy community instead of
a self-service, and get this assertedly "critical evidence" to a
"wider audience," why not publish the _entire_ Rayl-Halt MSN
interview on your website, instead of conveniently selective
excerpts in your articles and postings?

There is no such word as "outwith" in the online Webster's
Dictionary or any other online dictionary I checked, apparently
it is an obscure Scottish word that causes confusion and
uncertainty when you use it.


 >Although Charles [Col.] Halt is a recipient of all material I
 >have published concerning this case, he has chosen not to
 >comment, however, he did for the first time provide an answer to
 >one key question, which Salley Rayl asked on my behalf:

 >RAYL: We received an e-mail earlier in the day from a fellow by
 >the name of James Easton who lives in Scotland and apparently
 >has been researching this case during recent months.

 >[...]

 >One thing that he mentioned and a question that I would like to
 >pass on to you is why have there been variances in the dates
 >given for both incidents? Your memo claims that the dates were
 >on the evening, early morning of the 26th, 27th and 28th, 29th
 >of December, respectively. But elsewhere, you know, the dates
 >have been given as 25 to 26 and 29 to 30, he says. So why, why
 >are there differences in those dates?

 >HALT: Well, I tried to go back and recover the police blotter
 >and the security blotter think I mentioned to you earlier to
 >re-affirm the dates. Keep in mind, I wrote the memo several
 >weeks later. And it was not a really important memo. The date
 >was not critical. The critical portion was, you know, what
 >happened and are you interested? And how about getting involved
 >and let's investigate this. It's possible that I, I put the date
 >down wrong. But I don't believe so. I tried to verify later and
 >the police blotters had been taken from repository, probably by
 >a, how shall I say, curiosity seeker... [END]

 >Importantly, this offered an explanation why, as was now known,
 >both 'UFO encounter' dates in Halt's memo to the Ministry of
 >Defense were unquestionably wrong.

So you contributed a question asked by an interviewer? You don't
mean to say that you were the one who resolved the date
confusion do you? I had suggested in my posting that maybe you
had, unless others had done it, but now that I have researched
it further I find that it was others. Ian Ridpath corrected the
date of the First Night incident by finding the police log entry
showing the call at 4:11 AM on Dec. 26, 1980. Nicholas Redfern
found the RAF Watton log entry showing Col. Halt's report on the
Second Night sightings at 3:25 AM on Dec. 28, 1980.

 >The opportunity to directly ask further meaningful questions of
 >Halt and obtain what should have been critical answers, were
 >lamentably, as revealed in 'Voyager Newsletter No. 15',
 >obstructed by people from a 'UFO organisation' called 'FUFOR',
 >who were in contact with him.

 >It's imperative to read the newsletter to confirm how utterly
 >pathetic this particular 'UFOs are real[ly alien spacecraft]'
 >fortification actually was.

 >Georgina Bruni, who has recently written a book about the
 >Rendlesham forest 'UFO cover up by MIB', also statedly, "alerted
 >Colonel (Ret) Charles Halt to the fact that Easton had been
 >provided with these statements".

 >This being a reference to those inaugural witness testimonies I
 >uncovered and which, incredibly, documented that nearby Orford
 >Ness [Orfordness] lighthouse had been mistaken for a 'UFO'.

You have never published the full Jan 1981 statements, only
highly selective excerpts designed to avoid the evidence showing
the actual real-time military investigation of the Lighthouse
Theory that ruled it out on Dec 26, 1980, and other evidence
contradicting the Lighthouse Theory in those statements such as
the repeat UFO sighting headed West -- opposite direction from
the Orfordness Lighthouse in the East.

But you were not the first to publish excerpts, as you were
preceded by 5 years by Antonio Huneeus, in his Sept 1993 FATE
magazine article with interview of John Burroughs, which quoted
Burroughs' Jan 1981 statement. I can't imagine a higher
circulation publication than FATE that is heavily involved in
UFO content.

But speaking of Burroughs, what about his observation of a "blue
light" UFO that passed through the open windows of the military
vehicle? How do you explain that as a lighthouse?

It apparently doesn't bother you in the least that the claims in
the alleged Cabansag and Burroughs statements of chasing the
lighthouse for 2 miles were a physical impossibility, proving at
least the partial falsity of those statements and that in fact
Cabansag told Georgina he did not write the statement attributed
to him.

 >Any further 'BRUNI/FUFOR' related comment is somewhat
 >superfluous...

 >What more requires to be factually evidenced re what 'ufology'
 >actually is?

 >Despite those handicaps, I was able to speak with Geraldo
 >Valdes- Sanchez ['Jerry Valdes'], Security Specialist, 81st
 >Security Police Squadron [SPS], who was a member of the patrol
 >sent to check on the whereabouts of Burroughs, Cabansag and
 >Penniston that first night.

 >Valdes' account is significant in many respects, confirming that
 >similar 'strange lights' were still visible from east gate,
 >apparently long after these should have been if they belonged to
 >a 'craft' which had 'taken off'.

You'll have to document that this had anything to do with the
Penniston-Cabansag-Burroughs sighting. Nebulous reference to
"strange lights" doesn't prove anything without some semblance
of scientific data, time, location, direction, elevation angle,
appearance, duration, angular size, etc.

 >Valdez also provided a still unique recollection of scenes the
 >next morning:

 >"Shift change in the morney for 'B' flight was extremely late.
 >'A' Flight relieved us at 9:30 am, very late.

 >When we went out the East gate back to Bentwaters, leaving
 >Woodbridge, there were many people, including numerous people in
 >typical lab coats making an analysis of the area. You could see
 >out the vehicle to the right side, that there were many people
 >examining the area, searching, looking for something. Some of
 >these people were in white overcoats, that's why I say that they
 >looked like typical techs in lab coats.

 >They were searching the area in front of the forest".

 >Surprisingly, perhaps the relevance of this hasn't been
 >recognised.

Why would military technicians in white lab coats be running
around investigating a misidentified lighthouse?

 >I hope to say more in due course.

 >Another key witness was Airman Chris Armold. In a letter dated
 >27 October 1988, to UK researcher Nick Redfern, the Suffolk
 >Constabulary confirmed that "shortly after 4 a.m. on 26th
 >December 1980", they received a call about "unusual lights being
 >seen in the sky near R.A.F. Woodbridge". In 'Above Top Secret',
 >by Timothy Good, he wrote:

 >"Chuck de Caro of Cable News Network was shown the logbook at
 >Woodbridge Police Station which shows that on the night of 25/26
 >December, Airman Armold from the Woodbridge base law enforcement
 >desk called the Woodbridge police concerning 'lights in the
 >woods'".

As I understand it, Armold was discovered by CNN and Redfern,
not by you, and that it was Armold who found you, not the other
way around.

 >The person who made the call was Chris Armold. In a detailed
 >interview, Armold explained what happened when he then met up
 >with Airman John Burroughs and was taken to the 'landing site',
 >where anomalous 'blue and red' lights were still visible in the
 >distance, long after comparative lights were allegedly attached
 >to a 'craft' which had 'taken off'.

Armold does not claim these lights were UFO's and you apparently
have no scientific data showing these had anything to do with
the departed UFO's seen by Penniston-Cabansag-Burroughs (P-C-B).
What was "anomalous" about Armold's lights? Did they approach
within 50 meters, maneuver around in and among trees, project
pencil beams, pass through open windows of a vehicle, drip
molten material or explode?

The P-C-B sightings started at approximately 3:00 AM and their
UFO close encounter adventures transpired over the next 45
minutes or so along the 2-mile chase route. Lt. Fred Buran at
CSC ordered the team back to base at 3:54 AM, which required
about a 30-45-minute walk back to their parked vehicle over the
2 mile UFO-pursuit route (well, Penniston separated and took a
different route apparently). The police call by Armold was
logged in at 4:11 AM and Burroughs did not return to his vehicle
until around 4:30 when he met up with Armold. So Armold is a
latecomer to the scene and not a "UFO witness."

 >Armold was evidently also in the forest during the purported
 >second night's 'UFO' encounters, which he relates as several
 >hours spent in an abortive hunt for 'UFOs'.

"Evidently"? That's hardly solid "witness" testimony if all you
can say is you speculate that he was there for Col. Halt's
Second Night UFO sightings.

 >Crucially, Arnold clarified:

 >"Yes, there were what we initially interpreted as 'strange
 >lights' and in my opinion and contrary to what some people
 >assert, at the time almost none of us knew there was a
 >lighthouse at Orford Ness. Remember, the vast majority of folks
 >involved were young people, 19, 20, 25 years old. Consequently
 >it wasn't something most of the troops were cognizant of. That's
 >one reason the lights appeared interesting or out of the
 >ordinary to some people.

 >After it was discovered that a lighthouse was out there the
 >'strangeness' of the lights evaporated".

Armold's insinuation that almost nobody knew about a lighthouse
is crucially contradicted by the Jan 1981 statements of Lt.
Buran and MSgt Chandler that prove that an actual
_investigation_ of the lighthouse was conducted _during_ the
P-C-B sighting and it turned out negative, utterly disproving
the absurd theory.

How was it "discovered" that the Lighthouse Theory explained the
UFO's? The Orfordness Lighthouse was out there in exactly the
same location with the same intensity, color and appearance
every night of the week all year long, unlike even stars and
planets that shift position with time (and planets change in
appearance as they orbit). All they had to do was look around
the next night and see if the lighthouse looked like the UFO's.

Of course, the fact the Orfordness Lighthouse was virtually
invisible from almost every location landward might have an
impact on the ability of anyone ever to have seen it long enough
to confuse it with a UFO. After all, lighthouses are designed to
be seen from the _sea_ for navigation and are not supposed to be
seen from land where they would be a monstrous annoyance to
people. That's why lighthouse beams are masked landward, though
some light does leak out at certain angles unavoidably.

 >Amongst other personnel who were stationed on base at the time
 >of the 'UFO' excitement, I have also been able to contact [rank
 >stated if known]:

 >Lori E. Rehfeldt, O-2 First Lieutenant
 >William A. Kirk Jr. "Bill", E-5 Staff Sergeant
 >Bernard E. Donahue, O-3 Captain
 >Charles "Chuck" J. Dalldorf, E-5 Staff Sergeant
 >Dale Wagner, E-7 Master Sergeant
 >Terry L. Malzi, E-5 Staff Sergeant
 >Trae Swann, E-4 Senior Airman
 >Danny Wills, E-8 Senior Master Sergeant
 >John Taylor, E-3 Airman 1st Class
 >John Smith, E-5 Staff Sergeant
 >Barney B. Pate, E-9 Chief Master Sergeant
 >Tony Messina
 >John R. McGinnis "McToucan" or "American John"
 >LeRoy Jessen, E-3 Airman 1st Class
 >David A. Jenkins, E-6 Technical Sergeant
 >Julian E Hazen (BUD), E-5 Staff Sergeant
 >William P. Ferris, E-4 Sergeant
 >Werner Bauder, E-5 Staff Sergeant

Well, what did _they_ contribute to the case? Why should
Georgina credit you with this in her book? Did she even know
about these 18? Just because you contacted them doesn't mean
they all responded or had information to relate. This is just
"padding."

 >Additionally, one of the most insightful and astonishing
 >accounts came from another member of the 81st SPS, Sergeant
 >Randy Smith, who was stationed in the Weapons Storage Area [WSA]
 >during a 'UFO' alert which I demonstrated could be correlated
 >with that same 'second night'.

Remember? You cut out my mention of Sgt Smith from my post, when
I tried to think of anything you had contributed. But alas I
think I might have been in error because it's my understanding
that Smith found you, not the reverse. Also, he had little to
contribute of significance to the Rendlesham UFO sighting
itself. In fact it was his wife who had the most to reveal about
nuclear weapons, etc., which is peripheral to the UFO case.

 >It is a significant testimony in further evidencing that,
 >contrary to Col Halt's assertions, no 'beams of light' from
 >unidentified aerial objects were seen 'coming down' in the WSA,
 >nor was any such astounding occurrence ever mentioned
 >thereafter.

 >This would seem to consummately indicate that simply never
 >happened.

False! You withhold evidence once again, in this case the fact
Smith went home _before_ Col Halt's dramatic 3:25 AM observation
of the UFO moving from the distance to overhead and its beam
coming down -- we know the time because that is when Halt became
alarmed and understandably so and radioed the report that got
logged in at RAF Watton. You know perfectly well that Smith
couldn't remember what time he went home but his wife did, and
it was guessed to be about 3:00 to 3:30 AM. Quite evidently
Smith wasn't there to see what Halt saw at 3:25.

 >Yet, Sgt Smith's recollection of how at some point he was, "on
 >top of the structure near the bunker where you'd go if you were
 >under attack", remains enigmatic.

 >However, I haven't publicised all that was disclosed by Sergeant
 >Smith...

More gameplaying. Georgina has no obligation to report in her
book that you have undisclosed information from Smith that no
one obviously can evaluate until they know it.

 >Obviously, I have discussed the case in-depth and drawn on the
 >related experience of foremost researchers such as Jenny
 >Randles, Ian Ridpath, Peter Brookesmith, Steuart Campbell,
 >Philip Klass and Adrian Berry [apologies to others not
 >mentioned]. This has been aided by significant contributions
 >from Keith Seaman - responsible for maintenance of the automated
 >Orford Ness lighthouse and familiar with the UFO stories, Jim
 >Speiser and John Powell, who encouraged some of the first
 >witnesses to 'come forward', especially concerning John
 >Burroughs.

 >A direct participant in our first night's 'UFO' encounter,
 >involving Airman Ed Cabansag, Staff-Sergeant Jim Penniston and
 >himself, the then 'Airman 1st Class' Burroughs was also involved
 >in that 'second night', when Lt. Col. Halt went in search of the
 >'UFO' which, apparently Airman Greg Battrom believed 'had come
 >back'.

 >It's been many years since John Burroughs publicly commented on
 >events, and never before in the light of all that's been
 >unravelled.

 >Burroughs, is simply one of the most important 'UFO' witness of
 >all time.

 >When, and if, my ongoing discussions with John are, to our
 >mutual extent, resolved... and yes, I have been in contact with
 >Burroughs for some time... then you'll know what the final score
 >is.

So do tell us about Burroughs' sighting of the blue light that
went through the open windows of the vehicle and how the
lighthouse did that.

 >Although presently, and ultimately, I don't believe I'm
 >losing...

 >I trust this answers your question.

 >__Please_ realise that no further correspondence is pertinent.


 >James Easton.
 >E-mail: voyager@ufoworld.co.uk
 >www.ufoworld.co.uk

Further correspondence has been highly pertinent in disclosing
all manner of significant facts you have withheld from the
public such as: (1) The investigation of the lighthouse during
the First Night UFO sighting that eliminated it as an
explanation, (2) the scientific evidence of Directional Data and
Terrain Visibility that refute the Lighthouse Theory nonsense,
(3) the Westward UFO sighting by Burroughs and Cabansag that
couldn't possibly be the lighthouse in the East, and so much
more.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 28

                        Vegas Ball Team Renamed '51s'

From: Steven L. Wilson, Sr <Ndunlks@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 22:48:42 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 10:21:11 -0500
Subject: Vegas Ball Team Renamed '51s'


Las Vegas team adopts out-of-this-world Area 51 image

By KEN RITTER
.c The Associated Press


LAS VEGAS (AP) - The mascot and theme music possibilities are,
well, otherworldly.

Known for 18 years as the Stars, Las Vegas' minor league
baseball team is remaking itself. They're not the Blackjacks,
Royal Flushes or Silver Dollars.

They'll be the 51s, as in Area 51, the famously top-secret test
site in the Nevada desert oft-rumored to be the mysterious
location of captured UFO spacecraft and even alien beings.

"We figured if we get a cease-and-desist order from the
government we'll really make news," Aaron Artman, creative
director for the Triple-A ballclub, said Wednesday. "But they
can't send it if they don't admit Area 51 exists."

Team officials are candid about the need to be noticed in a town
of bright lights, 24-hour gambling and headline entertainers.

"There's tons of competition out there," Matt Strelo, team
executive vice president, said Wednesday.

Strelo said the recent name change generated calls from media in
Seattle, Dallas and Los Angeles.

"The good news is, nobody doesn't have an opinion," Strelo said
"Some people love it and some people hate it."

As for the U.S. government, well, no comment.

"I'd like to say something clever," said Lt. Col. Joan Ferguson,
a spokeswoman at Nellis Air Force Base near Las Vegas. But she
didn't.

"The official position is that there is a classified operating
location near Groom Dry Lake," Ferguson said. "We simply do not
discuss those activities. The Air Force has never officially had
an Area 51."

The Stars got a new owner - Mandalay Sports Entertainment - a
year ago. In November, after 18 years with the San Diego Padres,
the team became the top farm team for the Los Angeles Dodgers.

"From a marketing standpoint, the name Stars didn't give us a
lot of identity," Strelo said. But with the Area 51 identity, he
called merchandise and mascot possibilities "endless."

Area 51, northwest of Las Vegas and Nellis, has legendary status
among UFO and science fiction enthusiasts. Some swear the
government uses it for super-secret tests and as a place to
study extraterrestrial life.

"You may be a purist, but your 5-year-old son might like the
alien mascot and your 12-year-old might like the music we're
playing," Artman said of what they'll encounter at the ballpark.
"This theme gives us a lot of options. Maybe a space ship in the
outfield. Or crop circles."


AP-NY-12-27-00 2017EST

Copyright 2000 The Associated Press.

Researcher Steven L. Wilson, Sr








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 28

                      1953 & 1955 Security Regulations

From: Jim Klotz <jklotz77@foxinternet.net>
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 20:00:51 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 10:23:27 -0500
Subject: 1953 & 1955 Security Regulations


Listfolk:

For those of you interested in the security regulation(s) which
governed handling of classified material, you might also be
interested in a couple of items we have available on CUFON:

Air Force Regulation 205-1: SECURITY: Safeguarding Military
Information Dated 15 December 1953

http://www.cufon.org/cufon/afr205-1.htm


And Air Force Regulation 205-2: SECURITY: Laws, Executive
Orders, Etc., Pertaining to Safeguarding Military Information -
dated 19 May 1955

http://www.cufon.org/cufon/afr205-2.htm


These make interesting reading and are quite detailed as to
procedures etc.

*** Be aware that these two web pages are in a layout I was
playing with. You should have a screen dimension of 800 X 600
minimum. I'll be posting these items in .PDF format sometime
soon.


- 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 >
   Dec > Dec 28

                              Northern Lights?

From: Sean Liddle <gortrix@kos.net>
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 01:19:13 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 10:38:18 -0500
Subject: Northern Lights?


Hi Everyone:

Does anyone have a URL for a good reliable site that posts
auroral predctions? (The Northern Lights, not the plane:) ).

I am also looking for a decent write up on UFO sightings in and
about the Bath, Ontario area (in particular near the Lennox and
Addington Generating Station).

Anyone have any such animals?

Thanks,

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 >
   Dec > Dec 28

                 Re: 01-05-00 Illinois UFO Reconstruction -

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 00:05:08 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 10:47:00 -0500
Subject: Re: 01-05-00 Illinois UFO Reconstruction -


 >Date: 27 Dec 2000 19:17:44 -0000
 >To: UFO UpDates <updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: Colm Kelleher - NIDS <nids@earthlink.net
 >Subject: The January 5, 2000 Illinois UFO Reconstruction

<snip>

 >There were four main phases to the reconstruction:

[...]

 >The reconstruction is a further aid in dismissing NIDS
 >hypothesis #1 that the aircraft seen by the eight eyewitnesses
 >was a B-2 bomber. The reconstruction also helps in examining
 >NIDS hypothesis #2, since it now gives the physical parameters
 >for future eyewitness reports of an alleged military stealth
 >craft.

 >Finally, it is of interest to compare the craft shown in this
 >video footage to a second independent reconstruction of a
 >separate low flying, large, wedge-shaped craft as seen by an
 >eyewitness in Port Washington, Wisconsin in October 1998.

 >See:

 >http://www.nidsci.org/news/wisconsin_sighting.html

 >The video clips of the UFO reconstruction are posted on the NIDS
 >website at:

 >http://www.nidsci.org/news/illinoisvideoclips.html

<snip>


Hello Colm,

Great job.

Just a few questions.

There seems to be some obstacles for the "military stealth
craft" hypothesis:

1. Since when is the military testing highly classified
equipment in highly populated areas....?

2. ...and without any apparent notice to civil air traffic?

3. ...and obviously ignoring air traffic rules?

If it's not without civil traffic notification, then I suppose
one can find private pilots who _must_ have been restrained from
taking the air during the alleged field trip?

4. If it's supposed to be stealth, why so many lights?

5. Is the "military stealth craft" hypothesis thrown in for
apparence of objectivity, or is there ground for such
hypothesis?


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 >
   Dec > Dec 28

                          Oz Report - 27th Dec 2000

From: Diane Harrison <tkbnetw@powerup.com.au>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 15:19:00 +1100
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 10:50:46 -0500
Subject: Oz Report - 27th Dec 2000


Australian UFO Research Network - http://www.powerup.com.au/~tkbnetw

Strange report from the Adelaide Hills ACT

Date 27th Dec 2000
Time: 4.15 pm

Report By Diane Harrison

Witness: Richard H ...age 50-ish

Richard lives in the Adelaide Hills.


Comment Richard.
I've just read an newspaper story about the strange sightings in
the sky over Batemans Bay & Eden and the spot fires near
Canberra.

I don't know if you can help me sort out what happened to me the
night of the 27th at 4.15pm I've never rung a UFO hotline before
in my life but here goes.

I went out side to to attend to my Car trailer and to fold up my
tarp. As I pulled up one corner of the tarp to fold it and I
could see it had leave's stuck to it. I was shocked to see that
these leaves were orange, I mean the leaves were a brilliant
brilliant orange. I looked at my hands and they to were the same
colour.

I had a feeling the colour was coming from above in the sky, so
I looked up but I couldn't see any object that could cause the
leaves and my hands to reflect this colour.

But what I did notice was, there was no cloud movement and the
sky and clouds were a really strange colour, nothing was moving,
Not a sound, not even the sound of rustling leaves, No birds
singing... Nothing, it was quite and very still for around a
minute.

I got scared and went towards the house to get my wife to come
out to take a look at the leaves and the sky but when she came
out the sky was back to normal and the leaves were green and all
sounds had returned.

I can't explain what happened... I thought for a moment I was on
the set of an X-File movie.


Comment: Diane
It sounds like the Oz Factor... very strange indeed. All
relevant questions have been asked..

--

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 >
   Dec > Dec 28

               Re: Blast in Sky Said May Be Meteorite - BYoung

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 11:47:35 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 12:22:03 -0500
Subject: Re: Blast in Sky Said May Be Meteorite - BYoung


 >From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@konsulting.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Blast in Sky Said May Be Meteorite
 >Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 13:39:19 -0500

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 11:05:18 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Blast in Sky Said May Be Meteorite
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 ><snip>

 >Bob wrote:

 >>While grass fires and the like are often thought associated with
 >>meteorite falls, I don't believe that there has ever been a
 >>proven case of a meteorite starting a fire. These reports are
 >>almost certainly coincidental, if these "flares" were indeed a
 >>meteor.

 >I guess that depends on whether or not you consider the Tunguska
 >event to have been caused by a meteorite or comet (or
 >whatever)..... <g>

Hi, Steve, List:

There have never been any meteorites recovered from the Tunguska
event, as far as I know. As the theory goes, it was an airburst
of something truly huge. If something had happened of that
magnitude over Australia, I'm sure that we would have heard
about it.

 >There has also been a theory presented that would indicate that
 >the great Chicago fire was not caused by Mrs. O'Leary's cow (as
 >popularly thought) but was actually the result of a scaled back
 >version of the Tunguska event that caused a heat blast, but no
 >massive structural damage. I can't recall the television program
 >that promoted that theory, but it was interesting (albeit
 >far fetched..... <g>)

I'll say.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 28

             Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles - Bruni

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 16:45:20 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 12:28:42 -0500
Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles - Bruni


 >From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles
 >Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 05:32:10 -0000

 >Whilst I have never expressed a view we understand all
 >occurrences which are the basis of our perceived 'Rendlesham
 >forest UFO encounters', what I have highlighted is existing
 >evidence, often largely unknown.

James... there you go again!

 >Central in that respect was my involvement with those pivotal
 >'Project: watchfire' interviews undertaken via the Microsoft
 >Network in 1997. If I hadn't realised the magnitude of that
 >progressive undertaking, would the exceptional research
 >contributions of Salley Rayl and Diana Botsford ever have been
 >so comprehensively appreciated?

Nonsense, this good piece of work was available on the web. What
involvement? You asked the girls to ask one question in the
interview. Of course you fail to mention that I credit Sally
Rayl in the book for her interviews.

 >Georgina Bruni, who has recently written a book about the
 >Rendlesham forest 'UFO cover up by MIB', also statedly, "alerted
 >Colonel (Ret) Charles Halt to the fact that Easton had been
 >provided with these statements".

The book has nothing to do with "Men in Black". This is just
another debunking fantasy of yours James.

Don't flatter yourself, I was in conversation with Charles Halt
when I happened to mention the statements. It wasn't as if I
called him specifically for that purpose.

 >This being a reference to those inaugural witness testimonies I
 >uncovered and which, incredibly, documented that nearby Orford
 >Ness [Orfordness] lighthouse had been mistaken for a 'UFO'.

But we now know different, don't we?

 >Any further 'BRUNI/FUFOR' related comment is somewhat
 >superfluous...

That's probably because our facts are a threat to your theories.

 >Despite those handicaps, I was able to speak with Geraldo
 >Valdes- Sanchez ['Jerry Valdes'], Security Specialist, 81st
 >Security Police Squadron [SPS], who was a member of the patrol
 >sent to check on the whereabouts of Burroughs, Cabansag and
 >Penniston that first night.

You and everyone else James. Jerry did the Sightings radio show
and I also interviewed him for my book. He was not sent out to
check the whereabouts of Burroughs, Cabansag and Penniston that
first night. He was on guard duty at the Woodbridge base, were
he saw the lights and, BTW, B Flight were not on duty that first
night so it was another night that Jerry was probably referring
to. At the time I interviewed Jerry he was not aware that there
were more encounters so understandably he thought it was the
first night.

check out the archives at:

www.sightings.com or read my book - properly!

 >Another key witness was Airman Chris Armold.

Armold is not considered to be a key witness and you cannot
claim credit for locating him. He was first questioned by Raine
& Crow from UK UFO NWS in July1997. Then by Michael Lindemann
and I also questioned him for my book. So what great revelations
are you claiming here.

Armold's full responses to Raine & Crow are featured below.

I realised that Armold was trying to get even with Halt and
Burroughs, for reasons I am aware of. This didn't make him a
reliable witness in my opinion, especially because he seems to
be combining all the events together.

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

From: crow@crowman.demon.co.uk (Raine & Crow)
Date: Saturday 12th July 1997

Chris Arnold and Bentwaters

uk.ufo.nw says: We believe that Chris Arnold (below) wrote to
Raine & Crow (uk.ufo.nw staff members) after reading a
Bentwaters report on their home page. Chris Arnolds letters has
now been placed into the hands of Michael Lindermann of CNI News
for further investigation.

We ask that if anyone out there has any information on Chris
Arnold and/or his involvement with the Bentwaters case please
mail us at the usual address: ufo@holodeck.demon.co.uk

Chris Arnold's e-mail address currently withheld.

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

Date: Sun, 06 Jul 97

Howdy, Just wanted to say that as a participant in the alleged
RAF Woodbridge UFO incident in 1980, I just wanted to advise you
that you've been well and truly snookered by Halt and his
buddies. They have no clue.

Chris Armold

---

Hi Chris,

Are you telling me that you were actually a participant in the
alleged RAF Woodbridge UFO incident in 1980? What did you
participate in? I have had quite a few people email me and claim
this, but as yet none have come up with any evidence that would
substantiate their claims. Would you please tell me why I have
been well and truly snookered by Halt and his buddies, I wonder
if you will claim Warren was not there at that time? I would be
very interested indeed to hear your evidence and look forward to
some real info from you.

All the very best..Crow & Raine

---

To: <crow@crowman.demon.co.uk>
Subject: RAF Woodbridge
From: Chris Armold
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 97

Howdy, It's very strange that someone would ask me for evidence
of my participation in this non-event when no one seems compeled
to require Burroughs, Halt and whoever else to substantiate
their fantastic storys.

In any case here is some information regarding that wonderful
goat rope outside the RAF Woodbridge East Gate that December
morning. I was a member of the 81st Security Police Squadron on
"B" Flight Law Enforcement. If I remember correctly (and you
must forgive me for some memory lapse as you must realize that
at the time this was not a significant event, consequently it
really hasn't been burned into my mind, obviously had I seen
flying saucers, and little green men I doubt I would have any
problems retaining the information) those of us working were
having some fun as we actually were playing music over one of
the Police Frequencies. It was very quiet and since it was the
holiday season, not much was happening. Things were pretty laid
back. In any case, we were playing Music on the Security
Frequency and the Law Enforcement freq was being used in case
someone had an emergency or actual work related transmission to
make. After midnight, John Burroughs radioed the LE desk and
reported he had seen strange lights in the outside the East Gate
on RAF Woodbridge. I was actually on RAF Lakenheath hanging out
at the Law Enforcement Desk at the time. Burroughs, who liked to
draw attention to himself, often over-reacted to situations and
was considered very unreliable, wanted to know if there were any
reports of downed aircraft.

We called the Control Tower and I even called the local
Constabulary (I can't remember the town the constabulary was in
, but I do know it was outside of Ipswich and I think it used to
be an air base during WWII, I believe the control tower was
restored in the 80's) In any case, after getting a negative
reply from the British Cops, My flight chief asked me if I
wanted to head out to Woodbridge to meet up with Burroughs and
see what was up. I grabbed the back gate keys, and took the back
way to RAF W/B. I met Burroughs at the East Gate of WB. We left
our guns with the guy riding with Burroughs and drove to the end
of the long access road. We left our vehicle and walked out
there.

NOTE: (GB) The police were not called until 4.11am, after the
incident was over. I have since discovered (see You Can't Tell
The People) that the times both on the statements and on Halt's
memo, were wrong. The first incident began between 23.00 hours
and midnight on 25th. END OF NOTE

There was absolutely nothing in the woods. We could see lights
in the distance and it appeared unusual as it was a sweeping
light, (we did not know about the lighthouse on the coast at the
time). We also saw some strange colored lights in the distance
but were unable to determine what they were.

Eventually we found three depressions in the ground, about the
diameter of a coffee can in a triangular pattern. However, there
was no damage to trees or scorch marks, or any damage to any
plant life in the area. We noted the location of the impressions
and departed the area.

Burroughs and his partner went back to patroling RAF WB and I
returned to RAF BW. I reported what I saw to my flight chief. In
the morning several of us were asked if we would return to the
area to point out the depressions to some folks who I believe
were from environmental health. They did have some type of
instrument for detecting radiation and I believe they did detect
some measure of radiation, however I don't think it was a
significant amount. During the trip to the woods, Lt Col Halt,
the deputy base commander (who's radio call sign was "Stopper")
showed up. He was intregued by the report.

NOTE: (GB) Halt's call sign according to the commander's was
"Bravo Charlie 2" END OF NOTE

Now you must understand that we had a very interesting
relationship with Col Halt. You see he really enjoyed hanging
out with the Law Enforcement troops. He found our job
interesting and I think he had fun. He would routinely stop by
the office on swing and midnight shifts on Friday and Saturday
nights and ride with patrols. I would say he rode with me 10 or
12 times during my time at RAF BW. I considered him a very
friendly, relaxed individual and very down to earth for an
officer.

Halt essentially said he planned on coming out to the site in
the evening and one way or another several of us said we'd keep
him company. The guys I remember were John Burroughs, Adrian
Bustamante, and me. I think another officer joined Halt, I
believe it was Lt Bruce England, but I'm not absolutely certain
and maybe two other guys (Possibly one named Pennington, just
can't remember for sure) There was however, no army of USAF guys
out in the woods.. No fleet of vehicles, no towed light rigs,
just a half-dozen or so of us stomping around goofing off.

NOTE: Since when was Armold with Halt's patrol? He's claiming he
was involved in both events. END OF NOTE

I brought a camera with me and I think Halt had a tape recorder.
We were out there for hours and someone noticed some lights in
the distance. While they often seemed to be very close in
reality as we tried to approach them we discovered they were
very far away. Now don't confuse what Ijust wrote. Little balls
of light were not flying around us or getting closer and flying
away. We initially thought the lights were closer than they
actually were.

In the end I would say we were in the woods for 4 or 5 hours.
The next morning we went home and "B" flight went on break (our
three days off). Three days later we returned to work and made
fun of Burroughs for screwing up our radio fun with his bogus
UFO sighting.

There were no secret debriefings, no threats, no sudden
assignments. Nothing. It was no big deal.

One of the things that is so amusing about this issue is that I
didn't leave RAF Lakenheath for another 6 or 7 months. You know,
after a few days, this entire issue was forgotten. It just was
not an issue. When I departed England, I was sent to Grissom AFB
Indiana. John Burroughs stated on some TV show in the states
that after the incident he suddenly and unexpectedly received
transfer orders to Korea, apparently to keep him quiet.
Bullshit. John Burroughs departed right on time (we had two year
assignments to England) and guess where he went: Yep, Grissom
AFB Indiana. I had to spend another tour of duty with that
idiot.

Ok, so now John and I are in Indiana together. We don't know
anyone but each other, so we hung out for a few months until we
got to know other people. Guess what. He never spoke of seeing a
flying saucer, or encountering aliens. He never mentioned the
incident again. Obviously something one wouldn't likely forget
had he actually seen or encountered such phenomenons. Nope, John
and I really never spoke of the UFO thing at WB because we
didn't consider it to be anything except some unusual lights.

John and I spent two years together in Indiana. He later became
a K-9 handler and eventually left the active AF for the guard or
reserves and I think he ended up in Nevada. As in England, his
tour in Indiana impressed no one. Burroughs was unreliable and
very self-serving. He always tried to do what was best for
"John."

The next time I heard of the UFO thing was when I returned to
England in 1984. I had an assignment to RAF Lakenheath and two
days after I arrived I saw a story on the news (on TV) about
this book called "Sky Crash" about the alleged UFO Incident at
RAF WB. I was absolutely amazed that anyone would have cared
about this non-incident. I found a copy of the book and was
absolutely blown away by the rubbish and inaccuracies which
filled the pages.

Let me say categorically that there were no space ships, no
flying saucers, no little green men, no encounters with aliens,
nothing of the sort.

Sadly many UFO enthusiasts seem to have focused more on what
they would sorely love to hear rather than what actually
happened. Unfortunitaly John Burroughs and Col Halt seemed to
have recognized that and took these "believers" for a ride. In
any case, I seriously doubt that what I tell you will have any
effect on the history of the incident.

Burroughs, Halt, Warren who ever he is, ( I have to admit I
don't remember the name Larry Warren at all? Is he using a
fabricated name to conceal his identity? If not I have to admit
I honestly have no recollection of the guy. However, if we had
shared a real UFO encounter I'm sure I would be able to
recollect each second of the incident in excrutiating detail.)
have only their collective hazy memories and conflicting
accounts to rest on. Ask them why they never mentioned me? Ask
them why they never talked about it after they left RAF BW? Ask
them how much money they have made from articles, TV, and talk
shows (or whatever schemes they were able to devise to take
advantage of this incident.)

I could go on and on, but you know what, no one cares about
reality. In any case, that's my small part in this UFO story.
Take care.

Chris Arnold

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

"Chuck de Caro of Cable News Network was shown the logbook at
Woodbridge Police Station which shows that on the night of 25/26
December, Airman Armold from the Woodbridge base law enforcement
desk called the Woodbridge police concerning 'lights in the
woods'".

Absolutely, so if this was Armold, what is he doing calling the
police at 4.11am and going out to the forest with Burroughs and
patrol at that time. The incident was over before the British
police arrived and the officer told me that there was not a soul
out there - no servicemen. So Armold seems to have his times,
dates, witnesses and most everything else confused

 >Amongst other personnel who were stationed on base at the time
 >of the 'UFO' excitement, I have also been able to contact [rank
 >stated if known]:

James, you just got these names from the Bentwaters website my
dear and, what's more, I believe only Lori was a witness to
UFOs. You can't call that really researching the case,
e-mailing people who were on the base is fine but there's much
more to investigating a case than that. I have interviewed some
of those you mention and they are in my book. The others were
either not aware of the incident or were not at Bentwaters
during that time.

 >Lori E. Rehfeldt, O-2 First Lieutenant
 >William A. Kirk Jr. "Bill", E-5 Staff Sergeant
 >Bernard E. Donahue, O-3 Captain
 >Charles "Chuck" J. Dalldorf, E-5 Staff Sergeant
 >Dale Wagner, E-7 Master Sergeant
 >Terry L. Malzi, E-5 Staff Sergeant
 >Trae Swann, E-4 Senior Airman
 >Danny Wills, E-8 Senior Master Sergeant
 >John Taylor, E-3 Airman 1st Class
 >John Smith, E-5 Staff Sergeant
 >Barney B. Pate, E-9 Chief Master Sergeant
 >Tony Messina
 >John R. McGinnis "McToucan" or "American John"
 >LeRoy Jessen, E-3 Airman 1st Class
 >David A. Jenkins, E-6 Technical Sergeant
 >Julian E Hazen (BUD), E-5 Staff Sergeant
 >William P. Ferris, E-4 Sergeant
 >Werner Bauder, E-5 Staff Sergeant

 >Additionally, one of the most insightful and astonishing
 >accounts came from another member of the 81st SPS, Sergeant
 >Randy Smith, who was stationed in the Weapons Storage Area [WSA]
 >during a 'UFO' alert which I demonstrated could be correlated
 >with that same 'second night'.

Well, you need to work more on Randy's story, try to work out
what night he is talking about. Are you sure it was the 2nd
night? Jim Penniston suggested I talk to Randy but his story is
very confusing and it was too late in the day for me to include
it without really doing further investigation.

 >It's been many years since John Burroughs publicly commented on
 >events, and never before in the light of all that's been
 >unravelled.

 >Burroughs, is simply one of the most important 'UFO' witness of
all time.

What about the others?

 >When, and if, my ongoing discussions with John are, to our
 >mutual extent, resolved... and yes, I have been in contact with
 >Burroughs for some time... then you'll know what the final score
 >is.

You mean more likely when you have a fraction of his story that
you can selectively quote?

 >Although presently, and ultimately, I don't believe I'm
 >losing...

So it is just a game for you after all.

Why don't you put your website back up so researchers can
compare the Halt transcript (made by you and Ian Ridpath) with
the updated version posted on this List. Now that would be worth
looking at.

Georgina Bruni


"You Can't Tell The People" - The Definitive Account of the
Rendlesham Forest UFO Mystery by Georgina Bruni. Published by
Sidgwick & Jackson Available on-line at: www.amazon.co.uk
Countries outside UK: www.netstoreusa.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 >
   Dec > Dec 28

                 Rhomboidal Object Sighted in Calama, Chile

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@juno.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 11:40:57 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 12:31:52 -0500
Subject: Rhomboidal Object Sighted in Calama, Chile




SOURCE: TERRA.com
DATE: December 20, 2000


RHOMBOIDAL OBJECT SIGHTED IN CALAMA, CHILE

** This event is added to the series of reports received in Chile's 2nd
Region in recent months **

December 20 (TERRA).- A luminous object with an
almost-rhomboidal configuration was seen on Monday, December 18,
2000 at 22:30 hours in the area known as Ojo de Apache, some 2
kilometers west of the city of Calama. The information provided
by local researcher Jaime Ferrer was made known today thanks to
the account provided by a woman who happened to be walking along
the road back to her house.

"Her attention was drawn by what she at first thought was a
powerful source of light. However, upon noticing that its shape
was neither round nor square, and that its size and intensity
increased and decreased, she discarded this possibility," Ferrer
notes.

The woman stated that the object was brilliant white in color,
almost rhomboidal in shape, and that it remained still during
her 3-minute long observation. She had the impression that [the
object] was going to fall on her, filling her with dread and
causing her to make a hasty retreat from the location.

Translation (c) 2000. Scott Corrales-Institute of Hispanic
Ufology. Special Thanks to Gloria Coluchi.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 28

                    Filer's Files #51-2000 - Uncorrupted

From: Anthony Chippendale <anthonyc@ufon.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 17:04:53 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 12:36:16 -0500
Subject: Filer's Files #51-2000 - Uncorrupted


Filer's Files #51-2000
MUFON Skywatch Investigations
George A. Filer: MUFON Eastern Director,
December 25, 2000
Majorstar@aol.com (609) 654-0020


NORTH POLE -- Christmas Eve night there was a flurry of UFO
reports describing a bright red nosed vehicle seen heading
south from the North Pole. Relatively few UFO sightings have
been reported throughout December. UFO aircrews seem to be on a
holiday the last several weeks. The few sightings have come
from New York, Florida, New Mexico, Mexico and England. We
review letters from New Jersey and Australia about their
insight into what is happening.

Many readers have sent Christmas cards and I wish to thank you
all, and I hope you will consider this as Christmas card in
return. May all the joys of the season bring you health and
happiness throughout the New Year.


MERRY CHRISTMAS AND THE ANGELS

We celebrate Christmas throughout much of the world based on
the birth of Jesus Christ 2000 years ago. The logical question
is what has this to do with UFOs? I suggest there is a
connection. Carl Sagan in his book, " Intelligent Life in the
Universe" indicated Earth had likely been visited by
extraterrestrials. He states: "Sumer was an early--perhaps the
first -civilization the contemporary sense on the planet Earth.
It was founded in the forth millennium B.C. or earlier. We
don't know where the Sumerians came from. I feel that if the
Sumerian civilization is depicted by the descendents of the
Sumerians themselves to be of non-human origin, the relevant
legends should be examined carefully." (page 456) He goes on to
ask, "What might an advanced extraterrestrial civilization want
from us?"......He answere his own question by stating, "One of
the primary motivations for the exploration of the New World
was to convert the inhabitants to Christianity -- peacefully if
possible -- forcefully if necessary. Can we exclude the
possibility of an extraterrestrial evangelism?" (Page 463)

Few remember that Angels and their glowing craft had a key role
in history of diverse nations. the Christmas story. Angels are
celestial beings believed to be a messenger or mediator between
God and humankind. In ancient Mesapotomia, ancient Greece,
Judaism, Christianity and in Islam angels were sent as divine
messengers to humans to instruct, inform, or command. An angel
visited Mohammed and directed the introduction of Islam. Angels
also function as heavenly warriors and as guardians. Many
abductees claim healing, love and miracles from the angels.
Angels are often called the Sons of God. In traditional
Israelite thought, angels were assumed to have the form of
human males, and as a consequence they were sometimes mistaken
for men.

Billy Graham, the evangelical minister and the friend of US
Presidents in his book, "Angels," makes the following
surprising statements, "Some have speculated that UFOs could
very well be a part of God's angelic host who preside over the
physical affairs of universal creation. While we cannot assert
such a view with certainty nothing can hide the fact that these
unexplained events are occurring with greater frequency around
the entire world. Some take the detailed descriptions of a
highly credible airline crew and lay them alongside Ezekiel and
put forth a strong case ---- such theories are now being given
serious attention even by people who make no claim to believe
in the God of the Bible. UFOs are astonishingly angel-like in
some their reported appearances."

Most of the description of angels compares nicely with our
available data of at least one group of the alien visitors. In
Genesis, the first book of the Bible and Torah; angels are
described as having bodies with parts such as hands, feet,
eyes, head, voices, mouths, hair, faces and other human body
parts. A few years ago, I had dinner with Zecharia Sitchin the
best selling author of books called the "Earth Chronicles." He
told me that Genesis is true and ought to be read as a historic
and scientific document rather than just a religious one. He
felt ancient civilizations are older and much more technically
and scientifically oriented than we once believed. Ancient
Sumerian texts as well as the Bible reveal the existence of
angels or Anunnaki, 'Those who from Heaven to Earth Came.' He
felt that only in recent years has modern science caught up
with ancient scientific knowledge.

One interesting fact is that the Bible often mentions the
angels in Glowing Metal craft. The Hebrew word 'hashmal' refers
to glowing metal in the description of the divine glory and
brightness and the appearance of fire from the craft. The
descriptions of Ezekiel in the Bible (1:4, 8:2) clearly
indicate brilliant highly polished glowing yellow like brass or
electrum an alloy of silver and gold.

Throughout the Bible and Torah we are told that the angels were
able to introduce life into old women and even virgins. For
example, of Abraham at the age of ninety was barren. Part of
God's covenant with Abraham and Sarah his barren 90 year old
wife was to give them a son Isaac. The covenant also
established circumcision as a sign that the Jewish people were
part of God's people and in turn they would be blessed with
numerous descendants, material wealth and spiritual prosperity.
Some of these births that appeared supernatural may have been
accomplished by advanced technology. John the Baptist was also
born after the angel Gabriel appeared before Zechariah and his
barren wife Elizabeth. Gabriel said," Do not be afraid
Zechariah, your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will
bear you a son, and you are to give him the name John. He will
be a joy and delight to you, and many will rejoice because of
his birth, for he will be great in the sight of the Lord."
(Luke 1:13-25) According to the testimony of modern-day
abductees similar births are occurring today.

The immaculate conception of Mary almost certainly occurred
just as the Bible states; "The Holy Spirit will come upon you,
and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy
one to be born will be called the Son of God." (Luke 1:35) The
immaculate conception could be explained with the use of modern
medical technology. The angel Gabriel could have artificially
inseminated Mary so that she retained her virginity as the
Bible indicates. Jesus would have been the result, and would in
fact be the Son of God and the Son of Man (Mary).

The Living Bible states, these are the facts concerning the
birth of Jesus Christ. "His mother Mary, was engaged to be
married to Joseph. But while she was still a virgin she became
pregnant by the Holy Spirit. Then Joseph, her fianc being a
man of stern principle, decided to break the engagement and to
do it quietly, as he did not want to disgrace her. As he lay
awake considering this, he fell into a dream and saw an angel
standing beside him. "Joseph son of David," the angel said,
"don't hesitate to take Mary as your wife! For the child within
her has been conceived by the Holy Spirit. And she will have a
Son and you will name him Jesus (meaning 'Savior') for he will
save his people from their sins. This will fulfills God's
message through his prophets. Listen! The virgin shall conceive
a child! She shall give birth to a Son, and he shall be called
'Emmanuel' (meaning God is with us)" When Joseph awoke, he did
as the angel commanded, and brought Mary home to be his wife,
but she remained a virgin until her Son was born, and Joseph
named him 'Jesus'." (Matthew 1-18 to 25).

"That night some shepherds were in the fields outside the
village, guarding their flocks of sheep. Suddenly an angel
appeared among them, and the landscape shone bright with the
glory of the Lord. They were badly frightened, but the angel
reassured them. "Don't be afraid! I bring you the most joyful
news ever announced, and it is for everyone! The Savior-yes the
Messiah, the Lord-has been born tonight in Bethlehem! How will
you recognize him? You will find a baby wrapped in a blanket,
lying in a manager! Suddenly the angel was joined by a vast
host of others--armies of heaven-praising God: Glory to God in
the highest heaven, they sang, "and peace on earth for all
those pleasing him." When this great army of angels had
returned again to heaven, the shepherds said to each other.
"Come on! Let's go to Bethlehem! Let's see this wonderful thing
that has happened, which the Lord has told us about. (Luke 2)
The armies of heaven may describe UFOs that are often seen in
large numbers.

The Bible states, "Jesus was born in the town of Bethlehem, in
Judea, during the reign of King Herod." At about that time some
astrologers (wise men) from eastern lands arrived in Jerusalem,
asking, 'Where is the new born King of the Jews?' for we have
seen his star in far-off eastern lands, and have come to
worship him." (Mathew-2.) It would be difficult to follow a
star for many nights to a small town of Bethlehem. One possible
explanation is that the wise men followed the light of a UFO.
If you care to make the assumption that angels and
extraterrestrials exist, perhaps they are the same.


NEW YORK SIGHTINGS OF FLYING TRIANGLES CONTINUE

MONTICELLO, SULLIVAN COUNTY -- On December 4, 2000, a large a
triangular flying object was observed in the daytime sky with
numerous bright lights. The object was sighted at 3:00 PM for
about a minute. Cloud cover appeared to limit the sighting to a
relatively short time. The object was 500 feet or less in
altitude and appeared different from normal aircraft. Thanks to
the MUFON Worldwide UFO Database.

BUFFALO -- Roger Hoeft III writes, "About July of 1998 at 11:00
PM, I was returning home from my job at a major trauma center
and noticed slow moving lights in the sky." I live 15 miles due
east of the city of Buffalo in a rural community. As I was
turning down a road near my home I noticed slow moving lights
in the sky to my right. They were coming from an extremely huge
"ship" that floated over me. I had turned off my engine to my
truck so that I could hear any sounds. There was a low hum
coming from it. There were 3 or 4 white lights either on the
edge or near the bottom. Although it was dark, there had been
enough moon light for me to see the outline of this thing. It
was at least 100 yards long, and 80 feet wide. It was about 200
to 250 feet in the air as it passed over head. I couldn't help
but yell "wow" "this is it!! You've finally seen one!" I wanted
to follow it, but by the time I turned, it was gone. The next
day when I was back at work, and after I had gotten my officers
out to their respective posts, I turned to my friend and said,
"Dave, you won't believe what I saw!"-- and he said, "Wait
until I tell you what I saw!" He proceeded to describe the same
UFO to me. He lives ten miles due north of me, and was driving
home at about the same time and we apparently saw the same
craft. Last month, the Discovery Channel ran a story on "UFOs
over Illinois." This is what we saw! Thanks to Roger Hoeft and
Dave Marracino rhoeft@buffnet.net


FLORIDA BRIGHT OBJECTS MOVING TOGETHER

ORLANDO -- On December 9, 2000, a 49 year old manager stepped
outside to let his dogs out and spotted two bright star like
objects moving together from the southwest to the northeast. It
was a very clear night with an almost a full moon in the
eastern sky. The witness reports he saw two star like objects
moving across the sky and ran inside to grab his binoculars to
look up at them. It still looked like stars moving. The light
from them was extremely bright. One was right behind the other.
(Example ' ' ) They disappeared behind some tall trees and that
was the last I saw of them at 16:32 hours. It lasted about
three minutes in total time seen. The objects were glowing
brightly and were last sighted in the northeast. Thanks to the
MUFON Worldwide UFO Database


NEW MEXICO BRIGHTLY LIT OBJECTS

CARLSBAD -- On December 9, 2000, we saw two brightly lit
objects take off in the east. We were just getting home at 6:00
PM and my husband was unloading the truck. I turned and looked
to the east at the moon. I saw what appeared to be 4 stars in a
row above the moon. I thought that was interesting so I watched
and told my husband to look. As I was pointing out the stars to
my husband, suddenly two of them began to move. They
accelerated so rapidly that within 2 or 3 seconds, they were
completely gone. The objects took off flying in a straight
path. There was no noise, they were just gone. We were both
elated at seeing these UFOs. Thanks to the MUFON Worldwide UFO
Database.


NEW MEXICO'S WALTER HAUT SAW UFO CRASH SITE

ROSWELL -- Researcher Fred Wilcox called to tell me that he was
in the Army Air Force for 21 months in World War II. He worked
at Roswell Air Force Base in 1948 as a civilian. He met Walter
Haut who had been the Public Relations Officer at Roswell Air
Base and announced the crash of a flying saucer to the press in
1947. Walter became friendly with mutual friend in 1955, who
claimed Walter Haut told her that he had been in charge of the
first crash site and saw the bodies. The wreck of the craft was
in tact, and the 30 feet in diameter craft was taken to
Roswell. Apparently, Walter Haut has told others this story
through the years, but only after getting to know them
exceptionally well. At least one other person who is still
alive was also told Walter's story in the early 50s. Later this
person also told Fred Wilcox about Walter's first hand
observation of the crash site. Walter had been warned to keep
his mouth shut and was very careful in telling only trusted
friends. Fred Wilcox claims the New Mexico State Police also
had a picture of the crash site and likely helped escort the
craft back to Roswell. Later the craft was transported to
Wright Field aboard a railroad train. Fred believes the craft
had been flying out of a secret base near Orogrande, New Mexico
since 1941. Thanks to Fred Wilcox of Amalogordo, New Mexico.


MEXICO UFO PHOTO NEAR POPOCATEPETL VOLCANO

MEXICO CITY -- Francisco Trujillo of the NTX Mexican News
agency contacted me to determine MUFON's opinion of a
photograph taken on Tuesday, December 19, 2000, by a
professional photographer Alfonso Reyes of Notimex. Reyes has
taken a remarkable photograph of a brightly lit object racing
toward the Popocatepetl Volcano near Mexico City. He was
capturing the awakening and explosive eruption of the volcano
that is in the background of the photo. Reyes claims he did not
see the object while shooting the volcanic eruption at 6:10 AM.
The object was not observed until after the picture was
developed. The photo is a 20 second time exposure taken with a
24 MM lens. The time exposure accounts for the streak that
reveals the object's trajectory that appears to descend towards
the volcano. It is difficult to discern if the object is moving
toward or away from the camera or how it came to be in the
film. Popocatepetl means " Smoking Mountain" and the volcano
started new eruptions the previous day. The object may be the
result of Earth Lights; volcanic related earthquakes, pyro
plastic flows, or plasmas caused by titanic earth stresses. Of
course the object may be simply a UFO and detailed analysis is
under way. Volcanologists have been concerned that the volcano
may explode, but shortly after the photo was taken the volcano
mysteriously stopped its eruptions.

Many UFOs have been seen and photographed in the area in the
past. For example, on June 29, 1999, the surveillance camera of
the CENAPRED, the government agency for disasters prevention
was monitoring Popocatepetl taking time lapse photos at
intervals. A disk shaped dark object was photographed near the
volcano crater emerging from the smoke clouds at 1:20 PM. Other
photos and video of UFOs have been seen. UFOs seem to have a
strange fascination with volcanoes so if the eruptions continue
there are likely to be more photos and video. Now Popocatepetl
does not appear dangerous but chances for good UFO photos
continue. Thanks to Francisco Trujillo 972-907-0123 or
ftrujillo@home.com. The photo can be seen at NTX web site at
http://www.notimex.com.mx


A CONCEPTION OF THE COSMOS

Damian B writes, "It is my intention to write what I know to be
the truth about the conception of the Cosmos and the particular
position with which humans have been given domain." The human
race is but a small part in the cosmological spectrum. As a
germ is part of the ecosphere, humans are a link in a chain of
special and sociological developments throughout the known
universe. Earth, and our solar system is an engineered
environment. The system was in fact fine tuned by physical
manipulation of the planets and other local heavenly bodies.
The mathematical complexity behind designing the star map that
encompasses life is but one description of omniscient. The
subtle and not so subtle gravitational pulls, and elliptical
orbits are so interdependent yet so tangible, to presume that
they are whimsical is an aberration to all sentient creatures.
Humans, as a species, are just reaching the level of skill and
knowing to conceptualize and analyze life forms other than
their own. The human has only been able to examine life forms
lower and equal to it.

It is just now that humans are capable of conceptualizing the
eternal truths of the Cosmos. To new races, {especially young
races} the conceptualization of the Cosmic Truths must wait
until a majority of the species accepts, and represents that
acceptance, and examples that acceptance, in a majority of it's
members. It is "Counter productive and Discouraged" to reveal
the truths as an intentional catalyst to the Revelations
process. Reason being, the negative reaction of pre exposure
causes a reactionary slowing to the entire process. What does
that really mean? I'll use this analogy. To tell the truth is
supreme and has positive benefits, UNLESS! The teller of the
truth KNOWS that it will "not be believed" and therefore he
becomes a harbinger of doubt. {Sufferage of Cassandra} In the
Above case SILENCE, was the only possible chance for the truth
to root. When any planetary race is developed enough to see,
contact, and interfere with other species of life, it then, and
only then, is "Primed" to the appropriate level. A level where
acceptance is past. It is accepted that the readers of this
will have a pre disposition to "Believe" based on the
cumulative experiences and a unique form of psycho social
bonding. It is this exact "Early Adapter" that will be
compelled into activism.

There is no "reasonable" human alive that will not or can not
accept the Cosmic Truths. Those that have the power to ignore
these Cosmic Truths are the disparitors of the omniscient
designer of the star systems that support galactic life. Make
no mistake. Among the Humans are a race of deniers trained to
deny the truth of life and love itself. They are the enemy of
the Cosmos itself. It is within all who read this to compel all
but the ignorant to acceptance of the inevitable accommodation
of inter galactic life here on Earth. It is possible for each
and every one of you who read this to deliver the evidence and
argument to sustain the belief of extraterrestrial life, and
the inevitable intervention of those life forms. Consider this,
an appropriate iron filing will be compelled into a magnet that
passes within its field. If the filing doesn't react to the
field it isn't iron. Consider this: If the Human does not
accept the "Cosmic Truth" then it isn't a Human. If it is not a
Human what might it be? I might be an unknowing or knowing
enemy of creation. A simple ingredient to a complex biochemical
composition called humanity. These individuals act as a
catalyst to the overall development process. They oppress, and
consequently strengthen the human. Such oppression inspires the
oppressed to throw off their burdens and shake loose the
entrappings of ignorance. That day has passed for the majority
of the inhabitants of this planet. Thanks to
DamianB@Flashcom.net


MARS SCIENTISTS GROW VEGETABLES IN MARTIAN SOIL

WELLINGTON -- American scientists may not be able to take rocks
from Mars until at least 2008, but New Zealand researchers have
already produced the first vegetable plants grown in Martian
soil. Lincoln University scientists have grown potato and
asparagus plants in extracts from the Martian meteorite Dar al
Gani, found in the Sahara Desert in 1998. They also tried
composite soils manufactured to the same chemical mix as Mars
dirt. The plants were grown to several millimeters, with size
and color varying with the soil source. Soil fertility
indicators showed the Mars Murchison Meteorite material was
comparable to Earth's soil. All the meteorites showed nutrient
effects and the Mars meteorite and composites provided
minerals, especially phosphate. The work was done by research
professor of chemistry Michael Mautner and plant physiologist
Professor Tony Conner, both of the Lincoln University and David
Deamer, a biophysicist at the University of California. The
scientists tested the biology and fertility of extraterrestrial
soils. Dr. Mautner said, "If we build colonies in space, we
will have to grow plants for food, so obviously we need to know
the soil can support future human expansion in the solar
system."

Scientists might eventually be able to plant some forms of life
throughout the galaxy, seeding distant planets to test if they
could support life. The Lincoln University experiments have
shown that materials from interplanetary dust, meteorites and
comets could have helped trigger life on Earth. The Murchison
meteorite were found to form sacs similar to cell membranes and
rich solutions in meteorite pores, and could have assisted the
formation of the first microbes. The scientists have theorized
that once present, the meteorite solutions could then have
provided the first microorganisms with nutrients until they
adapted to the host planet. Similar materials may support the
growth of microorganisms in asteroids and comets, if
transported there by natural processes or by directed
panspermia. Panspermia is a scientific theory that life has
been seeded through the universe, partly based on the capacity
for comets made of water ice, to carry organic compounds, and
even whole cells such as bacterial life across galaxies and
protect it from radiation damage along the way. Thanks to
Louise A. Lowry
http://www.theage.com.au/breaking/0012/20/A8765-2000Dec20.shtml
, NZPA|Published: Wednesday 12/20/00
http://www.worldofthestrange.com Editor's Note: The Bible
claims that God created the Earth and brought plants, seeds,
trees and herbs just as these scientists are proposing.


AUSTRALIA ANGELS OF MERCY

Barry Taylor writes, "It all started on Sunday evening November
19, 2000. I had just returned to my home town after visiting my
very ill Father. I heard a rescue helicopter approaching that
brings in seriously ill patients. My friend and I went outside
to watch the helicopter pass almost directly overhead at 8:00
PM and land on the helipad at the Hospital only 150 meters
away. Its powerful spot light was beaming down illuminating the
ground. My attention was suddenly drawn by something that
quickly flew away towards our direction from above the rotor
blades. The object was a "UFO disc" 2 feet wide and 9 inches
high. The disc was a self illuminated fuzzy dull yellow color
and flew quickly and silently towards the northeast at an
altitude of 150 feet, only 35 meters from us. During the 7-8
second observation the object did not flap wings as would a
bird, and accelerated away without any movement within itself.
The 'copter was probably transporting a seriously ill patient.
If this was the case, than what I watched fly away could have
been an Angel carrying a patient's Soul to Heaven.

Please note: I usually do not pursue the religious aspects of
these illuminations. These mystery UFOs have been associated
with people seriously ill and nearing death. It was not until
the following events occurred, that I now seriously believe
that what I have observed are indeed "Angels of Mercy." On the
28th of November I was called to come quickly for my Father was
now gravely ill. Morphine had now been administered to
neutralize his pain. We were expecting the end at any moment
now. My Mother and I began a bedside 24 hour vigil to be with
him. Wednesday evening around 8:30 PM, I rang my daughter from
the Hospital car park on my mobile phone to inform her of her
Grandfathers serious condition. Just as we were saying
good-bye, my daughter began to cry. We hung up the phone. I was
overcome by a moment of grief and a heavy heart. I quickly
recovered for I had to be strong for my Mother. I looked up
into the dark clear night sky and I noticed a very bright star
like object as bright as Venus. It was very low on the horizon
and slowly moving to the north. It continued moving and
maintained its brightness. It began moving behind trees in
front of me, so I walked further up the car park to find a gap
between the trees and continued watching it. It slowly faded
out to where a small object was seen, faded and it was gone. It
seemed to be 3 or 4 miles away. I have seen and video taped
similar illuminations during UFO activity in 1998 and 1999.

But there was no UFO activity now, and has not been for some
time. But I considered that it was a UFO because of the nature
and brightness of the light and the low altitude. I have seen
thousands of satellites and 'Iridium Flares', but this was
different. Around midnight of that night my Mother and I were
in the private hospital room with my Father sitting beside his
bed. Mum said, 'What was that?" When I asked what was the
matter, she described a bright silver white light that had
quickly flown past the window. I saw nothing. From our sitting
position beside the bed, the large trees around 20 feet from
the window reached almost half way up the four foot window. The
light that Mum described was about one foot from the window
base and nine feet from the window and moving from right to
left. I thought nothing more of it. When I heard a car drive
past, I looked for reflection in the window from its
headlights, but there were none. A car that drove into the car
park only lit up the tree top itself and did not reflect on or
into the window. About 10 minutes later Mum said, "I just saw
another one of those lights." This time it had flown left to
right. I got up out of the chair and looked around outside. No
cars or aircraft were seen. Nothing that could explain what Mum
had now seen on two occasions. She insisted they were there,
and just outside the window between the trees and window. Now
inquisitive to what was happening outside the window, I had an
eye on any movement.

What I saw for myself, has changed my thoughts forever. I
cannot find the words to fully describe the beauty or the
personal effect that the object that I witnessed has had upon
me. But I will give you the basic description. I turned my head
and looked out the window just in time to see a beautiful self
illuminated object. It was only 6-8 feet from the window, even
less. It was a beautiful Golden Yellow color that radiated
brightly. The brightness was self contained, not radiating
outward like a normal bright light. Its outline was sharp, and
I could clearly see the shape. It was about 2 feet long and 10
inches high, rectangular with slightly rounded ends. It quickly
sped off to the right but I observed it just long enough to
have the image of it imprinted on my mind forever. My immediate
thoughts were, "Angel of Mercy." And I am convinced that that
is what it was when you take into account the full
circumstances surrounding these events. My Mother later
described the bright illuminations that she had seen twice as
rectangular white objects about half the size of the Golden
described above. The nature of the illumination the same. My
Father passed away peacefully at 2:00 AM on the Thursday. We
had spent quality time with him, said our good-byes and
observed his "Glowing Angelic Face" at the end. We know where
he is and who is looking after him. We consider ourselves very
lucky under the circumstances, to have experienced such a
wonderful ending for him. There IS a God. There IS a Heaven.
There ARE Angels. Our Prayers ARE heard and we will meet again.
Love you Dad. Your Son Barry. Thanks to Australia's Barry
Taylor stingray@nor.com.au.


CD OF FILER'S FILES for the last four years 1997 through 2000
is available for $25.00. 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. Both for $30.00.


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


MUFON UFO JOURNAL -- For more detailed monthly investigative
reports subscribe to the MUFON JOURNAL that costs only $30 per
year by contacting MUFONHQ@aol.com. Mention that I recommended
you for membership. Filer's Files is copyrighted 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 >
   Dec > Dec 28

                        Re: Northern Lights? - BYoung

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 12:05:48 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 12:38:10 -0500
Subject: Re: Northern Lights? - BYoung


 >Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 01:19:13 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Sean Liddle <gortrix@kos.net>
 >Subject: Northern Lights?

 >Does anyone have a URL for a good reliable site that posts
 >auroral predctions? (The Northern Lights, not the plane:) ).

Sean, List:

Space Weather Now is a great site at:

http://sec.noaa.gov/SWN/index.html


Also, the Solar Terrestrial Dispatch Homepage at:

http://www.spacew.com/www/aurora.html


These show satellite images which are usually only a few minutes
old.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 28

                  Follow-up on Calama UFO by Sanchez Ocejo

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@juno.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 11:52:58 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 12:41:47 -0500
Subject: Follow-up on Calama UFO by Sanchez Ocejo


[From Dr. Sanchez's notes]:

Mrs. Maria Angelica M.R., who lives in one of the region's lots
(Ojo de Apache, 2 kilometers west of Calama) tells us that there
is no street lighting in the area and that she lives in terror,
since every night she hears violent stomping on her rooftop,
adding that she "fortunately" owns no animals, but that her
animal-owning neighbors have lost many of them.

What is most disquieting about this situation is the fact that
the police has ordered them to keep quiet about any animal
deaths and has heard her neighbors state verbatim: "We can't say
a word.", giving her to understand that nothing can be done at
the risk of being penalized for causing a panic.

However, other sources have made it known that there is a
certain "unidentified agency" has located individuals who have
suffered this type of loss and in exchange for their silence,
remunerates them according to each type of animal.

For more information see:

http://ufomiami.homestead.com/CalamaUFO/html


Translation (c) 2000. Institute of Hispanic Ufology.
Special Thanks to Dr. Virgilio Sanchez Ocejo







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 28

                       UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 5 Number 52

From: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 17:15:06 +0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 12:57:47 -0500
Subject: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 5 Number 52


Posted on behalf of Joseph Trainor.

<Masinaigan@aol.com>
==========================

       UFO ROUNDUP
Volume 5, Number 52
December 28, 2000
Editor: Joseph Trainor

http://ufoinfo.com/roundup/



UFO PHOTOGRAPHED OVER AN ERUPTING VOLCANO IN MEXICO

"The eruption of Mount Popocatepetl (Nahuatl or Aztec for
smoking mountain--J.T.) that took place on Monday, December 18,
2000brought to light an unexplained event."

Two Mexican newspapers "published photographs of an
unidentified luminous flying object near the erupting volcano
Popocatepetl," located 64 kilometers (40 miles) from Mexico
City, and Puebla.

"The spectacular photograph taken by reporter Alfonso Reyes
last Tuesday," December 19, 2000, "taken at 5:10 a.m. while
covering the gigantic volcanic eruption, presented a bright
luminous object that contrasted well with the black clouds
emanating from the volcano's crater. The photo was taken in a
20-second exposure with a 24-millimeter angular lens by Reyes.
However, he did not actually see the flying object and it was
not until the development of the photo that he discovered what
the camera had captured."

"Due to the long exposure time, the camera also captured the
luminous descending trajectory of the object, which seems to
make a quick turn into the crater. The possibility of a meteor
was discarded, as well as the possibilities of (the object
being) an airplane or a helicopter."

"This is not the first time that a strange luminous object has
been spotted flying over the volcano. On June 29, 1999, a
surveillance camera operated by CENAPRED (Mexico's national
emergency agency, similar to the USA's FEMA--J.T.) was
monitoring Mount Popcatepetl, taking pictures at time
intervals, and at 1:20 p.m., the camera captured a strange
disc-shaped dark object seen near the volcano's crater and
emerging among the smoke clouds. No explanation was given by
the agency (CENAPRED_ at the time, but researchers continued
snapping photographs of the disc before it flew away to the
northeast."

"Also on Tuesday, December 19, 2000, several CENAPRED white
vans entered :towns at the base of Mexico's Popocatepetl
volcano, fearing that its rumblings are a sign that a strong
eruption is brewing," Local residents "packed up their
belongings. Officials urged 30,000 people living within" 10
kilometers (6 miles) :of the volcano, located 40 miles southwest
of Mexico City, to leave."

"'They already told us to leave, but we didn't believe them--
until last night,' said Javier Hernandez, 71. Scientists warn
that a dome of lava at the base of the 17,886-foot Popocatepetl
os causing pressure to build that could trigger a strong
eruption." See the Mexican newspapers Milenio and Extremex for
December 21, 2000; also USA Today for December 19, 2000,
"Residents flee as Mexican volcano rumbles," page 12A.)

(Editor's Comment: Hundreds of UFOs have been sighted over
Mount Popcatepetl since 1947. This has led some ufologists to
wonder if there might be an underground alien base somewhere
inside the volcano, perhaps in some large, long-dead "lava
tubes" or circular caverns.)

GIANT RECTANGULAR UFO RETURNS TO CALAMA

"A giant rectangular luminous objects was observed last
Monday," December 10, 2000 at about 10"30 p.m. in the night in
the barrio (neighborhood) called Ojo de Apache, located 2
kilometers (one mile) from the center of Calama. Information
about the sighting was gathered by local ufologist Jaime Ferrer,
who obtained testimony from a woman who saw the strange object
hovering near her house."

"'What called my attention to it was when it beamed a very
strong light towards the ground,' the witness told Ferrer. 'It
was of a form quadrangular, almost a rhomboid. and the
brilliant light intensified and diminished at intervals.'"

Ferrer reported, "The woman said the object was white and of
rhomboidal form, and she had it in view for three minutes as it
hovered over the road. It left the area very quickly."

Located in northern Chile, the city of Calama has been the site
of many UFO incidents in the year 2000, including a spectacular
abduction last month that was witnessed by over 35 people. (See
UFO Roundup, volume 5, number 44 for November 2, 2000, "Giant
UFO abducts two people in northern Chile," page 1.) (Muito
obrigado a Adelmar J. Gevaerd do Brasil por esos informacoes.)

UFOs SEEN REPEATEDLY IN DERBYSHIRE DALES, UK

For the past three months, UFOs have been seen repeatedly in
the Derbyshire Dales area of the East Midlands in the United
Kingdom, particularly in and around the towns of Matlock and
Rowsley.

The flap began in September when "65-year-old grandma Josie
Stirland 9 large piles of vertical cloud descending from the sky
in Carsington."

"Jo Buckley, 68, saw a long streak of light and a circular
rainbow covering the area."

"On September 28, 2000, in Garner, a similar sighting of a
bright light hovering over the valley was accompanied by a
'strange mist.'"

On October 1, 2000, "in Matlock, 8-year-old Emma Weeldon saw
six flashing lights, one larger and five smaller, blinking red,
yellow and blue."

"This was followed on the (October) 5th by a man in Birchover
who spotted a bright, unidentified light, stationary and
soundless, over the Bakewell to Ashbourne Road.. It changed
from white to multi-coloured while he was viewing it."

"That same day, (October 5, 2000) around 9:10 p.m., a Bonsall
woman, who does not wish to be identified, saw what appeared to
be a flying saucer hovering over Middleton Wood. Using a
camcorder, she recorded six-and-a-half minutes of footage
before it disappeared."

"'I've watched the UFO programmes (on TV) and if there is such
a thing, this is as good a photo as you're going to get,' she
said, 'I was a complete and utter disbeliever but seeing this
has made me think twice.'"

"The Matlock Mercury decided that the object on the video 'as
resembling a giant disk craft with a bite taken out of the
bottom,' adding that it 'had yellow, orange and blue lights
along with intricate markings and a dark circle in the centre.
And as it hovered over the woods, it seemed to expand and get
smaller again.'"

"Janice Bateman, 52, told how she saw white lights shining
through clouds over Stanton and Rowsley on Saturday, November
11, 2000.."

"'It definitely was not lightning,' she said, There were no
storm clouds or anything.'"

"Mrs. Bateman stopped her car at around 6:30 p.m. and watched
the display for around three minutes."

"'They were flashing at the back of the clouds,' she remarked,
'It was like that for two minutes, then stopped as though
somebody had switched a light off. It's hard to explain. It was
very strange.'"

"The latest sightings were over Matlock on the evening of
Monday, November 13, 2000, at 6:10 p.m. A 44-year-old Matlock
man, who does not wish to be identified, sighted a bright white
light over the Hurst Farm Estate."

"He described it as much brighter than any star with no
navigation lights. After watching for five seconds, the man said
it seemed to diminish and then disappeared."

"'It was suspicious,' he remarked, 'There's no reasonable
explanation for what I saw, so it must be a UFO. I do believe in
UFOs, and Matlock seems to be very popular at the moment. I'm
looking at it very seriously but I don't think we are in any
danger.'"

"And mom of two Jacky Swirt, 32, from Mornington Rise, Matlock,
said she had a close encounter on October 21, 2000."

"Shortly after 7:15 p.m., she was travelling along the
Ashbourne Road close to Tissington when she saw a light show in
the sky. She described a series of white beams which filled the
skies for 20 minutes."

"'They were behind the clouds,' she remarked, 'It wasn't
lightning although there were sporadic bursts of light.'" (See
the Matlock Mercury for October 10, November 15 and November
22, 2000. Many thanks to Gerry Lovell for forwarding these
newspaper articles.)

TWO MORE UFO SIGHTINGS REPORTED IN ITALY

On Tuesday, November 29, 2000, a group of people witnessed a
UFO flyover in Pondachello, a small town in Italy's Catania
province. "Condelo and several friends were at a bar when they
saw the mysterious light. They described it as 'a luminous
object traveling at a high velocity over the mountain pass,
followed by a trail of bright sparks. The OVNI (Italian acronym
for UFO--J.T.) was heading from Catania to Taormina.'"

On Sunday, December 3, 2000, "at 10:30 p.m., ,several people on
a balcony at their house in Misilmeri saw five or six intense
white lights moving slowly in a formation that was definitely
'triangular.' After a short period of time, another object with
an intermittent red light flew past in the same direction. After
three minutes, the second object passed out of view." (Grazie a
Davide Ferrare di Centro Ufologico Nazionale d'Italia per
questi rapporti.)

SECOND "ICE CIRCLE" FOUND AT LAC PELLETIER, QUEBEC

A second "ice circle," similar to a crop circle has been found
in a small frozen lake in the Laurentian Mountains of Quebec,
Canada.

The unusual formation was found on November 19, 2000 on Lac
Pelletier, a small lake in northern Quebec. The discovery was
made by property owner Normand Pelletier and his family.

"According to Paul Anderson of Circles Phenomenon
Research-Canada, "It was found November 19 The formation is a
circle very much like the one found in Delta, Ontario on
December 2, 2000. Whether these ice formations which have been
reported infrequently are part of the same phenomena as the crop
circles is unknown at this point. But perhaps we should be
keeping a more watchful eye on our frozen ponds and lakes during
the winter." (Many thanks to Paul Anderson of CPR-Canada for
this report.)

FAST-FLYING UFO REPORTED IN TERRACE, BRITISH COLUMBIA

On Tuesday, December 19, 2000, "between 9 and 10 p.m., I was
watching TV," reported the witness, "Sitting on the couch (and)
looking out ,y living room window, which faces north. I stood
up to get something. Through my window, I saw an object
streaking from the southeast to the northwest. I had time to
say, 'Oh, my God! Oh, my God!' and it was gone. Seemed to be
going in a slight arc seemed to be heading in the direction of
Terrace, B.C." in Canada. "towards the airport."

"I would say I saw it for about three to five seconds, and it
disappeared. I opened my window, expecting a crash or something,
but there was no noise. It had a triangular shape approximately
6 inches (15 centimeters) at the base, which was my first look,
and 2 inches (5 centimeters)" along the sides of the triangle.
(Many thanks to Stefan Duncan of AUFON for this report.)

CALIFORNIANS REPORT TWO NEW UFO SIGHTINGS

On Sunday, December 17, 2000, at 9:30 a.m., the witness was
birdwatching at the Whittier Narrows Sanctuary in Whittier,
California (population 70,000), a city 20 miles (32 kilometers)
southeast of Los Angeles, when he spotted a UFO traveling from
the north to the south.

"I first thought, It's got to be a balloon! It approached me at
the usual constant speed and altitude of a helicopter. It had a
plastic sheen to it and a silver-grey color to it. I saw it for
approximately 30 to 40 seconds before it disappeared."

"I saw something bright flash on the right (west) side three
times; (the flashes) appeared about 10 seconds apart. No sound
or any trailings to it. A perfect 'B-line' (beeline). No way to
estimate diameter, maybe 30 to 30 feet (6 to 9 meters).
Conditions--blue skies, no clouds and a breeze, with temperature
of 75 degrees Fahrenheit." (Email Form Report)

On Friday, December 22, 2000, at 6"10 p.m., the witness was
driving his 4X4 pickup truck in the desert north of Bakersfield,
California (population 200,000), just south of Pine Mountain,
when he spotted a strange flash in the sky.

The witness "said he was seeing three lights flying in repeated
circles. They flew in formation for a while, then flew apart.
(The witness was) North of Bakersfield, between Highways 193
and 36. He was on a dirt road just four-by-fouring
(driving--J.T.) His daughter is a student in Santa Cruz. He
also called her" on his cell phone "and she said she could see
it from her dorm room window. He just wants to know what it is
he was seeing."

Bakersfield is about 200 miles (320 kilometers) east of Los
Angeles. (Many thanks to Dave M. for this report.)

OBLONG UFO SPOTTED IN FAYETTEVILLE, N.C.

On Thursday, November 30, 2000, between 9:30 and 10 p.m.,
Patricia Carter, her husband Bob and her sister-in-law, Judy,
"were returning from Chadburn," North Carolina. "The night was
clear and there were no electrical disturbances of any kind."

"Judy and I both saw an object moving slowly across the sky,"
Patricia reported, "We told Bob, who saw the same object. He
thought it was a blimp. But I said, 'No way!' We saw red lights
in an elongated pattern, on or around the perimeter of an oblong
object. The object appeared to move at the speed a blimp would
move, but I think it was too elongated to be a blimp. There
didn't appear to be any other lights visible at all."

"Then Bob stopped to speak with a man at Gray's Creek," near
Fayetteville, N.C. (population 76,000) while Judy and I waited
in the car. We were quite curious and persuaded Bob to turn the
car around and follow the lights. By the time the object was
nearly out of sight and traveling, according to Bob, who knows
the area well, along north of the river. We were never afraid,
just curious. We lost sight of the object at this time because
of a line of trees that obscured our vision."

Fayetteville is on Interstate Highway I-95 approximately 65
miles (108 kilometers) south of Raleigh, the state capital. (See
the Fayetteville, N.C. Observer for December 2, 2000. Many
thanks to Stefan Duncan of AUFON for this report.)

RUSSIANS LOSE, THEN REGAIN CONTACT WITH MIR

"Russian ground controllers lost contact with the Mir space
station for nearly 20 hours before re-establishing communication
Tuesday," December 26, 2000, "allaying fears that the
accident-prone vessel might have spun dangerously out of
control."

"It was the latest mishap for the nearly 15-year-old space
station. Last month Moscow reluctantly decided to bring the
station down in a controlled descent in late February," 2001.

"Mission Control's last contact with Mir had been at 5:40 a.m.
UDT on Monday," December 25, 2000, "Valery Lyndin, a spokesman
for Mission Control. Several attempts to restore the link later
Monday failed. But on Tuesday, ground controllers made contact
with Mir three times."

"Lyndin said the information received from Mir during those
links showed that the station had not lost pressure. The data
calmed fears that the loss of communications could signal that
the station was spinning out of control and could crash to
Earth."

"'The Mir will not fall on your head on New Year's Eve,'
Mission Control chief Vladimir Sovolyov said, 'The latest
communications showed that we are controlling events, not the
other way around.'"

"Sovolyov said the station's batteries had lost power, leaving
little energy for Mir to communicate. Controllers then switched
off energy-consuming systems so more power could be directed
toward communication with the ground."

"Recharging the batteries through the station's solar panels
should be done" on Wednesday, December 27, 2000.

"It remained unclear what caused the power shortage."

"Observers have worried about Mir's safety for a long time.
However, after a fire and near-disastrous collision with an
unmanned cargo ship in 1997, followed by a series of computer
glitches, Mir had been running relatively smoothly." (See USA
Today for December 27, 2000, "Mir falls out of touch--but not
out of the sky," page 7A.)


from the UFO Files...

1951: OFF THE RADAR SCREEN

"At 3 a.m. on December 20, 1951, a Curtis C-46E airliner
(civilian version of the World War II transport plane--J.T.)
took off from Chicago and ascended into the clouds. Aboard were
two pilots, one stewardess (today they're called flight
attendants--J.T.), 42 adult passengers and two infants. They
were planning to fly direct to Newark, New Jersey. The planned
course would have taken them across the southern tip of Lake
Michigan and along the southern shoreline of western Lake
Erie."

But a strange event altered their intended course.

"Climbing out of Chicago," the C-46, identification number
N59487, "quickly reached its assigned altitude, 9,000 feet
(2,700 meters) and Captain B.E. Smelser leveled off on his
planned route eastward."

Its two propellor engines humming, the C-46 made its way
eastward through the dark pre-dawn sky. The airliner flew over
South Bend, Indiana, reporting in to their tower. Then they
checked in at Goshen. Finally, they made contact with the tower
at their next checkpoint--Toledo, Ohio.

The passengers were in good hands. As an Army Air Corps (now
the U.S. Air Force--J.T.) pilot, Captain Smelser had logged more
than 10,000 flight hours on combat missions, including 3,000
hours as a C-46 pilot for the Air Transport Command.

"Co-pilot E.T. O'Leary had almost as much experience. Also he
had shown particular attention to planning this flight. It was
to be his eastern route check."

"After Toledo," the airliner's "next checkpoint would be
Cleveland, Ohio. The airliner was skirting the southern edge of
Lake Erie when something peculiar happened to the avionics
aboard..."

Touching his earphone, O'Leary turned in the cockpit's right
seat. "Skipper?"

Smelser kept his gaze straight ahead. "What is it, Ed?"

"I just lost Cleveland." The co-pilot's face showed mild
bafflement. "I had them for a second; then I lost them."

"You must have brushed the dial. Try that frequency again."

But O'Leary could not raise Cleveland Center. Smelser noticed
something else, as well. The avionics were no longer registering
VOR navigational radio signals.

"For that matter, they did not receive navigational signals
from anywhere. Try as they did, their communications
transmissions went unanswered."

"The pilots tried to tune in continuous weather broadcasts.
Nothing."

The C-46's "radios provided no evidence that anyone else in the
world existed."

On the ground, controllers in both Toledo and Cleveland were
startled when the C-46's blip suddenly vanished from the radar
screens. Immediately an alert went out.

"Alone, speeding through the high, misty overcast, the 47 souls
inside N59487 were as alone that dawn as anyone could be. No one
on the ground or in the air knew it, but the C-46E was not
traveling southeastward," as planned. "Those aboard the airliner
were being carried northeastward over Lake Erie toward Lake
Ontario."

"Whether it was a strange and powerful steady wind carrying
them northeastward or whether something altered the compasses in
the cockpit, the two pilots had no way of knowing."

"As the clock ticked on, Cleveland's mysterious absence became
more and more disturbing. Finally, the pilots knew that they
must be near Cleveland, so they began flying different courses,
trying to receive Cleveland. The radios were useless."

"This isn't helping," Smelser said, leveling off on their
original heading. "All we're doing is burning up fuel. How much
do we have left?"

O'Leary did his fuel-exhaustion calculations and then checked
them again. "Forty-five minutes, Skipper. After that...good
night, ladies!"

Captain Smelser frowned. He knew that "if they waited until the
engines ran dry while they were still in the clouds, they would
probably kill everyone aboard, including themselves. If they
began a descent through the clouds, they ran a risk of flying
blind into a mountain. In addition, the lower altitudes would
burn up their fuel more quickly."

Smelser exhaled heavily. "Okay, Ed. We got one chance. We stay
upstairs until the last possible minute. Then I'm taking her
down, leaving just enough fuel to line us up for an emergency
landing."

The cockpit clock ticked on. At the predetermined moment,
Smelser eased back on the throttles and pushed the yoke
downward. The airliner dipped into the sea of clouds.

Turbulence buffeted the C-46 during its descent. Smelser's grim
gaze found the altimeter. Eight thousand...seven thousand...six
thousand. He licked dry lips. The danger of hitting a mountain
increased with every foot they dropped below the flight level
of six thousand feet.

"Though fuel was almost gone, they could take a deep breath
when they broke out of the clouds. They could see for miles.
What they saw was not reassuring--an expanse of open water."

"Where the hell are we?" O'Leary asked.

"One of the Great Lakes," Smelser replied, "But which one? It
looks like the Atlantic Ocean down there."

Just then, all of the C-46's radios began operating normally
once again. "The silent radios began reporting from Rochester,
New York.. Rochester had the flight on radar," and the airliner
"was on the Canadian (north) side of Lake Ontario. Smelser
explained what had happened thus far."

The flight controller said, "We thought you went down east of
Toledo. We're bringing you straight in. Heading one-four-zero
(degrees) magnetic."

"One-four-zero, roger," the captain said, stepping down on the
right pedal and turning the yoke slightly in that direction. In
the right seat, O'Leary hurriedly did the navigational math.

Suddenly, the left wing's Wright-Cyclone engine began to
sputter and cough.

"Number One engine!" O'Leary shouted.

"Number One feathered." Smelser switched off the engine,
letting its propellor spin idly in the slipstream. He knew he
didn't have much time left. They had to get to shore and land
before the Number Two engine's fuel ran out.

Smelser turned the airliner northward, heading straight for the
north shore beaches of Lake Ontario. Silently he beseeched the
droning right-side engine. Come on, baby, just a little more.
Just a few miles more...

The snow-covered shoreline appeared on the horizon. Slowly,
agonizingly slowly, it filled the cockpit windshield. The engine
on the right let out a prolonged wheezy sputter.

"There goes Number Two," O'Leary said, "This is now a very
heavy glider."

Smelser could see Lake Ontario's waves breaking on the rocky
beach. Just inland lay a belt of wind-stunted maples and open
fields covered with snow. He glanced at the altimeter. The
needle kept dropping. Three thousand...two thousand...one
thousand. The beach seemed impossibly far away.

Only one chance, Smelser thought. We're going to need more
airspeed to make it ashore. But to get it, I'm going to trade
altitude for it. And once that altitude's gone, I can't get it
back. I can't climb, not without those engines.

Smelser eased the yoke forward, and C-46 descended more
quickly. Grabbing his microphone, the captain told the
stewardess and the passengers to get ready for an emergency
crash-landing.

Six hundred...five hundred...four hundred--the altimeter
continued its relentless drop. Whitecapped waves flashed beneath
the airliner's wings. Both propellors fluttering uselessly, the
C-46 headed for the line of trees.

Smelser's grip tightened on the yoke. One more hurdle, baby!

The airliner cleared it but just barely. Bare tree limbs raked
the C-46's aluminum underbelly. Ahead lay a rolling snowfield.
Fighting the keep the artificial horizon steady the captain
said, "Extend flaps."

O'Leary tugged the lever, triggering a mechanical whine. "Flaps
down, skipper."

For the first time, Smelser raised his voice. "Hang on!"

"Captain Smelser left the landing gear up in the retracted
position," fearing that the wheels might sink into the snow,
causing the aircraft to flip over. He drew the yoke back
gently, letting the plane's nose rise and the tail slide onto
the powdery snow.

And they were down! The C-46 skied downfield like a runaway
toboggan, stirring up vast clouds of snow. The fuselage
shuddered. Passengers screamed in the cabin. The pilots watched
a barbed-wire fence appear and seemingly rush toward them.

And then the C-46 halted, just short of the wire. Behind them a
flattened path of snow stretched for nearly a mile. The plane's
belly and the engine nacelles were chewed up, and the
propellors bent beyond repair. But other than that, the airliner
was intact.

Laughing in relief, O'Leary said, "Thank you for flying our
airline."

Smelser grinned. "I'm just glad this is your check ride and not
mine."

"No one was injured."

"The official probable cause of the accident was fuel
exhaustion."

"Whatever happened to the radios aboard N59487 could not be
explained by experts at the time. It has not been explained
since." (See the book The Great Lakes Triangle by Jay Gourley,
Fawcett Publications Inc., Greenwich, Connecticut 1977, pages 82
through 85.)


Well, here we are at the end of another year of UFO Roundup.
And what a year Y2K has been. We started off with ice bombs
falling on Europe and finished with weird ice circles appearing
in Canada. In between we had hundreds of UFO sightings, some
dramatic abductions, multiple apparitions of the Virgin Mary,
the Chupacabra, a new monster, El Lobizon in Argentina, weird
animals sighted or shot, and... hey, Hillary even made it into
the USA Senate.

The big story of 2000, though, can be summed up in one
word--Calama. Since the start of the ongoing UFO flap in this
city in northern Chile, there have been two astounding
incidents that just might be a turning point in ufology--the
reported discovery of alien eggs last spring and the very
public abduction of two humans there in late October.

An ominous turning point? Time will tell. Meanwhile, welcome to
the Twenty-first Century, which starts next Monday. Be sure to
buckle your seatbelt. We're in for a wild ride!

Join us 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 newgroups provided that they credit the
newsletter and its editor by name and list the date of issue in
which the item first appeared.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 28

                       Re: Northern Lights? - Blanton

From: Terry Blanton <commengr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 12:39:37 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 12:59:00 -0500
Subject: Re: Northern Lights? - Blanton


 >Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 01:19:13 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Sean Liddle <gortrix@kos.net>
 >Subject: Northern Lights?

 >Hi Everyone:

 >Does anyone have a URL for a good reliable site that posts
 >auroral predctions? (The Northern Lights, not the plane:) ).

<snip>

Try http://www.spaceweather.com/

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 >
   Dec > Dec 28

                Re: Bentwaters Book Review By Jenny Randles -

From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 12:57:13 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 14:53:17 -0500
Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review By Jenny Randles -


 >From: Gary Anthony <garyant@mithrand.karoo.co.uk>
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review By Jenny Randles
 >Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 19:34:13 -0000

 >>From: Gary Anthony <garyant@mithrand.karoo.co.uk>
 >>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles
 >>Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 21:28:50 -0000

 >>>From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 13:30:13 EST
 >>>Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 12:16:11 -0500
 >>>Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles

<snip>

 >>>On the other hand your colleague James Easton gravely insulted
 >>>Georgina Bruni on this List. What is your comment on that ?

 >It cuts both ways Gildas, both Nick Pope and James Easton were
 >ungentlemanly and my own view on James' post, was that it was
 >despicable, that is why I previously wrote of insulting a lady
 >'at any opportunity' but I also understand some of the
 >background ufological clutter connected with this case (which
 >you may not be aware of?) and people do make mistakes in
 >frustration.

The "background clutter" you allude to has no place here. Easton
publicly insulted Georgina Bruni, and made no apologies.

<snip>

 >I have seen Nick Pope too and have read *all* (even the
 >fictional ones) of his books. That is why I have a stack of
 >questions for him... You suggest Pope's books are serious and
 >that he is courageous for writing them. I suggest that if Mr.
 >Pope had anything serious to say, worthy of research, it would
 >have been fully undertaken by now?

What do you mean?

Yes, you won't find the "smoking gun" of UFOs in his books. What
is interesting is that Pope tells us how, from an initial
position of skepticism when he took office, after three years of
official investigations he became convinced ot the reality of
UFOs.....

Now, here is the main point, in my opinion:

We don't have a "smoking gun", but we have a mountain of
testimonies, thousands of reliable witnesses, plus hundreds of
landing traces well recorded (several in France), and last but
not least, official documents.

Do you know the 1,600 pages released by the FBI? I have them
and, for instance, you find there many memos of FBI agents about
ufo sightings over nuclear sites.

For Oak Ridge alone, nearly 80 pages!

And they also reveal a long story of secrecy.

So, the discussions pursued endlessly by some, still trying to
debunk the best cases, are a waste of time.

That mountain of evidence is well worth dozens of smoking guns
to me.


Happy New Year to all.


Gildas Bourdais








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 28

                              Pelicans in 1947

From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 14:05:11 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 14:55:36 -0500
Subject: Pelicans in 1947


Greetings,

Pelicans may not be a common sight around Mount Rainier, but
1947 was an uncommon year. My research indicates that many
species of birds were seen outside their normal flyways or
habitat. This was noted in the Project 1947 Preliminary Report.

Pelicans were seen by airline pilots at least once during this
period, but were quickly identified as what they were. In my
experience with formations of birds, they constantly change
position with respect to one another. Miles long separation is
hardly formation flying.


Jan Aldrich

Project 1947
http://www.project1947.com/
P. O. Box 391
Canterbury, CT 06331, USA
(860) 546-9135









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 29

                Re: Bentwaters Book Review By Jenny Randles -

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 17:24:58 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 01:09:52 -0500
Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review By Jenny Randles -


 >From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review By Jenny Randles
 >Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 15:48:59 -0000

 >>From: Gary Anthony <garyant@mithrand.karoo.co.uk>
 >>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review By Jenny Randles
 >>Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 19:34:13 -0000


 >I wrote a whole chapter entitled "Challenging the Sceptics",
 >actually challenging them, but not one of the sceptics on this
 >list has referred to the content of the book or to this
 >particular chapter.

Hi,

Georgina - you state several times in this lengthy message that
I am a 'skeptic'.

Why do you keep doing this as if it is an incantation that will
lull this List into hating me? Clearly you don't listen to what I
say, or do not want to listen.

I have made my position on all of this abundantly apparent and
this list must be getting bored of my having to keep repeating
it, but you don't seem to want to hear what I have to say.

1: I have been one of the most outspoken critics of the
'lighthouse' theory for 17 years as anyone reading my work on
this case will be well aware. I have always given the ideas time
of day. It is covered in all my books. But I have never been
convinced by it as a conclusive and wholesale resolution for a
whole host of reasons that I have set out many times. Some of
them are eerily similar to the reasons that you cite in this
message and use against me! (Such as the importance of local
civilian witnesses who could clearly recognise the lighthouse).
I find that a delicious irony.

2: I have - indeed - become far more tolerant of the skeptical
arguments in recent years thanks to the work of James Easton and
the data that has slowly become available demonstrating the
value of some of Ian Ridpath's long term suggestions. As they
both know - and as those involved at IUR in the recent debate
(eg Jerry Clark, Mark Rodeghier and Dick Hall) know] - and as I
have stated on this list before - I am not convinced they have
fully resolved this case but do believe they have made a case
for parts of the sighting that requires a more thorough
discussion.

3: As the evidence stands the role of the lighthouse in this
case seems evident to some degree, but cannot, IMO, be
responsible for the sum total of what was reported that weekend.
I have made absolutely clear - for example - that it cannot
explain the close encounter phase reported by John Burroughs and
Jim Penniston - and I have debated this in civil fashion with
both James Easton and Ian Ridpath on other lists recently. They
seem to believe that the close encounter effects (eg Oz Factor,
reality distortions, electrical charges) could be induced by
fear. I am more persuaded they have a genuine physical origin
because they are remarkably consistent with other close
encounters that have evidence and suggest a real physical energy
may be occurring.

So to keep misleading this list into thinking I am some
egregious skeptic is not terribly good evidence that you are
able to properly assess what people say to you.

4: However, what is very apparent from the data for this case is
that there are aspects to it that were in the past considered
strange but that as time has gone by are now seen to be much
less strange. That is an inescapable conclusion.

You only need to look long and hard at some of what the
witnesses saw and do so having familiarity with UFO
investigation to realise that there are objects being described
in this case that very clearly were not UFOs.

What long term researcher out there would not argue that a star
like light that remains in the same general part of the sky for
hours and fades as the dawn sky lightens until it then
disappears is not very, very likely to be a stellar object?

All my years experience as a UFO investigator teach me that this
is almost certainly what is being described here because the
witness testimony fits that so well. If - for instance - the
object was some sort of craft - even a plane - then as the dawn
sky lightened it would have become MORE visible. That it was
swallowed up by the lightening of the sky indicates the near
certain conclusion that it was a star.

After you have investigated dozens of sightings of Venus in a
frosty morning sky you soon realise what processes of
mis-perception are at work.

Other parts of the case are equally vulnerable - such as the
alleged radiation levels, which are now clearly seen not to be
significant at all.


5: Now - not for one moment am I suggesting that because parts
of this case crumble on deeper study that all of it necessarily
does. I don't support that total reductionist perspective and
have always made that clear. But this is not - and never has
been - a straight fight between a lighthouse and a real UFO.
This is an extremely complex set of sightings during which many
witnesses over several days saw lots of curious things and some
of them - as time has revealed - are gradually being
established as having mundane explanations.

Once that is accepted one has to - in all honesty - carefully
assess all the data and concede the possibility that much more
of this case is potentially explicable than we might like to
think.

That is my stance - basically that all is potentially
resolvable, some parts have been revealed as almost certainly
now being resolved and whilst I personally think that some parts
do remain that are not successfully resolved by the skeptics
without bending and twisting too much of ther evidence it would
be foolish to deny that possibility exists and so it is
necessary to ask ourselves unpalatable questions.

Now to some of you my doing this may be regarded as skepticism
or even heresy. To me it is merely true objectivity. You can use
whatever name you like to define it but it will not prevent me
from being convinced it is the course that we have to adopt to
properly pursue UFO investigations. > >With regard to the
lighthouse theory, stars, mirages, lightships >etc, the evidence
I produce against this is remarkable. Here's >just some of the
factual arguments against these theories.

I don't have the time to here discuss every point in minute
detail - and in any case some of your points are my own points
that I have previously made in my books and articles arguing FOR
the case (things you seem to forget I have been doing for 19
years!). So I am not going to answer them just by saying - 'I
already said that in such and such a place ' - because anyone
familiar with my writing on the case can judge that for
themselves.

But here are a few observations.

 >1. Witnesses, such as Cabansag, who has never spoken before, but
 >insists that the witness statement was not written or typed by
 >him. He was just told to sign it. He was too scared to disobey
 >that order.

Yes, but the point is not whether he actually typed it up it but
if the USAF deliberately made him lie in those words.

Surely, if the statement is basically a summary of what happened
then the above is largely irrelevant. If its an outright lie
then why are these witnesses not taking these statements to
congress and saying en masse - we were forced by our own
government to sign deliberately fictitious statements? After all
if there are half a dozen of these witnesses and they all stick
together with the eyes of the UFO Community closely on them what
do they have to fear?

 >Cabansag saw the lighthouse - he also saw the UFO,
 >which was right there in front of him. He said it was not the
 >lighthouse!

Which is no different from the position others, like John
Burroughs, are quoted as saying years ago (eg in Strange But
True?) It really means nothing except that the witness saw a
light that he identified as a lighthouse and another light that
looked different and so he assumes was not the lighthouse.

I am not here arguing it was the lighthouse - as I keep on
telling you I am not convinced that it was (although it remains
a possibility). I am merely saying that a witnesses opinion is
only that not proof of anything.

Bear in mind the critical issue over the witness statements
here. If they are accurate then they say that the witnesses saw
a beacon, were temporarily mislead by it but later recognised it
for what it was. They also saw a UFO and that looked different.
As such these statements - far from proving the skeptics right -
actually support the strangeness of the UFO because they
demonstrate that the witnesses clearly did see a lighthouse
that same night and whilst it was odd for a time they ultimately
figured out what it was.

Problem is, that if you argue that the statements are in fact
bogus you undercut this safety net. Because if the witnesses
didn�t chase the lighthouse as the statements allege before
recognising what it truly was then all their prior verbal
testimony (which differs) is the only thing we have to go on.
And that makes no reference to seeing the lighthouse AND the
UFO, just one light through the trees that they think was a UFO
and the skeptics argue might be the lighthouse.

Regardless of who is right here in this is either/or debate the
undermining of the l980 witness statements - curiously enough -
serves the skeptics as well as the witnesses, when you think it
through.

In fact if you read my l998 article for IUR in which I discuss
at length these newly revealed statements soon after James
Easton supplied them to me (is this on line at the CUFOS site
Jerry?) - you will note how I used the statements to offer
reasons why the witnesses could be defended against the skeptics
as opposed to them being part of a negative attack on the case.

Have you read that article, Georgina? If not, why not?


 >2. Penniston, claims he actually walked up and touched the
 >object. He also did not type his statement and wrote to me
 >pointing out that it had been summarised. Penniston said it was
 >not a lighthouse!

Much as before. That a witness touched the UFO has been alleged
since l983. Its in Sky Crash. So this isn't news. Again Penniston
said all of this in 'Strange but True' six years ago. And - as I
noted in Crash Landing - he and Burroughs decided to provide
only a summary version of their story on the record because
Penniston was afraid of the repercussions on his career. So the
fact that the written statements - when they appeared - differed
from the verbal testimony of the witnesses over the years is
not a big deal nor in any way a surprise to me as I put it in
print BEFORE those statements surfaced.

Again I discuss this in my l998 IUR article on the witness
statements. So this is not something that progresses us much as
you seem to think it does and the fact that you think I ought to
be debating something I did already debate in a published
article in one of Ufology's top journals over two years ago is
curious.

 >4. I interviewed Lt Fred "Skip" Buran several times. He was the
 >officer who sent Penniston's patrol out to investigate. He
 >talked about how they received word from London airport that
 >there was something unusual tracked on radar. He said that
 >because of the late hour and holidays, there were no aircraft
 >flying, so they usually shut down their department at Bentwaters
 >and left it to Heathrow to deal with.

Again the tie in with Heathrow is long known and in print from
me. It was also known to my contact at RAF WAtton as they
reported their radar sighting upwards to the CAA and here
learned of the event at Heathrow. Again I've said all this
before.

But there is a problem. There was a sighting of a UFO by a civil
aircraft heading over Essex and this was reported to the CAA at
Heathrow. In retrospect it is fairly apparent that this was most
likely to be a sighting of the Cosmos re-entry at just after 9
pm on Christmas Night - that is six hours before the main event
in Rendlesham. When Bentwaters checked for radar reports (just
as did Watton) it is not a surprise that they were told
something like - 'actually its been a busy night we had a
sighting made at Heathrow too' - even if this is not directly
tied to the events at 3 am.

I checked with both Watton and the MoD and both deny any records
showing that any radar base - let alone Heathrow - tracked the
object seen at 3 am inside the forest. They may be lying, of
course, but we cannot assume that. Its equally likely - surely -
that any radar tracking made were found not to connect into the
Rendlesham case.

 >5. I also interviewed Nigel Kerr, a radar operator at RAF
 >Watton, who tracked the UFOs on radar.

 >Can you track a lighthouse, stars, mirage, lightship!

No need to teach me about the alleged events at Watton - as you
well know - since this was my first contact with the case in
January l981 and its something I have extensively discussed like
everywhere.

Incidentally, in case anyone is wondering, if Nigel Kerr is this
mans real name this is not the same source as my witness from
Watton. So there are two independent sources to this incident.
That in itself is useful and seems to affirm something did
happen - not that I have ever doubted that it did.

I am totally aware of the importance of the radar incident and
have always stressed it - as Georgina well knows. But we are
talking about a radar track of something that is not provably
connected directly with the events in Rendlesham - although
there are good circumstantial grounds for suspecting the
possibility.  But you cannot automatically argue that what
Watton tracked was what Burroughs, Cabansag and Penniston saw.
It may, or may not be.

Even then it was only a tracking of an unidentified object. It
is obvious that the object seen by - for example - Gordon Levett
- or the Webb family - during those few days could not possibly
have been the lighthouse. I have never for one second argued
otherwise and I doubt any rational skeptic has. These people
were locals. They knew the lighthouse. The object they saw moved
across an arc of sky and obviously a lighthouse cannot do that
under any circumstances. I've said this myself often. Odd that
you didn�t notice that in my writings. But then it was a non
skeptical point so you may have missed it if that's all you were
looking for in my work.

Unfortunately, this is a specious argument anyhow. It sounds
plausible but it attacks the wrong issue. Nobody in their right
mind suggests that the lighthouse was tracked by Watton radar or
was seen by some of the witnesses flying through the air. So
arguing as if they do is just plain silly.

What it doesn't do is demonstrate that what these witnesses saw
or what was on radar automatically has no explanation simply
because it wasn't a lighthouse. Like I said the lighthouse theory
is a huge misnomer because at best its role in the case is
partial.

 >7. Former police officer Dave King who originally thought it
 >could have been the lighthouse the witnesses saw, has now had
 >second thoughts. Dave was at a talk I did in Woodbridge recently
 >and for the benefit of the audience, I took the liberty of
 >asking him why he had thought it was the lighthouse. He replied
 >that when he arrived (almost 5 hours after the first reported
 >sighting) there was nothing to see but the lighthouse beacon.
 >His full report is in the book.

But here - and with Vince Thurkettle - you report what I have
said myself on their stories. You chide me for not responding to
such points that you are here making - evidently unaware that I
have made many of the same comments before myself.

 >8. I produced six photographs (see close ups in this month's UFO
 >magazine) which depict a British police officer and a USAF
 >captain (both names known to me) examine the landing marks.
 >These pictures were taken by Master Sergeant Ray Gulyas when he
 >was tasked with the job of measuring and photographing the
 >landing site. They clearly prove that there was an
 >investigation.

But who is arguing that there wasn't? Halt and his team were
doing field studies at the time of their sighting

 >Note that none of the sceptics have even
 >mentioned this important evidence. There's even the scuffed up
 >area that Halt discusses in his tape. Now, if this was a
 >lighthouse, then how did it land on the forest floor,

This is more daftness. Of course the lighthouse didn�t create
landing traces and I bet you cannot find one single comment
anywhere from anyone who ever argued otherwise. It does you no
credit to try to ridicule the skeptical position by arguing such
silly things.

But all the photo shows is an area of forest illuminated in some
way - by sunlight or a light to aid the photo - and dimly
visible in it what might be a 'scruffed up' area. Its very hard
to read much into that image as you cannot even be sure this
scruffed up area is there. I do agree it is very useful and
interesting to have this photo but its hardly altering our
perception of the case.

 >and if
 >these were so-called rabbit scratchings how did these animals
 >manage to leave 3 perfectly formed ground indentations (12ft
 >triangular) at the very site where all this took place. And why
 >would USAF officers spend time measuring animal marks?

Where on the photo do you see these marks anything like clearly
enough to make that judgement? In reality are we not here back
to witness perceptions of the testimony of what they saw at the
site? Or have you got the photos taken close up of the landing
site during Halt's investigation? Now those would be very
exciting to see.

But otherwise we really are no nearer to making definitive
comments about the landing marks than we are from - say -
Colonel Halt's plaster cast of these traces. Which are actually
MORE useful in that regard than this dim photo. What you say
above simply is not arguable - one way or the other - from the
photo in your book as far as I can see.

 >9. I produce a letter from the RAF officer who asked Halt to
 >write the memo. This letter , addressed to the Ministry of
 >Defence, is titled "Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOS)". When I
 >asked Moreland why he had done that, he said, 'That's what Halt
 >called them, he called them UFOs.'

And as you know - and as I reported a decade ago - I talked to
Moreland on base in l984, so again none of this is so
dramatically new data that I ought to be saying - wowie - to you
and thus discussing it.

The term UFO is a perfectly sound one for anyone to use in these
circumstances since it means 'Unidentified Flying Object' -
which is what these lights were. But UFO doesn't mean alien
spaceship or indeed anything at all necessarily exotic. And
surely you are not implying that what was meant here was that
these men clearly saw an exotic object just because the term UFO
was used?

 >Now ask yourself why a Lt
 >Colonel with the USAF and a Squadron Leader with the RAF, would
 >go to all the trouble of sending word to Her Majesty's Defence
 >agency if it was nothing more than a lighthouse or anything as
 >mundane!

Firstly, obviously they probably wouldn't if they thought it was.
But nobody is suggesting that they did. Anyhow that doesn't
effect at all whether it actually was a lighthouse.

Lots of strange things were reported to the US government
between l947 and l969 - under the cover term UFO - and I am sure
everyone on this list agrees that many of them were not 'really'
UFOs at all - even though senior military personnel may have
honestly forwarded them to Dayton, Ohio on that basis. So this
is really a non argument.

And, as both Halt and Moreland told me, there was an element of
diplomacy involved. The memo was as much to do with putting
something on record with the USAF's landlords as the 'chain of
command' had been bypassed . After all these events occurred off
base and on British land where the USAF really had no clear
jurisdiction. So reporting to the MoD - rather after the fact -
some 17 days later - may have been more a 'cover our backs'
exercise than a genuine desire to reveal all. Certainly it is
hard to see it as vital intelligence!

After all, if you really believe a spaceship has just invaded a
NATO base with nuclear weapons - a base owned by the MoD and
leased to the US - and you have audio tape, photos, samples and
plaster casts of the physical traces left behind do you:

(a) Immediately notify the MoD by the fastest means possible,
hand over all the evidence, put civil defence alert procedures
in motion,

or

(b) Wait two and a half weeks, send a one page letter and don't
even mention on it that you have audio proof of the events, plus
samples, plaster casts and photos of the damage left behind.

Do you need to phone a friend?

 >10. I also name many of the senior officers who actually went
 >out to check out the initial landing site. Why would these very
 >experienced officers go to all this trouble if it was a
 >lighthouse, lightship, mirage etc?

What they thought it was and what it actually was are not
necessarily the same thing. That's the first rule of Ufology's and
so this in of itself isn't evidence of anything. > >11. Civilian
witness Gary Collins, saw the UFO from a country >road - he is
familiar with the lighthouse and explained how the >object
hovered over his head and lit up the whole area in front >of
him.

He - like the many other civilian witnesses I report in Crash
Landing - saw SOMETHING, of course, and most of them very
obviously didn�t see the lighthouse given what they report. No
argument from me as I have made this point frequently over the
years myself. But that isn't the same as proving that any of
these people saw what the airmen saw, or that what any of them
saw was a real UFO.

It may, or may not have been. But arguing some people did not
see the lighthouse is - of course - correct - in so far as it
goes but irrelevant because I don't see anyone saying that this
case is explained away AS merely a lighthouse.

 >These are just some of the examples in the book, and there are
 >many more. I ask any serious researcher to consider the list
 >here and then look back at the enormous amount of time that has
 >been spent wasted on the sceptics theories.

I don't consider trying to resolve a case as being a waste of
time. I regard it as the basic responsibility of every
Ufologist. It is revealing that you consider it a waste of time
however.

 >I ask this because
 >if they had really done their homework and looked into the
 >evidence then they would have learnt far more than they have.

Well, with respect, from the above there is little that I haven't
reported and discussed at length myself before and so clearly I
have taken it seriously and learnt from it.

Yes, indeed, you have uncovered some new witnesses and added a
new perspective on the case, which is very helpful. No argument
and I have said that repeatedly. But you are here charging me
with ignoring your many important new anti skeptics arguments
and the above examples are really in the main no such thing. In
fact very few are anything we didn�t already have under
consideration and that I haven't spent half my life debating with
the skeptics!

 >It is a pity that Jenny Randles continues to dwell on
 >alternative theories. I believe this is why Jenny never
 >progressed with this case.

Well, given that most of what you report above covers ground I
trod up to 17 years ago if I didn�t progress the matter then how
can you claim that you have?

Your idea of 'alternative theories' (alternative to what - BTW?
- do you mean assuming this was a spaceship?) is in fact my idea
of trying to find a way to make all the pieces fit and answers
that work.

That may, or may not, be possible in the end result. With some
cases you can resolve them with others you cannot. That's
Ufology's. So this case may ultimately prove to have insoluble
elements - i.e. be in a part a real UFO. But large chunks of it
are clearly not heading that way by all signs right now and not
to take that into account and so seek what you term
'alternative' answers is a failure to do ones job as a UFO
investigator IMO.

We are in this field to try to find answers - the simpler the
better - but to stand up and say - in this case we cannot only
IF we cannot. We are not here to prove cherished possibilities
of any kind. Or if we are then we are believers and not
researchers.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 29

                  Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Randles

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 17:35:58 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 01:47:08 -0500
Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Randles


 >From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People'
 >Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 13:36:47 -0000

 >>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People'
 >>Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 02:05:37 -0000

 >So after 9 years you finally got it right Jenny. Why then did
 >you still promote it as December in your 1997 UFO Crash Landing
 >book when in 1995 UFO Magazine published Scurrah's story?

 >I don't know how to answer that, but let's just say that you
 >were mistaken. Based on the information above, will you now
 >accept that you made a mistake?

 >Best wishes,

 >Georgina Bruni

Hi,

No - sorry, but I cannot. If I had then I gladly would.

But again here you twist facts somewhat.


1: When I was first put into contact with Mal Scurrah he
reported the incident in possible connection with the Rendlesham
case. That is why he was put in touch with me in the first
place. Not that it definitely WAS tied in but that it might have
been.

He noted only at first that the event had occurred 'around the
same time' - narrowing it down to me as around the end of the
year' and 'November/December' on two separate occasions - as the
best that he could do. Although he certainly made clear that he
was not sure of exactly when it had occurred or that there was -
therefore - any positive link with Rendlesham - he certainly
never said - this was an unconnected incident.

You can witter on about my taking nine years to get it right -
sadly an indication of incomplete research on your part - but
the above is what Mal Scurrah said to me when he first got in
touch ten years or so ago and its what I have always reported
that he said.

2: David Alpin read - before we planned the 'Strange But True?'
programme - my l991 book 'From out of the Blue'. Pity you didn�t
read it carefully as well. You only have to look at page 131 of
that text to know that you are talking nonsense. Because here I
faithfully report exactly what I was told by Mal Scurrah without
any misleading at all.

I say of the dating: 'He only knows that the events he relates
took place in late fall or winter l980. They may refer to the
case we discuss in this book.If so, then it indicates that there
was British involvement...'

Now - since that is _precisely_ what Mal Scurrah has always told
me - please explain to this list why you are accusing me of
getting anything wrong for nine years when I clearly didn�t?

David Alpin read this - but he decided not to confuse people on
screen by discussing any uncertainty over the date.

Even so I ensured that what appeared in the Strange But True?
book was consistent with Mal Scurrah's position. I was asked to
use fairly vague words like 'around the same time' so as it did
not appear to directly contradict what LWT planned to put on
screen, but I insisted on using words that made clear enough
that there was no certain connection between the two events.

And I did.

3: I was not a 'researcher' on the TV show. The company LWT
employed such people and one of them certainly spoke to Mal
Scurrah. If he says now that he told that person that there was
no connection between these two events then that fact was never
conveyed to me by anyone at 'Strange But True?'.

David was an scrupulous editor who insisted on things being
verified before going into the show. He must have been convinced
that the witness thought there was a likely connection between
his incident and the Rendlesham case or it would not have gone
on screen .

Thus any misimpression cannot have come from me - since I can
demonstrate that I had published EXACTLY what Mal Scurrah told
me prior to this programme even being made . And I can also
swear that at no time did the witness suggest to me that he did
not think the events were likely to be connected in some way. In
fact that's how he came to me.

Whatever you claim Brenda Butler says , I listened to what the
witness himself told me and it is his various estimates of the
date (between l990 and l994) that I have referred to.

As for the incident not being worthy of a three page discussion
if not directly tied in to Rendlesham - that's an odd thing to
say. You discuss several sightings around the time of the main
ones .

There was a major wave across the eastern seaboard of the UK in
October/November/December l980 with some key events . I have
discussed several of these even when not directly tied into
Rendlesham - such as the flap of sightings around Menwith Hill
NSA base in November, the Alan Godfrey abduction and the
incident over the North Sea oil Rig in which an RAF Hercules was
sent out to investigate.

To me these seem worth consideration.

So asking why I bothered discussing Mal Scurrah's story even if
we did not know there was a positive tie in to Rendlesham
suggests a lack of understanding of what is / is not worth
reporting in connection with any major case. IMO the fact that
Rendlesham was surrounded by high grade close encounters and
occurred during a significant wave across Eastern England is
information well worth reporting to my readers.

4: My role with 'Strange but True?' - from before the pilot in
l993 to the final episode in l998 - was as 'Story Consultant' -
and the credits for the show clearly indicate this to be so -
listing myself alongside David and presenter Michael Aspel and
the researchers separate and otherwise.

Like I said, David Alpin was _not_ - as you suggest - only later
made aware of the uncertain status of the date of Mal Scurrah's
incident . He was aware of it from the very start . Of that
there can be no reasonable dispute since he carefully proof read
with me the text of the accompanying book written that summer
and we discussed wording that reflected his script and my intent
to be true to what Mal Scurrah had told us.

5: During his interviews given to Strange But True? Mal Scurrah
did NOT - to my knowledge - suggest other than that the event
had not occurred late in l980 - or said that it was in his view
unconnected to the Rendlesham case. Had he done so I would never
have agreed to anything otherwise being reported. Instead what
he told us in interview was pretty much what he had earlier told
me.

Indeed this is _all_ that he told us in interview about the
date.

'I was working (at the base)... till the end of l980... On the
night in question either late autumn or winter l980, we were
taking part in.....'

In a lengthy interview no hint appeared to contradict this same
impression of the event likely occurring during the last couple
of months of l980 - or indeed to indicate that Mal Scurrah was
especially bothered about clarifying any misimpression there
might be about the date. He certainly doesn't at any time suggest
doubt about a likely connection with Rendlesham and he was
obviously well aware, of course, that this is why he was being
interviewed for a programme that was solely and entirely about
that case.

I am not suggesting that he didn�t say to a researcher what he
now claims that he did. Not at all. I am merely pointing out
that the estimated date I have always cited for this incident
fitted in with the witnesses various own references given in his
own words - such as 'end of the year', 'around the same time'
and as here - 'late autumn/winter l980'.

I don't think anybody - except perhaps you, Georgina - could
argue this is an unreasonable position to have adopted -
especially as it is utterly apparent that I did not hide the
lack of clarity about the date or its proven link to Rendlesham
in either of my published writings around this time.

6: When writing Crash Landing in l997 I again said much the same
- and, given that we now knew from other sources that radar
tracking were allegedly made around the weekend of the main
case, took the position that it was not improbable that these
events were connected . Although I again made clear that we were
not certain of the date.

I had not at any point been contacted by Mal Scurrah to say that
he now believed the most likely date was in fact early November
- and that he did not now think the incident was actually
related to Rendlesham in any way. I could only go from what he
had put on record with us several times in the previous few
years.

I don't buy the newsstand magazine - 'UFO' - so was not aware of
his comments made in there in l995. In fact it was James Easton
who brought them to my attention in late l997 - and he listened
when I set out the above facts in response to them. Just as I
listened to him and read what Mal Scurrah had said to UFO
magazine.

Thus, when I wrote 'The UFOs that Never Were' - in l999 - I
adapted the estimated date for his sighting to 'late November'
(see p .167) to best tie in with the overall consensus of all
the comments made by the witness across 10 years - since that
was, of course, the proper thing to do under the circumstances.

The witness is still uncertain when this incident occurred and,
frankly, this is hardly the big deal you make it out to be as
the key things about all this surely are

(a) the event did occur around the same general time - i.e. during
late l980

(b) it may, or may not, have had any direct connection with
Rendlesham but was part of the wave of sightings in Eastern
England during that late autumn/early winter.

As this is what the witness has always said and also what I have
also always reported that he said - why are you making such a
fuss about it?

Mal was annoyed because on screen on Strange But True there was
no indication that his event had an uncertain dating. I can see
why he thought that. But he - presumably - wasn't annoyed with me
(or no doubt he would have contacted me directly to say so) -
because in my books I had never hidden that there was
uncertainty over this matter.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 29

               Re: Blast in Sky Said May Be Meteorite - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 15:15:20 -0600
Fwd Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 01:59:49 -0500
Subject: Re: Blast in Sky Said May Be Meteorite - Evans


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 11:47:35 EST
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Blast in Sky Said May Be Meteorite - BYoung

 >>From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@konsulting.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Blast in Sky Said May Be Meteorite
 >>Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 13:39:19 -0500

Previously, Steven wrote:

 >>>While grass fires and the like are often thought associated with
 >>>meteorite falls, I don't believe that there has ever been a
 >>>proven case of a meteorite starting a fire. These reports are
 >>>almost certainly coincidental, if these "flares" were indeed a
 >>>meteor.

 >>I guess that depends on whether or not you consider the Tunguska
 >>event to have been caused by a meteorite or comet (or
 >>whatever)..... <g>

Bob replied:

 >There have never been any meteorites recovered from the Tunguska
 >event, as far as I know. As the theory goes, it was an airburst
 >of something truly huge. If something had happened of that
 >magnitude over Australia, I'm sure that we would have heard
 >about it.

Hi, Bob, all...

I remember seeing a documentary on PBS or somewhere about a
group of Japanese architectural students studying ways to make
buildings stronger during earthquakes and the like. One of the
things they had noticed was that the building at ground zero in
Hiroshima was still standing. Though damaged, it was in
relatively good condition compared to all the other buildings
around it which, when viewed from above, lay in ruins in a
circular pattern moving away from the blast point.

In turn, they went to Tunguska and found that the trees at
ground zero were also still standing, while all the fallen
timber around it pointed away from the blast point. It was at
this point, I believe, that scientists started considering an
aerial blast of some kind. In addition, the big surprise was a
significant background radiation level that still exists in
Tunguska; higher, I believe they said, than that in Hiroshima or
Nagasaki, today. In addition, one scientist was studying the way
plant life in the Tunguska area has mutated as a result of
exposure to said radiation.

Some of this same documentary footage has shown up on the
Discovery Channel, as well. Keep your eyes peeled. It will
probably show up again.

Later,

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 >
   Dec > Dec 29

                Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles -

From: Martin Jeffrey <martin-j@lineone.net>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 19:24:58 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 02:20:31 -0500
Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles -


 >From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 12:19:53 EST
 >Subject: Re: Bentwaters Book Review by Jenny Randles
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

 >I did more than meet Nick Pope a couple of times. I read his two
 >books on UFOs (not the novels). I think they are good, serious
 >books, well worth reading.

 >Just one more word, to thank Brad Sparks, and again Georgina,
 >for their excellent contributions.

For me those two statements sum up Gildas.

Kind Regards

Martin Jeffrey






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 29

                   Gersten Generates More Strange Messages

From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 17:24:13 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 02:34:19 -0500
Subject: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages


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


CAUS Director Peter A. Gersten continues, in usual fashion, to
deliver strange messages via his CAUS Updates e-mail list. For
over the past month, Gersten has been doing a countdown to the
New Year paying a visit to the old school of New Millennium
madness. Many of Gersten's messages are disjointed and hint at
some new pending apocalypse.

This is not the first time Gersten has posted strange messages
via CAUS Updates. Perhaps many will remember his messages of
doom and gloom spawning from the EQ Pegasi Hoax and the alleged
landing of an alien spacecraft in Arizona predicted by none
other than conspiracy nut Richard C. Hoagland. As with all of
Hoagland's predictions nothing happened on December 7th, 1998
even though Hoagland, once again, cited so-called "confidential
and reliable sources" that had told him otherwise.

It appeared as if Gersten may have been playing out his wildest
fantasies and perhaps justifying such fantasies using the bogus
December 7, 1998 landing as an excuse. During this laughable
fiasco of a prediction, Gersten made statements such as:


"May the force be with us."

"It is what we are programmed to believe that is important."

"There is a group of us now on this planet who have been through
this Final Conflict before at other times and on other places.
We have decided to come here now for this particular reason."

"Stephen King, in The Stand, has evil gathering in Las Vegas. I
believe, in this Final Conflict, our group should gather in
Sedona... Beginning December 1st, I will be opening my apartment
in Sedona to all who wish to come. All are welcome to join me
there. I will assume that anyone who comes is part of the
group."


The overall theme seemed to be that Armageddon was knocking,
someone was about to open the door, the only safe place on the
planet was in Gersten's apartment located in Sedona, Arizona,
and that he would be the spiritual guru that would lead "the
good guys" in his own version of "The Stand".

With all the talk of doom and gloom, alien craft landing,
signals from space and an evil government cover-up, nothing ever
happened... nothing. No UFOs landed in the Arizona desert, the
signal was a hoax and both Gersten and Hoagland tried to turn
nothing into something. Yet some are choosing to rehash the New
Millennium as a disaster waiting to happen and Gersten is no
exception. He continues to send messages, hinting of some
unforeseen forces at work, the Presidential election being a
diversion for something more sinister and a catastrophe right
around the corner coinciding with New Year's Day.

Below is the just the latest in a long string of messages from
Gersten. "Welcome to the twilight zone of the new millennium"??
Frankly, we've had enough... have you?


CAUS HIGHLIGHTS: Thursday - December 28, 2000
================<>================
3 MORE DAYs UNITL the NEW MILLENNIUM
We have learned how to control most things, if not within our
total reality, then within our own lives. But what if the new
millennium brought a reality that we could not control, even to
circumstances within our immediate day to day existence? What if
we could no longer "attach" to external 3-dimensional objects
for our own security such as technological toys, titles, wealth
and people? What if a new cosmic computer program is being
downloaded that would require us to let go of, or transcend, our
fears in order to survive? What if we needed to let go of the
need to control in order to exist? Welcome to the twilight zone
of the new millennium.

SEE: www.caus.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 >
   Dec > Dec 29

                            TMP News: Moving Time

From: Paul Anderson <psa@direct.ca>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 19:39:45 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 03:01:49 -0500
Subject: TMP News: Moving Time


TMP NEWS
The E-News Service of The Millennium Project

http://www.egroups.com/group/tmpnews
http://www.geocities.com/themillenniumproject

December 28, 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).

_____________________________


MOVING TIME

Just a quick note to let everyone know that I (and hence the TMP
home office) will be relocating to new and better digs as of
January 1. Still in Vancouver, the new mailing address is at the
end of this e-mail. The phone / fax number will remain the same.
Among other things, the new location will provide some needed
additional office / studio space.

This notice is being sent separately to the TMP and CPR-Canada
mailing lists, so apologies to those who are on both and receive
this twice.

Also, the web site for TMP is moving to a new address:

http://www.geocities.com/themillenniumproject

The Yahoo! Geocities server provides more web space and
additional features, as well as providing for a somewhat more
simplified address, a temporary transition until a regular
domain name can be registered. Please update your links and
bookmarks accordingly.

I am also now just getting over the nasty flu bug I've had for
the past few weeks, so the TMP News Weekly Briefings will resume
after the new year.

Best wishes to everyone for 2001.

Paul Anderson


____________________________


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://www.geocities.com/themillenniumproject

For further information, submissions or inquiries, forward all
correspondence to:

THE MILLENNIUM PROJECT

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

_____________________________


� 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 >
   Dec > Dec 29

                     UFO Skeptics Mailing List - Easton

From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 12:41:12 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 10:49:03 -0500
Subject: UFO Skeptics Mailing List - Easton


In March 1999, I founded the 'UFO Research List' [UFORL] with
the stated intention of providing, "a discussion forum for
related topics which could be evidenced to have a scientific
foundation. It is not therefore suitable for those who wish to
discuss 'alien abductions', 'MJ-12', etc.".

Since then, UFORL has seen over 2,800 postings, many of which
were landmark contributions to 'UFO' research.


On Thursday, 28 December, the following announcement [slightly
edited here] was issued to all subscribers:

The future of UFORL as a sustainable 'middle ground' has been a
fundamental issue raised during this past year.

One of the difficulties is that with few, if indeed nowadays
any, exceptions, the promotion of supposed 'UFO' evidence is
largely propaganda, ignoring research that has established facts
which have already debunked much of the evidence being promoted!

We never require to look far for examples.

A certain UK 'UFO' magazine has become one of the worst
offenders, becoming a magazine/organisation that long seems to
have given up any facade to standards. If it will sell, then
publish it - the more it sells, then that's what we should be
publishing...

Simple as that and apparently, the question of whether this
evidence is even remotely credible, just doesn't come into it
any more.

Which is fair enough, it's increasingly been the approach
adopted by almost all pro-UFO related concerns - UFOIN being one
notable exception - and they're quite entitled to.

However, why should objective researchers accept that only the
evidence uncovered or highlighted 'in favour', as such, of any
'UFO' having an extraordinary origin is acceptable? If the
evidence otherwise is completely ignored, which is now usually
the situation, then perhaps that needs to be addressed.

If, for example, I could now publicly reveal previously unknown
evidence which suggests that, say, the Rendlesham forest case
features elements which *might* significantly indicate the
involvement of a truly enigmatic 'UFO', that will be duly
proclaimed by some, whilst at the same time they would ignore
any established evidence to the contrary.

So it goes, that's the imbalance which we've long been aware
exists within 'ufology'.

It still doesn't solve the problem though.

Although I'm not sure if the following will contribute to a
resolution of any such inherent dilemmas, we can only see how it
progresses. I suspect there will be some interesting and
productive developments.


There are several mailing lists and forums for 'UFO believers',
some fanatically so and the contents generally expose how
incredibly stupid, not just daft, the majority of what
constitutes 'ufology' actually is.

I suspect few, if any, UFORL subscribers, no matter their take
on 'UFOs', would argue!

We all know it's true and we all realise that's why 'ufology'
*is* perceived by the mainstream media and science to be 'a boil
on the ar*e of stupidity'.

'Ufology', per se, clearly has little time for anything which
threatens to expose how 'UFOs', especially 'classic cases', have
a mundane explanation. At times, as we know, the adverse
reaction can be fanatically hostile. Worse still, would be
revealing the abject folly of what are in many instances
effectively religious beliefs.

However, during the past year UFORL has steadily become a forum
which has factually set straight an exceptional amount of UFO
mythology, an achievement most 'ufologists' would denounce as
'debunking'. Alternatively, as we have seen in a number of
instances, they will simply ignore the facts unravelled.

It seems UFORL and 'ufology' are no longer, and debatable
whether they ever were, comfortably like-minded.

They are, in fact, evidently incompatible in basic respects.

That acknowledged, I'm pleased to announce the UFO Skeptics
[UFOS] mailing list is now operational.


The list is open to subscription from those who advocate and
adopt a consistent [note the importance of this], critical
appraisal of any purported 'UFO' related evidence. This
encompasses related topics which can be demonstrated to have a
scientific foundation, including 'black projects'.

It will, initially, be a moderated list, although envisaged that
should only be during the nascent stages.

The UFOS posting archives will, at least to begin with, only be
accessible by list members.

Ideally, UFOS would be a public mailing list, where content can
be referenced elsewhere, without the need to copy it from a list
posting. Copying and reformatting material, especially lengthy
contributions, can be extremely time consuming.

However, this can be considered further at a later date.

It's intended that UFOS becomes a dynamic forum and we'll see
where else it leads.


In the meantime, UFORL remains in existence.

Any subscribers who are satisfied it's a fair conclusion the UFO
Skeptics forum - after all, isn't that what many of us are, or
are 'accused' of being? - would be a more appropriate
environment, are duly invited to subscribe.

Please send a blank e-mail to:

debunk-subscribe@listbot.com


The address for all postings will be:

debunk@listbot.com


It should be made clear that I do not expect UFORL to continue
for much longer and this is a transitional period.


To recap: the UFO Skeptics list is open to subscription from
those who advocate and adopt an unfailing, critical appraisal of
any purported 'UFO' related evidence. That means *all* cases.

Obviously, equally important is an appreciation that should any
evidence successfully pass through the bullshit filter, then it
might be worth something and this is always a recognised
possibility.

Hopefully, UFORL will largely evolve into UFOS and expand
beyond.


Naturally, the new forum will not be to the liking of all UFORL
subscribers and I sincerely regret that.

However, there are some matters which need to be dealt with.

I'm sure those who have experienced how intolerably narrow that
supposed middle ground really is, will find UFOS offers
considerably more respite.

Regardless that 'ufology' has rapidly and radically changed,
predominately marketing concerns overtaking any others, UFORL
will always have been an outstanding accomplishment and my
considerable appreciation to all subscribers. [End]


I'm pleased to say that many subscribers to the 'UFO Research
List' have already joined the 'UFO Skeptics' list.

New subscriptions from objective skeptics are duly invited.

Please feel free to pass on this notice, so long as it's duly
attributed.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 29

             Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 07:27:25 -0600
Fwd Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 10:52:08 -0500
Subject: Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages - Evans


 >From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
 >Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 17:24:13 -0800
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages

 >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

 >CAUS Director Peter A. Gersten continues, in usual fashion, to
 >deliver strange messages via his CAUS Updates e-mail list. For
 >over the past month, Gersten has been doing a countdown to the
 >New Year paying a visit to the old school of New Millennium
 >madness. Many of Gersten's messages are disjointed and hint at
 >some new pending apocalypse.

<snip>

 >Below is the just the latest in a long string of messages from
 >Gersten. "Welcome to the twilight zone of the new millennium"??
 >Frankly, we've had enough... have you?

 >CAUS HIGHLIGHTS: Thursday - December 28, 2000
 >================<>================
 >3 MORE DAYs UNITL the NEW MILLENNIUM
 >We have learned how to control most things, if not within our
 >total reality, then within our own lives. But what if the new
 >millennium brought a reality that we could not control, even to
 >circumstances within our immediate day to day existence? What if
 >we could no longer "attach" to external 3-dimensional objects
 >for our own security such as technological toys, titles, wealth
 >and people? What if a new cosmic computer program is being
 >downloaded that would require us to let go of, or transcend, our
 >fears in order to survive? What if we needed to let go of the
 >need to control in order to exist? Welcome to the twilight zone
 >of the new millennium.

Hi, Royce!

I hate to break it to ol' Pete, but he's already been in the new
millennium for almost a solid year! When he says:

 >We have learned how to control most things, if not within our
 >total reality, then within our own lives.

He obviously isn't talking about any reality that I know of. In
the reality of my world, the decade of the 90's only has ten
years in it; not eleven (I think that's why they call it a
'decade', Peter). It started with 1990 and ended at midnight on
the last day of 1999. And despite the known lack of a year
'zero', as I wrote before, most biblical scholars feel there is
a 5 year margin of error on when Jesus was really born, etc,
etc...

Of course, maybe he's from Florida. The end didn't come last
year and now he wants a recount to try again!

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 >
   Dec > Dec 29

                        eXpose News Update - 12-29-00

From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 06:48:30 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 10:54:41 -0500
Subject: eXpose News Update - 12-29-00


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


~BOGUS CONTACTEE TO FLEE BRAZIL~
Book threatens to expose contactee now called conman.

~CHILE UFO SIGHTINGS CONTINUE~
Another UFO sighted in Chile after report of 35 people
witnessing UFO abduct two people from the ground.

~ITALY UFO SIGHTINGS~
UFO ROUNDUP reports on sporadic Italy sightings.

~UFO LANDS IN BRAZIL~
Brazilian UFO group investigates UFO landing case. Story with
photos.

~MORE CAUS MADNESS~
CAUS Director continues to send out bizarre messages.

***eXpose eXpo***
~ED DAMES~
Dames claims to be working with police agency on murder
investigation of Oregon teenager, police deny Dames' claim. Is
Ed Dames promoting himself by exploiting a murdered teenage
girl? (Story still being investigated, to be posted and
distributed soon.)






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 29

               Re: Follow-up on Calama UFO by Sanchez Ocejo -

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 09:47:11 -0600
Fwd Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 14:34:33 -0500
Subject: Re: Follow-up on Calama UFO by Sanchez Ocejo -


 >From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@juno.com>
 >Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 11:52:58 -0500
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Follow-up on Calama UFO by Sanchez Ocejo

Previously, Scott posted:

 >[From Dr. Sanchez's notes]:

 >Mrs. Maria Angelica M.R., who lives in one of the region's lots
 >(Ojo de Apache, 2 kilometers west of Calama) tells us that there
 >is no street lighting in the area and that she lives in terror,
 >since every night she hears violent stomping on her rooftop,
 >adding that she "fortunately" owns no animals, but that her
 >animal-owning neighbors have lost many of them.

 >What is most disquieting about this situation is the fact that
 >the police has ordered them to keep quiet about any animal
 >deaths and has heard her neighbors state verbatim: "We can't say
 >a word.", giving her to understand that nothing can be done at
 >the risk of being penalized for causing a panic.

 >However, other sources have made it known that there is a
 >certain "unidentified agency" has located individuals who have
 >suffered this type of loss and in exchange for their silence,
 >remunerates them according to each type of animal.

Hi, Scott!

If the police ordered everyone to keep quiet, then why is
everyone talking about it? Odd, isn't it, that the neighbors say
"We can't say a word." but then go on to talk about how they've
lost many animals due to this "thing". The fact that this info
is now in a public forum like UpDates certainly raises some
validity issues regarding the claims of silence. The panic that
police supposedly feared certainly doesn't seem to have
manifested itself, despite all the chit-chat.

Regarding the "unidentified agency"; if true, wouldn't
remuneration for animal loss be incentive to fake such events? I
don't know what the economy is like there, but that's kind of
like giving counterfeiters a real $20 dollar bill for every fake
they turn in.

Seems fishy...


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 >
   Dec > Dec 29

                    Re: UFO Skeptics Mailing List - Jones

From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 16:32:59 +0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 14:35:47 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO Skeptics Mailing List - Jones



 >From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: UFO Skeptics Mailing List
 >Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 12:41:12 -0000

 >debunk@listbot.com


The email address about says it all really, doesn't it.

--

    In an infinite universe, infinitely anything is possible.
                         Sean Jones
               http://www.tedric.demon.co.uk/





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 29

                              Felder - Changes

From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 10:57:13 -0600
Fwd Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 14:38:18 -0500
Subject: Felder - Changes


Hi everyone. Just a quick note to let everyone know that I have
a new email addy: jilain@ebicom.net

And also that I am no longer associated with Horizons Radio or
the IRC channel. It is time for me to move on to other
things... like spending more time with my precious little baby
boy.

Also, I need to have everyone who has me on their ICQ list to
request authorization once again... new program... sorry for the
inconvenience.


Bobbie


Bobbie "Jilain" Felder 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 >
   Dec > Dec 29

                    Re: UFO Skeptics Mailing List - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 12:18:24 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 14:40:23 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO Skeptics Mailing List - Velez


 >From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: UFO Skeptics Mailing List
 >Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 12:41:12 -0000

 >In March 1999, I founded the 'UFO Research List' [UFORL] with
 >the stated intention of providing, "a discussion forum for
 >related topics which could be evidenced to have a scientific
 >foundation. It is not therefore suitable for those who wish to
 >discuss 'alien abductions', 'MJ-12', etc.".

<snip>

 >There are several mailing lists and forums for 'UFO believers',
 >some fanatically so and the contents generally expose how
 >incredibly stupid, not just daft, the majority of what
 >constitutes 'ufology' actually is.

It's only fair that "true believers" on the skeptical end of the
UFO spectrum have a forum too. As long as they realize that they
too are 'true believers' in their own right, they are as
entitled to set up their own Church/congregation as anyone else
in ufology. If I may suggest a logo?

How about a Pelican wearing fatigues gunning down ufologists
(there could be a little heap of bodys laying at his webbed
feet) with an AK47?  <LOL>

Best of luck to the Skeptipelibunkers and their new List.


Regards, and best wishes for the new year,


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 >
   Dec > Dec 29

                Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages -

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 13:45:42 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 14:42:47 -0500
Subject: Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages -


 >Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 07:27:25 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 17:24:13 -0800
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages

 >>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

 >>CAUS Director Peter A. Gersten continues, in usual fashion, to
 >>deliver strange messages via his CAUS Updates e-mail list. For
 >>over the past month, Gersten has been doing a countdown to the
 >>New Year paying a visit to the old school of New Millennium
 >>madness. Many of Gersten's messages are disjointed and hint at
 >>some new pending apocalypse.

 ><snip>

 >>Below is the just the latest in a long string of messages from
 >>Gersten. "Welcome to the twilight zone of the new millennium"??
 >>Frankly, we've had enough... have you?

 >>CAUS HIGHLIGHTS: Thursday - December 28, 2000
 >>================<>================
 >>3 MORE DAYs UNITL the NEW MILLENNIUM

<snip>

 >He obviously isn't talking about any reality that I know of. In
 >the reality of my world, the decade of the 90's only has ten
 >years in it; not eleven (I think that's why they call it a
 >'decade', Peter). It started with 1990 and ended at midnight on
 >the last day of 1999. And despite the known lack of a year
 >'zero', as I wrote before, most biblical scholars feel there is
 >a 5 year margin of error on when Jesus was really born, etc,
 >etc...

 >Of course, maybe he's from Florida. The end didn't come last
 >year and now he wants a recount to try again!

 >Roger

Hey Roge,

Not to burst your buboe, but the millenny yum yum really does
begin on January 1, 2001. I got that from the Milly, Emmy and
Yum Yum book on dates. Not UpDates mind you, just regular ones.

Yes, it's too true. Counting the new century beginning
after the first year after people think it started, but didn't.
Disguised as a mild mannered first year after the one
they thought it was but wasn't, started the one that really
is and will be 'CAUS it ain't happened yet.

Unnastan? Want proof? Uh, well.... aks Peter.

Cheese, I gotta splain everything?

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 >
   Dec > Dec 29

                        The Stefan Duncan Show/AUFON

From: Stefan Duncan <bward3@nc.rr.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 13:46:24 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 14:45:36 -0500
Subject: The Stefan Duncan Show/AUFON


The Stefan Duncan Show/AUFON

The latest UFO reports are reported. Emails are read and call
'ins taken during broadcasting. If you would like to share your
UFO sighting or related experience, email me or call at
910-425-6962 during the show.

Tonight, we are going over UFO sighting reports of this month.

When it comes to breaking news, you can get it on our aufon
mailing list or hear it on our nightly show. Again, call in's
and emails are encouraged. I will send you the player to hear
the show. You only have to download it once.

The show is broadcast live from Fayetteville, N.C. from 7pm to
9pm Mon-Fri and 11pm to 1am on Saturdays. I do my show from my
big bedroom/studio via computer. I have one UFO Hotline phone, a
microphone, and music from my winamp/computer.

You never know when a call will come in with a just happened UFO
sighting or even an ongoing one. When you do listen in, give me
an email and I will say hi to you over the air and thank you for
listening. As the audience grows, I will be having guests on the
show.

Oh, if you belong to a UFO group and have updates, convention
event news, etc. get me the information and I will broadcast it.

Take care and Happy New Year.


Stefan





American UFO News (UFO news wire)
AUFON weekly newspaper
aufon-subscribe@egroups.com
Report Sightings on newswire or bward3@nc.rr.com
or 910-425-6962
http://www.aufon.com AUFON website

The Stefan Duncan Show/AUFON
7-9p.m. M-F UFO sightings reports and related topics discussed such as ETs,
abductions, life on Mars. We read emails and take call in's over the air.

11p.m.-1a.m. SAT. to listen request PLAYER at bward3@nc.rr.com station IP
# is 66.26.25.107 produced by Previewnet.com
http://www.previewnet.com/program_posting.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 >
   Dec > Dec 29

             Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 14:11:07 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 14:51:03 -0500
Subject: Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages - Velez


 >From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
 >To: <Undisclosed-Recipient:@albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net;>
 >Subject: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages
 >Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 17:24:13 -0800

 >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

 >CAUS Director Peter A. Gersten continues, in usual fashion, to
 >deliver strange messages via his CAUS Updates e-mail list. For
 >over the past month, Gersten has been doing a countdown to the
 >New Year paying a visit to the old school of New Millennium
 >madness. Many of Gersten's messages are disjointed and hint at
 >some new pending apocalypse.

 >This is not the first time Gersten has posted strange messages
 >via CAUS Updates.

Ahhhh, Barry Greenwood... where are you now? Your beloved CAUS
(Citizens Against UFO Secrecy) lies in a heap of ashes. Standing
in the middle of it all is the madman Nero, playing his fiddle
while everything all around him crashes and burns. No CAUS to
fret. CAUS is no more.

 >CAUS HIGHLIGHTS: Thursday - December 28, 2000
 >================<>================
 >3 MORE DAYs UNITL the NEW MILLENNIUM
 >We have learned how to control most things, if not within our
 >total reality, then within our own lives. But what if the new
 >millennium brought a reality that we could not control, even to
 >circumstances within our immediate day to day existence? What if
 >we could no longer "attach" to external 3-dimensional objects
 >for our own security such as technological toys, titles, wealth
 >and people? What if a new cosmic computer program is being
 >downloaded that would require us to let go of, or transcend, our
 >fears in order to survive? What if we needed to let go of the
 >need to control in order to exist? Welcome to the twilight zone
 >of the new millennium.

 >SEE: www.caus.org

I've said it before and I'll say it again; just as CAUS was
begining to grow in leaps and bounds in terms of subscribers,
and starting to fulfill its mission as a voice for the people in
Washington DC regarding matters ufological, under the direction
of Barry Greenwood, along come Gersten and Greer. Gersten to
ruin CAUS and to alter it beyond all recognition, and Greer, the
self-appointed representative of the "People" in Washington, to
take over responsibility for what 'was' a truly representative
grassroots movement/organisation. (CAUS)

The timing of that is just perfect. CAUS (a "citizens" group)
begins to take off in terms of popularity, growth and media
coverage, and I'll be damned if just these few years down the
road it no longer exists as it was. Not even a shadow of its
former self/potential self is left. Gersten blew all the
'citizens' out of CAUS early on in the game. And as we all
know, good ole Doc Greer is 'in charge' in Washington, DC.

I'm sure that knowledge allows everybody to sleep soundly at
night.

It's a sad state of affairs. I unsubscribed to CAUS within two
weeks of Gersten 'taking over'.  The second it became clear that
the direction he planned to take CAUS in was right over a steep
precipice, I got out.

Gersten is allowed to say whatever he wants to. He lives in
America. What Barry Greenwood and all the former membership of
CAUS _should_ have done was to immediately regroup under a new
banner, and just move on from there. Gersten and Greer have been
_enabled_ by the apathy of others to remove the power and the
voice of the People from the political arena where UFOs are
concerned. Gersten ruined the 'vehicle' by flattening its tires,
and Greer has silenced everyone by appointing himself 'our
voice' among our own elected officials.

Am I the only one that sees something terribly wrong with all of
that?


Regards,

John Velez
Speaking strictly for myself


******************************************************
                     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 >
   Dec > Dec 29

               Re: Blast in Sky Said May Be Meteorite - BYoung

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 14:32:07 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 14:54:39 -0500
Subject: Re: Blast in Sky Said May Be Meteorite - BYoung


 >Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 15:15:20 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: Blast in Sky Said May Be Meteorite
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 11:47:35 EST
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Blast in Sky Said May Be Meteorite - BYoung

 >I remember seeing a documentary on PBS or somewhere about a
 >group of Japanese architectural students studying ways to make
 >buildings stronger during earthquakes and the like. One of the
 >things they had noticed was that the building at ground zero in
 >Hiroshima was still standing. Though damaged, it was in
 >relatively good condition compared to all the other buildings
 >around it which, when viewed from above, lay in ruins in a
 >circular pattern moving away from the blast point.

 >In turn, they went to Tunguska and found that the trees at
 >ground zero were also still standing, while all the fallen
 >timber around it pointed away from the blast point. It was at
 >this point, I believe, that scientists started considering an
 >aerial blast of some kind.

Hi, Roger:

Yes, I have seen this. The airburst was significant and the
shock wave did the damage. That no meteorites were found has
been a clue that the object may have been a comet. Comets are
less dense (about the same density as water) and most of the
meteors that we see from "showers" are believed to be from
comets. It is thought that none reach the surface. Whereas
meteorites which do reach the surface are thought to be
associated with asteroids, rocky bodies. There is one known and
two possible other exceptions to this, in that one asteroid
(possibly a depleted comet nucleus) is apparently associated
with a meteor shower.

 >In addition, the big surprise was a
 >significant background radiation level that still exists in
 >Tunguska; higher, I believe they said, than that in Hiroshima or
 >Nagasaki, today. In addition, one scientist was studying the way
 >plant life in the Tunguska area has mutated as a result of
 >exposure to said radiation.

This is now thought to be due to Soviet open air nuclear tests
during the 1950s.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 29

              Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Review Debate -

From: Steven R. LaPlume <slaplume@recon-inc.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 06:45:45 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 19:59:38 -0500
Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Review Debate -


[Non-Subscriber Post]


 >Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 13:25:04 -0500
 >From: Kelly Peterborough <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People'

 >>From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Review Debate
 >>Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 21:37:20 -0000

 >>>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Review Debate
 >>>Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 14:35:20 -0000

 >>>>From: Steven R. LaPlume <slaplume@recon-inc.com>
 >>>>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>Subject: 'You Can't Tell The People' - Review Debate
 >>>>Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 08:08:13 -0800


All I was trying to say was that the 'Debate' was more of a cat
fight betweeen two emotional beings and not, in my opinion being
handled like profesionals.

No disrespect intended. I guess I need to blanket apologise on
the post.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 29

                   Re: UFO Skeptics Mailing List - BYoung

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 14:47:30 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 20:02:57 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO Skeptics Mailing List - BYoung


 >Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 16:32:59 +0000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: UFO Skeptics Mailing List

 >>From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: UFO Skeptics Mailing List
 >>Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 12:41:12 -0000

 >>debunk@listbot.com

 >The email address about says it all really, doesn't it.

Dear Sean:

He may not have been able to get a "skeptic" address. Besides,
when I turn to my dictionary I find,


      "Debunk - To reveal the sham, false pretensions, etc., of.
      [bunk]"

(Funk & Wagnalls Standard Dictionary, International Edition,
Volume One: Funk & Wagnals, New York, 1965, p. 331.)


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 >
   Dec > Dec 29

                   Re: UFO Skeptics Mailing List - BYoung

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 15:00:13 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 20:06:35 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO Skeptics Mailing List - BYoung


 >Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 12:18:24 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: UFO Skeptics Mailing List

 >It's only fair that "true believers" on the skeptical end of the
 >UFO spectrum have a forum too. As long as they realize that they
 >too are 'true believers' in their own right, they are as
 >entitled to set up their own Church/congregation as anyone else
 >in ufology. If I may suggest a logo?

 >How about a Pelican wearing fatigues gunning down ufologists
 >(there could be a little heap of bodys laying at his webbed
 >feet) with an AK47?  <LOL>

It would, of course, be a Pelican laying an egg on youse guys.
The weapon would, of course, be the standard for the SAS, not
some Red junk.

 >Best of luck to the Skeptipelibunkers and their new List.

Thank you, sir.


skwua-a-k, skwua-a-k [pelican circling],

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 >
   Dec > Dec 29

                   Re: UFO Skeptics Mailing List - Ledger

From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 16:31:10 +0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 20:09:46 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO Skeptics Mailing List - Ledger


 >Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 12:18:24 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: UFO Skeptics Mailing List

 >>From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: UFO Skeptics Mailing List
 >>Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 12:41:12 -0000

 >>In March 1999, I founded the 'UFO Research List' [UFORL] with
 >>the stated intention of providing, "a discussion forum for
 >>related topics which could be evidenced to have a scientific
 >>foundation. It is not therefore suitable for those who wish to
 >>discuss 'alien abductions', 'MJ-12', etc.".

 ><snip>

 >>There are several mailing lists and forums for 'UFO believers',
 >>some fanatically so and the contents generally expose how
 >>incredibly stupid, not just daft, the majority of what
 >>constitutes 'ufology' actually is.

 >It's only fair that "true believers" on the skeptical end of the
 >UFO spectrum have a forum too. As long as they realize that they
 >too are 'true believers' in their own right, they are as
 >entitled to set up their own Church/congregation as anyone else
 >in ufology. If I may suggest a logo?

 >How about a Pelican wearing fatigues gunning down ufologists
 >(there could be a little heap of bodys laying at his webbed
 >feet) with an AK47?  <LOL>

 >Best of luck to the Skeptipelibunkers and their new List.


Hi John,

What I get a kick out of is his contention that they/he has
solved  a lot of - or that most cases have been debunked using
his "scientific" methods while ignoring the fact that much of
what he has come up with has been debunked by others perhaps
more knowlegable and unrefuted by him.

There ought to be a List that debunks debunkers. Skeptics are
healthy for this field and so are their theories, but not when
they are more off-the-wall than the cases they wish to debunk.
Somewhere there is a middle ground.

I get the feeling that MOD Easton is to skeptology as Adamski is
to ufology.


Don Ledger

PS - How about that Vulcan thing James? You change you mind on
that after I proved that it couldn't have been a "silent" Vulcan
bomber?








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 29

                         Historical Artwork And UFOs

From: Matthew Hurley <m.hurley@ntlworld.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 20:45:04 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 20:11:15 -0500
Subject: Historical Artwork And UFOs


Hello all,

For several years I have been intrigued by pieces of artwork
which appear to depict UFOs. I have now compiled a website of
images, dating from 1330 to 1710.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/m.hurley/index.html


Regards,

Matthew Hurley









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 29

               Re: Blast in Sky Said May Be Meteorite - Ledger

From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 17:18:21 +0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 20:28:28 -0500
Subject: Re: Blast in Sky Said May Be Meteorite - Ledger


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 14:32:07 EST
 >Subject: Re: Blast in Sky Said May Be Meteorite
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 15:15:20 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Blast in Sky Said May Be Meteorite
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 11:47:35 EST
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Re: Blast in Sky Said May Be Meteorite - BYoung

 >>I remember seeing a documentary on PBS or somewhere about a
 >>group of Japanese architectural students studying ways to make
 >>buildings stronger during earthquakes and the like. One of the
 >>things they had noticed was that the building at ground zero in
 >>Hiroshima was still standing. Though damaged, it was in
 >>relatively good condition compared to all the other buildings
 >>around it which, when viewed from above, lay in ruins in a
 >>circular pattern moving away from the blast point.

 >>In turn, they went to Tunguska and found that the trees at
 >>ground zero were also still standing, while all the fallen
 >>timber around it pointed away from the blast point. It was at
 >>this point, I believe, that scientists started considering an
 >>aerial blast of some kind.

 >Hi, Roger:

 >Yes, I have seen this. The airburst was significant and the
 >shock wave did the damage. That no meteorites were found has
 >been a clue that the object may have been a comet. Comets are
 >less dense (about the same density as water) and most of the
 >meteors that we see from "showers" are believed to be from
 >comets. It is thought that none reach the surface. Whereas
 >meteorites which do reach the surface are thought to be
 >associated with asteroids, rocky bodies. There is one known and
 >two possible other exceptions to this, in that one asteroid
 >(possibly a depleted comet nucleus) is apparently associated
 >with a meteor shower.

 >>In addition, the big surprise was a
 >>significant background radiation level that still exists in
 >>Tunguska; higher, I believe they said, than that in Hiroshima or
 >>Nagasaki, today. In addition, one scientist was studying the way
 >>plant life in the Tunguska area has mutated as a result of
 >>exposure to said radiation.

 >This is now thought to be due to Soviet open air nuclear tests
 >during the 1950s.


Hi Bob,

Re. the latter. Any site I can go to, or what have you, that
would elaborate on that theory? Seems to me I've read that it is
localized, a higher than normal background radiation level. And
why just the Tunguska area?

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 >
   Dec > Dec 29

             Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 15:31:18 -0600
Fwd Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 20:33:18 -0500
Subject: Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages - Evans


 >From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 13:45:42 EST
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages -

 >>Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 07:27:25 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, Jim wrote:

 >Hey Roge,

 >Not to burst your buboe, but the millenny yum yum really does
 >begin on January 1, 2001. I got that from the Milly, Emmy and
 >Yum Yum book on dates. Not UpDates mind you, just regular ones.

 >Yes, it's too true. Counting the new century beginning
 >after the first year after people think it started, but didn't.
 >Disguised as a mild mannered first year after the one
 >they thought it was but wasn't, started the one that really
 >is and will be 'CAUS it ain't happened yet.

 >Unnastan? Want proof? Uh, well.... aks Peter.

 >Cheese, I gotta splain everything?

 >Jim

Hi, Jim!

Actually, I had addressed this issue in a previous thread that,
apparently, went ignored. I used to think the same thing as you.
Then I read a really good article by a mathmatician/bible
scholar that made perfect sense. Here is a recap of his position
as well as some of my own observations:


For starters, decades are named by the first in line of
progression. For instance, the 60's started with 1960, not, say,
1961. The same with the 70's, 80's and, most importantly, the
90's which, of course, started with 1990 and not 1991.
Therefore, from a purely mathematical standpoint, the ten year
period of the 90's ended at midnight on the last day of 1999,
which means that the new decade of the new millennium started on
January 1, 2000. Likewise, THAT decade will end at midnight on
the last day of 2009.

You are correct when you pointed out that there was no year
"zero". However, virtually all math and bible scholars feel that
was an oversight by the Gregorian monk that came up with the
system that we use today. Again, from a mathematical standpoint,
look at the difference between the year 10 AD and 10 BC.
Mathematically, it should be 20 but, in fact, is only 19 because
the year "zero" had been left out. Oops!

Now from a purely religious standpoint, one might say that math
doesn't come into play, since the calendar is marked off from
the time Christ came into being and that there can be no "zero"
moment.

However, there are two big problems with this method. First, and
most importantly, no one is really sure when Christ was born. I
have read (and I do not have the reference material at hand,
sorry) that the best that can be guessed is about a 3 to 5 year
margin of error, according to the biblical scholars from both
the Jewish and Christian sides of the fence. Compounding this, I
believe, is how the calendar was "adjusted" by the Romans to
coincide with the coming of spring and the closing of winter and
the such. (Let's just slide these months around, here and
there!)

Also to be considered, of course, is the notion of when life
really begins. Fundamentalists believe that it begins in the
womb at the moment of conception. Therefore, the margin goes
from being a 1 year difference to only a 3 month difference! I'm
no fundamentalist, however, 9 months of existence would
certainly account for a pretty complete "Year Zero" by almost
anyone's standards. (anyone who disagrees has never had a
pregnant wife! ;)

However, we certainly don't entertain the notion that the
millennium ends 9 months before or 3 months after the year 2000
or vice versa; too complicated. Therefore, the calendar is
merely a convenient reference tool. We like things to be nice
and neat and even. Thus, the decade of 1990 has only 10 years
and not 11, as would be required if the millennium started in
2001. (remember, 1990 is a part of the decade, too)

In all, if you consider that adding 9 years to 1990 clearly
brings you to the end of 1999 and the fact that the margin of
error for calculating Christ's birth is greater than the 1 year
difference we are speaking of (and certainly far greater than a
3 month difference as required by fundamentalists), then it is
more logical to see the closing of the millennium as being
midnight, 1999.

And, of course, all this has nothing to do with ETs or 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 >
   Dec > Dec 29

                  Re: UFO Skeptics Mailing List - Salvaille

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 18:50:40 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 20:35:03 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO Skeptics Mailing List - Salvaille


 >From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: UFO Skeptics Mailing List
 >Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 12:41:12 -0000

<God whole mighty snips>

 >'Ufology', per se, clearly has little time for anything which
 >threatens to expose how 'UFOs', especially 'classic cases', have
 >a mundane explanation. At times, as we know, the adverse
 >reaction can be fanatically hostile. Worse still, would be
 >revealing the abject folly of what are in many instances
 >effectively religious beliefs.

 >However, during the past year UFORL has steadily become a forum
 >which has factually set straight an exceptional amount of UFO
 >mythology, an achievement most 'ufologists' would denounce as
 >'debunking'. Alternatively, as we have seen in a number of
 >instances, they will simply ignore the facts unravelled.

<snip>

 >To recap: the UFO Skeptics list is open to subscription from
 >those who advocate and adopt an unfailing, critical appraisal of
 >any purported 'UFO' related evidence. That means *all* cases.

 >Obviously, equally important is an appreciation that should any
 >evidence successfully pass through the bullshit filter, then it
 >might be worth something and this is always a recognised
 >possibility.

<snip>

Dear James, and List,

I suggest you re-read yourself before posting. For a moment I
thought we were near the wrong millenium... the last one... you
know, year 1000 and the following centuries of obscurantism?

Fortunately I woke up in time with the gem:

 >an achievement most 'ufologists' would denounce as
 >'debunking'

followed by:

 >The address for all postings will be:

 >debunk@listbot.com

Looks like intellectual suicide or some flash of lucidity.

I vote for the former: nobody can keep up with this kind of
stuff very long and pretend sanity.

Happy THIRD millenium.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 29

             Re: 01-05-00 Illinois UFO Reconstruction - Kelleher

From: Colm Kelleher <nids@anv.net>
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 15:54:47 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 20:39:51 -0500
Subject: Re: 01-05-00 Illinois UFO Reconstruction - Kelleher


 >From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: 01-05-00 Illinois UFO Reconstruction
 >Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 00:05:08 -0800

 >>Date: 27 Dec 2000 19:17:44 -0000
 >>To: UFO UpDates <updates@sympatico.ca
 >>From: Colm Kelleher - NIDS <nids@earthlink.net
 >>Subject: The January 5, 2000 Illinois UFO Reconstruction


 >There seems to be some obstacles for the "military stealth
 >craft" hypothesis:

 >1. Since when is the military testing highly classified
 >equipment in highly populated areas....?

 >2. ...and without any apparent notice to civil air traffic?

 >3. ...and obviously ignoring air traffic rules?

 >If it's not without civil traffic notification, then I suppose
 >one can find private pilots who _must_ have been restrained from
 >taking the air during the alleged field trip?

 >4. If it's supposed to be stealth, why so many lights?

 >5. Is the "military stealth craft" hypothesis thrown in for
 >apparence of objectivity, or is there ground for such
 >hypothesis?


Mr. Salvaille,

Yes, we agree to some extent with all your points. Yet, the
"military stealth craft" hypothesis remains easily falsifiable
(with standard Popperian criteria) by hundreds, if not
thousands, of people who work in the military and government in
this country (and perhaps overseas). We are continuing to
investigate hypothesis #2 for this reason.


Best wishes,

Colm Kelleher
NIDS








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 29

                Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages -

From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 20:23:37 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 20:43:51 -0500
Subject: Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages -


 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 14:11:07 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages ->Velez


 >>From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages
 >>Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 17:24:13 -0800

 >>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

 >>CAUS Director Peter A. Gersten continues, in usual fashion, to
 >>deliver strange messages via his CAUS Updates e-mail list. For
 >>over the past month, Gersten has been doing a countdown to the
 >>New Year paying a visit to the old school of New Millennium
 >>madness. Many of Gersten's messages are disjointed and hint at
 >>some new pending apocalypse.

 >>This is not the first time Gersten has posted strange messages
 >>via CAUS Updates.

 >Ahhhh, Barry Greenwood... where are you now? Your beloved>CAUS
 >(Citizens Against UFO Secrecy) lies in a heap of ashes. Standing
 >in the middle of it all is the madman Nero, playing his fiddle
 >while everything all around him crashes and burns. No CAUS to
 >fret. CAUS is no more.

<snip>

 >What Barry Greenwood and all the former membership of
 >CAUS _should_ have done was to immediately regroup under
 >a new banner, and just move on from there. Gersten and Greer
 >have been _enabled_ by the apathy of others to remove the
 >power and the voice of the People from the political arena
 >where UFOs are concerned. Gersten ruined the 'vehicle' by
 >flattening its tires, and Greer has silenced everyone by
 >appointing himself 'our voice' among our own elected officials.

 >Am I the only one that sees something terribly wrong with all of
 >that?


John,

Barry Greenwood is alive and well and continuing his research on
other venues. Some are available on the web.


Greenwood archives:

http://www.project1947.com/shg/grnwood.htm#bibs

"UFOs:  Government Involvement, Security and Documents"

http://www.project1947.com/bg/ufogov.htm

He continue to publish the "U. F. O. Historical Revue"
back issues are  available at CUFON

http://www.cufon.com

Those that appreciate hard, verifiable information will like
these sites. Those who prefer spashy, sensation, and most
unfounded claims will quickly move on to something else.

Regards,

Jan Aldrich







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 30

                  Re: UFO Skeptics Mailing List - Salvaille

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 22:11:39 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 09:27:55 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO Skeptics Mailing List - Salvaille


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com
 >Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 14:47:30 EST
 >Subject: Re: UFO Skeptics Mailing List
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 16:32:59 +0000
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca
 >>From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk
 >>Subject: Re: UFO Skeptics Mailing List

 >>>From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: UFO Skeptics Mailing List
 >>>Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 12:41:12 -0000


<snip>

 >>>debunk@listbot.com

 >>The email address about says it all really, doesn't it.

 >Dear Sean:

 >He may not have been able to get a "skeptic" address. Besides,
 >when I turn to my dictionary I find,


 >"Debunk - To reveal the sham, false pretensions, etc., of.
 >[bunk]"

 >(Funk & Wagnalls Standard Dictionary, International Edition,
 >Volume One: Funk & Wagnals, New York, 1965, p. 331.)

<snip>


Hello Bob, Sean and List,

Well, that's an interesting one. My perception of "to debunk"
always related to the following:

"bullshit
Date: circa 1942
intransitive senses

1 usually vulgar: to talk foolishly, boastfully, or idly

2 usually vulgar: to engage in a discursive discussion
transitive senses, usually vulgar: to talk nonsense to
especially with the intention of deceiving or misleading"

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

(Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary)


Thanks for the precision. In the future I shall refrain from
using the term "debunker" when referring to intention of
deceiving or misleading. And to avoid monotonous repeats, I may
even throw in some thesaural references to "bullshit" found on
the same site.

"Synonyms NONSENSE 2, balderdash, ||baloney, ||bull, bunkum,
||crap, hooey, *horseshit, malarkey, poppycock"

May fog dissipate over your head,

Happy millenium,








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 30

                    Re: UFO Skeptics Mailing List - Hale

From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 03:12:34 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 09:33:13 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO Skeptics Mailing List - Hale


 >From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: UFO Skeptics Mailing List
 >Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 12:41:12 -0000

<snip>

 >A certain UK 'UFO' magazine has become one of the worst
 >offenders, becoming a magazine/organisation that long seems to
 >have given up any facade to standards. If it will sell, then
 >publish it - the more it sells, then that's what we should be
 >publishing...


Hi,

I think you will only have to look at any magazine out there at
this time, and realize there is a constant battle for
readership.

You are right if it sells then publish it, this just does not
relate to the UFO subject. Main stream publishing media has long
held this concept, and one which is repeated again and again,
and the public don't seem to mind one bit (apart from a few
sceptics)!

I take it James you haven't and will not publish any of your
research in this "certain UK 'UFO' magazine " for the reasons
you have stated?

But I also think your Mailing List is a dangerous idea, this is
only further separation of those who believe and those don't.
Again the only result of such a List surely will be a wider gap
in ever coming to a joint conclusion on any UFO case, that is
being highlighted.

Let's take UpDates as a great example.

This list serves both you and me. I believe in ET - you don't.
Others agree with you and some with me. Don't you think that
debate like this is healthy? If we all go off on our own little
separate Lists then we don't have that other sided opinion, just
believers talking to believers, and sceptics talking to other
sceptics. Will this bring us any progress?.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 30

                   Re: UFO Skeptics Mailing List - Nolane

From: Richard D. Nolane <raynaud@total.net>
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 22:28:28 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 09:35:31 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO Skeptics Mailing List - Nolane


 >From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: UFO Skeptics Mailing List
 >Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 12:41:12 -0000

 >In March 1999, I founded the 'UFO Research List' [UFORL] with
 >the stated intention of providing, "a discussion forum for
 >related topics which could be evidenced to have a scientific
 >foundation. It is not therefore suitable for those who wish to
 >discuss 'alien abductions', 'MJ-12', etc.".

 >Since then, UFORL has seen over 2,800 postings, many of which
 >were landmark contributions to 'UFO' research.


Oh, oh, a new science is born: ornitho-ufology...

Now, the good old Mount Rainier pelicans have found a friendly
nest.

"Scientific foundation" for this crazy bird tale? A good idea
of what kind of "landmark contributions to 'UFO' research" we
can find on this List.

And sorry for my pelican English, I'm just an alien.

Happy New Year,


RDN









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 30

                            AFR 205-1 PDF On-Line

From: Jim Klotz <jklotz77@foxinternet.net>
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 23:00:38 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 09:40:17 -0500
Subject: AFR 205-1 PDF On-Line


Folks,

Dated December 15 1953, US Air Force Regulation (AFR) 205-1,
'SECURITY: Safeguarding Military Information', prescribes
policies and procedures for identifying, classifying, and
protecting official information which required safeguarding in
the interests of the defense of the United States. These
procedures applied throughout the Air Force.

A great value of this regulation is as a reference as to how
classified material was actually handled; information applicable
to several of the recent discussion threads on this and other
email Lists. It contains detailed procedures for all aspects of
creating, sending, receiving, storing, disseminating, and the
destruction of classified material as practiced by the US Air
Force at the time.

I have posted a .PDF version of 1953 USAF regulation AFR
205-1 in two parts at:

http://www.cufon.org/pdf/AFR205-1_p1.pdf
and
http://www.cufon.org/pdf/AFR205-1_p2.pdf

A HTML version of this regulation may be viewed at:

http://www.cufon.org/cufon/AFR205-1.htm

- Jim Klotz







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 30

                    McDaniel Leaves Mars Cydonia Research

From: Kurt Jonach <ewarrior@electricwarrior.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 00:07:39 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 09:43:12 -0500
Subject: McDaniel Leaves Mars Cydonia Research


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

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

The Electric Warrior: News December 29, 2000
http://www.electricwarrior.com/news/ewNews0004.htm

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

McDANIEL LEAVES MARS CYDONIA RESEARCH

On the eve of the new Millennium, Professor Stanley McDaniel,
best known for his support of the theory of an artificial face
on the surface of Mars, has left Cydonia research behind, with
an uncompromising statement regarding the Face and other objects
in the region: "The question of possible artificiality remains
open."

In a special message for The McDaniel Report Newsletter Website,
McDaniel gave a sweeping history encompassing six years of
research, "We have seen accelerated research, new discoveries,
communication with NASA and then a return to NASA's previous
recalcitrance, and finally, with the Mars Global Surveyor, new
data."

McDaniel is highly regarded among Mars Cydonia researchers for
his 1993 'The McDaniel Report', a comprehensive study that
critiques NASA's failure to evaluate highly qualified, but
independent research, about unusual phenomenon photographed by
Viking Orbiter missions to Mars.

McDaniel founded the Society for Planetary SETI Research (SPSR)
on the assumption that it was just as reasonable to search for
evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence inside our solar
system, as it was to search for evidence outside it, via SETI.
SPSR members sought to bring investigation of Martian anomalies
into the scientific mainstream.

SPSR's efforts resulted in a November 1997 meeting with NASA,
subsequently hailed on McDaniel's Website as a communications
breakthrough, breaking the news to a booming Internet Mars
Cydonia subculture that NASA's Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft,
already orbiting Mars, would be taking images of the Face.

"The meeting with Society for Planetary SETI Research (SPSR)
scientists that November seemed to constitute a tentative
recognition by NASA of the scientific legitimacy of the Cydonia
question," wrote McDaniel, in an editorial commentary, 'The
Cydonia Question: Where Do We Stand?' By that time, a
notoriously distorted 1998 image of the Face had reduced public
perception of the phenomenon to being nothing but a pile of
rocks.

Undaunted, McDaniel pointed to statements by Dr. Carl Sagan, who
said the hypothesis that certain structures at Cydonia may be
artificial is falsifiable. Sagan's argument seemed to bring the
issue into the scientific arena.

As early as 1980, Sagan had argued in favor of a tolerance for
ambiguity regarding the question of life on Mars, in his book
'Cosmos', "There seem to be many people who simply wish to be
told an answer, any answer, and thereby avoid the burden of
keeping two mutually exclusive possibilities in their heads at
the same time."

Among Cydonia researchers, Stanley McDaniel seemed to appreciate
that scientific ambiguity, alluding to it in a lecture delivered
to the community of Harpenden, England: "All there has to be is
the fact that it is a Face, and we do not know for sure what is
its origin. That is sufficient to send many messages from Mars
to Earth."

------------------------------------------------------------
RELATED STORIES

A special message from Professor Stanley V. McDaniel

http://www.mcdanielreport.com


The Internet's first high scale composite of Mars Cydonia

http://www.electricwarrior.com/img/ewCydonia2000.jpg

------------------------------------------------------------
THE ELECTRIC WARRIOR
December 29, 2000
Silicon Valley, CA
http://www.electricwarrior.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Permission is granted to reproduce or redistribute this article
or any portion thereof, provided The Electric Warrior is cited
as the source.

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

Webmasters, the permanent URL address for this content is:
http://www.electricwarrior.com/news/ewNews0004.htm

eWarrior@electricwarrior.com








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 30

                 Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs - Pressley

From: Loy Pressley <lkpres@koyote.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 02:37:05 -0600
Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 09:44:38 -0500
Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs - Pressley


 >From: Matthew Hurley <m.hurley@ntlworld.com>
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Historical Artwork And UFOs
 >Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 20:45:04 -0000

 >Hello all,

 >For several years I have been intrigued by pieces of artwork
 >which appear to depict UFOs. I have now compiled a website of
 >images, dating from 1330 to 1710.

 >http://homepage.ntlworld.com/m.hurley/index.html

Thanks for posting this. I had no idea that there were so many.
The one of the crucifixion is especially impressive.

Are there alternate explanations for the clearly disc like
objects which appear in these paintings?

Loy








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 30

             Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 01:20:36 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 09:51:20 -0500
Subject: Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages - Hatch


 >From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 13:45:42 EST
 >Subject: Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 07:27:25 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
 >>>Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 17:24:13 -0800
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages

<snip>

 >>Of course, maybe he's from Florida. The end didn't come last
 >>year and now he wants a recount to try again!


 >Hey Roge,

 >Not to burst your buboe, but the millenny yum yum really does
 >begin on January 1, 2001. I got that from the Milly, Emmy and
 >Yum Yum book on dates. Not UpDates mind you, just regular ones.

 >Yes, it's too true. Counting the new century beginning
 >after the first year after people think it started, but didn't.
 >Disguised as a mild mannered first year after the one
 >they thought it was but wasn't, started the one that really
 >is and will be 'CAUS it ain't happened yet.

 >Unnastan? Want proof? Uh, well.... aks Peter.

 >Cheese, I gotta splain everything?


Dear Jimbo:

You are quite right of course, about the millennium starting at
the stroke of midnight 2001. That's only a day or two so what
the heck? The nice part is there's no Y2K+1 problem, that got
fixed last year.

The ancient Hebrews (_very_ unlike modern ones) weren't very
good with numbers. One book of the old Testament has some holy
circular construction - or maybe a bird bath... I dunno - ten
cubits in diameter so that it measured 30 cubits round-about.
Not bad, they were off by a factor of pi/3. Less than a 5%
error, its still enough to needle the fundamentalists a little
bit!

The number zero came to us via the Arabs of all things, along
with the set of "arabic numerals".

"How can you have a number that means nothing?" the early
Europeans must have asked. "How can there be a number for _no_
goats, no sheep, no apples whatever?"

"If I no cows, I have no number of cows, and there can be no
such number!" They might object.

Its a bit like explaining negative numbers to somebody who never
balanced an overdrawn checkbook I suppose.

It has become convention to regard a new century as starting
when the big digits roll over, yes. Those who think irrational
numbers don't make any sense, that imaginary numbers don't
exist, all had their fling a year ago - so did all those
retired FORTRAN and COBOL programmers!

My fridge is well stocked for the new millennium! [Burp!] and
I just cracked a few to make sure they were nice and cold.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 30

                   Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 02:59:44 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 09:53:26 -0500
Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs - Hatch


 >From: Matthew Hurley <m.hurley@ntlworld.com>
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Historical Artwork And UFOs
 >Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 20:45:04 -0000

 >Hello all,

 >For several years I have been intrigued by pieces of artwork
 >which appear to depict UFOs. I have now compiled a website of
 >images, dating from 1330 to 1710.

 >http://homepage.ntlworld.com/m.hurley/index.html


Hello Matthew:

That is one interesting and beautiful collection there!

The difficulty, for me at least, is distinguishing religious
symbolism ( a rich, varied and imaginative  factor ) from
anything factual or historical.

The 1530 Fresco from Kosovo is most intriguing. If it is Christ
being carried away by a fanciful comet (or whatever) it could
indeed me (mis)interpreted as some sort of craft. As for the
Christ figure, if that's what was intended, it looks more like a
simian than a religious figure!

I presume we have the Apostles in the lower left-hand corner.

Whoever created this fresco in 1530 must have raised some
eyebrows back then in any case!


Best wishes

- Larry Hatch








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 30

                    Re: UFO Skeptics Mailing List - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 03:48:33 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 09:58:02 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO Skeptics Mailing List - Hatch


 >Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 16:31:10 +0000
 >From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: UFO Skeptics Mailing List

 >>Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 12:18:24 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: UFO Skeptics Mailing List

 >>>From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: UFO Skeptics Mailing List
 >>>Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 12:41:12 -0000

 >>>In March 1999, I founded the 'UFO Research List' [UFORL] with
 >>>the stated intention of providing, "a discussion forum for
 >>>related topics which could be evidenced to have a scientific
 >>>foundation. It is not therefore suitable for those who wish to
 >>>discuss 'alien abductions', 'MJ-12', etc.".

 >><snip>

 >>>There are several mailing lists and forums for 'UFO believers',
 >>>some fanatically so and the contents generally expose how
 >>>incredibly stupid, not just daft, the majority of what
 >>>constitutes 'ufology' actually is.

 >>It's only fair that "true believers" on the skeptical end of the
 >>UFO spectrum have a forum too. As long as they realize that they
 >>too are 'true believers' in their own right, they are as
 >>entitled to set up their own Church/congregation as anyone else
 >>in ufology. If I may suggest a logo?

 >>How about a Pelican wearing fatigues gunning down ufologists
 >>(there could be a little heap of bodys laying at his webbed
 >>feet) with an AK47? <LOL>

 >>Best of luck to the Skeptipelibunkers and their new List.

 >Hi John,

 >What I get a kick out of is his contention that they/he has
 >solved a lot of - or that most cases have been debunked using
 >his "scientific" methods while ignoring the fact that much of
 >what he has come up with has been debunked by others perhaps
 >more knowlegable and unrefuted by him.

 >There ought to be a List that debunks debunkers. Skeptics are
 >healthy for this field and so are their theories, but not when
 >they are more off-the-wall than the cases they wish to debunk.
 >Somewhere there is a middle ground.

 >I get the feeling that MOD Easton is to skeptology as Adamski is
 >to ufology.

 >Don Ledger

 >PS - How about that Vulcan thing James? You change you mind on
 >that after I proved that it couldn't have been a "silent" Vulcan
 >bomber?

Hello Don:

One good point that Easton made was that there is some middle
ground, a narrow strip indeed.

For me this is a precious and scarce zone, with a few people who
are neither automatically dismissive nor automatically
credulous.

Quite naturally, they must be skeptical (in the wholesome sense)
of extraordinary claims. To be otherwise is to abandon the one
most useful tool in this UFO quagmire, our ability to reason and
question.

I "believe" that there is the occasional pearl out in the sea,
even though I have never found one myself. I base this on the
reports of others, which seem to indicate that they not only
exist, but command high prices. For all I know, the ones I did
see - in some storefront - were fake, cultured or otherwise not
the genuine article. I still think there are natural pearls.

By "believe", I mean I assign a high probability.....

I disbelieve - low probability - in the Easter Bunny; at least
as described to me at a tender age. This is in spite of having
found some good evidence... white pawprints leading to a basket
of goodies! Careful sniffing indicated that the footprints were
made of talcum powder. I need not go on with the smoking socks,
nor the good loving parents! May they rest in peace!

The whole matter of UFOs is a mess. I cannot blame some healthy
skepticism, especially when clowns like - insert names here -
blow off their blatant clap-trap.

It is a smallish minority that take a balanced view to such
matters. Frankly, I try to ignore the polemics of extremists on
either side of the fence; but occasionally dive in when one or
another gets just too too ripe.

It would serve us all better if we stick to the cases; the
evidence and/or lack of it, and whatever little can be
ascertained with some credibility. In short, while most of us -
myself included - cannot call ourselves scientists, I propose
that we adopt and maintain the scientific method for our
studies. Anything short of that is CO2 in the wind.


Best wishes

- Larry Hatch

PS: Burp... mostly CO2







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 30

                        Professor Stanley V. McDaniel

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 10:48:31 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 10:48:31 -0500
Subject: Professor Stanley V. McDaniel




From: UFO UpDates - Toronto

Source: http://www.mcdanielreport.com/

NOTICE TO READERS

A special message from Professor Stanley V. McDaniel

The McDaniel Report Newsletter has been informing readers of the
latest activities on the part of the scientists in the Society
for Planetary SETI research for a period of almost six years. In
that time, we have seen accelerated research, new discoveries,
communication with NASA and then a return to NASA's previous
recalcitrance, and finally, with the Mars Global Surveyor, new
data. The SPSR report on the best images of the Face and other
objects from MGS concludes, and rightly so, that the question of
possible artificiality remains open. Nothing in the new data,
including the new image of the Face, goes contrary to the
implications of the previous Viking images. Indeed, the Face
image acquired by MGS, though badly processed by NASA in its
initial release to the media, is essentially consistent with the
Viking images and includes some features not previously seen
that tend to support the hypothesis of artificiality. SPSR
scientists have therefore continued to work on the available
data and to press NASA to obtain further and better imagery of
the Cydonia region.

It is gratifying to me personally to know that I was the
original organizer of SPSR, which has since contributed so much
to Mars anomaly research and will undoubtedly continue to pursue
the search for possible signs of intelligent habitation on
planets of the solar system, primarily of course Mars and the
Moon. As an international research team the members of SPSR have
had some influence on NASA, have issued the definitive book on
the topic (The Case for the Face), and have helped to move the
topice of planetary SETI out of the realm of wild speculation
and into the realm of legitimate scientific research. In
addition they have established a model for SETI research in
general, by incorporating in their ranks representatives from
all the necessary disciplines--not just geologists and
astronomers as we generally find in NASA, but also anthropology,
philosophy, archaeology, high-tech image processing, and other
fields whose expertise is needed in order to properly evaluate
the question of what constitutes a possible sign of former
intelligent occupation.

It is with some regret then that I must announce that because of
family and other personal considerations, I will no longer be
able to update this website. SPSR activities and results will,
however, be reported as they occur on the websites that have
been established by SPSR members, particularly Dr. Mark J.
Carlotto's site. As I am not updating this site, some of the
material will be out of date, and some links may no longer work.
However, there are research papers, lectures, and reports that
will continue to be of interest even if only as an historical
record of the activities of SPSR over the past several years.
Therefore the site will remain in existence for at least the
year 2001. I am indebted to Mr. Stephen Corrick, SPSR advisor
and literary agent, for the financing of the site to enable it
to remain for the time being.

For those who may have had an interest in my own activities,
including Mars anomaly research but also my writing in the area
of philosophy, eastern thought, and musical composition, I will
be providing another website, www.stanmcdaniel.com, which will
become active shortly after Jan. 1, 2001. Finally, my sincere
thanks to the many, many readers who have encouraged my work on
this topic and over the past several years sent me messages of
support and information about possible anomalies.

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/


See also:

http://www.electricwarrior.com/news/ewNews0004.htm

ebk







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 30

               Re: Follow-up on Calama UFO by Sanchez Ocejo -

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@juno.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 09:52:48 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 11:53:05 -0500
Subject: Re: Follow-up on Calama UFO by Sanchez Ocejo -


 >Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 09:47:11 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Follow-up on Calama UFO by Sanchez Ocejo
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@juno.com>
 >>Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 11:52:58 -0500
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Follow-up on Calama UFO by Sanchez Ocejo


 >Hi, Scott!

 >If the police ordered everyone to keep quiet, then why is
 >everyone talking about it? Odd, isn't it, that the neighbors say
 >"We can't say a word." but then go on to talk about how they've
 >lost many animals due to this "thing". The fact that this info
 >is now in a public forum like UpDates certainly raises some
 >validity issues regarding the claims of silence. The panic that
 >police supposedly feared certainly doesn't seem to have
 >manifested itself, despite all the chit-chat.


Hi Roger, and Happy Holidays to you!

I think that neither you nor I have had the personal misfortune
of living in a country that emerged from one of the 20th
century's worst bouts of totalitarianism. Although Chile is
nominally a democracy, the military still wields enormous power
and will not be gainsaid (if you don't believe me, just follow
the mainstream press' accounts on the Pinochet matter--part of
the "agreement" to bring in this much vaunted democracy involved
making Gen. Pinochet a "Senator for Life"--although Strom
Thurmond has had the honor for a long time...).

I would urge you, therefore, to visit Dr. Sanchez's superb
website to see for yourself the information being supplied by
Jaime Ferrer, a local businessman from Calama, who has people
come up and tell him these things in confidence, perhaps aware
that their situation may become known outside of Chile thanks to
the Internet. Otherwise there is silence--my last post on the
Chilean Chupacabras was sometime in mid-summer, before the lid
was clamped from above. The animal exsanguinations continue, as
you will learn from Dr. Sanchez's site.

As to the silence factor: the urge to speak your mind in a
repressive society transcends even the need for personal safety,
which is why people occasionally gamble with "breaking the code
of silence". The only example I can give you is a personal one:
while living in Mexico City in 1973 in a high rise apartment, I
was stunned to see a bus go past the window bearing a scathing
message against then-president Echeverria. Many crackdowns
against the vaguely left-wing student organizations of the time
had not quelled the urge to speak out--even if it meant using
the roofs of buses, normally invisible to the public, as the
only safe place to express "vox populi".

 >Regarding the "unidentified agency"; if true, wouldn't
 >remuneration for animal loss be incentive to fake such events? I
 >don't know what the economy is like there, but that's kind of
 >like giving counterfeiters a real $20 dollar bill for every fake
 >they turn in.

Again, you're giving the Chilean farmers involved very
sophisticated motives, like pulling off frauds. A live goat,
sheep or horse is worth more to them than a reimbursement that
might/might not come from the government. At the risk of turning
conspiratorial here, who's to say that if any money has indeed
been disbursed, it's from a government agency and not a private
enterprise, like the huge mining concerns that have a vested
interest in keeping the rhythm of work unbroken by any
extraneous forces. If we were dealing with insurgents and not
blood predators, a similar pattern of behavior might also be
seen. Then again, this is just speculation.

 >Seems fishy...

Ha, ha!! Roswell seems fishy. This doesn't. :-D

Scott







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 30

               Re: Blast in Sky Said May Be Meteorite - BYoung

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 10:23:13 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 11:54:58 -0500
Subject: Re: Blast in Sky Said May Be Meteorite - BYoung


 >Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 17:18:21 +0000
 >From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Blast in Sky Said May Be Meteorite

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 14:32:07 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Blast in Sky Said May Be Meteorite
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 15:15:20 -0600
 >>>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: Blast in Sky Said May Be Meteorite
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>In addition, the big surprise was a
 >>>significant background radiation level that still exists in
 >>>Tunguska; higher, I believe they said, than that in Hiroshima or
 >>>Nagasaki, today. In addition, one scientist was studying the way
 >>>plant life in the Tunguska area has mutated as a result of
 >>>exposure to said radiation.

 >>This is now thought to be due to Soviet open air nuclear tests
 >>during the 1950s.

 >Hi Bob,

 >Re. the latter. Any site I can go to, or what have you, that
 >would elaborate on that theory? Seems to me I've read that it is
 >localized, a higher than normal background radiation level. And
 >why just the Tunguska area?

Don:

I can't remember, off-hand, where I saw this. There was a
serious accident, I think in the 50s or 60s at a nuclear storage
facility in the USSR. That also could have been responsible.
Perhaps it was downwind. I'll see if I can find a source.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 30

              The New Millenium - [was: Gersten Generates More

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 09:37:58 -0600
Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 11:57:25 -0500
Subject: The New Millenium - [was: Gersten Generates More


 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 01:20:36 -0800
 >Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 09:51:20 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages - Hatch

 >>From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >>Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 13:45:42 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, Larry wrote:

 >You are quite right of course, about the millennium starting at
 >the stroke of midnight 2001. That's only a day or two so what
 >the heck? The nice part is there's no Y2K+1 problem, that got
 >fixed last year.

<snip>

 >It has become convention to regard a new century as starting
 >when the big digits roll over, yes. Those who think irrational
 >numbers don't make any sense, that imaginary numbers don't
 >exist, all had their fling a year ago - so did all those
 >retired FORTRAN and COBOL programmers!

 >My fridge is well stocked for the new millennium! [Burp!] and
 >I just cracked a few to make sure they were nice and cold.

Hi, Larry!

I used to think the same as you about 2001 being the new
millennium. However, since no one really knows when Christ was
born, and that there is, at best, a 5 year margin for error
according to biblical scholars, I don't think anyone can say
when the new millennium really starts. Thus the A.D. calendar is
merely a convenient tool for reference; it is not a massive stop
watch that started at a specific moment in time. Again,
fundamentalists believe that life starts at the moment of
(immaculate?) conception. That date would push the new
millennium to around March 25th of 2000 or so. Why not round
down to January? After all, what's 3 months among friends?

Actually, Bob Young wrote to me and probably put it best. He
said that the new Millennium is what anyone wants to make of it.


Have a happy new year!

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 >
   Dec > Dec 30

                  Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs - Ledger

From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 12:15:09 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 12:01:30 -0500
Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs - Ledger


 >Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 02:59:44 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs

 >>From: Matthew Hurley <m.hurley@ntlworld.com>
 >>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Historical Artwork And UFOs
 >>Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 20:45:04 -0000

 >>Hello all,

 >>For several years I have been intrigued by pieces of artwork
 >>which appear to depict UFOs. I have now compiled a website of
 >>images, dating from 1330 to 1710.

 >>http://homepage.ntlworld.com/m.hurley/index.html

 >Hello Matthew:

 >That is one interesting and beautiful collection there!

 >The difficulty, for me at least, is distinguishing religious
 >symbolism ( a rich, varied and imaginative  factor ) from
 >anything factual or historical.

 >The 1530 Fresco from Kosovo is most intriguing. If it is Christ
 >being carried away by a fanciful comet (or whatever) it could
 >indeed me (mis)interpreted as some sort of craft. As for the
 >Christ figure, if that's what was intended, it looks more like a
 >simian than a religious figure!

 >I presume we have the Apostles in the lower left-hand corner.

 >Whoever created this fresco in 1530 must have raised some
 >eyebrows back then in any case!


Hi Larry and List

For me the most striking is the painting by "the flemish artist
Aert De Gelder - 'The Baptism of Christ' painted in 1710 and
hangs in the Fitzwilliam Musuem, Cambridge".

I don't think there is any mistaking the disc-shaped object that
is emitting beams of light and illuminating John the Baptist and
Jesus. From where do you suppose de Gelder came up with that
idea?

I've shown the The Madonna with Saint Giovannino painted by
Domenico Ghirlandino at a few library talks to those interested
and never fail to get a few comments of puzzlement and surprise
after I tell them it was painted in the 15th century. I think
it's the guy with the dog that tends to bring it home. It has an
ordinariness about it - like this happens all the time.

So let's throw one of these 'chariots of the angels' into the
painting, they are up there all of the time anyway. "Swing low,
sweet chariot, comin' for to carry me home."

Anybody ever wonder about that?

What puzzles me is if these things were showing up in paintings,
where are the historical references to them? Where's the text?
Are they there and we miss them because they are couched in
terms of the day that we either don't recognize or we
misinterpret?


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 >
   Dec > Dec 31

                Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages -

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 12:57:15 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 11:36:28 -0500
Subject: Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages -


 >Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 01:20:36 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages

<snip>

 >The ancient Hebrews (_very_ unlike modern ones) weren't very
 >good with numbers. One book of the old Testament has some holy
 >circular construction - or maybe a bird bath... I dunno - ten
 >cubits in diameter so that it measured 30 cubits round-about.
 >Not bad, they were off by a factor of pi/3. Less than a 5%
 >error, its still enough to needle the fundamentalists a little
 >bit!

Dear Larry, Jim, Roger and Royce:

Had a friend who was a chopper pilot and a fundamentalist
believer in the total correctness of what is printed in his
Bible. I called his attention to this passage, pointing out that
if his helicopter was designed based upon this unerring
engineering principle of the Old Testament, that the rotor
blades would not be fastened to the axle, or whatever that
thingamajig is that sticks up and turns around. He never seemed
to have an answer for this observation.

Oh, well. First Cydonia, now Caus: where's the metaphysics going
to end?


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 >
   Dec > Dec 31

                       Re: New Millenium - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 13:26:13 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 11:40:01 -0500
Subject: Re: New Millenium - Mortellaro


 >Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 09:37:58 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 01:20:36 -0800
 >>Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 09:51:20 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages - Hatch

 >>>From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 13:45:42 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Previously, Larry wrote:

 >>You are quite right of course, about the millennium starting at
 >>the stroke of midnight 2001. That's only a day or two so what
 >>the heck? The nice part is there's no Y2K+1 problem, that got
 >>fixed last year.

 ><snip>

 >>It has become convention to regard a new century as starting
 >>when the big digits roll over, yes. Those who think irrational
 >>numbers don't make any sense, that imaginary numbers don't
 >>exist, all had their fling a year ago - so did all those
 >>retired FORTRAN and COBOL programmers!

 >>My fridge is well stocked for the new millennium! [Burp!] and
 >>I just cracked a few to make sure they were nice and cold.

 >Hi, Larry!

 >I used to think the same as you about 2001 being the new
 >millennium. However, since no one really knows when Christ was
 >born, and that there is, at best, a 5 year margin for error
 >according to biblical scholars, I don't think anyone can say
 >when the new millennium really starts. Thus the A.D. calendar is
 >merely a convenient tool for reference; it is not a massive stop
 >watch that started at a specific moment in time. Again,
 >fundamentalists believe that life starts at the moment of
 >(immaculate?) conception. That date would push the new
 >millennium to around March 25th of 2000 or so. Why not round
 >down to January? After all, what's 3 months among friends?

 >Actually, Bob Young wrote to me and probably put it best. He
 >said that the new Millennium is what anyone wants to make of it.

 >Have a happy new year!

 >Roger

Dear Roger, Larry, bListers, EBK and Jim,

Oh, that's me. Regarding the New Millenium... I tried to be
amusing whilst attempting the history lesson, but it didn't
take. Now I shall explain all about the millenium, aliens and
UFO's and the interelationship.

First, in case some of you missed the argument by pressing
"delete," the Gregorian Calender jumps from 1 B.C.to 1 A.D. in
one swell foop. There was no "Year Zero." Which reminds me of a
really dimbulb I used to know whose call sign had the digits,
KHN0 in it. He called himself (phonetically) "King Henry Nero
Zero." Musta been a skeptibunker with a Ph.D.

Or one of them mind changing researchers. Anyway ...

If you start counting from one and go thru 10, guess what
happens (using the base ten)? The calender grew out of
an epoch established by sixth century scholar (but not UFO
researcher) Dionysus Exiguus. He was working on a table
of dates for Easter and numbered a set of years in relation to
the birth of Christ.

Sixteenth century Pope Gregory XIII reformed the calender when
Easter started drifting away from Springtime. Couldn't have that
could we? How would our Easter bonnets work? And all them
flowers an' stuff?

Anyway, and for many technical reasons, there is no way out of
the 2000-2001 controversy. This information was researched by
moi, for an article I wrote for a local newspaper. As a
Grippler, I cannot qualify for a real job, as my drug tests bely
my Grippled blood stream. Nope, mood altering drugs ain't got
nuttin' ta do wit it. Just the Gripple.

Now, for the denouement. The piece of resistence, the "Rest
(pregnant pause) of (again) the (yet again) story!" What's all
this gotta do with UFO's, aliens and beer?

Well, just as there is no end to the Milly n' Yum Yum argument,
there is no end to the UFO's, alien and beer argument. See?

So happy new year to all of you. And this year, instead of all
that expensive champagne, how's about trying one of my new,
cheap, holiday wines; made fresh just for yous. May I be so bold
as to suggest a happy little brew, with an attitude? I calls it,
"Millie's Yum Yum." And the bottle is well marked with all the
caveats you shall require in the consumption of this stuff.
Like, don't have it if you plan on getting pregnant (ladies
please take note) and men, if you have had Viagra within a 24
hour time period, or plan to ... stay the hell away from
Millie's Yum Yum. Why? Look at the name and use what's left of
your imagination after all that Gripple you drunk last year.


Jim, Rosie and our dog, Stupid...








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 31

                    Re: UFO Skeptics Mailing List - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 12:31:27 -0600
Fwd Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 11:42:06 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO Skeptics Mailing List - Clark



 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 14:47:30 EST
 >Subject: Re: UFO Skeptics Mailing List
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >>Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 16:32:59 +0000
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
 >>Subject: Re: UFO Skeptics Mailing List

 >>>From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: UFO Skeptics Mailing List
 >>>Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 12:41:12 -0000

 >>>debunk@listbot.com

 >>The email address about says it all really, doesn't it?

 >He may not have been able to get a "skeptic" address. Besides,
 >when I turn to my dictionary I find,


 >   "Debunk - To reveal the sham, false pretensions, etc., of.
 >   [bunk]"

 >(Funk & Wagnalls Standard Dictionary, International Edition,
 >Volume One: Funk & Wagnals, New York, 1965, p. 331.)

Of course debunkers only circle the wagons when their favorite
beliefs are debunked. A camel will pass through the eye of a
needle before one debunker criticizes another, or acknowledges
that his debunking merits its own debunking. Which is, of
course, exactly contrary to the spirit of science and rational
inquiry that debunkers love to congratulate themselves on
personifying.

At least I'll give 'em one thing: Till now debunkers have
squealed like stuck pelicans when you called them "debunkers."
Now, confession being good for the soul, they're owning up to
who they were: debunkers (deniers), as opposed to skeptics
(doubters). Denying is easy. Doubting is hard, because once you
start doubting, eventually you get around to doubting what you
truly believe, and no one would ever accuse a debunker of doing
that.

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 >
   Dec > Dec 31

               Re: Follow-up on Calama UFO by Sanchez Ocejo -

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 12:59:48 -0600
Fwd Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 11:44:51 -0500
Subject: Re: Follow-up on Calama UFO by Sanchez Ocejo -


 >From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@juno.com>
 >Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 09:52:48 -0500
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Follow-up on Calama UFO by Sanchez Ocejo -

 >>Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 09:47:11 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Follow-up on Calama UFO by Sanchez Ocejo
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, I had written:

 >>If the police ordered everyone to keep quiet, then why is
 >>everyone talking about it? Odd, isn't it, that the neighbors say
 >>"We can't say a word." but then go on to talk about how they've
 >>lost many animals due to this "thing". The fact that this info
 >>is now in a public forum like UpDates certainly raises some
 >>validity issues regarding the claims of silence. The panic that
 >>police supposedly feared certainly doesn't seem to have
 >>manifested itself, despite all the chit-chat.

Scott replied:

 >I think that neither you nor I have had the personal misfortune
 >of living in a country that emerged from one of the 20th
 >century's worst bouts of totalitarianism.

<snip>

 >As to the silence factor: the urge to speak your mind in a
 >repressive society transcends even the need for personal safety,
 >which is why people occasionally gamble with "breaking the code
 >of silence".

Hi, Scott!

I understand what you are saying. If true, then these people are
taking a chance. The problem is determining if this is, indeed,
true or if it is an assumption as it relates to these specific
people.

It's not unlike the former military types that now claim they
took an oath of silence that prevents them from talking about
all the UFO related stuff they saw during service. The question,
of course, is why even mention they saw it at all if they took
an oath of silence to begin with? It would seem to me that
either one is willing to talk about all of it or none of it. I
don't see why anyone would risk their well being by revealing
only part of what they know. I certainly wouldn't. If I felt
that even mentioning a word would put my welfare at risk, I'd
certainly make that risk worthwhile! I'd spill my guts! And if I
lived in impoverished conditions, then I'd certainly spill my
guts to the highest bidder! What's to lose?

Moving on, I wrote:

 >>Regarding the "unidentified agency"; if true, wouldn't
 >>remuneration for animal loss be incentive to fake such events? I
 >>don't know what the economy is like there, but that's kind of
 >>like giving counterfeiters a real $20 dollar bill for every fake
 >>they turn in.

Scott replied:

 >Again, you're giving the Chilean farmers involved very
 >sophisticated motives, like pulling off frauds. A live goat,
 >sheep or horse is worth more to them than a reimbursement that
 >might/might not come from the government. At the risk of turning
 >conspiratorial here, who's to say that if any money has indeed
 >been disbursed, it's from a government agency and not a private
 >enterprise, like the huge mining concerns that have a vested
 >interest in keeping the rhythm of work unbroken by any
 >extraneous forces. If we were dealing with insurgents and not
 >blood predators, a similar pattern of behavior might also be
 >seen. Then again, this is just speculation.

Agreed. I guess it all depends on who is threatening them and
why. Of course, if it's not the police or military, then one
would think that the locals could go authorities for some
relief. On the other hand, if private enterprise is reimbursing
them for animal loss, then I'd think that the locals would have
the upper hand and could pretty much demand what ever price they
wanted as "hush money". As I pointed out before, there might not
be much incentive kill the golden goose.

Finally, I wrote:

 >>Seems fishy...

Scott closed with:

 >Ha, ha!! Roswell seems fishy. This doesn't. :-D

Hell, it _all_ seems fishy. I do believe there is something to
Roswell, though we may never know exactly what. Darned
inconsiderate of those ETs, I tell ya.

Have a great new year.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 31

                           IUR & Rendlesham Debate

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 19:16:45 -0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 11:49:11 -0500
Subject: IUR & Rendlesham Debate


Hi,

For those wearied by the recent exchanges on Rendlesham, you
might like to know that the (I trust) rather civilised debate on
this case - between Richard Hall and myself - appears in the new
(Fall 2000) issue of 'International UFO Reporter' (pp 8 - 15,
30).

I think you will see some reasoned argument from both sides in
there, attempting to reach a progressive consensus. I hope that
CUFOS will be happy to encourage readers to contribute responses
on the subject for future issues.

I am sure that Jerry will set out the requirements for this.

I would - however - add one small note, for those reading the
text and seeing an apparent contradiction in my words. A slight
change in the editing of my text at the IUR has occurred - and
in the process has adapted my meaning somewhat.

In my text (written before 'You can't tell the people') I
submitted the following:

      'Now internet gossip columnist Georgina Bruni is to publish
      her take on the events (said to include new witness
      interviews and a complete demolition of the skeptics
      arguments)...'

The words 'said to include' - based as these were on Georgina's
promises about her forthcoming book - in my piece were altered
(presumably during the editing) to read in print as 'including
new witness interviews and a complete demolition of the skeptics
arguments'.

Presumably this was done because the book had appeared in
between submission and publication and such an adaptation thus
seemed appropriate. But, of course, 'said to include' and
actually including are not exactly the same thing - as the past
week or two of discussion on this List has amply demonstrated!

As I think readers of this List will appreciate I am certainly
not of the opinion that Georgina's book does completely demolish
the skeptics arguments.

This is not a big deal and I am not shouting at the IUR, of
course. It is one of those things that happens. But I just
wanted the matter clarified.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 31

                Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages -

From: Jim Mortellaro  <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 18:29:32 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 11:54:25 -0500
Subject: Re: Gersten Generates More Strange Messages -


Dear Errol and those who give a damn;

I have a problem when folks get reamed on this or any other
List. It's one thing to be amusing or try to be so. But it's
quite another to lash out against someone just because that
person thinks differently than we do.

Truth be known, this List has been used for rants and lashing
out for as long as I've been on it. And I am on it, with the
good graces of it's moderator, for some years. Two and a bit
more I think. True, I have not been privileged with personal
invitations as some of you. True, I cannot call anyone here my
friend.

First, I have only one friend anyway. Second, because no one on
this or any other List is permitted to get close to me or vice
versa - not ever again. Friendship is a word which has very
great import - same for the word "belief." In spite of Merriam's
(yes, yes... we _are_ just friends... uh, sorry, make that
acquaintances) definition for those words, they take on a
special culture in my mind. What's left of it.

Sitting here in the North Woods, watching the snow pile up to
over 24 inches, is a relaxing and contemplative function for me.
A glass of Gripple in one hand and a fistful of mood altering
pills in the other makes me mellow. Them other drugs, needles
and stuff are for those who may require them again. I don't use
'em. Never did.

To get back. I met Gersten and some of the other people who get
mentioned on a regular basis on UpDates. I don't agree with
Peter's philosophy. Neither do I agree with some of what John
Mack has to say. But that doesn't make them wrong. More
important, nor does it mean that these men should be made the
target of attacks by people who think they are not fit for
UpDates' consumption. In fact, many of those of you who lack
respect for the New Age point of view and, as a direct
consequence to that lack of respect for a man's point of view,
demonstrate a closed mind, demand quite the opposite when
confronted by someone who does not believe their pair of dimes.

What's good for you is not good for the man you admonish for
whatever transgression it is you are admonishing him. I had a
rather lengthy conversation with a man who has a strong belief
in the fact that aliens may represent evil. Evil, in the
traditional and religious sense. This person is rather
well-known and respected. That this man has such belief systems
does not preclude his ability to keep it well out of his
writings, monographs and generally, his appearances on venues
such as Rense and others.

Yet I've heard it said by one of you, that "we" should stay away
from such as he by virtue of the opinions voiced only once more
than a few years ago.

I sat with Mr. Gersten in 1998 and had lunch with him. He's an
interesting guy with a mind full of interesting views on various
issues. I do not agree with a few of them. Maybe more than a
few. So what? By the same token, he doesn't agree with mine.

Doesn't mean that his views are wrong, nor does it mean that
what he does is wrong by virtue of those views. People who
belong to CAUS can leave it, as some have done, because they
think CAUS has been ill-served. But to admonish CAUS and/or
Gersten is neither constructive nor sensible.

One man's opinion is worth everything in the world. For in that
opine might be the kernel of a truth. And to deny a truth is so
stupidly ignorant as to make a maggot sick to it's stomach.

So I try to keep an open mind. Even if it means I am anathema.
Especially if it makes me anathema. For then I know I am on the
right track.

Happy New Year and blessings to this august List. And to my
acquaintances here, without whose ideas I might be as closed
minded as some of you.

There is a God.


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 >
   Dec > Dec 31

                 Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs - Lehmberg

From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 18:51:00 -0600
Fwd Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 11:58:12 -0500
Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs - Lehmberg


 >Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 12:15:09 +0000
 >From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs

 >>Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 02:59:44 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs

 >>>From: Matthew Hurley <m.hurley@ntlworld.com>
 >>>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Historical Artwork And UFOs
 >>>Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 20:45:04 -0000

<snipped ref. to Mr. Hurley's VERY tasteful, understated, and artfully
  minimalist historical site.>

 >What puzzles me is if these things were showing up in paintings,
 >where are the historical references to them? Where's the text?
 >Are they there and we miss them because they are couched in
 >terms of the day that we either don't recognize or we
 >misinterpret?

 >Don Ledger


It's rather like the ufological obvious damn near spitting in
our societal eye, isn't it? What a pathetic pronouncement on our
collective grasp of REAL courage. What a sad group of shallow
losers we _truly_ are.

Don't we get it? It doesn't MATTER that our carefully contrived
cultural walls come crashing down with the thrust of a concerted
investigation. It doesn't MATTER that that we come off the
meters of the *best and brightest's movers and shakers* as we
investigate new realities. It doesn't MATTER that it's the end
of the world as we know it in the aftermath of some colossal
revelation... What matters is that we embrace what IS, whatever
it is, show concerned respect for one another while we're doing
it, and -- well, I don't want to HAVE to insult the reader
implying I have to tell her the WHOLE freaking thing! He knows
what's there, and even different, each individual response would
still be very much the same. Any lie from the past and present
must certainly invalidate our future. Why should we put UP with
that? The evidence is just an unending series of stinging slaps
in our ignorantly arrogant faces.....

Sorry about the rant, Don, but you struck a ringing chord that
everyone should, immediately, just GET!


Lehmberg@snowhill.com

--
~~~~
EXPLORE Alfred Lehmberg's Alien View" at his Fortunecity URL.
http://www.alienview.net
          **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 >
   Dec > Dec 31

               Oz - History Of The Universe Takes A Dive To 10

From: Auchettl & Barnett <Praufo@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 22:05:25 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 12:02:14 -0500
Subject: Oz - History Of The Universe Takes A Dive To 10



                Oz & ASIA DATA RESEARCH
             Phenomena Research Australia


EBK & Researchers,


If the calculations are confirmed then the history of the
universe will have to be re-written in a big way.

An Australian team under the leadership of Professor Ray Norris
at the Australian CSIRO radio telescope have located a Galaxy
named "Source C", a faint "red dot" as seen through the Hubble
Telescope as being a very unusual object.

The measurements put it at between 5 to 11 billion light years
away.

This could mean that the "Big Bang" theory takes another
negative hit from its current position, that we are all 13
billion years old to a unbelievable reduction, to 10 billion
years!

The Australian team are said to be very excited with the find,
at present all the measurements are right and a paper on the
find is being prepared.

                         ***

IMAGE of "Source C", a faint "red dot"

http://www.csiro.au/page.asp?type=imageDef&id=HDFS_objectlge

                         ***

Regards,

John W. Auchettl - Director PRA Research

DR Ron Barnett   - Deputy Director


PRA WEB:
http://members.aol.com/praufo/PRA1/Pra1.htm

PRA Australian Sky:
http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/praufo/PRA1/austskyhome.htm


Thank To:

[1]. Professor Ray Norris - Deputy Director, Australia
      Telescope National Facility, 02-9372-4416,
      0417-288-307, rnorris@atnf.csiro.au

Bio At:

http://www.atnf.csiro.au/people/rnorris/

[2]. Swinburne Astronomy Online - Melbourne, Victoria.

http://www.swin.edu.au/astronomy/sao/

[3]. CSIRO Australia.

AT:

http://www.csiro.au


Reference:

1.CSIRO Media Release - Thursday, 28 December 2000,
   Ref 2000/341 - 'Red dots' may re-write the history
   of the universe.

AT:

http://www.csiro.au/page.asp?type=mediaRelease&id=rayuniverse


Phenomena Research Australia [PRA]
P.O. Box 523, Mulgrave, Victoria, Australia, 3170
Australian & Asia UFO
1961-2000 - 39 YEARS OF RESEARCH SERVICE
========================================================








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2000 >
   Dec > Dec 31

                       thelosthaven UpDated - 12-31-00

From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 04:35:01 +0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 18:50:40 -0500
Subject: thelosthaven UpDated - 12-31-00


Hi All,

I have added two new pictures to the Chris Martin section of my
site. Along with a new chat room on my main UFO page.

Chris Martin Update:

http://www.thelosthaven.co.uk/Chrismart.htm

Chat Room:

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


Happy New Year To All


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 >
   Dec > Dec 31

                   Re: UFO Skeptics Mailing List - Easton

From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 04:48:50 -0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 18:54:11 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO Skeptics Mailing List - Easton


Regarding:

 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 14:47:30 EST
 >Subject: Re: UFO Skeptics Mailing List - BYoung

Bob wrote:

 >>Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 16:32:59 +0000
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
 >>Subject: Re: UFO Skeptics Mailing List

 >>debunk@listbot.com

 >>The email address about says it all really, doesn't it.

 >Dear Sean:

 >He may not have been able to get a "skeptic" address. Besides,
 >when I turn to my dictionary I find,

 >"Debunk - To reveal the sham, false pretensions, etc., of.
 >[bunk]"

 >(Funk & Wagnalls Standard Dictionary, International Edition,
 >Volume One: Funk & Wagnals, New York, 1965, p. 331.)

Bob,

An astute conclusion.

Indeed, default choices such as:

skeptic@listbot.com
skeptics@listbot.com
skeptical@listbot.com

were already taken.


"I'm a skeptic. I check things out" - Stanton Friedman.


Coincidentally, a topic I noted you were interested in, raised
on UpDates by Werner Walter, was the supposed 'Ural Alien-Body'.

I had brought this to attention some months previously on UFORL,
where it was subsequently suggested the skeleton was that of a
bird.

Strangest pelican I'd ever seen, but there you go.

Duly skeptical [it's a double-edged sword], comparing the
photographs with a bird skeleton, I realised that couldn't be
the explanation and recently highlighted the photographs on a
mailing list concerned with Mammalian Biology.

Interesting responses...

It's a topic which will be raised on the 'UFO Skeptics' list.

Yes, it's human... yet it's not human... unless horribly
deformed.

Why do I hear the sound of Ray Santilli laughing.


Debunk: "To clear of bunk or humbug. To show up (e.g. a theory)
as false" - Collins English Dictionary.

The absolute antipathy of ufology.

"Says it all really, doesn't it".

Sean might care to contemplate this further.


'Funk & Wagnall live at the Filmore'.

I'd swear I've seen that LP somewhere...


James Easton.
E-mail: voyager@ufoworld.co.uk
www.ufoworld.co.uk