UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb

                          UFO UpDates Mailing List
                                  Feb 2001

  Feb 1:

   Re: Book Search - Rimmer - John Rimmer [22]
   Re: To Be or Not To Be - Rimmer - John Rimmer [37]
   Re: Red Dwarfs/Alien Life - Young - Bob Young [17]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Gehrman - Ed Gehrman [23]
   Re: UFOs & Mexico/US Military Experiences - Velez - John Velez [41]
   Re: Lawn & Media - Velez - John Velez [36]
   Face on Mars Re-Imaged - Kurt Jonach [65]
   Re: Joseph Smith - Hatch - Larry Hatch [47]

  Feb 2:

   Re: Hot Gossip Real X - Files Feb 2001 - Georgina Bruni [124]
   Hot Gossip Real X - Files Feb 2001 - Georgina Bruni [124]
   Nick Pope's Weird World - Georgina Bruni [111]
   Re: Lawn & Media - Evans - Roger Evans [21]
   Re: Red Dwarfs/Alien Life - Evans - Roger Alien Life [45]
   Consumer Mail Panel - Brian Cuthbertson [43]
   UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 6 Number 5 - John Hayes [423]
   Re: To Be or Not To Be - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro [58]
   Re: UFO Pics - Easton - James Easton [71]
   TCI: New Cydonia Photos: A Preliminary Report - Mac Tonnies [67]
   MOD Warns The Americans About UFO Book - Georgina Bruni [74]
   Secrecy News -- 02/01/01 - Steven Aftergood [149]
   UFO Thesis - Jacques Poulet [27]
   [cprcanadanews] More 'Ice Rings' (1999 & 1997) - Paul Anderson [70]
   Re: Face on Mars Re-Imaged - Joe McGonagle [11]
   Re: Face on Mars Re-Imaged - Liddle - Sean Liddle [18]
   Re: Joseph Smith - Deardorff - Jim Deardorff [25]
   Re: UFOs & Mexico/US Military Experiences - Muoz - Ovnimexico1@aol.com
   [80]
   Re: Joseph Smith - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro [98]
   Re: Kecksburg - Response, Review & Update - Sparks - Brad Sparks [284]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Gates - Robert Gates [43]
   Re: Face on Mars Re-Imaged - Young - Bob Young [13]
   Re: Joseph Smith - Hatch - Larry Hatch [52]
   Re: Kecksburg - Response, Review & Update - Sparks - Brad Sparks [287]
   Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? - - Brad Sparks [25]
   Re: UFO Pics - Kaeser - Steven Kaeser [28]
   Re: UFO Pics - Evans - Roger Evans [31]
   Re: UFO Thesis - Friedman - Stan Friedman [31]
   Re: Hot Gossip Real X - Files Feb 2001 - Sandow - Greg Sandow [13]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Morris - Neil Morris [96]
   Cydonian Imperative: 'Mound P' & 'Egyptian' - Mac Tonnies [14]
   Re: UFO Thesis - Balaskas - Nick Balaskas [16]
   Exciting New Discovery - Horse on Mars! - John Tenney [8]
   Re: Consumer Mail Panel - Blanton - Terry Blanton [14]
   'The Anomalist' Book Awards for 2000 - Wendy Connors [16]
   Re: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 6 Number 5 - Sanchez-Ocejo - Dr. Virgilio
   Sanchez-Ocejo [23]
   Re: Face on Mars Re-Imaged - Blanton - Terry Blanton [19]
   KAPRA - Sean Liddle [21]
   X-PPAC/PRG Update - 2/3/01 - Stephen G. Bassett [133]

  Feb 3:

   Re: Kecksburg - Response, Review & Update - Young - Bob Young [204]
   Re: To Be or Not To Be - Rimmer - John Rimmer [20]
   Re: Object Nothing More Than "Targeting Apparatus" - Kenny Young [53]
   Military Census Of Abductees? - Pearce Levrais [18]
   Re: MOD Warns The Americans About UFO Book - Rimmer - John Rimmer [90]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Evans - Roger Evans [60]
   Re: Exciting New Discovery - Horse on Mars! - - Mac Tonnies [19]
   Re: Kecksburg - Response, Review & Update - Sparks - Brad Sparks [170]
   Re: UFO Thesis - Poulet - Jacques Poulet [25]
   Re: Face on Mars Re-Imaged - Shevlin - Donnie Shevlin [38]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Salvaille - Serge Salvaille [271]
   Face-to-Face with the 'Face' - UFO UpDates - Toronto [9]
   Re: Hair Sample Analysis [was: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume - Brian Cuthbertson
   [56]
   Re: Face on Mars Re-Imaged - Jonach - Kurt Jonach [32]
   URL For KAPRA Site - Sean Liddle [9]
   Re: Kecksburg - Response, Review & Update - Young - Bob Young [234]
   TCI: Anomalous Geomorphology and the Cliff - Mac Tonnies [55]
   Children's Face-to-Face With Chupacabras - Scott Corrales [39]
   UFO Sightings Poubelle - Larry Hatch [67]
   The Roskeckswellsham Incident - Larry Hatch [37]
   Re: Hot Gossip Real X - Files Feb 2001 - Bruni - Georgina Bruni [139]

  Feb 4:

   Bzzzz - Click - Connect! - UFO UpDates - Toronto [15]
   The Weekly NITE-LITE (Moron) NEWS! - Larry Hatch [92]
   Re: TCI: New Cydonia Photos: 2-1-01 - Skavhaug - Asgeir W. Skavhaug
   [74]
   Mars Face 'Forbidden' & 'Too Popular' - Kurt Jonach [66]
   Re: New Cydonia Photos: A Preliminary Report - - Sean Liddle [17]
   Re: Hair Sample Analysis - Sanchez-Ocejo - Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo
   [48]
   Re: URL For KAPRA Site - Skavhaug - Asgeir W. Skavhaug [18]
   Re: Red Dwarfs/Alien Life - Velez - John Velez [63]
   Re: Children's Face-to-Face With Chupacabras - - Asgeir W. Skavhaug
   [20]
   What Is Mass? - Terry Blanton [217]
   KGB UFO Files. The Real Story - Gildas Bourdais [15]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Gehrman - Ed Gehrman [51]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Gehrman - Ed Gehrman [14]

  Feb 5:

   Re: Kecksburg - Response, Review & Update - Young - Bob Young [116]
   Re: UFOS and Military Experiences - Wilson - Katharina Wilson [18]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Morris - Neil Morris [85]
   Now Available: UFO Update: LIVE! 2001 Special - Kenny Young [20]
   Conspiracy Writing Contest - Wendy Christensen [39]
   UFO Sightings OZ File 4.2.2001 - Diane Harrison Director AUFORN [371]
   Hector Quintanilla's Unpublished Manuscript - Colm Kelleher [29]
   Attack Of The Green Space Fungus! - Nick Balaskas [24]
   Filer's Files #6 -- 2001 - George A. Filer [384]

  Feb 6:

   UFO/ET Congress - 2001 - Tom Benson [35]
   Re: TCI: New Cydonia Photos: 2-1-01 - Tonnies - Mac Tonnies [52]
   Re: New Cydonia Photos: A Preliminary Report - - Mac Tonnies [20]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Roberts - Andy Roberts [21]
   Secrecy News -- 02/06/01 - Steven Aftergood [111]

  Feb 7:

   Re: Conspiracy Writing Contest - Myers - Royce J. Myers III [23]
   Re: KGB UFO Files. The Real Story - Hatch - Larry Hatch [34]
   Of Sociopaths & Conspiracy - Alfred Lehmberg [269]
   Re: Conspiracy Writing Contest - Velez - John Velez [31]
   Mysterious Lights Caught On Tape - Kelly Peterbourgh [55]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Salvaille - Serge Salvaille [36]
   Moon Conspiracy Theory on Fox - Kelly Peterborough [10]
   Of Sociopaths & Conspiracy - Alfred Lehmberg [269]
   Re: Conspiracy Writing Contest - Velez - John Velez [31]

  Feb 8:

   Re: AA Film Redux - Easton - James Easton [196]
   Re: Moon Conspiracy Theory on Fox - Gates - Robert Gates [18]
   Help Requested - Roy J Hale [6]
   Introduction - Jeff Behnke [12]
   Secrecy News -- 02/08/01 - Steven Aftergood [102]
   Malaysian... IFOs - Mark Pilkington [53]
   Re: Introduction - Tonnies - Mac Tonnies [20]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Gehrman - Ed Gehrman [32]
   UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 6 Number 6 - John Hayes [527]

  Feb 9:

   Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Kurt Jonach [80]
   Re: Introduction - Behnke - Jeff Behnke [54]
   Mussolini's UFO Files - Disc-Diagrams - Alfredo Lissoni [4]
   P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - UFO UpDates - Toronto [342]
   Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Young - Bob Young [26]
   Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Tonnies - Mac Tonnies [31]
   Re: Moon Conspiracy Theory on Fox - Blanton - Terry Blanton [10]
   Re: Introduction - Tonnies - Mac Tonnies [31]
   DSS... Weird Stuff In The Background - Bobbie Felder [24]
   E-Mail Addresses? - Giuliano 'Jimmy' Marinkovicc [41]
   Re: Mussolini's UFO Files - Disc-Diagrams - - Josh Goldstein [13]

  Feb 10:

   CI: 2-9-01 - Face on Mars: A Closer, Better Look - Mac Tonnies [146]
   Re: E-Mail Addresses? - Deuly - Tom Deuley [32]
   Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated - Matt Hurley [7]
   Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [77]
   Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Fleming - Lan Fleming [39]
   Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Fleming - Lan Fleming [39]
   Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Fleming - Lan Fleming [39]
   Re: CI: 2-9-01 - Face on Mars: A Closer, Better - Bob Young [33]
   Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Fleming - Bob Young [43]

  Feb 11:

   Re: CI: 2-9-01 - Face on Mars: A Closer, Better - Mac Tonnies [41]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Gates - Robert Gates [51]
   Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Fleming - Lan Fleming [76]
   Joseph Smith And The Ten Lost Tribes - Jan Aldrich [22]
   Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated - - John Velez [33]
   Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Velez - John Velez [63]
   Convening of Special Grand Jury? - Larry W. Bryant [51]
   Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated - - Roger Evans [45]
   Joseph Smith And The Ten Lost Tribes - Jan Aldrich [22]
   Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated - - Matt Hurley [39]
   Re: Joseph Smith And The Ten Lost Tribes - Thompson - Paul Thompson -
   ParaScope [10]
   Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [14]
   Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated - - John Velez [78]
   Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Young - Bob Young [24]
   Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated - - Donald Ledger [28]
   Re: Convening of Special Grand Jury? - Young - Bob Young [10]
   Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated - - Bob Young [28]
   Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated - - John Velez [57]
   Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Young - Bob Young
   <YoungBob2@aol.com [19]
   Re: Joseph Smith And The Ten Lost Tribes - Aldrich - Jan Aldrich [30]
   Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated - - Lan Fleming [19]
   Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Fleming - Lan Fleming [32]
   Re: Joseph Smith And The Ten Lost Tribes - - Jim Mortellaro [36]
   Portrait of Richard C. Hoagland - Kurt Jonach [77]

  Feb 12:

   Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated - - Donald Ledger [18]
   Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated - - Donald . Ledger [15]
   Urgent Disclosure Project - Update - Alfred Webre [74]
   Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Stacy - Dennis Stacy [36]
   Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated - Wendy Christensen [35]
   Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated - Roger Annette Evans [21]
   Re: Convening of Special Grand Jury? - McCoy - GT McCoy [16]
   Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated - - James Easton [108]
   Re: Portrait of Richard C. Hoagland - Young - Bob Young [8]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Sawwer - William Sawer [87]
   Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Velez - John Velez [98]
   Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated - - John Velez [43]
   Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Liddle - Sean Liddle [18]

  Feb 11:

   Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated - - John Velez [78]
   Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated - - Donald Ledger [28]

  Feb 10:

   Re: CI: 2-9-01 - Face on Mars: A Closer, Better - Bob Young [33]

  Feb 12:

   Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Liddle - Sean Liddle [18]

  Feb 11:

   Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated - - John Velez [33]
   Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Fleming - Lan Fleming [32]
   Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Young - Bob Young
   <YoungBob2@aol.com [19]
   Re: Joseph Smith And The Ten Lost Tribes - Aldrich - Jan Aldrich [30]

  Feb 12:

   Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated - Wendy Christensen [35]
   Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Stacy - Dennis Stacy [36]
   Re: Mussolini's UFO Files - Disc-Diagrams - Alfredo Lissoni [27]
   Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated - - Donald Ledger [39]
   Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated - - Matt Hurley [38]
   Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated - - Matt Hurley [42]
   Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated - - Matt Hurley [37]
   Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated - - Donald Ledger [29]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Evans - Roger Annette Evans [53]

  Feb 13:

   Re: AA Film Redux - Morris - Neil Morris [139]
   Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Clark - Jerome Clark [19]
   Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Evans - Roger Annette Evans [38]
   UFO Biz! - John Velez [67]
   Secrecy News -- 02/12/01 - Steven Aftergood [146]
   Re: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Salvaille - Serge Salvaille
   [60]
   UFO/ET Congress - 2001 - Update - Tom Benson [30]
   Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro [41]
   Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Fleming - Lan Fleming [106]
   Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Stacy - Dennis Stacy [47]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Salvaille - Serge Salvaille [73]
   Chilean Ufologists Request Document - Scott Corrales [19]
   Filer's Files #7 -- 2001 - George A. Filer [403]
   Greys - Larry Hatch [9]
   UFO Over Veracruz, Mexico - Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo [11]
   Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated - - Gary Anthony [29]
   Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated - - Josh Goldstein [53]
   Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Brookesmith - Mendoza - Peter
   Brookesmith [57]
   Re: Urgent Disclosure Project - Update - Gates - Robert Gates [121]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Gates - Robert Gates [142]

  Feb 14:

   Re: Joseph Smith And The Ten Lost Tribes - Aubeck - Chris Aubeck [67]
   UK House of Lords (Part One) - Georgina Bruni [118]
   UK House of Lords (Part Two) - Georgina Bruni [112]
   Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated - - Donnie Shevlin [55]
   Return of The Rockford Lights - Kenny Young [56]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Evans - Roger Annette Evans [31]

  Feb 13:

   UFO Over Veracruz, Mexico - Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo [11]

  Feb 14:

   Re: AA Film Redux - Morris - Neil Morris [92]
   Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Hall - Richard Hall [56]
   Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Hale - Roy J Hale [18]
   Re: UFO Biz! - Tonnies - Mac Tonnies [23]
   Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Young - Bob Young [28]
   Link Between UFOs, Helicopters & Mutes? - Colm Kelleher - NIDS [62]
   Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Stacy - Dennis Stacy [17]

  Feb 13:

   Re: Secrecy News -- 02/14/01 - Steven Aftergood [117]
   Re: Greys - Sean Liddle [12]
   Re: E-Mail Addresses? - Schuessler - John Schuessler [21]
   Re: UFO/ET Congress - 2001 - Update - Ecker - Don Ecker [24]

  Feb 12:

   Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated - - John Velez [43]

  Feb 14:

   Re: Greys - Jones - Sean Jones [26]
   Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Sparks - Brad Sparks [24]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Morris - Neil Morris [83]
   UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 6 Number 7 - John Hayes [531]

  Feb 15:

   Re: AA Film Redux - Gehrman - Ed Gehrman [48]
   Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [109]
   Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Fleming - Lan Fleming [51]
   Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Stacy - Dennis Stacy [46]
   AUFORN QLD First Meeting for 2001 - Diane Harrison - Director AUFORN
   [50]
   Re: Greys - Aldrich - Jan Aldrich [21]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Friedman - Stan Friedman [72]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Evans - Roger Annette Evans [38]
   Argentina: UFOs Over Saenz Pena - Scott Corrales [35]
   Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Roberts - Andy Roberts [58]
   George Adamski? - Gary Anthony [6]

  Feb 16:

   INEXPLICATA #8 (Spring 2001) On Line - Scott Corales [24]
   Alien Conspiracy - 'Kingdom Come' - Terry Blanton [14]
   Lakenheath [was: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ] - Jenny Randles [111]
   Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated - - Chris Aubeck [37]
   'Time Storms' - Dave Baker [9]
   Something Rotten at the Core of Science? - Ed Gehrman [156]
   NASA - Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy' - UFO UpDates - Toronto
   [42]
   Secrecy News -- 02/14/01 - Steven Aftergood [120]
   Re: Lakenheath [was: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ] - Dave Clarke [117]
   Posting Protocols - UFO UpDates - Toronto [69]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Gehrman - Ed Gehrman [23]
   Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Hall - Richard Hall [55]
   Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Richard Hall [5]
   Re: Urgent Disclosure Project - Update - Wendy Christensen [37]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Salvaille - Serge Salvaille [80]
   Re: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 6 Number 7 - Christensen - Wendy Christensen
   [22]
   Re: Lakenheath - Sparks - Brad Sparks [199]
   Re: UFO Over Veracruz, Mexico - Velez - John Velez [25]

  Feb 17:

   Re: NASA - Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy' - Donald . Ledger [26]
   Secrecy News -- 02/16/01 - Steven Aftergood [90]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Tonnies - Mac Tonnies [38]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Morris - Neil Morris [75]
   Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Stacy - Dennis Stacy [33]
   Re: Greys - Liddle - Sean Liddle [30]
   Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Brookesmith - Mendoza - Peter
   Brookesmith [174]
   Help With 'SG' Research - Christopher Kelly [95]
   Re: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - - Mendoza - Peter Brookesmith
   [24]
   Re: Argentina: UFOs Over Saenz Pena - Young - Bob Young [32]
   Encyclopedia Of The Unexplained - Debate Forum - Steve Wilson Snr. [28]
   Re: Lakenheath - McGonagle - Joe McGonagle [72]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Sawers - William Sawers [21]
   Re: Greys - Hatch - Larry Hatch [29]
   Re: Lakenheath - Clarke - Dave Clarke [121]
   Re: Greys - Hatch - Larry Hatch [46]
   A Minor Diversion - Larry Hatch [40]
   Re: Lakenheath - Hall - Richard Hall [12]
   Re: UFO Over Veracruz, Mexico - Sanchez-Ocejo - Dr. Virgilio
   Sanchez-Ocejo [26]
   Re: NASA - Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy' - - Alfred Lehmberg
   [63]
   Re: George Adamski? - Hatch - Larry Hatch [19]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Zeigermann - Ralf Zeigermann [29]
   Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Hall - Richard Hall [38]
   Re: A Minor Diversion - Hart - Gary Hart [15]

  Feb 18:

   Re: Greys - McCartney - Pat McCartney [48]
   Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Bourdais - Gildas Bourdais [16]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Bourdais - Gildas Bourdais [106]
   Re: George Adamski? - Anthony - Gary Anthony [10]
   Re: Lakenheath - Sparks - Brad Sparks [99]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Morris - Neil Morris [156]
   Re: A Minor Diversion - Tenney - John Tenney [41]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Evans - Roger Evans [48]
   UFOWATCHDOG.COM - Royce J. Myers III - The Watchdog [52]
   Re: UNASA - Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy' - Robert Gates [48]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Gates - Robert Gates [31]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Gates - Robert Gates [34]
   Re: Dec 1950 Crash & Willingham - Sparks - Brad Sparks [56]
   Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Randles - Jenny Randles [47]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Evans - Roger Evans [18]
   Speaking Of Demons - Richard Hall [14]
   Re: NASA - Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy' - - Bob Young [28]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Evans - Roger Evans [56]
   Re: Lakenheath - Bruni - Georgina Bruni [44]
   Re: NASA - Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy' - - Roger Evans [38]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Morris - Neil Morris [24]
   Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Clark - Jerome Clark [27]
   Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Roberts - Andy Roberts [23]
   Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Stacy - Dennis Stacy [127]
   Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy' - Brad Sparks [57]
   'Strange Evidence' - DNA Investigation Of - Bill Chalker [25]

  Feb 19:

   Re: A Minor Diversion - Hatch - Larry Hatch [26]
   Re: A Minor Diversion - Hatch - Larry Hatch [69]
   Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy' - Bbob Young [15]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Tonnies - Mac Tonnies [24]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Tonnies - Mac Tonnies [26]
   Cydonina Imperative - 2-18-01: Is the Eye Faceted? - Mac Tonnies [49]
   Re: Dec 1950 Crash & Willingham - Hatch - Larry Hatch [84]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Rudiak - David Rudiak [276]
   Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Toal - Ted Toal [32]
   Cydonian Imperative: The Cliff's 'Great Wall' - Mac Tonnies [50]
   WB Network NY UFO Abduction - Jim Mortellaro [19]
   Re: Lakenheath - Randles - Jenny Randles [59]
   Re: NASA - Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy' - - Alfred Lehmberg
   [115]
   Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Easton - James Easton [512]

  Feb 20:

   Why It's Likely 'We're Not Alone In Cosmos' - UFO UpDates - Toronto
   [61]
   The Rendlesham Forest 'UFO' Incidents - Easton - James Easton [333]
   Re: NASA - Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy' - - Alfred Lehmberg
   [77]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Morris - Neil Morris [50]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Morris - Neil Morris [66]
   'Mothman' Movie News - UFO UpDates - Toronto [81]
   Chilean Government Handed UFO Files To U.S. - Scott Corrales [26]
   Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Hall - Richard Hall [42]
   Researcher Caveats Saturday's Chilean Sighting - Scott Corrales [17]
   Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy' - Bill Hamilton [35]
   Re: Re: A Minor Diversion - Easton - James Easton [33]
   Re: Lakenheath - Clarke - Dave Clarke [105]
   Argentina: Local Residents Terrified by "Imp" - Scott Corrales [82]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Gehrman - Ed Gehrman [58]
   Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Roberts - Andy Roberts [26]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Bourdais - Gildas Bourdais [65]
   Re: Lakenheath - Clarke - Dave Clarke [115]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Gehrman - Ed Gehrman [25]
   Feel Like A Bag O'Dirt - Roswell Dirt? - Tom Thehofanous [68]
   Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy' - David Bolton [27]
   Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy' - Joachim Koch [38]
   Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Richard Hall [8]
   Re: NASA - Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy' - - David Rudiak [36]
   Satellite Object Cases Pt. I - Jan Aldrich [91]
   Satellite Object Cases Pt. II - "Jan Aldrich" [86]
   Satellite Object Cases Pt. III - Jan Aldrich [192]
   Satellite Object Cases IV - Pt.IV - Jan Aldrich [40]

  Feb 21:

   Budd Hopkins' IF Seminar Announcement 3/10/01 (NYC) - Intruders
   Foundation [47]
   Re: Speaking Of Demons - Aubeck - Chris Aubeck [44]
   Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated - - Chris Aubeck [14]
   Re: Re: A Minor Diversion - Evans - Roger Evans [29]
   Re: The Rendlesham Forest 'UFO' Incidents - Ledger - Donald Ledger [39]
   Credibility and Credo Mutwa - Chris Aubeck [19]
   Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [168]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Evans - Roger Annette Evans [50]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Evans - Roger Evans [47]
   Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Hall - Richard Hall [64]
   Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy' - Brad Sparks [55]
   Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy' - Ron Cecchini [20]
   Re: Speaking Of Demons - Fernandes - Joaquim Fernandes [25]
   Re: Greys and Demons - Cecchini - Ron Cecchini [57]
   Alien Autopsies Are "True"! - Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo [16]
   Re: A Minor Diversion - Hatch - Larry Hatch [47]
   Re: Help With 'SG' Research - Kelly - Christopher Kelly [63]
   Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy' - Sean Liddle [20]
   Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy' - Brad Sparks [55]
   Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Clark - Jerome Clark [56]
   Re: NASA - Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy' - - Roger Evans [41]
   Re: Feel Like A Bag O'Dirt - Roswell Dirt? - Young - Bob Young [17]
   Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy' - Bob Young [13]
   Re: Dec 1950 Crash & Willingham - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [94]
   Re: The Rendlesham Forest 'UFO' Incidents - - Bruce Maccabee [253]
   Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy' - John Velez [102]
   The Halt Questions - James Easton [267]
   Re: Lakenheath - Randles - Jenny Randles [111]
   Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy' - James Easton [101]
   Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Friedman - Stan Friedman [46]
   Re: A Minor Diversion - Young - Bob Young [30]
   Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated - - Matt Hurley [27]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Young - Bob Young [14]
   Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Hamilton - Bill Hamilton [202]
   Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy' - Bob Young [19]
   Re: Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy' - Evans - Roger Evans [77]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Morris - Neil Morris [435]
   Seen This? - Bob Shell [10]
   Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy' - Bob Young [16]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Morris - Neil Morris [73]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Morris - Neil Morris [54]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Morris - Neil Morris [34]
   Re: Credibility and Credo Mutwa - Sandow - Greg Sandow [26]
   Re: Lakenheath - Bruni - Georgina Bruni [147]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Bourdais - Gildas Bourdais [47]
   Re: Clark vs Evans - Jones - Sean Jones [98]
   Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Roberts - Andy Roberts [45]
   Re: The Halt Questions - Bruni - Georgina Bruni [19]
   Re: Lakenheath - Bruni - Georgina Bruni [20]
   Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Stacy - Dennis Stacy [30]
   Re: Feel Like A Bag O'Dirt - Roswell Dirt? - Aubeck - Chris Aubeck [27]
   Re: - Chris Aubeck [35]
   Re: Religious Experiences - Aubeck - Chris Aubeck [32]
   Secrecy News -- 02/21/01 - Steven Aftergood [63]
   Re: Dec 1950 Crash & Willingham - Sparks - Brad Sparks [215]
   Re: Are Some Skeptics Debunkers in Sheep's - Georgina Bruni [24]
   Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Brookesmith - Mendoza - Peter
   Brookesmith [78]
   Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Brookesmith - Mendoza - Peter Brookesmith
   [222]
   Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Friedman - Stan Friedman [194]
   Re: Cosmic Snowball Attack From Space? - Balaskas - Nick Balaskas [93]

  Feb 22:

   NJ UFO/ET Congress 2001 - Additions - Tom Benson [39]
   Re: Seen This? - McCoy - GT McCoy [32]
   Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Stacy - Dennis Stacy [33]
   Re: Alien Autopsies Are "True"! - Deschamps - Michel M. Deschamps [17]
   Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy' - Sean Liddle [29]

  Feb 23:

   Re: A Minor Diversion - Liddle - Sean Liddle [22]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Gates - Robert Gates [41]
   Re: Lakenheath - Sparks - Brad Sparks [67]
   Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Evans - Roger Evans [35]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Evans - Roger Evans [61]
   Re: A Minor Diversion - Hart - Gary hart [25]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Evans - Roger Evans [80]
   Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Stacy - Dennis Stacy [32]
   Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy' - John Velez [48]
   Re: A Minor Diversion - Hatch - Larry Hatch [45]
   Re: Lakenheath - Randles - Jenny Randles [70]
   Re: Link Between UFOs, Helicopters & Mutes? - - Josh Goldstein [155]
   Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Friedman - Stan Friedman [79]
   BUFORA's Billy Buchanan Lecture - Philip Mantle [43]
   Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Hall - Richard Hall [55]
   Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Hamilton - skywatcher22@space.com
   [50]
   Re: Naud, Bouchmann & Le Paige - Aubeck - Chris Aubeck [84]
   UFOs in 1882 & 1394 - Chris Aubeck [34]
   Re: Lakenheath - Auchettl - John W. Auchettl [65]
   Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy' - Bob Young [23]
   Re: AA Film Redux - KRandle - Kevin Randle [278]
   New Evidence Of Sagan's Martian Macrobes? - Nick Balaskas [29]
   Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Hall - Richard Hall [61]
   X-Zone Radio Show Cancelled - UFO UpDates - Toronto [59]
   Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Clark - Jerome Clark [30]
   UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 6 Number 8 - John Hayes [549]
   Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Clark - Jerome Clark [231]
   Re: Alien Autopsies Are "True"! - Evans - Roger Annette Evans [51]
   Mystery Bang Rocks Yorkshire Coast - Dave Clarke [55]
   Re: Cosmic Snowball Attack From Space? - Velez - John Velez [134]
   Re: Lakenheath - Clarke - Dave Clarke [124]
   Students Uncover Baffling Martian Boulders - Kelly [60]
   Niburu Visible With 'Scopes... - Wendy Christensen [17]
   Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Bourdais - Gildas Bourdais [37]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Bourdais - Gildas Bourdais [68]
   ufowatchdog.com Site - Royce J. Myers III [9]
   The Watchdog E-Update - 02-22-01 - Royce J. Myers III [48]
   Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy' - Bob Young [26]
   Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Lehmberg - Alfred Lehmberg [39]
   Re: Seen This? - A Geologist Responds - Shell - Bob Shell [25]
   Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Strickland - Sue Strickland [80]
   Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Randle - Kevin Randle [106]
   An Italian 'Sputnik/UFO'? - Nick Balaskas [19]
   Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Friedman - Stan Friedman [64]
   Re: UFOs in 1882 & 1394 - Clark - Jerome Clark [34]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Morris - Neil Morris [79]
   Re: New Evidence Of Sagan's Martian Macrobes? - - Mac Tonnies [28]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Tonnies - Mac Tonnies [31]
   Secrecy News -- 02/23/01 - Steven Aftergood [86]
   Re: Lakenheath - Clarke - Dave Clarke [66]
   Re: Lakenheath - Salvaille - Serge Salvaille [57]
   Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Clarke - Dave Clarke [43]
   Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Stacy - "Dennis Stacy" [90]
   Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Friedman - Stan Friedman [75]
   Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Young - Bob Young [38]
   Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Dennis Stacy [42]
   Re: Niburu Visible With 'Scopes... - Bob Young [10]

  Feb 24:

   Secret Keeping - Richard Hall [27]
   Re: Dec 1950 Crash & Willingham - King - Jeff King [22]
   Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Rimmer - John Rimmer [38]
   Re: Lakenheath - Randles - Jenny Randles [122]
   Re: Niburu Visible With 'Scopes... - Sparks - Brad Sparks [35]
   Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Randles - Jenny Randles [55]
   Re: Alien Autopsies Are "True"! - Deschamps - Michel M. Deschamps [62]
   Filer's Files #8 -- 2001 - UFO UpDates - Toronto [444]
   Re: An Italian 'Sputnik/UFO'? - Young - Bob Young [27]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Evans - Roger Evans [73]
   Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Young - Bob Young [27]
   Re: An Italian 'Sputnik/UFO'? - Occhetta - Emiliano Occhetta - CUN
   Novara [29]
   Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Brookesmith - Mendoza - Peter Brookesmith
   [79]
   Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy' - Roger Evans [60]
   Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Easton - James Easton [115]
   Re: Niburu Visible With 'Scopes... - Young - Bob Young [42]
   Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - McGonagle - Joe McGonagle [16]
   Richard Brunswick? - Roy J Hale [6]
   'The Big Pay Off'? - Roy J Hale [7]
   Bruni Lecture - A Review - Roy J Hale [20]
   Re: New Evidence Of Sagan's Martian Macrobes? - - John Velez [62]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Johnson - James Bond Johnson [58]
   Re: Naud, Bouchmann & Le Paige - Mancusi - Bruno Mancusi [77]
   Watch On For Doomsday Asteroids, Comets - Steve Wilson Senior [87]
   Re: Lakenheath - Clarke - Dave Clarke [57]
   Re: Niburu Visible With 'Scopes... - Hatch - Larry Hatch [34]
   Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Hatch - Larry Hatch [48]
   Re: Re: An Italian 'Sputnik/UFO'? - Lissoni - Alfredo Lissoni [17]
   The Great Moon Hoax - NASA Responds - Stan Friedman [15]
   Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Randle - Kevin Randle [97]
   Tell The People - Richard Hall [13]
   Re: Niburu Visible With 'Scopes... - Young - Bob Young [36]
   Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Friedman - Stan Friedman [62]
   Re: Lakenheath - Bruni - Georgina Bruni [113]
   Re: Lakenheath - Bruni - Georgina Bruni [32]
   Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Hall - Richard Hall [101]
   Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Hall - Richard Hall [87]

  Feb 25:

   Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Clark - Jerome Clark [44]
   Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Rimmer - Robert Gates [50]
   Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Jones - Sean Jones [13]
   Re: Renaissance Sputnik? - Christensen - Wendy Christensen [51]
   Re: Lakenheath - Randles - Jenny Randles [79]
   Re: Filer's Files #8 -- 2001 - John Velez [90]
   Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Lehmberg - Dennis Stacy [96]
   Re: An Italian 'Sputnik/UFO'? - Roger Evans [33]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Gehrman - Ed Gehrman [90]
   Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Clark - Jerome Clark [146]
   Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Stacy - Dennis Stacy [17]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Morris - Neil Morris [330]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Gehrman - Ed Gehrman [22]
   Re: Tell The People - Stacy - Dennis Stacy [22]
   Re: Tell The Peopl - Gehrman - Ed Gehrman [13]
   Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Hall - Richard Hall [56]
   Re: New Evidence Of Sagan's Martian Macrobes? - - Mac Tonnies [39]
   Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Rudiak - David Rudiak [48]
   Re: NASA - Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy' - - David Rudiak [157]
   Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Friedman - Stan Friedman [52]
   Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Rudiak - David Rudiak [133]
   Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Hatch - Bob Young [14]
   Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Stacy - Dennis Stacy [26]
   Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Young - Bob Young [35]
   Re: Naud, Bouchmann & Le Paige - Hatch - Larry Hatch [70]
   Re: Mystery Bang Rocks Yorkshire Coast - Bolton - David Bolton [24]
   Re: Still looking for Niburu? - Christensen - Wendy Christensen [6]

  Feb 26:

   Re: Naud, Bouchmann & Le Paige - Aubeck - Chris Aubeck [32]
   Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Rimmer - John Rimmer [41]
   Re: Lakenheath - Clarke - Dave Clarke [182]
   [SO] Photo of Stars on Moon! - Bill Hamilton [42]
   Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Hall - Richard Hall [57]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Evans - Roger Evans [86]
   Re: Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy' - Evans - Roger Evans [97]
   Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Stacy - Dennis Stacy [152]
   Re: Tell The People - Hall - Richard Hall [24]
   Re: Lakenheath - Salvaille - Serge Salvaille [104]
   Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Mortellaro - Jim Mortellaro [104]
   Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Lehmberg - Alfred Lehmberg [233]
   Re: Mystery Bang Rocks Yorkshire Coast - Lemire - Todd Lemire [46]
   Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Hatch - Larry Hatch [41]

  Feb 27:

   Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Hatch - Larry Hatch [29]
   Atomic Bombs and Fugo Balloons - Jan Aldrich [25]
   Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Randle - Kevin Randle [53]
   UFOBC Updates - 02-25-01 - David Pengilly [35]
   Re: Lakenheath - Hale - Roy J Hale [11]
   Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Young - Bob Young [24]
   Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Young - Bob Young [72]
   Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Young - Bob Young [30]
   Re: Still looking for Niburu? - Young - Bob Young [17]
   Re: UFOs in 1882 & 1394 - Borraz - Manuel Borraz [34]
   Re: New Evidence Of Sagan's Martian Macrobes? - - John Velez [115]
   Re: Tell The People - Velez - John Velez [46]
   Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Roberts - Andy Roberts [75]
   Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Randles - Jenny Randles [59]
   Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Hall - Richard Hall [31]
   MGS Imaged _Entire_ Mars Face - Lan Fleming [68]
   PRA - Almost History A Book - John W. Auchettl [65]
   Chilean AF Welcomes UFO Researchers - Corrales - Scott Corrales [22]
   Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Bourdais - GBourdais@aol.com [36]
   Alencon France 1790 [was: Naud, Bouchmann & Le - Bruno Mancusi [38]
   Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Clark - Jerome Clark [30]
   Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Clark - Jerome Clark [50]
   Re: [SO] Photo of Stars on Moon! - Evans - Roger Evans [30]
   Cydonian Imperative: 2-26-01 - Mac Tonnies [41]
   Re: Australian State Director's Page - Diane Harrison Director AUFORN
   [27]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Bourdais - Gildas Bourdais [35]
   Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Christensen - Wendy Christensen
   [10]
   The Watchdog E-Update - 02-27-01 - Royce J. Myers III [31]
   Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Stacy - Dennis Stacy [29]
   Re: AA Film Redux - Gates - Robert Gates [122]
   Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Velez - John Velez [106]
   New Evidence Strengthens Claims of Ancient Life on - Kurt Jonach [106]
   Re: Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy' - Rudiak - David Rudiak [120]
   Re: Lakenheath - Randles - Jenny Randles [77]
   Filer's Files #9 -- 2001 [Truncated] - George A. Filer [266]
   UFOs in Adams County, Illinois? - Chris Aubeck [6]
   Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Friedman - Stan Friedman [42]
   Re: UFOs in 1882 & 1394 - Clark - Jerome Clark [37]
   Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Evans - Roger Evans [73]
   Re: New Evidence Of Sagan's Martian Macrobes? - - Mac Tonnies [54]
   Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Clark - Jerome Clark [70]
   Re: Velez Question On John Carpenter [was: Filer's - Gary Hart [84]
   Re: Lakenheath - Clarke - Dave Clarke [26]
   Re: Naud, Bouchmann & Le Paige - Mancusi - Bruno Mancusi [42]
   Mystifying Shuttle Shadow - UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca
   [50]
   Re: Cydonian Imperative: 2-26-01 - Velez - John Velez [74]
   Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Sparks - Brad Sparks [26]
   Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Stacy - Dennis Stacy [76]
   Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Hall - Richard Hall [74]
   Wife Sees Husband 'Vanish' - Kelly Peterborough [41]
   Secrecy News -- 02/27/01 - Steven Aftergood [98]
   Re: Atomic Bombs and Fugo Balloons - Goldstein - Josh Goldstein [81]
   Joe Firmage Aiming For The Stars? - Nick Balaskas [147]

  Feb 28:

   Re: Velez Question On John Carpenter - Velez - John Velez [96]
   Re: New Evidence Of Sagan's Martian Macrobes? - - John Velez [88]
   Alien Biology Sparks Class - Kelly [18]
   Writing, Symbols & Emblems? - Gary Anthony [26]
   Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [88]
   Re: [SO] Photo of Stars on Moon! - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [27]
   Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Sparks - Brad Sparks [80]
   Re: T Hypothesis & ET Fact - Stacy - Dennis Stacy [25]
   Re: Cydonian Imperative: 2-26-01 - Fleming - Lan Fleming [24]
   Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Deardorff - Jim Deardorff [121]
   Re: [SO] Photo of Stars on Moon! - Young - Bob Young [32]
   Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Young - Bob Young [32]
   Re: Wife Sees Husband 'Vanish' - Deardorff - Jim Deardorff [34]
   Re: FOs in Adams County, Illinois? - Hatch - Larry Hatch [30]
   Re: Wife Sees Husband 'Vanish' - Hatch - Larry Hatch [25]
   Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Randles - Jenny Randles [141]
   Re: Alencon France 1790 - Hatch - Larry Hatch [28]
   Re: Tribal Beliefs and UFOs - Aubeck - Chris Aubeck [66]
   Re: Alencon France 1790 - Aubeck - Chris Aubeck [166]
   Follow Up On Chupacabra Skull Analysis - Scott Corrales [64]
   Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Young - Bob Young [24]
   Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Hamilton - Bill Hamilton [84]
   Re: [SO] Photo of Stars on Moon! - Evans - Roger Evans [47]
   Re: Cydonian Imperative: 2-26-01 - Evans - Roger Evans [37]
   Secrecy News -- 02/28/01 - Steven Aftergood [45]
   Re: Writing, Symbols & Emblems? - Velez - John Velez [51]
   Filer's Files #9 -- 2001 - Pt. 2 - George A. Filer [265]
   Re: Wife Sees Husband 'Vanish' - Hatch - John Hayes [29]
   Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgement - Fuller - Paul Fuller [27]
   Re: Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy' - Evans - Roger Evans [110]
   Re: Writing, Symbols & Emblems? - Harrison - Diane Harrison - Director
   AUFORN [47]
   Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Clarke - Dave Clarke [71]
   Re: Writing, Symbols and Emblems - Anthony - Gary Anthony [145]

   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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 1

                          Re: Book Search - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 23:23:04 +0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 08:34:40 -0500
Subject: Re: Book Search - Rimmer


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Book Search
 >Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 11:13:32 -0600

 >>Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 17:13:24 +0000
 >>From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Book Search?

 >>Does anyone on this List know where I could get a copy of 'Life
 >>And Bizarre Crimes Of Spring Heeled Jack', by Peter Haining?

 >>I don't have an ISBN No. so it's been a bit of a job tracking it
 >>down. Any help would be greatly appreciated and I am willing to
 >>pay for a copy.

 >>Please contact me on the above address.

 >No, but if you find two copies, I'll take one!

I suppose I could start a vicious on-line auction war for my
ex-public library copy which I'd be happy to get rid of!
Seriously, it is very flawed and of little research value. Mike
Dash's article is a far better source.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 1

                       Re: To Be or Not To Be - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 23:38:46 +0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 08:36:34 -0500
Subject: Re: To Be or Not To Be - Rimmer


 >From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 11:15:34 EST
 >Subject: To Be or Not To Be
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Natural for a man to think about not being. But for so many
 >perceived abductees, its a question raised nearly every day of
 >our existence. Especially among those who suffer real physical
 >pain, as so many of us do.

<snip>

 >Pain. Intractable and too much for anyone to bear. Additive to
 >the pain we share, is the issue of abuse. We are abused by
 >ordinary people who mean no real harm. They make fun, make
 >jokes and generally make us feel terribly uncomfortable. In the
 >media, we are treated like nutcases. They make amusing cartoons
 >about people who have experienced the abduction phenom.

 >Then come the skeptibunkers. Followed by the Fill Classes and
 >those who cannot tolerate anything which is outside of their own
 >paradigm. You can tell these people from the genuine skeptic.
 >They are the angry ones, spewing strength of their own
 >convictions whilst vigorously denying ours.

<snip>

What is this all about - heartfelt though it may be? Is it a
plea that abductees should never be questioned for fear that it
will add to their pains? Is it an attempt to make sceptical
researchers feel guilty for daring to challenge some of the
claims made by abductees? Is is a general "hands off, we're
fragile" warning?

There are many people who are not abductees who suffer terrible
pain - I know, I have lived amongst some.

There are many abductees who suffer no pain as a result of their
experience - I know, I have talked and laughed with some.

If Jim does not want to deal with the "skeptibunkers" and finds
their convictions and alleged anger painful, one wonders why he
contributes so much to this list.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 1

                      Re: Red Dwarfs/Alien Life - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 19:17:07 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 08:38:42 -0500
Subject: Re: Red Dwarfs/Alien Life - Young


 >Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 06:37:02 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Red Dwarfs/Alien Life
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca >>

Roger, List:

The other thing about a red dwarf is that the area in the
planetary system which would be conducive to life would be
much closer in and much more limited. Of course many of
the new planets being found seem to be in strange systems
(compared to our own) and some have planets very close to
the star.

This is an interesting line of speculation. But, anybody who
is able to travel interstellar distances would have the ability
to vidoe or observe in day or night. Personally, I think that
robots would be a far more likely possibility anyway.


Clear skies,

Bob Young








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 1

                         Re: AA Film Redux - Gehrman

From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 16:50:02 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 08:41:21 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Gehrman


 >From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 14:17:50 -0800


 >About faking alien autopsies you can't miss:

 >http://www.trudang.com/autopsy/autopsy.html

Serge,

What is the meaning of this post?

I don't get it.  This link is one of the main reasons
that the AA has been consigned to the trash bin.

And pardon the language but this link is a bunch of BS,
pure and simple. You must examine the footage to
understand the vast difference between what is depicted
at this site and the AA.

The other links are OK but you misspelled autopsy (see below
authopsy) so only seven matches show.

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Alien+authopsy%22#=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off

 >Others might try a pilgrimage to the archives of UFO UpDates:

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

These archives, while complete are too difficult to navigate for
the average surfer.

I still think the most complete synopsis is the following:

http://hesemann.m-n-d.com/beyondroswell.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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 1

              Re: UFOs & Mexico/US Military Experiences - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 03:48:27 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 19:05:46 -0500
Subject: Re: UFOs & Mexico/US Military Experiences - Velez


 >From: Antonio_Gomez-Orodea@discovery.com
 >Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 16:40:49 -0500
 >Subject: UFOs & Mexico/US Military Experiences
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >[Non-Subscriber Post]

 >Hi Guys,

 >Do you know if there have ever been any documented UFOs
 >encounters with any kind of military forces in Mexico and/or the
 >US? If so, could you tell me when and how important these
 >encounters were?

 >I am collecting information about these specific UFO/Military
 >encounters and I would greatly appreciate your help.


Hi Antonio,

I'm not sure if this qualifies but, in the UFO video compilation
"Messengers of the Stars" that was produced by Brit & Lee Elders
in the mid 90s, there are a few  clips taken in and around
Mexico City showing UFOs in conjunction with military activity.
In one clip an "object" (UFO) flies right through the middle of
a formation of military helicopters. The choppers were
overflying the city as a part of a holiday airshow/celebration.
Somebody on the ground was taping and caught the the incident on
tape.

There's another clip showing a group of about 5 or 6 fighters
that are being videotaped by a ground observer. While the
cameraman is panning to follow the planes, they pass by a
stationary (object/UFO.) One of the planes breaks formation in
an attempt to go back and get a closer look at the thing when
the UFO suddenly begins to accelerate and leaves the area by
going up! (As opposed to flying off in a straight line away from
the pursuing plane.)

There is a third clip taken during an event/parade involving the
military when the camera person spots an object/UFO hovering
overhead (maybe the UFO occupants were checking out the parade!)
and he begins to film the odd object in the sky rather than the
festive doings on the ground. :)

Get your hands on a copy of this tape and check it out for
yourself.


Regards,

John Velez


.................................................................
  "Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind."
                            www.spacelab.net/~jvif/
.................................................................







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 1

                          Re: Lawn & Media - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 04:01:51 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 19:08:11 -0500
Subject: Re: Lawn & Media - Velez


 >From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Lawn & Media [was: Joseph Smith]
 >Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 10:57:22 -0600

 >From: "UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >To: <02 - UFO UpDates Subscribers :>
 >Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 8:22 AM
 >Subject: Re: Lawn & Media [was: Joseph Smith]

 >>Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 15:54:59 -0500
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Joseph Smith

 ><snip>

 >>John (*I don't 'turn tricks' for nobody) Velez

 >>(*) With the exception of 'Strange Days,...Indeed'. I do it out of
 >>my love, friendship, and very high personal regard for Errol. I
 >>would walk through Hell on my knees if the Wookie asked me to.

Hiya Alfred,

You responded:

 >Yeah -- but would ya wear a little Sailor suit while listening
 >to him croon a litany of dirty ditties?

Only if I get to burn a big doobie of "Lawn" first! <-(Keeping it
topical) After that, he can recite his ditties in (or into) his
underwear for all I'll care. ;)

*Chris Rutkowski wrote to tell me that if Errol does ask, I should
hold out for golf cart!  <LMAO>

Geez, even when you try to say something nice about somebody on
UpDates, you get ridden like a dime store pony. This List is a
tough neighborhood man! :)

Warm regards, and a compulsory mention of something 'UFO'
related to you. "Implants."<-(have to keep it 'topical' or EBK
won't post this!)

John (if I have to wear a sailor suit and look like one of the
Village People, why can't I be the Indian instead,) Velez

..................................................................
  "Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind."
                            www.spacelab.net/~jvif/
..................................................................








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 1

                           Face on Mars Re-Imaged

From: Kurt Jonach <ewarrior@electricwarrior.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 01:21:26 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 19:13:10 -0500
Subject: Face on Mars Re-Imaged


------------------------------------------------------------
BREAKING : FACE ON MARS RE-IMAGED

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

The Electric Warrior : Mars Online February 1, 2001
http://www.electricwarrior.com/mol/MarsOnline008.htm

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

CYDONIA 2001

NASA has released seven new images of the Cydonia region on
Mars, including a close-up of the Face.

"This is the area where popular books, magazine articles,
tabloids and other news/infotainment media have speculated that
some of the hills and mesas were artificially-shaped by
extraterrestrial intelligence into forms such as a pyramid, a
cone, and, most publicized, a face," says Malin Space Science
Systems (MSSS).

Last April NASA released all images of the region that had been
taken by the Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) until that time. The new
set of images, released January 31, includes all images acquired
since April 2000.

According to MSSS, continuing public interest in the region
prompted them to command the Mars Orbital Camera (MOC) to take a
picture whenever the Global Surveyor spacecraft flew over the
region. Michael Malin of MSSS designed and developed the MOC for
JPL.

The new close-up of the Face captures a large portion of the
western side of the famous Martian landform. The eastern side
has never been adequately imaged by either MGS or Viking
missions, having been either obscured from view or unresolved in
deep shadow.

The western side of the Face covers an area where the eye socket
should be, if the mile-long mesa was indeed intentionally
designed to look like a face.

The 'artificiality hypothesis' put forth by advocates of the
Face predicts that more face-like features should appear as
higher resolution images capture more detail. Enigmatically, the
new image renders features that might be interpreted as an
eyeball and pupil.

Another anomaly known as the Cliff was also imaged in the past
year. This feature can be described as a strait, wall-like
landform, which rises inexplicably in the midst of the ejecta
from a nearby crater.

Mars anomaly researchers have asked how it was that the Cliff
was not covered by the crater ejecta on impact, speculating that
the anomaly may be an artificial structure constructed some time
after the crater was formed.

The new image of the Cliff is marred by data loss, but may
provide researchers with enough information to resolve their
questions.

To help resolve the Martian enigmas, Mars researchers have been
clamoring for new, high-resolution images of the Face on Mars
and other Cydonia anomalies like the Cliff. They just got them.

------------------------------------------------------------
IMAGES

http://www.electricwarrior.com/mol/ewFace2001Zoom.jpg
http://www.electricwarrior.com/mol/ewCliff2001Zoom.jpg

------------------------------------------------------------
THE ELECTRIC WARRIOR
February 1, 2001
Silicon Valley, CA

------------------------------------------------------------
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.

Web developers, the URL address for this content is:
http://www.electricwarrior.com/mol/MarsOnline008.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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 1

                          Re: Joseph Smith - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 21:28:39 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 19:14:58 -0500
Subject: Re: Joseph Smith - Hatch


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 23:37:46 EST
 >Subject: Re: Joseph Smith
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 01:21:27 -0800
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Joseph Smith

 ><snip>

 >>This is just my personal opinion of course, but the more a
 >>space-alien contactee resembles a religious contactee, the more
 >>my BS buzzer sounds!

 >Hi Larry,

 >My favorite :) out of the whole bunch is when I hear some of the
 >"believers" advocating and telling us how the space brothers are
 >going to come and save the planet from:

 >a) nuclear war
 >b) nuclear winter
 >c) global warming
 >d) global cooling
 >e) all of the above.

 >In other words the grey, bug eyed, pointy ear, "messiah" has
 >just shown up to save earth from all of its ills and disasters.
 >An even better favorite a few years ago was when one of the
 >dudes from the Montauk project was claiming to have remote
 >viewed a Grey alien. The Grey preferred to guzzle draino for
 >nourishment. Quite a contrast from the Bill Moore TV special
 >in which the alleged govt insiders revealed that the Greys like
 >strawberry ice cream.....

 >>I hope this doesn't offend anyone, but that's probably asking
 >>too much.

 >Not to worry, my posting has probably just outraged and number
 >of people, so they will have promptly forgotten about your
 >post...:)



Hello Robert, and thanks for the diversion!

It seems to me that the more outre new-age groups have simply
replaced old traditional religions with fresh new logical
lasagna. The details don't have to make sense. That's for
rationalistic nit-pickers and egg- headed scientists.

If I were an alien "space-brother" I would probably find
something more interesting to do than save humanity from the
ravages of war, human nature and entropy. I would certainly
_not_ seek out some self-styled guru as the sole outlet for my
cosmic revelations. I guess I would just remain silent and enjoy
the show; but heck, that's just me.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 2

                   Re: Hot Gossip Real X - Files Feb 2001

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 13:19:37 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 01:13:01 -0500
Subject: Re: Hot Gossip Real X - Files Feb 2001



The Real X-Files - Hot Gossip UK
http://www.hotgossip.co.uk/x-files.html

The First International Workshop in Field Propulsion Physics and
Technology

by Georgina Bruni

Graham Ennis is a lively 59 year old British engineer with a
cause. In fact he has spent most of his life campaigning for one
cause or another, but his latest effort was to put together a
group of scientists and engineers with the aim of sharing
information that one day could result in a scientific
breakthrough which could change the world. That historical
moment arrived on 20 January 2001 when Ennis introduced �The
First International Workshop in Field Propulsion Physics and
Technology� held at the University of Sussex, Brighton, England.

Interestingly, The Society of British Aerospace Companies
supported the workshop, which ran over a period of three days.
According to Ennis, the event was intended as a response to
NASA�s �Breakthrough Propulsion Physics� workshops, but Ennis�s
workshop was open to international participants on a global
basis as a pre-cursor to an international conference planned for
spring 2002.

Graham Ennis believes that we can design a spaceship by using
zero point energy � and he is not alone. For several years now a
number of scientists have been working on this very theory, a
theory that has shocked traditional science because it is just
too weird.

Nick Pope from the Ministry of Defence (attending in a private
capacity) and myself (acting as Ennis's PR) arrived in Brighton
early on Saturday morning just in time to take our seats for the
introduction.  Graham Ennis discussed the need to have good
relations with NASA and stressed that if it were not for the
Internet this meeting could never have taken place. He explained
how NASA was working on anti-gravity and how there was a good
deal of secrecy attached to this research. �Even with government
support it could take 20 or 30 years. We�re looking at something
�Star Trek�, he said. However, he did state that a 6% reduction
in gravity will be proved by the end of May 2001. Graham Ennis
then introduced Dr Anders Hansson (Secretary: Commission
International Academy of Astronautics) who was chairing the
meeting.

Ron Evans is the director of Project Greenglow, an anti-gravity
research programme supported by the military wing of British
Aerospace. In typical British fashion, Evans opened his talk
with the words: �I am Ron Evans, we have nothing to hide - we
haven�t discovered anything.� Evan�s presentation centred around
how difficult it was to acquire funding for these specialised
projects. He then reminded us again, �There is nothing secret
here.� According to Evans, following World War II, Britain spent
a lot of money on Stealth technology and at that time we were
the leaders in this field. In fact Evans was willing to discuss
anything to do with propulsion but pointed out that he could not
talk about Stealth.

Photo: Georgina Bruni with Ron Evans Director of Project Greenglow

http://www.hotgossip.co.uk/x-files.html

It seems there is an urgency to move forward and that this
research will contribute to our future needs in more ways than
just space flight. During question and answers Dr Alan Holt from
NASA (attending in a private capacity) told the audience that we
are running out of time and the future of this century is to
turn water into hydrogen but it will take 20-40 years to
achieve.  Hal Puthoff from the Institute For Advanced Studies
spoke about the oil wars of the past becoming the water wars of
the future.

Dr Alan Holt was first recognised for his excellent paper (1969)
on field propulsion. He stressed the difficulty of getting
funding for these projects and suggested one route was to aim
for the �black world�, in other words black projects. But it was
necessary to get to the point where something could be
demonstrated before any interest would be shown. Referring to
NASA, Holt pointed out that the main trust was for Mars and the
search for life is the key factor and, although it is possible
to travel to Mars and Jupiter, there is concern for the
astronauts. �We don�t want to go there and get our people
stranded on some planet because of faulty technology or because
our budget is cut,� he said.  Apparently during the 70s and 80s
Research and Development funding was a real challenge for
anything that had a sci-fi tag to it. But today's challenge is
to achieve a low cost human mission to Mars by 2010 � 2015.

Photo: Dr Alan Holt, Hal Puthoff and Nick Pope

http://www.hotgossip.co.uk/x-files.html

Hal Puthoff is no stranger to anyone with even the remotest
interest in propulsion technology. He has been a firm supporter
for engineering the zero-point energy field and polarizable
vacuum for interstellar flight. Check out

www.earthtech.org

for his papers on the subject. It is also worth mentioning that
Puthoff set up and ran the first remote viewing program for the
US government. It was indeed a great pleasure to meet this
charming and intelligent man and Nick Pope and I were delighted
to have dinner with him on the Saturday evening.

Photo: Georgina Bruni and Hal Puthoff

http://www.hotgossip.co.uk/x-files.html

Dr Claudio Maccone, a PhD in Applied Mathematics, who had
travelled from Turin, Italy, talked of wormholes and the need
for sheer computing capabilities. Website: www.ijvr.com. But not
being a scientist I had problems understanding many of the
speakers, especially during their demonstrations using maths and
formulas. But as far as I can tell, the event was a great
success inasmuch as it put together an international group of
people who believe that we can achieve (with adequate funding) a
spacecraft that can work using this amazing technology.

One big surprise for me was to learn how several of the
scientists have a fascination with UFOs. In fact Dr Illobrand
Von Ludwiger (formerly DASA, Germany) is a director of the
international UFO group, MUFON. Professor John Allen (Prof.
Aerospace Science Cranfield and Kingstone Universities) actually
gave a lecture about UFOs a few years ago. Dr Jean-Pierre Petit
is another who showed an interest and others who I shall not
name because they are still employed in government and private
companies. Nick Cook, Aviation Editor of Jane�s Defence Weekly,
joined Nick Pope and I for lunch and we discussed his excellent
TV programme on black projects � and UFOs. Marc Pilkington from
Fortean Times was also present and none other than Graham
Birdsall, editor of UFO Magazine (UK), who has published much on
this subject in recent issues of the magazine.

For more details of the event and full list of speakers present
visit:

www.workshop.cwc.net


Georgina Bruni

georgina@easynet.co.uk
----------------------------
"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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 2

                     Hot Gossip Real X - Files Feb 2001

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 13:19:37 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 01:15:42 -0500
Subject: Hot Gossip Real X - Files Feb 2001



The Real X-Files - Hot Gossip UK
http://www.hotgossip.co.uk/x-files.html

The First International Workshop in Field Propulsion Physics and
Technology

by Georgina Bruni

Graham Ennis is a lively 59 year old British engineer with a
cause. In fact he has spent most of his life campaigning for one
cause or another, but his latest effort was to put together a
group of scientists and engineers with the aim of sharing
information that one day could result in a scientific
breakthrough which could change the world. That historical
moment arrived on 20 January 2001 when Ennis introduced �The
First International Workshop in Field Propulsion Physics and
Technology� held at the University of Sussex, Brighton, England.

Interestingly, The Society of British Aerospace Companies
supported the workshop, which ran over a period of three days.
According to Ennis, the event was intended as a response to
NASA�s �Breakthrough Propulsion Physics� workshops, but Ennis�s
workshop was open to international participants on a global
basis as a pre-cursor to an international conference planned for
spring 2002.

Graham Ennis believes that we can design a spaceship by using
zero point energy � and he is not alone. For several years now a
number of scientists have been working on this very theory, a
theory that has shocked traditional science because it is just
too weird.

Nick Pope from the Ministry of Defence (attending in a private
capacity) and myself (acting as Ennis's PR) arrived in Brighton
early on Saturday morning just in time to take our seats for the
introduction.  Graham Ennis discussed the need to have good
relations with NASA and stressed that if it were not for the
Internet this meeting could never have taken place. He explained
how NASA was working on anti-gravity and how there was a good
deal of secrecy attached to this research. �Even with government
support it could take 20 or 30 years. We�re looking at something
�Star Trek�, he said. However, he did state that a 6% reduction
in gravity will be proved by the end of May 2001. Graham Ennis
then introduced Dr Anders Hansson (Secretary: Commission
International Academy of Astronautics) who was chairing the
meeting.

Ron Evans is the director of Project Greenglow, an anti-gravity
research programme supported by the military wing of British
Aerospace. In typical British fashion, Evans opened his talk
with the words: �I am Ron Evans, we have nothing to hide - we
haven�t discovered anything.� Evan�s presentation centred around
how difficult it was to acquire funding for these specialised
projects. He then reminded us again, �There is nothing secret
here.� According to Evans, following World War II, Britain spent
a lot of money on Stealth technology and at that time we were
the leaders in this field. In fact Evans was willing to discuss
anything to do with propulsion but pointed out that he could not
talk about Stealth.

Photo: Georgina Bruni with Ron Evans Director of Project Greenglow

http://www.hotgossip.co.uk/x-files.html

It seems there is an urgency to move forward and that this
research will contribute to our future needs in more ways than
just space flight. During question and answers Dr Alan Holt from
NASA (attending in a private capacity) told the audience that we
are running out of time and the future of this century is to
turn water into hydrogen but it will take 20-40 years to
achieve.  Hal Puthoff from the Institute For Advanced Studies
spoke about the oil wars of the past becoming the water wars of
the future.

Dr Alan Holt was first recognised for his excellent paper (1969)
on field propulsion. He stressed the difficulty of getting
funding for these projects and suggested one route was to aim
for the �black world�, in other words black projects. But it was
necessary to get to the point where something could be
demonstrated before any interest would be shown. Referring to
NASA, Holt pointed out that the main trust was for Mars and the
search for life is the key factor and, although it is possible
to travel to Mars and Jupiter, there is concern for the
astronauts. �We don�t want to go there and get our people
stranded on some planet because of faulty technology or because
our budget is cut,� he said.  Apparently during the 70s and 80s
Research and Development funding was a real challenge for
anything that had a sci-fi tag to it. But today's challenge is
to achieve a low cost human mission to Mars by 2010 � 2015.

Photo: Dr Alan Holt, Hal Puthoff and Nick Pope

http://www.hotgossip.co.uk/x-files.html

Hal Puthoff is no stranger to anyone with even the remotest
interest in propulsion technology. He has been a firm supporter
for engineering the zero-point energy field and polarizable
vacuum for interstellar flight. Check out

www.earthtech.org

for his papers on the subject. It is also worth mentioning that
Puthoff set up and ran the first remote viewing program for the
US government. It was indeed a great pleasure to meet this
charming and intelligent man and Nick Pope and I were delighted
to have dinner with him on the Saturday evening.

Photo: Georgina Bruni and Hal Puthoff

http://www.hotgossip.co.uk/x-files.html

Dr Claudio Maccone, a PhD in Applied Mathematics, who had
travelled from Turin, Italy, talked of wormholes and the need
for sheer computing capabilities. Website: www.ijvr.com. But not
being a scientist I had problems understanding many of the
speakers, especially during their demonstrations using maths and
formulas. But as far as I can tell, the event was a great
success inasmuch as it put together an international group of
people who believe that we can achieve (with adequate funding) a
spacecraft that can work using this amazing technology.

One big surprise for me was to learn how several of the
scientists have a fascination with UFOs. In fact Dr Illobrand
Von Ludwiger (formerly DASA, Germany) is a director of the
international UFO group, MUFON. Professor John Allen (Prof.
Aerospace Science Cranfield and Kingstone Universities) actually
gave a lecture about UFOs a few years ago. Dr Jean-Pierre Petit
is another who showed an interest and others who I shall not
name because they are still employed in government and private
companies. Nick Cook, Aviation Editor of Jane�s Defence Weekly,
joined Nick Pope and I for lunch and we discussed his excellent
TV programme on black projects � and UFOs. Marc Pilkington from
Fortean Times was also present and none other than Graham
Birdsall, editor of UFO Magazine (UK), who has published much on
this subject in recent issues of the magazine.

For more details of the event and full list of speakers present
visit:

www.workshop.cwc.net


Georgina Bruni

georgina@easynet.co.uk
----------------------------
"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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 2

                           Nick Pope's Weird World

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 13:19:44 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 01:16:03 -0500
Subject: Nick Pope's Weird World


NICK POPE�S WEIRD WORLD
Hot Gossip UK

Welcome to the February 2001 round-up of news, views and gossip
on UFOs, alien abductions, the paranormal, and much more.


PEER Perspectives

The latest issue (Number Three) of PEER Perspectives is now
available, and is a must for anybody involved in working with
abductees. It�s also highly recommended for serious researchers
and those with a more general interest. PEER is the acronym of
the Program for Extraordinary Experience Research, which was
founded by Dr John Mack in 1993. Check out www.peermack.org for
details about PEER, and information on the various books,
videos, newsletters and other information available. Aside from
information about cases, research and other relevant matters,
the latest newsletter is offering copies of Alien Discussions
(the 684 page hardback containing the complete proceedings of
the Abduction Study Conference held at MIT in June 1992) for
just forty dollars. This is essential reading for all those with
an interest in alien abductions.


Vanishing Twin Syndrome

Still on the subject of alien abduction, so-called Missing
Foetus Syndrome is one of the most controversial claims made by
abduction researchers. Although I�m aware of cases from other
investigators, and from the literature, I haven�t come across
this in my own work - official or personal. As a timely warning,
however, comes new research on a recognised medical condition,
Vanishing Twin Syndrome. This occurs when a woman expected to
bear twins only gives birth to a single baby. Although rare,
such cases are not unheard of, and work is being done by Dr
Andreas Busjahn at Humboldt University. The condition is thought
to relate to the PPAR gamma gene on chromosome 3, which is
concerned with fat metabolism and weight. If twins carry
different variants of the gene, one twin can develop at the
expense of the other. Twins show up in very early scans, but
before long, only one foetus will continue to develop.
Researchers believing they have cases of Missing Foetus Syndrome
should be careful about making such claims, when a rare but
recognised medical phenomenon may have occurred.


Ghosts at the MOD

The January edition of the MOD�s house journal Focus contained a
fascinating piece about the MOD guard service, which spoke about
ghosts in MOD Main Building (as opposed to the spooks). Despite
being a modern building, it�s built on the site of the old
Whitehall Palace, and indeed Henry VIII�s wine cellar still
survives in the basement. Apparently a number of guards on night
patrol have heard footsteps when nobody else was present. I�ve
worked a few night shifts myself, during the Gulf War, and can
testify that it can be a little creepy. There were certainly
some spooky goings-on recently, concerning the launch party for
Georgina�s book You Can�t Tell The People, which was held in the
old Wine Cellar. The full story of all these shenanigans is
known to only a few, and certainly raises some interesting
issues about handling of the UFO issue. More on this some other
time � maybe.


Public Image

Rumours continue to fly concerning last September�s UFO
Conference at Leeds, organised by UFO Magazine. Specifically,
some comments were made by one of the speakers, who wasn�t happy
with the arrangements for the gala dinner, where speakers sat on
tables with those attendees who had bought tickets. All I can
say is that it wasn�t me. I enjoy meeting new people, hearing
their views and - sometimes - hearing about their experiences.
I�ve become involved in several fascinating new cases this way,
and wouldn�t miss it for the world. Ufologists should be
accessible and accountable to the people who buy their books and
attend their lectures. If I�d paid good money and travelled long
distances to hear people speak, I�d expect to be able to chat to
them at some stage over the course of the conference. And if I�d
paid more money for a dinner, I think I�d be a little aggrieved
if the speakers were cordoned off on a table of their own. If
you see me at a conference and want to chat, please feel free to
come up and say hello.


Intruder Alert

Back yet again to the subject of abductions, Volume 2, Number 4
of IF, the bulletin of the Intruders Foundation has also just
hit the streets. Founded by Budd Hopkins, this group - like PEER
- seeks to help abductees and experiencers come to terms with
what�s happened to them, and serves to highlight important new
research on the subject. It�s a fascinating mixture of theory
and casework, and again, is highly recommended for anyone
interested in the subject. Check out www.intrudersfoundation.org
for more details.


More Telepathy

Several people asked where they could get more information about
the telepathy experiments that I wrote about in last month�s
column. Check out Issue 143 (February 2001) of Fortean Times or
click on their website at www.forteantimes.com for further
details.


Flying Saucer Review

While on the subject of websites, I should mention that Flying
Saucer Review has a new and updated one. Check out
www.fsreview.net for the details about FSR, and how to
subscribe.


First Contact

As the old NLP rule says, if what you�re doing isn�t working �
try something else. That�s what SETI researchers are doing, as
they begin increasingly to wonder whether signals from
intelligent extraterrestrials might be carried in laser bursts
as opposed to radar signals. A dedicated research effort gets
underway early next year when the Optical Search for
Extraterrestrial Intelligence Telescope currently under
construction at Harvard University goes fully operational. Good
luck and happy hunting!

Nick Pope
February 2001

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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 2

                          Re: Lawn & Media - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 08:02:24 -0600
Fwd Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 01:17:58 -0500
Subject: Re: Lawn & Media - Evans


 >From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
 >Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 10:57:22 -0600
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Lawn & Media [was: Joseph Smith] - Lehmberg


Previously, Alfred wrote of our host:

 >Yeah -- but would ya wear a little Sailor suit while listening
 >to him croon a litany of dirty ditties? We're WAY too nice to
 >this guy! He's from Canada for God's sake! Canada! Think about
 >him beaming his seditious science fiction into the heartland of
 >the United Stated like Ming from the planet Mongo -- a
 >ufological death ray of alien apologetics and propaganda! He
 >must be stopped -- nipped in the bud! I'm writing Sen. Ashcroft
 >an angry letter! America must be kept pure and unpolluted by
 >this north of the border flying saucer scourge! Ashcroft'll put
 >the brakes on his insidious alien agenda! Be warned!

But - but - but...

Ashcroft is... is one of... _them_.

Notice how he never blinks? Notice the mechanical delivery of
his words, as if they were pre-recorded?

Be afraid. Be very afraid.


Roger (pod) Evans








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 2

                      Re: Red Dwarfs/Alien Life - Evans

From: Roger Alien Life
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 08:12:21 -0600
Fwd Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 01:20:21 -0500
Subject: Re: Red Dwarfs/Alien Life - Evans


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 19:17:07 EST
 >Subject: Re: Red Dwarfs/Alien Life - Young
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 06:37:02 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Red Dwarfs/Alien Life
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, I had written:

 >Seriously, this is very interesting info. It might also explain
 >why so many sightings and contacts are at night, as well. It's
 >too bad that the lid on Roswell and other possible encounters is
 >so tight. If we could examine the dark lenses that supposedly
 >cover the eyes of dead ETs, we might be able to measure the
 >density of the lens and extrapolate what Red Dwarf system that
 >particular ET was originally from.

 >Has anyone done any calculations about how much heat a Red Dwarf
 >puts out? I know they don't put out much light. However, there
 >are life forms at the bottom of the ocean that exist on heat
 >thermals only. Wouldn't it be interesting if life forms from
 >other worlds developed in this way? If they have little or no
 >light, then either their eyesight would be more advanced (hence
 >the "cat eye" shape so commonly reported) or perhaps they would
 >have also developed their telepathic abilities as an "assist"
 >for communication in a dark world.

Bob replied:

 >The other thing about a red dwarf is that the area in the
 >planetary system which would be conducive to life would be
 >much closer in and much more limited. Of course many of
 >the new planets being found seem to be in strange systems
 >(compared to our own) and some have planets very close to
 >the star.

 >This is an interesting line of speculation. But, anybody who
 >is able to travel interstellar distances would have the ability
 >to vidoe or observe in day or night. Personally, I think that
 >robots would be a far more likely possibility anyway.

Hi, Bob!

Yes, I have always thought that robotic probes were the most
likely candidate for ET visitation to our humble planet. I mean
after all, if _we_ can do it, ETs must be able to, also.
However, my real interest is in what kind of life would exist in
worlds evolving near a Red Dwarf, with its limited heat. Again,
does anyone out there have any info on the estimated heat from
one of these bad boys?

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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 2

                             Consumer Mail Panel

From: Brian Cuthbertson <bdc@fc.net>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 09:09:00 -0600 (CST)
Fwd Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 01:23:02 -0500
Subject: Consumer Mail Panel


Folks,

My wife has for a long time participated in surveys put out by a
group called the "Consumer Mail Panel". This means she
periodically receives a survey to fill out on some topic or
another - often new product oriented - sometimes not.

In any case, this week she rather sheepishly approached me with
one of these surveys, and asked I'd mind filling it out - seems
this time the instructions at the top said the survey is for
"YOUR HUSBAND". Not only that, it was huge as these things go -
18 pages of small print questions with multiple choice answers.
At first I balked, but then out of curiousity decided to play
with it - doing a page or two a day during breakfast as I had
time.

So what's the relevance to this venue? Well, this morning I
reached page 6. The question section ending on page six has 216
questions, each to be answered by circling one of six numbers to
its right:

   1 definitely disagree
   2 generally disagree
   3 moderately disagree
   4 moderately agree
   5 generally agree
   6 definitely agree


The questions range all over the map, but the following sequence
did catch my eye ...


217. It is important to me to wear clothes of the latest
      style.

218. Most welfare recipients are lazy cheats.

219. I believe in God.

220. I believe beings from other planets have visited Earth.

221. If a cashier accidentally gives you too much change,
      I say its OK to keep it.

Etc etc ....


One has to question the design and motivation behind such
questionaires. 220 might be there for no other reason except to
determine if the respondent is a "flake". Or one wonders if such
a question was commissioned by a Consumer Mail Panel customer
for more significant reasons.

Just a random bone tossed out for your indigestion. Possibly
much ado about nothing ...


-Brian C.


PS. Since all question responses are supposedly confidential,
     note that I've refrained from providing mine here :-)









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 2

                       UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 6 Number 5

From: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 15:00:57 +0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 01:33:21 -0500
Subject: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 6 Number 5


Posted on behalf of Joseph Trainor.

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

UFO ROUNDUP
Volume 6, Number 5
February 1, 2001
Editor: Joseph Trainor

NEW WEIRD CREATURE SIGHTED IN CALAMA

A new weird creature was sighted in a rural district of Calama, a
city in northern Chile that has been the scene of many
Chupacabra sightings during the past year. Residents claimed
that the new creature killed several dogs in the barrios of La
Banda and Villa San Rafael.

"The residents remain fearful of a creature they have described
as 'unknown' but left behind clear evidence of its passing."

"First the people heard 'aircraft noises' passing overhead; then
they saw 'the appearance of a strange creature measuring 50
centimeters (20 inches) on height, humped and leaden (gray) in
color. While looking for traces of the animal, they have found
several balls of strange hair, which have been collected for
subsequent analysis. Footprints of the creature were found on
the ground'" in Villa San Rafael.

"They have also heard screams coming from dogs 'as if they were
being killed because they (the screams) are truly terrifying.'"

""They further stated that the predator generates some type of
energy that affects human beings and must coincide with the
energy it needs to levitate."

In La Banda, "other residents did not conceal their suspicions
regarding the large number of dead dogs turning up at that
location."

""The other day (Wednesday, January 24, 2--1) they found two
dogs slain at night (and their carcasses--S.C.) had disappeared
by morning. 'I was surprised to find traces of the animals'
having been dragged since there were hairs found on the
ground,'" one resident said.

(Editor's Note: This new mysterious predator does not have a
name yet, so let me suggest one--Mataperro, which is Spanish for
dog killer.)

Not to be outdone, the Chupacabras continued their year-long
rampage in the Calama region.

"In recent days, the name of the 'mythic Chupacabras' has been
heard more and more. Dozens of paranormal researchers have
bought plane tickets to the 'Land of Sun and Copper"
(Calama--J.T.) to verify on-site the appearance of strange
creatures. and the prints left behind on a small farm in La
Banda de Calama."

"Residents of La Banda state that the strange noises have been
heard in recent nights, A woman who declined to be identified
revealed that 'Last night (Thursday, January 25, 2001) my
children were playing in the paddock and they suddenly came
running back home, frightened after having heard strange
footsteps coming from inside the yard. They asked me to please
believe them when they said that something was moving around the
place, and refused to go outdoors again.'"

"She said that people often visit the community offering money
in exchange for the silence of those residents who have been
affected by the Chupacabras."

Hair samples were found at the site where the creatures had
attacked, leaving local residents in the grip of fear.. They
have formed a group and all of them, in one way or another, have
had contact with either the Chupacabras or with unidentified
flying objects."

"Sanra, one of the leaders of the group, which includes ten
residents of Calama, claims having seen the Chupacabra near the
Top Star Bridge 'around midnight or slightly later, but it's
hairy and can stand on two legs when it wants to. It goes out
alone often, and there could be more than one of them out
there.'"

"Furthermore, the rest of her friends have not only seen the
Chupacabra, but also UFOs in the vicinity of the local airport."

"'Specifically, four (UFOs) flying in formation, and we know
they weren't airplanes because of the speed at which they were
seen to fly,'" she added.

Calama ufologist Jaime Ferrer has been collecting Chupacabra and
Mataperro hair samples and taking plaster casts of the strange
footprints. His investigation is continuing. (See La Estrella
del Loa for January 26, 2001, "Mysterious animal leaves prints
in La Banda," and La Estrella del Norte for January 27, 2001,
"New Chupacabra evidence found." Muchas gracias a Scott
Corrales, autor de los libros Chupacabras and Other Mysteries y
Forbidden Mexico y tambien Floria Coluchi para esos articulos de
diario.)


MYSTERIOUS SKY BOOM RATTLES HOUSTON, TEXAS

"A loud bang that rattled windows shortly after midnight sent
some residents from far east Houston out into the streets
looking for a cause that has not yet been found."

"Emergency crews that responded to calls from the neighborhood
around the 10200 block of Gloria Drive were unable to find
either a cause for the blast or any damage, although residents
said the windows rattled and the houses shook."

"Houston Fire Department spokesman Jay Evans said the cause
probably was a 'flare,'" from one of the local oil refineries.
"But which one could not be determined."

"Evans explained that combustible gases being released to a
flare sometimes accumulate and mix with air before they ignite,
and then go off with a loud bang."

(See the Houston Chronicle for January 26, 2001, "Mysterious
blast rattles neighborhood." Many thanks to Gerry Lovell for
forwarding this newspaper article.)

(Editor's Comment: A UFO Roundup reader contacted us last week,
pointing out that the sky boom in Ashtabula, Ohio was followed a
week later by an earthquake in Cleveland, 90 miles to the west,
that measured 4.7 on the Richter scale. She suggested that the
Ashtabula boom may have been a "pre-quake" rather than a
departing UFO. Let's keep an eye on Houston during the coming
weeks, eh?)

MYSTERIOUS SKY BOOMS HEARD ON CAPE FEAR, NORTH CAROLINA

"Mysterious booming noises that have shaken the Cape Fear coast
from time to time returned last week, prompting calls to
meteorologists and earthquake specialists from concerned
residents."

"The National Weather Service received several phone calls
concerning houses shaking and unexplained loud noises about 11
p.m. Thursday," January 25, 2001. "

"'I thought we were having an earthquake and ran to get my
children,' said Sarah McKenzie, who lives in an apartment
complex in Wilmington, N.C. (population 65,000)."

"The National Earthquake Information Center in Boulder, Colorado
detected no major earth movement in the area, said Richard
Anthony, the National Weather Service meteorologist for the
Wilmington area."

"The Center received calls stretching from the University of
North Carolina's campus a;; the way to Blades County."

"'I have experienced the shakings, and I have heard the noises,'
Anthony said, 'They may be traumatic, but no one has a really
good explanation for them.'"

"Meteorologists told callers that it might have been the 'Seneca
Guns' referring to a folk legend about the mysterious seasonal
booms that irregularly rattle the shoreline along the lower Cape
Fear."

(Editor's Note: Charles Fort noted a similar phenomenon in
India, known as 'the Barisal Guns.')

"The legend dates back to the Nineteenth Century. After finding
no explanation for the strange sounds, area residents concocted
a myth about the Seneca Indians being edged out of their land by
the Europeans' arrival. The sounds were supposedly the Indians
returning for revenge with the white man's own weapons."

"Wilmington geologists and others are researching the noises."

"Meanwhile, some area residents are a little shaky."

"'I wish someone would tell me what it is,' Ms. McKenzie said."

Wilmington is on Interstate Highway I-40 approximately 130 miles
(208 kilometers) south of Raleigh, the state capital. (See the
Winston-Salem, N.C. Journal for January 28, 2001, "Mysterious
noise returns.")

(Editor's Comment: Maybe North Carolina's Cape Fear area is in
for an earthquake, too. Let's see what happens in a week or so.)

HOVERING UFO CLOSES AIRPORT IN SOUTHERN SIBERIA

"An airport in southern Siberia was shut down for an hour and a
half Friday," January 26, 2001 "an unidentified flying object
(UFO) was detected hovering above the runway, the (Russian)
Interfax news agency reported."

"The crew of an Ilyushin Il-76 cargo plane refused to take off,
claiming they saw a luminescent object hovering above the runway
of Siberia's Barnaul regional airport., local aviation company
director Ivan Komarov was quoted as saying."

"The crew of another cargo plane refusing to use the runway" at
Barnaul "for the same reason, landed their jet at another
airport, Komarov said."

"The UFO took off and vanished from the airport 90 minutes
later, according to the Interfax report."

Barnaul is a mid-sized city in southern Siberia, located 200
kilometers (120 miles) south of Novosibirsk and about 1,000
kilometers (600 miles) east of Moscow, the capital of Russia.
(See the Agence France Presse report for January 27, 2001. Merci
beaucoup a l'Ambrovista pour cette nouvelles.)

EIGHT UFOs SIGHTED IN MALAYSIA

"Eight unidentified flying objects (UFOs) were spotted in USJ"
near Kuala Lumpur "and in Gopeng, Perak province, Malaysia on
Sunday, January 21, 2001."

The nation of Malaysia, in Southeast Asia, has had several UFO
flaps during the past few years.

In USJ, near the national capital of Kuala Lumpur, a housewife
told the New Straits Times that "she and her son had seen two
UFOs--red in color--moving towards Kampung and Rawang at 10
p.m." that Sunday night.

Mrs. Dahlia Bidin "called the New Straits Times at 10:40 p.m. to
say she saw six UFOs--orange in color--in the sky over Gopeng."

"'I am seeing them now. So are a lot of other people. It's
causing a stir. Please check with the Ipok Airport and tell me
what they are,' she said."

"Her husband, Ismail Bidin, who is the honorary secretary for an
orphanage in Sungai Itek, Gopeng, said he was among the first to
see the UFOs."

"'All of the 38 children there saw the objects, so did their
religious teachers and the villagers from neighboring Kamping
Pintu Padang.'"

"He said the UFOs appeared to be in formation and then formed a
straight line. The objects were seen for about ten minutes
before they disappeared."

"A policeman in the Gopeng police station, when contacted about
20 minutes later" by the newspaper, "said he had not received
any information about the sightings."

"A spokesman for the Kuala Lumpur International Airport in
Sepang said no such objects were tracked" on radar. (See the New
Straits Times for January 22, 2001, "UFO sightings in USJ and
Gopeng." Many thanks to Gerry Lovell for forwarding this
newspaper article.)

LARGE TRIANGULAR UFO SEEN IN DERBYSHIRE DALES

A large triangular UFO was seen in the Derbyshire Dales region
of UK last week.

"UFO spotters should start looking at the skies again.,
following one of the most spectacular sightings in the
(Derbyshire) Dales yet."

"Now the little green men are back. At 11:20 p.m. Wednesday
(January 17, 2001), 44-year-old Anne Saunders of Matlock saw a
spaceship hovering over Crich."

"She said, 'I looked through the bedroom window and saw a
massive triangle in the sky. I thought, Good God! I am a
sceptic--or at least I was--I thought it was a reflection in my
glasses. But it was no reflection.'"

"After further investigation, mom-of-two Mrs. Saunders said she
couldn't believe her eyes. The retired local government official
and her husband studied the craft for three minutes."

"The triangle was full of pulsating coloured lights with a black
centre. It made no noise."

"Then the front-end bit broke away, continued Mrs. Saunders, and
flew across the sky at tremendous speed towards the Masson
Hillside. When it stopped, there was no definition. It was just
a random shape of pulsating lights clustering together."

"'I was absolutely gobsmacked (astounded--J.T.) I was looking
from one to the other and thinking I must be dreaming. It was
massive. This has entirely convinced me to be a (UFO)
believer.'"

Mrs. Saunders is no going to bed at night with binoculars and a
camera--just in case."

For more on the recent UFO sightings in Derbyshire Dales, see
UFO Roundup, volume 5, number 52 for December 28, 2000, "UFOs
seen repeatedly in Derbyshire Dales, UK," page 3. (Mrs.
Saunders's sighting can be found in the Matlock Mercury for
January 17, 2001. Many thanks to Gerry Lovell for this newspaper
article.)

FAMILY OF SIX SEES A FIERY UFO OVER MELBOURNE

On the night of Thursday, January 26, 2001, Wendy Plenaar
reports, "while driving home from a restaurant, my husband,
myself and our four children saw a blazing light, not exactly
fire, in the night sky. It was running very fast and we could
only see the flames, not really any (definable) shape of
whatever we saw."

"After a few seconds, it seemed to just peter out and die. We
were traveling northwards, and the object was moving fast in the
opposite direction (south)."

"I think this must have been visible to quite a few other people
if they happened to look up at that time," she added. (Many
thanks to Wendy Plenaar for this report.)

TWO SPHERICAL UFOs SEEN IN PORTLAND, OREGON

On Thursday, January 11, 2001, at 8:20 p.m., Ernest C. and his
daughter were outdoors in Portland, Oregon's largest city,
"facing south, looking about straight up" when "we saw two large
globes hovering in the sky. The objects were straight up. They
were just hovering in the sky. They were large round white
globes."

"My friend from work says he saw a reporter on Channel 8
reporting the same thing. He said the report matched up with
what my daughter and I saw." (Email Form Report)

BLACK HELICOPTERS SEEN IN ALBERTA AND WYOMING

On Sunday, January 21, 2001, at 2:34 p.m., Steve Volk, who lives
in Edmonton, in Canada's Alberta province, said he was
downloading some files from the Internet onto his home computer
"when a black helicopter flew not more than 100 feet (30 meters)
over my house. It then flew a half-circle back and forth within
viewing distance. I videotaped the whole thing for 20 minutes.
This is precisely what I mean about harassment of Americans
living in Canada!"

On Saturday, January 20, 2001, at 10:45 a.m., Charles M. was
driving home to his ranch near Powell, Wyoming (population
5,600). He was driving south on Highway 10 midway between Powell
and the Montana state line when he heard the sound of a
helicopter engine.

"I was driving along, and I looked out the (truck) cab's
passenger window (i.e. to the west--J.T.), and I saw a herd of
elk browsing at the edge of the woods," he reported, "That's
when I heard the chopper's engine roaring. I slowed down to see
what was going on. It was a (UH-60) Blackhawk. It was all black
with no markings on it. It came in low over the trees, flying
south. It spat out two plumes of white smoke. It was like a
cropduster, but it was spraying the elk. The chopper flew around
just south of me for a minute or two, then swung around to the
southeast towards Cody." (Many thanks to Steve Volk and Frank
Running Elk for these reports.)

ROUNDUP CORRIGENDA:

Concerning last week's issue, UFO Roundup, volume 6, number 4
for January 25, 2001, we have a couple of corrections to make.

In "Triangular UFO hovers over the Isle of Man": page 3, the
correct date of this encounter was Sunday, January 14, 2001 and
not Friday, January 19th.

In "Loren Coleman's classic is back in print," page 6, the year
of publication of Coleman's Mysterious America by Faber & Faber
was 1983, not 1982. Loren also stated "I'm not a professor of
biology at the University of Southern Maine, but of the social
impact of documentary film."

UFO Roundup regrets the errors.


 From the UFO Files...

1942: BINOOMEA, AUSTRALIA'S UNDERGROUND WORLD

The small city of Orange, in the Western Plains of New South
Wales, Australia, is best known for its thriving fruit orchards
and its reputation as the hometown of Andrew Boyle "Banjo"
Peterson, the composer who wrote Waltzing Matilda.

Little do local residents realize it but, about 200 meters (660
feet) below the intersection of Byng and Anson Streets, is a
large cavern that may be linked to Binoomea, the legendary
underground world of the Aborigines.

According to Australian paranormal researcher Rex Gilroy,
Aboriginal people speak of their ancestors "walking under the
mountains" of the Great Dividing Range. A vast network of
interlocking caverns and tunnels, similar to the Flint Ridge and
Mammoth Cave system in the USA's state of Kentucky, stretches
hundreds of kilometers from Tamworth, N.S.W. south to Canberra,
the national capital.

Chief among these Aboriginal legends is that of Binoomea, a vast
underground cavern with cathedral-high ceilings and a large
underground lake.

It all sounds a bit like the poem by Samuel Taylor
Coleridge..."Where Alph the sacred river ran/Through caverns
measureless to man/Down to a sunless sea."

Binoomea is said to be inhabited by some very unusual creatures.
And these have actually been seen by Australians living on the
surface.

In August 1942, several captured Japanese soldiers broke out of
the Allied P.O.W. (Prisoner of War--J.T.) camp at Cowra, N.S.W.
Allied troops were sent into the Western Plains area to flush
them out of hiding. Among these was a squad of Australian Army
soldiers led by Sgt. Bert MacCorkindale.

MacCorkindale and his men were driven by truck from Orange to
Garra, just west of Molong. They were ordered to search the bush
west of the creek, moving towards the hills northwest of
Manildra.

Shortly after they crossed the creek, the soldiers discovered a
small cave opening. Sgt. MacCorkindale thought the Japanese
P.O.W.s might be hiding in there, so he ordered the men to crawl
through the opening, one at a time. Soon they found themselves
in a cool cavern brimming with stalactites. Certain he had found
the prisoners' hideout, the sergeant ordered the men to push on.

Down into the tunnel they went, for perhaps two miles, heading
generally southeast towards Orange. The squad noticed that the
caverns were getting bigger and bigger the further in they went.
Soon they all had their torches (flashlights in the USA--J.T.)
out.

Sgt. MacCorkindale was beginning to have his doubts. Surely the
Japanese wouldn't have gone this far into the caves. And what
were these caves, anyway? He'd never heard of such a system
under the Western Plains before.

They sauntered into yet another cavern. The men pointed their
torches upward. Their light beams didn't even touch the ceiling.
Several gaped in disbelief.

"Push on," the sergeant said, "One more bloody cave, and we'll
have a bit of smoke." (take a break in the USA--J.T.)

As they moved into the next cavern, they squad stopped short.
One soldier blurted, "Cor! Will ya look at that!?"

The limestone walls were faintly luminous, "studded with
glow-worms," one soldier put it, offering enough pallid light to
make out stalactites, stalagmites and flowstone deposits.

Suddenly, the squad heard an odd sound.

"What's that?" one asked.

"Sounds like a bloody broken steam pipe," his buddy replied.

The weird hissing grew louder. They heard something solid slowly
scraping along the flat rocky floor. Then a monstrous reptilian
head poked up from behind a jumble of fallen boulders. Its
tongue flicked between scaly lips. Again it emitted a rattling
hiss.

The newcomer was a lizard, similar in form to the goanna lizard
found in the Australian Outback, but much, much larger. The
creature measured six meters (20 feet) from its blunt snout to
the tip of its heavy tail. It was a mottled gray in color, with
spiky scale-armored brows over its cold yellow eyes.

The men stared in open-mouthed disbelief. They had all very
likely seen the movie King Kong, and now here was a giant
reptile that looked as if it had stepped right out of that 1933
film.

The giant lizard lumbered towards them. Yelling in panic, the
men leveled their Lee-Enfield rifles and opened fire. The lizard
hesitated but only for a few moments. It crawled forward once
again, head low, hissing even louder.

"Bren gunner!" the sergeant yelled, in a voice even louder than
the giant lizard.

One soldier planted the bipod of the Bren gun (World War Two
light machine gun--J.T.) on a flat limestone boulder and took
aim. When Sgt. MacCorkindale yelled, "Fire!" the gunner cut
loose with a full automatic burst.

Stung by the stream of high-velocity bullets, the giant lizard
averted its face, turned as quickly as its size would allow, and
lumbered back into the side tunnel, dragging its ponderous tail
behind it.

The squad beat a hasty retreat to the surface.

Five years later, "one day in 1947, Warwick Bills, then 16 years
of age, was out alone picking mushrooms on a property near
Dubbo," a town about 64 kilometers (40 miles) north of Orange,
"in central western N.S.W. The location was in hilly country and
only five miles (8 kilometers) from the town. There was a
15-acre swampland interspersed with swamp oaks and a nearby
creek."

"It was next to this creek that Warwick was standing, about 10
a.m. on this particular morning, when he spotted a large goanna
lying in the shade of a large swamp oak 50 feet away. It was 12
feet (3.8 meters) in length and its leathery skin was greyish in
colour with lighter and darker patches. It had a large head and
big eyes."

"'Its large eyes were looking in my direction. I saw it rise up
about two feet on its thick, powerful legs. I left the scene
pretty quick,' he told me," author Rex Gilroy in 1983.

Lizards as big as a diesel locomotive--that's just one of the
strange secrets of Australia's underground world of Binoomea.
(See the books Mysterious Australia by Rex Gilroy, Nexus
Publishing, Mapleton, Qlnd., Australia, 1985, pages 43, 119 and
123; Let's Go--Australia , St. Martin's Press, New York, N.Y.,
1998, pages 143 and 144; and Discover Australia by 4WD, edited
by Ron and Vivo Moon, Hema Maps Ltd., Slacks Creek, Qlnd., 1997,
page 116.)

Well, that's it for this week. Join us in seven days for more
UFO and paranormal news from around the world, brought to you by
"the paper that goes home--UFO Roundup." See you then!


UFO ROUNDUP: Copyright 2001 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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 2

                     Re: To Be or Not To Be - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 10:16:03 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 01:53:50 -0500
Subject: Re: To Be or Not To Be - Mortellaro


 >Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 23:38:46 +0000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: To Be or Not To Be

 >>From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >>Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 11:15:34 EST
 >>Subject: To Be or Not To Be
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Natural for a man to think about not being. But for so many
 >>perceived abductees, its a question raised nearly every day of
 >>our existence. Especially among those who suffer real physical
 >>pain, as so many of us do.

 ><snip>

 >>Pain. Intractable and too much for anyone to bear. Additive to
 >>the pain we share, is the issue of abuse. We are abused by
 >>ordinary people who mean no real harm. They make fun, make
 >>jokes and generally make us feel terribly uncomfortable. In the
 >>media, we are treated like nutcases. They make amusing cartoons
 >>about people who have experienced the abduction phenom.

 >>Then come the skeptibunkers. Followed by the Fill Classes and
 >>those who cannot tolerate anything which is outside of their own
 >>paradigm. You can tell these people from the genuine skeptic.
 >>They are the angry ones, spewing strength of their own
 >>convictions whilst vigorously denying ours.

 ><snip>

 >What is this all about - heartfelt though it may be? Is it a
 >plea that abductees should never be questioned for fear that it
 >will add to their pains? Is it an attempt to make sceptical
 >researchers feel guilty for daring to challenge some of the
 >claims made by abductees? Is is a general "hands off, we're
 >fragile" warning?

Nope, none of the above. It is a statement of fact that many
perceived abductees suffer real pain, physical pain. And this
list as well as this subject, is open season (as it should be
for the lack of hard data) on the myriad possibilities which may
account for the phenom. Simple. As I wrote, "All bets are on!"
But you snipped that part.

 >There are many people who are not abductees who suffer terrible
 >pain - I know, I have lived amongst some.

 >There are many abductees who suffer no pain as a result of
their >experience - I know, I have talked and laughed with some.

 >If Jim does not want to deal with the "skeptibunkers" and finds
 >their convictions and alleged anger painful, one wonders why he
 >contributes so much to this list.

I can deal quite well with the skeptibunkers... and the
sketpics. I have a real tough time with some who like to malign,
speak with anger and point to laugh.

Jim, that'd be me, is a tad upset over those who take to anger
and flaming of us. Even some of "us" like to point with anger
at "us." Which in my view, kinda sucks big time. I read nearly
every post here, in spite of the caveat to press "delete" which
I support. Every single one. And my memory is long as well.
It remembers the jibes, the pokes and the unkind nature of
"some" of us to some of us.

So, my little Magonia blosson, what got your angst all standing
up in a row? Read the post again. Perhaps you were not it's
target.

Sour Puss.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 2

                            Re: UFO Pics - Easton

From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 16:12:36 +0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 01:56:07 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO Pics - Easton


I'm sure UpDates subscribers will be interested in the appended
material.

It's the culmination of some research and discussions on the
'UFO Skeptics' forum, concerning the alleged Nashville 'UFO'
photographs. To fully understand the background to what follows,
especially the other claims which were made about these
photographs, plus where further images can be seen, it's
necessary to read recent forum postings under the heading 'Can
We Solve This?'.

The UFO Skeptics list is at URL:

http://debunk.listbot.com


James Easton.
E-mail: voyager@ufoworld.co.uk
www.ufoworld.co.uk

____________________

To 'UFO Skeptics', dated 31 January, 2001:

I have received the following confirmation from Patrick Thomas,
who was present at both opening and closing ceremonies at the
1984 Los Angeles Olympic Games:

"If the pictures you have are not from the LA Olympics I will
eat my shoe. The UFO was really suspended from a helicopter with
the blades in stealth mode. The lights were coordinated with a
set of lights on the center stage. It was like the scene from
Speilberg's "Close Encounters of the Third Kind". When the
lights on the suspended UFO went off a seven foot + man dressed
in an alien costume stood on top of the coliseum, it was really
quite classical, funny, but very well done. Regarding the
"Rocket Man" - the technology was from the early 70's and was
never developed by the US army because they consider the
platform unstable for use in the battle field".


This would seem to resolve the origin of our supposed 'Nashville
UFO' photographs.

I'm still trying to obtain definitive, corroborative photos that
were taken of the 'UFO' during that ceremony.


I'm also satisfied that giver the 1984 dating, we have also
probably solved the origin of that purported 1987 Hudson Valley
'UFO' photograph on MUFON Connecticut's web site.

Any *factual* reasons why that can't possibly be so, are
invited.


As a matter of courtesy, I will highlight recent list
discussions and the above conclusion on UFO UpDates, where the
query about these photographs originated.

Doubtless someone should tell both Filer and 'Sightings',
although others might ask 'why bother?', if it will simply be
replaced by other proclaimed 'UFO' evidence and an accompanying
'witness' story which are equally farcical.

However, before these are removed, it should be noted that Filer
declares:

"I have observed a UFO at close distance. The colors of the
smoke probably a coronal discharge were similar to what I saw.
The lights themselves have an unusual depth of color. When you
look at a colored light it is normally a white light covered by
a lens of red, yellow, green, blue etc. The lights on the craft
appear as if the light contain the actual color. There is a
vividness of color that is difficult to describe that appears to
be in these photos. The fog or plasma is penetrated by the
powerful lights shining downward. The lights extend down for an
estimated seventy-five feet to one hundred plus feet and seem to
stop abruptly. Duplication of this capability is exceptionally
difficult to accomplish with any normal lights. I have never
seen lights that have these properties except on a UFO, nor have
I seen comparable photography. I have over 5000 hours flying
time and taken thousands of photographs".


I also noticed an 'expert' opinion from a claimed 'stage
technician' that you could never create such a 'real looking'
UFO on stage and if this was a hoax, it could definitely only be
a small model.

As for Velez's 'pixel problems' claims... what can we say...

Overall, an interesting exercise and it would appear two separate
'UFO' photograph cases have been debunked.
[END]









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 2

                TCI: New Cydonia Photos: A Preliminary Report

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 08:40:53 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 01:58:16 -0500
Subject: TCI: New Cydonia Photos: A Preliminary Report

2-1-01

For Immediate Release

New Cydonia Photos: A Preliminary Report

by Mac Tonnies,
The Cydonian Imperative


Malin Space Science Systems has once again provided us with an
unannounced collection of Cydonia imagery. Though marred with
several telltale black strips indicating loss of spacecraft
data, the new images are fascinating and confirm--as well as
refute--predictions made by researchers.

The enigmatic feature known as the "Cliff" is one of the most
anomalous Cydonian features among the new photographs. The Fort
boasts a ruler-straight defile elevated on top of a sort of
flat, tapered mesa. This straight feature is either an
unprecedented fluke of geology or else the handiwork of
intelligence. My earlier piece on the Cliff mentions the
mystifying lack of impact ejecta that should have reduced this
feature to rubble. Instead, we see a precise feature apparently
undamaged by the adjacent meteor collision (the crater of which
is not visible in the new MSSS rendering).

Simply, there is no known geomorphological mechanism that could
have produced this remarkable feature; the Cliff presents us
with a uniquely demanding scientific puzzle.

While the Cliff's defile is actually rather more
architectural-looking than I privately suspected, the facial
features I postulated in an earlier essay are absent, apparently
products of the low-resolution Viking photos of this anomalous
formation. Unfortunately, the section of the Cliff containing
the hypothesized "mouth" first noted by Daniel Drasin was not
successfully returned by the Mars Global Surveyor, and its
nature remains unconfirmed.

Regardless of the lack of facial features, the Cliff is among
the most provocative images thus returned by the MGS, and
constitutes compelling evidence in favor of the Artificiality
Hypothesis.

A new close-up image of the Face itself is perhaps the most
spectacular image returned. It confirms suspicions aroused by
the previous Face image loosed upon the public in the form of
the infamous "catbox" in 1998. While only the extreme western
portion of the Face has been captured in the new image, the
features thought to represent an eye and pupil are clearly
visible (though degraded, as expected). Mysterious fine lines
along the "headdress" are also visible, as are the "lips" and
"teardrop" identified on previous images. The facial resemblance
remains striking and consistent with claims of artificiality.

An image of the Face's eastern half, never photographed under
ideal conditions, is necessary to accurately assess the Face's
bisymmetry. Meanwhile, the available photographs imply
artificiality: the Face looks like a massive, windblown
sculpture of a humanoid head, complete with enigmatic
ornamentation. Whether this uncanny resemblance is the result of
spurious geometry or conscious design remains unconfirmed. The
Face's proximity to other anomalies, such as the aforementioned
Cliff, increase its chances of representing what has long been
suspected: hard evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence.

Other anomalous features photographed include "Mound
P" and its attendant hexagonal formation and the
"Egyptian" pyramid located on the SW City landmass.

For continued coverage of the 2001 Cydonia images,
please refer back to The Cydonian Imperative.


=====

Mac Tonnies (macbot@yahoo.com) 816-561-0190
105 Ward Parkway #900, Kansas City, MO 64112
MTVI: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/mtvi.html
Cydonia: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/cydonia.html

"He runs after facts like a beginner learning to skate, who,
furthermore, practices somewhere where it is forbidden." --Franz
Kafka








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 2

                   MOD Warns The Americans About UFO Book

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 17:14:03 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 02:02:57 -0500
Subject: MOD Warns The Americans About UFO Book


Press Information - permission to distribute

MOD WARNS THE AMERICANS ABOUT UFO BOOK

Georgina Bruni�s controversial book entitled 'You Can�t Tell The
People' published by Sidgwick & Jackson (Macmillan) in November
2000 has caused yet more concern for the Ministry of Defence.

In a series of Written Answers to Questions posed in the last
week to the House of Lords by Admiral of the Fleet and former
Chief of Defence Staff, The Lord Hill Norton, The Minister of
State, Ministry of Defence, Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
informed that the Ministry of Defence had alerted the American
3rd Air Force Headquarters at RAF Mildenhall about the book.

Bruni�s book claims to expose the truth behind the famous 1980
Rendlesham Forest UFO incident (known as Britain�s Roswell)
involving members of the United States Air Force at RAF bases in
Suffolk leased to the Americans. The title of the book came from
a conversation with former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher when
she told the author that she must get her facts right concerning
UFOs and she couldn�t tell the people. Bruni went on to
investigate the incident and decided the people should be told
the truth.

For three years the USAF and MOD denied the incident, but in
1983 an American research group managed to obtain a memorandum
(composed by the deputy base commander, Lt Colonel Charles Halt)
through the US Freedom of Information Act. The memo describes
incidents involving UFOs penetrating the area surrounding the
NATO bases, which deployed nuclear weapons. Since then the MOD
has continued to deny that the incident was of defence interest
and that no new information has come to light to change their
mind.

To prove that the incident was of extreme defence interest,
Bruni produces a mass of factual data including a letter written
by Squadron Leader Donald Moreland, the then British liaison
officer at the USAF installations, and addressed to the MOD,
which is titled 'Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOS)'. She also
found official USAF photographs taken the morning after the
initial incident which show a British police officer and a USAF
officer examining three ground indentations, said to be the
landing marks made by one of the UFOs and where high radiation
readings were depicted. Bruni also located a firsthand copy of
an original tape recording taken during the encounter that
involved Lt Colonel Halt and, has testimony from a former NCO
who was in charge of the communications at the time. The
testimony reveals that the communication lines at the bases were
blocked with 'Flash' calls, which were only ever used in dire
emergencies. She also has confirmation that the RAF tracked an
object on military radar.

Bruni is astonished at the Written Answers concerning Lord Hill
Norton�s Questions.

When Lord Hill Norton asked whether the Ministry of Defence were
aware that personnel from the Suffolk Constabulary were
involved, the reply was that knowledge of involvement by the
Suffolk Police is limited to a letter dated 28 July 1999 from
the Suffolk Constabulary to Georgina Bruni that is contained in
the recent book.

When Lord Hill Norton asked whether, in the light of the new
information contained in Georgina Bruni's book, they will now
launch an investigation into the Rendlesham Forest incident and
the response to this incident by the United States Air Force and
the Ministry of Defence. The reply came that no additional
information has come to light over the last 20 years to call
into question the original judgment.

Bruni argues that if the MOD has read the book and are concerned
enough to alert the Americans, they must be aware of all the new
information, which proves without doubt that the incident is of
extreme defence significance.

For a list of the Written Questions and Answers (23 Jan � 30
Jan) visit:

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk

'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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 2

                          Secrecy News -- 02/01/01

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@igc.org>
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 11:09:48 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 02:04:59 -0500
Subject: Secrecy News -- 02/01/01


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
February 1, 2001

**      NEW COMPENDIUM OF DOE DECLASSIFICATION DECISIONS
**      PUBLIC CONSIDERS GOVERNMENT SECRECY EXCESSIVE
**      INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY FIXED;  SEND MONEY


NEW COMPENDIUM OF DOE DECLASSIFICATION DECISIONS

The Department of Energy has published a new edition of
"Restricted Data Declassification Decisions, 1946 to the
Present," an exhaustive 140 page record of declassification
activity that includes several items concerning atomic energy
and nuclear weapons that were declassified over the past year.

"This document should be of interest and utility to historical
researchers and individuals who are interested in information
security," it states.

It is evident that an enormous amount of detailed information on
nuclear science and technology has been declassified over the
years.  Beyond tabulating these declassification actions, the
report itself provides some historical insights.  Thus, "[It is
a] fact that the DOE made a substantial investment in the past
to develop a pure fusion weapon. [However,] the U.S. does not
have and is not developing a pure fusion weapon.... No credible
design for a pure fusion weapon resulted from the DOE
investment."

Some of the newly reported declassifications include:

**  "The fact that Neptunium-237 can be used for a nuclear
explosive device" (declassified in 1992 but only reported this
year).

** "The fact that the mass of plutonium in the Trinity test
device and Fat Man was about 13.5 pounds (6 kilograms)" (well
known but now "official").

** "The presence of enriched uranium ... in unspecified weapon
secondaries" (also well known).

** Detailed information on the "hydronuclear tests" conducted at
the Nevada Test Site from 1954-1966, including "the fact that
these experiments included equation of state (EOS) and nuclear
weapon safety experiments in which high explosives (HE) were
used."

DOE notes that the pace of declassification has slowed and it
projects that "the reduced frequency of new declassifications
will continue in the future."

The January 1, 2001 report, with new declassifications
highlighted in red, is posted here:

        http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/rdd-7.html


PUBLIC CONSIDERS GOVERNMENT SECRECY EXCESSIVE

The U.S. public has a "strong view that the government
classifies too much information," according to an analysis of
survey data collected for the Defense Department over the past
several years.  "Public skepticism towards the magnitude of
government secrecy is substantial."

This was one finding of a unique study on "Trends in Public
Attitudes Towards Government Security Programs, An Analysis of
General Social Survey Data, 1994-1998" performed by the Security
Research Center (SRC) of the Defense Security Service.

The SRC analysis identified strong public support for protecting
national security information, especially information on
technology having military applications, diplomatic initiatives,
military operations, domestic counter-terrorism and the
intelligence budget.  At the same time, it found a consistent
majority view that too much information is classified.

This unusual study of public perceptions was undertaken because
"our ability to maintain and enhance security programs in part
depends upon the public's willingness to endorse appropriate
measures to neutralize security risks and upon the importance
and priority the electorate gives to safeguarding national
security information," the SRC study says.  "In theory, it is
ultimately the people to whom the government is accountable for
its policies."

The analysis also found that the public views espionage as a
very serious crime that deserves severe punishment.  On the
other hand, a clear majority (62.3%) held that an official who
leaks sensitive information to the press should not be
imprisoned but only reprimanded (19.7%) or fired (42.6%).  This
view tends to vindicate President Clinton's veto of legislation
last year that would have made leaking a felony subject to a
jail term.

While the SRC study makes interesting reading, there is
something incongruous about the whole effort because actual
security policies and public attitudes are so loosely coupled:
In practice, it doesn't matter a great deal what the public
thinks and there is no effective mechanism for factoring public
views into the policy formulation process.  The Security Policy
Advisory Board was created to provide a "non-governmental,"
"public interest" view on security policy -- but its members are
retired government security officials, including its chairman,
Air Force General Larry Welch.

The SRC analysis of public attitudes also lacks any
methodological self-criticism, although it seems obvious that
public responses would be shaped significantly by the
formulation of the questions and of the answers that are
presented for selection.

The study was prepared in 1999, based on survey data collected
in 1994, 1996, and 1998.  It was written by Lynn F. Fischer of
the SRC in Monterey, California.  Mr. Fischer said that he is
still awaiting new survey data from 2000 and anticipates
preparation of an updated study of public attitudes towards
government security programs later this year.

The SRC study may be found here:

        http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/gss98.html


INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY FIXED;  SEND MONEY

The report of the U.S. Commission on National Security,
co-chaired by former senators Warren B. Rudman and Gary Hart,
has been described as the most radical proposal for national
security reform and institutional re-design since the National
Security Act of 1947.

So it is remarkable to discover that its far-reaching proposals
do not extend to the U.S. intelligence community.

While some may have thought that efforts to reform U.S.
intelligence had stalled or misfired, it turns out that they
were successful all along, according to the Rudman Commission.

"The basic structure of the U.S. intelligence community does not
require change," the Commission believes.  "The community has
implemented many of the recommendations for reform made by other
studies."

The only thing required now is "change" of another sort, and a
lot of it.  The Commission "urges an overall increase in the
[national intelligence] budget.... There is no escaping the need
for an increase in overall resources for the intelligence
community."

Senator Rudman received the National Intelligence Distinguished
Service Medal from Director of Central Intelligence George J.
Tenet last month. (SN, 1/11/01)

Among some other surprising conclusions, the Commission found
that "the inadequacies of our systems of research and education
pose a greater threat to U.S. national security over the next
quarter century than any potential conventional war that we
might imagine."

This is not a statement that is calculated to please military
contractors or their representatives in Congress.  On the other
hand, the Commission's conception of "education" is about as
narrow as it could be.  It does not refer to education for
freedom and citizenship, but to a kind of vocational training
that is needed to service the national security machine.

A copy of the Commission report, entitled "Road Map for National
Security: Imperative for Change" and released on January 31, is
posted here (as a large 1.6 MB PDF file):

        http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/nssg.pdf

******************************
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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 2

                                 UFO Thesis

From: Jacques Poulet <jpoulet@chucara.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 16:35:18 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 02:10:29 -0500
Subject: UFO Thesis


Hi All,

I've made available a list of academic thesis on UFO (and
related subject) at:

http://members.nbci.com/jpoulet/english/thesis.htm

The list is available in English, French and Norwegian (thanks
to Ole Jonny Brenne).

I used an old file from Ed Stewart and a more recent listing
from Paolo Toselli to start it up and I completed it with some
of my own research. There is 43 thesis listed and I have a few
more to add as soon as I can find someone to translate them.

Which brings me to the reason for this post: I'm looking for
translators from English (or French) to Italian (the work was
started but not completed), Spanish, Portuguese and others.

The work load is minimal - about one hour (maybe two). I'll take
care of the web hosting and formating.

If there are interested readers on the List who would like to
help in this project, just contact me at:

jpoulet@chucara.com

Thank you for your time... we now return to our regular...

Bye,


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 2

               [cprcanadanews] More 'Ice Rings' (1999 & 1997)

From: Paul Anderson <psa@direct.ca>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 15:18:00 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 02:13:28 -0500
Subject: [cprcanadanews] More 'Ice Rings' (1999 & 1997)



CPR-CANADA NEWS
The E-News Service of Circles Phenomenon Research Canada

http://www.egroups.com/group/cprcanadanews
http://www.geocities.com/cpr-canada

February 1, 2001

_____________________________


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).

_____________________________


MORE "ICE RINGS" (1999 AND 1997) AND OTHER UPDATES

Some additional recently received reports have been added to the
report archives on the web site, including three more ice ring
formations (for 1999) at Lac Simon and Lac Pelletier in Quebec
and Lake Louise in Alberta, and another ice circle (for 1997) at
Alonquin Park in Ontario. No photos available unfortunately for
the 1999 formations, but several excellent shots of the 1997
ring are now posted along with a detailed diagram and report of
this "crescent-like" circle. Thanks to Francine Blake and Michel
M. Deschamps for their assistance with these reports. Link:

http://www.geocities.com/cpr-canada/archives.html

I am also working on updating the rest of the archives from 1996
and earlier, but there is still a fair amount to do so it will
take a bit of time. I have also updated the contacts section of
the web site with a clickable national map to serve as a visual
aid to where our coordinators and field research assistants are
located. I will also be adding yearly maps to the report
archives showing the distribution / locations of reports for
each year.

On another note, I will also soon be posting a notice regarding
some upcoming organizational changes with CPR-Canada, as soon as
details are worked out. In brief, due to changes being made by
Colin Andrews (the "downscaling" of CPRI, with no more
international affiliate offices), we will no longer be
affiliated with CPRI as of March 1, 2001. We will however
continue as we have been, with another name, logo, etc. Details
pending.


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 - 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/cpr-canada

REPORTING HOTLINE
604.731.8522

_____________________________


� Circles Phenomenon Research Canada, 2001









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 2

                         Re: Face on Mars Re-Imaged

From: Joe McGonagle <joe@mcgonaglenet.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: 2 Feb 2001 00:51:19 +0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 02:20:30 -0500
Subject: Re: Face on Mars Re-Imaged


 >From: Kurt Jonach <ewarrior@electricwarrior.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Face on Mars Re-Imaged
 >Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 01:21:26 -0800

<snip>

 >------------------------------------------------------------
 >IMAGES

 >http://www.electricwarrior.com/mol/ewFace2001Zoom.jpg
 >http://www.electricwarrior.com/mol/ewCliff2001Zoom.jpg

 >------------------------------------------------------------


I tried these links, Kurt, but they didn't work.


Cheers,

Joe








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 2

                     Re: Face on Mars Re-Imaged - Liddle

From: Sean Liddle <gortrix@kos.net>
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 18:40:12 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 02:22:31 -0500
Subject: Re: Face on Mars Re-Imaged - Liddle


 >From: Kurt Jonach <ewarrior@electricwarrior.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Face on Mars Re-Imaged
 >Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 01:21:26 -0800

 >------------------------------------------------------------
 >BREAKING : FACE ON MARS RE-IMAGED

 >FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

 >CYDONIA 2001

 >NASA has released seven new images of the Cydonia region on
 >Mars, including a close-up of the Face.

 >http://www.electricwarrior.com/mol/ewFace2001Zoom.jpg
 >http://www.electricwarrior.com/mol/ewCliff2001Zoom.jpg


It would be nice if you included the URL for the actual NASA or
JPL site where the images are posted by them for comparison.  :)

Now I have to used these tired fingers more than my fatigue
level dictates.  If only we could skip real-world work and do
this full time <sigh>


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 2

                        Re: Joseph Smith - Deardorff

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 17:10:52 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 02:23:46 -0500
Subject: Re: Joseph Smith - Deardorff


 >Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 21:28:39 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Joseph Smith

 >Hello Robert, and thanks for the diversion!

 >It seems to me that the more outre new-age groups have simply
 >replaced old traditional religions with fresh new logical
 >lasagna. The details don't have to make sense. That's for
 >rationalistic nit-pickers and egg- headed scientists.

 >If I were an alien "space-brother" I would probably find
 >something more interesting to do than save humanity from the
 >ravages of war, human nature and entropy. I would certainly
 >_not_ seek out some self-styled guru as the sole outlet for my
 >cosmic revelations. I guess I would just remain silent and enjoy
 >the show; but heck, that's just me.


Hey Larry,

Don't worry that the aliens might have been around for the
purpose of saving us from ourselves. We know they've been around
even long before 1947, and they've been happy to let us wage
wars all around the world all that time. It just might be that
they think mankind can only learn from our own mistakes.

I don't place much faith in the opposing view one finds, now and
then, that the aliens have started all our wars.

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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 2

              Re: UFOs & Mexico/US Military Experiences - Muoz

From: Ovnimexico1@aol.com
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 20:26:11 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 02:30:15 -0500
Subject: Re: UFOs & Mexico/US Military Experiences - Muoz

 >Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 03:48:27 -0500
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: UFOs & Mexico/US Military Experiences

 >>From: Antonio_Gomez-Orodea@discovery.com
 >>Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 16:40:49 -0500
 >>Subject: UFOs & Mexico/US Military Experiences
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>[Non-Subscriber Post]

 >>Hi Guys,

 >>Do you know if there have ever been any documented UFOs
 >>encounters with any kind of military forces in Mexico and/or the
 >>US? If so, could you tell me when and how important these
 >>encounters were?

 >>I am collecting information about these specific UFO/Military
 >>encounters and I would greatly appreciate your help.


 >Hi Antonio,

 >I'm not sure if this qualifies but, in the UFO video compilation
 >"Messengers of the Stars" that was produced by Brit & Lee Elders
 >in the mid 90s, there are a few  clips taken in and around
 >Mexico City showing UFOs in conjunction with military activity.
 >In one clip an "object" (UFO) flies right through the middle of
 >a formation of military helicopters. The choppers were
 >overflying the city as a part of a holiday airshow/celebration.
 >Somebody on the ground was taping and caught the the incident on
 >tape.

 >There's another clip showing a group of about 5 or 6 fighters
 >that are being videotaped by a ground observer. While the
 >cameraman is panning to follow the planes, they pass by a
 >stationary (object/UFO.) One of the planes breaks formation in
 >an attempt to go back and get a closer look at the thing when
 >the UFO suddenly begins to accelerate and leaves the area by
 >going up! (As opposed to flying off in a straight line away from
 >the pursuing plane.)

 >There is a third clip taken during an event/parade involving the
 >military when the camera person spots an object/UFO hovering
 >overhead (maybe the UFO occupants were checking out the parade!)
 >and he begins to film the odd object in the sky rather than the
 >festive doings on the ground. :)

 >Get your hands on a copy of this tape and check it out for
 >yourself.

Dear Antonio,

John is right regarding those clips in that video. In fact, Brit
and Lee Elders asked us long ago for permission to publish them
in their videos (actually a trilogy) and reflect what is
happening in Mexico since 1991.

There are more of those clips. They were taken meanwhile the
military parades of every September 16th (since 1991 through
1993), were made to celebrate our Independence Day in Mexico. We
realized this was happening periodically, but it is far away of
a relationship between the visitors and the military in my
country.

In fact, everything ceased in 1995, when a fatal accident
occurred between several airplanes that crashed after a mid-air
collision on the parade of that year. Some people suspect that
there was a UFO involved, but there are no documents at all to
prove this. Some of the pilots told us what happened up there,
but no UFOs were there, as far as I remember.

In Mexico there are just few known cases with this possible
interaction between UFOs and the military, even if now there is
a fashion where people say happily: "A UFO crashed there..." and
so on... Like flies, as you can imagine... There is no such
situation here...

There was an incident in Puebla happened on July 29, 1977, when
an alleged delta-shaped UFO crashed in the mountains around
Puebla City, creating commotion in the area and the
military went there and certainly closed the area. Some of the
researchers were aviation technician Alfonso Salazar (who
wrote a book on this subject), Carlos Guzmn (currently director
of CIFEEEAC in Mexico, and with a close relationship with MUFON)
and maybe Oscar Zapin Jimeno. They were there and something
really happened. I cannot tell you if the alleged UFO was
confiscated by the USA, as usually is said to happen in these
cases around the world, but hundreds of persons actually saw the
object falling down across the country that day, even in Mexico
City.

I hope this info helps you.

Best wishes and regards.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 2

                        Re: Joseph Smith - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 20:31:37 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 02:47:22 -0500
Subject: Re: Joseph Smith - Mortellaro


 >Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 21:28:39 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Joseph Smith

 >>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 23:37:46 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Joseph Smith
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>>Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 01:21:27 -0800
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Joseph Smith

 >><snip>

 >>>This is just my personal opinion of course, but the more a
 >>>space-alien contactee resembles a religious contactee, the more
 >>>my BS buzzer sounds!

 >>Hi Larry,

 >>My favorite :) out of the whole bunch is when I hear some of the
 >>"believers" advocating and telling us how the space brothers are
 >>going to come and save the planet from:

 >>a) nuclear war
 >>b) nuclear winter
 >>c) global warming
 >>d) global cooling
 >>e) all of the above.

Gentle Men, as opposed to the other variety,

May I enter this conversation with a tidbit of my own?

Thank you.

I am quite fortunate to be one of those who have no memory of
"them" telling me that the world is about to come to an end if
we don't... as above. I do seem to have changed my views on many
issues, some among these are my taste for hunting, new abilities
that i never had before, mostly in being able to express myself
artistically and in the written word. And of course, I have
gotten _infinitely_ more handsome. Some way I look like a young
Julio Iglesias. It's a curse.

Howsomever I do know a number of our number who do have such
recall. Many if not most with whom I've spoken do not believe
the little snots for a nanosecond. Some do. Presumably whether
one do or don't depends on how much the little buggers
brainwashed the afflicted. Or how much (in my personal view)
they let thtem.

There have been some serious discussions within the small circle
of crazoids, like myself, whose perception is that we've
interacted with greys, insectoids (otherwise known to some of us
as lizard turds) and other varieties of... uh... whatever the
hell they are. And the discussions are about whether one should
believe what they tell us. The general consensus is that we
should not. This from my circle of abductees, real of perceived
only. FYI.

 >>In other words the grey, bug eyed, pointy ear, "messiah" has
 >>just shown up to save earth from all of its ills and
 >>disasters. An even better favorite a few years ago was when
 >>one of the dudes from the Montauk project was claiming to have
 >>remote viewed a Grey alien. The Grey preferred to guzzle
 >>draino for nourishment. Quite a contrast from the Bill Moore
 >>TV special in which the alleged govt insiders revealed that
 >>the Greys like strawberry ice cream.....

 >>>I hope this doesn't offend anyone, but that's probably asking
 >>>too much.

 >>Not to worry, my posting has probably just outraged and number
 >>of people, so they will have promptly forgotten about your
 >>post...:)

 >Hello Robert, and thanks for the diversion!

 >It seems to me that the more outre new-age groups have simply
 >replaced old traditional religions with fresh new logical
 >lasagna. The details don't have to make sense. That's for
 >rationalistic nit-pickers and egg- headed scientists.

 >If I were an alien "space-brother" I would probably find
 >something more interesting to do than save humanity from the
 >ravages of war, human nature and entropy. I would certainly
 >_not_ seek out some self-styled guru as the sole outlet for my
 >cosmic revelations. I guess I would just remain silent and enjoy
 >the show; but heck, that's just me.

As above Doctor Wilbur... Larry. Sorry. I keep forgetting. The
truth be known, and I am grateful to be able to say this, most
of those with whom I've interacted, those who claim to be
experiencers, don't believe any of the above. It's just the self
styled gurus' and those who claim to channel space brothers what
do. We generally don't.

Most of us just try to figure out what the hell has been going
on in our lives for too many years. There are a few on the
brink.

Those write books. But you know something, Larry, when you write
a book, generally speaking, you go into it knowing that you are
gonna make maybe nine cents an hour for your trouble. Of course,
the crazier the BS, the more you earn. I've often wondered why
this is. If you lie like a rug and BS your way thru the book,
with all kind and manner of horse hockey, you make lots more
money.

I plan to make very little from mine. But then I may compensate
by selling lotsa Gripple. The new GODSTUFF Gripple I previously
wrote about seems to have incensed only one. At least on-list.
I think that's OK. Even if that one's Royalty, how the hell much
can a despot drink, anyway? Huh?

Not enough to matter.

James S. Mortellaro, Jr.
President








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 2

             Re: Kecksburg - Response, Review & Update - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 20:34:25 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 03:30:08 -0500
Subject: Re: Kecksburg - Response, Review & Update - Sparks


 >From: Stan Gordon <paufo@westol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 09:41:21 -0500
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Kecksburg - Response, Review & Update


 >A Response, Review, and Update Concerning the Kecksburg Incident
 >from Stan Gordon


 >To Bob Young, Brad Sparks, and all interested parties:


Stan, Bob, et al.,

I never received this post so I've had to retrieve it days
after the fact from the UFO UpDates Archives.

This response does not answer my questions satisfactorily. In my
posting on Jan 4 I asked for confirmation that news reporters
"on the scene that day" in Dec 1965 "confirm the military
presence" as was claimed, _AND_ published their stories in
_December 1965_ rather than decades later, as with the 1991
story cited. And I expressed doubt that these reporters saw any
object allegedly recovered by the military -- and I was right.
See my posting:

  http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2001/jan/m04-011.shtml

Apparently, _none_ of the reporters published or broadcast in
Dec 1965 any account of an actual U.S. military presence _in_
Kecksburg other than the three admitted Air Force radarmen
investigating for Blue Book -- and I don't mean any irrelevant
story about a barracks in Greensburg. Greensburg is not
Kecksburg. Apparently _none_ of the reporters saw any object
recovered either.

And why aren't there any _photos_ of U.S. Army men cordoning off
the town roads, bringing in tractor-trailer rigs, views of 25
servicemen purportedly gathered?

It is interesting to note the contrast with Roswell: There were
actual first-hand eyewitnesses of recovered physical material
(Brazel and Marcel) who were quoted in the media _in_ July 1947
about what they saw _and_ the material or some of it was
photographed and published, also _in_ July 1947 (in Gen. Ramey's
office press conference). And there were far fewer people at
Roswell who could be firsthand witnesses of anything, since the
crash site was so incredibly remote and accessible to only a
handful of people being situated on an isolated ranch about 30
miles from the nearest town and about 60 miles from Roswell.
Whereas in Kecksburg the alleged (apparently nonexistent) crash
site was surrounded by townspeople from perhaps a range of a few
hundred _yards_.

None of the stories below present eyewitness accounts of a
serious military presence in Kecksburg or an object recovery
that was actually published or broadcast in Dec 1965. Their
dates of publication are nebulous, suggesting they come from
20-30+ years after the event.

 >The following information concerns the December 9, 1965, UFO
 >incident near Kecksburg, PA. I hope this will help clarify some
 >accounts pertaining to this event, as well as make you aware of
 >some of the details that my associates and I have learned from
 >those involved.

 >At around 4:47 P.M., a brillant fiery object passed over the
 >Pittsburgh area. The object continued on its path into
 >Westmoreland County, where it passed over Greensburg and moved
 >over Route 30, east of the city. The object soon made a turn to
 >the south, passing over the villages of Margurite and Norvelt,
 >and continued towards Laurelville. At Laurelville, the object
 >again turned, and tracked towards the northeast in the direction
 >of Kecksburg. This object, observed by various witnesses,
 >dropped into a wooded area outside of Kecksburg. Witnesses
 >stated the object appeared to fall slowly, as if it were
 >controlled. Shortly after impact, blue smoke rose from the woods
 >and dissipated quickly.

This sounds to me like a general northeast trajectory with one
or two erroneous witness reports near Norvelt that mistook the
direction of travel as south, instead of northeast. Witnesses
who were probably having to remember sighting details 20-30
years later.

Is there any _reliable_contemporary_ evidence for all this
alleged maneuvering of the light to contradict the triangulation
and photography of the actual meteor fireball, published in
scientific journals, as pointed out by Bob Young?

 >Residents were alarmed by the flaming object and the
 >accompanying loud boom, which had also been reported in some
 >local areas. Phone lines at law enforcement and news agencies
 >were jammed. According to eyewitness accounts, the object
 >appeared to decelerate several miles before falling.

All of this sounds quite consistent with either a meteor /
meteorite or a satellite / space re-entry -- flaming object,
loud sonic boom, decelerating before falling. But they go black
when slow enough to fall and then they can't be seen, so one
doesn't know where they might have fallen if anything actually
survived to reach the ground. Without _reliable_contemporary_
witness data and especially photos if possible, it's difficult
to pinpoint a fall location, as meteorite hunters will tell you.
Trying to reconstruct trajectories from witness memories 20-30+
years later is very difficult.

 >Randy Overly was playing outside that afternoon near the
 >community of Norvelt. Overly heard an odd hissing noise, and
 >then looked in the distance to observe an object in the sky
 >moving slowly in his direction. The object, which was not
 >moving any faster than a small aircraft, passed roughly 200
 >feet overhead, and continued moving south towards Laurelville.

Hissing noise is a classic meteor fireball phenomenon, called
electrophonics. The witness was apparently a little boy at the
time whose distance estimate cannot be taken seriously when even
adults cannot determine distances to objects overhead without
distance markers (passing in front and behind objects at known
distances). This is basic UFOlogy 101 here.


 >Due to it's slow speed, the object was observed in detail,
 >passing low overhead, and continuing off in the distance. The
 >object was described as somewhat acorn shaped, brownish-grayish
 >in color, with a raised area on the back, and a rounded
 >protuberance on the front. There were flames of fire emitting
 >from the rear which were multicolored. A distinct vapor
 >surrounded the object, and a hissing sound was quite apparent as
 >it passed overhead. Overly said, "It certainly seemed to be a
 >constructed thing. It had smooth edges and smooth lines."

How old was Overly? When was he interviewed and his testimony
published? What was the duration of the sighting, elevation
angles and directions? What time was his sighting? Was anyone
else around to see the asme thing? Did Overly actually _say_ he
saw it heading "south" (see earlier paragraph) or has this been
inferred?

 >Bill Bulebush was working on a CB radio in his car at his home
 >near Mammoth that day. He watched the object move from Norvelt
 >towards Laurelville. Bulebush ran to the road to get a better
 >look, and watched as the fiery object moved towards a mountain,
 >then it seemed to hesitate, made a turn and moved towards
 >Kecksburg where it descended.

This is a south trajectory, Norvelt to Laurelville. But if
Bulebush was running, then his whole directional perspective
among trees and other foreground objects could make a moving
object in the sky appear to change course. To get reliable data
an onsite investigation would have been required back in 1965
taking sighting azimuths and elevations at the different spots
from where Bulebush was located at different points in his
sighting.

How old was Bulebush? When was he interviewed and his testimony
published? What was the duration of the sighting, elevation
angles and directions? What time was his sighting? Was anyone
else around to see the same thing?

 >Other witnesses near Laurelville also viewed the object moving
 >towards the Kecksburg area.

Well, they _would_ because the meteor was heading northeast and
off to the north, Kecksburg is to the north or northeast from
Laurelville. Witnesses in Laurelville watching the meteor would
see it over Kecksburg from their location and they'd have no way
to determine its actual distance.

 >Bulebush quickly drove to what was
 >then Kuhn's Lane (now called Meteor road as a result of this
 >local event) to the highest point which overlooked the area
 >surrounding the community. Bulebush observed bright blue flashes
 >of light emitting from the woods below. He knew these
 >particular woods well since he hunted there. It was nearly dark,
 >so he grabbed a flashlight and proceeded down to investigate.

 >Bulebush was likely the first person to view the large metallic
 >acorn shaped object which now rested semi-buried in the ground.

Is he also the _only_ person claiming to have seen the crashed
metal "acorn" buried in the ground? When was his story first
published?

 >Bright blue arching light, akin to a welders torch, emanated
 >from the object. Strange markings were also seen on the back of
 >the object. Bulebush noticed trees were bent downwards in the
 >same direction, apparently caused by the landing of the object.
 >He left the area and returned home to tell his family about his
 >experience. Bulebush later returned with his young son to the
 >area to find the military was now at the scene. His son clearly
 >remembers the soldiers with their guns that day in 1965.

Does this sensational story come from _both_ Bulebush and his
son, or only the son? When was the story first published with
the full details of "acorn" and military presence at the "acorn"
crash site?

 >As the object passed over Westmoreland County, phone lines at
 >WHJB radio in Greensburg, PA, were jammed with calls from area
 >residents, many concerned the object was an aircraft on fire.
 >Mable Mazza, the office manager at the radio station, stayed
 >over to help handle the calls. During the evening she received
 >phone calls from military sources, including from the Air Force
 >and the Pentagon. Mazza stated, "The military was asking
 >directions to the site, and what I knew from the calls about
 >it."

When was Mazza's story first published?

 >It was after the 6:30pm news broadcast when a woman
 >reported to the station that her young son had earlier seen the
 >object fall into a nearby wooded area near Kecksburg. The late
 >John Murphy, who was the news director at WHJB radio, took this
 >report, and contacted Troop A Pennsylvania State Police
 >headquarters in Greensburg, PA, providing them with this
 >information.

Was this report never published or broadcast in Dec 1965 when it
allegedly occurred? Is it decades-old multiple hearsay? The
succeeding paragraphs (below) suggest it's another story told
20-30+ years later, and it's unclear whether "the late" John
Murphy told this story while he was alive or whether it comes
second - or third-hand from surviving friends or relatives. The
documentation is nebulously stated or left unstated.

 >Murphy drove to the area and remained there for quite a while
 >before Carl Metz, the State Police fire marshall, and another
 >investigator arrived with the young boy who saw the object and
 >his mother, as well as several others. Metz and the other
 >investigator went down into the woods with a yellow geiger
 >counter. According to Murphy, they were in the woods about
 >sixteen minutes. When they came back up the hill, Metz was
 >approached by Murphy about what might have been found; Murphy
 >waited until Metz and the other investigator were away from the
 >crowd. At this time Murphy asked Metz directly, "Did you find
 >anything down there?" According to Murphy, Metz looked puzzled
 >and remarked, "I'm not sure." When Murphy pressed Metz again, he
 >stated, "You better get your information from the Army."

Without the documentation this proves absolutely nothing, as
we're still uninformed as to whether the late John Murphy told
his story directly or not, and there's no clue whether this
story was published in 1965 or in the 90's when Roswell fever
was epidemic. At most, it doesn't even prove a military presence
or the existence of a crashed object.

Instead of a big long paragraph of vague origin, undated, and
proving nothing, can't we just have a newspaper account in Dec
1965 saying something like:

     "KECKSBURG, Pa., Dec. 10 -- Townspeople were startled
     yesterday by the sight of a fiery object in the sky that
     appeared to crash in the local woods. Witnesses report that
     Army troops cordoned off the site and blocked roads. Sheriff
     XYZ said that his department was cooperating with the
     military but could not comment further. Witness ABC said he
     saw a fiery light [etc. etc.]. Witness DEF said troops
     stopped him as he tried to drive to the apparent crash site
     [etc. etc.]." Etc. etc.

It's so simple to prove. That's _shorter_ than the long
paragraph about Murphy and Metz and unlike the Murphy-Metz story
it would prove that something might have happened the way it's
now claimed. It's so simple to prove that this really happened
and isn't the result of 30 years of sci fi movies and tv series
contaminating witness memories so that they confuse _State_
Troopers with Army troops, etc. And the longer this simple proof
is dodged and evaded and not directly admitted to exist or
denied, the more suspicious I get about the whole thing.


 >Murphy viewed this statement to be highly unusual and deduced
 >that there was something in the woods of significant military
 >value. Metz and the other investigator left the area, but not
 >before a uniformed trooper was posted at that location. Murphy,
 >uncertain as to what was to occur next, contacted the state
 >police barracks in Greensburg and talked with Captain Dussia.
 >Dussia suggested Murphy might want to come to the barracks as he
 >understood that members of the 662nd Radar Squadron would be
 >arriving.

Here the "military presence" in the story turns out to be the
admitted three-man Blue Book-authorized USAF radar squadron's
investigation (see next).

 >As Bob Young pointed out, the only official record of military
 >involvement is from the Air Force Project Blue Book report which
 >confirms that three Air Force personnel from the 662nd Radar
 >Squadron were involved with the search. The actual log entry
 >from that report states, "A further call was made to the Oakdale
 >radar site in Pennsylvania. A three man team has been
 >dispatched to Acme (Kecksburg area) to investigate and pick up
 >an object that started a fire." The report also stated that the
 >search of the area ended around 2 A.M. and that nothing was
 >found.

 >John Murphy, the WHJB news director, with the help of other
 >radio station personnel, created a radio documentary on this
 >local event which was broadcast days after the incident and was
 >called "Object in The Woods." On that broadcast, Murphy
 >describes what he saw after he left Kecksburg for the first time
 >to go to the state police barracks. "When I arrived at the
 >State Police Troop A barracks in Greensburg, not only were there
 >members of the United States Army there, but I also saw two men
 >in Air Force uniform."

The Army troops were in _Greensburg_ not in Kecksburg! This
doesn't prove they ever left these barracks to go to Kecksburg.


 >Here we have a first hand account from a newsman who began
 >documenting this information as the story was unfolding.

We still don't know the provenance of this "documentation." Was
it a tape of a broadcast made in 1965 or something that was
never broadcast but portions were included in tv shows in the
80's or 90's?

 >His
 >statement confirms that more than three military personnel were
 >investigating the Kecksburg event, and that both the Army and
 >Air Force were involved.

This "confirms" nothing more than that Army personnel conferred
with Air Force personnel in _Greensburg_ not in Kecksburg. Did
the Army men go back to base? Were they satisfied the Air Force
had jurisdiction? Were they there on UFO business or happened to
be there on other business? How many Army "members" did Murphy
see, 2 or 3? Did he see trucks, tractor-trailer rigs, etc.
heading out to Kecksburg?

 >Many people, publicly and
 >confidentially, have described the surprising arrival of
 >military personnel and vehicles that they saw around the
 >Kecksburg area that day.

Are these stories published only in the 80's or 90's and never
made public in 1965?







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 2

                          Re: AA Film Redux - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 23:33:29 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 03:33:40 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Gates


 >From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 16:50:02 -0800

 >>From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >>Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 14:17:50 -0800

 >>About faking alien autopsies you can't miss:

 >>http://www.trudang.com/autopsy/autopsy.html

 >Serge,

 >What is the meaning of this post?

 >I don't get it. This link is one of the main reasons
 >that the AA has been consigned to the trash bin.

Ed,

I don't think many people get the fact that one of the big
reasons the AA film was "consigned to the trash bin" as you put
it was because of Santilli's story telling, and promises that he
made and did not keep, not to mention supplying 1 (ONE) frame of
the film for examination by Kodak. When people started pressing
Ray bud, suddenly we have Ray claiming that "Volker" owns the
film and Volker this and Volker that.

All storys aside, in the long run, Ray ended up doing more
damage to the alleged authenticity of the film then anything
anybody else did.

 >And pardon the language but this link is a bunch of BS,
 >pure and simple. You must examine the footage to
 >understand the vast difference between what is depicted
 >at this site and the AA.

I keep hearing this story about examing the footage to
understand all the deep significicance of the film.

I could sit and watch a film such as Schindlers list endlessly,
frame by frame, by the hours and days and could come away with
the impression that the film was a true, real depiction, of
Schindler etc.

The point being is that if the film maker has done the job
properly you have trouble differing between actual reality, and
a film makers "created" reality.

I also recall that the some of the footage (tent?) was proven to
be a hoax by Phil Mantle, even though gulliable lap dog
supporters still rant and rave about 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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 2

                     Re: Face on Mars Re-Imaged - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 23:42:27 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 03:34:57 -0500
Subject: Re: Face on Mars Re-Imaged - Young


 >From: Kurt Jonach <ewarrior@electricwarrior.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Face on Mars Re-Imaged
 >Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 01:21:26 -0800

<snip>

 >IMAGES

 >http://www.electricwarrior.com/mol/ewFace2001Zoom.jpg
 >http://www.electricwarrior.com/mol/ewCliff2001Zoom.jpg

Kurt:

When I attempt to go to these sites I get the following message:
You are not authorized to view this page.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 2

                          Re: Joseph Smith - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 01:03:27 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 10:21:06 -0500
Subject: Re: Joseph Smith - Hatch


 >From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 20:31:37 EST
 >Subject: Re: Joseph Smith
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 21:28:39 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Joseph Smith

<snip>

 >I am quite fortunate to be one of those who have no memory of
 >"them" telling me that the world is about to come to an end if
 >we don't... as above. I do seem to have changed my views on many
 >issues, some among these are my taste for hunting, new abilities
 >that i never had before, mostly in being able to express myself
 >artistically and in the written word. And of course, I have
 >gotten _infinitely_ more handsome. Some way I look like a young
 >Julio Iglesias. It's a curse.

 >Howsomever I do know a number of our number who do have such
 >recall. Many if not most with whom I've spoken do not believe
 >the little snots for a nanosecond. Some do. Presumably whether
 >one do or don't depends on how much the little buggers
 >brainwashed the afflicted. Or how much (in my personal view)
 >they let thtem.

<snip>

 >>Hello Robert, and thanks for the diversion!

 >>It seems to me that the more outre new-age groups have simply
 >>replaced old traditional religions with fresh new logical
 >>lasagna. The details don't have to make sense. That's for
 >>rationalistic nit-pickers and egg- headed scientists.

 >>If I were an alien "space-brother" I would probably find
 >>something more interesting to do than save humanity from the
 >>ravages of war, human nature and entropy. I would certainly
 >>_not_ seek out some self-styled guru as the sole outlet for my
 >>cosmic revelations. I guess I would just remain silent and enjoy
 >>the show; but heck, that's just me.

 >As above Doctor Wilbur... Larry. Sorry. I keep forgetting. The
 >truth be known, and I am grateful to be able to say this, most
 >of those with whom I've interacted, those who claim to be
 >experiencers, don't believe any of the above. It's just the self
 >styled gurus' and those who claim to channel space brothers what
 >do. We generally don't.

<snip>

Hello Jim:

I don't for a moment confuse the abductees/experiencers etc.
with the new-age UFO cultists or their gurus.

These are two entirely separate groups. The first is plagued
with something or other; just what is highly debatable.

The second group ( cultists, contactees etc. ) would probably
welcome some nice contact with their space-brothers, while the
first group usually dreads the thought.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 2

             Re: Kecksburg - Response, Review & Update - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 04:26:46 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 16:24:57 -0500
Subject: Re: Kecksburg - Response, Review & Update - Sparks


 >From: Stan Gordon <paufo@westol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 09:41:21 -0500
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Kecksburg - Response, Review & Update


PART 2

 >Many people, publicly and
 >confidentially, have described the surprising arrival of
 >military personnel and vehicles that they saw around the
 >Kecksburg area that day.

Are these stories published only in the 80's or 90's and never
made public in 1965?


Witnesses at various locations around
 >the community say they saw marked military cars, jeeps, 6x6
 >trucks, personnel carriers, and one or more flat bed
 >tractor-trailer trucks. Linda Foschia said she saw a military
 >convoy moving along the Greensburg-Mount Pleasant road towards
 >Kecksburg on that evening in 1965.

This sounds like a late retrospective from the 80's or 90's.

 >The late James Mayes was the 1st Assistant Fire Chief of
 >Kecksburg at the time of the incident. I had the opportunity to
 >converse with this gentleman many times over the years. Mayes
 >was one of the first involved in the search effort that day for
 >what was thought to have been a possible downed aircraft. At
 >one point, a state trooper drove Mayes and another fireman to
 >the top of Kuhn's Lane where they looked down into the woods and
 >saw "flashing blue lights." The trooper would not allow them to
 >enter further into the woods. The trooper later took the firemen
 >back to the Kecksburg Fire Station. When they arrived at the
 >fire station, Mayes stated that the military had shown up.
 >Mayes stated, "There was quite a few military men at the station
 >which they used as a command post." He estimated that there was
 >around 25 personnel that he saw along with military vehicles
 >that were parked around the back of the two bay truck garage.

When was Mayes' story first made public? Why wasn't this blasted
all over the media in 1965?

 >Jim Romansky, not from the Kecksburg area, states that he was a
 >member of another fire company which had been called out to
 >assist in the search for a possible downed aircraft that day.

Later on you say Romansky "returned to the Kecksburg fire
station" which contradicts what's stated here about not being a
member of that fire company.

 >The search teams had been combing the woods when a call came in
 >over a walkie-talkie that another team had found the crash site.
 >Jim's team hurried over to the location and were puzzled by
 >what they saw. Jim stood on a bank about five feet from the
 >partially buried off-gold colored acorn-shaped object. Jim, who
 >has been a machinist much of his life, said it gave him the
 >impression that someone had taken liquid metal and poured it
 >into an acorn shaped mold. There were no rivets, seams, wings,
 >or fuselage apparent, and the object appeared as one solid piece
 >of metal, unlike a conventional aircraft.

 >Jim, can only estimate the size of the object since it wasn't
 >entirely visible. He said that it was 10 to 12 feet or more in
 >length, and about 8 to 10 feet in diameter. He believes that a
 >grown man could have easily stood up inside of the device. On
 >the rear of the object was a ringed area about 8 to 10 inches
 >wide, but less in height. It was on this area that strange
 >markings similar to ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics were seen.
 >Jim has stated, "It looked like someone took a welding rod and
 >just welded a bead for the different designs."

 >Jim and the other firemen speculated over the object. Two men
 >dressed in overcoats appeared on the scene and told the
 >searchers that the area was now under quarantine and they had to
 >leave. Behind these two men were a group of military personnel.
 >Jim said they passed within 5 feet of each other. When he and
 >the others returned to the Kecksburg fire station, Jim says it
 >was occupied by the military.

Did Romansky see the State Troopers or did he confuse them with
the "military"? When was Romansky's story first made public? Why
wasn't this blasted all over the media in 1965?

 >One of many witnesses that has described the military response
 >to Kecksburg has been Robert L. Bitner. Bob Young is correct.
 >Bitner was not the Kecksburg fire chief in 1965. Bitner had
 >gotten his service years mixed up. He later realized that he had
 >gone out as chief in 1964. He was an active Kecksburg volunteer
 >fireman in 1965. Bitner was truck driver, and after finishing
 >up his route, drove into Kecksburg after hearing a news report
 >about the fallen object.

 >I am sure that we all realize that news reporters are sometimes
 >limited to space and can't always give a complete account of an
 >event. Bitner did not arrive in the area until late in the
 >evening. He located a Kecksburg fire truck parked near an old
 >farmhouse with several firemen standing around. They told
 >Bitner that something had fallen from the sky into the ravine
 >below. Bitner was present later that night (not earlier in the
 >evening) when a small group of military vehicles came into that
 >area. Among the vehicles was a personnel carrier and a 6x6
 >military truck. ( Bitner never viewed the flatbed
 >tractor-trailer truck which other witnesses said carried the
 >object away from the area.) The military proceeded down into the
 >wooded hollow. Bitner and the other firemen were not permitted
 >to go along. When the military came back up from the woods, the
 >firemen were told they could leave, and Bitner went directly
 >home.

Why didn't he see the State Troopers too? When was Bitner's
story first made public? Why wasn't this blasted all over the
media in 1965?

 >Robert Blystone Jr. walked into Kecksburg that evening. He said
 >there was military everywhere- on the street corners, and on the
 >roads. At one point he went to an area where he could see down
 >to the fire station where he saw military vehicles parked there.
 >He said the military were armed with rifles and sidearms.

If only he or someone else among those "hundreds" (see below)
had a camera and took a picture of this scene!

 >Larry Snyder and some teenage friends tried to sneak down into
 >the woods to see what had reportedly fallen. Snyder said they
 >went to two different locations that evening. At each location,
 >there was an armed military man who prevented them from entering
 >towards the impact site. When Snyder asked what fell, a soldier
 >answered saying that a meteor had landed.

When was Snyder's story first made public? Why wasn't this
blasted all over the media in 1965?

 >James Mayes and other Kecksburg firemen drove some military
 >"brass" on their 1961 four wheel drive pumper towards the impact
 >site. They drove through the fields toward the woods near a
 >farmhouse that was being rented by the Hays family. When they
 >started to descend into a hollow, the military said that this
 >was as far as the firemen could go. The fire truck was turned
 >back and the military officers proceeded on foot. Mayes
 >estimated that there were four or five of the officers that were
 >holding onto the running boards and tail board of the pumper
 >truck.

 >Lillian Hays and her son, John, confirm that military personnel
 >and men in suits frequented their rented farmhouse that night in
 >1965. The visitors made many phone calls from the house, located
 >not far from the impact site in the woods. John overhead a
 >conversation and learned that NASA was also on the way to that
 >location. Later that evening, he saw a man wearing a NASA
 >patch. A NASA representative reportedly interviewed some
 >eyewitnesses of the Kecksburg incident at the time.

When were the Hayses' stories first made public? Why wasn't this
blasted all over the media in 1965?

 >During the evening, radio and tv stations began breaking news
 >that an Unidentified Flying Object had reportedly fallen in the
 >Kecksburg area and that the military was arriving.

Prove that any of these news reports demonstrate that anything
more than the 3-man Blue Book-authorized radar squadron team
actually went to Kecksburg. This is the whole point! Here is
where we need to see convincing documentation, not in
30-year-old contaminated recollections of witnesses who didn't
speak up at the time.

 >Hundreds of
 >people, after hearing the news, rushed to this quiet rural
 >community, trying to see what had fallen, as did the news media.

Let's see _photos_ from someone among these "hundreds" of
civilians and reporters showing military roadblocks, cordon,
jeeps, tractor-trailer, APC's, etc. Strange that the news media
can get photos of everything else, including plane crashes, but
didn't think to bring along a camera for a military invasion of
a small town for an unusual aerial crash.

 >Brad Sparks asked for the names of reporters who were on the
 >scene at Kecksburg that day.

No I asked for the names of reporters on the scene who confirmed
the alleged military presence _and_ published their accounts
when it happened, in Dec 1965. Out of _"hundreds"_ of witnesses
surely there are contemporaneous news reports confirming the US
military (not Blue Book) cordoning off a crash site. Surely they
would have photos of the military cordon given that they had a
whole night of time to get cameras, and had nothing else to do
if they were prevented from getting to the alleged crash scene.

 >I don't recall ever saying that
 >reporters saw the object being recovered at the site. The
 >reporters and the public were prevented from going down into the
 >woods and approaching the impact site, which had reportedly been
 >cordoned off.

And I didn't say you had said that Stan. The point is that the
reporters not only didn't see a crashed object themselves but
they did not _report_ in Dec 1965 anyone else seeing it either.
How do we really know that the reporters were "prevented" from
reaching the site by a cordon they apparently never reported at
the time it supposedly happened? And how does a "cordon" prove
U.S. military involvement? State Troopers can cordon off a site
too and they reportedly were present -- assuming those reports
were more reliable than those for a US military "presence." I
see slippery equivocation here. When "military" is to be proved
it turns out to be Blue Book's three-man local radar team. When
a "cordon" is cited, the word "military" is dropped off so it
turns out to be State Troopers.

 >Most of the crowds of people that evening, including reporters,
 >were located on the narrow country road (Meteor Road) that
 >bordered the large wooded area where the object reportedly fell,
 >and was the best overlook of the area.

Why no photos of the crowd scene? This was a tremendous human
interest story if nothing else. Had anything bigger occurred in
Kecksburg's history for the previous century?

 >The object, however,
 >apparently fell on the opposite side of the woods. From that
 >road location where most of the people were standing, observers
 >could not see what was happening on the other side, which was in
 >the distance and blocked by woods. According to a number of
 >people who were in the other area, we have learned that military
 >activity was occurring on a farm lane, in various field
 >locations, and down near the woods by the impact location.

 >John Murphy, the WHJB radio news director who was the first
 >reporter on the scene, confirmed, via radio broadcast, that he
 >had seen both members of the Army and Air Force at the state
 >police barracks who would take part in the search for the
 >object.

Murphy saw _a few_ Army men with a few AF men in _Greensburg_
and _not_ in Kecksburg cordoning off crash site and roads. The
exact content of the "radio broadcast" isn't even clear given
the next sentences (below) indicating something about multiple
versions of the Murphy radio documentary.

 >Murphy took detailed notes during his investigation of
 >the Kecksburg incident and produced a radio documentary called
 >"Object In The Woods," that had been scheduled to be broadcast
 >just days after the event.

Well was it broadcast or not? What date? These are basic
documentation details that when I don't see them I start getting
nervous that someone is trying to pull a fast one over me.

 >Prior to the broadcast, Murphy began to receive calls from
 >witnesses he had interviewed that no longer wanted their
 >statements aired. Murphy included the following statement in his
 >radio report: "We received other calls early tonight from some
 >other people who had said they had changed their mind now at
 >the last minute and did not want the statements they had made
 >over this past weekend used on this radio program tonight. One
 >person said that they were afraid of the state police, and
 >another person said they did not want to get in trouble with the
 >Army. We will present a cut and edited version of the radio
 >program, "Object In The Woods." We regret that part of this
 >program had to be censored and other parts of the program had to
 >be cut out entirely."

Was this actually broadcast or not? What date? How does this
prove anyone _saw_ Army troops in Kecksburg?

 >Robert Gatty was a reporter for the Greensburg, PA
 >Tribune-Review. Gatty wanted to go down into the woods that day
 >but was prevented from doing so by the authorities. The December
 >10, 1965, headlines of the County edition of the Tribune-Review
 >read, "Army Ropes Off Area, Unidentified Flying Object Falls
 >Near Kecksburg."

Suddenly we get _documentation_ of author name, date, place,
publication title, which we were never given before for all the
preceding stories (see above). And it turns out it's because the
headline is a lie, the body of the newspaper story itself that
is quoted next (below) says nothing about the "Army Ropes Off
Area," only that Army Engineers were "expected" to "arrive" and
not even saying they would "rope off" anything! See below:

 >In the story it states, "Tribune Review staff
 >writer Robert Gatty reported from the scene that �no one is
 >being allowed near the object.' State police officials there, he
 >said, ordered the area roped off to await the expected arrival
 >of both U.S. Army Engineers and, possibly, civilian scientists."

So it was _only_ State Police who "roped off" the area. Why no
followup story _after_ the Army supposedly was going to arrive
telling who they were, where they were based, what they found or
refused to say they found, etc.?

Could it be that townspeople read sloppy reporting such as this
at the time, then over the years have mixed up in their memories
the State Police cordon with what was _expected_ to be the
Army's, never realizing that the Army never came? Could someone
have read about the expected "possible" arrival of "civilian
scientists" then imagined hearing that they did perhaps from
someone who made the same assumption?

 >Gatty wrote another story on this incident for the City Edition
 >of the same paper which appeared also on December 10, 1965.
 >Those headlines read, "Resident Tells of Mysterious Encounter,
 >Unidentified Flying Object Report Touches Off Probe Near
 >Kecksburg." On that same page another story also ran about the
 >UFO incident, which read, "Searchers Fail To Find Object."
 >Officially nothing was found during the search of the woods.

Whose "search"? Is this an attempt to insinuate that the
newspaper confirmed that the Army actually searched the site
rather than the Blue Book radar squadron team?

 >The
 >speculation was that observers had only seen a bright meteor in
 >the sky, and nothing had fallen to the ground.

And this proves a "military presence" besides Blue Book's? It's
a pity that we don't have a followup story given that we have so
many on Dec 10. A followup that tells about the Army Engineers
actually arriving and searching and cordoning off and setting up
roadblocks and bringing in loads of vehicles, etc. It's just so
simple.

 >Ernie Hoffman was also a reporter for the Greensburg, PA
 >Tribune-Review in 1965. He replaced Robert Gatty in Kecksburg
 >that night, so that Gatty could return to the newspaper office
 >and work on the story.

Notice the sleight of hand here. There is now nothing about a
specific newspaper story of a given title, publication date and
quoted contents. We know right away that this is going to be a
tale that was for some inexplicable reason never published in,
say, the Dec 11, 1965, edition of the Greensburg Tribune-Review.
Please note my increasing disappointment at the ever mounting
failure to prove the sensational events from 1965 publications
or broadcasts. Heck, I'll take 1966 publications if you've got
them pr


[Arrived truncated --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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 2

               Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? -

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 05:08:18 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 16:26:37 -0500
Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site? -


 >From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Location of Alleged Socorro Landing Site?
 >Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 04:10:28 -0000

<snip>

 >As Hall believes 'Rendlesham' is 'best evidence ever,
 >guaranteed' of ET incursions, why should anyone take his
 >comments on that, or any other 'UFO' case seriously?

 >Honestly, is he still completely oblivious to the _fact_ that
 >Halt's 'starlight scoped UFO' never 'exploded' [duh...] and was
 >then later seen again - as documented on the 'Halt tape', "clear
 >off to the coast"?

The partial Halt tape has the Before and After of the
"explosion" -- the Red Light Before and the 5 White Lights
After.

Since Halt had to press the Dictaphone recorder to record, how
could he have pressed it quickly enough to record the
"explosion"?  If he was maneuvering over terrain obstacles in
the dark at the time he might not have had a chance to record an
after-the-fact comment on the "explosion" but he does have the
aftereffects, the 5 White Lights.

Statistically speaking, the chances that Halt's 16 minutes of
tape would happen to be recording at the time of the
"explosion," one event in about three hours (=180 minutes) of
events, is less than about 1 in 10.










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 2

                            Re: UFO Pics - Kaeser

From: Steven Kaeser <Steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 05:52:55 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 16:28:15 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO Pics - Kaeser


 >Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 16:12:36 +0000
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: UFO Pics

 >I'm sure UpDates subscribers will be interested in the appended
 >material.

 >It's the culmination of some research and discussions on the
 >'UFO Skeptics' forum, concerning the alleged Nashville 'UFO'
 >photographs. To fully understand the background to what follows,
 >especially the other claims which were made about these
 >photographs, plus where further images can be seen, it's
 >necessary to read recent forum postings under the heading 'Can
 >We Solve This?'.

<snip>

It would have been a better article if someone had bothered to
locate some actual pictures of the Olympics ceremony for
comparison. Of the thousands of people who attended the event,
didn't somebody bring a camera..... <g>. Was an effort
undertaken to contact the International Olympic Committee for
historical photos? How about the Los Angeles Chamber of
Commerce?

Otherwise, we're left with another anecdotal explanation from
someone who vows to "eat my shoe" if the Nashville UFO Pics
weren't from the LA Olympics ceremony.

IMO the photos in question were staged at some sort of concert
or ceremony (as described), but this could have been a much more
definitive statement with just a little more legwork.

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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 2

                            Re: UFO Pics - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 09:07:43 -0600
Fwd Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 16:29:38 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO Pics - Evans


 >From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 16:12:36 +0000
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: UFO Pics - Easton

Previously, James wrote:

 >I have received the following confirmation from Patrick Thomas,
 >who was present at both opening and closing ceremonies at the
 >1984 Los Angeles Olympic Games:

 >"If the pictures you have are not from the LA Olympics I will
 >eat my shoe. The UFO was really suspended from a helicopter with
 >the blades in stealth mode. The lights were coordinated with a
 >set of lights on the center stage. It was like the scene from
 >Speilberg's "Close Encounters of the Third Kind". When the
 >lights on the suspended UFO went off a seven foot + man dressed
 >in an alien costume stood on top of the coliseum, it was really
 >quite classical, funny, but very well done. Regarding the
 >"Rocket Man" - the technology was from the early 70's and was
 >never developed by the US army because they consider the
 >platform unstable for use in the battle field".

 >This would seem to resolve the origin of our supposed 'Nashville
 >UFO' photographs.

Hi, James!

I'd be interested in seeing the video of the event. That would
be the easiest way to verify the claim. However, I am a bit
suspicious of the term "stealth mode" regarding the helicopter
blades. Seems a bit 'sci-fi' to me. I have yet to see any
information about a "stealth mode" actually being applied to
helicopters' rotors other than in Popular Science articles about
the future. Would Mr. Thomas up to eating at least the toe of
his shoe about this?


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 2

                          Re: UFO Thesis - Friedman

From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 09:21:58 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 16:31:28 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO Thesis - Friedman


 >Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 16:35:18 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Jacques Poulet <jpoulet@chucara.com>
 >Subject: UFO Thesis


 >I've made available a list of academic thesis on UFO (and
 >related subject) at:

 >http://members.nbci.com/jpoulet/english/thesis.htm

 >The list is available in English, French and Norwegian (thanks
 >to Ole Jonny Brenne).

 >I used an old file from Ed Stewart and a more recent listing
 >from Paolo Toselli to start it up and I completed it with some
 >of my own research. There is 43 thesis listed and I have a few
 >more to add as soon as I can find someone to translate them.

 >Which brings me to the reason for this post: I'm looking for
 >translators from English (or French) to Italian (the work was
 >started but not completed), Spanish, Portuguese and others.

 >The work load is minimal - about one hour (maybe two). I'll take
 >care of the web hosting and formating.

 >If there are interested readers on the List who would like to
 >help in this project, just contact me at:

 >jpoulet@chucara.com

 >Thank you for your time... we now return to our regular...


Wouldn't it be possible to make one list giving the title,
author, University, date, and whether the Thesis is an MS or
PhD?

I can't see how to combine the titles and authors and there
doesn't seem to be any info on dates, universities or Degree
level.

I did provide a short list, PhD only, in my 1996 TOP
SECRET/MAJIC, after consulting  Dissertations Abstracts.

Stan Friedman









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 2

               Re: Hot Gossip Real X - Files Feb 2001 - Sandow

From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 09:17:36 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 16:33:27 -0500
Subject: Re: Hot Gossip Real X - Files Feb 2001 - Sandow


 >From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Hot Gossip Real X - Files Feb 2001
 >Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 13:19:37 -0000


 >Hal Puthoff from the Institute For Advanced Studies
 >spoke about the oil wars of the past becoming the
 >water wars of the future.

In case anyone else wondered, this isn't the famous Institute for
Advanced Studies at Princeton University, where the likes of
Einstein worked. It's something in Austin, TX.

No criticism intended of Georgina, her interesting post, or
Puthoff. Just a clarification.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 2

                         Re: AA Film Redux - Morris

From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 14:33:12 +0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 16:35:18 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Morris


 >Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 09:09:32 -0600
 >From: Roger <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >>Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 14:43:12 +0000
 >>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Morris
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>>Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 13:29:12 -0600
 >>>Fwd Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 14:15:17 -0500
 >>>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Evans

 >Previously, Neil wrote:

 >>I sat and watched "The Memphis Bell" through again after I wrote
 >>you about it. By coincidence the "Bell" was an 8th AAF ship, the
 >>film _was_ completely shot on 16mm _and_ the air sequences
 >>_were_ handheld and shot with just the light available inside
 >>the B17. Other than it being colour footage lots of it was
 >>similar in handheld technique to the AA. I was also struck later
 >>that evening watching "World at War", the other period
 >>documentary I mentioned, by a particular sequence. The
 >>_historical_ signing of the French surrender documents. Hitler
 >>decided to humiliate the French by having the signing take place
 >>in the same spot, a railway coach where the German High Command
 >>conceeded in 1918.  This huge historical and propaganda event
 >>was filmed by 1 shaky handheld camera looking over and being
 >>obstructed by, heads and sholders, appart from Hitler sitting
 >>there it's technique was _very_ AA. I guess they should have got
 >>a US Army Film Unit in to do a proper production job.

 >Hi, Neil!
 >
 >Well, perhaps they should have, at that!

 >Obviously, the issue isn't how Hitler's film unit normally
 >handled documentation of great events but, rather, how the U.S.
 >military would.

Roger,

I should also mention here that within day's these same people
also covered the German Army's propaganda "March into Paris"
with a skill that Mr DeMill would have been proud of.

 >Regarding "The Memphis Bell", you are really
 >comparing apples to oranges. I have never said that hand held
 >documentary footage shot on 16mm did not exist. Obviously, "The
 >Memphis Bell" was shot in field conditions, therefore, the
 >quality would be dictated by those conditions. I feel that
 >because AA was shot in the United States, with all the resources
 >available, and because of the importance of the event, greater
 >care would have been taken in its documentation and the image
 >quality would have been better. As a result, "field conditions"
 >would not have been in effect, in my opinion.

You are saying that the conditions in which we are lead to
believe the footage was shot were quite "normal" and everyday?.

There wasn't the slightest hint of cold war paranoia about?.

An "unknown", obviously "not USAAF issue" flops out of the sky from
who knows where?. I suggest Roger, that getting pretty pictures
of the event would be the last thing on the Commanding General's
mind at that point, "documenting" yes,ok, so long as it din't interfere
with his operations.

 >You previously used the A bomb as an example of something that
 >looked good because they were prepared in advance. The term
 >"prepared in advance" doesn't have to mean weeks and weeks or
 >even months, like documentation of the A bomb. It could take as
 >little as a few hours to properly secure the right equipment and
 >lighting to document something in 35mm. Even if they had to wait
 >a day or more, so what? I see nothing that suggests that
 >conditions seen in AA were insurmountable. On the contrary,
 >_that_ is the obvious part to me. The conditions in AA that
 >supposedly led to the general "look" in question were so easy to
 >avoid or correct that I find it highly suspicious, in light of
 >other military footage of better quality on topics of lesser
 >importance. Therefore, to use "The Memphis Bell" or any other
 >documentary shot in "field conditions" as an example is really
 >inappropriate.


Far from it Roger, Trinity Site was on highly restricted
territory, you could treat it like a "closed" film set. Our
cameraman's event we are told, took place out in open publicly
accessible land not too many miles from a large town (Socorro
NM), how do you handle it without the locals starting bus tours
to the site for a looksee. You set up an operation to get it out
of there as _speedily_ and as _covertly_ as was possible. These
_were_ exactly combat like "field conditions", the "opposition"
being in this case the US general population.

 >" Even if they had to wait a day or more, so what? "

They weren't out in the middle of White Sands remember, they
would not have had the luxury of time, the longer "it" was out
there the more chance there was knowledge of "it"'s presence
would get out.

Neil.


--
*        *         *         *         *         *         *         *
Neil Morris.       /101101101 Virtual Bumper Stickers Inc 10110101010\
Dept of Physics.   1                                                 1
Univ of Manchester 0                                                 0
Schuster Labs.     1  Computer Programmers DO IT with BITS of BYTES  1
Brunswick St.      0                                                 0
Manchester.        1                                                 1
M13.9PL.  UK.      \0101010110010110110010110101101011011110101011010/

                    Radio Callsign G8KOQ
                E-mail: neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk
          Public PGP Key available at www.keyserve.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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 2

                 Cydonian Imperative: 'Mound P' & 'Egyptian'

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 07:34:56 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 16:36:41 -0500
Subject: Cydonian Imperative: 'Mound P' & 'Egyptian'


THE CYDONIAN IMPERATIVE

2-2-01

For Immediate Release

"Mound P" and "Egyptian"-scale Pyramid: 1998 and Now

by Mac Tonnies

New at The Cydonian Imperative: photographic comparisons of two
intriguing surface features.  The new images provide unsurpassed
clarity and correlate well to the 1998 Cydonia images.

Also: The Face's "eye" reconstructed by eWarrior and a revised,
illustrated version of the "Preliminary Report" issued 2-1-01.

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

Direct all email to macbot@yahoo.com


Mac Tonnies,

The Cydonian Imperative








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 2

                          Re: UFO Thesis - Balaskas

From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 10:47:30 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
Fwd Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 17:50:36 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO Thesis - Balaskas


 >Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 16:35:18 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Jacques Poulet <jpoulet@chucara.com>
 >Subject: UFO Thesis

 >Hi All,

 >I've made available a list of academic thesis on UFO (and
 >related subject) at:

 >http://members.nbci.com/jpoulet/english/thesis.htm

<snip>

This is a wonderful one stop web site Jacques!

I also found your links under 'UFOs in Scientific Literature'
very useful too, especially the 'UFO Papers' link where one can
read or download many important and interesting past articles
about UFOs which were published in a variety of scientific and
popular journals.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 2

                   Exciting New Discovery - Horse on Mars!

From: John Tenney <jelt2000@email.msn.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 11:16:42 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 17:51:45 -0500
Subject: Exciting New Discovery - Horse on Mars!


An exciting new discovery in Cydonia!

"Mr. Head" a lovable cartoon horse has made an appearance on the
surface of Mars!


images are located at:

http://members.tripod.com/~mainorg/jplhorse.html



Sometimes you just have to have fun.

John E.L. Tenney
http://www.strangemichigan.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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 2

                      Re: Consumer Mail Panel - Blanton

From: Terry Blanton <commengr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 11:49:59 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 17:53:29 -0500
Subject: Re: Consumer Mail Panel - Blanton


 >From: Brian Cuthbertson <bdc@fc.net>
 >Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 09:09:00 -0600 (CST)
 >Fwd Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 01:23:02 -0500
 >Subject: Consumer Mail Panel


 >Folks,

 >My wife has for a long time participated in surveys put out by a
 >group called the "Consumer Mail Panel". This means she
 >periodically receives a survey to fill out on some topic or
 >another - often new product oriented - sometimes not.

Gee, Brian,

This sounds more like a psychological profile test than a
consumer survey. Are you sure this isn't from the Consumer
Information Association? (Nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more.)


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 2

                    'The Anomalist' Book Awards for 2000

From: Wendy Connors <projectsign@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 10:02:24 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 18:00:01 -0500
Subject: 'The Anomalist' Book Awards for 2000


Mike Hall and I would like to thank Patrick Huyghe of 'The
Anomalist' for choosing our book, 'Captain Edward J. Rupplet:
Summer of the Saucers - 1952', as one of the winners for best
book of the year for 2000. We are honored and thank you very
much.


Michael D. Hall and Wendy A. Connors

[see: http://www.anomalist.com/books/awards00.html --ebk]

"Captain Edward J. Ruppelt: Summer of the Saucers - 1952," 8 1/2 x11 304
pages Perfect Bound, can be ordered from:

www.Amazon.com

(ISBN: 0-9705055-0-7  $27.95 + Shipping)

Or

Arcturus Books
1443 S.E. Port St. Lucie Blvd.
Port St. Lucie, FL  34952
(Cost is $27.95 + $3 shipping)







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 2

             Re: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 6 Number 5 - Sanchez-Ocejo

From: Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo <ufomiami@prodigy.net>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 12:07:26 -0600
Fwd Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 18:02:05 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 6 Number 5 - Sanchez-Ocejo


 >Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 15:00:57 +0000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>
 >Subject: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 6 Number 5

 >Posted on behalf of Joseph Trainor.

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

 >UFO ROUNDUP
 >Volume 6, Number 5
 >February 1, 2001
 >Editor: Joseph Trainor

 >NEW WEIRD CREATURE SIGHTED IN CALAMA


Visit our web page:

http://bloodpredator.homestead.com/FLASH.html

and see the strange hair, tracks and plaster cast photos of the
chupacabras in La Banda, Chile.


Very truly,

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
CHUPACABRAS(Espaol)    http://ufomiami.homestead.com/index.html
CHUPACABRAS (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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 2

                    Re: Face on Mars Re-Imaged - Blanton

From: Terry Blanton <commengr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 12:17:20 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 18:03:02 -0500
Subject: Re: Face on Mars Re-Imaged - Blanton


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 23:42:27 EST
 >Fwd Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 03:34:57 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Face on Mars Re-Imaged - Young

 >>From: Kurt Jonach <ewarrior@electricwarrior.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Face on Mars Re-Imaged
 >>Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 01:21:26 -0800

 ><snip>

 >>IMAGES

 >>http://www.electricwarrior.com/mol/ewFace2001Zoom.jpg
 >>http://www.electricwarrior.com/mol/ewCliff2001Zoom.jpg

 >Kurt:

 >When I attempt to go to these sites I get the following
message:
 >You are not authorized to view this page.

Go directly to the image source at:

http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/01_31_01_releases/cydonia/index.html


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 2

                                    KAPRA

From: Sean Liddle <gortrix@kos.net>
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 13:02:23 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 18:07:09 -0500
Subject: KAPRA


Hi Everyone,

I thought I better get my butt in gear and start working on the
website for KAPRA. I need some general links for both ufology
and other interesting (but not necessarily a specifically UFO
site) sites. I thought I'd give everyone on the List a crack at
this free advertising for their sites so if you would, please
send me an email to the address below regarding your site with a
brief description and the URL.

I plan on having the site up by the end of next week. I will
apologise ahead of time for the apparent crudeness of the site.
Has pretty colours but that is about it for now. I will gussy it
up more as work time allows (bad enough I read all your posts
and play Mechwarrior when I should be writing Indoor Air Quality
and Environmental Site Assessment reports..... <VBG>

The site will be devoted, initially, to compiling and publishing
sightings of Aerial Phenomenon in the Brockville to Oshawa,
Prince Edward County, Lake Ontario and Northwards area of
Canada. Later, as time allows, we will offer other free services
such as investigations and such.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 2

                         X-PPAC/PRG Update - 2/3/01

From: Stephen G. Bassett <ExPPAC@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 13:39:42 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 18:18:04 -0500
Subject: X-PPAC/PRG Update - 2/3/01


X-PPAC/PRG
Update - February 3, 2001

(The new AOL 6.0 software has some glitches, so please pardon
any double posts. Thanks.)

Hickman Report

Paradigm Research Group has registered to lobby on behalf of the
Hickman Report. Each time PRG submits forms to the House and
Senate on the UFO/Disclosure issues, it is noted by the
political press which follow carefully every lobby registration.

Any organization which might benefit from representation
in Washington may request a pro bono relationship by
emailing PRG at: ParadigmRG@aol.com

http://www.thehickmanreport.com/

Legislative Alert

On January 3, 2001, the very first day of the 107th Congress,
Representative Bob Barr introduced H.R. 19 titled, "Terrorism
Elimination Act of 2001." This bill is now in the House
Committee on International Relations.

H.R. 19 has no other purpose than to revoke specific sections of
three previous Executive Orders by Bush, Carter and Reagan
prohibiting any agency of the U.S. government from conducting
assassinations in the name of national security.

It is the role of Congress to foster policies which build trust
with the American people, it is the role of the State Department
to foster policies which build trust with the world's people,
and it is the role of the military services and intelligence
agencies to anticipate and thwart the evils of terrorism - not
to emulate them.

It is notable that such a revocation could also be secured via a
new Executive Order. It would appear, therefore, Rep. Barr's
bill is intended to provide a stamp of approval from the
Congress and the American people.

No person has ever been indicted, let alone prosecuted, for
effecting a death via assassination under the National Security
Act. The passage of such a bill would place investigative
journalists and members of various activist movements, including
the UFO/ET/Disclosure effort, at increased risk. Trust in
government will further decline.

X-PPAC will be urging all House and Senate members to lobby the
House Committee on International Relations to reject H.R. 19
without compromise and to reject any effort by the President to
obtain the same result via any new Executive Order.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.19:

Town Hall Meetings

An edited tape of the October 13, 2000 Santa Clara Town Hall
Meeting is being generously provided by Ron Garner. X-PPAC is
prepared to hold a second Town Hall Meeting in Washington, DC at
a major venue as soon as $5000 in new contributions have been
received. Which is to say, if just one supporter, who was wise
enough to get out of the dot.com stocks early, were to
contribute the annual limit of $5000 to X-PPAC, a date and venue
would be immediately secured to hold a 2nd UFO/Disclosure Town
Hall Meeting in Washington, DC, likely during the month of
March.

http://www.x-ppac.org/TownHall.html

Alien Zoo

There are now 24 columns on the "Politics of UFOs" archived at
the Alien Zoo website. The intention of these columns is to
establish an intellectual baseline for the pursuit of disclosure
and open congressional hearings. You will also find the writings
of Jim Marrs, Paul Daivds, Michael Brownlee, and others. Your
comments and critique are welcome.

http://www.alienzoo.com

UFO Magazine

New columns and expanded versions of Alien Zoo pieces are now
being published in "Worldview" in UFO Magazine. X-PPAC strongly
encourages everyone interested in this subject matter to
subscribe to UFO Magazine so that it can have the funds needed
to drive investigative reportage. It is critical to have at
least one broadly subscribed print publication in the field.
Having many small print and Internet publications is fine, but
they do not have the critical mass to report at the highest
level. UFO Magazine has survived years of shakeout and is
positioned to benefit greatly from even a few thousand new
subscribers.

         http://www.ufomag.com

Disclosure Project

The Disclosure Project initiated by CSETI continues to move
toward a major event sometime this spring. Based upon the
success of the documentary work to date, X-PPAC believes this
event has the potential to trigger definitive congressional
action. Individuals and groups within the UFO/ET
research/activist community should prepare to move aggressively
in support of this project in the aftermath of the initial
public action.

http://www.cseti.org

Matching Offer

Every dollar contributed to X-PPAC between now and May 1, 2001
will be matched by the Executive Director up to $5000 (the
annual personal limit). Contribution information is at the end
of this update.

X-PPAC publicly discloses all of its financial activity. This is
above and beyond the FEC requirements.

http://www.x-ppac.org/Financial.html


Full Page Washington Post Ad

For those new to the Update List, a full page ad which addresses
all of the key elements of the UFO/Disclosure issue is ready to
be placed in the Washington Post, with or without signatures.
The cost of this placement in the Post A Section will be
$28,000. X-PPAC believes that such an ad placed in the
Washington Post just after the CSETI Disclosure Project event
would be exceptionally powerful. Naturally there would he a host
of national and international reprint options.

Note: Since X-PPAC is limited to the FEC mandated annual $5000
personal limit, anyone wishing to provide larger funding could
contribute any funds above that amount to Paradigm Research
Group and the ad would be published as a joint project.

http://www.paradigmclock.com/lettertopresident.html

(Note: this text will soon be updated to reflect recent
   developments in the field and national politics.)

Email List

The future of political action lies with the Internet, and the
power of any activist organization is directly proportional to
the size of its direct email list. If you know of anyone who is
interested in these issues and would benefit from receiving
future updates, please forward this one along with your
recommendation to subscribe.

_______________________________________________

  Extraterrestrial Phenomena Political Action Committee
     Paradigm Research Group
     URL: www.x-ppac.org
     URL: www.paradigmclock.com
     E-mail: ParadigmRG@aol.com
     E-mail: ExPPAC@aol.com
      Phone: 301-564-1820
      Fax: 301-564-4066
     4938 Hampden Lane, #161
     Bethesda, Maryland 20814

*****************************************************************
Spread the word about X-PPAC & the politics of disclosure.
  Contribute online at: www.x-ppac.org/Contribute.html
or mail to: 4938 Hampden Lane,161 Bethesda, MD 20814

*****************************************************************
"There is almost no limit to what you can accomplish,
   if you are willing to give away the credit."

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








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 3

              Re: Kecksburg - Response, Review & Update - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 15:05:34 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 08:45:40 -0500
Subject: Re: Kecksburg - Response, Review & Update - Young


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 20:34:25 EST
 >Subject: Re: Kecksburg - Response, Review & Update
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Stan Gordon <paufo@westol.com>
 >>Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 09:41:21 -0500
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Kecksburg - Response, Review & Update

<snip>

 >And why aren't there any _photos_ of U.S. Army men cordoning off
 >the town roads, bringing in tractor-trailer rigs, views of 25
 >servicemen purportedly gathered?

Brad, Stan, List:

Stan reported back in 1987 in the MUFON magazine PURSUIT
that years before he had seen a copy of the long discarded
State Police report on the incident, and that it reported that
25 State policemen were present. I have looked in vain for this
in the Pennsylvania State Archives, here in Harrisburg, and to
my knowledge Stan is the only investigator of this incident to
have actually seen this document. Nowadays, he never
mentions this early detail of his investigation. One wonders if
it's because it is one more piece of documentary evidence
supporting the official version of events.

 >>Mayes estimated that there were four or five of the officers that
were holding onto the running boards and tail board of the pumper
truck.

These were police "officers". I think that this is an example of how
mundane details of this 35-year old event on a dark night have
been blown up out of all proportion.

 >At around 4:47 P.M., a brillant fiery object passed over the
 >Pittsburgh area. The object continued on its path into
 >Westmoreland County

In my research of 1965 news accounts _no_ Western
Pennsylvania witnesses, either near Kecksburg or Pittsburgh
or to its west, reported the object anywhere but toward their
_West_. One 1965 researcher reported that witnesses he
interviewed who had been on the South shore of Lake Erie
reported the fireball had dropped down and disappeared at
the lake's Northern horizon [ie., toward Ontario].

<snip>

 >Shortly after impact, blue smoke rose from the woods and
 >dissipated quickly.

The key Kecksburg witnesses, A Mrs. Kalp and her children,
pointed out to the State Police a direction which, after I plotted
it on a topographic map, was within a couple degrees of the
direction of the Ontario meteor's cloud train, visible for 20 minutes
or so low in the Western sky from Kecksburg.

 >This sounds to me like a general northeast trajectory with one
 >or two erroneous witness reports near Norvelt that mistook the
 >direction of travel as south, instead of northeast. Witnesses
 >who were probably having to remember sighting details 20-30
 >years later.

I think that you are right.

 >>Bill Bulebush was working on a CB radio in his car at his home
 >>near Mammoth that day. He watched the object move from Norvelt
 >>towards Laurelville. Bulebush ran to the road to get a better
 >>look, and watched as the fiery object moved towards a mountain,
 >>then it seemed to hesitate, made a turn and moved towards
 >>Kecksburg where it descended.

 >This is a south trajectory, Norvelt to Laurelville. But if
 >Bulebush was running, then his whole directional perspective
 >among trees and other foreground objects could make a moving
 >object in the sky appear to change course. To get reliable data
 >an onsite investigation would have been required back in 1965
 >taking sighting azimuths and elevations at the different spots
 >from where Bulebush was located at different points in his
 >sighting.

 >How old was Bulebush?

An adult.

 >When was he interviewed and his testimony
 >published?

This is where it gets curious. He says that he saw the UFO
maneuvering and then going down. This was about ten minutes
after sunset, about 4:43 P.M. [astronomers] to 4:47 P.M. [Gordon].

 >>Bulebush quickly drove to what was then Kuhn's Lane (now
 >>called Meteor road as a result of this local event) to the highest
 >>point which overlooked the area surrounding the community.
 >>Bulebush observed bright blue flashes of light emitting from the
 >>woods below. He knew these particular woods well since he
 >>hunted there. It was nearly dark, so he grabbed a flashlight and
 >>proceeded down to investigate.

 >>Bulebush was likely the first person to view the large metallic
 >>acorn shaped object which now rested semi-buried in the ground.

This would have been an hour or so later [Civil Twilight was about an
hour after the fireball]. At no time did Bulebush ever report the
sighting to anyone. The first time that he seems to have gone public
with this story is in 1990 when an Unsolved Mysteries film crew was
in town and he stepped out of the crowd to claim that he had found
the crashed UFO first, only to run away when he saw searchers
nearing.

Sounds logical, don't you think? That is, "Ufological".

<snip>

 >Is he also the _only_ person claiming to have seen the crashed
 >metal "acorn" buried in the ground?

No, the first guy to make that claim would be one James Romansky.
He came forward in 1987 out of the crowd at a widely publicized
UFO Week exhibit at the Greensburg Mall, where Stan's associates
were displaying newspaper clippings, and, I believe, an artist's view
of what Cosmos-96 might have looked like.

 >Bulebush later returned with his young son to the area to find
 >the military was now at the scene. His son clearly remembers
 >the soldiers with their guns that day in 1965.

I have been following this story closely since for ten years. This
is the first time I have ever heard that Bulebush's son remembers
soldiers with their guns. It's not surprising, though, since as time
goes on the folkloric nature of this tale becomes more and more
appearent. My well-developed Kecksburg B.S. Detector, though,
reminds me that this is yet another example of Armed Troops and
The UFO In The Woods coming from one of the same tiny group of
witnesses, while nearly everyone else missed these details.

<snip>

 >When was the story first published with the full details of "acorn"
 >and military presence at the "acorn" crash site?

Stan Gordon repeated Romansky's tale in 1987 in PURSUIT.

 >As the object passed over Westmoreland County, phone lines at
 >WHJB radio in Greensburg, PA, were jammed with calls from area
 >residents, many concerned the object was an aircraft on fire.
 >Mable Mazza, the office manager at the radio station, stayed
 >over to help handle the calls. During the evening she received
 >phone calls from military sources, including from the Air Force
 >and the Pentagon. Mazza stated, "The military was asking
 >directions to the site, and what I knew from the calls about
 >it."

When was Mazza's story first published?

By Stan Gordon since 1987. Actually, her information, as listed
in the current post, seems mostly accurate to me, as I've been
able to confirm from other sources. But, remember, she was
only at the radio station office, 13 miles away, in Greensburg.
She didn't witness anything on the scene, although she now
says that she believes others did.

 >It was after the 6:30pm news broadcast when a woman
 >reported to the station that her young son had earlier seen the
 >object fall into a nearby wooded area near Kecksburg.

This would be the key 1965 witness, Mrs. Kalp. She never
reported anything until one hour and 45 minutes later, suggesting
that she didn't think the cloud train she saw in the sky was very
important. Her call finally came only after the station reported that
a plane might have crashed and _during_ a nearby Pittsburgh radio
station's call in show with well-known flying saucer lecturer Frank
Edwards, who was fielding many phone calls about the fireball.

 >The late John Murphy, who was the news director at WHJB radio,
 >took this report, and contacted Troop A Pennsylvania State
 >Police headquarters in Greensburg, PA, providing them with this
 >information.

Was this report never published or broadcast in Dec 1965 when it
allegedly occurred?

Yes it was, and his reports from the scene, and this station's
continued pluggin of the tale, may have done a lot to perpetuate
the idea of a mystery. Humorously, Murphy first broadcast a
report from the nearby construction site of the Norvelt Golf
Course, where burning brush was on fire. Locals still
hilariously to this day call this "Murphy's UFO". Later he
arrived on the scene, reported seeing three military men in the
back seat of a State Police car, and no others, not seeing
anything in the woods and then going to a hastily called press
conference back at Greensburg.

 >Is it decades-old multiple hearsay? The succeeding >paragraphs
(below) suggest it's another story told >20-30+ years later, and
it's unclear whether "the late" John >Murphy told this story
while he was alive or whether it comes >second - or third-hand
from surviving friends or relatives. The >documentation is
nebulously stated or left unstated.

While Murphy is said to have believed that something happened
that night, his report at the time, from the distance of 35
years, seems to essentially support the official version of
events.

Without the documentation this proves absolutely nothing

<snip>

 >As Bob Young pointed out, the only official record of military
 >involvement is from the Air Force Project Blue Book report which
 >confirms that three Air Force personnel from the 662nd Radar
 >Squadron were involved with the search. The actual log entry
 >from that report states, "A further call was made to the Oakdale
 >radar site in Pennsylvania. A three man team has been
 >dispatched to Acme (Kecksburg area) to investigate and pick up
 >an object that started a fire." The report also stated that the
 >search of the area ended around 2 A.M. and that nothing was
 >found.

 >John Murphy, the WHJB news director, with the help of other
 >radio station personnel, created a radio documentary on this
 >local event which was broadcast days after the incident and was
 >called "Object in The Woods." On that broadcast, Murphy
 >describes what he saw after he left Kecksburg for the first time
 >to go to the state police barracks. "When I arrived at the
 >State Police Troop A barracks in Greensburg, not only were there
 >members of the United States Army there, but I also saw two men
 >in Air Force uniform."

The soldiers were in _Greensburg_ not in Kecksburg! This doesn't
prove they ever left these barracks to go to Kecksburg.

Actually, the presence of the Army has never been confirmed.
Only Murphy said a couple were at the Police Barracks, but they
could have been the Air Force people. The Army business was
first reported the night of the incident, when a fire policeman
at a road block said that "Army Engineers" were on the way. This
seems to have come from the State Police commander. I believe
that this was confusion due to the fact that the USAF radar site
where the three airmen came from was located _on an Army
Engineers facility near the Pittsburg airport. After 35 years,
nobody has ever been able to confirm U.S. Army involvement, and
Stan and his friends have been trying to do this, withought
successs, since 1984. I think this is just part of the folklore
of Kecksburg.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 3

                       Re: To Be or Not To Be - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 19:31:37 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 08:47:27 -0500
Subject: Re: To Be or Not To Be - Rimmer


 >From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 10:16:03 EST
 >Subject: Re: To Be or Not To Be
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

 >Jim, that'd be me, is a tad upset over those who take to anger
 >and flaming of us. Even some of "us" like to point with anger
 >at "us." Which in my view, kinda sucks big time. I read nearly
 >every post here, in spite of the caveat to press "delete" which
 >I support. Every single one. And my memory is long as well.
 >It remembers the jibes, the pokes and the unkind nature of
 >"some" of us to some of us.

 >So, my little Magonia blosson, what got your angst all standing
 >up in a row? Read the post again. Perhaps you were not it's
 >target.

Didn't think I was, particularly. I was just wondering who might
have been.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 3

             Re: Object Nothing More Than "Targeting Apparatus"

From: Kenny Young <ufo@fuse.net>
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 15:28:54 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 08:49:53 -0500
Subject: Re: Object Nothing More Than "Targeting Apparatus"


CASE CLOSED: Object nothing more than "targeting apparatus"

On October 10, 2000, an aerial photo of the Jefferson Proving
Grounds [Madison, Indiana] was installed on the internet with a
note of interest by Chris Mork of Cincinnati, Ohio, who wrote:

      "While looking at aerial photos of the Jefferson Proving
      Grounds, I was looking to see if I could find any bomb
      craters on the shooting ranges. I discovered there is an
      airport on the property, as well as something peculiar on
      one of the pictures! The aerial photo shows a gravel road,
      some woods and possible craters... BUT... right square over
      the road can be seen a dark wedge/triangular shape!! I
      can't tell if it is a flaw in the negative or something
      tall casting a shadow, but maybe it could be some
      stealth-like plane seen from above! It is black, and
      upside-down V in shape."

Months after the enlargements of the suspected object [available
at the website URL listed below] were posted on the internet, an
unsolicited response was courteously advanced from Ken Knouf,
the U.S. Army's site manager at the Jefferson Proving Ground.
With his permission and also the permission of his headquarters
and Air Guard, Mr. Knouf's important clarification is provided
below:

====

        To Whom It May Concern:

        As the U.S. Army's site manager at Jefferson Proving
        Ground (JPG), Madison, IN, I was interested in the 5
        April 98 USGS photo file submitted by Chris Mork of
        Cincinnati, OH, depicting a strange black triangular
        shape somewhere on the proving ground.  Mr. Mork
        theorized that this shape may have been a stealth
        plane or a ufo of some design.

        Please relay to Mr. Mork that the strange item in
        question is the shadow of a large aluminum targeting
        apparatus set up by the Indiana Air National Guard to
        help score the fighter units when they conduct
        training flights on the Air Guard range at JPG.

        Although much of the closed Army munitions testing
        facility is now managed as a national wildlife refuge,
        the Air Guard has retained use of two ranges.

        I hope this will satisfy any curiosity.

        Ken Knouf

=====

Mr. Knouf provided contact information and a response to E-mail
follow up. He added that the Air Guard also confirmed that the
strange looking object was a radar reflector used in conjunction
with their range activities. "It basically is a large piece of
aluminum that would cast a huge triangular shadow in late
afternoon," he said.

The photo enlargements of this apparatus can be seen at the
website listed below in the "NEWS" section. We thank Mr. Knouf
for his attention to this issue and his interest in resolving
this concern.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 3

                        Military Census Of Abductees?

From: Pearce Levrais <pearce@looksmart.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 21:18 -0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 08:57:59 -0500
Subject: Military Census Of Abductees?


Hello List,

I recently picked up a new book that purports a census was taken
of alien abductees in the United States by the U.S. military in
the early 90's.

I was fascinated by the similarity of reports by the abductees
in the book, as well as the social and economic differences
between them.

Has anyone come across similar information before? Has anyone
heard of such reports in Britain? The book is called 'The Alien
Abduction Reference Guide', by Michelle LaVigne-Wedel & Paul
Wedel. ISBN #0-9702630-3-1. I purchased it from the website of a
company called Sweetgrass Press,

www.sweetgrasspress.com

If anybody has any similar information or reports I would be
most interested in hearing from you.


Yours very sincerely,

Pearce T. Levrais

pearce@looksmart.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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 3

             Re: MOD Warns The Americans About UFO Book - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 22:03:01 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 09:06:00 -0500
Subject: Re: MOD Warns The Americans About UFO Book - Rimmer


 >From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: MOD Warns The Americans About UFO Book
 >Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 17:14:03 -0000

 >MOD WARNS THE AMERICANS ABOUT UFO BOOK

 >Georgina Brunis controversial book entitled 'You Cant Tell The
 >People' published by Sidgwick & Jackson (Macmillan) in November
 >2000 has caused yet more concern for the Ministry of Defence.

 >In a series of Written Answers to Questions posed in the last
 >week to the House of Lords by Admiral of the Fleet and former
 >Chief of Defence Staff, The Lord Hill Norton, The Minister of
 >State, Ministry of Defence, Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
 >informed that the Ministry of Defence had alerted the American
 >3rd Air Force Headquarters at RAF Mildenhall about the book.

Anybody who thinks Georgina Bruni's book has caused the MoD any
concern whatsoever will be disillusioned by this extract from
the House of Lords Hansard (Official record of proceedings).
Nothing remotely interesting here:


30 Jan 2001 : Column WA49
Rendlesham Forest/RAF Bentwaters Incident

Lord Hill-Norton asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they will detail the underground facilities at the
former RAF Bentwaters installation; and what is the purpose of
these facilities.[HL320]


The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Symons of
Vernham Dean):

There are no underground facilities at the former RAF
Bentwaters.


Lord Hill-Norton asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they are aware of any involvement in the 1980 Rendlesham
Forest incident by either Ministry of Defence Policy or
personnel from the Suffolk Constabulary.[HL321)


Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:

The Minister of Defence is not aware of any involvement by the
Ministry of Defence Police in the alleged incident. The Ministry
of Defence's knowledge of involvement by the Suffolk Police is
limited to a letter dated 28 July 1999 from the Suffolk
Constabulary to Georgina Bruni that is contained in the recent
book.


Lord Hill-Norton asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they are aware of any investigation of the 1980
Rendlesham Forest incident carried out by the United States Air
force, the Air Force Office of Special Investigations or any
other United States agency.[HL322]


Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:

The Ministry of Defence's knowledge of an investigation by the
US authorities into the alleged incident in Rendlesham Forest in
1980 is limited to the information contained in the memorandum
sent by Lt Col Halt USAF, Deputy Base Commander at RAF
Woodbridge, to the RAF Liaison Officer at RAF Bentwaters on 13
January 1981.


30 Jan 2001 : Column WA50

Lord Hill-Norton asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether, in the light of the new information contained in
Georgina Bruni's book You Can't Tell the People, they will now
launch an investigation into the Rendlesham Forest incident and
the response to this incident by the United States Air Force and
the Ministry of Defence.[HL352]


Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:

No additional information has come to light over the last 20
years to call into question the original judgment by the
Ministry of Defence that nothing of defence significance
occurred in the location of Rendlesham Forest in 1980.
Accordingly there is no reason to hold an investigation now.


Lord Hill-Norton asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they have made any approach to, or received any approach
from, any United States government or military agency concerning
Georgina Bruni's book You Can't Tell the People; and, if so,
whether they will give details of any such approach. [HL353]


Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:

As a matter of courtesy, the Ministry of Defence informed
Headquarters 3rd Air Force at RAF Mildenhall about the book. The
US authorities have not subsequently approached the Ministry of
Defence on the issue.


Lord Hill-Norton asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they now agree with the analysis of the basic facts of
the Rendlesham Forest/RAF Bentwaters incident in the fourth
paragraph of Lord Hill-Norton's letter to Lord Gilbert of 22
October 1997, reported on page 429 of Georgina Bruni's book You
Can't Tell the People; or, if not, in what respect they
disagree. [HL354]


Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:

The Ministry of Defence's position regarding this alleged
sighting remains as it did at the time of Lord Gilbert's reply
to the noble Lord's letter of 22nd October 1997. From surviving
departmental records, we remain satisfied that nothing of
defence significance occurred on the nights in question.


--
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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 3

                          Re: AA Film Redux - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 17:03:08 -0600
Fwd Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 09:07:41 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Evans


 >From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 14:33:12 +0000
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Morris
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 09:09:32 -0600
 >>From: Roger <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, I had written:

 >>Regarding "The Memphis Bell", you are really
 >>comparing apples to oranges. I have never said that hand held
 >>documentary footage shot on 16mm did not exist. Obviously, "The
 >>Memphis Bell" was shot in field conditions, therefore, the
 >>quality would be dictated by those conditions. I feel that
 >>because AA was shot in the United States, with all the resources
 >>available, and because of the importance of the event, greater
 >>care would have been taken in its documentation and the image
 >>quality would have been better. As a result, "field conditions"
 >>would not have been in effect, in my opinion.

Neil replied:

 >You are saying that the conditions in which we are lead to
 >believe the footage was shot were quite "normal" and everyday?.

<snip>

 >Far from it Roger, Trinity Site was on highly restricted
 >territory, you could treat it like a "closed" film set. Our
 >cameraman's event we are told, took place out in open publicly
 >accessible land not too many miles from a large town (Socorro
 >NM), how do you handle it without the locals starting bus tours
 >to the site for a looksee. You set up an operation to get it out
 >of there as _speedily_ and as _covertly_ as was possible. These
 >_were_ exactly combat like "field conditions", the "opposition"
 >being in this case the US general population.

Hi, Neil!

I give up. You keep speaking about the conditions seen in AA as
if they have already been validated. The simple truth is that
they have not. Regarding the time it would take to improve the
conditions seen in AA, you wrote:

 >They weren't out in the middle of White Sands remember, they
 >would not have had the luxury of time, the longer "it" was out
 >there the more chance there was knowledge of "it"'s presence
 >would get out.

Simply not true. In fact, if anything, the sooner that the body
was brought to a secure facility where it could be accurately
studied in a more leisurly manner, the sooner it would be less
of a security risk. You seem to take the opposite position that
doing the autopsy in the field would somehow lower the security
risk involved. The lack of logic in this is pretty obvious, if
you stop to think about it. I suppose a soldier in the trenches
is at less of a risk for a bullet than one that works at a desk
job, too. Let's face it, being inside a secure building is far
more controlled than being in the field. And, ultimately, the
body would have to be moved inside at some point, anyway. Why
not wait until then? Why the hurry? It simply makes no sense.
Just because what you see in AA looks uncontrolled does not
validate the image or the conditions suggested.

Look, I've made my position clear at least a half a dozen times.
I don't think that there is anything else to talk about until
I've reviewed your footage, which I assume will arrive shortly.

Until then, 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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 3

                Re: Exciting New Discovery - Horse on Mars! -

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 15:07:11 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 09:10:13 -0500
Subject: Re: Exciting New Discovery - Horse on Mars! -


 >From: John Tenney <jelt2000@email.msn.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Exciting New Discovery - Horse on Mars!
 >Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 11:16:42 -0500

 >An exciting new discovery in Cydonia!

 >"Mr. Head" a lovable cartoon horse has made an
 >appearance on the surface of Mars!

 >http://members.tripod.com/~mainorg/jplhorse.html

I like NASA's 'Kermit The Frog' better.

The "horse" feature referred to is a line that meanders over the
western 'brow' feature, where we can see a lot of buildup. This
might have been part of the 'headpiece' at one point, or it
could just be erosion. The vaguely faceted sections on the
visible 'headpiece' suggest that the Face, if artificial, once
sported decoration of some sort.


=====
Mac Tonnies (macbot@yahoo.com) 816-561-0190
105 Ward Parkway #900, Kansas City, MO 64112
MTVI: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/mtvi.html
Cydonia: 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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 3

             Re: Kecksburg - Response, Review & Update - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 18:08:12 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 09:19:01 -0500
Subject: Re: Kecksburg - Response, Review & Update - Sparks


 >From: Stan Gordon <paufo@westol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 09:41:21 -0500
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Kecksburg - Response, Review & Update

PART 3

PART 1 is at http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2001/feb/m02-020.shtml
PART 2 is at http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2001/feb/m02-024.shtml


 >Ernie Hoffman was also a reporter for the Greensburg, PA
 >Tribune-Review in 1965. He replaced Robert Gatty in Kecksburg
 >that night, so that Gatty could return to the newspaper office
 >and work on the story.

Notice the sleight of hand here. There is now nothing about a
specific newspaper story of a given title, publication date and
quoted contents. We know right away that this is going to be a
tale that was for some inexplicable reason never published in,
say, the Dec 11, 1965, edition of the Greensburg Tribune-Review.
Please note my increasing disappointment at the ever mounting
failure to prove the sensational events from 1965 publications
or broadcasts. Heck, I'll take 1966 publications if you've got
them proving the Army was there, not just Blue Book's stand ins,
or which quote any eyewitness who saw a metal "acorn" crashed
object in the ground or on a tractor-trailer rig.

 >Hoffman said that he had pulled off on
 >the shoulder of the narrow country road, and about 100 yards
 >away saw a military flatbed tractor-trailer truck near a tree
 >line. He said that there was something on the back of the truck
 >under a tarpaulin which, at that distance, appeared about the
 >size of two suitcases. The possibility remains that Hoffman did
 >not see the object in question and/or the vehicle which was
 >carrying other equipment. There are accounts of more than one
 >flatbed tractor-trailer accompanying the other military
 >equipment which had arrived that day. Hoffman verifies, as so
 >many other people have, that military vehicles were around
 >Kecksburg and down in the woods that evening. Another reporter,
 >Adam Lynch, with WIIC-TV at the time, also confirmed seeing a
 >military truck.

See above. Nothing said in 1965 publicly, evidently. Just yarns
told decades later. And even that doesn't have elemenatry
documentation.

 >John Hays has never forgotten the night the military came to
 >the farmhouse his parents had rented. The military asked to send
 >the children upstairs. John decided instead to produce
 >continuous excuses to be able to go up and down the stairs.
 >While doing so, he saw military men in his home who were
 >talking and making phone calls. He also watched out the bedroom
 >window, excited over the presence of the military trucks. At one
 >point he saw a flatbed tractor trailer going down towards the
 >hollow in the woods where the object reportedly fell. Later he
 >noted a truck of the same description exiting the same area
 >with a large object carried aboard.

 >John and his brother played in those woods on almost a daily
 >basis. The next day when they went out, they had to repair their
 >fence line, which they found cut from the night before to allow
 >the military trucks to get down to the hollow. When John and his
 >brother went down through the woods to look around, they saw
 >trees had been damaged and knocked over. The day before these
 >trees were in their normal state. The boys also came across a
 >man with an instrument similar to a metal detector. The man told
 >the boys that they should leave the woods, that there was the
 >possibility of radiation. The boys ran home to ask their parents
 >what radiation meant.

Doesn't mean he was from the US Army, there were such things as
County Civil Defense Directors and private citizens who had
Geiger counters a few years after the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis
took the world to the brink of nuclear war.

 >Well known Pittsburgh Jazz musician Jerry Betters has gone
 >public stating that he was driven to Kecksburg by some friends
 >that December night in 1965. They were curious after hearing the
 >news reports of the alleged UFO landing. They didn't know the
 >area, but apparently found themselves on the farm lane where
 >others saw military action taking place that night. There,
 >Betters saw numerous military vehicles, but more interestingly,
 >a military flatbed tractor-trailer truck was making it's way up
 >from the field. On the back of the trailer he saw an
 >acorn-shaped object and the strange hieroglyphic markings were
 >easily visible. For whatever reason, at that point the object
 >was not covered. Betters will never forget the tone of voice of
 >a military officer ordering servicemen to get him and his
 >friends out of there. Jerry became quite upset when the
 >soldiers aimed their guns at them.

Date? Publication? Excuse as to why not public in 1965?

 >Bob Koveleskie, a former state trooper, has now gone public
 >with an important detail. Koveleskie was a trooper who in 1965
 >was working in the eastern part of Pennsylvania. He had heard
 >about the Kecksburg incident on the news and was curious about
 >it. Just a short time after the event occurred, Koveleskie was
 >back in the Greensburg area where he saw Carl Metz and asked
 >him about the incident. Metz told him that he was at the scene
 >the night that it happened. He had been sworn to secrecy by an
 >Army officer who was on the scene that evening, and could not
 >discuss it any further.

Date? Publication? Excuse as to why not public in 1965?

 >The late Carl Metz was the State Police fire marshall who had
 >gone into the Kecksburg woods to investigate in 1965. For many
 >years after that happening, friends of his asked him about what
 >he saw in the woods that day but he would generally answer that
 >he couldn't discuss the matter.

 >In the early 1980's, Carl Metz did briefly speak concerning his
 >involvement with the Kecksburg case. Howard Burns, who was a
 >radio dispatcher for the City of Greensburg police department at
 >that time, recalls a conversation between several police
 >officers and Metz one day at Greensburg City Hall. Somehow they
 >got on the subject of Kecksburg, and Metz confirmed that he was
 >one of the first troopers on the scene. He had gone down into
 >the woods, and when he came upon the impact location, his first
 >impression was that it was an aircraft crash site due to the
 >trees that were knocked over. As he went over to examine the
 >partially buried object in the ground, it was unlike anything
 >he had ever seen. While he was there, several military personnel
 >arrived, and ordered everyone out of the area, including him.
 >They also ordered him never to discuss what he saw that night.
 >Burns indicated that Metz would still not reveal many details
 >about what he learned that night, including what the object was.
 >He was still maintaining a degree of secrecy about what he knew.
 >Another police officer who was at City Hall at that time, has
 >confidentially confirmed the story to me.

Date? Publication? Excuse as to why not public in 1965?

 >I am convinced that a constructed object did fall from the sky
 >near Kecksburg, PA. Whether this object was man-made or of
 >extra-terrestrial origin is undetermined. There are some aspects
 >of the Kecksburg event of which there are no clear answers. The
 >information which has been obtained locally indicates that this
 >was not a meteor.

The local anti-meteor "information" seems very raw and
non-quantitative, late in date (possibly decades old), and thus
of questionable reliability compared to the mass of eyewitness
data obtained in 1965 showing it was a meteor. I've already
shown (above) that some or all of this "local info" is
consistent with a meteor.

 >Today, the mockup of the acorn shaped object
 >which was made for the Unsolved Mysteries episode on the case,
 >sits upon a new lighted display platform behind the Kecksburg
 >Fire Station.

Where no doubt many a "witness" will drop by and "refresh" their
failing memories with this helpful visual monument to the use of
leading questions and influenced testimony. How will we ever
sort out in the future who saw what, the 1965 event or the
"acorn" model on display?

 >Many local people support this UFO event since
 >many had friends, relatives, and neighbors who were directly
 >involved in 1965.

 >There is no doubt in my mind that something of military value
 >did drop from the sky, and caused the government to quickly
 >respond to rural Pennsylvania. Why were there armed military
 >personnel reportedly preventing civilians from entering fields
 >and woods that day in 1965? And what would military trucks be
 >doing on a farmers private property?

<snip>

Why were these heavy military vehicles and dozens or more
soldiers _invisible_ to cameras? Hundreds of civilians and
reporters were mysteriously incapable of taking even a single
picture of this unprecedented event. I can understand how
untrained civilians startled by a sudden and brief phenomenon in
the sky might fail to get pictures of that due to the shortness
of time. But not a newsworthy military-civilian mob scene with a
dozen (?) reporters present and lasting for _many hours_, a
supposed real-life replay of the 1938 War of the Worlds
broadcast, and unheard of in the history of that region of
Pennsylvania. Not one picture and not one 1965 story printed
about the Roswell-like alleged crash recovery.

Even at Rendlesham where almost all the witnesses were military
policemen themselves and AFOSI was going around confiscating
film and silencing the air police, news still leaked out despite
the understandable power of direct military control over the
witnesses and even landing-site photos were smuggled out though
it has taken twenty years. That's a story I can believe. This
one I cannot. This is not an example of good UFO evidence. There
is much better evidence than this by far.

More disappointed than ever,

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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 3

                           Re: UFO Thesis - Poulet

From: Jacques Poulet <jpoulet@chucara.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 18:27:29 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 09:20:55 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO Thesis - Poulet


 >From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: UFO Thesis
 >Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 09:21:58 -0400

 >Wouldn't it be possible to make one list giving the title,
 >author, University, date, and whether the Thesis is an MS or
 >PhD?

 >I can't see how to combine the titles and authors and there
 >doesn't seem to be any info on dates, universities or Degree
 >level.


Hi Stan,

I'll take your suggestion into account and maybe I'll make a
downloadable Excell file with this information. But for some of
those thesis, the information is scarce.

 >I did provide a short list, PhD only, in my 1996 TOP
 >SECRET/MAJIC, after consulting  Dissertations Abstracts.

I'll look it up and see if I can add them... if you don't mind.

Bye,



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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 3

                    Re: Face on Mars Re-Imaged - Shevlin

From: Donnie Shevlin <dshevlin@charter.net>
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 18:26:33 -0600
Fwd Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 09:25:22 -0500
Subject: Re: Face on Mars Re-Imaged - Shevlin


 >Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 12:17:20 -0500
 >From: Terry Blanton <commengr@bellsouth.net>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Face on Mars Re-Imaged

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 23:42:27 EST
 >>Fwd Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 03:34:57 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Face on Mars Re-Imaged - Young

 >>>From: Kurt Jonach <ewarrior@electricwarrior.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Face on Mars Re-Imaged
 >>>Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 01:21:26 -0800

 >><snip>

 >>>IMAGES

 >>>http://www.electricwarrior.com/mol/ewFace2001Zoom.jpg
 >>>http://www.electricwarrior.com/mol/ewCliff2001Zoom.jpg

 >>Kurt:

 >>When I attempt to go to these sites I get the following
 >>message:
 >>You are not authorized to view this page.

 >Go directly to the image source at:

 >http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/01_31_01_releases/cydonia/index.html


Errol and friends,

Long time reader, normally keep to myself about my opinion,
but the above is ridiculous and I have to say something. I've
attempted no less than a dozen times in a 6 hour period and
repeatedly receive this  (noted by **);

** Please try again later...

** Due to excessive popularity, the requested page is temporarily
inaccessible.

** Please try again in less than an hour.

What is this? I want to see what you're trying to apply evidence
to. You've taken the time to substantiate your claim, use a
little more time and publish these pictures to another site to
lower bottle neck on the site above.

Thanks for the matching source if it results in a find but so
far I doubt that there is any substance here.


Donnie Shevlin








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 3

                        Re: AA Film Redux - Salvaille

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 18:14:43 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 09:32:21 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Salvaille


 >From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 16:50:02 -0800

 >>From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >>Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 14:17:50 -0800

<snip>

 >What is the meaning of this post?

 >I don't get it.  This link is one of the main reasons
 >that the AA has been consigned to the trash bin.

 >And pardon the language but this link is a bunch of BS,
 >pure and simple. You must examine the footage to
 >understand the vast difference between what is depicted
 >at this site and the AA.

 >The other links are OK but you misspelled autopsy (see below
 >authopsy) so only seven matches show.

 >http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Alien+authopsy%22#=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off

<snip>

Hello Ed and List (sorry for the bandwidth EBK),

You raise some interesting points.

I know I misspelled 'autopsy'. Not in my post, but in my link.
'Authopsy' gave me only very few matches in the Google search
engine while 'autopsy' will give 8,320. I casually decided to
leave it there, and, well enough, you noted the mistake. In the
same breath, you call my 'favorite' link BS.

I have no problem with that. This all illustrates how people
perceive human exchanges: they must be on some level ground,
with common understanding of what is being talked about.

I saw the footage and I was convinced that it was a hoax for
different reasons, the least not being the sudden puppet-like
tremors of the 'body' when it was accidentally bumped by one of
the 'doctors'.

But this is not the purpose of my post: you challenged the
nature of two informations, misspelling of 'autopsy' and the
value of an internet site, and proposed a site of you own. Fair
enough.

Will you then apply your critical reasoning on information value
when it comes to AA? Let's make the trip together...

The history of AA film has two main actors: Santilli who came up
with the pumpkin and Kiviat who transformed it into a video
slipper. You have not addressed those two facts in your answer
to my post. I gather that, as disturbing as they are, you
recognize their validity.

It seems that Kiviat and Santilli can BS all they want, it has
no bearing on the veracity of the AA film. Should we then rely
on Michael Hesemann's web site for clarification?

<snip>

 >I still think the most complete synopsis is the following:

 >http://Hesemannn.m-n-d.com/beyondroswell.html

<snip>

Let us apply some critical reasoning.

Hesemann' site:

"Within the next year, three more trips in the desert and an
intense cooperation with experts on several related fields I
learned the following facts:

"The crash had nothing to do with the "classic" Roswell event at
all, but happened five weeks before in the night of March 31,
1947- on a completely different location, namely southwest of
Socorro, New Mexico. What in the beginning rather irritated me,
became one of the cornerstones for my following research. Of
course any hoaxer would have followed the known Roswell scenario
and made his fake in a way that it fits into it as close as
possible. To invent a new scenario is rather risky."

But:
http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1999/dec/m22-018.shtml

We get Stanton Friedman's take on Santilli-Roswell-Socorro.

<snip>

 >... just about everything
 >Ray told me in our first conversation when I was trying to be
 >helpful (prior to January 20,1995) was a lie. I met with him
 >twice in the UK. There were more lies. Amazing, too, how he
 >changed the location from Roswell to Socorro and the date from
 >July to very early June,

<snip>

Furthermore, we get a few pointers on the 'To invent a new
scenario is rather risky': Friedman and Berliner mentioned the
Socorro region as a possible crash site in "Crash at Corona" in
_1992_. Randle disputed the merits of this opinion in "The truth
about the UFO crash at Roswell" in _1994_.

So, Hesemann's basis of reasoning is now becoming shaky: he
seems unaware that Santilli _modified_ his story concerning the
origin of the alien bodies. He seems also unaware that a UFO
crash near Socorro is an _old_ and controversial story.

On with Hesemann:

"If I would have found no witnesses, no confirmation for it I
would be absolutely sure that the film must be a hoax [...]
Indeed I found fourteen witnesses for the new date, all but one
being Native Americans: A group of twelve Native American
children, remembering the date quite clearly because it was the
birthday of one of them; a single Native American who was a
young man at that time and the relative of a neighboring farmer.
They all observed what they described as the crash of a fireball
in the direction of Socorro, New Mexico."

A crashed fireball now constitutes proof of a crashed UFO and
saved Hesemann from terminal incredulity?

Hesemann:

"Following the cameraman's description I found him not only
having an excellent knowledge on details of the New Mexican
landscape -he even described an old railway bridge which we only
located after several hours of search in a small airplane-, I
was also able to find the area he described as the crash site.
Only on my second visit there I found out how much a rough
drawing he made and gave to Ray Santilli -who faxed it to me in
August 1995- showed details of its landscape. After I visited
the site I shot photos and send them to Santilli to give them to
the cameraman, who eventually verified it is the right site."

Ah! The cameraman.

At:

http://www.parascope.com/nb/0996/alienfaq2.htm

"Bob Shell and Michael Hesemannn work closely with Ray Santilli
and have attempted to locate the exact area. Both have spoken in
"conference", with Ray Santilli claiming to be speaking with the
cameraman on another phone. Some assistance was apparently
provided in seeking the "crash site", via this method.

"However, Bob Shell claims that, "Michael, Wendelle (Stevens)
and crew were nowhere near the crash site" and some information
he received from the "cameraman", via Ray Santilli, was also
wrong.

"Bob further commented that, 'even if his overall story is true,
it seems that the old fellow is suffering from lapses and mental
confusion at times'."

We remember Bob Shell? If there is a guy who tried with all his
might to view the AA affair with an open mind, that's him. He
never tried to avoid the questions. His take on the cameraman
story:

http://www.v-j-enterprises.com/aafilm.html

"I guess the bottom line is... SCREW 'JACK'...... One might
ask just who in hell is he? Hiding behind Ray Santilli sending
cryptic messages every so often via Ray? The research community
is supposed to buy that?"

Still, Hesemann refers to the cameraman's testimony to confirm
the authenticity of the AA film. Well, OK, let's just suppose
that Hesemann is naive enough to believe the cameraman we will
call St-Jack:

"Only on my third visit I found the perspective from which his
drawings show the site. Following them, at the very point where
he drew the "flying saucer" crashed into a rock, we found an
area about 45 feet in diameter and 12 feet high were someone
chiseled the natural rock off. Since this correlation was too
obvious to be a coincident I had to conclude that indeed someone
chiseled off the rock to remove traces of the crash and the
great heat which the cameraman described. Therefore we can say
for sure that physical traces seem to confirm the cameraman's
story."

Yet: Bob Shell

http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1997/apr/m07-029.shtml

"As you know, Michael and I disagree on the crash site, an it
should be noted that the Niggerhead mine is three miles down the
canyon from Mike's site. I suspect the actual site of being much
closer to the mine, if it is indeed anywhere in this canyon.
The cameraman very specifically says it was on the side of a dry
lake bed, and careful reading of the geological appraisal of the
area in the government report on the Niggerhead deposits finds
no mention of any dry lake beds in this are.  The only dry lake
beds in the area are closer to the Plains of San Agustin, which
is where I would look for the crash site if I went back out
there. However, I have neither the time nor the funds to go
'prospecting' in the desert again."

So, we have "Michael Hesemann's "Therefore we can say for sure
that physical traces seem to confirm the cameraman's story"
opposed to Bob Shell's "The cameraman very specifically says it
was on the side of a dry lake bed, and careful reading of the
geological appraisal of the area in the government report on the
Niggerhead deposits finds no mention of any dry lake beds in
this area."

Hmm...

There are other major discrepancies between Shell and Hesemann
on what constitutes evidence. Surely, Micheal Hesemann has some
esteem for Shell:

"This evidence, which was the result of three expeditions of
which I made one alone, one together with my friend and
colleague John the Baron of Buttlar and the third together with
my colleagues Lt.Col.Wendelle C.Stevens, USAF ret., Ted Loman
and his team of UFO AZ and "Shutterbag"-editor Bob Shell,
convinced me that indeed something happened on May 31, 1947
southwest of Socorro/New Mexico. This confirmed the cameraman's
story, although of course not yet the authenticity of the film,
which did not show any landscape features at all."

If Hesemann did not follow Bob Shell's evolution in the AA case,
he seems to use his name when it suits him.

Another thing on Hesemann' site:

"Several experts, including Bob Shell, KODAK Los Angeles, London
and Kopenhagen, the chemist Prof. Dr. Corrado Malanga of the
University of Pisa and UFO researchers Dr. Roger Leir and Derrel
Sims analysed original fragments of the 16 mm film and found out
that it

"-is a first generation copy of an original 16mm film

"-it bears marks used by KODAK only in 1927, 1947 and 1967

"-it is of a chemical fabric (acetate propionate) which was only
in use until 1957 and has a life span of only 2 years we have to
conclude that the copy was made of an already existing film at
some date before 1959/60. Either the copy or the original was
therefore produced between 1947 and 1949."

Redux Bob Shell:

http://www.v-j-enterprises.com/aafilm.html

"Ray Santilli obviously has access to someone who can handle
processing of such old film, since the unrelated roll that Mike
Hesemannn bought from a lady in Roswell was given by him to Ray
for processing, and after processing was given to me for
forwarding to Kodak who dated the film to 1945. Kodak noted that
it had apparently been processed properly."

Re-read this: "unrelated roll that Mike Hesemannn bought from a
lady in Roswell was given by him to Ray for processing, and
after processing was given to me for forwarding to Kodak who
dated the film to 1945"

Shall we continue about the best reference site for the AA film?

Hesemann, about pathologists:

"Interestingly enough, every of the several dozens of
pathologists which we consulted confirmed that the being on the
Alien Autopsy Footage indeed is a biological entity and not a
dummy."

What pathologists???

Who???

Any names???

Half a dozen would be nice from someone who talks about
'several' dozens, which, in my book, should reach 3 dozens.

Did Hesemann check:

http://www.neosoft.com/~uthman/rants/on_alien_autopsy.html
http://www.conspiracy-net.com/archives/articles/alienufo/autopsy/CNAb0001.txt

More specially:
http://www.v-j-enterprises.com/aasmry.html

"Not all shared that view however. Dr. Ed Uthman, Diplomat,
American Board of Pathology and author of "The Routine Autopsy:
A Guide for Screenwriters and Novelists", considers the film to
be a hoax, whilst Dr. Dominick Demaio, former Chief Medical
Examiner of the city of New York, believes the film to be, "a
lot of bull".

And:
http://home.swipnet.se/~w-85419/text/autopsy.html

"It is perhaps relevant that Dr Paul O'Higgins, a medical
anatomist at University College, London, reported that the body
shown in the footage was basically humanoid and that the odds
against life evolving on other planets to appear as humanoid as
the body on the footage was astronomical. Dr O'Higgins also
pointed out that if the pathologists in the film really believed
that they were examining a alien body then they would have taken
months to dissect the body, not the two hours indicated by the
clock in the film. Dr O'Higgins also suggests that the
pathologists would have taken many still photographs of their
autopsy, yet the film footage we have seen shows no evidence of
still photography at all."

Etc. Etc. Etc.

I spent almost the whole day researching for this post and I
think I have made my point.

I rest my case,

Regards,


Serge Salvaille


P.S.: The following quuote is from a post, a few years back, by
Dennis Stacy. I called it the Stacy Form and propose you fill
in the blanks with the names of your choice.

http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1998/jun/m02-006.shtml

[Quote]

If he/she believes ___________ claims, then God help us all.
Begging _________'s pardon, but there hasn't been a bigger liar
in the field since the days of __________.

Let's cut the crap. ___________ is a goddam liar, pure and
simple. (And so is his co-confabulator, ___________.)

You can send him my e-mail address, and you can send his attorney
my e-mail address.

I repeat: ___________ is a goddam liar.

And anyone who believes him for more than a minute is a goddam
fool.

Have I made myself clear?

___________ is a goddam liar. ___________ is merely a man after a
buck.

Any questions?

                                  Signed: ___________________

PS: ___________ is a goddam liar.

[End quote]







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 3

                        Face-to-Face with the 'Face'

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 10:10:22 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 10:10:22 -0500
Subject: Face-to-Face with the 'Face'


For those of you who haven't been able to glean the URL
from recent posts.

ebk

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

Mars Global Surveyor
Mars Orbiter Camera

Face-to-Face with the 'Face'
MGS MOC Release No. MOC2-275, 31 January 2001

http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/01_31_01_releases/cydonia/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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 3

             Re: Hair Sample Analysis [was: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume

From: Brian Cuthbertson <bdc@fc.net>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 21:38:11 -0600 (CST)
Fwd Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 10:17:35 -0500
Subject: Re: Hair Sample Analysis [was: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume


 >From: Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo <ufomiami@prodigy.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 6 Number 5
 >Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 12:07:26 -0600

 >>Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 15:00:57 +0000
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>
 >>Subject: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 6 Number 5

 >>Posted on behalf of Joseph Trainor.

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

 >>UFO ROUNDUP
 >>Volume 6, Number 5
 >>February 1, 2001
 >>Editor: Joseph Trainor

 >>NEW WEIRD CREATURE SIGHTED IN CALAMA

 >Visit our web page:

 >http://bloodpredator.homestead.com/FLASH.html

 >and see the strange hair, tracks and plaster cast photos of the
 >chupacabras in La Banda, Chile.


Since you have acquired hair samples, it would seem appropriate
to try and get them analyzed and see if the DNA turns up
anything unusual.

Recently a group doing such analysis was mentioned nn this List
with regard to abduction experiences - see below.

Perhaps you should contact them about DNA analysis options for
the hair samples you mention. Even though the samples aren't
from abductions, who knows what the analysis might turn up? It
might be worth a shot to at least contact the group and get
their response.


 >From: Bill Chalker <bill_c@bigpond.com>
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Evidence For The Origin Of Man & Perhaps 'Aliens'
 >Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 11:03:41 +1100

Bill Chalker Anomaly Physical Evidence Group (APEG)

<snip>

 >The work I have been involved with re DNA PCR testing of
 >biological samples implicated in abduction experiences is
 >suggesting some interesting perspectives about the nature of at
 >least some of the alleged species involved, particularly the so
 >called Nordic types, reported and/or described in such cases as
 >Antonio Villas Boas and Travis Walton.

 ><snip>

 >See the following link for early information on this connection.
 >A more detailed and updated study report is being prepared:

 >http://www.qtm.net/~geibdan/a1999/jun/g9.htm

 >You can assist this work by telling us of any compelling
 >biological sample implicated in abduction experiences. Because
 >of some funding we now have facilities that can undertake the
 >detailed and expensive work involved in this type of
 >archeological/forensic PCR DNA investigation. All evidence will
 >need to be subjected to an evaluation process to see if it
 >warrants the time, cost and resources necessary to get detailed
 >answers.

 >Funding offers are also encourage to further this work.

 >Please contact me if you can help,



-Brian C.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 3

                     Re: Face on Mars Re-Imaged - Jonach

From: Kurt Jonach <ewarrior@electricwarrior.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 22:06:01 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 10:19:53 -0500
Subject: Re: Face on Mars Re-Imaged - Jonach


 >From: Sean Liddle <gortrix@kos.net>
 >Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 18:40:12 -0500
 >Fwd Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 02:22:31 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Face on Mars Re-Imaged

Sean, Thanks for writing.

 >It would be nice if you included the URL for the actual NASA or
 >JPL site where the images are posted by them for comparison.  :)

Point well taken. I usually try to include 'Related Resources'
This one was knocked-off too late at night.

I keep insisting that EW is an art site -- Graphics & Gonzo. I
write these diatribes so people will see the graphics.

In this case, I squeezed as many bytes out of the new images as
possible, so they still looked good, but were more compact than
the hulking-big image files MSSS was serving up. Lean, but not
to anemic; people pore over pixels.

Even with all that, my ISP presumably can't handle the traffic.
I guess we call this success?

 >Now I have to used these tired fingers more than my fatigue
 >level dictates.

According to people like Matt Drudge, Dick Morris & Bill
O'Reilly, people are turning to the Internet for news. Foraging
here and there, and making up their own mind. I take it you're
on the list because Big Media won't cover these topics.

 >If only we could skip real-world work and do this full time
 ><sigh>

There's no money in it. Too many dogs fighting over the same
bone. If this is the first time you've heard it, you never
entertained any artistic pretensions, and are perhaps among the
happiest souls on Earth.

By the way: Keep your day job.


-eWarrior

P.S. Best Wishes for the KAPRA Website








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 3

                             URL For KAPRA Site

From: Sean Liddle <gortrix@kos.net>
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 13:29:09 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 10:22:05 -0500
Subject: URL For KAPRA Site


Hi Again:

Even though it is under construction, here's the URL for the
site.

http://www.uk.geocities.com/kapraufo

Hope it works. Seems to so far.


Sean

Kingston Aerial Phenomenon Research Association (KAPRA)
Kingston, Ontario
http://www.uk.geocities.com/kapraufo









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 3

              Re: Kecksburg - Response, Review & Update - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 01:21:45 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 10:26:38 -0500
Subject: Re: Kecksburg - Response, Review & Update - Young


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 04:26:46 EST
 >Subject: Re: Kecksburg - Response, Review & Update
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Stan Gordon <paufo@westol.com>
 >>Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 09:41:21 -0500
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Kecksburg - Response, Review & Update

 >PART 2

<snip>

 >>Linda Foschia said she saw a military
 >>convoy moving along the Greensburg-Mount Pleasant road towards
 >>Kecksburg on that evening in 1965.

This is the route which presumeably would have been taken by the
State Police and others from the Troop A barracks at Greensburg.

 >This sounds like a late retrospective from the 80's or 90's.

I believe this first surfaced publicly a couple years ago.

<snip>

 >Jim Romansky, not from the Kecksburg area, states that he was a
 >member of another fire company which had been called out to
 >assist in the search for a possible downed aircraft that day.

Some years ago my investigation failed to confirm any official
fire calls to any of the fire companies mentioned by proponents.

 >Later on you say Romansky "returned to the Kecksburg fire
 >station" which contradicts what's stated here about not being a
 >member of that fire company.

Romansky on a number of occasions, including on national TV, has
described not being allowed to enter the fire house. This is not
surprising, since he was not a member of the Kecksburg Fire
Company, was then only 18, and at that time there was a bar in
the single large room which also housed the fire trucks. With 25
State Policemen around it is not surprising that he would have
been denied admittance to the bar/garage. No mystery here.

 >The search teams had been combing the woods when a call came in
 >over a walkie-talkie that another team had found the crash site.

The real 1965 Kecksburg Fire Chief, Edward Myers, and other
firemen, have told me that they had no such "walkie-talkies" in
1965.

<snip>

 >Did Romansky see the State Troopers or did he confuse them with
 >the "military"? When was Romansky's story first made public?

1987. He was the star witness on the 1990 Unsolved Mysteries
show.

 >One of many witnesses that has described the military response
 >to Kecksburg has been Robert L. Bitner. Bob Young is correct.
 >Bitner was not the Kecksburg fire chief in 1965. Bitner had
 >gotten his service years mixed up. He later realized that he had
 >gone out as chief in 1964. He was an active Kecksburg volunteer
 >fireman in 1965. Bitner was truck driver, and after finishing
 >up his route, drove into Kecksburg after hearing a news report
 >about the fallen object.

Bitner's version of the story first surfaced on Nov. 16, 1979,
and was the first event in the "modern" trail of the Kecksburg
story. UFO investigator Clark McClelland was discussing the
incident while a guest on "The John Signa Show", KDKA-Radio,
Pittsburgh, Pa. His information was based upon 1965 clippings.
Also on the program were Leonard Stringfield and UFO abductees
Betty Hill and Travis Walton. Calls were received from four
people, including Bitner, who said that they were eyewitnesses.
The others saw only lights.

According to McClelland (Clark McClelland and Leonard H.
Stringfield. Jan. 17, 1980, report and footnote in The UFO
Crash/Retrieval Syndrome - Status Report II, ed. by Stringfield,
Seguin, TX: Mutual UFO Network,1980, pp. 19-20.), during later
interviews with the people who had called in to the radio show,
Bitner claimed that he was the 1965 Kecksburg fire chief. He said
that he was 25 feet from a "large 10 ton military truck" surrounded
by military guards which had a tarp over an object that appeared to
be 6 feet high, 7 feet wide and 17-feet long.

This seems to have been the first public account of an actual
retrieval of an object by armed troops. Mr. Bitner told this
story to UFO investigators and reporters for ten years. Then in
1990 when he was President of the Fire Company, the Unsolved
Mysteries crew spent nearly a week in town filming a recreation
and many interviews. As anyone who has seen this often run
segment must remember, a central figure in the story is the Fire
Chief, who first briefs Romansky and his search team, gives them
their assignments, and he is even portrayed as being present at
the crash site with Romansky and the others when military
officers ordered them out and the area quarantined. Bitner was
interviewed extensively for the program but, curiously, he was
not included on the segment.

This seems all the stranger, since as the 1965 Fire Chief and
the main witness to the mysterious armed recovery for a decade,
he was also now the key man in the Fire Company. What happened?
It seems that after his claimed role as the 1965 Fire Chief
became publicly known, he asked to be dropped, or was dropped,
from the program.

 >Lillian Hays and her son, John, confirm that military personnel
 >and men in suits frequented their rented farmhouse that night in
 >1965. The visitors made many phone calls from the house, located
 >not far from the impact site in the woods. John overhead a
 >conversation and learned that NASA was also on the way to that
 >location. Later that evening, he saw a man wearing a NASA
 >patch. A NASA representative reportedly interviewed some
 >eyewitnesses of the Kecksburg incident at the time.

Clark McClelland, a NASA employee who was a Pittsburg native and
a UFO investigator and member of NICAP, has reported going to
Kecksburg that night after the publicity. This was a personnal
effort on his part, not official NASA business. I suspect that
this may be the origin of this part of the Kecksburg folklore.
Unit patches for the 662nd Radar Squadron men may also have been
mistaken for NASA patches.

 >When were the Hayses' stories first made public? Why wasn't this
 >blasted all over the media in 1965?

In 1965 Greensburg newspaper reporter Robert Gatty interviewed
Lillian Hays' husband, who died in a farm accident in the 1970s.
Gatty said that Hays was outside working on his car and was
about the closest witness to the supposed site of the crash. Mr.
Hays told Gatty (Dec. 10, 1965, Greensburg Tribune, late City
Edition) that he hadn't seen or heard any crash or landing.

In October 1992 I went out to Kecksburg with a "Sightings" film
crew, narrater Tim White, a segment producer and a researcher. I
was shown a copy of the _early_ Dec. 10 county edition "Army
Ropes Off Area" article. This had also been featured two years
before on "Unsolved Mysteries." I showed them the articles which
had been in the later City edition of the same day's newspaper
which quoted Mr. Hays and explained that nothing was found.
  The "Sightings" production people were surprised because Stan
had not provided these articles to them during the preparation for
the segment, only the first article with its exciting, and as it is
now known, inaccurate claims.

<snip>

 >The point is that the reporters not only didn't see a crashed object
 >themselves but they did not _report_ in Dec 1965 anyone else seeing
 >it either. How do we really know that the reporters were "prevented"
 >from reaching the site by a cordon they apparently never reported at
 >the time it supposedly happened? And how does a "cordon" prove
 >U.S. military involvement? State Troopers can cordon off a site
 >too and they reportedly were present

Because of the people and cars flocking into the area from news
reports, the roads were ordered blocked at a couple places by
the Mt. Pleasant Township Civil Defense Coordinator and the
State Police Fire Marshal, Carl Metz, in order to keep access
open for fire trucks. These roadblocks were manned by members of
the Mt. Pleasant Unity Fire Company Auxiliary Police, at least
one of which (whom I have interviewed) was in uniform.

 >The object, however,
 >apparently fell on the opposite side of the woods. From that
 >road location where most of the people were standing, observers
 >could not see what was happening on the other side, which was in
 >the distance and blocked by woods. According to a number of
 >people who were in the other area, we have learned that military
 >activity was occurring on a farm lane, in various field
 >locations, and down near the woods by the impact location.

I have interviewed a number of people, both firemen and
residents, who were on this "other side of the woods" at this
road. One man was stationed at the fire truck, parked by the
barn for most of the night. They say that other than the
unsuccessful police search in the field, and the presence of a
couple Air Force men, there was no such military recovery
operation or object recovered there.

 >John Murphy, the WHJB radio news director who was the first
 >reporter on the scene, confirmed, via radio broadcast, that he
 >had seen both members of the Army and Air Force at the state
 >police barracks who would take part in the search for the
 >object.

Murphy had the USAF confused with the Army. This is proven by
the fact that the week after the incident when this radio
feature was produced, he still thought that the 662nd Radar
Squadron was an Army element, when he described it as the
"Army's 662nd Radar Squadron". If Murphy still thought that the
Air Force was the Army four days later, why should we conclude
that he knew what he was talking about that night at the police
station? Maybe the officers wore blues and the lower rank had
fatigues?

One Fire policeman also apparently told reporter Bob Gatty that
people were being kept out at orders of the "Army", and this was
then picked up and repeated by the UPI. But this was at that
point only hearsay, and may have originated with a phone call
from the USAF's 662nd Squadron's radar site, which happened to
be _on the Oakdale Army Support Facility_ near the Pittsburgh
Airport. I believe that this may have been the origin of the
folklore about the Army being on their way.

Incidentally, this radar site was the nearest Air Force
installation and their involvement may have been simply in
conformance with USAF Regulation 200-2, which called for the
investigation of a common UFO report by the nearest USAF
installation.

even reported getting a call from a "Navy" officer, obviously
someone from the 662nd "Squadron". Hell, what did she know?


But _no one in 1965_ reported armed troops occupying the town,
an acorn in the woods, or an armed military convoy. Not
Pittsburgh TV crews; not the Greensburg paper which reported
every rumor including scuttlebut in the crowd of "little green
men" and even had the location on the wrong farm a half mile
away; not John Murphy who didn't known the Army from the Air
Force when he saw them and who's first UFO was broadcast was
about a burning pile of wood at the Norvelt Golf Course.

This was truly Murphy's UFO.

 >Well was it broadcast or not? What date? These are basic
 >documentation details that when I don't see them I start getting
 >nervous that someone is trying to pull a fast one over me.

I don't blame you, Brad. This is the best that I've been able to
do on it: Sometime between Dec. 15-18, 1965, a feature, "Object
in the Woods", was produced by John Murphy, News Director of
WHJB. In it he recounted what he saw and heard that night. This
program was rebroadcast 30 years later by WHJB and it supports
the official version of events. I heard this and have a
transcript, which I would be glad to send you if you are
interested. The three key elements of the "crash and recovery"
story (ie., armed, helmeted troops with rifles, a flatbed truck,
and the object, itself) were nowhere to be found in this
broadcast. Murphy reported that he only saw military people in
the back seat of a police car (three?), that he didn't see an
object, but that he did believe that something happened.

Despite Murphy's claim that the program was "censored", it
includes the following formal statement: "This station has not
been contacted by any official agency of the State, Federal or
local Governments in connection with this program. We have
received very good cooperation with the State Police and with
the military and we were able to receive all the information
that we wanted this past week. We have not had any political or
otherwise influence put on us concerning this program,
whatsoever."

 >Could it be that townspeople read sloppy reporting such as this
 >at the time, then over the years have mixed up in their memories
 >the State Police cordon with what was _expected_ to be the
 >Army's, never realizing that the Army never came? Could someone
 >have read about the expected "possible" arrival of "civilian
 >scientists" then imagined hearing that they did perhaps from
 >someone who made the same assumption?

I think that you have hit it exactly on the head.


Clear skies,

Bob Young

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

Murphy's Law - If there's more than one way to do a job and one of
those ways will end in disaster, then someone will do it that way.
    -- USAF Capt. Edward Aloysius Murphy, 1949

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

There is an Unidentified Flying Object in the woods . . . We don't
know what we have yet.
    -- Unnamed spokesman for USAF 662nd Radar Squadron
            before the search began

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

It was just like War of the Worlds happening right in our backyard.
    -- Stan Gordon, who was not at Kecksburg in 1965 either







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 3

                 TCI: Anomalous Geomorphology and the Cliff

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 22:59:22 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 10:28:23 -0500
Subject: TCI: Anomalous Geomorphology and the Cliff

2-3-01

For Immediate Release

Anomalous Geomorphology and the Cliff

by Mac Tonnies

See: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/imperative12.html


[image]

Knobby mesa or partially modified landform?

The feature above lies directly to the east of the "Face". There
are some unusual grooves on this formation worth looking at, and
its lower right portion has a vaguely structural look to it. If
Cydonia was once populated, this would have provided an
excellent view of the Face's mysterious eastern half. For lack
of a better term, and for reasons of convenience, I've dubbed
this ambiguous formation the "Aeromorphology."


[image]


The new, unfinished image of the Cliff shown next to its
appearance in 1976. Note roughened terrain to the right of Cliff
and central defile.

If the Face and associated features are artificial, it's likely
that they were sculpted from pre-existing land formations: a
strategy that makes sense from the perspective of a civilization
seeking to insulate itself from an inhospitable environment
(Richard Hoagland's "Arcology Model"). The Cliff, shown above,
seems to be the lone exception to this hypothesis, as there
doesn't seem to be any way a feature of this sort could form
after the meteor impact to its immediate right (the Cliff, as
previously noted, lies well within the perimeter of the crater's
ejecta blanket).

If the Cliff is artificial, then it's possible that it was
assembled out of ejecta material. And indeed, the terrain
leading from the Cliff's right side to the crater is riddled
with a webwork of furrows that may represent an ancient quarry.
The crater's "splash"-style ejecta suggests that this area of
Cydonia was wet (or even underwater) at the time of the meteor
strike; the tons of Martian dirt needed to assemble the Cliff
could have been conveniently available in the form of mud. As
such, the Cliff might be most accurately appraised as an
"earthworks" similar to the enormous, subtle structures built by
Native American Mound Builders and early European tribes.

On close inspection, it's unclear to me if the mesa (as opposed
to the strange elevated defile) was a pre-existing formation.
The new image shows a scattering of debris on the Cliff's right
half that might be evidence of meteoric "blast shadow," in which
case the Cliff's "foundation mesa" was firm enough to survive
the impact relatively unscathed. But the defile appears somehow
"newer," and certainly much harder to explain in geological
terms.

Also of interest is the upper portion of the Cliff, as revealed
by the MGS: it has a striking similarity to the "headdress" of
the better-known "Face," complete with a sort of ramp. Is this
due to runoff or could it be a deliberately built ramp? As of
this writing, questions far outweigh answers.

The Cliff--whatever it is--is aimed precisely at the
enigmatically grooved "Tholus" several miles away.

--end--









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 3

                  Children's Face-to-Face With Chupacabras

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@juno.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 07:00:22 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 11:06:02 -0500
Subject: Children's Face-to-Face With Chupacabras


SOURCE: "La Estrella del Loa" (newspaper)
DATE: Thursday, February 1, 2000


CHILDREN HAVE FACE-TO-FACE ENCOUNTER WITH CHUPACABRAS

***So as  not to forget the details, the kids drew the enigmatic
entity on a wall."It didn't have a nose or elbows, but it had
small arms, legs that were thick on top and thin on the bottom,"
they say.****

Not only in some sci-fi films is it possible to find links
between children and aliens or some sort of unknown creature.
Similar things also happen in real life which lead us pay
greater detail to such unfathomable mysteries as the alleged
presence of the Chupacabras in El Loa province.

For such is the case of three youngsters in a remote section of
Calama's Independencia Norte settlement, who were paralyzed with
fright after facing a beast whose description matches that of
the creature which has raided the farmsteads of the Chilean
desert, exsanguinating cattle, frightening people to death and
plunging UFO researchers into confusion.

Gabriel Herrera, Miguel Salvo and Jorge have told their stories
separately and with surprising similarity: they recently saw
this extraordinary animal --repeatedly considered by ufologists
and experts as some sort of alien-- jump, hide and escape.

"It was about a meter tall and it was sitting there (in an inner
courtyard of the dwelling). It jumped effortlessly when my
brother opened the door. It scared us--it had spines running
down its back, it was hairy and grey. We went to tell my mommy,
thinking it was a rabbit. That's when it got lost, and we all
searched for it. "says the first witness.

This account was ratified by Miguel, who added new and valuable
information. "It didn't have a nose or elbows, but it had skinny
arms, and legs that were thick on top and skinny on the bottom.
It jumped and hid under a pickup truck."

Incredible though it may seem, the experience does not end
there, since the boys came across a new discovery which is
perhaps as important as the first. However, the details of this
discovery are in the hands of a UFO reseacher who is keeping
details under wraps to avoid any delays in his research.

####
Translation (C) 2001. S. Corrales, Institute of Hispanic Ufology.
Special thanks to Gloria R. Coluchi









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 3

                           UFO Sightings Poubelle

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 05:10:28 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 11:18:07 -0500
Subject: UFO Sightings Poubelle


Dear readers:

I suppose we all know about the verdict in the Lockerbie
aircraft bombing trial. One Libyan accused is found guilty,
and the other is set free.

I would bet that every person in the courtroom; the attorneys
for both sides, even the judges considered both defendants as
guilty as Joseph Stalin.

Nevertheless, one went free because the court judged that the
prosecution had somehow not _proven_ his guilt.

In the same vein, I have started a list of 'Discredited UFO
Sightings'. This was formerly tacked onto a file in my *U*
Database, and at the end of a web page of mine.

I'm now creating a new web-page devoted entirely to this same
list, which I think may be useful. The object is to save myself
and others the needless hassle and wasted time digging up
canards and stinkeroos that were already discredited or trashed
in the past.

Here is my first try at it: ( Go easy on me! )

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


What I'm asking for are UFO sightings/cases which should be
locked up for good, not sent back to Libya.

This means I'm not going to put Roswell, Rendlesham, Kecksburg
etc. etc. in my Poubelle Page for the time being. I have very
serious doubts about these cases, but not final ones.

["Poubelle" is French for "trash can"]

For the present, I am defining a case as thoroughly discredited
if:

1)  Hoaxer or prankster is caught in the act.

2)  Hoaxer / prankster confesses later.

3)  Investigation turns up facts which clearly contradict
     the original testimony, to the point where a complete
     fabrication is clearly indicated.

4)  The witnesses do not exist.

5)  Sighting location does not exist.

6)  A misidentified object is clearly identified as mundane.

7)  Anything else, of/with same or greater discrediting
     weight.


There is more:

I'm not going to list blatant nonsense that no sensible person
would have taken seriously in the first place.  That is a waste
of time, space and bandwidth.   There is no need to debunk
obvious cultist claims etc.

I am aiming at those cases in the literature which keep coming
back from the dead like the Revenge of the Mummy,  nicely gift
wrapped in the Tulli Papyrus, which do nothing but waste our
precious time.

An excellent example of what I am looking for is: 1965/03/02
BEAVER, PA : Teens photo disk.  One Confesses hoax to Mark
Cashman in 1998.  !!

Sadly, a lot of O.J. Simpsons will walk away for now.  Maybe
those can be dealt with later.

For now, if I may impose upon you, I need the many, many cases
which I have missed;  with the following requirements (again)

A)  Guilty as the Devil.  Red handed as per items 1 thru 7
     above.

B)  Well known or in the literature, likely to rise from the
     ashes again and again ..

C)  Non-trivial ( no FTs by the score, balloons,
     night-lights )

D)  Non-polemic:  Please don't use this effort to promote or
     trash our favorite chew-bones.   I "know" the R______
     case is junk, but maybe I cannot prove it to myself yet.


I'm asking that those of you who can, might help me fill in the
blind-spots on my end. Please provide some references so I can
make up my own mind on each case.  Its clean-up time.


Gratefully

- 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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 3

                        The Roskeckswellsham Incident

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 07:33:35 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 11:22:33 -0500
Subject: The Roskeckswellsham Incident


Dear Sirs, Mmes etc.:

Owing to the recent plethora of messages about various UFO
incidents, not to mention a lot of beer etc., one's eyesight and
neural functions might become temporarily impaired. If so, I
apologize in advance.

I (modestly) suggest that we take the juicier parts of Roswell,
Kecksburg, Rendlesham and maybe one or two other dog-chews and
just make a goddam movie out of it.

Who would play Colonel Stop? Any number of capable actors would
die for the part! Barney Fife would make a nice "Harvey Acorn"
in Kecksville, and Sal Mineo could play Trini Lopez, or
vice-versa, depending who gets offed the earliest in the flick.

This is not a new concept. Toward the end of the golden age of
Hollywood monster flicks, they would have Wolfman join Bela
Lugosi ( as Dracula ) in one last try for paying box office
numbers.

It didn't last long of course, and more creative types soon
prevailed.

Think of the dialogue possibilities! Here's Harvey Acorn arguing
with the US military (in the deserts of Roswell, Sussex of
course) and setting up rope perimeters which impede the
collection of alien debris etc. This is just made for TV (I mean
film). Presidents Truman and Reagan arguing over public
disclosure! The OSS and CIA fighting who should perform the
coverup. I tell you this has possibilities!

'The Roskeckswellsham Mystery' should keep audiences glued to
the candy counter for at least two weeks.

Certain historical difficulties should not bother the audience
much, as long as we off Trini Mineo in the first 20 minutes or
so, prime popcorn time.

Hows about a Cher abduction? I guess we should check with some
UFO experts like Wendelle Stevens or Brad Steiger before we try
that on.


Best wishes


- Larry Hatch


PS: We could open up with pix of Cydonia or Sedona or
     whatever, something 'religious' looking.










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 3

               Re: Hot Gossip Real X - Files Feb 2001 - Bruni

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 12:10:17 -0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 11:23:12 -0500
Subject: Re: Hot Gossip Real X - Files Feb 2001 - Bruni


I would like to make a couple of corrections concerning my
article on the Brighton First International Workshop in Field
Propulsion Physics and Technology Workshop.

There was such a vast amount of information to jot down and I
was suffering with Repetitive Strain Injury (RSI) when I had to
meet my deadline - my excuse :-) The magazine feature will be
corrected.

The changes concern Dr Alan Holt's item and should now read as
follows:

The Real X-Files - Hot Gossip UK
http://www.hotgossip.co.uk/x-files.html

The First International Workshop in Field Propulsion Physics and
Technology

by Georgina Bruni

Graham Ennis is a lively 59 year old British engineer with a
cause. In fact he has spent most of his life campaigning for one
cause or another, but his latest effort was to put together a
group of scientists and engineers with the aim of sharing
information that one day could result in a scientific
breakthrough which could change the world. That historical
moment arrived on 20 January 2001 when Ennis introduced 'The
First International Workshop in Field Propulsion Physics and
Technology' held at the University of Sussex, Brighton, England.

Interestingly, The Society of British Aerospace Companies
supported the workshop, which ran over a period of three days.
According to Ennis, the event was intended as a response to
NASA�s �Breakthrough Propulsion Physics� workshops, but Ennis�s
workshop was open to international participants on a global
basis as a pre-cursor to an international conference planned for
spring 2002.

Graham Ennis believes that we can design a spaceship by using
zero point energy � and he is not alone. For several years now a
number of scientists have been working on this very theory, a
theory that has shocked traditional science because it is just
too weird.

Nick Pope from the Ministry of Defence (attending in a private
capacity) and myself (acting as Ennis's PR) arrived in Brighton
early on Saturday morning just in time to take our seats for the
introduction.  Graham Ennis discussed the need to have good
relations with NASA and stressed that if it were not for the
Internet this meeting could never have taken place. He explained
how NASA was working on anti-gravity and how there was a good
deal of secrecy attached to this research. �Even with government
support it could take 20 or 30 years. We�re looking at something
�Star Trek�, he said. However, he did state that a 6% reduction
in gravity will be proved by the end of May 2001. Graham Ennis
then introduced Dr Anders Hansson (Secretary: Commission
International Academy of Astronautics) who was chairing the
meeting.

Ron Evans is the director of Project Greenglow, an anti-gravity
research programme supported by the military wing of British
Aerospace. In typical British fashion, Evans opened his talk
with the words: �I am Ron Evans, we have nothing to hide - we
haven�t discovered anything.� Evan�s presentation centred around
how difficult it was to acquire funding for these specialised
projects. He then reminded us again, �There is nothing secret
here.� According to Evans, following World War II, Britain spent
a lot of money on Stealth technology and at that time we were
the leaders in this field. In fact Evans was willing to discuss
anything to do with propulsion but pointed out that he could not
talk about Stealth.

Photo: Georgina Bruni with Ron Evans Director of Project Greenglow

http://www.hotgossip.co.uk/x-files.html

It seems there is an urgency to move forward and that this
research will contribute to our future needs in more ways than
just space flight. During question and answers Dr Alan Holt from
NASA (attending in a private capacity) told the audience that we
are running out of time to turnaround the decline of the Earth's
environment and the future of our civilization may be dependent
on the breakthroughs we achieve in transport/propulsion and
energy systems in the next 20-40 years. Hal Puthoff from the
Institute For Advanced Studies Austin, Texas, spoke about the
oil wars of the past becoming the water wars of the future.

Dr Alan Holt was first recognised for his excellent paper (1979)
on field propulsion. He stressed the difficulty of getting
funding for these projects and suggested one route was to aim
for a joint or cooperative effort with the 'black world', in
other words with black projects support. But it was necessary to
get to the point where something could be demonstrated before
any interest would be shown. Referring to NASA, Holt pointed out
that the main thrust was for human exploration with Mars as the
key destination and the search for life as the key factor and,
although it is possible to travel to Mars and Jupiter with
curent propulsion technologies, there is concern about long trip
times and the safety of the astronauts. 'We don't want to go to
a planet and get our people stranded on the planet because of
technology which is prone to breakdown or because the space
exploration budget is cut,' he said. Apparently during the 70s
and 80s Research and Development funding was a real challenge
for anything that had a sci-fi tag to it. But today's challenge
of achieving a low cost approach for a  human mission to Mars in
the 2010 - 2015 timeframe may result in the dedication of  the
funding needed for a breakthrough.

Photo: Dr Alan Holt, Hal Puthoff and Nick Pope

http://www.hotgossip.co.uk/x-files.html

Hal Puthoff is no stranger to anyone with even the remotest
interest in propulsion technology. He has been a firm supporter
for engineering the zero-point energy field and polarizable
vacuum for interstellar flight. Check out

www.earthtech.org

for his papers on the subject. It is also worth mentioning that
Puthoff set up and ran the first remote viewing program for the
US government. It was indeed a great pleasure to meet this
charming and intelligent man and Nick Pope and I were delighted
to have dinner with him on the Saturday evening.

Photo: Georgina Bruni and Hal Puthoff

http://www.hotgossip.co.uk/x-files.html

Dr Claudio Maccone, a PhD in Applied Mathematics, who had
travelled from Turin, Italy, talked of wormholes and the need
for sheer computing capabilities. Website: www.ijvr.com. But not
being a scientist I had problems understanding many of the
speakers, especially during their demonstrations using maths and
formulas. But as far as I can tell, the event was a great
success inasmuch as it put together an international group of
people who believe that we can achieve (with adequate funding) a
spacecraft that can work using this amazing technology.

One big surprise for me was to learn how several of the
scientists have a fascination with UFOs. In fact Dr Illobrand
Von Ludwiger (formerly DASA, Germany) is a director of the
international UFO group, MUFON. Professor John Allen (Prof.
Aerospace Science Cranfield and Kingstone Universities) actually
gave a lecture about UFOs a few years ago. Dr Jean-Pierre Petit
is another who showed an interest and others who I shall not
name because they are still employed in government and private
companies. Nick Cook, Aviation Editor of Jane�s Defence Weekly,
joined Nick Pope and I for lunch and we discussed his excellent
TV programme on black projects � and UFOs. Marc Pilkington from
Fortean Times was also present and none other than Graham
Birdsall, editor of UFO Magazine (UK), who has published much on
this subject in recent issues of the magazine.

For more details of the event and full list of speakers present
visit:

www.workshop.cwc.net

Georgina Bruni
georgina@easynet.co.uk
----------------------------
"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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 4

                          Bzzzz - Click - Connect!

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 10:28:11 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 10:28:11 -0500
Subject: Bzzzz - Click - Connect!

Gentle Reader,

As it inevitably does, from time to time, a system will
screw-up - either with a heart-stopping 'Drive Not Found'
or a hugely agro-nnoying little .ini or .reg corrupted
entry. The 'long-time no hear' you've experienced is due
to the latter. Another entry in the little note book with
the 'Windows Things That Can Totally Screw You' title, that
nestles between the packets of Avery Labels here.

Be warned that are a hefty number of posts heading your way.

Please note that headers of messages from the past couple
of days will be back dated to fill in the blanks at the
Archive. I actually sent this one at 10:27-ish on Tuesday
February 6th, 2001, which the long headers will reflect.


Errol Bruce-Knapp
Moderator, UFO UpDates - Toronto







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 4

                     The Weekly NITE-LITE (Moron) NEWS!

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 09:23:58 -0800
Fwd Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 10:35:14 -0500
Subject: The Weekly NITE-LITE (Moron) NEWS!


Dear Sirs and Mmes:


I hereby announce and brouhaha the launching of a new weekly UFO
newsletter which I hope will surpass the previous ones in all
respects.

Due to the tenuous nature of such enterprises, the actual
identity of the Author shall remain masked in secrecy. Copy of
the first issue follows.. -LH

= = = = = = =

NIGHT LIGHTS WEEKLY !!

Volume 0 number 0 02/02/2001

by Harry Latch: ( a necessary pseudonym )

- - -

Item: CHUPACAPRAS EAT ANTARCTIC PENGUINS

... and drain their blood according to Russian Top Scientist
Yergi Pulalag, presently studying psychic studies in the
prestigious Pavlov institute in Petrosalivli, Russia.

" It is well known that they suck up penguin blood, but for some
reason they do not eat the feathers " said Dr Pulalag in a
recent issue of Nyetkommy Krittersky, a well respected Russian
journal of exobiology. Dr. Pulalag quotes sailors returning from
their duties in Antarctic stations after months at sea. " They
cannot all be tellink me lies! " he says. Something is biting
the birds."

- - -

Item: SPACE ALIENS CAUSE PHONY SONIC BOOMS!

In their never-ending struggle to disguise themselves as
penguins, cacti and file hydrants, UFOs have finally hit upon
the perfect disguise .. ordinary aircraft!

Ched Jeter of Hatch Street California says: " Well, heck. " I
hope they disguise themselves as Samoans. That way we will never
see them in any large number. "

Meanwhile, numerous sonic booms were recorded over most major
American cities. Is this an invasion???

- - - - -

Here is another mystifying example:

MYSTERIOUS SKY BOOMS HEARD ON CAPE FEAR, NORTH CAROLINA

[Editors note: A " Sky-boom " is a loud and sudden noise that
from above, in some ways similar to a distant explosion.]

"Meanwhile, some area residents are a little shaky."

- - - - -

Hovering NIGHT LIGHT offers weekend respite in SOUTHERN SIBERIA

An airport in southern Siberia was shut down for an hour and a
half Friday," January 26, 2001 "an unidentified NIGHT-LIGHT was
detected hovering above the runway, the Interfax news agency
reported."

"The crew of an Ilyushin Il-76 cargo plane refused to take off,
claiming they saw a NIGHT LIGHT hovering above the runway of
Siberia's Barnaul regional airport., local aviation company
director Ivan Komarov was quoted as saying."

"The crew of another cargo plane refusing to use the runway"
at
Barnaul "for the same reason, landed their jet at another
airport, Komarov said."

"The NIGHT LIGHT took off and vanished from the airport 90
minutes later, according to the Interfax report."

Barnaul is a mid-sized city in southern Siberia, located 200
kilometers (120 miles) south of Novosibirsk and about 1,000
kilometers (600 miles) east of Moscow.

AFP contributed to this report.

- - - - - - - -

EIGHT (more) NIGHT LIGHTS in MALAYSIA:

"Eight night light were reported recently by Malaysians on the
remote island if Japaa Tabak. Usually white in color, and moving
with the stars, this group was different. "One of them was
orange in color, and moved steadily to the North" said Hanoo
Matchiz the village elder. "I know it was not a sea-gull
because she did not say 'kwak kwak'." "I can see them now! No
star flies so steadily!"

- - - - - - - - -

ENTIRE BOLIVIAN VILLAGE VANISHES!! ( The best saved for
last )

The entire little village, "San Mateo de Lerpa" in the remote
and mountainous Bolivian provincia de Riogues has simply
vanished!

Worse yet, the dirt and/or gravel road that led there is also
gone. So are the sheep, goats, a few cattle and simply every
person gone without a trace!

Compounding the mystery, is the fact that Bolivia never had
a province named Riogues!

- - - - -

NIGHT LIGHTS (UFOS) in BRITISH HONDURAS:

It is only now leaking out that witnesses have seen a number of
unexplained night lights from Orange Walk and Monkey Keyboard,
in British Hondoras in the 1960s and 70s. Now called Belize,
this small central American country was once a British colony,
which does not encourage self-immolating religious cults.

- - - - - -

NOCTURNAL ILLUMINATIONS over Georgia and similar venues:


"I seed it mysel " said farmer Clyde O'Clyde. It were greenish,
almost bluish, headed straight damned West, and I knowed it
weren't no jet because it went Quack Quack just like them
pelicans do! "


- - - - - - -

Special note:

I regret that I must suspend publication due to time and money
constraints.


I hope that all three of my past subscribers, most especially my
two dead parents and my one living sister will bear this
terrible journalistic loss with the good humor which sustains us
all.



- Harry Latch


[ remainder of issue #001 deleted. ]







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 4

               Re: TCI: New Cydonia Photos: 2-1-01 - Skavhaug

From: Asgeir W. Skavhaug <asge-s@online.no>
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 21:21:05 +0100
Fwd Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 10:38:33 -0500
Subject: Re: TCI: New Cydonia Photos: 2-1-01 - Skavhaug


 >From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 08:40:53 -0800 (PST)
 >Fwd Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 01:58:16 -0500

 >Subject: TCI: New Cydonia Photos: A Preliminary
 >Report2-1-01

 >For Immediate Release
 >New Cydonia Photos: A Preliminary Report
 >by Mac Tonnies, The Cydonian Imperative

<snip>

 >The enigmatic feature known as the "Cliff" is one of the most
 >anomalous Cydonian features among the new photographs.

<snip>

 >Regardless of the lack of facial features, the Cliff is among
 >the most provocative images thus returned by the MGS, and
 >constitutes compelling evidence in favor of the Artificiality
 >Hypothesis.

<snip>

 >A new close-up image of the Face itself is perhaps
 >the most spectacular image returned. It confirms suspicions
 >aroused by the previous Face image loosed upon the public in
 >the form of the infamous "catbox" in 1998. While only the
 >extreme western portion of the Face has been captured in
 >the new image, the features thought to represent an eye and
 >pupil are clearly visible (though degraded, as expected).

 >Mysterious fine lines along the "headdress" are also
 >visible, as are the "lips" and "teardrop" identified on
 >previous images. The facial resemblance
 >remains striking and consistent with claims of artificiality.

 >An image of the Face's eastern half, never photographed under
 >ideal conditions, is necessary to accurately assess the Face's
 >bisymmetry. Meanwhile, the available photographs imply
 >artificiality: the Face looks like a massive, windblown
 >sculpture of a humanoid head, complete with enigmatic
 >ornamentation. Whether this uncanny resemblance is the result of
 >spurious geometry or conscious design remains unconfirmed.

 >The Face's proximity to other anomalies, such as the
 >aforementioned Cliff, increase its chances of representing
 >what has long been suspected: hard evidence of
 >extraterrestrial intelligence.

First; very strong "evidence" or hypotheses you present here -
indeed!

However, after I've been studying the original, high resolution,
photos from Malin,

http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/01_31_01_releases/cydonia/index.html

http://www.electricwarrior.com/mol/ewFace2001Zoom.jpg

http://www.electricwarrior.com/mol/ewCliff2001Zoom.jpg

it's my own, strong impression that any _elevated_ top of a sort
of flat, tapered mesa, is _missing_.

Rather, the assumed "elevated" mesa - the Face and the Cliff -
seem to be more or less _sunken_ structures/areas, surrounded by
some "mountain ridges". This might have been seen more clearly
on a stereoscopic image.

This might have been a:

-       liquid/water pool, or,
-       a collapsed structure, or,
-       meteor impact crater, or,
-       something else

It has thus finally come clear that by enhancing and inverting
the light and dark parts of the images, e.g.,

http://www.geocities.com/macbot/picassoface.gif

or

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

http://www.geocities.com/macbot/kellybig.jpg

we are _made/manipulated_to_believe_ what we see, although it's
basically artist's impression we see on these images.

The contrast and lightness have likely been adjusted on the
images, including image modification, or manipulation. Extra
shadows are also added here.

Thus - as "we all" easily can see - these are NO artificial
structures at all!

Sorry Mac....



Best Regards,

AWS









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 4

                    Mars Face 'Forbidden' & 'Too Popular'

From: Kurt Jonach <ewarrior@electricwarrior.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 13:06:12 -0800
Fwd Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 10:41:02 -0500
Subject: Mars Face 'Forbidden' & 'Too Popular'


------------------------------------------------------------
MARS FACE 'FORBIDDEN' AND 'EXCESSIVELY POPULAR'

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

The Electric Warrior : News February 3, 2001
http://www.electricwarrior.com/news/ewNews000B.htm

------------------------------------------------------------
HUMOR

Earlier this week The Electric Warrior Website released a news
item regarding new NASA images of the Cydonia region, including
an HTML reference to an image of the notorious Face on Mars.

The Internet Service Provider (ISP) hosting this content was
unable to manage the unexpected demand for access.

The Electric Warrior makes no claims regarding the existence or
non-existence of a face on Mars, and is only offering an
explanation of the "artificiality hypothesis" which others have
put forth.

As Carl Sagan reportedly said about the matter, "It's not
whether you're right or wrong, sir. You have not even entered
the discussion."

------------------------------------------------------------
HTTP 403 FORBIDDEN FRUIT & THE TASE OF SOMETHING SOUR

I've received a large number of email complaints regarding
access to the Website. It's no use emailing either me or your
mailing-list host, who have no remedy for the matter. The best I
can do is respectfully suggest that you try again later.

I wrote my ISP to see what could be done. They sent me a
tutorial about UNIX directory and file access privileges. The
technically astute will understand this has no bearing on why
some can access the content, and others can't. Perhaps
tech-support is stalling for time, hoping that interest will
wane, so that everything returns back to normal.

It's the "Forbidden" message that concerns me. People may fail
to see the ribald humor in this, and suspect me of hosting lurid
or lascivious content. In addition to the NASA image, I posted
an artistic rendering of the Face's purported eye socket,
adorned by imaginary mascara. This has been accused of being, at
least, intellectually lewd. Some people are annoyed because they
can't see the images, others are annoyed because they can.

Some have made more ominous remarks, hinting at conspiratorially
forbidden content, as if I were some kind of government insider
trying to welsh on a security oath. Nothing could be further
from the truth. I'm under no compunction of any kind, not even
one of Silicon Valley's famous Non-Disclosure Agreements.

I've already told my ISP that if they need more money, they
should tell me now. We have a good crop of oranges this year, so
we can sell "Fresh Squeezed" until that runs out.

-----------------------------------------------------------
RELATED RESOURCES

NASA has released seven new images of the Cydonia region on
Mars, including a close-up of the Face.

http://www.electricwarrior.com/mol/MarsOnline008.htm

The new Mars Global Surveyor Cydonia 2001 images can be viewed
at Malin Space Science Systems.

http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/01_31_01_releases/cydonia/index.html

Read The Cydonian Imperative for continuing coverage of the Mars
Global Surveyor's latest round of images.

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

------------------------------------------------------------
THE ELECTRIC WARRIOR
February 3, 2001
Silicon Valley, CA

------------------------------------------------------------
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.

Web developers, the URL address for this content is:
http://www.electricwarrior.com/news/ewNews000B.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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 4

               Re: New Cydonia Photos: A Preliminary Report -

From: Sean Liddle <gortrix@kos.net>
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 09:57:05 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 11:15:23 -0500
Subject: Re:  New Cydonia Photos: A Preliminary Report -


At 01:58 AM 02/02/01, you wrote:
 >Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 08:40:53 -0800 (PST)
 >From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >Subject: TCI: New Cydonia Photos: A Preliminary Report
 >To: UFO UpDates <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >2-1-01

 >For Immediate Release

As usual


 >Malin Space Science Systems has once again provided us with an
 >unannounced collection of Cydonia imagery. Though marred with
 >several telltale black strips indicating loss of spacecraft
 >data, the new images are fascinating and confirm--as well as
 >refute--predictions made by researchers.

But, yet again, no direct links to the original photos from
Marlin or Jpl for comparison purposes.


Sean
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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 4

                  Re: Hair Sample Analysis - Sanchez-Ocejo

From: Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo <ufomiami@prodigy.net>
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 18:57:30 -0600
Fwd Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 11:21:58 -0500
Subject: Re: Hair Sample Analysis - Sanchez-Ocejo



 >Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 21:38:11 -0600 (CST)
 >From: Brian Cuthbertson <bdc@fc.net>
 >To: ufomiami@prodigy.net, updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Hair Sample Analysis [was: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 6 Number 5]

 >>From: Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo <ufomiami@prodigy.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 6 Number 5
 >>Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 12:07:26 -0600

 >>>Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 15:00:57 +0000
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>
 >>>Subject: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 6 Number 5

 >>>Posted on behalf of Joseph Trainor.

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

 >>>UFO ROUNDUP
 >>>Volume 6, Number 5
 >>>February 1, 2001
 >>>Editor: Joseph Trainor

 >>>NEW WEIRD CREATURE SIGHTED IN CALAMA

 >>Visit our web page:

 >>http://bloodpredator.homestead.com/FLASH.html

 >>and see the strange hair, tracks and plaster cast photos of the
 >>chupacabras in La Banda, Chile.

 >Since you have acquired hair samples, it would seem appropriate
 >to try and get them analyzed and see if the DNA turns up
 >anything unusual.

 >Recently a group doing such analysis was mentioned nn this List
 >with regard to abduction experiences - see below.

 >Perhaps you should contact them about DNA analysis options for
 >the hair samples you mention. Even though the samples aren't
 >from abductions, who knows what the analysis might turn up? It
 >might be worth a shot to at least contact the group and get
 >their response.


Thank you for your interest. Yes, we have contacted some
organization that do DNA. First the cost is very high. Second,
they ask that the hairs being 100% of the chupacabras, because
of the number one problem. Nevertheless, we have already send
some samples to Washington D.C. and to Spain.

At this moment, our priority is collect testimonies and physical
evidences.


Very truly yours,


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
CHUPACABRAS(Espaol)    http://ufomiami.homestead.com/index.html
CHUPACABRAS (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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 4

                      Re: URL For KAPRA Site - Skavhaug

From: Asgeir W. Skavhaug <asge-s@online.no>
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 03:33:18 +0100
Fwd Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 11:38:01 -0500
Subject: Re: URL For KAPRA Site - Skavhaug


 >From: Sean Liddle <gortrix@kos.net>
 >Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 13:29:09 -0500
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >Subject: URL For KAPRA Site

 >Hi Again:

 >Even though it is under construction, here's
 >the URL for the site.

 >http://www.uk.geocities.com/kapraufoHope
 >it works. Seems to so far.


 >Sean

 >Kingston Aerial Phenomenon Research Association
 >(KAPRA)Kingston, Ontario
 >http://www.uk.geocities.com/kapraufo


Hi Sean:

Sorry, Sean; nothin' works here.....


Regards,

AWS







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 4

                      Re: Red Dwarfs/Alien Life - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 00:53:54 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 11:41:28 -0500
Subject: Re: Red Dwarfs/Alien Life - Velez


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 19:17:07 EST
 >Subject: Re: Red Dwarfs/Alien Life
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 06:37:02 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Red Dwarfs/Alien Life
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca >>

 >Roger, List:

 >The other thing about a red dwarf is that the area in the
 >planetary system which would be conducive to life would be
 >much closer in and much more limited. Of course many of
 >the new planets being found seem to be in strange systems
 >(compared to our own) and some have planets very close to
 >the star.

 >This is an interesting line of speculation. But, anybody who
 >is able to travel interstellar distances would have the ability
 >to vidoe or observe in day or night. Personally, I think that
 >robots would be a far more likely possibility anyway.


Hi Bob, All,

A civilization that is 'currently' occupying a habitable planet
that is orbiting a star in its last stages of life (a Red
giant,) would be occupying a 'host' world. It would not be the
planet that they originated on!

A star's size, composition, temperature etc. would dictate the
optimum orbital distance required for a planet to support
(earth-like) life conditions. Just as in our own solar system,
too far in, or too far out, and Life as we know it cannot exist.

When a star reaches old age and begins the expansion process
into a Red giant, any planets whose orbits were originally close
enough to support life will have been either; vaporized
(swallowed whole in the expansion) or baked/damaged beyond
recognition by the inevitable rise in temperature and poisonous
radiation.

Planets that were further away from the primary to begin with
would find surface and internal conditions changing rapidly.
Dramatic temperature rise, frozen water that may have been
trapped in a permafrost layer underground or on the poles of the
planet would melt, and come bubbling up to the surface. Gases
emitted by the volcanic action caused by the new gravitational
conditions would increase the amount and density of any
atmosphere that 'may have' existed prior to the expansion of the
primary.

All that would require time. (Geological time) It would also
probably be a violent process depending on how sudden the
swelling/enlargement of the primary star was. The expansion into
a red giant is gradual and goes in stages. It would make more
sense for a civilization to simply move to a younger, more
hospitable solar system somewhere far removed from their 'home
star,' than to "relocate" onto another planet within their own
system that will inevitably face the same fate as the first.

Complicated and terrible decisions for anyone living on such a
world. The 'timing' of such a move (from a dying inner world to
a 'birthing' outer one) would have to be completely dependent on
fortune/fate, and the availability of the technology to make it
happen.

If there is intelligent life on a planet that is currently
orbiting a Red giant, you can bet your boots they didn't
originate there. Food for thought.


Regards,

John Velez
.................................................................
  "Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind."
                            www.spacelab.net/~jvif/
.................................................................









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 4

               Re: Children's Face-to-Face With Chupacabras -

From: Asgeir W. Skavhaug <asge-s@online.no>
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 17:07:50 +0100
Fwd Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 11:43:43 -0500
Subject: Re: Children's Face-to-Face With Chupacabras -


 >From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@juno.com>
 >Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 07:00:22 -0500
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Children's Face-to-Face With Chupacabras

 >SOURCE: "La Estrella del Loa" (newspaper)
 >DATE: Thursday, February 1, 2000

<snip>

 >Incredible though it may seem, the experience does not end
 >there, since the boys came across a new discovery which is
 >perhaps as important as the first. However, the details of this
 >discovery are in the hands of a UFO reseacher who is keeping
 >details under wraps to avoid any delays in his research.####
 >Translation (C) 2001. S. Corrales, Institute of Hispanic
 >Ufology. Special thanks to Gloria R. Coluchi

Scott & List readers:

Mataperros or Chupacabras; isn't it time to get an expert
opinion or statement from a zoologist regarding these
animals/creatures - rather than just from UFO researchers?


Best Regards,

AWS







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 4

                                What Is Mass?

From: Terry Blanton <commengr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 12:34:44 -0800
Fwd Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 11:44:59 -0500
Subject: What Is Mass?


Thanks to Dr. Eugene Mallove for alerting me to this article
from New Scientist magazine.  Located at:

http://www.eurekalert.org/releases/ns-wim013101.html

         <><><><><><><><><><>

EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE: 31 JANUARY 2001 AT 14:00 ET US

Contact: Claire Bowles
claire.bowles@rbi.co.uk
44-20-7331-2751
New Scientist

What is mass?

What is this thing called mass? Pondering this apparently simple
question, two scientists have come up with a radical theory that
could explain the nature of inertia, abolish gravity and, just
possibly, lead to bizarre new forms of spacecraft propulsion.

Faced with the same question, you might answer that mass is what
makes a loaded shopping trolley hard to get moving-its inertia.
Or, perhaps, that mass is what makes a bag of sugar or a grand
piano weigh something. Either way, the origin of mass is one of
nature's deepest mysteries.

Some particle physicists claim that a hypothetical particle
called the Higgs boson gives mass to subatomic particles such as
electrons. Late last year, hints that the Higgs really exists
were found at CERN, the European centre for particle physics
near Geneva. So, does the Higgs explain weight and inertia? The
answer is probably no.

Wait a minute. How can these physicists claim they have
discovered the origin of mass when their proposed mechanism
fails to explain the very things that make it what it is? Well,
as Bill Clinton might say, it all depends on what you mean by
mass.

When these particle physicists speak of mass, they are not
thinking in terms of inertia or weight. Matter is a concentrated
form of energy. It can be changed into other forms of energy and
other forms of energy can be changed into matter-an equivalence
embodied in Einstein's famous equation E = mc2. So in this
sense, the mass of a subatomic particle is a measure of the
amount of energy needed to make it. The Higgs can account for
that, at least partly (see "Mass delusion", p 25).

"But the Higgs mechanism does not explain why mass, or its
energy equivalent, resists motion or reacts to gravity," says
Bernard Haisch of the California Institute for Physics and
Astrophysics in Palo Alto. He believes instead that inertia and
gravity are manifestations of far more familiar effects. When
you lift that sack of potatoes or shove your shopping trolley,
the forces you feel might be plain old electricity and
magnetism.

If the forces are familiar, their origin is anything but. For in
Haisch's view, they come out of the quantum vacuum. What we
think of as a vacuum is, according to quantum theory, a sea of
force fields. The best understood of all these fields is the
electromagnetic field, and it affects us constantly-our bodies
are held together by electromagnetic forces, and light is an
oscillation in the electromagnetic field.

That these fields pop up in the vacuum is reflected by
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which states that the
shorter the length of time over which an energy measurement is
made, the less precise the result will be. So although the
energy of the electromagnetic field in the vacuum averages to
zero over long periods of time, it fluctuates wildly on very
short timescales. Rather than being empty, the vacuum is a
choppy sea of randomly fluctuating electromagnetic waves. We
don't see or feel them because they pop in and out of existence
incredibly quickly, appearing only for a split second. These
fleeting apparitions are called virtual photons.

But sometimes, virtual becomes real. Stephen Hawking worked out
that the powerful gravity of a black hole distorts this quantum
sea so much that when a virtual photon appears, it can break
free and escape into space, becoming real and visible just like
an ordinary photon. And a fundamental principle of Einstein's
theory of general relativity is that gravity is
indistinguishable from acceleration. So if gravity can release
photons from the vacuum, why shouldn't acceleration do the same?
In the mid-1970s, Paul Davies at the University of Newcastle
upon Tyne and Bill Unruh at the University of British Columbia
in Vancouver realised that an observer accelerated through the
quantum vacuum should be bathed in electromagnetic radiation.
The quantum vacuum becomes a real and detectable thing.

This idea hit Haisch in February 1991, when Alfonso Rueda of
California State University gave a talk about the Davies-Unruh
effect at Lockheed Martin's Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory in
Palo Alto. If an accelerated body sees radiation coming at it
from the front, Haisch thought, that radiation might apply a
retarding force. "I'm an astrophysicist," he says. "So I am used
to the idea that radiation-for instance, sunlight-can exert a
pressure on bodies such as comet particles."

Rueda said he would do some calculations. Some months later, he
left a message on Haisch's answering machine in the middle of
the night. When Haisch played it back the next morning he heard
an excited Rueda saying, "I think I can derive Newton's second
law."

According to Rueda, photons boosted out of the quantum vacuum by
an object's acceleration would bounce off electric charges in
the object. The result is a retarding force which is
proportional to the acceleration, as in Newton's second law,
which defines inertial mass as the ratio of the force acting on
an object to the acceleration produced. Haisch and Rueda, along
with their colleague Harold Puthoff of the Institute for
Advanced Studies in Austin, Texas, published their initial work
in February 1994 (Physical Review A, vol 49, p 678).

This electromagnetic drag certainly sounds like inertia. But do
the calculations agree with the known inertial masses of
subatomic particles? Why are quarks heavier than electrons, even
though they have less charge? And why are the particles called
muons and taus heavier than electrons, even though they appear
to be identical in other ways? It might be because they are
doing a different kind of dance.

In deriving his result, Rueda adapted an old idea proposed by
quantum pioneers Louis-Victor de Broglie and Erwin Schr�dinger.
When low-energy photons bounce off electrons, they are scattered
as if the electron were a ball of charge with a finite size. But
in very high-energy interactions, the electrons behave more as
if they are point-like. So de Broglie and Schr�dinger proposed
that an electron is actually a point-like charge which jitters
about randomly within a certain volume. This can account for
both kinds of behaviour: at high energies, the interaction is
fast and the electron appears frozen in place; at low energies,
it is slow, and the electron has time to jiggle about so much
that it appears to be a fuzzy sphere.

Haisch and Rueda believe that de Broglie and Schr�dinger's idea
was on the right lines. The electron's jitter could be caused by
virtual photons in the quantum vacuum, just like the Brownian
motion of a dust particle bombarded by molecules in the air.
"Random battering by the jittery vacuum smears out the
electron," says Haisch.

This is important because Haisch and Rueda suspect that their
inertia-producing mechanism occurs at a resonant frequency.
Photons in the quantum vacuum with the same frequency as the
jitter are much more likely to bounce off a particle, so they
dominate its inertia.

They speculate that muons and taus may be some kind of excited
state of the electron, with a correspondingly higher resonance
frequency. That would probably mean a greater mass, as there are
more high-frequency vacuum photons to bounce off. Quarks might
also be resonating in a different way from electrons. "If we
knew what caused the resonance we would probably be able to
explain the ratio of the various quarks' rest masses to the
electron rest mass," says Haisch. The cause of such excitations
might lie in string theory, which treats particles as tiny
vibrating strings, but this is only conjecture.

If inertial mass is an electromagnetic effect, why does the
neutrino appear to have some mass, even though it doesn't feel
electromagnetic forces? This might be easier to explain. The
electromagnetic field is not the only field in the vacuum. There
are two other force fields: the weak nuclear force and the
strong nuclear force. Both could make contributions to mass in a
similar way to the electromagnetic field.

Neutrinos only feel the weak force, which could explain their
small mass. Quarks feel the strong nuclear force, and that could
affect their mass. It is even possible that strong-force
fluctuations in the vacuum dominate the masses of quarks and
gluons. As these contributions are much harder to work out than
the electromagnetic ones, no one has attempted them yet.

Vacuum-packed So much for inertia. But what about the force
holding you to the floor? Can the vacuum account for
gravitational mass too? The idea of linking gravity with the
quantum vacuum was suggested by Russian physicist Andrei
Sakharov in 1968 and has been developed recently by Puthoff.
Haisch and Rueda's latest project is to connect this idea with
their work on inertia.

It's still highly speculative, but they think they can explain
away gravity as an effect of electromagnetic forces. Oscillating
charges in a chunk of matter affect the charged virtual
particles in the vacuum. This polarised vacuum then exerts a
force on the charges in another chunk of matter. In this rather
tortuous manner the two chunks of matter attract each other.
"This might explain why gravity is so weak," says Haisch. "One
mass does not pull directly on another mass but only through the
intermediary of the vacuum."

Einstein's theory of general relativity already explains gravity
beautifully in terms of the warping of space-time by matter, so
this "geometrical" description ought to be compatible with the
quantum-vacuum picture. Haisch points out that the curvature of
space can only be inferred from the bending of the paths of
light rays. But the polarised vacuum would bend light paths,
just as a piece of glass does when light enters or leaves it.
"The warpage of space might be equivalent to a variation in the
refractive index of the vacuum," Haisch conjectures. "In this
way, all the mathematics of general relativity could stay,
intact, since space-time would look as if it were warped." And
all the strange predictions of general relativity, such as black
holes and gravitational waves, would be manifestations of this
polarised vacuum.

If they can get their idea to work, Haisch and Rueda will have a
theory of quantum gravity-the long-sought marriage of Einstein's
general relativity with quantum mechanics. It would finally
allow physicists to understand the first moments after the big
bang, and the crushing singularity at the core of a black hole.

That just leaves rest mass, the kind of mass that's equivalent
to energy. According to Haisch, the Higgs might not be needed to
explain rest mass at all. The inherent energy in a particle may
be a result of its jittering motion, the buffeting caused by
virtual particles in the vacuum. "A massless particle may pick
up energy from it, hence acquiring what we think of as rest
mass," he says. If this were the case, all three facets of mass
would be different aspects of the battering of the quantum
vacuum. "It would be a tidy package."

It may be that there is no explanation for inertial and
gravitational mass. They may just come hand in hand with rest
mass. This is what many particle physicists believe. "Some
people think Haisch and Rueda are on the right track, others
think they are on a wild goose chase," says Paul Wesson, an
astrophysicist at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada.

But if gravitational and inertial mass do emerge from the
vacuum, perhaps we could take control of them. It might be
possible to cancel mass, creating an inertia-less drive that
could accelerate a spaceship to nearly the speed of light in the
blink of an eye. To do this we would have to exclude quantum
fluctuations from a region where there is matter-blow a bubble
in the vacuum. Haisch doesn't know if that is possible. "Nature
does not abhor a vacuum," he says. "However, it may abhor a
vacuum in the vacuum."

Further reading: www.calphysics.org/inertia.html

Author: Marcus Chown

New Scientist issue: 3rd February 2001

Please mention New Scientist as the source of this story and, if
publishing online, please carry a hyperlink to:
http://www.newscientist.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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 4

                        KGB UFO Files. The Real Story

From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 12:54:31 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 11:46:34 -0500
Subject: KGB UFO Files. The Real Story


To the List,

If you want to know the whole story of how the "KGB UFO Files"
hoax was made, just go to the web page in English of Boris
Shurinov :

http://borshurinov.narod.ru

and then click on, either "Boris Shurinov, or "Black Pages"

Don't miss Parts two and Three (brand new) of the story. Part
two is about the shooting of the crash sequence Part tree is
about the autopsy sequence.

At last, we have a preposterous hoax completely exposed here,
thanks to the excellent inquiry of Boris Shurinow in Moscow.

Larry Hatch can put this one in his "Poubelle" (but not
Rendlesham, and not Roswell, please).


Regards to all

Gildas Bourdais








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 4

                         Re: AA Film Redux - Gehrman

From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 12:19:02 -0800
Fwd Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 11:49:26 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Gehrman


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 23:33:29 EST
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >I don't think many people get the fact that one of the big
 >reasons the AA film was "consigned to the trash bin" as you put
 >it was because of Santilli's story telling, and promises that he
 >made and did not keep, not to mention supplying 1 (ONE) frame of
 >the film for examination by Kodak. When people started pressing
 >Ray bud, suddenly we have Ray claiming that "Volker" owns the
 >film and Volker this and Volker that.

Volker does seem to own the film. He put up the cash, $100,000.
The last I heard, Kodak was demanding 15 feet of the film for
testing. Ray told me that Volker doesn't intend to give any film
to Kodak for testing, at least for now. Ray's attitude changed
after he was visited by US officials in July of 95. Ray has been
cooperative: he sent Theresa Carlson the betacam version to view
and comment on in detail. He carried on a long and continuous
email conversation with me and others. And now it seems he's
willing to allow Neil and I to distribute the new CD version.
I'm not an apoligist for Ray; I simply believe he's telling the
truth about everything he's able to talk about.

 >All storys aside, in the long run, Ray ended up doing more
 >damage to the alleged authenticity of the film then anything
 >anybody else did.

I can see why folks may think this but I believe the biggest
damage was the closed mindedness of the UFO community who
refused to notice the subtle distinctions between a person who
was being evasive to protect another (the cameraman) and a
person who was lying for gain or profit. Hoaxers don't act like
Ray did. The only possibility for the AA to be a fraud is if Ray
were conned by the cameraman and I for one don't think that's a
possibility. And just how does a dishonest person, which Ray
would have had to be to pull this off, get someone like Volker
to put up 100 grand for 22 roles of faked film? And why is
Volker still not complaining?

 >I also recall that the some of the footage (tent?) was proven to
 >be a hoax by Phil Mantle, even though gulliable lap dog
 >supporters still rant and rave about it.

This footage has always been in question. In the first footage
that Ray released, the tent footage was a confused mess and
hardly anything could be seen and it was almost impossible to
make out the images. This footage is not on the CDs we're trying
to circulate. I don't know of anyone who "ranted or raved" about
it. It was a piece of crap, about what you'd expect from
hoaxers - very little or no detail, just some vague images.

The AA on the other hand is rich in detail and most of the
footage is crisp and clear. Aren't you even interested in
viewing it so you can see for yourself. Have you seen the uncut
Santilli version? You write as though you haven't.

Ed








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 4

                         Re: AA Film Redux - Gehrman

From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 12:31:44 -0800
Fwd Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 11:51:00 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Gehrman


 >From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 18:14:43 -0800

Serge,

All I can say is that I've asked the folks in the UFO community
to keep an open mind about the AA until new information comes
along that either refutes or proves the authenticity of the AA
once and for all.

I believe Neil has found that proof and I hope you and others
will keep and open mind when he decides to present his evidence.
He's hard at work getting all his ducks in a row and these will
soon be quacking on a List in your neighborhood.

Ed








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 5

              Re: Kecksburg - Response, Review & Update - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 00:08:21 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 12:10:13 -0500
Subject: Re: Kecksburg - Response, Review & Update - Young


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 18:08:12 EST
 >Subject: Re: Kecksburg - Response, Review & Update PART 3
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Stan Gordon <paufo@westol.com>
 >>Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 09:41:21 -0500
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Kecksburg - Response, Review & Update

 >PART 3

 >PART 1 is at http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2001/feb/m02-020.shtml
 >PART 2 is at http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2001/feb/m02-024.shtml

Hi, Brad, Stan, List:

Well, I might as well continue with this. My previous comments
are:

PART 1 is at http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2001/feb/m03-001.shtml
PART 2 is at http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2001/feb/m03-016.shtml

 >>Ernie Hoffman was also a reporter for the Greensburg, PA
 >>Tribune-Review in 1965. He replaced Robert Gatty in Kecksburg
 >>that night, so that Gatty could return to the newspaper office
 >>and work on the story.

 >Notice the sleight of hand here. There is now nothing about a
 >specific newspaper story of a given title, publication date and
 >quoted contents. We know right away that this is going to be a
 >tale that was for some inexplicable reason never published in,
 >say, the Dec 11, 1965, edition of the Greensburg Tribune-Review.

The best part is that the local paper _did_ publish something on
Dec. 11, 1965. In an editorial The Tribune-Review summarized its
staff's on-the-scene investigation: nothing at all seems to have
landed at Kecksburg. The newspaper concluded that reports of
lights had probably come from press photographers or TV news
crews in the woods. (They didn't know about the prank by local
teenagers who ran through the woods flashing a camera strobe).

<snip>

 >>When John and his
 >>brother went down through the woods to look around, they saw
 >>trees had been damaged and knocked over. The day before these
 >>trees were in their normal state. The boys also came across a
 >>man with an instrument similar to a metal detector. The man told
 >>the boys that they should leave the woods, that there was the
 >>possibility of radiation. The boys ran home to ask their parents
 >>what radiation meant.

 >Doesn't mean he was from the US Army, there were such things as
 >County Civil Defense Directors

Exactly. The State Police returned the next day to search in
daylight; they found nothing. State Police Fire Marshal Carl
Metz and another investigator with him had a geiger counter the
night before. There is no reason to think that this wasn't the
police or County CD people.

 >>Well known Pittsburgh Jazz musician Jerry Betters has gone
 >public stating that he was driven to Kecksburg by some friends
 >>that December night in 1965. They were curious after hearing
the >>news reports of the alleged UFO landing. They didn't know
the >>area, but apparently found themselves on the farm lane
where >>others saw military action taking place that night.
There, >>Betters saw numerous military vehicles, but more
interestingly, >>a military flatbed tractor-trailer truck was
making it's way up >>from the field. On the back of the trailer
he saw an >>acorn-shaped object and the strange hieroglyphic
markings were >>easily visible. For whatever reason, at that
point the object >>was not covered. Betters will never forget
the tone of voice of >>a military officer ordering servicemen to
get him and his >>friends out of there. Jerry became quite upset
when the >>soldiers aimed their guns at them.

 >Date? Publication? Excuse as to why not public in 1965?

This man called the Unsolved Mysteries phone hotline in 1990. I
don't believe that this ever happened. See my comments in Part 2
about the farm lane "on the other side of the woods". This guy
wants us to believe that while local property owners, residents,
firemen, police and reporters saw nothing of the sort, He
travelled all the way from the other end of the county, with
unidentified friends, and somehow managed to get through the
armed "corden" and happened to see it all - that is all of the
dramatic details included in the imaginative 1990 "Unsolved
Mysteries" show.

 >>Bob Koveleskie, a former state trooper, has now gone public
 >>with an important detail. Koveleskie was a trooper who in 1965
 >>was working in the eastern part of Pennsylvania. He had heard
 >>about the Kecksburg incident on the news and was curious about
 >>it. Just a short time after the event occurred, Koveleskie was
 >>back in the Greensburg area where he saw Carl Metz and asked
 >>him about the incident. Metz told him that he was at the scene
 >>the night that it happened. He had been sworn to secrecy by an
 >>Army officer who was on the scene that evening, and could not
 >>discuss it any further.

 >Date? Publication? Excuse as to why not public in 1965?

<snip>

 >>Howard Burns, who was a radio dispatcher for the City of
 >>Greensburg police department at that time, recalls a
 >>conversation between several police officers and Metz one day
 >>at Greensburg City Hall. Somehow they got on the subject of
 >>Kecksburg, and Metz confirmed that he was one of the first
 >>troopers on the scene. He had gone down into the woods, and
 >>when he came upon the impact location, his first impression
 >>was that it was an aircraft crash site due to the trees that
 >>were knocked over. As he went over to examine the partially
 >>buried object in the ground, it was unlike anything he had ever
 >>seen. While he was there, several military personnel arrived,
 >>and ordered everyone out of the area, including him. They
 >>also ordered him never to discuss what he saw that night.
 >>Burns indicated that Metz would still not reveal many details
 >>about what he learned that night, including what the object was.
 >>He was still maintaining a degree of secrecy about what he knew.
 >>Another police officer who was at City Hall at that time, has
 >>confidentially confirmed the story to me.

Notice the internal inconsistencies in these two stories. In
one, the deceased Metz tells a colleague and long time friend in
the State Police that he was sworn to secrecy and can't talk
about it, in the second story he gives out all of the details
around a water cooler. Details which were in the Unsolved
Mysteries program. Why don't these two mutually inconsistent
stories send up a red flag? Because all stories which can be
patched together to support this fantastic tale are accepted
uncritically by here by people obviously desperate to keep the
mystery alive.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 5

                 Re: UFOS and Military Experiences - Wilson

From: Katharina Wilson <kwilson@alienjigsaw.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 10:41:36 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 12:13:00 -0500
Subject: Re: UFOS and Military Experiences - Wilson


 >From: Antonio_Gomez-Orodea@discovery.com
 >Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 16:40:49 -0500
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: UFOs & Mexico/US Military Experiences

 >[Non-Subscriber Post]

Hi Guys,

 >Do you know if there have ever been any documented UFOs
 >encounters with any kind of military forces in Mexico and/or the
 >US? If so, could you tell me when and how important these
 >encounters were?

 >I am collecting information about these specific UFO/Military
 >encounters and I would greatly appreciate your help.


Dear Antonio and List:

There is a short write-up of a military / possible ET experience
at:

http://www.alienjigsaw.com/Part_III/EddieMelvin2.html

for anyone interested in military encounters with UFOs.


Katharina Wilson








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 5

                         Re: AA Film Redux - Morris

From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 16:15:42 +0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 12:14:54 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Morris


 >Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 17:03:08 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: AA Film Redux
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >>Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 14:33:12 +0000
 >>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Morris
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 09:09:32 -0600
 >>>From: Roger <raka@swbell.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Previously, I had written:

 >>>Regarding "The Memphis Bell", you are really
 >>>comparing apples to oranges. I have never said that hand held
 >>>documentary footage shot on 16mm did not exist. Obviously, "The
 >>>Memphis Bell" was shot in field conditions, therefore, the
 >>>quality would be dictated by those conditions. I feel that
 >>>because AA was shot in the United States, with all the resources
 >>>available, and because of the importance of the event, greater
 >>>care would have been taken in its documentation and the image
 >>>quality would have been better. As a result, "field conditions"
 >>>would not have been in effect, in my opinion.

 >Neil replied:

 >>You are saying that the conditions in which we are lead to
 >>believe the footage was shot were quite "normal" and everyday?.

 ><snip>

 >>Far from it Roger, Trinity Site was on highly restricted
 >>territory, you could treat it like a "closed" film set. Our
 >>cameraman's event we are told, took place out in open publicly
 >>accessible land not too many miles from a large town (Socorro
 >>NM), how do you handle it without the locals starting bus tours
 >>to the site for a looksee. You set up an operation to get it out
 >>of there as _speedily_ and as _covertly_ as was possible. These
 >>_were_ exactly combat like "field conditions", the "opposition"
 >>being in this case the US general population.

 >Hi, Neil!

 >I give up. You keep speaking about the conditions seen in AA as
 >if they have already been validated. The simple truth is that
 >they have not.

Roger,

The simple truth is there _are_ witnesses who confirm
"something" crashed to ground in the area identified by the
cameraman in the early hours of May 31st 1947.

 >Regarding the time it would take to improve the
 >conditions seen in AA, you wrote:

 >>They weren't out in the middle of White Sands remember, they
 >>would not have had the luxury of time, the longer "it" was out
 >>there the more chance there was knowledge of "it"'s presence
 >>would get out.

 >Simply not true. In fact, if anything, the sooner that the body
 >was brought to a secure facility where it could be accurately
 >studied in a more leisurly manner, the sooner it would be less
 >of a security risk. You seem to take the opposite position that
 >doing the autopsy in the field would somehow lower the security
 >risk involved. The lack of logic in this is pretty obvious, if
 >you stop to think about it. I suppose a soldier in the trenches
 >is at less of a risk for a bullet than one that works at a desk
 >job, too. Let's face it, being inside a secure building is far
 >more controlled than being in the field. And, ultimately, the
 >body would have to be moved inside at some point, anyway. Why
 >not wait until then? Why the hurry? It simply makes no sense.
 >Just because what you see in AA looks uncontrolled does not
 >validate the image or the conditions suggested.

You're forgetting the perceived biological hazard as identified
in the footage and the specialised facilities these precautions
would require.

What's the greatest threat to mankind of an alien encounter??.

An alien strain of virus or other biological nasty to which _we_
have no known immune response and would therefore create a
global pandemic, "they" wouldn't need death ray's on the White
House lawn, it would be H.G. Well's War of the World but in
reverse, _we_ would be the one's dropping like flies at the end
of the book.

Look at the lengths NASA went to, to isolate the returned moon
rocks until they were completely sure they were "dead". This
will have to be taken to even greater lengths when samples are
returned from Mars where it's now thought life might have
evolved and could still be dormant.

 >Look, I've made my position clear at least a half a dozen times.
 >I don't think that there is anything else to talk about until
 >I've reviewed your footage, which I assume will arrive shortly.

 >Until then, take care.


You have indeed Roger, until then.

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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 5

                Now Available: UFO Update: LIVE! 2001 Special

From: Kenny Young <ufo@fuse.net>
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 12:38:46 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 12:16:25 -0500
Subject: Now Available: UFO Update: LIVE! 2001 Special


The recent UFO UPDATE: LIVE! 2001 special of January 29, 2001
produced by Bob Leibold of Natural Light Productions, seen in
Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky, is now available on videotape.

Hosted by Terry Endres, this 1-hour program features
investigators Ron Schaffner and Kenny Young discussing recent UFO
sightings and news, plus an update on the mysterious Bigfoot
recordings from Ohio.

Guest appearances on the program are made by researchers Budd
Hopkins, Bruce Macabbee, Stanton Friedman and others interviewed
at the Lima, Ohio UFO Symposium 2000.

If you are interested in obtaining a copy of this program for
$15.00 [this cost is strictly for duplication and postal
expenses], please contact:

NATURAL LIGHT PRODUCTIONS
3962 Farrell Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45211
USA

Or send email to: leib@wans.net  for additional information.

A banner for the show can be seen at:

http://home.fuse.net/ufo/ufoupdate_2001.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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 5

                         Conspiracy Writing Contest

From: Wendy Christensen <christensen@catlas.mv.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 15:24:22 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 12:22:06 -0500
Subject: Conspiracy Writing Contest

This might be of interest to those on the List with a literary
bent...

INSCRIPTIONS CONSPIRACY CONTEST

Turn on The X-Files. Hop on the Net. Or gather with other
paranoid friends and conspiracies will abound. The truth is out
there, and it's up to you to enlighten the rest of us.

How? First, choose your favorite strange phenomenon. It could be
alien abductions, crying religious artifacts, werewolves,
anything that is strange, fantastical and just barely possible.
Then, pretend to be an investigative journalist breaking the
story of the century. Write an article using the inverted
pyramid journalistic style (Who, What, When, Where, Why, How,
then followed with facts and quotes) to support your
conspiracy-solving theory. Make us believe you.

There is no fee to enter the Conspiracy Contest at:

http://www.inscriptionsmagazine.com/Conspiracy.html

Entries must be written in English, however, the writer can live
anywhere in the world. All entries should be less than 1,000
words.

Paste your entry directly into the body of an e-mail and send to
Contest@inscriptionsmagazine.com with the subject heading
"Conspiracy Contest." At the top, offer the name of the
phenomenon and your article's headline. Paste in your article,
then at the end, include your real name, pen name (if
applicable), mailing address and e-mail address. Enter as often
as you like.

Entries that do not follow these guidelines will be
disqualified. Each entry will be acknowledged, once received by
the Inscriptions staff.

PRIZE:

1st place -- $75 gift certificate from Amazon.Com (or cash
equivalent) and publication in Inscriptions.

We only ask for one-time electronic rights for the winning
entries. Reprints are welcome. Deadline for all entries is Feb.
23, 2001. Winners will be announced in the March 12th issue of
Inscriptions.

Inscriptions is a weekly e-zine for professional writers
Web at:

http://www.inscriptionsmagazine.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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 5

                       UFO Sightings OZ File 4.2.2001

From: Diane Harrison Director AUFORN <tkbnetw@powerup.com.au>
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 08:38:27 +1100
Fwd Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 12:25:12 -0500
Subject: UFO Sightings OZ File 4.2.2001


UFO Sightings OZ File 7th.02.2001
Keeping you all up to date
________________________________________________

Folllow up Charmaine Ballam - Sth Aust. Director - AUFORN
1800 Callin Code: 001077 24.12.2000

Date: 24/12/2000
Day: Monday
Time Reported: 11:56pm
Location: Adelaide
Reportee: Martin
Report given to nearest rep: Charmaine
Tel: 08 8260 3717

Message:
5 lights seen in the northern sky over Adelaide Metro area

Objects: 5 star like lights
Colour: Red
Sound: Nil
Duration: 10 mins
Direction: travelling North towards One Tree Hill
Witnesses: Martin, his wife and children
Suburb of sighting: Pooraka

Report:---

Martin and his wife had just arrived home at 10.30pm after doing
Xmas shopping.

As he was getting the gifts out of the boot of his car, he heard
fireworks going off, so he looked towards where he had heard the
sound, to see if he could see them. That is when Martin saw the
5 red star like lights close to the horizon.

He states that 4 of them were making an irregular 'box
formation' with the 5th one just offside. He called out to his
wife to bring his binoculars. He looked through them and they
appeared to be like small bright dots, his wife also had a look
and confirmed what he saw.

Whilst his wife was looking through the binoculars he ran inside
to ring his sister who lived closed by to bring her video camera
over and also to see if she could see anything in the night sky.
He also called a few friends who lived close by to see if they
saw anything.

During the time of him running backwards and forwards to the
phone, to the front yard outside, his wife, who had been looking
all that time through the binoculars said that she had seen the
5 star like lights move about in 2 formations as they were
slowly moving away.

One of the formations was a ' V ' or triangle shape but laid
down on its side and then the next formation they made was like
an inverted ' C '.

Martin's wife has drawn the patterns and he asked if I would
like a copy of them, to which I replied "YES".

[Note: I am still waiting for them in the post, but I think this
could be also due to the fact, that apart from contacting AUFORN
re: the UFO Hotline, he had also contacted Colin Norris, and
Colin had also requested a copy of the drawings.]

~~~ End Report ~~~
Charmaine Ballam
Sth Australian Director -
Australian UFO Research Network
http://www.powerup.com.au/~tkbnetw

<><><><><><><<<<>>>><><><><><>

Folllow up Charmaine Ballam - Sth Aust. Director - AUFORN

1800 Callin Code: 000993--07/11/2000 SA and 1800 Callin
Code: 001010--14.11.2000 SA
[same person both times]

Time of sighting: between 9.30pm - 10.00pm [approx]
Reportee: Peter S.
Report given to nearest rep: Charmaine Ballam

Shape: Round
Size: approx 1 and half times size of a baseball
Objects: Two
Colour: Orange
Sound: NIL
Duration: 7 - 10 mins
Weather conditions: clear night sky - wind from SW
Direction: travelling East from Kingscote, Kangaroo Island
towards Adelaide
Witnesses: Peter S. [age 56], his wife [age 46] and 2
unnamed witnesses

Report

Peter and his wife were out on the Kingscote Jetty fishing.
There was also a couple 50 metres further down the jetty also
fishing.

Peter looked up into the night sky [there had been a brief
shower early, but the sky had cleared by the time of the
sighting] and then noticed 2 large orange coloured round lights
in the sky. They were approx 3,000 to 4,000 feet high. One was
travelling approx 1-2 km in front of the second one, but both
were travelling on the same course in the same direction eg: [ 0
<-----1/2km-----> 0 ] and both were heading towards Adelaide.

Peter called out to his wife to look up as well, she also
witnessed the 2 orange lights. They both agreed that these
lights were 'unusual' and didnt look like any type of plane. In
fact both stated they had 'never seen anything like this before
in their lives'. Peter then grabbed the binoculars that were in
his fishing kit to get a better look, he confirmed that they
both were 'orange colour and round in shape' and that is when he
clearly saw that they were travelling one behind the other in a
straight line formation.

The other thing that both Peter and his wife noticed, was there
was no 'noise/sound of any sort'. When I asked him what he meant
by that, he said: "Well if it was a plane, Cessna/Jet etc you
would hear something, they were that big and fairly close, but
we heard nothing, absolutely nothing!" I then asked if he or his
wife noticed any other 'cessation of noise' around them, he said
he couldnt remember that, as he and his wife were concentrating
on what was happening above them.

As they continued to watch the 2 lights fly over them and
onwards towards Adelaide, Peter said that just before they hit
the horizon [approx 50kms away], he noticed that the 2nd light
sped up, joined the first light, then diverted to the left,
before both of them disappeared.

Peter then went over the the other couple who were also on the
jetty fishing and said "Did you see that?" They replied "Yes,
what was it?" They all spoke about it for a few minutes, before
Peter and his wife left. The following day, Peter went around
Kingscote township, asking "did anyone see or report some
strange lights in the sky last night??", he asked at the local
police station, shops, local people. He was amazed that no one
had seen anything, that no fishing boats, that he knew were out,
as he could see their lights on the water the night before,
hadnt reportedm anything.

During my interview with him, Peter kept on 'Stressing' that
both him and his wife "Had NEVER seen anything like this before
in their lives!" Peter then also came right out and asked me
"What was it ??" . I told him, that I could not answer his
questions right off, as I would need to do some checking around,
eg: Aldinga airport, but he then again 'stressed'... "It WASNT a
plane! ...it just WASNT"! ..... "I know what planes look
like/sound like etc, and so does my wife! "

Peter said that this had caused a bit of stress/anxiety for both
of them. "In fact, he continued, "Both of us were total
disbelieves of anything we read/heard about UFO's, but now after
this event, we dont know what to believe/think anymore".

Peter then asked me what else have people seen in the night sky
over Adelaide recently, and I told him about some of the follow
ups I had done over the previous 5 months. He seem to relax a
bit more after I had spoken to him about those, and again said
"I just dont know anymore, this has really shaken me and my wife
up, we were adamant disbelieves before now".

~~ End Report ~~
Charmaine Ballam
Sth Australian Director - Australian UFO Research Network
http://www.powerup.com.au/~tkbnetw

<><><><><><><<<<>>>><><><><><>

Follow up Rita Robb AUFORN Northern Brisbane QLD

1800 Callin Code: 001121 12.01.01 QLD

Date: 12.01.01
Day: Friday
Time Reported: 9.39pm
Location: Caboolture Qld
Reportee: Kim
Report given to nearest rep: Rita
Tel: 0419

Report as follows:

Time of Observation:
8.45pm - 9.00 pm
Duration:
Light was followed for 10 mins, watched (stationary) for 5 mins +
Position and Location:
First noticed while travelling between Caboolture and Bellmere,
via car. Stopped car past Bellmere to watch carefully.
Appearance: 1 bright light, yellowish in colour, 10 x brighter
than surrounding stars.

Behaviour:
maintained same height and travelled steadily in one direction -
heading past Bellmere, height was roughly the same used by light
aircraft flight path and close to same speed. while caller was
stationary, object was observed (gum tree used as guide) and
seen move behind the leaves of the said tree, light changed
direction and began to head back towards Caboolture. Caller used
mobile 5 mins, light appeared stationary in this time frame.
Caller lost sight of light during return trip to Caboolture and
was not visible when returned to the area within the hour.

There was no sound associated with the sighting.

Surrounding area was rural.

Caller states her brother witnessed a similar event approx 3
weeks (on the Wednesday) prior at around the same time.

Caller logically rationalised all aspects of the sighting,
discounting satellite, meteor or 'shooting star' and venus. She
considers it may have been a light plane, although it is
slightly off the normal path for the area.

End of Report

Regards

Rita Robb AUFORN Northern Brisbane QLD
http://www.powerup.com.au/~tkbnetw

<><><><><><><<<<>>>><><><><><>

Folllow up Charmaine Ballam - Sth Aust. Director - AUFORN

1800 Callin Code: 001149 26.01.2001 SA

Date: 26.01.2001
Day: Thursday
Time Reported: 12.20am
Location: SA
Reportee: Anna,
Other Witnesses: William [husband], Danniella/Romeo [friends]
Suburb: Holden Hill North [Modbury area]
Description of Object: Bright Orange Orb/ball

Report given to State Director: Charmaine Ballam

REPORT:---

Anna with her husband William and friends Daniella and Romeo,
were all sittingoutside Thursday night skywatching due to the
warm weather. During the couple of hours that they were outside,
they had searched and found planets, satellites and a shooting
star.

Anna was the first person to spot this 'unusual light' in the
sky. As she sat and watched it, it grew bigger, she then
mentioned to her husband/friends "Hey take a look at that"! Her
husband and friends then started to say, "Oh that could
be....planet/satellite/plane etc" [Parafield Airport is not far
from where Anna lives] but Anna, said: " No No! its not that,
look at what's it doing"!

I asked Anna to describe what she and the others saw.

Anna: It was a bright Orange orb, it would be bright then dim,
bright then dim, it kept on doing that over and over again.

Charmaine: So, like a 'pulsing effect'? Whilst you where
watching it, was it travelling?

Anna: Yes, it was travelling slowly towards the North, all the
time it was dimming then brightening. I also noticed that as it
travelled, it kept on slowly dropping lower in the sky.

Charmaine: How long did you and the others observe it?

Anna: We all observed it for approx 15 mins, when this amazing
thing happened... it, did a 'Nose Dive' and disappeared! But
that is not all!

Charmaine: Please go on.

Anna: Well of course once it disappeared we all sat around
talking about it, going again through all the possibilities it
could have been, but we still could not make ourselves believe
it was a plane/planet/satellite and so forth. Then approx 10
mins later it was BACK! It just appeared in EXACTLY the same
position I first saw it! and again it was doing that pulsating
thing, dimming/brightening. Also, this time it was travelling in
the reverse direction, North to South, where before when I first
spotted it, it was travelling North. Another strange thing as
well, this time it zipped acrossed the sky, then stopped,
hovered, zipped back to where it was first, stopped then
hovered, then started to slowly cross the sky travelling South,
then like the first time, it just did a 'nose dive' and
disappeared!

Charmaine: So in total how long did you sight this object ?

Anna: I would say approx 30 mins in total.

Charmaine: During all of this, did it ever stop 'pulsing'...
dimming/brightening?

Anna: NO..it kept that up all the time, that is what caught my
eye in the beginning, how it looked like a star or planet, the
fact how it was such a bright, 'extremely' brilliant orange in
colour and how it would dim, then brighten etc.

Anna: After I had phoned your Hotline, I also called the
Parafield Airport, but since it was closed, the call was
diverted to Adelaide Airport. The person I spoke to was
'unhelpful' to say the least.

Charmaine: Did you hear any sound, how far up in the sky do you
think it was and how big ?

Anna: No, we didnt hear any sound from it, it was quite high up
in the sky, as like I said before, I first thought it was a star
or planet.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I asked a couple more questions, such as had they been drinking
whilst sitting outside skywatching, to which Anna said, NO, only
coffee. I thanked Anna for her report. She then asked me had
there been any other reports of something in the sky that night,
to which I replied as far as I know 'No'. Anna also told me
that she and her husband do quite a bit of skywatching and that
if she ever saw anything again, she would again contact us.

~~End Report~~
Charmaine Ballam
Sth Australian Director - AUFORN
[Australian UFO Research Network]
http://www.powerup.com.au/~tkbnetw

<><><><><><><<<<>>>><><><><><>

Folllow up Charmaine Ballam - Sth Aust. Director - AUFORN

1800 Callin Code: 001165 28.01.2001
Date: 28.01.2001
Day: Sunday
Time Reported: 7.40pm
Location: South Australia
Reportee: Douglas O'Reilly
Report given to nearest State Director: Charmaine Ballam

REPORT:

Date: 20.01.2001
Day: Saturday
Time: 3.00am
Witnesses: Douglas, his son and his daughter-in-law
Description of Object: White Star/Blue Cylinder
Location: Travelling between Waikerie and Bamera [country SA]

Douglas, his son and his daughter-in-law were travelling from
Edwardstown, a suburbof Adelaide, up to the Rodeo at Berri.Due
to car trouble they had ended up starting out late for their
trip, that is whythey were on the road at such an early hour of
the morning.

Just passing Waikerie and approx half way to Bamera, Douglas
spotted what heoriginally thought to be a 'falling star'.  But
then adds, " This was NO normal 'falling star'". Douglas at the
time, was driving approx 80 - 100 km along the road and stated
that during the time of the sighting, 2 - 3 mins, the object was
always in front of the car.

The sky that night clear with only half a moon and the
surrounding countryside was dark, when Douglas spotted the
'falling star'. He noticed that it was dropping too slowly for
normal and as it was dropping, it was getting bigger and
brighter.

The 'star' shaped object just stopped and then changed in colour
to a 'beautiful blue', its shape also changed from 'star' shape
to a 'cylindrical' shape with blue sparks coming out of the end
of it.

Once it had completely stopped moving, Douglas states that all
of sudden the whole country side was lit up with a brilliant
white light! He and his passengers could clearly see trees,
houses and stock in the paddocks! Then as soon as it had
completed its colour/shape change, the light went out, it was
pitch black again and it just disappeared.

Upon arrival at the Rodeo in Berri, Douglas asked around if
anyone else had seen anything on their way there. Some people
said "Oh yes, I think we saw a comet" . To which Douglas replied
" This was NO comet I saw"!

Douglas also said that during the time of the sighting, he and
his son/daughter-in-law where not scared, just amazed at what
they had seen.

~~End Report~~

Charmaine Ballam
Sth Australian Director - AUFORN
[Australian UFO Research Network]
http://www.powerup.com.au/~tkbnetw

Folllow up 1800 Callin Code: 001150 26/01/2001

Date: 26/01/2001
Day: Friday
Time Reported: 3.08 p.m.
Location: Sunshine Coast
Reportee: Santi
Witness: Partner
Report given to nearest rep: Emma
Tel: 075542
Height: As high as a plane


Message: Object stationary for 20 minutes then disappeared.

Report

Santi and her husband live near Montville at the Sunshine Coast.
Whilst sitting outside at lunchtime on a mattress feeding her
baby Santi observed a bright star-like object in the sky. She
observed the object to be the same colour as a star but much
brighter and assumed it was a plane. The object appeared
stationery and appeared to flash for approx. 10 minutes and then
after a further 30 minutes vanished. Santi wasn't sure if it was
a satelite but didn't think it was a plane etc.

Santi, her husband and friends have witnessed many strange
objects around the Beerwah/Glasshouse Mountain areas including a
fluorescent green orb descending rapidly at a 45 degree angle
and believe that a lot of activity happens around the Glasshouse
Mountains.

Regards

Emma AUFORN Western Brisbane QLD
http://www.powerup.com.au/~tkbnetw

<><><><><><><<<<>>>><><><><><>
All our OZ investigators do these reports
on their own time and non get paid.

Happy 2001

--

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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 5

                 Hector Quintanilla's Unpublished Manuscript

From: Colm Kelleher <nids@anv.net>
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 17:21:17 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 12:27:27 -0500
Subject: Hector Quintanilla's Unpublished Manuscript


NIDS publishes previously unpublished manuscript by Project Blue
Book s Lt. Col. Hector Quintanilla.


For the first time NIDS is electronically publishing a book
manuscript written in 1975 by Lt. Col. Hector Quintanilla, the
head of the USAF Project Blue Book. Project Blue Book was
supposed to be an objective investigation and documentation of
the UFO phenomenon carried out by the United States Air Force
from March 1952 until December 1969.

NIDS s purpose in making available this previously unpublished
manuscript is twofold: (a) to demonstrate to the interested
public, through the authors own unedited words, Lt. Col.
Quintanilla s attitudes, preconceptions and biases that
dominated Project Blue Book and (b) to make available to
historians and to the public the methodology and practices
employed by the United States Air Force in investigating and
cataloging the UFO phenomenon.


The manuscript covers the years of Quintanilla s own involvement
from July 1963-December1969 in Project Blue Book and also
contains many valuable insights into the public and media
reaction to the USAF funded study, from the perspective of the
author. In particular, Lt. Col. Quintanilla s descriptions of
University of Arizona professor James A McDonald s pursuit of
the UFO phenomena as well as Dr. J. Allen Hynek s relationship
with project Blue Book are annotated for the public record in
considerable, colorful and sometimes jaundiced detail.

The complete book, which is copyrighted to Karl Quintanilla, can
be found on the NIDS web site at: http://www.nidsci.org.  A
separate forward to the book, written by Alex Chionetti and J.
Antonio Huneeus will be added when it is received.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 5

                      Attack Of The Green Space Fungus!

From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 20:41:58 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
Fwd Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 12:30:12 -0500
Subject: Attack Of The Green Space Fungus!


Hi Everyone,

Jeff Rense has many very interesting, and sometimes disturbing,
articles in his Sightings web site which I try to check out
every day. I consider one such article (see URL below) to be
about an alien invasion of organisms from space aboard one of
our own spacecraft!

www.sightings.com/general8/mir.htm

According to this article, a strange green space fungus has
overrun the MIR space station. It seems to thrive in the vacuum
and intense radiation of space. Will the new multibillion dollar
space station Alpha soon suffer the same fate as MIR?

What really worries me is that if some of this green space
fungus survives the firey re-entry of the MIR space station, it
could continue to vigourously consume metal, plastic and glass
here on Earth, especially since it seems to be immune to Russian
vodka and other powerful fungicides. Do we really know the
potential dangers posed by this extraterrestrial fungus?

If this green space fungus is indigenous space life, maybe we
should also seriously consider the ethics of destroying this it
and its habitat for the same reasons the late Dr. Robert Haynes,
a York University expert on terraforming planets, gave for the
protection of the indigenous life on Mars.

If it was up to me, I would send MIR into orbit around the Moon.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 5

                          Filer's Files #6 -- 2001

From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 22:15:44 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 12:33:10 -0500
Subject: Filer's Files #6 -- 2001

Filer's Files #6 -- 2001, MUFON Skywatch Investigations
George A. Filer, Director, Mutual UFO Network Eastern
February 5, 2001, Sponsored by Electronic Arts; Majorstar@aol.com.
Webmaster Chuck Warren http://www.filersfiles.com,

INCREASED UFO SIGHTINGS include: a Maine cigar, New Jersey
lights, a Virginia disc, South Carolina Cigar, Ohio, Indiana
Flying Triangle, Illinois three Flying Triangles, Arkansas
Flying Triangle, California invisible craft and 19 UFOs in
United Kingdom. New images from Mars indicate artificiality and
intelligence at Cydonia. Commander Bethune's UFO photograph
controversy.

MAINE RED CIGAR SHAPED OBJECT IN SKY

WALDOBORO -- I was driving southbound on Route 1 at 4:30 PM,
when I noticed a bright object in the sky straight ahead on
January 10, 2001. I watched the object until returning to the
farm where I drive a delivery truck. When I returned to the
farm I told my bosses girlfriend to take a look at it. Her
daughter and she and I looked at it out the back window. We got
a pair of binoculars to try to get a better view of it as we
could not tell what it was. On closer examination with the
binoculars we still had no idea. It was red like it was on fire
and a cigar shape to it. We did not see any blinking lights or
anything that made it look like a plane. I thought it may be a
plane with the sun setting reflecting off of it. The object was
traveling horizontally in the southwest direction. Thanks to
Peter Davenport, Director NUFORC www.nuforc.com.

NEW JERSEY BRIGHT LIGHTS

BAYONNE -- On the night of January 21, 2001, I was on the Staten
Island Ferry to Manhattan. From the window I noticed a bright,
white light low in the sky over New Jersey. I went to the rear
deck of the boat to get a better look. It appeared to be
brighter than any planet I've ever seen in the night sky, and
too low on the horizon to be a planet of such brightness. I got
to the Manhattan side, and noticed the light had moved north and
was now somewhere near Newark. It then changed in color to
bright red, pulsed periodically, and moved Westward eventually
fading. I returned the next night, at the same time, to the
same vantage point at Battery Park. It was clear it was not any
planet, as there was nothing in that part of the sky and at the
time and the weather was quite clear. Thanks to MUFON WORLDWIDE
UFO DATABASE http://www.mufon.com/

VIRGINIA SILVER DISK

HALIFAX --Tom Ginther, VA MUFON reports that Susann and her
engineer friend were driving back from getting hay for her
horses on January 21, 2001. They were driving south on Red Bank
Road towards Virgilina when they saw a silver disk shaped object
moving north towards them. It was approximately 5,000 feet
high, they at first thought it may be a jet, but there was no
contrails, it was a clear blue sky day. They saw it moving
north for about three seconds then it Vanished it appeared to be
moving faster than a jet. They said if the sun would not have
shined off of it they would not have seen it. Thanks to Tom
Ginther

NORTH CAROLINA MYSTERIOUS BOOMING NOISES

Bruce Maccabee writes, "I have comments on your NORTH CAROLINA
report in Filer's Files #5 regarding "the mysterious booming
noises that have shaken the Cape Fear coast from time to time
returned last week. The National Earthquake Information Center
in Boulder, Colo., detected no major earth movement in the area.
Modern theories include that the booms are caused by jets
breaking the sound barrier, the shifting of the continental
shelf, or a volume of air suddenly becoming hotter than the air
surrounding it and exploding like a balloon." I have difficulty
in imagining the third suggested explanation: air being heated
rapidly in some volume and then exploding. A shock wave or
sonic boom requires that at the source of the sound the air be
traveling faster than the speed of sound (shock wave means
faster than low level sound). This requires that a considerable
amount of energy be placed into the air to make a volume of it
move rapidly. This can happen as a result of an explosion
caused by chemicals very suddenly getting hot and pushing the
air away as gases from the very rapidly burning chemicals,
expand.

However, for a volume of air to become suddenly hotter than
surrounding air, without the presence of a chemical (or nuclear)
explosion would be impossible except under certain conditions: a
lightning bolt passes through, creating a plasma which absorbs
electrical energy and very rapidly heats the air around it
(creating thunder) or there is a sudden concentration of
electromagnetic radiation (light, "heat" rays, electromagnetic
radiation in any case) such as when a powerful laser beam is
focused into a small volume of air (causing heating by
absorption of radiation by ions in the air). Assuming the above
suggested explanation was not intended to mean thunder created
by lightning, then very rapid heating of a small volume of air
through radiation absorption would be as close as possible to
the suggested explanation above: "a volume of air suddenly
becoming hotter than the air surrounding it and exploding like a
balloon." So far as I know this would be a non-natural
occurrence (fortunately). (I assume that the above explanation
was not intended to refer to thunder from lightning.)

Jon Persinger writes regarding this possible Seismic activity:
Hasn't this activity also been reported when the Aurora flies
over? It seems quite possible that classified hypersonic
aircraft may be causing this too. Thanks to Jon Persinger
jon_persinger@yahoo.com

SOUTH CAROLINA CIGAR SHAPED UFO

ANDERSON -- Bruce Maccabee writes regarding the January 4, 2001,
sighting of a white large object without wings moving very
slowly toward the northwest. The object was white, not a light,
nor silver, nor reflecting sunlight. It moving very slowly.
Eventually it went behind the view to the cirrus clouds.  As a
pilot I am familiar with judging altitude, etc., and this was
above 30,000 feet. The object was over an inch as measured with
my hand in front of my eyes.  Maccabee writes: that an inch at 3
feet arm's length corresponds (by similar triangles) to 10,000
inches at 30,000 feet. But 10,000 inches is about 830 feet.
Evidently this was an object of "some size"! Thanks to Dr. Bruce
Maccabbee

INDIANA FLYING TRIANGLE

BLOOMINGTON -- I saw a very unusual dark aircraft on my way home
from work in the evening on January 4, 2001.  From a distance,
driving east on Indiana 45, I saw a bright yellow light with a
white light, not as bright, next to it on the same craft
hovering in the sky. There were tiny red lights on top, none on
the belly. As I rounded a bend between Bloomington and New
Unionville, Indiana I saw that the craft was about 50 feet above
treetop and crossing the road right to left, directly overhead.
I pulled off to watch and noticed other vehicles behind me had
also done so. There was no noise - I rolled down my window to
listen - nothing. As the craft passed over my car, I got a good
look at it against 'night sky light pollution' from Bloomington
- it was triangle-shaped, with a white light in each of the
three wing tips and appeared to be black in color. A mile or so
down the road, the snow looked blown across the road like
drifting. The rest of the roadway was clear. I thought copter at
first, until I saw the thing. Not like any I had ever seen. It
seemed like when motorists had pulled off to watch it flew away
to the west. Thanks to MUFON WORLDWIDE UFO DATABASE
http://www.mufon.com/

OHIO UFO SPOTTED FROM CONTINENTAL FLIGHT #1298

CLEVELAND -- Michigan MUFON reports, "On January 27, 2001, a 60
yr. old retired firefighter, paramedic, fire inspector was on
Continental flight #1298 from Denver to Cleveland, talking to
her seatmate by the window. The pilot had just stated that we
would be at our gate at 7:25 PM. As we looked out, my seatmate
asked if she was looking at the Lake Erie Shoreline less than 5
miles out on the lake. I responded, yes. As we approached the
shoreline at 7:15 PM. I remarked excitedly, "Oh look, a falling
star." My seatmate said, yes, it does look like one. It was such
a bright light with rays of light on the outside of the  round
central portion of the light, or it might be a plane going down
nearby. I then said, it can't be, because it is going back up.
It then went in a perfectly straight line North, parallel to us,
turned sharply upward and disappeared.  The speed with which
this all happened was really surprising. The man behind me said
at the same time I did, No, it can't be a falling star, because
it made a sudden  horseshoe turn upward for a couple hundred
feet, then abruptly made a sharp right hand turn, flew perfectly
straight for several hundred feet, made another sharp turn
straight upward and promptly disappeared. All three of us were
totally baffled. We did not see a shape or object, just a very
large, very bright light. The woman beside me was a 45 year old
teacher from Denver. Thanks to Michigan MUFON.Todd Lemire
http://mimufon.org Michigan UFO CENTRAL


OHIO TV DOCUMENTARY NOW SLATED FOR PRODUCTION

Video production is now underway for an important television
documentary entitled "Flying Saucer Crashes." Cincinnati-based
Television producer Bob Leibold of Natural Light Productions,
working with researcher Kenny Young has compiled a provocative
database of UFO crash-cases that have been previously lost to
history. Leibold states: "This one-hour program will explore
historical cases of reported UFO crashes from the mid-to-late
1800s. While many have heard of the alleged Roswell 1947
incident, very few are aware of similar crashes before 1947, in
some instances almost 100-years before. We are going to explore
these incredible events. Thanks to Kenny Young U F O  R e s e a
r c h http://home.fuse.net/ufo

ILLINOIS THREE FLYING TRIANGLES NEAR ROCKFORD

MACHESNEY PARK -- On January 2, 2001, the witness reports seeing
three high intensity lights two miles away. They were too high
to be street lights and too low to be an airplane. A Flying
Triangle was observed with a white light on each point, with an
elongated rectangle shaped red light on the back center almost
covering half of object. The object was hovering over the area
and moved slowly in a southeastern direction. I was traveling in
the same direction as the object and could see it was dark in
color, and the lights were intense. I turned west and traveled
about a mile and saw a #2 traveling in a southwestern direction
with the same intense lighting, at the same height in sky. I
then turned north and #3 came out above my sub division slowly
and hovered over Machesney Mall which was right next to me. I
stopped and watched for a couple minutes and proceeded around
the corner to my home. Watching from my drive I could see the
object slowly moving south. All three objects looked identical,
but I could not see any detail on them. Their noise was like a
loud steady hum like from a huge electric motor. Thanks to Peter
Davenport NUFORC www.ufocenter.com

Editor's Note: In January of 2000, several policeman observed a
Flying Triangle in Southern Illinois. A sighting of three Flying
Triangles is rather remarkable. They are described as the size
of a 747 or larger than a football field. It would seem more
likely that these are secret craft than visitors from other
worlds.

ARKANSAS - FLYING TRIANGLE SHAPED CRAFT ON THE RIVER

PONCA -- January 2, 2001, I was backpacking way down in the
Buffalo River basin with a friend, and we set up camp, and went
to sleep early. I woke up at about 11:00 PM to go the bathroom,
and I witnessed a very shocking sigh. A triangle shaped craft
flew over about 500 feet high with lights at the corners and a
bright light shining from the center. I estimated it to be about
as large as a big jet airliner and the strange thing was it was
completely silent. The light in the center seemed to be
searching for something, and I screamed at it defiantly! It
shined the light on me, then suddenly went dark and bolted into
the sky at an extremely high rate of speed. I tried waking up my
friend, but he didn't seem to believe me. As I climbed back into
my bag, the only comfort that I had was that at least I wasn't
alone in this valley, and we weren't alone in the universe?
Needless to say I didn't sleep and it has bothered me ever
since. Thanks to Peter Davenport NUFORC www.ufocenter.com

CALIFORNIA INVISIBLE AIRCRAFT CREATES VAPOR TRAIL

RODEO -- On January 6, 2001, MUFON member Jim Filippi reports,
"I saw a vapor trail in the east as I have many times. This time
the trails appeared very high and were very visible, but I could
not see the plane. I watch these planes all the time and this
time I just could not see the plane at all. It was invisible. I
called my girl friend out to see if she could see the plane and
she could not either. I got my binoculars and still no plane,
just the vapor trails coming from nothing visible. The sky was
very clear and bright 11:00 AM. Then as I was watching the
trails the jet suddenly appeared. It was a large 4 engine jet,
clear as a bell and off it went. Has anyone had any similar
experiences or are we just going crazy here. I am a helicopter
pilot and know for a fact that this was a very strange
occurrence. Thanks to Jim Filippi jimflippy@aol.com

Editor's Note: Atmospheric conditions could have been such as to
obscure the view of the craft. Some military aircraft have
camouflage making them more difficult to see. We can speculate
that this system may include panels similar to computer
monitors, the sky behind the craft is video- taped and the
computer monitor shows the same color as the sky, making the
craft virtually invisible

UNITED KINGDOM UFO TALLY HITS 19

THE DALES -- Over the last few months, "Mercury" readers have
reported seeing flying saucers, balls of fire and wedge-shaped
craft in the skies over the Dales and Peaks. A large triangular
UFO was seen January 17, 2001, by 44-year-old Anne Saunders who
saw a spaceship hovering over Crich." She said, 'I saw a massive
triangle in the sky. The retired local government official and
her husband studied the craft for three minutes." The triangle
was full of pulsating colored lights with a black center and
made no noise." "Then the front-end bit broke away, continued
Mrs. Saunders, and flew across the sky at tremendous speed.
Another UFO shaped like a bowler hat was seen by two people
hovering over Curbar Gap near Calver. A 46-year-old Youlgrave
man, said the object was jet black and had a diameter of 100
feet. He and a friend saw the UFO at sunset on January 6. It was
300 yards away from them and 1,000 feet high. "We watched it for
ten minutes, then it just disappeared into thin air," he said.
"It wasn't a normal aircraft -- there were no wings or an
obvious power source or jet stream. There were no lights or
portalls. It was huge. Last Friday, Bakewell woman Heather
Shuttleworth looked out of her car window over Beeley Moor at
5:40 AM. She and her husband saw two bright lights and looked
skywards through a pair of binoculars. The lights were the shape
of what flying saucers look like in documentaries. Seventeen
other sightings have been reported since September. Editor Andy
Darlington on (01629) 582432.  Published: 31.1.01 (c) Wilfred
Edmunds Newspapers Thanks to Louise A.
Lowry~http://www.worldofthestrange.com
Para-Discuss@yahoogroups.com :

MARS PHOTOS HINT AT ARTIFICIALITY AND INTELLIGENCE

Mac Tonnies reports preliminary analysis of Malin Space Science
Systems has once again provided us with a more detailed
collection of Mars Cydonia imagery. Though marred with several
telltale black strips indicating loss of spacecraft data, the
new images are fascinating. The Fort boasts a ruler-straight
defile elevated on top of a sort of flat, tapered mesa. This
straight feature is either an unprecedented fluke of geology or
else the handiwork of intelligence. The mystifying lack of
impact ejecta should have reduced this feature to rubble.
Instead, we see a precise feature apparently undamaged by the
adjacent meteor collision. Simply, there is no known
geomorphological mechanism that could have produced this
remarkable feature. The Cliff presents us with a uniquely
demanding scientific puzzle because it is architectural-looking
and constitutes compelling evidence in favor of the
Artificiality Hypothesis.

While only the extreme western portion of the Mar's Face has
been captured in the new image, the features thought to
represent an eye and pupil are clearly visible (though degraded,
as expected). Mysterious fine lines along the "headdress" are
also visible, as are the "lips" and "teardrop" identified on
previous images. The facial resemblance remains striking and
consistent with claims of artificiality. An image of the Face's
eastern half, never photographed under ideal conditions, is
necessary to accurately assess the Face's bisymmetry. Meanwhile,
the available photographs imply artificiality: the Face looks
like a massive, windblown sculpture of a humanoid head, complete
with enigmatic ornamentation. Whether this uncanny resemblance
is the result of spurious geometry or conscious design remains
unconfirmed. The Face's proximity to other anomalies, such as
the aforementioned Cliff, increase its chances of representing
what has long been suspected: hard evidence of extraterrestrial
intelligence. Other anomalous features photographed include
"Mound P" and its attendant hexagonal formation and the
"Egyptian" pyramid located on the SW City landmass. Thanks to
The Cydonian Imperative and Mac Tonnies (macbot@yahoo.com)
http://www.geocities.com/macbot/cydonia.html

COMMANDER BETHUNE'S PHOTOS OF UFOs

Randy writes there is a debate over USN Commander (ret.) Graham
E. Bethune's images that can be seen on Filer's website. I sent
you detailed information last week, having personally observed a
similar craft from only a short distance in 1981, which had been
extensively documented by researchers going back at least ten
years. Its fascinating to read the disinformation being spread
about them by supposedly dedicated "truth seekers." Note that
none of the critics have supplied any evidence whatsoever to the
contrary that they are not of a real UFO; nor will they be ever
able to. It is an instructive exercise in why so many
eyewitnesses such as myself stay clear of the limelight, and
instead choose to operate behind the scenes. Its a pit of vipers
out there. Thankfully, I have Sgt. Stone's corroboration. As I
know Commander Bethune personally. He is an elderly, dignified
former Naval officer and Southern gentleman, as well as a very
nice man who doesn't deserve the malicious slander coming from
some sources. If it gets too out of control I'll have to
seriously consider wading in, either publicly or privately, in
order to defend him. Thanks to Randy.

Editor's Note: I put Commander Bethune's photos on my web site
because they were very similar to a UFO I personally saw in
November of 1980, in Medford, New Jersey. They had spectacular
lighting effects that could not be duplicated by the normal
lights I have seen anywhere on stage or on aircraft. I'm quite
aware that a mockup copy costing tens of thousands of dollars
was built to produce a Nashville Opreeland Stage Show. Commander
Bethune has spent a great deal of time getting the plans and
evaluating the tape. The confusion occurs because photos of the
mock up have surfaced. Commander Bethune's photos and the mockup
photos are very similar, but they do not appear to be the same
object. With enough money excellent photos of UFOs can be
produced as we now regularly see in the movies. Commander
Bethune has repeatedly given me his word that his photos taken
by a close friend are real. I ask any of the doubters to come up
with photos any whereas good. Whenever excellent photos or
videos are released, certain groups often claim they are not
real. These photos were so spectacular that Commander Bethune
wanted as many people as possible to see them and put them in a
booklet. The $10 cost barely covers printing and mailing that I
have provided to those who desired them. The validity of the
photographs is at this time an irresolvable issue because so far
the photographer refuses to come forward and allow a full
investigation and duplication of the event. Anyone who wishes
their money back, please return the booklet and I will happily
refund their money. I'm aware of many similar photos that are
not released because of similar attacks. I place the photos on
my web site and offer them for sale so that those who wish to
study them may do so. Each person can make up their own mind
whether they believe the photos are real. I have spent months
attempting to investigate these photos and each step brings more
questions. Probably an interesting book could be written about
these photos. I can prove these photos are real nor can I prove
they are not an unidentified flying object.

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, NJ 08055. Both the CD and
booklet cost $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 over an
hour long tape of UFOs shot in space. Jeff spends hundreds of
hours watching the shuttle broadcasts from space and is now an
expert. Using Jeff's directions you will be able to learn the
difference between space junk, ice crystals and real UFOs. One
segment has 24 UFOs watching the shuttle from space. 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 2001 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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 6

                           UFO/ET Congress - 2001

From: Tom Benson <sparkle@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 09:51:39 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 12:53:21 -0500
Subject: UFO/ET Congress - 2001


The 12th Great UFO/ET Congress of 2001, Our Space Odyssey

The subject UFO, etc. congress will be held on March 31 &
April1, 2001 at The Days Inn, Rt. 1073 USHwy #206 near New
Jersey Turnpike Exit #7, Bordentown, New Jersey.

Confirmed speakers include Vicki Ecker, Editor-In-Chief of UFO
Magazine, in California. Her reserach is the basis for her
illustrated talk. Who really controls the American UFO scene? Is
it MJ-12 or some other clandestione group?

This presentation from little known sources outlines a strange
secret cabal that may or may not have "special access" to the
UFO situation.

Her husband, Don Ecker, Research Director for UFO Magazine will
discuss his own research of lunar anomalies.

Nancy Talbott representing the BLT (Burke-Levengood- Talbott)
Research Inc. will decribe her research examining plants and
unusual deposited substances found in crop circle formations.

Delores Cannon author of several books will dicuss the
reincarnation and past life regression topics. Some of her books
include Conversation With Spirit(1993), The Legend of Starcrash
(1994), Keepers of the Garden (1993) and Conversations with
Nostradamus, Vol I., II, III.

Advance Registration is $85.00 for both days, if sent by March
25th, otherwise 2 days pass - $90, daily pass - $50, lecture
pass - $20.

Make checks payable to

Pat J. Marcattilio,
221 Joan  Terrace,
Hamilton, N.J. 08629

Ph# 609-631-8955 between 11am - 3 pm or
Sat/Sun after 4.

Hotel rate approximately $50.00 per night, bring a friend and
share a room.

Hotel Phone#: 609-298-6100


email me at sparkle@earthlink.net

Tom Benson








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 6

                Re: TCI: New Cydonia Photos: 2-1-01 - Tonnies

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 08:22:14 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 12:56:34 -0500
Subject: Re: TCI: New Cydonia Photos: 2-1-01 - Tonnies


 >From: Asgeir W. Skavhaug <asge-s@online.no>
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: TCI: New Cydonia Photos: 2-1-01
 >Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 21:21:05 +0100

<snip>

 >It has thus finally come clear that by enhancing and
 >inverting the light and dark parts of the images, e.g.,

 >http://www.geocities.com/macbot/picassoface.gif

The "Picasso" Face rendering by JPL's T.J. Parker is a great
example of why orthorectification should _not_ be used on tall
surface formations. A quick look back to the better-known Viking
images clearly shows that the centerline in Parker's image is
crushed to the far right. This is not a feature of the Face, but
an unfortunate artifact produced by improper use of
orthorectification.

 >or

 >http://www.geocities.com/macbot/cydoniaphotos.html

 >http://www.geocities.com/macbot/kellybig.jpg

 >we are _made/manipulated_to_believe_ what we see, although
 >it's basically artist's impression we see on these images.

No artistic licenses were taken. The "missing" data on the
Face's eastern side was simply grafted from Viking data. No
one's "manipulating" you.

 >The contrast and lightness have likely been adjusted on the
 >images, including image modification, or manipulation. Extra
 >shadows are also added here.

Extra modification? I suppose _any_ image enhancement can be
viewed as "modification," but this in no way means the
enhancement isn't a scientific effort. JPL has to "enhance" all
of the data from the MOC to make it intelligible.

 >Thus - as "we all" easily can see - these are NO artificial
 >structures at all!

 >Sorry Mac....

Mark Kelly describes his enhancement (with the shadows you find
erroneous) at:

http://www.metaresearch.org

The shadows were indeed added, but not artistically. They simply
match the ones already photographed on the "Face" by Viking,
simulating what the Face would lkook like under Viking lighting
conditions.

As far as other liberties taken, Kelly is most explicit about
them. Lan Fleming provides a step-by-step indepedent analysis of
the "Kelly face" at his site:

http://www.vgl.org

Moreover, photoclinometry by Mark Carlotto bears Kelly's
rendering out quite well. Simply, I can't find any merit behind
your argument that the forensic renderings of the Face featured
on my site are in any way misleading.

=====
Mac Tonnies (macbot@yahoo.com) 816-561-0190
105 Ward Parkway #900, Kansas City, MO 64112
MTVI: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/mtvi.html
Cydonia: 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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 6

               Re: New Cydonia Photos: A Preliminary Report -

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 08:27:17 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 12:59:34 -0500
Subject: Re: New Cydonia Photos: A Preliminary Report -


 >Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 09:57:05 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Sean Liddle <gortrix@kos.net>
 >Subject: Re: New Cydonia Photos: A Preliminary
 >Report

<snip>

 >>Malin Space Science Systems has once again  provided us with an
 >>unannounced collection of Cydonia imagery. Though marred with
 >>several telltale black strips indicating loss of spacecraft
 >>data, the new images are fascinating and confirm--as well as
 >>refute--predictions made by researchers.

 >But, yet again, no direct links to the original photos from
 >Marlin or Jpl for comparison purposes.

Sean,

Please see the website for a link to the MSSS site. Sorry for
not including it on the email version.

=====
Mac Tonnies (macbot@yahoo.com) 816-561-0190
105 Ward Parkway #900, Kansas City, MO 64112
MTVI: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/mtvi.html
Cydonia: 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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 6

                         Re: AA Film Redux - Roberts

From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 17:34:37 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 16:47:16 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Roberts


 >From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 12:19:02

Ed wrote:

 >Hoaxers don't act like
 >Ray did. The only possibility for the AA to be a fraud is if Ray
 >were conned by the cameraman and I for one don't think that's a
 >possibility.

Excuse me....but how do you know Ray 'hoaxers don't act like
Ray'? You can't say that Ed, because otherwise you seem to be
implying you can distinguish hoax cases from non-hoax cases. Is
this the case? If so can you tell me which currently 'unsolved'
cases are hoaxes (esp. from the UK). Hoaxers do not have any
specific way of acting Ed. They do it for a million and one
reasons from fun to profit and all points in between.

What you really mean is you don't believe Ray is a haoxer
because you want to believe the film's authenticity. That's
fine. No-one has yet proved it to be one or the other.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 6

                          Secrecy News -- 02/06/01

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@igc.org>
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 14:06:54 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 16:47:16 -0500
Subject: Secrecy News -- 02/06/01


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
February 6, 2001

**BUSH STATEMENT ON GROOM LAKE
**NEW SPACE TECHNOLOGY GUIDE OMITS NUCLEAR POWER
**NEW YORK TIMES ON WEN HO LEE


BUSH STATEMENT ON GROOM LAKE

President George W. Bush's first published comment on national
security classification policy comes in a January 31 letter to
Congress that restates the exemption of the classified facility
at Groom Lake, Nevada from certain environmental disclosure
requirements:

"Information concerning activities at the operating location
near Groom Lake has been properly determined to be classified
and its disclosure would be harmful to national security.
Continued protection of this information is, therefore, in the
paramount interest of the United States," President Bush wrote.
See:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2001/02/wh020101.html


NEW SPACE TECHNOLOGY GUIDE OMITS NUCLEAR POWER

The Department of Defense has published a new "Space Technology
Guide" that responds to a legislative requirement "to identify
the technologies needed ... to take full advantage of use of
space for national security purposes."

The Guide covers the familiar gamut of "enabling technologies"
for national security space activities from propulsion to
communications to materials, and so forth.  With one exception.

Unlike practically every other survey of military space
technologies over the past few decades, the new Guide
conspicuously omits any mention of space nuclear power.  Space
nuclear reactors have long been on the military's wish list
because they would offer an exceptionally high power to mass
ratio in a compact, survivable form.  Just what you need to
drive your orbital weapons platform.

But for that reason, they have also been a lightning rod for
public concern and criticism.  In 1988, a proposal for a ban on
nuclear reactors in Earth orbit was developed by the Los
Angeles-based Committee to Bridge the Gap and advanced as an
arms control measure by U.S. and Russian scientists, including
the Federation of American Scientists.  Other forms of nuclear
power for civilian space exploration have also been opposed by
anti-nuclear activists.

A Pentagon spokesman did not immediately respond to a request
for an explanation of the omission of space nuclear power from
the latest planning documents.

The U.S. launched one 500 Watt space nuclear reactor in 1965.
Dozens of reactors were deployed in orbit by the former Soviet
Union between 1967 and 1988.  The last major U.S. space nuclear
reactor development program, known as the SP-100, was canceled
nearly a decade ago.

The new DoD Space Technology Guide is posted here:

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/stg.htm


NEW YORK TIMES ON WEN HO LEE

The New York Times re-reported the development and subsequent
disintegration of the Wen Ho Lee case in a two-part series that
although unusually long does not include much substantively new
information.

The Times acknowledges in passing that its initial coverage of
the case in 1999 had been the subject of criticism, but the
paper still does not seem fully cognizant of its role as a
protagonist in the aborted espionage case against the Los Alamos
scientist.

Thus, readers are told that the limited evidence of Chinese
nuclear espionage "was distorted and amplified as it bounced
from intelligence analysts to criminal investigators to elected
officials ... in the echo chamber of Washington...." To a first
approximation, however, this "echo chamber" was nothing other
than the New York Times itself, which uncritically reported and
implicitly validated the most alarmist views of the case.

On the other hand, the Times does note that publication of its
original story "upended the F.B.I.'s strategy, forcing agents to
rush into a confrontation interview with Dr. Lee before they
were ready...."

Despite its prodigious reporting and re-reporting, incidentally,
the new Times series perpetuates at least one factual error by
stating that prior to the Wen Ho Lee case, "No one had ever been
prosecuted under those [Atomic Energy Act] statutes, according
to court testimony."  This seems to be based on a statement by
FBI agent Messemer that he was unaware of any prosecutions
involving violations of the Atomic Energy Act.  But in fact, at
least one civilian was prosecuted under the Atomic Energy Act in
1965.  One military officer was court-martialed under the Act in
1959.

The two-part New York Times series on Wen Ho Lee is posted here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/04/national/04WEN-EDIT.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/05/national/05WEN-EDIT.html

Wen Ho Lee's attorneys protested unattributed remarks made to
the Washington Post about the status of the case, including a
Post story last Sunday that prosecutors were considering a
request for further interrogation of Dr. Lee.

"Not only are the leaks false," attorney Mark Holscher told the
Albuquerque Tribune, "but it is a violation of federal criminal
law for anonymous government officials to make such leaks."

"We remain troubled," said attorney Brian Sun in an Associated
Press report, "that the government is seemingly continuing its
pattern of selected, fragmented leaks, which are highly
susceptible to speculative inferences and unfounded conjecture."

******************************
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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 7

                   Re: Conspiracy Writing Contest - Myers

From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 15:43:11 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 08:58:46 -0500
Subject: Re: Conspiracy Writing Contest - Myers


 >Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 15:24:22 -0500
 >From: Wendy Christensen <christensen@catlas.mv.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Conspiracy Writing Contest

 >This might be of interest to those on the List with a literary
 >bent...

 >INSCRIPTIONS CONSPIRACY CONTEST

 >Turn on The X-Files. Hop on the Net. Or gather with other
 >paranoid friends and conspiracies will abound. The truth is out
 >there, and it's up to you to enlighten the rest of us.

 >How? First, choose your favorite strange phenomenon. It could be
 >alien abductions, crying religious artifacts, werewolves,
 >anything that is strange, fantastical and just barely possible.
 >Then, pretend to be an investigative journalist breaking the
 >story of the century. Write an article using the inverted
 >pyramid journalistic style (Who, What, When, Where, Why, How,
 >then followed with facts and quotes) to support your
 >conspiracy-solving theory. Make us believe you.


Predicted winner: Richard C. Hoagland for "The Face and The
Freemansons." Anyone else with a predicted winner?

Regards,


Royce J. Myers III
www.ufowatchdog.com








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 7

                  Re: KGB UFO Files. The Real Story - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 23:15:41 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 09:25:34 -0500
Subject: Re: KGB UFO Files. The Real Story - Hatch


 >From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 12:54:31 EST
 >Subject: KGB UFO Files. The Real Story
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >To the List,

 >If you want to know the whole story of how the "KGB UFO Files"
 >hoax was made, just go to the web page in English of Boris
 >Shurinov :

 >http://borshurinov.narod.ru

 >and then click on, either "Boris Shurinov, or "Black Pages"

 >Don't miss Parts two and Three (brand new) of the story. Part
 >two is about the shooting of the crash sequence Part tree is
 >about the autopsy sequence.

 >At last, we have a preposterous hoax completely exposed here,
 >thanks to the excellent inquiry of Boris Shurinow in Moscow.

 >Larry Hatch can put this one in his "Poubelle" (but not
 >Rendlesham, and not Roswell, please).


Dear Gildas (and Boris as well!)

I have no intention of placing Roswell, Rendlesham and other
cases still being actively chewed upon into the "Poubelle" list!

I checked the Shurinov website, and was surprised to find myself
quoted! Not in direct relation to the great saucer crash and
autopsy of 1968's Sverdlovsk of course.

I immediately checked my database, and these "events" are not
listed, to my relief. Likewise, I missed the TNT presentation.
That's no surprise, I spend my free time at the computer screen
instead, and don't have cable TV service.

 From all appearances, and judging from just Boris's website,
Sverdlovsk/'68 looks like a nice candidate for the Poubelle
indeed! I should give this some time to consider alternative
opinions first of course.

Thanks for the link! Its rather amusing really.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 7

                         Of Sociopaths & Conspiracy

From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 11:46:21 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 16:25:45 -0500
Subject: Of Sociopaths & Conspiracy


This is an answer to, and a new redress on those with a
reflexive sneer regarding the potential preponderance of a
ubiquitous conspiracy...

Of Sociopaths And Psychopathic Conspiracies

By Alfred Lehmberg


What follows is a discussion of sociopathy (antisocial
personality disorder), the applications of the psychopathic
personal philosophy, and its relationship to an increased
potential for what is otherwise a dismissed, ridiculed, and
maligned theory of general conspiracy. A brief anti-history of
sociopathy is provided, useful definitions are included, but the
larger remainder of the paper will delineate characteristics and
causes as they exist to provide a fertile bed for endemic
conspiracies of all types and flavors -- even cosmic ones, this
writer suspects. It is, however; common sociopathy that is the
medium and the mechanism of a very real general conspiracy that
stealthily plagues us today ~ while the justified concern about
it is too airily dismissed as the paranoid ravings of a lunatic
fringe.

To begin, there is no separate history of sociopathy because,
this writer contends, history is itself, in many, many cases,
the obvious chronicle of the sociopath. Pro-social people
(socio-philes) have lived side by side with the sociopath for as
long as one can look back into recorded and even unrecorded
history. Sociopathy, for better or worse, fairly inundates
history with its poster children -- those infamous faces that
pop into mind when one hears the word. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot,
or Speck, Gilmore, or Manson -- these are the faces that appear
unasked as one hears the word sociopath, but that is misleading.
The preceding suggests that the garden variety sociopath makes
itself known. That is far from the truth.

Sociopathy wears a legion of friendly faces. As one is exposed
to the variously posited but ultimately united versions of the
definition, one can easily stretch this condition to include not
only the popular, respected and otherwise revered person no one
would suspect, but to each and every one of us. Preachers don't
tell on preachers, cops don't tell on cops, doctors don't tell
on doctors. Politico's don't tell on one another when there is a
*greater* goal to be gained. The rest of us avert our eyes from
the inconvenient obvious... this is the hot-house fecundity any
conspiracy must busily thrive in.

The sociopath is defined as one who steals from, lies to, and
cheats on those around him while being unaffected by conscience
and unhampered by responsibility for his or her egregious acts
(Morris, 1988). He is someone we have reason to fear and dread
because he can so often be found where he was least expected.
Interestingly, Bob Dole and Bill Clinton could be handily
painted as sociopathic personalities, by way of example. Like
"The Simpson,s" Mr. Montgomery Burns -- a classic sociopath,
consider that Bob Dole seems unaffected by all the death and
misery his support of big tobacco has caused throughout the
years. Bill Clinton might be a sociopathic lothario who cheated
on his wife for over a decade with no apparent remorse, or
crisis of conscience. Ronald Reagan wouldn't begin to admit to
the existence of AIDS as long as he thought it was a targeted
disease that only affected gay people. Consider the stockholders
of the blood banks of Reagan's time men and women who kept on
selling their AIDS tainted blood products when they KNEW they
were infecting people with the killer virus. The radius of
affected persons increases. Conspiracy seems to have a plethora
of people that can too readily embrace it make use of its
divergently profitable and autocratic criminal utility.

Another definition indicates that the sociopath, a sufferer of
antisocial personality disorder, has no feelings for others, is
selfish and aggressively compassionless, prone to irresponsible
behavior, and happily willing to exploit others for profit of
all types (Wood, 1993). Here lies the spark, tender, and motive
for a pervasive conspiracy. In amplification of this assertion,
it is pointed out in another textbook that the preceding
definition included every predator businessman, golf course
doctor, slick mouthed evangelist, Fat cat politician, impostor,
cold fish prostitute, and Furman-like police officer alive on
this planet (Coleman 1976). The point is that, though truly
caustic, the definitions that this writer discovered could be
extended to MANY more people than is typically thought. If an
illegal act can be committed for profit or pleasure, there is an
ABUNDANCE of people anxious to take crafty advantage of that
act. If conspiracy is possible, and it is, the preponderance of
sociopathy makes it likely.

In a sidebar, most people have the concepts of sociopath and
conspiracy wrongly applied. Folks confusingly think psychotic
psychopath. Or that the sociopath is a psychotic crazy. There is
no such animal. The sociopath, or psychopath, is by definition
NOT psychotic NOT crazy. Astonishingly, one has to be
certifiably SANE to be a true psychopath. Additionally, a
conspiracy is ALWAYS clearly criminal. Four child pornographers
agreeing to go downtown for burgers and cokes is not a
conspiracy, their shared plan to disseminate their material --
is.

Moving on, there is a blending detected in the definitions of
sociopathy to include (surprisingly) every person who for want
of some absent capability... just can,t cut it in our overly
harsh global society (Coleman, 1976), and so cuts monstrous
corners with no personal guilt or regret with regard to those
corners. There are, as well, the sociopaths defined as
"criminal", but still another definition (definitions and
characteristics swim through the literature as indistinguishable
fishes, this writer concludes) presents itself with an attendant
component to describe the attractive user type, the social
predator (con<woman) that we even make movies about and
allowances for (Coleman 1976). Sweetly charming and cunningly,
mindfully and artfully uncaring -- they might relieve you of
your money, your dignity, or your life. Sometimes, the victim
(inexplicably) still loves the sociopath when the sociopath has
relieved them of their money and their dignity (Morris, 1988).
One can see ready parallels in the leaderships of all major and
minor institutions and speculate on the potentials for
insidiously convoluted conspiracy generated in the minds of
psychopaths and supported by the sociophiles who love them. This
writer contends that we have conspiracy of all types known and
unknown because there are so MANY of these unidentified
sociopaths on site to take advantage of them.

As mentioned earlier, the definitions swam confusingly with the
characteristics. Again, this writer believes in the non-admitted
ubiquitous-ness of the sociopath, and predicts his presence
where one prays not to encounter him. For Example, Robert Tilton
(an "Oral Roberts" -- cubed!), another gold digging
televangelist, might be one of these types. Convicted of graft,
he's back on the early morning southeastern tube speaking in
gainful tongues. Consider the Bush-pardoned banker types that
fled the country with billions of dollars of our mother,s and
father,s trusted money unguarded in Reagan,s frenzy of bank
deregulation. More characteristics of this stealthy psychopath
includes a "winning cheerfulness and grace with social skills"
that compels people to ardent trust and doting consideration to
facilitate them (Morris, 1988). There are the ruthless
machiavellian types that rise to terrific power in business and
the military (McConnell, 1980), and there are the women that
coldly stand behind them. These become the fire brand political
types like Huey Long, or they refine sociopathy politically
offstage like Nancy Reagan, perhaps.

Many of them are smart as a clichd whip possessing near genius
intelligences (McConnell, 1980). This compounds the problem with
them, and adds a scary dimension because we don,t have a clue
how many there really are (or where they really are) as they
make lucrative use of this criminal intelligence! This is
because so few of them are getting in for professional help, it
is estimated (Wood, 1993). Why would they? They're as happy as
proverbial clams as they are, above the law. Indeed, the only
possible idea of prevalence that we have comes from prison
studies which very conservatively put the population at 3% of
all men, and 1% of the all women (Morris, 1988). The reader is
reminded that the vast majority of successful psychopaths are
not caught. This writer suspects a lot more.

Other characteristics include a complete and utterly
unimaginable (for the majority) lack of guilt (Hallahan, 1994).
This is the person that can perform the most bloodlessly god
awful and socially abusive criminal acts, and not only express
guiltlessness, but blame the consequences of their act on the
injured party! These people are easily frustrated and prone to
impulsive thoughts that they act on, mindlessly uncaring of the
consequences of their figurative, or literal, trigger pull
(Coleman 1976). These are the people that can put up a good
front as they shine the victim on with attractive lies, half
truths, and manipulations for their benefit, completely uncaring
about the personal cost to the target victim inevitably incurred
(Coleman 1976). Sociopaths share, generally, a complete lack of
respect for any authority or mores save their own, and FOR that
reason end up over and over again in trouble with the law
(McConnell, 1980), WHEN they're caught. A sociopath can be a
child so viciously, hatefully, and destructively afflicting that
she is completely isolated from family, peer, church and school
groups (Hallahan, 1994). All of this dissolution might occur,
but the sociopath will take no hand in the responsibility for
any of it. It,s just not their fault, they corrosively and
conveniently reason. They are only availing themselves of an
opportunity.

What causes this sociopathic loathing for one's fellows? Some
believe that while there is a genetic predisposition for a few,
the majority had faulty models to imprint from -- their family
experiences were bad (McConnell, 1980). Others go on to say that
there was some kind of emotional detachment early in life that
caused the disconnection of the sociopathic individual from the
society at large (Morris, 1988). The preceding concludes the
view of social learning theorists.

The cognitive theorists contend that arrested development is the
culprit for the behavior (Morris, 1988). There is a school that
believes the sociopath is a result of chemically out of whack
neurotransmitters (Morris, 1988). This biophysical paradigm
includes defective inhibitory mechanisms in the brain, or an
inability, because of this lack of an inhibitory mechanism, to
arouse the emotions of guilt and remorse in the subject
(Coleman, 1976). Some psychologists believe that the sociopath
is understimulated, and performs these horrific, destructive,
and socially corrosive acts in frenetic search for any kind of
feeling at all (Coleman, 1976). Conspiracy seems probable with
regard to a person described as such.

Family relationships may have more to add than was reflected in
McConnell at the beginning of a previous paragraph. Coleman
(1976) breaks faulty family relationships into three subgroups
of (1) early parental loss ,and emotional deprivation; (2)
Parental rejections, and inconsistencies; and, (3) faulty
parental models, and family interactions. Then there are the
supposed sociocultural factors. Easily, the living conditions of
the inner city ghettos may be creating sociopaths out of whole
cloth ( Coleman, 1976). This writer considers Charles Manson,
knowing how smart he really is, and wonders what he would have
been assuming his removal from the debilitating social
experiences he reportedly had. What strange and undiscovered
conspiracies must exist in the fertile imaginations and
implementations of this ARMY of psychopathic individuals?

What IS a sociopath, where are they, and how can they be
detected? How CAN we know, when we can,t really nail down
prevalence, but knowing that they are there with frequently easy
regularity provides easier potential for that too easily
dismissed conspiracy. How can we know, given that the radius of
those included in a sphere of sociopathy may be much bigger than
we imagine -- the attendant conspiracies much grander than we
thought?

It may be that we, on at least one level, are all sociopathic.
Consider that on any given day, thirty thousand children starve,
finally -- to death, after years of physical wasting disease and
cognitive disintegration. We ALL know this (we see Archie
Bunker,s daughter on TV every day -- another likely profit dodge
), our news media knows, our government knows, you know, and I
know . . . still they starve. They suffer unending torment in
tolerated squalor while we concern ourselves with the cut of a
suit or a shade of a nail.

Conspiracy is by definition a criminal act, corrosive to society
at large. The world is filled with an unguessed amount of
passionately engaged and creative criminals consumed and
concerned only with the continuance of their diverse personal
agendas. We do ourselves a disservice, it appears, to
reflexively dismiss conspiracy (of any type or flavor) in the
mistaken tradition that our society protects us from these
legions of undiscovered psychopaths. They do not. Verily, they
ARE the psychopaths. Every day exposes the ongoing sociopathic
record of these vicious people, people capable of and
perpetrating ANYTHING one can think of (and much more that one
would not) to secure advantage for themselves or their class.

We are not served by dismissing conspiracy, we ARE served by
investigating it. Posner has not settled the issue regarding the
assassination of JFK. Klass does not settle the issue regarding
UFO's. We're better serveed by Jim Marrs and Stanton Friedman.
Moreover, the admonitions of institutional leadership do not
plainly convince us that they have our best interests at heart.
Doctors want to market drugs and services, lawyers want to treat
their courtrooms like money tree orchards, preachers want to
prosecute their campaigns of intolerance and social hatred while
they fill tax free collection plates. We won't even mention the
dirty politicians and the all-business captains of industry, or
their coteries of pandering lieutenants. The rest of us are
dashed, contused, and senseless on the slick rocky shores of
their mechanically disdained, patently ignored, and ultimately
dismissed conspiracy.

Conspiracy lives, it's not in your mind. Conspiracy's real. Just
look, and you find.



References:

Coleman, J. (1976). Abnormal psychology and modern life. Dallas: Scott,
Foresman and Company.

Hallahan, D. & Kauffman, J. (1994). Exceptional Children. Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.

McConnell, J. (1980). Understanding human behavior. New York: Holt,
Rinehart, and Winston.

Morris, G. (1988). Psychology an introduction. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Wood, E. & Wood, S. (1993). The world of psychology. Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.



 > ~~~~
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, scourged by the scurrilous
skepti-feebroids.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 7

                   Re: Conspiracy Writing Contest - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 13:02:07 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 16:28:09 -0500
Subject: Re: Conspiracy Writing Contest - Velez


 >From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Conspiracy Writing Contest
 >Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 15:43:11 -0800

 >>Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 15:24:22 -0500
 >>From: Wendy Christensen <christensen@catlas.mv.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Conspiracy Writing Contest

 >>This might be of interest to those on the List with a literary
 >>bent...

 >>INSCRIPTIONS CONSPIRACY CONTEST

 >>Turn on The X-Files. Hop on the Net. Or gather with other
 >>paranoid friends and conspiracies will abound. The truth is out
 >>there, and it's up to you to enlighten the rest of us.

 >>How? First, choose your favorite strange phenomenon. It could be
 >>alien abductions, crying religious artifacts, werewolves,
 >>anything that is strange, fantastical and just barely possible.
 >>Then, pretend to be an investigative journalist breaking the
 >>story of the century. Write an article using the inverted
 >>pyramid journalistic style (Who, What, When, Where, Why, How,
 >>then followed with facts and quotes) to support your
 >>conspiracy-solving theory. Make us believe you.

 >Predicted winner: Richard C. Hoagland for "The Face and The
 >Freemansons." Anyone else with a predicted winner?


Hi Royce,

The winner of _any_ conspiracy contest has to be Mr. Wild Bill
Cooper. Hands down! It's a 'no contest' for anyone else.


Regards,

John Velez

..................................................................
   "Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind."
                             www.spacelab.net/~jvif/
..................................................................







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 7

                      Mysterious Lights Caught On Tape

From: Kelly Peterbourgh<kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 16:02:59 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 20:15:11 -0500
Subject: Mysterious Lights Caught On Tape

Source: The Malaysia Star

http://www.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2001/2/7/nation/0718ccet&sec=nati
on

The Star [Malaysia] | 7 Feb. 2001

Mysterious lights caught on tape By Clarence Chua and Audrey
Edwards

PETALING JAYA: The flashing bright orange lights seen over
Bandar Sunway, which caught the attention of scores of people,
on Monday night were caught on video tape by one witness while
another claimed that he had picked up fallen debris.

Marketing executive Puballan Selladurai, 30, managed to catch
part of the apparent UFO show on Monday night on his video
camera before the lights vanished into thin air.

"I was outside my house in Seri Setia relaxing when I saw it
happening. At first, I thought it was fireworks, a plane or
satellite crash. But after a while, I realised it was something
else,'' he said.

Recollecting the sighting which occurred at 8.15pm, Puballan
said it looked like 'fire balls circled around the moon and
changed formations before vanishing with great speed'.

"The lights appeared to follow the largest one which flashed off
first. The last one hovered around for a while before finally
disappearing.''

Another eyewitness, duty controller Guna Selvaguru, 45, said he
had picked up a piece of paper-like debris after the UFOs
disappeared.

"It was moving towards me. My family members and I decided to
wait till it lands on the ground before inspecting it. But
suddenly out of nowhere a motorcyclist dashed out and grabbed
it,'' he said.

However, Guna said he got another piece of debris from the
unidentified flying object.

He also said that he saw eight crimson coloured lights in a
straight line which later changed its formation into that of an
arrow.

"It was at very high altitude and they were forming patterns. It
was definitely not fireworks or an aeroplane,'' he said.

A local Ufologist is linking the sighting to a possible
earthquake anytime soon in Sumatra.

Ahmad Jamaludin, who has been studying UFOs since 1978, said his
research showed that there was a close link between the earth's
seismic activity and UFO sightings.

"The sighting was expected. It is a build-up from the recent
earthquake in India. From my previous observations of
earthquakes in Sumatra, my prediction is that an earthquake
would occur anytime between now and March 31,'' he said.

Ahmad explained that gravitational forces emitted by objects in
space had caused the earth's fault lines to shake, thus causing
earthquakes.

According to statistics of UFO sightings compiled by Ahmad,
there had been more than 200 sightings reported in Malaysia.

A spokesman from Bahagian Kajian Sains Angkasa (Baksa) said they
only knew about the sightings through the media and that no
drastic astronomical activities happened that night.

Baksa, however, urged those who witnessed the incident to
contact them at tel: 03-22735484.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 7

                        Re: AA Film Redux - Salvaille

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 17:55:23 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 20:18:46 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Salvaille


 >From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 12:31:44 -0800

 >>From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >>Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 18:14:43 -0800

<snip>

 >All I can say is that I've asked the folks in the UFO community
 >to keep an open mind about the AA until new information comes
 >along that either refutes or proves the authenticity of the AA
 >once and for all.

 >I believe Neil has found that proof and I hope you and others
 >will keep and open mind when he decides to present his evidence.
 >He's hard at work getting all his ducks in a row and these will
 >soon be quacking on a List in your neighborhood.

<snip>

Hello Ed and List,

I don't get it.

An opinion should be based on discrete elements of information.

Throughout this whole thread, you have been referring to
Santilli, the Cameraman and Hesemann. It has been established
that:

A. The Cameraman does not exist;

B. Ray Santilli is a liar;

C. Hesemann's judgement and position in the AA case if flawed.

You know this.

Yet, you don't back off.

While those references have the single value of certifying that
the AA film is a fraud, you use them to advocate the
authenticity of the AA film.

What is exactly your definition of credibility?

Denial of reality, doctoring of information and wishful
fantasies make you a skeptidebunker, Ed.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 7

                        Moon Conspiracy Theory on Fox

From: Kelly Peterborough <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 19:59:39 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 20:22:23 -0500
Subject: Moon Conspiracy Theory on Fox


http://www.fox.com/schedule/sched_pop_next.htm#384

9:00-10:00 PM ET/PT) In Stereo-CC

Moon landing questioned on the all-new special 'Conspiracy
Theory: Did We Land On The Moon' Feb. 15 on FOX

NASA put a man on the Moon for the first time in 1969 -- or did
it? Could the entire Moon program have been an elaborate
deception staged to fool the public?

The conspiracy theories are investigated in the all-new one-hour
special 'Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land On The Moon' Thursday,
Feb. 15 (9:00-10:00 PM ET/PT). (SP-0139) (TV-PG)





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 7

                         Of Sociopaths & Conspiracy

From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 11:46:21 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 16:25:45 -0500
Subject: Of Sociopaths & Conspiracy


This is an answer to, and a new redress on those with a
reflexive sneer regarding the potential preponderance of a
ubiquitous conspiracy...

Of Sociopaths And Psychopathic Conspiracies

By Alfred Lehmberg


What follows is a discussion of sociopathy (antisocial
personality disorder), the applications of the psychopathic
personal philosophy, and its relationship to an increased
potential for what is otherwise a dismissed, ridiculed, and
maligned theory of general conspiracy. A brief anti-history of
sociopathy is provided, useful definitions are included, but the
larger remainder of the paper will delineate characteristics and
causes as they exist to provide a fertile bed for endemic
conspiracies of all types and flavors -- even cosmic ones, this
writer suspects. It is, however; common sociopathy that is the
medium and the mechanism of a very real general conspiracy that
stealthily plagues us today ~ while the justified concern about
it is too airily dismissed as the paranoid ravings of a lunatic
fringe.

To begin, there is no separate history of sociopathy because,
this writer contends, history is itself, in many, many cases,
the obvious chronicle of the sociopath. Pro-social people
(socio-philes) have lived side by side with the sociopath for as
long as one can look back into recorded and even unrecorded
history. Sociopathy, for better or worse, fairly inundates
history with its poster children -- those infamous faces that
pop into mind when one hears the word. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot,
or Speck, Gilmore, or Manson -- these are the faces that appear
unasked as one hears the word sociopath, but that is misleading.
The preceding suggests that the garden variety sociopath makes
itself known. That is far from the truth.

Sociopathy wears a legion of friendly faces. As one is exposed
to the variously posited but ultimately united versions of the
definition, one can easily stretch this condition to include not
only the popular, respected and otherwise revered person no one
would suspect, but to each and every one of us. Preachers don't
tell on preachers, cops don't tell on cops, doctors don't tell
on doctors. Politico's don't tell on one another when there is a
*greater* goal to be gained. The rest of us avert our eyes from
the inconvenient obvious... this is the hot-house fecundity any
conspiracy must busily thrive in.

The sociopath is defined as one who steals from, lies to, and
cheats on those around him while being unaffected by conscience
and unhampered by responsibility for his or her egregious acts
(Morris, 1988). He is someone we have reason to fear and dread
because he can so often be found where he was least expected.
Interestingly, Bob Dole and Bill Clinton could be handily
painted as sociopathic personalities, by way of example. Like
"The Simpson,s" Mr. Montgomery Burns -- a classic sociopath,
consider that Bob Dole seems unaffected by all the death and
misery his support of big tobacco has caused throughout the
years. Bill Clinton might be a sociopathic lothario who cheated
on his wife for over a decade with no apparent remorse, or
crisis of conscience. Ronald Reagan wouldn't begin to admit to
the existence of AIDS as long as he thought it was a targeted
disease that only affected gay people. Consider the stockholders
of the blood banks of Reagan's time men and women who kept on
selling their AIDS tainted blood products when they KNEW they
were infecting people with the killer virus. The radius of
affected persons increases. Conspiracy seems to have a plethora
of people that can too readily embrace it make use of its
divergently profitable and autocratic criminal utility.

Another definition indicates that the sociopath, a sufferer of
antisocial personality disorder, has no feelings for others, is
selfish and aggressively compassionless, prone to irresponsible
behavior, and happily willing to exploit others for profit of
all types (Wood, 1993). Here lies the spark, tender, and motive
for a pervasive conspiracy. In amplification of this assertion,
it is pointed out in another textbook that the preceding
definition included every predator businessman, golf course
doctor, slick mouthed evangelist, Fat cat politician, impostor,
cold fish prostitute, and Furman-like police officer alive on
this planet (Coleman 1976). The point is that, though truly
caustic, the definitions that this writer discovered could be
extended to MANY more people than is typically thought. If an
illegal act can be committed for profit or pleasure, there is an
ABUNDANCE of people anxious to take crafty advantage of that
act. If conspiracy is possible, and it is, the preponderance of
sociopathy makes it likely.

In a sidebar, most people have the concepts of sociopath and
conspiracy wrongly applied. Folks confusingly think psychotic
psychopath. Or that the sociopath is a psychotic crazy. There is
no such animal. The sociopath, or psychopath, is by definition
NOT psychotic NOT crazy. Astonishingly, one has to be
certifiably SANE to be a true psychopath. Additionally, a
conspiracy is ALWAYS clearly criminal. Four child pornographers
agreeing to go downtown for burgers and cokes is not a
conspiracy, their shared plan to disseminate their material --
is.

Moving on, there is a blending detected in the definitions of
sociopathy to include (surprisingly) every person who for want
of some absent capability... just can,t cut it in our overly
harsh global society (Coleman, 1976), and so cuts monstrous
corners with no personal guilt or regret with regard to those
corners. There are, as well, the sociopaths defined as
"criminal", but still another definition (definitions and
characteristics swim through the literature as indistinguishable
fishes, this writer concludes) presents itself with an attendant
component to describe the attractive user type, the social
predator (con<woman) that we even make movies about and
allowances for (Coleman 1976). Sweetly charming and cunningly,
mindfully and artfully uncaring -- they might relieve you of
your money, your dignity, or your life. Sometimes, the victim
(inexplicably) still loves the sociopath when the sociopath has
relieved them of their money and their dignity (Morris, 1988).
One can see ready parallels in the leaderships of all major and
minor institutions and speculate on the potentials for
insidiously convoluted conspiracy generated in the minds of
psychopaths and supported by the sociophiles who love them. This
writer contends that we have conspiracy of all types known and
unknown because there are so MANY of these unidentified
sociopaths on site to take advantage of them.

As mentioned earlier, the definitions swam confusingly with the
characteristics. Again, this writer believes in the non-admitted
ubiquitous-ness of the sociopath, and predicts his presence
where one prays not to encounter him. For Example, Robert Tilton
(an "Oral Roberts" -- cubed!), another gold digging
televangelist, might be one of these types. Convicted of graft,
he's back on the early morning southeastern tube speaking in
gainful tongues. Consider the Bush-pardoned banker types that
fled the country with billions of dollars of our mother,s and
father,s trusted money unguarded in Reagan,s frenzy of bank
deregulation. More characteristics of this stealthy psychopath
includes a "winning cheerfulness and grace with social skills"
that compels people to ardent trust and doting consideration to
facilitate them (Morris, 1988). There are the ruthless
machiavellian types that rise to terrific power in business and
the military (McConnell, 1980), and there are the women that
coldly stand behind them. These become the fire brand political
types like Huey Long, or they refine sociopathy politically
offstage like Nancy Reagan, perhaps.

Many of them are smart as a clichd whip possessing near genius
intelligences (McConnell, 1980). This compounds the problem with
them, and adds a scary dimension because we don,t have a clue
how many there really are (or where they really are) as they
make lucrative use of this criminal intelligence! This is
because so few of them are getting in for professional help, it
is estimated (Wood, 1993). Why would they? They're as happy as
proverbial clams as they are, above the law. Indeed, the only
possible idea of prevalence that we have comes from prison
studies which very conservatively put the population at 3% of
all men, and 1% of the all women (Morris, 1988). The reader is
reminded that the vast majority of successful psychopaths are
not caught. This writer suspects a lot more.

Other characteristics include a complete and utterly
unimaginable (for the majority) lack of guilt (Hallahan, 1994).
This is the person that can perform the most bloodlessly god
awful and socially abusive criminal acts, and not only express
guiltlessness, but blame the consequences of their act on the
injured party! These people are easily frustrated and prone to
impulsive thoughts that they act on, mindlessly uncaring of the
consequences of their figurative, or literal, trigger pull
(Coleman 1976). These are the people that can put up a good
front as they shine the victim on with attractive lies, half
truths, and manipulations for their benefit, completely uncaring
about the personal cost to the target victim inevitably incurred
(Coleman 1976). Sociopaths share, generally, a complete lack of
respect for any authority or mores save their own, and FOR that
reason end up over and over again in trouble with the law
(McConnell, 1980), WHEN they're caught. A sociopath can be a
child so viciously, hatefully, and destructively afflicting that
she is completely isolated from family, peer, church and school
groups (Hallahan, 1994). All of this dissolution might occur,
but the sociopath will take no hand in the responsibility for
any of it. It,s just not their fault, they corrosively and
conveniently reason. They are only availing themselves of an
opportunity.

What causes this sociopathic loathing for one's fellows? Some
believe that while there is a genetic predisposition for a few,
the majority had faulty models to imprint from -- their family
experiences were bad (McConnell, 1980). Others go on to say that
there was some kind of emotional detachment early in life that
caused the disconnection of the sociopathic individual from the
society at large (Morris, 1988). The preceding concludes the
view of social learning theorists.

The cognitive theorists contend that arrested development is the
culprit for the behavior (Morris, 1988). There is a school that
believes the sociopath is a result of chemically out of whack
neurotransmitters (Morris, 1988). This biophysical paradigm
includes defective inhibitory mechanisms in the brain, or an
inability, because of this lack of an inhibitory mechanism, to
arouse the emotions of guilt and remorse in the subject
(Coleman, 1976). Some psychologists believe that the sociopath
is understimulated, and performs these horrific, destructive,
and socially corrosive acts in frenetic search for any kind of
feeling at all (Coleman, 1976). Conspiracy seems probable with
regard to a person described as such.

Family relationships may have more to add than was reflected in
McConnell at the beginning of a previous paragraph. Coleman
(1976) breaks faulty family relationships into three subgroups
of (1) early parental loss ,and emotional deprivation; (2)
Parental rejections, and inconsistencies; and, (3) faulty
parental models, and family interactions. Then there are the
supposed sociocultural factors. Easily, the living conditions of
the inner city ghettos may be creating sociopaths out of whole
cloth ( Coleman, 1976). This writer considers Charles Manson,
knowing how smart he really is, and wonders what he would have
been assuming his removal from the debilitating social
experiences he reportedly had. What strange and undiscovered
conspiracies must exist in the fertile imaginations and
implementations of this ARMY of psychopathic individuals?

What IS a sociopath, where are they, and how can they be
detected? How CAN we know, when we can,t really nail down
prevalence, but knowing that they are there with frequently easy
regularity provides easier potential for that too easily
dismissed conspiracy. How can we know, given that the radius of
those included in a sphere of sociopathy may be much bigger than
we imagine -- the attendant conspiracies much grander than we
thought?

It may be that we, on at least one level, are all sociopathic.
Consider that on any given day, thirty thousand children starve,
finally -- to death, after years of physical wasting disease and
cognitive disintegration. We ALL know this (we see Archie
Bunker,s daughter on TV every day -- another likely profit dodge
), our news media knows, our government knows, you know, and I
know . . . still they starve. They suffer unending torment in
tolerated squalor while we concern ourselves with the cut of a
suit or a shade of a nail.

Conspiracy is by definition a criminal act, corrosive to society
at large. The world is filled with an unguessed amount of
passionately engaged and creative criminals consumed and
concerned only with the continuance of their diverse personal
agendas. We do ourselves a disservice, it appears, to
reflexively dismiss conspiracy (of any type or flavor) in the
mistaken tradition that our society protects us from these
legions of undiscovered psychopaths. They do not. Verily, they
ARE the psychopaths. Every day exposes the ongoing sociopathic
record of these vicious people, people capable of and
perpetrating ANYTHING one can think of (and much more that one
would not) to secure advantage for themselves or their class.

We are not served by dismissing conspiracy, we ARE served by
investigating it. Posner has not settled the issue regarding the
assassination of JFK. Klass does not settle the issue regarding
UFO's. We're better serveed by Jim Marrs and Stanton Friedman.
Moreover, the admonitions of institutional leadership do not
plainly convince us that they have our best interests at heart.
Doctors want to market drugs and services, lawyers want to treat
their courtrooms like money tree orchards, preachers want to
prosecute their campaigns of intolerance and social hatred while
they fill tax free collection plates. We won't even mention the
dirty politicians and the all-business captains of industry, or
their coteries of pandering lieutenants. The rest of us are
dashed, contused, and senseless on the slick rocky shores of
their mechanically disdained, patently ignored, and ultimately
dismissed conspiracy.

Conspiracy lives, it's not in your mind. Conspiracy's real. Just
look, and you find.



References:

Coleman, J. (1976). Abnormal psychology and modern life. Dallas: Scott,
Foresman and Company.

Hallahan, D. & Kauffman, J. (1994). Exceptional Children. Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.

McConnell, J. (1980). Understanding human behavior. New York: Holt,
Rinehart, and Winston.

Morris, G. (1988). Psychology an introduction. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Wood, E. & Wood, S. (1993). The world of psychology. Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.



 > ~~~~
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, scourged by the scurrilous
skepti-feebroids.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 7

                   Re: Conspiracy Writing Contest - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 13:02:07 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 16:28:09 -0500
Subject: Re: Conspiracy Writing Contest - Velez


 >From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Conspiracy Writing Contest
 >Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 15:43:11 -0800

 >>Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 15:24:22 -0500
 >>From: Wendy Christensen <christensen@catlas.mv.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Conspiracy Writing Contest

 >>This might be of interest to those on the List with a literary
 >>bent...

 >>INSCRIPTIONS CONSPIRACY CONTEST

 >>Turn on The X-Files. Hop on the Net. Or gather with other
 >>paranoid friends and conspiracies will abound. The truth is out
 >>there, and it's up to you to enlighten the rest of us.

 >>How? First, choose your favorite strange phenomenon. It could be
 >>alien abductions, crying religious artifacts, werewolves,
 >>anything that is strange, fantastical and just barely possible.
 >>Then, pretend to be an investigative journalist breaking the
 >>story of the century. Write an article using the inverted
 >>pyramid journalistic style (Who, What, When, Where, Why, How,
 >>then followed with facts and quotes) to support your
 >>conspiracy-solving theory. Make us believe you.

 >Predicted winner: Richard C. Hoagland for "The Face and The
 >Freemansons." Anyone else with a predicted winner?


Hi Royce,

The winner of _any_ conspiracy contest has to be Mr. Wild Bill
Cooper. Hands down! It's a 'no contest' for anyone else.


Regards,

John Velez

..................................................................
   "Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind."
                             www.spacelab.net/~jvif/
..................................................................







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 8

                         Re: AA Film Redux - Easton

From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 03:53:16 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 17:17:37 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Easton


Regarding:

 >From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 12:19:02 -0800

Ed wrote:

 >Ray's attitude changed after he was visited by US officials in
 >July of 95.

Ed,

Can you provide a documented source that Ray Santilli ever made
such a claim?

Are you are perhaps confusing this with Ray's following
statement, dating from June 1985?:

"Colin Andrews came to my office two days ago with a team of
Chinese officials. Last year as part of an exchange of
information the CIA had shown them their footage of Roswell. The
four officials in my room confirmed that my footage was from the
same batch they saw...As you would expect it was an exciting
moment for us all."

It was subsequently revealed those 'Chinese officials' were
Professor Hoang Yung Chiang, chairman of the 'Taiwan UFO Science
Association' and Johsen Takano, who had an interest in 'UFOs',
from Japan.

Takano's supposed corroborative 'footage' turned out to be
photographs of Steve Johnson's model 'alien' from the 'Roswell'
movie, on display at the Roswell museum.

Isn't this the explanation for your claim that Ray was, 'visited
by US officials'?


 >>I also recall that the some of the footage (tent?) was proven
 >>to be a hoax by Phil Mantle, even though gulliable lap dog
 >>supporters still rant and rave about it.

 >This footage has always been in question.
 >
 >I don't know of anyone who "ranted or raved" about it. It was a
 >piece of crap, about what you'd expect from hoaxers - very
 >little or no detail, just some vague images.

Absolutely and that's exactly what Rob Irving and myself
indicated to Michael Hesemann.

In the following UpDates posting:

http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2001/feb/m01-004.shtml

...you stated:

 >I still think the most complete synopsis is the following:
 >
 >http://hesemann.m-n-d.com/beyondroswell.html

Looking at this, we find Hesemann proclaims:

"Unfortunately his [Kal Korff] claims were featured by the US TV
Production 'World's Greatest Hoaxes', broadcast by the Fox
Network in December 1998. Although the programme showed, that
indeed the 'Tent Footage', that has no connection with the Alien
Autopsy at all since it had a completely different origin (I can
state under oath that Santilli already told me in June 1995 that
he did not show the 'Tent Footage' on the May 5th showing because
'the cameraman did not verify it' and its origin was dubious),
was a hoax, he did not present any evidence against the Alien
Autopsy Footage".

So, Hesemann acknowledges that "indeed" the tent footage "was a
hoax" and clearly indicates it was never otherwise. No fooling
me...

Which is the same assertion you make.

To recap:

"I don't know of anyone who 'ranted or raved' about it. It was a
piece of crap, about what you'd expect from hoaxers...".

However... if we go back to contemporary, 1995, discussions on
CompuServe, it's documented that Hesemann, before exposure of the
'tent footage' as a hoax - advocated a strikingly alternative
conclusion:

Subj: Tent Footage
Section: Mutual UFO Network
To: James Easton, 100626,2242
October 1995 00:27:11
From:  :Michael Hesemann/SL, 100660,3672     #152109

Dear james,

I saw the tent footage many times and just the speed of the
movements and also the sharpness of the images indicates it was
shot with a 16 mm camera and not with video. The only reason why
Ray doesn't like it is that it is so bloody dark (dimly lit) and
looks pathetically bad. I personally think it shows the being
when the medics try to remove its spacesuit. A tent in the desert
at night... with no electricity, that's why it is so dark. But
all these sceptics will say again: Look, they have something to
hide, looks, why is it so bad...
[END]


Hesemann also announced:

Subj: NEW CRASHED ALIENS
Section: General/Welcome!
To:  all
Tuesday, October 10, 1995 4:35:07 PM
From:  :Michael Hesemann/SL, 100660,3672#152114

Bet I got all of your attention...

Let me announce four major revelations on the World UFO Congress
Dialogue with the Universe, Dusseldorf-Kaarst/Germany, 26.-29.
Octobre 1995:

1. G.Bongiovanni will show footage of a large (at least 40 feet
diameter) disc in a US Airbase Hangar with a big hole where you
can recognize the honeycomb structure of its wall

2. Phil Mantle will show the complete tent footage...

3. Another leading English researcher will show three pictures of
a dead alien crashed in 1970, given to a Chinese (free Republic
of China, not the concentration camp on the Asian continent)
gov't scientist by the CIA, togetrher with 77 other pictures of
dead, crashed aliens (including our SUE)

4. I will reveal latest information on a UFO fragment found in
Romania in the early 1970ies (a landing foot, a few million years
old) and a  UFO crash which happened THIS year on the African
continent...

Stay tuned for more info...

Greeting   Mike
[END]


The now purported, obviously a hoax, 'tent footage' was in fact
taken by Philip Mantle to the 1996 Greensboro 'UFO' conference
and shown by Philip at the 1996 Fortean Times 'Unconvention'.

Would it be fair to say that, in both instances, it was
presumably presented as possible evidence of an 'alien autopsy'?

Hesemann further commented:

Subj: RTL "Alien Autopsy "
Section: Mutual UFO Network
To: Frank Heetfeld, 100556,3254
31 July 1996 21:57:00
From:  Michael Hesemann/RE, 100660,3672 #348581

Dear Frank,

why don't you think of a damage control policy??

Ray HAD the film. The news about it went around already in
January 1995. Copies of the tent footage were circulating from
the very beginning.

What would be the best confirmation that aliens are real and the
footage, too?

Of course if the CIA would buy or confiscate the film. What would
be the wisest reaction? Ignore it, try to discredit it, leak
disinfo to Kent Jeffrey and others and let your useful idiots to
the debunking job, so it dies a quick death.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED. Ufology discredited the film, and
the US taxpayer saved a lot of money.

[...]

Greetings, Mike
[END]


On 17 January, 1999, I wrote to a number of interested parties:

In July 1995, I asked Ray Santilli if he could explain the
origins of the 'security marker', reported as being present on
screen throughout the early video showings:

"The marker is dated 'July 30, 1947', where did this originate
and what does it refer to"?

Santilli replied, "On part of the tent footage there is a date
board which was added after (it continues after the footage is
over) It could be the date of process (we don't know)".

In August 1995, I further asked of the 'tent footage', allegedly
part of the archive 16mm film acquired in December 1994-January
1995:

"I was wondering how you were able to show some of the footage,
already carefully transferred to video from the original 16mm
reels, as early as the first week or so of January 1995".

Santilli explained: "Some of the footage needed little or no
work".


In September 1995, Bob Shell, editor of the US photographic
magazine 'Shutterbug' and who had offered to assist in dating the
claimed archive 16mm film, responded to questions being raised
about the late release of Santilli's own mail order video,
'Roswell: The Footage' stating:

"I'm assured that the delay was only because Ray was trying his
best to get permission to include the first autopsy and the rest
of the tent scene. These negotiations apparently were not
successful".

Shell has just reaffirmed to me, "This is what I was told at the
time".


Shortly afterwards, he confirmed again having spoken to
Santilli's company:

"This morning I asked about the absence of the tent footage from
the video. I am told this was just loose in the box and that the
cameraman now says he can't recall what this is or when and where
he shot it".

Shell, however, also stated at this time that he had been told:

"The tent footage, shot at the crash site under light from
emergency lanterns, shows technicians cutting the 'space suit'
off one of the bodies because, to quote the cameraman, it was
holding in heat and hastening decomposition. The fabric was very
tough, and they eventually had to use sheet metal cutters to cut
it".

[...]

In January 1996, in reply to some queries I had raised, Bob Shell
confirmed to me:

"Ray said to me that the complete tent footage was contained
within the 'junk reel' when I was in his office in October. He
motioned with his hands to indicate the diameter of the reel. He
also mentioned at that time about the football game, family
stuff, and other unidentifiable footage included in this reel".

[...]

[END]


I trust this sets your overall claims in their true, factually
documented, context.

Have Neil and yourself ever actually obtained a copy of Theresa
Carlson's published research which _proved_ , not 'suggested',
that the main footage was so obviously a hoax?

It should comprehensively illustrate why you not only wasting
your own time, but everyone else's.

But please don't tell us that the 'tent footage' never fooled
anyone, that no proponents 'ranted or raved about it' and how
those who broadcast their intellectual superiority over the
entire scientific community could never be duped by a 'piece of
crap'.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 8

                  Re: Moon Conspiracy Theory on Fox - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 23:31:55 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 17:19:23 -0500
Subject: Re: Moon Conspiracy Theory on Fox - Gates


 >From: Kelly Peterborough <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
 >Subject: Moon Conspiracy Theory on Fox
 >Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 19:59:39 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >http://www.fox.com/schedule/sched_pop_next.htm#384

 >9:00-10:00 PM ET/PT) In Stereo-CC

 >Moon landing questioned on the all-new special 'Conspiracy
 >Theory: Did We Land On The Moon' Feb. 15 on FOX

 >NASA put a man on the Moon for the first time in 1969 -- or did
 >it? Could the entire Moon program have been an elaborate
 >deception staged to fool the public?

 >The conspiracy theories are investigated in the all-new one-hour
 >special 'Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land On The Moon' Thursday,
 >Feb. 15 (9:00-10:00 PM ET/PT). (SP-0139) (TV-PG)

You can always catch the two hour version called Capricorn
One..........  :)   Its available on Video and DVD.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 8

                               Help Requested

From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 13:30:03 +0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 17:22:20 -0500
Subject: Help Requested



Hi All,

Does anyone have any contact details for Bob Kiviat? If
so please e-mail me.

Regards,

Roy..


http://www.thelosthaven.co.uk






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 8

                                Introduction

From: Jeff Behnke <twitch02@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 13:41:05 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 17:25:07 -0500
Subject: Introduction


Hey there everyone,

I don't know anyone on this List, but I just thought I'd
introduce myself and say hi and maybe get to know a couple
people.

I'm personally into the Alien/God theory since it completely
obliterated my own belief system. Most of the articles on the
site are about that. Anyway, have a day...

My website is:

http://www.paranormalnews.com


Cheers,

Jeff Behnke
jeff@paranormalnews.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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 8

                          Secrecy News -- 02/08/01

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@igc.org>
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 09:04:47 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 17:27:23 -0500
Subject: Secrecy News -- 02/08/01


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
February 8, 2001

**      REPORT ON HIGHLY ENRICHED URANIUM DUE
**      WORLDWIDE THREAT HEARING
**      DEUTCH DAMAGE ASSESSMENT


REPORT ON HIGHLY ENRICHED URANIUM DUE

The Department of Energy has finally completed the long-deferred
declassification of a report entitled "Highly Enriched Uranium
-- The First 50 Years."  Publication of the document, which
provides historical information on the production and
disposition of the nation's weapons-grade uranium stockpile, has
been promised for years.

In anticipation of "media interest," "Options for release of the
report are being developed" according to the DOE Office of
Nuclear and National Security Information (ONNSI).

One of the purposes of the report, broadly speaking, is to "lead
by example" and to promote increased international transparency
concerning stockpiles of fissionable materials.  "I see it as a
plus for nonproliferation if it is played right," one official
said.

Plans for release of the report are noted in an internal ONNSI
Weekly Report obtained by Secrecy News.  The weekly report,
dated February 6, also contains information on the status of
various other DOE declassification activities that will be of
interest to those who are interested.  See:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2001/02/doe020601.html

The forthcoming report on highly enriched uranium is a companion
to an earlier DOE report "Plutonium: The First 50 Years,"
published in 1996.  That report is available here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/pu50y.html


WORLDWIDE THREAT HEARING

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence yesterday held its
annual overview of threats facing the United States.

Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet, along with
Defense Intelligence Agency Director Vice Admiral Thomas R.
Wilson and Thomas Fingar of the State Department's INR, provided
an updated official assessment of a broad spectrum of national
security threats.  These include the proliferation of missiles
and weapons of mass destruction; the challenges posed by Russia,
China, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Colombia, among others;
terrorism, demographic changes, disease; and more.

The three prepared statements of DCI Tenet, Admiral Wilson, and
Mr. Fingar are posted here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2001_hr/index.html#threat

Toward the end of the hearing, Committee Chairman Sen. Richard
Shelby asked DCI Tenet about the impact of "leaks," i.e.
unauthorized disclosures of classified information, on CIA
operations and capabilities.

Tenet dutifully replied that leaks have been "devastating to us
in terms of protecting sources and methods."  He endorsed the
need for legislation to criminalize leaks, notwithstanding
public opposition and President Clinton's veto of such
legislation last year.

Sen. Shelby asked, "Will you work with us on trying to tailor
some legislation with the Justice Department and Defense that
would help solve this problem?"  Mr. Tenet said that he would.

Last year's aborted anti-leak legislation, Tenet said, was
directed at "government or former government employees who
knowingly violated their oath and the law.  There was never any
intention to go after the press, there was never any intention
to go after whistleblowers, there was never any intention to
deny anybody constitutional rights.... And if there are ways to
make that clear in the legislation, we should work together to
make it clear."


DEUTCH DAMAGE ASSESSMENT

The Pentagon's General Counsel concluded in a report released
last week that although former Deputy Secretary of Defense (and
former DCI) John Deutch had committed numerous security breaches
involving the mishandling of classified information, there was
no evidence that national security had actually been damaged.

"While the possibility of compromise cannot be foreclosed with
certainty, our analysts have found no evidence of compromise to
date," according to the January 19 memorandum, which was
released in partially declassified form on February 1.

The redacted text of the Office of General Counsel memorandum on
the Deutch case is now available online here:

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

Supporters of Wen Ho Lee said the Deutch damage assessment and
his subsequent pardon were further indications of the disparate
treatment of the two security offenders, noting that there was
also no evidence that Wen Ho Lee's downloaded files had been
compromised.  "Equal treatment under the law is a hollow
promise," exclaimed Cecilia Chang of wenholee.org.

"Now that Deutch has been pardoned," Senator Shelby asked DCI
Tenet insinuatingly at the close of yesterday's hearing, "do you
have any plans to reinstate his clearances?"

"No," Tenet replied.

******************************
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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 8

                              Malaysian... IFOs

From: Mark Pilkington <m.pilkington@virgin.net>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 23:01:15 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 18:44:30 -0500
Subject:  Malaysian... IFOs


http://www.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2001/2/8/nation/0808fbuf&sec=nati
on

Of lanterns, 'UFOs' and the city folk

PETALING JAYA: The Star was deluged with callers claiming
sightings of UFOs in various parts of the city last night. Most
spoke of "UFOs" hovering high in the sky, emitting various
colours of light from crimson red, orangy lights with a red wisp
at the end, to pinkish and even white lights.

Sightings were reported in Gombak, Sentul, Setapak and later on
in Bangsar, Brickfields and Subang.



MISTAKEN IDENTITY ... one of the good luck lanterns mistaken for
'UFOs' being released at the Thien Hou temple Wednesday night.
STARpic by Zabidi Tusin "It remained bright with several reddish
and smaller lights hopping from one end to another," one caller
said.

Another caller, Albert Hui, said he saw about seven to eight
such red lights in a straight line for at least half-an-hour.

Seelan, who called in at about 10.30pm, said a crowd of about 50
people had gathered at a petrol station at the entrance of Taman
Datuk Senu in Sentul, mesmerised by the lights which he
described as "reddish green".

Most claimed they saw the unidentified lights towards the east.

The Star reporter Wani Muthiah was on her way home in the
company van at 10pm at the highway leading towards the RMAF base
in Sungai Besi when she too noticed the bright lights.

Dozens of cars had pulled up along the roadside to get a look.

Wani spoke to several people who were puzzled by the "UFOs".

She followed the lights with company driver Mohd Saad B. Mohd
through the Chinese cemetery in Sungai Besi and the trail
brought them back to the Federal Highway near Taman Seputeh.

Here they could see that the lights were originating from the
hilltop somewhere near Taman Seputeh.

They then drove to the hilltop and parked some 500m from the
Thien Hou temple off Jalan Syed Putra where they saw the objects
being released.

The "UFOs" turned out to be good luck lanterns released in
conjunction with the Chap Goh Meh celebration.

Made of paper, the cylindrical lanterns work like a hot air
balloon and are over 1m high with a width of about half a metre.

They use a thick slow-burning paper at the base which has been
soaked in kerosene at the bottom as a burner to create the hot
air. The flame lasts for over 10 minutes.

The locally-made lanterns were being released at intervals of
several minutes each, some in perfect succession, which made
them appear like a row when carried by the wind.

A Thien Hou temple official then took them up to the temple
rooftop where people were purchasing the "UFOs" at RM60 each.

Family members were seen writing their names on the lanterns and
reciting prayers before sending them to "heaven."

------

Mark Pilkington             m.pilkington@virgin.net
----------------------------------------------------------------
"The blood is the life, but electricity is the life of the
blood." - Dr Carter Moffat, 1892
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.forteantimes.com    : Fortean Times online
http://www.magonia.demon.co.uk : Magonia online








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 8

                         Re: Introduction - Tonnies

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 16:12:42 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 23:43:28 -0500
Subject: Re: Introduction - Tonnies


 >From: Jeff Behnke <twitch02@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Introduction
 >Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 13:41:05 -0000

 >Hey there everyone,

 >I don't know anyone on this List, but I just thought I'd
 >introduce myself and say hi and maybe get to know a couple
 >people.

Hi. And nice-looking website; I'm going to append it to my
already-bulging "Esoterica" page...

 >I'm personally into the Alien/God theory since it completely
 >obliterated my own belief system.

"Alien/God theory" as in Sitchin's genetic tinkerers from space?
I wouldn't exactly discount it.  My main area of interest (at
least online) is possible Mars artifacts, so I suppose my
preoccupations intersect your own to an extent.

My website is:

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

Wanna trade links?

--Mac Tonnies








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 8

                         Re: AA Film Redux - Gehrman

From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 16:28:17 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 23:46:41 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Gehrman


 >From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 03:53:16 -0000

James,

Thanks for the information. I'll add it to my files.

I hope you didn't expect a response.

I still insist that MH's research on the nuts and bolts of the
AA is the most accurate. Yes, he may have been incorrect in some
in some of his interpretations of the evidence. Our engaging in
this endless "he said/she said" is a poor use of time. We intend
to present new evidence.


 >From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 17:55:23 -0800

 >A. The Cameraman does not exist;

Serge,

I believe this is an incorrect statement but time will tell.

 >B. Ray Santilli is a liar;

We are all liars, some time or another; but is he lying about
the AA? I doubt it!

 >C. Hesemann's judgement and position in the AA case if flawed.

MH is very clear about what his investigations show. The AA is
legitimate!

 >Yet, you don't back off.

Not even for a second.

 >Denial of reality, doctoring of information and wishful
 >fantasies make you a skeptidebunker, Ed.

Are you serious. I hold a strong position because the evidence
I've collected indicates that the AA is authentic and I'm a
"skeptidebunker"? You must be kidding!








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 8

                       UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 6 Number 6

From: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 16:45:39 +0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 23:51:35 -0500
Subject: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 6 Number 6


Posted on behalf of Joseph Trainor.

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

       UFO ROUNDUP
Volume 6, Number 6
February 8, 2001
Editor: Joseph Trainor

http://www.ufoinfo.com/roundup/


FISHERMAN DISCOVERS A SMALL ANDROID IN BRAZIL

On Saturday, January 27, 2001, a fisherman casting his nets
into the river at Camatari, a town near Salvador, the capital of
the state of Bahia in Brazil and pulled ashore a
strange-looking artifact.

Salvador is a port city on Brazil's South Atlantic shore,
located about 800 kilometers (500 miles) northeast of Rio de
Janeiro.

The oopart (out-of-place artifact--J.T.) was described as a
"small android," an "alien toy" and a "toy from the future.

According to M. Fratel, UFO Roundup's correspondent in
Salvador, Bahia, the object was described as "an artifact like a
doll, of humanoid form about 10 to 15 centimeters" (4 to 6
inches) in length. The unusual doll "was translucent and changed
color from blue to red" as the holder touched it with his hand.
The color changes happened repeatedly as the object was held in
differing positions. Also, ""they detected on the skin a liquid
like transpiration."

Televisao Bahia, Canal (Channel) 8 in Salvador showed video
footage of the unusual artifact in its evening news broadcast.
The footage showed the spot where the "weird doll" was found
and an interview with the fisherman who brought it to shore.

Brazil's Policia Militar reportedly took custody of the
"android", which has "which is now being studied by specialists
in Salvador." (See Televisao Bahia broadcast of January 27,
2001. Muito obrigado a M. Fratel por eso caso.)

CHUPACABRAS SEEN BY MANY IN VILLAGES NEAR CALAMA

Chile's ongoing Chupacabra scare continued last week as two
more live creatures were seen in the villages of La Banda and
Independencia Norte, on the rural outskirts of Calama.

"Patricia Valdivia, a resident of the village of La Banda de
Calama, provided a revealing account of her encounter with the
mythic Chupacabra after it appeared on her doorstep at Calle
Lincan 1930 (street)."

Patricia told the newspaper La Estrella del Loa "that she heard
some strange noises at approximately one o'clock in the morning
while she engaged in housework."

(Editor's Note: Right now it's midsummer in Chile, and in the
Atacama Desert, the daytime temperatures go well over 100
degrees Fahrenheit. People wait until after nightfall to do
their household chores because it's cooler then.)

"'It sounded like fighting. After hearing an impact, I walked
towards the door, where I heard a strange howl and some fast,
heavy breathing,'" Sra. Valdivia reported.

"At that precise moment, the woman lifted a curtain and saw
three cats, more paralyzed than a photograph, spaced at
approximately one meter (3 feet, 4 inches) from each other,.
She then looked to the right, and 'There it was, sitting in
front of the door. When it saw me, it jumped immediately over
the outside wall and lost itself in the darkness.'"

(Editor's Note: In Chile, as elsewhere in South America, homes
are built Mediterranean-style around an interior walled
courtyard.)

"She noted that 'the strange being' measured between 60 to 70
centimeters in a seated position, while long legs protruded from
its body, which was covered with leaden-colored (gray) hair."

"(Casts of its footprints--S.C.) were taken by ufologist Jaime
Ferrer Who has been researching the (Chupacabra) case for some
months now."

""The woman added that the 'animal' made a strange growling
sound which caused the windowpanes to rattle, a situation that
repeated itself when the Chupacabra jumped to escape."

"Not only in sci-fi films is it possible to find links between
children and aliens, as well as other mysterious creatures.
Similar things also happen in real life, which lead us to pay
greater attention to reports of the presence of Chupacabras in
El Loa province."

"Far stranger is the case of three youngsters in a remote
section of Calama's district of Independencia Norte who were
paralyzed with fright after facing a beast who description" is
similar to the numerous reports from Calam region farmers "of a
creature that has raided their farms, draining the blood of
their cattle, frightening people to death and plunging UFO
researchers into confusion."

Gabriel Herrera, Miguel Salvo and Jorge Salvo have told their
stories separately and with surprising similarity. They recently
saw the mysterious animal--reportedly described by ufologists
as an alien--jump, land and escape."

"'It was about one meter (3 feet, 4 inches) tall and it was
sitting there (in the interior courtyard of the building--S.C.)
but jumped effortlessly when my brother (Jorge) opened the
door. It scared us. It had spines running down its back. It was
hairy and fray. We went to tell Mommy, thinking it was a
rabbit. That's when it got lost. and we all searched for it,'
said Miguel Salvo. 'It didn't have a nose or elbows, but it had
shining eyes and legs that were thick at the top and skinny at
the bottom. It jumped and hid under a pickup truck.'" (See La
Estrella del Loa for January 30, 2001, "Eyewitness account of a
Chupacabra encounter," and February 1, 2001, "Children have
face-to-face encounter with a Chupacabra." Muchas gracias a
Scott Corrales, autor de los libros, Chupacabras and Other
Mysteries y Forbidden Mexico y tambien Gloria Coluchi para eses
articulos de diario.)

MORE ORANGE UFOs SIGHTED IN MALAYSIA

Malaysia's UFO flap entered its second week with a new sighting
in Penang.

On Sunday, January 28, 2001, C.W. was outdoors in Penang and
"looking north" when she and her companions "saw "saw a bright
light approaching from the Esplanade in the northeast."

C.W. described the UFO as "bright orange with a yellow glow
around it."

"The UFO was heading south. I saw the one bright orange light
coming and then it split into two lights. There was a yellow
glow around the bright orange light. The two lights hovered for
a few minutes and then headed towards the east. Then a bigger
light (same color--C.W.) appeared and stayed for five minutes
and then left in the same direction (east) as the other two
orange lights."

Curiously, C.W. added, the UFOs "came lower and were
stationary" while they hovered over Penang, "and then they moved
higher and faster away." (Email Form Report)

THREE UFOs FLY OVER SCARBOROUGH, YORKSHIRE

"Has Scarborough had a visit from another world?"

"Ian Baird was waiting for a lift from a friend outside his
house on Settringham Road near Scarborough Head," Yorkshire, UK
"on Friday night," January 26, 2001 "when he saw three
unidentified flying objects high in the sky above him."

"At first Mr. Baird thought that what he was seeing in front of
him was a satellite, but, he said, 'it was it was not going as
quickly as most satellites do. It then went north before
disappearing.'"

"When Mr. Baird's family came along, they looked up into the
sky and saw the objects coming back towards them."

"It then changed direction and went in an east-west direction."

"Mr. Baird said, 'One thing a satellite tends to do is move
quickly. It (the UFO) was just a single point of light at a
very, very high altitude. There was also a lot of distance
traveled in the short span of time.'" (See the Scarborough
Evening News for January 29, 2001, "Were they UFOs?" Many
thanks to Gerry Lovell for this newspaper article.)

MORE UFOs SIGHTED IN DERBYSHIRE DALES, UK

"The (Derbyshire) Dales UFO mystery has deepened yet further
following two more close encounters."

"Over the last few months, Mercury readers have reported seeing
flying saucers, balls of fire and wedge-shaped craft in the
skies above the Dales and Peaks."

"Now another UFO--shaped like a bowler hat--has been seen by
two people hovering over Curbar Gap near Culver."

"A 46-year-old Youlgrave man, who asked not to be named, said
the object was jet black and had a diameter of 100 feet (30
meters)."

"He and a friend saw the UFO at sunset on Saturday," January 6,
2001, . It was 300 yard (270 meters) away from them and 1,000
feet (300 meters) high" off the ground.

"'We watched it for ten minutes, then it just disappeared into
the air,' he said, 'It wasn't a normal aircraft. There were no
wings or an obvious power source or jet stream (contrail in the
USA--J.T.)."

"'It was just spinning" and "apart from a low hum, there were
no lights or portals (doors). I was taken aback It was nothing
like I've seen before. It was large. What it was I just don't
know.'"

"Last Friday," January 25, 2001, "Bakewell woman Heather
Shuttleworth was travelling toward Haddon Bank when she looked
out of her car window near Beeley Moor at 5:40 p.m."

"She and her husband saw two bright lights, stopped the car and
looked skyward through a pair of binoculars."

"Mrs. Shuttleworth added, 'I knew they weren't aeroplane
lights. They were too bright.'"

"'We couldn't believe what we saw. The lights were the shape of
the flying saucers like on (TV) documentaries.'"

"'My husband got back in the car and drove for one mile from
Falden towards Stanton Moor. There was a red light ball and an
orange light ball moving towards each other.'"

Other recent UFO sightings in Derbyshire Dales include:

January 13, 2001 - "a Matlock man saw a UFO with a pink glow
above Crich."

January 17, 2001 - "Jean Power "saw a long ball of fire over
the Tops in in Matlock heading behind some trees." (See the
Matlock Mercury for January 31, 2001, "UFO tally hits 19." Many
thanks to Gerry Lovell for this newspaper article.)

COUPLE SEES A HOVERING UFO IN DURRANT, IOWA

"A Durrant couple spotted an unidentified flying object
Wednesday night" January 31, 2001, "and told the Muscatine
County Sheriff's Department it hovered over their house for 35
minutes before disappearing over some trees."

"Timothy and Michele Samuelson who live on (address deleted for
reasons of privacy--J.T.) called the Sheriff's Department at
9:10 p.m. They told a deputy that the flying object turned
colors, changing from yellow to green to blue. They also said
there was a red outline around the outside of the object."

"The object was gone by the time the Sheriff's Department
responded" to the call. (See the Muscatine, Iowa Journal for
February 1, 2001, "They're out there." Many thanks to Jim P.
for forwarding this newspaper article.)

THOUSANDS OF BIRDS FOUND DEAD IN OKLAHOMA CITY

"Residents in the Northwest 54th Street and Portland area" of
Oklahoma City, Okla. "have grown accustomed to annoying
squealing and screeching from thousands of birds at all hours
of the night. But Saturday morning" February 3, 2001, "those
residents awoke to a strange unfamiliar sound--the sound of
silence."

"They found thousands of dead birds covering the street" in
Oklahoma City.

"Now they fear that those birds were poisoned."

"'I was crying. I didn't know what to do,' Ines DeDios says, It
appears that the birds simply fell from the sky, but common
sense told her otherwise."

"'This means birds don't just drop dead like this,.' Ines found
a still moving. She wrapped it in a warm blanket, placing it
inside (another) blanket. Despite her best efforts, the bird
still fell victim to the same killer that wiped out his entire
flock."

"'My son was scared. He's only two (years old). He didn't want
to come out of the house when he saw all of the dead birds
laying down there.'"

(Editor's Comment: Smart boy!)

"'I think there's a better way to control birds., if this is
what people are trying to do.'"

"Tara Fuller says they their constant noise isn't the only
reason (why) someone might have wanted to kill the birds. She
said the massive mess they leave behind could be another reason
why."

"But Ines calls this a weak excuse. 'The excremental or
whatever waste the birds may produce doesn't bother me as much
as a massacre.'"

"However, it apparently hasn't bothered the remaining birds.
Thousands are back, filling every branch of the same tree while
the others lay below."

Oklahoma City "Animal Control officers tell us that the
incident is isolated, although there have been some cases of
polluted water killing entire flocks of birds. They say poison
could very well be the culprit" in this case. (See the KFOR-YV
news broadcast for February 4, 2001. Many thanks to Jim Hickman
for this report.)

(Editor's Comment: This case is identical to the mass death of
birds in Bastrop, Louisiana in 1998. What's going on here? Are
these bird kills a result of some unknown natural phenomenon?
Or are they "unintentional collateral damage" from Project
Cloverleaf and the chemtrails?_

HINDU ASTROLOGER CAUSES PANIC WITH HIS PREDICTION

"A week after a brutal earthquake," the worst in India for half
a century, "ripped through the city of Ahmedabad (population 5
million) in Gujarat state, the city has been gripped by panic
following reports of Hindu astrological predictions of an even
more destructive earthquake."

"'We will go inside (the city's buildings--J.T.) only after the
3rd or 4th of February, when the ill effects of the conjunction
are over,' said Naresh Dinghvi, who owns a small paan (leaf
from the betel tree. People in India chew it like gum--J.T.) in
Gujarat's prosperous capital of Ahmedabad."

"'This is going to be a very severe earthquake, more powerful
than the first one,' he added."

"Rumors of a fresh disaster have been flaring thick and fast
since a Gujarat publication quoted a Hindu astrologer was quoted
as saying a powerful earthquake would tear through Gujarat on
Saturday," February 3, 2001.

(Editor's Note: It didn't. However, there was a small
earthquake measuring 4.2 on the Richter scale in Guilford,
Connecticut that day.)

"Hindu astrologers say that Pluto, the planet of death, and
Mars, the planet that spells war and aggression, are aligned
ominously at the moment."

"Many of the city's five million people--including
panic-stricken Muslims--have been staying away from their
high-rise apartments."

The Ahmedabad earthquake "measured 7.9 on the Richter scale."
(See the Times of India for February 2, 2001. Many thanks to
Steve Wilson for this report.)

(Editor's Comment: During the past week, there were no
earthquakes in either Houston, Texas or Wilmington, North
Carolina, where the mysterious sky booms occurred. However,
there was a flurry of small quakes around the world. In addition
to the Guilford, Connecticut quake, there was an earthquake
measuring 4.7 on the Richter scale in the South Atlantic just
east of Rio de Janeiro and another quake measuring 4.5 on the
Richter scale near Adak Island in the Aleutians, southwest of
Alaska. So, does the present Mars/Pluto conjunction mean we are
now in "earthquake season?" Or is it a portent of a major war in
the Middle East once Ariel Sharon takes power in Israel? Stay
tuned.)

GORILLA ON THE LOOSE

A 150-pound female gorilla escaped from her cage at the zoo in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on Monday, February 5, 2000. But how
she managed to escape is still a mystery.

"Zookeepers in Pittsburgh are trying to figure out how a
gorilla got loose."

Once free, the gorilla proceeded "to wolf down muffins, cherry
pastries and soda at a concession area. About 250 people cowered
inside nearby buildings at the Pittsburgh Zoo & Aquarium for 45
minutes after the 150-pound female gorilla escaped from the
Tropical Forest Complex by crossing a wide moat and scaling a
14-foot (4-meter) wall."

"The unnamed animal, which is three-and-a-half feet (1 meter)
tall, found her way to the zoo's outdoor concession area and
began digging through trash cans. Zookeepers finally lured her
into a women's restroom, injected her with a tranquilizer and
returned her to captivity." (See USA Today for February 6, 2001,
"Female gorilla's escape rattles zoo in Pittsburgh," page 3A.)


 From the UFO Files...

1969: BHAJA--INDIA'S CAVES OF MYSTERY

In July 1973, your editor took his first trip to Peru. The day
we visited Mount Huascaran, the highest Andes peak in the
country, our group ran into some diehard hippies from the USA
who were winding up their years-long world tour.

(Editor's Comment: Yes, kids, it's true. Hippies really did
roam the earth back then.)

While we were having a late lunch at Lago de Llanganuco, on the
mountain, we got talking. At the time I was a real "ancient
astronauts" enthusiast. I had read Erich von Daniken and W.
Raymond Drake, and I had only days earlier seen the enigmatic
pre-Mochica ruins at Cerro de Sechin, near Casma and Chimbote.
So I was just gushing about von Daniken, ancient astronauts and
that weird "saucer" stone carving at Cerro de Sechin. When I
finished, Tim Shelton, one of the hippies, grinned and said,
"Hell, Joe, I can top that."

And he did.

First, a bit about Tim. He was from Madison, South Dakota and
graduated from high school in 1964, the year the Beatles first
came to the USA. He was a rabid Beatles fan and went to every
one of their concerts whenever they were over here. He also got
into the hippie scene early, living in Haight-Ashbury when Janis
Joplin was still waiting tables and singing at small clubs.

So when the Beatles embraced the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi in 1968,
so did Tim. He told me that he actually met the Maharishi, who
inspired him to visit India. So Tim hooked up with a bunch of
hippies, and they went first to Mumbai (Bombay) and later to
Pune (Poona). On their way back to Pune, they stopped in
Lonavla, to see some of the caves that were visited by Prince
Siddhartha Gautama, better known as Buddha, a couple of
millennia ago.

It was a three-kilometer (two-mile_ hike to the nearest cave,
Bhaja, which became a Buddhist shrine back in 200 B.C. The cave,
he explained, is about halfway up a tall hill that has two
ancient forts, Visapur and Lohagad, at the summit.

He admitted that he "was a little strung out when we got there"
because he had "smoked a pooper with Cindy Cooper." And in this
altered state of consciousness, he and the gang explored the 18
caves that served as viharas (Buddhist monasteries--J.T.) and
the large cave that was the chaitya (Buddhist temple--J.T.)

By mid-afternoon, Cindy and the others were eager to move on
and visit the nearby Karla cave. But Tim wanted to have "a quick
toke" so he told them to go on and he would catch up in twenty
minutes or so.

After they left, Tim looked around for a place "so I could
smoke some reefer in private." But there were a lot of Indian
guards around, and their presence was making him paranoid. So
he went deeper into the cave, past a number of stupas until he
came to a waterfall. Behind the waterfall he could make out the
dark outline of another cave.

Perfect! Tim thought. He stepped through the cascading water,
letting it stream off his broad-brimmed hat and Buffalo Bill
jacket with its fringed sleeves. After moving further back into
the cave, he took off his backpack "and got out my smoking
material and rolled a joint."

(Editor's Comment: Don't do this at home, readers. Like Nancy
Reagan says, "Just say no.")

As the cigarette smoldered down, Tim said, he began "feeling
pretty weird. Things were moving and turning, and I didn't
really know what was happening. I smelled this stranger odor.
Like hibiscus or frangipani. Like being at the florist's shop,
you know? It was really far out."

Reshouldering his pack, Tim decided to further explore the
waterfall's cave. "I saw this skinny guy with a long beard and
really long hair in a dhoti (white loincloth--J.T.) sitting in
a side cave in the lotus position. I said "Hey! What's
happening, man?' But he didn't move. It was like he didn't even
hear me. Weird!"

(Editor's Comment: He probably didn't. Sounds like the sadhu
was in a state of samadhi, a meditation trance in which he tunes
out the outside world.)

"The tunnel just went on and on. Now I'm starting to get hyper.
I'm like, 'Hey, how do I get back to the waterfall?' It was
getting darker and darker in there."

Next Tim heard some soft footsteps. He suddenly found himself
face-to-face with a pretty Hindu girl wearing a sari. She had
jet black eyes and her black hair was pulled back in a bun.
"What really impressed me were the diamonds. I mean, I didn't
think they were diamonds at first. But she had on diamond
pendant earrings and a big diamond necklace and a
silver-trimmed gold-colored sari that hung from one shoulder.
She had very thick kohl (black mascara--J.T.) all around her
eyes, and I noticed that she didn't have that red dot on her
forehead."

(Editor's Comment: Alarm bells should have been ringing right
then and there. First, what is a Brahmin princess doing in the
inner recesses of a Buddhist shrine? Second, since when does a
Brahmin appear in public without her caste mark?)

Thinking the young lady was a tour guide, "like at Disney
World," Tim asked, "Say, honey, how do I get back to the
waterfall?"

Folding her slender arms, the girl said in halting English,
"You are not from around here."

"Nope! I'm from the good old U.S. of A."

Laughing, she grabbed his forearm. "Come with me."

"Yeah. Okay. Sure."

They went down a number of dark tunnels. Tim said he started to
"get hyper again." All of the tunnels led downward--deeper into
the hillside.

He balked. "Maybe we better turn back."

"No, no, come." She tugged insistently at his wrist. "This is
the way out. You'll like it. You will see."

Further along, he related, "the tunnel began to lighten" and "I
could see figurines along the walls-- golden figurines--looked
like the illustrated Kama Sutra. Pretty heavy stuff."

(Editor's Comment: Hindu erotic bas-reliefs in a Buddhist
shrine!? Fella, something is definitely not kosher here.)

As if sensing what he was thinking, the dark-haired girl smiled
flirtatiously over her bare shoulder. The tunnel began to get
lighter. Then they walked into a broad underground chamber.
"There was a dim light coming from somewhere, but I didn't see
where. I wasn't tracking too well right then. Anyway, the chick
starts laughing and giving me these really flirty looks."

There were slender pillars and ornate archways and a tiled
floor. But what Tim really remembered about the chamber was the
ghat or pool. Its rectangular shape reminded him of an Olympic
swimming pool, and there were stone steps leading down into it.

"So the chick reaches up and pulls the clasp on her sari. And
down it comes. And she's just standing there in her birthday
suit with golden bracelets and anklets on. We are talking
Playmate of the Month, if you know what I mean. 'Come on. Join
me,' she says. Down those steps she goes, giving me that
come-hither look."

Well, Tim didn't wait for a printed invitation. He shed his
jacket and T-shirt and tie-dyed jeans and Mexican huarache
sandals and followed his shapely guide into the pool.

"I expected the water to be cold, but it was warm, as warm as a
hotel bathtub. She was treading water over near the stone wall.
I swam over there, and we started kissing. I'm thinking,
Nobody's ever going to believe this. I'm making it with some
Hindu chick in a temple pool.

As their lips parted, the girl put her hands on Tim's bare
shoulders...and, with surprising strength, pushed him
underwater. He came up sputtering, only to see her laughing
with glee.

"You caught me by surprise," he said.

And she dunked him again.

Her laughter grew louder. Every time I came up, she pushed me
under again. First couple of times it was funny. But then I
couldn't catch my breath."

Surfacing again, he gasped, "Baby! Let me get some air!"

And once again, she thrust him underwater. Beneath the surface,
Tim's lungs were beginning to burn. He felt something else
strange, as well. Something was tightening around his upper
arms--and his waist!

Opening his eyes underwater, he saw three large tentacles--and
two more reaching for his lazily-kicking legs. As he came up for
air, he saw the body of a huge black octopus--with the girl's
laughing head on top of it.

"I just freaked out! I pushed with both hands. Her head smacked
the stone wall, and she went kind of glassy-eyed." Instantly the
tentacles relaxed their grip. He broke away and swam for the
steps, "making better time than Mark Spitz (USA Olympic swimming
champion in 1972--J.T.) He scrambled up the steps, grabbed his
clothes and, hopping around barefoot, tried to pull his jeans
on.

Slipping on his huaraches, he saw the girl's head and black
octopus body in the middle of the pool. He yelled, "Wh-What are
you!?"

"But the chick didn't answer. She gave me this pouty look and
ducked beneath the water. Then this cloud of black ink appeared
in the water. Black tendrils spread all through the pool. In a
couple of minutes, it looked like a pool full of ink. And then
things really got weird. It wasn't even liquid anymore. It was
like air. I was standing there at the edge, looking down, and
it was like I was looking out a big window at a dark night full
of stars. I didn't recognize any constellations. It was just a
vast star field with a few spiral galaxies behind the stars."

"And then I felt this wind behind me. Dust and flower petals
flew by me. It was like all the air in the room was going out
through the pool. My lungs started to hurt again, and I yelled,
'I can't breathe!'"

"I didn't even grab my backpack. I ran straight to the tunnel's
mouth. Only there wasn't a tunnel there any more. It was just
solid rock. I was pushing at it, shouting, 'Where's the tunnel,
man!?'"

"Then I felt something ice-cold touch the back of my neck, and
I passed out."

When Tim came to again, he found himself lying in an alleyway,
looking up at the dark Indian sky. His backpack, which he had
left behind, was sitting on his chest. He had his jacket on but
it was unbuttoned. As he sat up, he looked around and saw some
people. But they kept their distance from him.

"I was back in Lonavla, right behind the post office. Don't ask
me how I got there. I tracked down my friends, and they were
really worried about me. Turns out I'd been gone for
two-and-a-half days! The whole experience was just so far
freaking out, can you dig it?" And turning to me, he added, "So
if it's weird you're looking for, Joe, don't fool around with
Cuzco. You gotta go to India, man."

We listeners were silent for a moment, and then Mary Beth broke
the silence with "What on earth were you smoking, anyway!?"

Admittedly, Tim (not his real name, of course. I don't want the
guy to be embarrassed should his grandchildren read this--J.T.)
wasn't the best eyewitness. He smoked a mind-altering substance
twice before his encounter with the creature, and the whole
thing could have been a dream, induced by the dope and the
strange flowery smells behind the waterfall.

Then again, the caves of Bhaja do have an interesting history.
Before the Buddhists arrived in 200 B.C., the Mora fishermen of
the region worshipped Elkiti, a Hindu goddess of the sea there.

So what did Tim run into down there? Some kind of Rakshasa
(demonic entity--J.T.) The goddess Elkiti herself? Or a
drug-induced nightmare?

Are there really hidden caves and tunnels reaching deep into
that Visapur-Lohagad Hill?

In a land as old as India, who can tell? (For more on the
Bhaja-Karla cave system, see India by J. Thomas Gayn, Lonely
Places Publishing, Hawthorn, Vic., Australia, 1997, pages 840
and 841; and India: The Rough Guide by David Abram, Harriet
Podler, Davdan Sen and John Williams, Penguin Books, London,
1980,)

Well, that's it for this week. Join us in seven days when we
take another look at UFO and paranormal happenings from around
the world, brought to you by "the paper that goes home--UFO
Roundup." See you then.

UFO ROUNDUP: Copyright 2001 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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 9

                        Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In

From: Kurt Jonach <ewarrior@electricwarrior.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 01:49:21 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 09:01:54 -0500
Subject: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In


------------------------------------------------------------
CYDONIA HEAVYWEIGHT WEIGHS-IN

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

The Electric Warrior : News February 8, 2001
http://www.electricwarrior.com/news/ewNews000C.htm

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

CYDONIA HEAVYWEIGHT WEIGHS-IN

"In short, it's an Eyeball fellas. Get used to it." says The
Enterprise Mission (TEM), about an enigmatic surface feature in
the notorious Face on Mars.

This feature can be seen in a newly released NASA image, just
where an eye should be, if the famous Martian landform was
intentionally designed to look like a face.

"More than nine years ago, former NASA imaging specialist Vince
DiPietro proposed that his new analysis of the Viking Face
images showed the presence of not only what appeared to be an
"eye socket," but also evidence of a "pupil" of the right size
and shape to be a representation of such human features," says
TEM.

The Enterprise Mission used the Electric Warrior's 'Mars Eye
Detail' to illustrate its point. This graphic was published on
the Internet February 1, the day after NASA released seven new
images of the Cydonia region on Mars.

TEM's Web-based expose will either delight or dismay you,
depending on your point-of-view, but it reaches the same
conclusion any reasonable person would, considering the
increasing number of strange, anthropomorphic anomalies:

More images need to be taken by the Mars Global Surveyor
spacecraft.

MGS officially completed its primary mission on the same day the
Cydonia images were released. NASA has approved an extended MGS
mission through April 2002, during which time the Mars Orbital
Camera will be routinely pointed at specific places on Mars.

TEM thinks one of those places should be Cydonia, and has
provided a long list of contact info, urging its readers to help
persuade NASA to provide more high-resolution images of the
Face.

"New surprises can come at any time," says a NASA news release
describing the Extended Mission phase.

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

OPINION - EVEN BETTER THAN THE REAL THING

TEM's Richard C. Hoagland is the man most responsible for
popularizing the notion of a face on Mars. His 1987 'The
Monuments of Mars', is the definitive book on the subject.

But the whole of Cydonia research does not rest on the shoulders
of one man, any more than a dramatic rendering by a Silicon
Valley digital artist establishes the existence of an eye in the
Face on Mars.

What may be obscured by the carping criticism leveled at
Hoagland by both advocates and opponents of the Cydonia
artificiality hypothesis, is that one and all suffer from the
same lack of information.

The situation is not likely to change, until enough people are
willing to soberly confront the real possibility of
extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI).

An imaginative graphic intended to explicate where Cydonia
researchers say there may be an eye, is involved in an online
discussion that questions its use of artistic license.

Is it true, that this artwork, no more than a diagram of what
might be there, has shocked and surprised so many people?

If this simple illustration cannot be displayed without being
apriori suspected of elaborate intentions, if this simple idea
cannot be discussed without being an assault on science, then
how will we approach the genuinely alien?

How do we confront the real thing?

------------------------------------------------------------
RELATED RESOURCES

The Face Gets a Face Lift -- Courtesy Michael Malin?
http://www.enterprisemission.com/Face-lift.htm

New Era Begins as Mars Global Surveyor Completes Prime Mission
http://www.electricwarrior.com/news/ewNews000A.htm

------------------------------------------------------------
THE ELECTRIC WARRIOR
February 9, 2001
Silicon Valley, CA

------------------------------------------------------------
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.

Web developers, the URL address for this content is:
http://www.electricwarrior.com/news/ewNews000C.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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 9

                          Re: Introduction - Behnke

From: Jeff Behnke <twitch02@hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 13:29:39 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 09:08:59 -0500
Subject: Re: Introduction - Behnke


 >Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 16:12:42 -0800 (PST)
 >From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >Subject: Re: Introduction
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>From: Jeff Behnke <twitch02@hotmail.com>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Introduction
 >>Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 13:41:05 -0000

 >>Hey there everyone,

 >>I don't know anyone on this List, but I just thought I'd
 >>introduce myself and say hi and maybe get to know a couple
 >>people.

 >Hi. And nice-looking website; I'm going to append it to my
 >already-bulging "Esoterica" page...

 >>I'm personally into the Alien/God theory since it completely
 >>obliterated my own belief system.

 >"Alien/God theory" as in Sitchin's genetic tinkerers from space?
 >I wouldn't exactly discount it.  My main area of interest (at
 >least online) is possible Mars artifacts, so I suppose my
 >preoccupations intersect your own to an extent.

 >My website is:

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

 >Wanna trade links?


Sure, we can exchange links. I'm going to be making a few
changes, a BBS system, and a few other things - one of which is a
linking engine. It should be done probably on the weekend - that
is as long as my fiance gives me a chance to sit in front of the
computer. Women. Bah!

Alien/God theory is in Sitchin territory, but I don't really
believe that aliens come from this twelfth planet with its own
atmosphere that has a 3600 year orbit. I don't know why. I buy a
lot of what Sitchin says, but not all of it - even though that
_is_ the biggest part.

William Bramley is another one who believes in the theory. He's
even gone so far as to say that the whole concept of seeing a
light when you die and going towards the light is just a way to
scam human souls out of something.

There's too much evidence that there is no difference between a
prophet from the Bible and an abductee today. Why would miracles
all of the sudden cease happening after the christian church was
created? In my mind, miracles didn't cease happening. They just
disguised themselves under another name.

It's kind of funny. My mother's a strict Christian, yet she
doesn't believe in the paranormal at all. I have nothing against
Christians and have even been baptized myself, but it's just
ironic how the paranormal is where modern day miracles happen,
yet no one believes them! How can you believe Jesus rose to
heaven and Mary was a virgin, yet _not_ believe in UFOs or alien
races stealing our children and impregnating women? Something
caused it - whichever word you use to describe the 'who' of it
all.

Anyway, that's enough babbling. Nice to meet you.


Jeff Behnke
twitch02@hotmail.com








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 9

                    Mussolini's UFO Files - Disc-Diagrams

From: Alfredo Lissoni <retecun@tiscalinet.it>
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 14:32:46 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 09:27:17 -0500
Subject: Mussolini's UFO Files - Disc-Diagrams


Disc diagrams from Mussolini's UFO files are on-line at:

http://www.cun-italia.net/fasfile/fafil03.htm


Best wishes,

Alfredo Lissoni








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 9

                       P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 09:32:16 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 09:32:16 -0500
Subject: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact




From: EBK - UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>


For The Record: Project 1947 List Posts

ET Hypothesis & ET Fact

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 10:13:21 -0600
From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@FRONTIERNET.NET>
Subject: Re: ETH and ETF
To: PROJECT-1947@LISTSERV.AOL.COM


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@TEXAS.NET>
 >To: <PROJECT-1947@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>
 >Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 8:09 PM
 >Subject: Re: ETH and ETF


 >Hell (pardon my French),

 >The only question being debated here is who's a ufologist and
 >who's not.

 >In other words, semantics raises its ugly head again. Of course
 >ufology wouldn't have this problem if BA's, MS's and PhD's in
 >same were offered, which they aren't.

 >From my point of view, all of the following are dedicated and
 >self-proclaimed ufologists who unequivocably acept the ETH as
 >ipso facto:

 >Kevin Randle
 >Donald Schmitt
 >Ron Galganski (sp?)
 >Budd Hopkins
 >David Jacobs
 >Linda Moulton Howe
 >Walt Andrus
 >John Schuessler
 >George Filer
 >Stanton Friedman
 >Tom Carey (sp?)
 >Karl Pflock (he believes in the Hill case)
 >John Carpenter (he believes in everything)
 >Donald Ware (ditto)
 >Bruce Maccabee (watch him equvocate)
 >Woods Father & Son (who cares?), and others.

 >And I have my suspicions about Richards Haines & Hall.


Dennis,

I'd be interested in knowing what these individuals have written
about the ETH, which after all is the subject of discussion --
not whether they accept as valid cases that could be interpreted
in that context. (That would make just about everybody on this
list an ETHist.)

Incidentally, Donald Ware is over on the contactee end of things
and outside the parameters of discussion. _Of_course_ contactees
and followers believe in space visitors and thus hold to ETF (ET
Fact). That's the first sentence of the creed.

In The UFO Encyclopedia, 2nd Ed., I did an extended article on
the ETH literature and thought I'd found just about everything
of consequence in the English language on the subject. I am
unaware of anything the inviduals below contributed to the
formulated of the hypothesis. Please give us some citations.

Jerry Clark

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/


Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 10:16:23 -0600
From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@FRONTIERNET.NET>
Subject: Re: ETH and ETF
To: PROJECT-1947@LISTSERV.AOL.COM


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@TEXAS.NET>
 >To: <PROJECT-1947@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>
 >Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 8:09 PM
 >Subject: Re: ETH and ETF

Dennis,

A quick footnote to my previous message:

I believe Stan Friedman has written on the ETH. In my very first
post on this subject, I wrote that he was among the very few
ufologists I'd met who apparently considered ETs an esssentially
proven presence. In other words, no disagreement there.

Jerry

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/


Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 00:14:51 +0000
From: Mendoza [Peter Brookesmith] <Mendoza@APPLEONLINE.NET>
Subject: Re: ETH and ETF
To: PROJECT-1947@LISTSERV.AOL.COM

Compliments of the Duke and please excuse the intermittent
guffaws in the background:

 >Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 10:13:21 -0600
 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@FRONTIERNET.NET>
 >Subject: Re: ETH and ETF
 >To: PROJECT-1947@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>

 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@TEXAS.NET>
 >To: <PROJECT-1947@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>
 >Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 8:09 PM
 >Subject: Re: ETH and ETF

 >I'd be interested in knowing what these individuals
 >have written about the ETH, which after all is the
 >subject of discussion - not whether they accept as
 >valid cases that could be interpreted in that context.
 >(That would make just about everybody on this list
 >an ETHist.)

This takes a lot of beating for chutzpah - hence the explosion
of mirth that temporarily disabled me when I read this one.

Since I initiated the discussion, I think I have some locus
standi here. And it wasn't about whether any individuals have
written theoretical treatises on the ETH: we all know very few
have, so there's not a lot to discuss. The more interesting
question is how many people treat UFO evidence as supporting the
ETH, and consciously or otherwise see proving the ETH as the
purpose of their ufological endeavors.

A gander at the names of members of this List would not lead one
to endorse what I think is the drift of Jerry's last sentence.
Though I am still wondering what the word "valid" means in the
context.

Having tried to justify Wittgensteinian private meanings for
"debunker", "IFO", and for all I know "hamburger", "masonry
nail", Jerry now moves on to sequester "ufologist", a term often
to be found with the word "serious" immediately to the left of
it. He has oft noted the obvious about ufology, viz. that
*anyone* can call himself a ufologist. But now (as Dennis points
out) we're supposed to reduce the word to include only those who
"participate actively in ufology... for example by contributing
to its specialist, mainstream literature"? Really? So where does
that leave Errol Bruce-Knapp, Zechariah Sitchin, the Eckers, the
Birdsalls, James Easton, Tony Dodd, Tim Printy, Linda Mouldy
Cowe... some of whom actually publish specialist mainstream
organs, some of whom publish rarely if ever *in print*, some of
whom think the ETH barking and others think it the shining
truth... ?? (These names came to me at random. Anyone can think
of others who are published or unpublished, and from anywhere in
the spectrum from scoffer to cultist, who are equally knowledge-
able, industrious and dedicated.) If you took the Clarkian
definition at face value, most if not all those I named are mere
"tourists".

Of course I could be foolish in presuming that the word
"mainstream" is being used in its quotidian sense and
unwittingly ignorant that that, too, enjoys a specialist meaning
known only to the initiated. Even so, that won't help. Because:

For every person included in the Clarkian definition - and
politely leaving aside the question of how many even of those
may be deemed wholly rational - there will be an exception of
equal worth or loopiness. Anyone anywhere who has produced some
kind of commentary on UFOs, regardless of quality and regardless
of anyone's criteria for quality, is by default a ufologist.
Some would shrink from the soubriquet, of course, but there
y'go. Ufology has to be taken in its wholeness; it can only be
divided up into good, bad, serious, unserious, or whatever,
according to criteria that large segments of the rest of the
ufological population would reject since they share quite
different criteria. There are no common "institutional"
standards. That's why a term like "serious ufologist" is so
funny: one person's "seriousness" is another's triviality or
insanity. What it really means is "ufologists I take seriously
(though I myself may be nuts)".

Ufology defines itself. Its overriding interest is in some form
of the ETH and its default position, regardless of theorizing of
any kind, is that UFO=ET craft. Trying to hijack the direction
of the discussion don't alter that.


best wishes

Mendoza

----------------------------------
"Never underestimate the power
of stupid people in large groups."
__________________________________


_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/


Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 12:01:08 -0000
From: Jenny Randles <nufon@CURRANTBUN.COM>
Subject:  Re: ETH and ETF
To: PROJECT-1947@LISTSERV.AOL.COM


 >Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 00:14:51 +0000
 >From: Mendoza [Peter Brookesmith] <Mendoza@APPLEONLINE.NET>
 >Subject: Re: ETH and ETF
 >To: PROJECT-1947@LISTSERV.AOL.COM

 >For every person included in the Clarkian definition -- and
 >politely leaving aside the question of how many even of those
 >may be deemed wholly rational -- there will be an exception
 >of equal worth or loopiness. Anyone anywhere who has produced
 >some kind of commentary on UFOs, regardless of quality and
 >regardless of anyone's criteria for quality, is by default
 >a ufologist. Some would shrink from the soubriquet, of
 >course, but there y'go. Ufology has to be taken in its
 >wholeness; it can only be divided up into good, bad, serious,
 >unserious, or whatever, according to criteria that large
 >segments of the rest of the ufological population would
 >reject since they share quite different criteria. There are
 >no common "institutional" standards. That's why a term like
 >"serious ufologist" is so funny: one person's "seriousness"
 >is another's triviality or insanity. What it really means is
 >"ufologists I take seriously (though I myself may be nuts)".

 >Ufology defines itself. Its overriding interest is in some
 >form of the ETH and its default position, regardless of
 >theorizing of any kind, is that UFO=ET craft. Trying to
 >hijack the direction of the discussion don't alter that.


 >best wishes

 >Mendoza


Hi,

Whilst there is, of course, truth here - ufology - as perceived
by the world at large - is different from how we might see it on
this list - and we live in ivory towers at peril to such
realism.

However, I use terms like 'serious ufologist' all the time in
the following sense.

I consider a 'serious ufologist' to be someone guided by the
principle - 'something odd is going on here - lets try to figure
out what it is by applying the methods of science and rational
thinking to the best of my ability'.

I consider a 'UFO enthusiast' to be someone attracted to the
subject (usually as a kid, often following a sighting) who
becomes fascinated (if not obsessed) by the cultural reflection
of that synonym UFO = Alien Spaceship. They then abandon any
realistic pretence at 'investigating' the data and become one of
two things - an advocate or a crusader. Both entail not pursuing
the evidence - wherever it leads - but promoting their
pre-formed perception of it (in the pub, via a 50 reader
newsletter, on Radio and TV chat shows. This usually is that the
'great truth' needs exposing that there is a cover up by the
government of an alien invasion, yardi yardi yah.

Now there are vastly more UFO enthusiasts than serious
ufologists and much of the global impression of what ufology is
all about comes about via the former for a host of sociological
reasons (largely summed up by the maxim - 'woman sees spaceship
is news, woman sees strange light and we are trying to find out
what it was' is a bit of a bore).

At times UFO enthusiasts become serious ufologists but these are
a bit like total eclipses - you take note when they happen as
they are fairly rare events. Most often the enthusiasts get
bored when the aliens don't land and the government don't own up
and the lure of playing Muldur or Scully after work soon wanes.
So they find a new hobby to brighten their lives. Because that's
usually what ufology is to an enthusiast - fun - and it simply
ain't fun chasing cases that 95% of the time go nowhere or get
explained away (as they do). That's only interesting to the
serious ufologist who learns from them and applies the results
to the overall data set.

A serious Ufologist is intrigued by any case - wherever it
leads. It has something to tell us about ufology. An enthusiast
isn't interested in anything other than cases that 'prove' how
ET is here.

I saw this all the time during my many years within BUFORA. We
had a pretty standard membership level (600 - 700) and a massive
departure rate (up to one third of members per year never
renewed). It did not matter because there were always new
teenagers growing into UFO enthusiasts to take their place.

But the lesson of this turnover (which I am sure is mirrored by
UFO groups everywhere) is obvious. There is no stable 'UFO
community' outside the hardcore of serious ufologists - those
few hundred who stick it out for decades. But the UFO enthusiast
fan base (shifting sands that it is) is so much larger and so
much more - well - 'enthusiastic'  - that they readily give the
media the fuel they need to keep going the UFO mythologies that
they require every bit as much as the enthusiasts do. Because it
never has been the realities of ufology that interest the world
at large - only the dreams and unfulfilled aspirations that do.

Serious ufologists are often too boring, too busy trying to find
answers, too cautious, too unwilling to give 'The Quote' to be
in great demand and - what the heck - there's no real difference
in the eyes of most folk out there. If you have a doctor in
front of your name (wherever its from!) so much the better but
otherwise one ufologist is like any other.

There are no professional standards - not even any agreed code
of practice (as we found last year when I set out the UFOIN
version and it created hostility and apathy in equal measure).
ufology has never even bothered to try to create some kind of
academy with agreed principles to send a message to the world
that we do care what we are doing and how we do it. So you can
hardly blame anyone for thinking we are all alike.

The idea that Peter offers of us being a 'whole' messy community
is indeed what takes over the mindset of the planet. That's how
they see us. And it effects a lot of people with whom it doesn't
matter what they think as well as the few influential people
(scientists etc) with whom we really could build a rapport IF
they knew there were two Ufologies - not one - and that some of
us were willing to try to emulate scientific thinking.

Of course, there is a third group of people - those who have
decided to role play as serious ufologists. They have realised
(consciously in some cases - unconsciously in most I suspect)
that they can make a business out of being a ufologist but to do
that successfully sheer mathematics tells you to junk your
caution and your concerns and write books, create magazines,
give lectures to, make videos for the UFO enthusiasts out there.
Not - in the main - the limited serious UFO community.

Why is obvious. There are so many of the enthusiasts. Even if
they all buy your wares in three years time there will be enough
new ones that have come along to let you flog them all over
again. And they regard anyone who champions their cause of
ending the cover up and proving that ET is real as a hero to be
worshipped. You are on to a winner if you use your head.

I'm not about to identify individuals, of course. In fact I
don't even have anyone specifically in mind here. But I bet we
all know one or two that role play ufology. And I am not here
attacking them for doing so. Like Peter rightly said we have to
accept this is a big field and we all stand together if we
continue to choose to do so. I don't actually blame anyone for
fulfilling what is obviously a social need.

But, unfortunately, for example, efforts like UFOIN (a team of
serious ufologists working on major cases - not as skeptics but
as investigators willing to speak out whatever data emerges) are
few and far between. And swamped by the enthusiast lists and
groups who are not looking for answers but seeking the next big
case.

Sadly, the UFO conferences that get organised (with precious few
exceptions) are aimed at the UFO enthusiasts and hardly ever
ignore the need to 'make money' (often because they just
wouldn't happen without it) in order to do real research.
Serious ufologists ought to be staging more 'working seminars'
or specifically targeted conferences that aim to actually
achieve something at the end and actually move us forward rather
than tread water (as 99 out 100 conferences do) whilst they
spout twaddle to the already converted .

And, of course, what Ufology really lacks is any kind of
cohesive publishing policy -  a world leading journal (like FSR
once aspired to be) - or a publishing house owned by itself - so
as to get out there into the world at large all the important
things that serious ufology could export under a common banner
that we could market AS serious ufology.

I don't mean that there are no good magazines. There are. Jerry
does a terrific job at the IUR and he has my total support in
that endeavour. But usually these ventures are group related -
probably as that's the only way to fund them. This inevitably
makes them at least partly parochial.

Ideally serious ufology needs a pan-global, trans-group journal
of record that fulfills the role FSR did when Hynek and Valle
and Guerin and Saunders were writing it.  Perhaps tied to a
publishing outlet that could carry weight and actually impact on
the people that matter to even part of the extent that
enthusiasts can.

Of course, the brick wall we hit will always be money. And,
politics, as well, to some degree. But I think that until
serious ufology gets itself organised in this way to start
thinking and acting as a community then we will be two laps
behind the enthusiasts forever.

And - in case you think that I am suggesting it - I am not here
advocating a skeptical stance. Within serious ufologists there
are (and we should welcome this fact) a range of ideas as to
what ufology means. Some, indeed, are skeptics who think all
cases are ultimately resolvable. Some, no doubt, either believe
(or hope) that some part of ufology reflects alien contact.
Others will be interested by the possibility that certain cases
might lead us into discoveries about natural physical phenomena.
These differing  views and way less important than common goals
and methodologies.

Theories, as such, are much less significant than the general
approach to 'doing' ufology. If that is investigation-based,
evidence-led and open minded to the point that you publish what
you find (even if it disagrees with what you had hoped to find)
then that to me defines a serious ufologist in the sense that I
am here arguing.

And these are the people who need to put aside petty differences
and stop thinking in terms of 'them' and 'us' - Pelicanist and
Believers. Because we are the serious UFO community and it is
time we pulled ourselves together as one.

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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 9

                  Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 09:14:18 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 10:01:18 -0500
Subject: Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Young


 >From: Kurt Jonach <ewarrior@electricwarrior.com>
 >To: UFO Updates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In
 >Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 01:49:21 -0800

 >CYDONIA HEAVYWEIGHT WEIGHS-IN

 >"In short, it's an Eyeball fellas. Get used to it." says The
 >Enterprise Mission (TEM), about an enigmatic surface feature in
 >the notorious Face on Mars.

 >This feature can be seen in a newly released NASA image, just
 >where an eye should be, if the famous Martian landform was
 >intentionally designed to look like a face.

 >"More than nine years ago, former NASA imaging specialist Vince
 >DiPietro proposed that his new analysis of the Viking Face
 >images showed the presence of not only what appeared to be an
 >"eye socket," but also evidence of a "pupil" of the right size
 >and shape to be a representation of such human features," says
 >TEM.


Kurt, Anyone:

Although I see what appears to be a crater in the image, can
anyone show me evidence of a "pupil".

I not also that there are thousands of craters on the surface of
Mars, and millions on other bodies throughout the solar system.
Thus, I conclude that the chances that this crater-like feature
on the surface of Mars is not a crater are, well, damn slim.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 9

                 Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Tonnies

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 07:03:36 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 10:28:32 -0500
Subject: Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Tonnies


 >From: Kurt Jonach <ewarrior@electricwarrior.com>
 >To: UFO Updates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In
 >Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 01:49:21 -0800

 >"In short, it's an Eyeball fellas. Get used to it." says The
 >Enterprise Mission (TEM), about an enigmatic surface feature in
 >the notorious Face on Mars.

 >This feature can be seen in a newly released NASA image, just
 >where an eye should be, if the famous Martian landform was
 >intentionally designed to look like a face.

 >"More than nine years ago, former NASA imaging specialist Vince
 >DiPietro proposed that his new analysis of the Viking Face
 >images showed the presence of not only what appeared to be an
 >"eye socket," but also evidence of a "pupil" of the right size
 >and shape to be a representation of such human features," says
 >TEM.

Great piece! I was looking at the "eye" last night and noticed
that, rather than being circular, it's actually more of a
"flattened" pyramid. It's distinctly faceted. In the context of
the shadow-casting brow-peak, this actually makes a great deal
of sense, sculpturally, if the builders (assuming there _were_
"builders," of course) wanted the pupil to defy the shadow in
the rest of the shallow "eye socket."

While I'm not entirely opposed to Bara's analysis, I think his
eagerness to see blantantly anthropomorphic features has
detracted from his ability to discern unexpected surface
formations.


=====
Mac Tonnies (macbot@yahoo.com) 816-561-0190
105 Ward Parkway #900, Kansas City, MO 64112
MTVI: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/mtvi.html
Cydonia: 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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 9

                 Re: Moon Conspiracy Theory on Fox - Blanton

From: Terry Blanton <commengr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 12:31:07 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 17:59:04 -0500
Subject: Re: Moon Conspiracy Theory on Fox - Blanton


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 23:31:55 EST
 >Fwd Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 17:19:23 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Moon Conspiracy Theory on Fox - Gates

<snip>

 >You can always catch the two hour version called Capricorn
 >One..........  :)   Its available on Video and DVD.

Except that Cap. One was about a mission to Mars.  See:

http://us.imdb.com/Title?0077294


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 9

                         Re: Introduction - Tonnies

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 10:24:50 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 18:03:05 -0500
Subject: Re: Introduction - Tonnies


 >From: Jeff Behnke <twitch02@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Introduction
 >Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 13:29:39 -0000

<snip>

 >Alien/God theory is in Sitchin territory, but I don't really
 >believe that aliens come from this twelfth planet with its own
 >atmosphere that has a 3600 year orbit. I don't know why. I buy a
 >lot of what Sitchin says, but not all of it - even though that
 >_is_ the biggest part.

Sitchin's celestial mechanics are ludicrous. And the notion of
using gold in the "12th Planet's" atmosphere as an "insulator"
(!) is downright laughable. So while I don't buy the Annunaki
schtick, I think some of the mythological parallels he cites
deserve attention.

 >William Bramley is another one who believes in the theory. He's
 >even gone so far as to say that the whole concept of seeing a
 >light when you die and going towards the light is just a way to
 >scam human souls out of something.

I'm undecided on whether "souls" exist. If they do, then they're
likely accessible to technology, and the alien abduction
phenomenon may have some esoteric link with this. I find
Vallee's notion of a psychosocial "control system" very
appealing. What's missing is the mechanism responsible, which
could very well be something brought on by our own minds--a
side-effect of sentience.


Best wishes with the website!



=====
Mac Tonnies (macbot@yahoo.com) 816-561-0190
105 Ward Parkway #900, Kansas City, MO 64112
MTVI: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/mtvi.html
Cydonia: 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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 9

                    DSS... Weird Stuff In The Background

From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 12:56:57 -0600
Fwd Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 18:06:03 -0500
Subject: DSS... Weird Stuff In The Background


There is a channel on satellite system DSS... Direct Satellite
System ....called Channel X. It is a music channel. There are
vague, shadowy images scrolling across the screen in the
background on this channel. They fade in and out. A friend
discovered this, and recorded it. Some of the images did record
to the VHS tape. This got him curious, so he got to looking
around. These same vague, shadowy images were found on most of
the music channels and the Cartoon Network on DSS.

The images were best visable when looking at the screen as if
you were looking at one of those 3D Magic Eye type posters that
were popular awhile back. If the images were nothing more than
optical illusion of the out of focus eye, however, I don't think
they would show up on the recording. But I'm no expert on those
things, so any input would be welcome.

Anybody else seen these things? If so, can you describe what
you're seeing? I'd like to know if it matches what my friend has
seen.


Thanks

Bobbie

====================
Bobbie "Jilain" Felder
www.jilain.com
Point of View webcast
IRC Undernet #pov
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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 9

                              E-Mail Addresses?

From: Giuliano 'Jimmy' Marinkovicc <9a4ag@clarc.org>
Date: Fri,  9 Feb 2001 13:42:11 -0600 (CST)
Fwd Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 18:40:05 -0500
Subject: E-Mail Addresses?


Dear friends and co-operators,

Does anyone know e-mail addresses from the following ufologists:

Stephen Katunaric
Aioha McGrew
Walt Andrus
Richard Hall

In our national mainstream daily newspaper 'Vechernji List'
(Nightly paper) in an article in the February 1 2001 issue, it
was mentioned that a delegation from MUFON will visit Croatia
for a UFO skywatch.

In the article Richard Hall and Stephen Katunaric have been
mentioned in that sense. The article is also talking about Aioha
McGrew and Walt Andrus. I want to confirm that information and
to see if its credible. So if anyone know e-mails from those
ufologists please contact me.


Yours,

Jimmy


<===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===>
|   Giuliano-Jimmy-Marinkovicc                                  |
|   Ante Starchevicca 25/c, 23000 Zadar, Croatia, Europe        |
|   telephone: +385-23-24-06-14                                 |
|   ICQ UIN #66584465                                           |
<===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===>
|   Analytical Group for Extra-Terrestrial Information => AGETI |
|   AGETI founder http://www.clarc.org/~9a4ag                   |
|   To subscribe to AGETI mailing list send a blank e-mail to:  |
|   ageti-subscribe@yahooGroups.com                             |
|   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ageti                         |
<===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===>
|   Author, Writer and Director of                              |
|   TV documentary series "THE CROATIAN X-FILES"                |
<===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===>
|   Writer of UFO column in Croatian magazine AURA              |
<===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===>
|   Radio station DONAT-FM, 97,2 Mhz WFM                        |
|   Obala kneza Branimira 12, 23000 Zadar, Croatia, Europe      |
|   telephone: +385-23-236-380                                  |
|   Fax:       +385-23-236-365                                  |
|   Author/Host of the radio program "THE UFO-X-FILES"          |
|   Cooperator of the radio program "UFOPORT" (Radio Rijeka     |
<===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===><===>







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 9

                 Re: Mussolini's UFO Files - Disc-Diagrams -

From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 22:02:16 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 22:21:53 -0500
Subject: Re: Mussolini's UFO Files - Disc-Diagrams -


 >Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 14:32:46 -0800
 >From: Alfredo Lissoni <retecun@tiscalinet.it>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Mussolini's UFO Files - Disc-Diagrams

 >Disc diagrams from Mussolini's UFO files are on-line at:

 >http://www.cun-italia.net/fasfile/fafil03.htm

 >Best wishes,

 >Alfredo Lissoni


Hello Alfredo,

It looks fascinating. Is it possible for you to give an English
translation of the captions?


Thanks,

Josh Goldstein









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 10

              CI: 2-9-01 - Face on Mars: A Closer, Better Look

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 21:51:59 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 09:34:07 -0500
Subject: CI: 2-9-01 - Face on Mars: A Closer, Better Look


2-9-01

The Cydonian Imperative
For Immediate Release

The Face on Mars: A Closer, Better Look

by Mac Tonnies

Illustrated and linked version at:

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


The new image of the Face offers a clear, well-illuminated look
at the formation's western half, revealing abundant detail
around the "brow," "headdress" and "teardrop." Perhaps most
provocatively, the new Mars Global Surveyor image reveals the
proposed "eyeball" with unparalleled clarity, showing it to be
an actual feature with a flat, triangular bump for a pupil and a
convincing, anatomically correct almond-shaped perimeter.

[image]

The new Face image. Note detail on "headdress," "brow" and
possible "eye." The edge of the Face's "lips" is also visible.

The "eyeball" is an important element in assessing the Face's
potential artificiality. Since fine-scale features such as the
"eye" were invisible at the resolution afforded by the Viking
photos in the 1970s, advocates of the Artificiality Hypothesis
(AH) suggested, reasonably, that if the Face was indeed an
intentional representation, secondary features sustaining a
facial likeness should be seen on better images.

The unexpected "nostrils" visible in the image returned to Earth
in April of 1998 confirmed the a priori model posited by Dr. Tom
Van Flandern, Richard Hoagland, Dr. Stanley McDaniel, Dr. Mark
Carlotto and other independent researchers willing to entertain
the possibility of artificial structures on Mars. Van Flandern,
in particular, concluded that the 1998 image was proof that the
Face was artificial "beyond reasonable doubt." But while his
mathematical criteria remain compelling, his statistical case is
less than watertight owing to the clarity of the fine-scale
morphologies under investigation.

The "eye" seen on the new image provides us with another chance
to address artificiality on a practical level. The "anatomy" of
the eye is remarkably human, but not perfectly so. Correspondent
and collaborator Kurt Jonach of The Electric Warrior immediately
set to work on a speculative reconstruction of the
"eye" - complete with digital "mascara." Although he subsequently
made it abundantly clear to Internet Cydonia-watchers that his
rendering was a purely artistic exercise, the image has
nevertheless been interpreted as a strict forensic model by
researchers seeking a blatant anthropomorphic analogue.

[image]

eWarrior's speculative version of the western "eye" visible in
the new image.

Mike Bara, writing on behalf of Richard Hoagland's Enterprise
Mission, maintains that Jonach's "eye" is essentially a tracing
of actual features on the Martian Face. While there is no doubt
that Jonach's drawing is based on the feature thought by many to
be a deliberately created eye, the corresponding feature on the
Face contains notable differences. For example, the "pupil" - if
it is a pupil - is not the round structure seen in Jonach's
speculative illustration. Nor is it the dark circle featured on
Bara's deceptive enhancement mosaic, in which the highly-praised
orthorectification by Mark Kelly is fitted with pixels from the
new Face overpass.

[image]

Mark Kelly's orthorectified Face based on the 1998 image.
Shadows matching those of frame 35A72 have been added to
simulate the Face's appearance under Viking lighting conditions.

Bara's reconstruction is made doubly questionable because
the"eye" feature he immediately cites as proof of the Face
mesa's artificiality is arbitrarily (?) misplaced; instead of
the pupil resting in the almond-shaped depression beneath the
peaked "brow" shown (accurately) in Jonach's illustration, Bara
places the eye against the nose-ridge.

[image]

The Face reconstruction featured on The Enterprise Mission,
showing probable artistic liberties taken with the placement and
morphology of the "eye."

A quick reference back to the unaltered MGS photo (as well as
Mark Kelly's orthorectification) shows that the candidate "eye"
is much less clearly defined, and located significantly farther
to the Face's western perimeter. While the spurious placement of
the "eye" in Bara's supposedly objective mosaic may be the
result of hasty computer work or graphics error, I find it more
likely that, in the rush to present the eye as a necessarily
artificial feature, Bara succumbed to artistic liberties rather
more damaging and fallacious than Jonach's.

The irony is that by interpreting the "eye" in purely anthropoid
terms, Bara ignores the "pupil's" actual shape, which seems to
be more triangular than circular - almost a tiny "flattened
pyramid." This rough triangular shape is positioned in the "eye
socket" in such a way that it might have served to reflect
sunlight, and in the 1998 MGS image we see it doing exactly
this.

The "eye" is overlooked by a peaked brow that, if artificial,
seems to have been built especially for casting long shadows
under low sun-angle lighting conditions, as seen in the dramatic
first photo of the Face in 1976. Oddly, NASA's fiction that the
Face is a "trick of light and shadow" is deceptively true - but
only insofar as any megalithic sculpture of human features
depends on shadow to define its contours.

[image]

Viking frame 35A72.

Once erosion is taken into effect, the Face on Mars is actually
somewhat more face-like than some primitive facial
representations here on Earth. And by "taking erosion into
effect" I'm not suggesting that standards for potential
artificiality differ from planet to planet: the reader would do
well to remember that the Artificiality Hypothesis advanced by
Hoagland, Carlotto, etc. maintains that the "Martian Sphinx" is
extremely old. Advanced weathering and erosion were expected
before the MGS returned its confirming image in 1998, and is
visible even on the relatively low-resolution Viking photos.

[image]

Dr. Mark Carlotto's photoclinometric prediction for a Face
imaging opportunity in May of 2000. Note presence and location
of possible "eye."

The almond-shaped depression is surrounded by interesting
"radiating" terrain that, like details such as the "harelip"
seen in the 1998 image, suggests decoration - or, according to
Bara's article, some form of honeycombed construction. If the
unusual terrain below the "eye" is indeed structural, then it is
approaching the limits of the MGS' resolution and caution should
be taken in deciding its purpose...assuming it has any.

[image]

Anomalous "decorative" (?) lines seen at Viking resolution.

Further intriguing features seen on the new Face image include
an ornamental-looking stripe running down the middle of the
remarkably smooth "headdress" along with a series of peculiar
lines that suggest possible aesthetic significance. The smooth
texture seen on the headdress differs dramatically from the
craggy, eroded "brow." It's likely the elevated "brow" has
sheltered the relatively fragile "eye" from sand deposition,
inadvertently preserving the overall facial resemblance.

The anomalous "teardrop" that has been noted by Cydonia
researchers for decades is also plainly visible in the new
image, and appears to be a distinct feature as opposed to a
piece of erosional debris (possibly emanating from the "nose
ridge" under the force of westerly Martian winds). If the Face
itself is artificial, it's extremely likely that the "teardrop"
is as well. But what does it signify? The prospect of a human
face on another planet caught in the act of "crying" has a
certain symbolic poignancy.

The new Face image has not proven artificiality, but by
confirming and illuminating fine-scale detail consistent with
conscious design, it has added weight to the contention that we
are indeed dealing with possible alien artifacts.

[image]

Carlotto's animation shows the Face as seen from the direction
of the "City" based on Viking and MGS data. Note "eye" and
"teardrop".

  - end -








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 10

                        Re: E-Mail Addresses? - Deuly

From: Tom Deuley <TPDeuley@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 02:15:32 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 09:40:39 -0500
Subject: Re: E-Mail Addresses? - Deuly


 >From: Giuliano 'Jimmy' Marinkovicc <9a4ag@clarc.org>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Date: Fri,  9 Feb 2001 13:42:11 -0600 (CST)
 >Subject: E-Mail Addresses?

 >Dear friends and co-operators,

 >Does anyone know e-mail addresses from the following ufologists:

 >Stephen Katunaric
 >Aioha McGrew
 >Walt Andrus
 >Richard Hall


Jimmy:

I can only speak to Walt Andrus and Dick Hall.

I keep in pretty close contact with Walt, who is only down the
road 40 miles, and so far as I know he does not have an E-mail
address.  If there is a need to get to him in a hurry, call him,
or send an email to me and I will call him or pass it to him by
hand.

Walter H. Andrus
103 Oldtowne Road
Seguin, TX 78155
Hm: 1 (830) 372 -2935


As for Dick Hall, he keeps his E-mail address close held and
distributed only to those he cares to correspond with.  Earlier
times when his email address was widely distributed and known he
got a lot hate mail and screw ball mail so he changed his
address and keeps it to himself.  I would suggest you write to
him via snail mail if you need to correspond with him.

Richard Hall
4418 39th  St.
Brentwood, MD 20722
Hm: 1 (301) 779 8683

Tom Deuley






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 10

                  Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated

From: Matt Hurley <m.hurley@ntlworld.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 20:47:55 -0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 10:00:24 -0500
Subject: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated


Hello All,

I've now added more images to my site, corrected some
inaccuracies and provided links to artist biographies and
galleries.

Regards,

Matt


http://homepage.ntlworld.com/m.hurley/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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 10

                Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 11:52:57 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 12:47:23 -0500
Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Maccabee


 >Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 10:13:21 -0600
 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@FRONTIERNET.NET>
 >Subject: Re: ETH and ETF
 >To: PROJECT-1947@LISTSERV.AOL.COM


 >>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@TEXAS.NET>
 >>To: <PROJECT-1947@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>
 >>Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 8:09 PM
 >>Subject: Re: ETH and ETF


 >>Hell (pardon my French),

 >>The only question being debated here is who's a ufologist and
 >>who's not.

 >>In other words, semantics raises its ugly head again. Of course
 >>ufology wouldn't have this problem if BA's, MS's and PhD's in
 >>same were offered, which they aren't.

 >>From my point of view, all of the following are dedicated and
 >>self-proclaimed ufologists who unequivocably acept the ETH as
 >>ipso facto:


<snip>

 >Bruce Maccabee (watch him equvocate)

<snip>

Dear Dennis:

I'll let the others in the list speak for themselves, should
they so desire. As for me and the ETH, I have said that it seems
to me to be the _simplest_ explanation - the easiest to
understand - in the sense that I can imagine us going "there"
(human transport to other planets). The argument against this is
not based on physics but on sociology: who would want to spend
many of years traveling from one solar system to another? If
there is a desire or need, lifespans notwithstanding,
representatives of the human race could go there... hence they
could come here. That is the ETH based on what we already know
(e.g., nuclear rockets, perhaps photon rockets, to travel at a
goodly speed).

However, there have been more esoteric (IMHO) proposals such as
dimensional travel (which is getting a boost these days from
theoretical physics i.e, superstring theory, that says there are
other dimensions "close" to ours in an overall 11 or more
dimensional "multiverse.") Dimensional travel theories can work
in one of two ways: transport from a completely different 4-D
universe into our universe or transport from one point in our
4-D universe to another point in our 4-D universe by going
through a 5th (or higher) dimension (wormhole theory). This
latter transport could explain "faster then light" travel.

Some have suggested time travel by itself: the aliens wouldn't
have to "go anywhere" in terms of 3-D distance, but merely go
back in time to our time.

These theories rely on suppositions about phenomena (dimensions,
time) for which we have scant evidence, if any. That's why I say
the ETH is the easiest to understand from our present point of
view about nature. That doesn't mean it is necessarily _the_
correct solution.

Of course, this reasoning refers to the sightings/reports which
describe clearly some strange craftlike objects observed to do
"impossible" things. Skeptics would say there are no such
sightings, so why theorize? They would say simply assign all
sightings to one of three classes: misidentification (of known,
although perhaps rare phenomena or known phenomena seen under
unusual conditions), hoax, delusion.

I don't know whether Dennis accepts any sighting with lies
outside these three categories, or, if so, what the
characteristics of the reported object/phenomenon might be, But
for me, it has been proved that:

A) _Something_ strange has been really flying around and it lies
outside those three identification (i.e., TRUFOs - true UFOs)

B) Many TRUFO sightings appear to have been caused by strange
craft/objects flying (or landed) within the sight of witness(es).

See: http://brumac.8k.com

They _could_ be ETH.... or they could be something even more
bizarre.

(Jerry wrote)

 >Dennis,

 >I'd be interested in knowing what these individuals have written
 >about the ETH, which after all is the subject of discussion --
 >not whether they accept as valid cases that could be interpreted
 >in that context. (That would make just about everybody on this
 >list an ETHist.)>

See above.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 10

                 Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Fleming

From: Lan Fleming <apollo18@swbell.net>
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 13:07:29 -0600
Fwd Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 14:56:38 -0500
Subject: Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Fleming


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 09:14:18 EST
 >Fwd Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 10:01:18 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Young

 >Although I see what appears to be a crater in the image, can
 >anyone show me evidence of a "pupil".


What I see in the image is an eye-shaped depression with an
outcropping that could plausibly be interpreted as the cornea.
It has that in common with a crater and nothing else. Where is
the ejecta blanket? Why is it oval, like an eye rather than
circular like the vast majority of craters? Some craters are
oval if they strike the surface at a grazing angle, but they are
relatively rare, even on the Moon which is blanketed by craters.
Craters are sparsely distributed on Mars, too. There are only
one or two features that look as if they might be craters in
this image.

This "crater" also has a structure in its center that
corresponds to the iris of an eye. This would have to be
interpreted as the central peak if the depression was a crater.
The problem with that is that only craters of several kilometers
in diameter develop central peaks. This depression is far too
small to be a crater with a central peak. It also lies within a
larger dark oval area that corresponds to the depression of the
eye socket between the brow and cheekbone of a face.

I wrote an article about the "eye" feature back in 1998.

http://www.vgl.org/webfiles/mars/nasa-report/NASA.htm

It was barely visible in the low-contrast '98 MGS image of the
Face, but I was pretty sure it was the feature Vince DiPietro
identified as the "eyeball" in the Viking images. This latest
image confirms it.

 >I not also that there are thousands of craters on the surface of
 >Mars, and millions on other bodies throughout the solar system.
 >Thus, I conclude that the chances that this crater-like feature
 >on the surface of Mars is not a crater are, well, damn slim.

The chances are damn slim that this is a crater. If it _were_ a
crater, the chances would be damn slim that the meteoroid that
created it just happened to strike the surface of the Face at
the right place to serve as the eye predicted by the
artificiality hypothesis. Double damn!







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 10

                 Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Fleming

From: Lan Fleming <apollo18@swbell.net>
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 13:07:29 -0600
Fwd Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 14:56:38 -0500
Subject: Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Fleming


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 09:14:18 EST
 >Fwd Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 10:01:18 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Young

 >Although I see what appears to be a crater in the image, can
 >anyone show me evidence of a "pupil".


What I see in the image is an eye-shaped depression with an
outcropping that could plausibly be interpreted as the cornea.
It has that in common with a crater and nothing else. Where is
the ejecta blanket? Why is it oval, like an eye rather than
circular like the vast majority of craters? Some craters are
oval if they strike the surface at a grazing angle, but they are
relatively rare, even on the Moon which is blanketed by craters.
Craters are sparsely distributed on Mars, too. There are only
one or two features that look as if they might be craters in
this image.

This "crater" also has a structure in its center that
corresponds to the iris of an eye. This would have to be
interpreted as the central peak if the depression was a crater.
The problem with that is that only craters of several kilometers
in diameter develop central peaks. This depression is far too
small to be a crater with a central peak. It also lies within a
larger dark oval area that corresponds to the depression of the
eye socket between the brow and cheekbone of a face.

I wrote an article about the "eye" feature back in 1998.

http://www.vgl.org/webfiles/mars/nasa-report/NASA.htm

It was barely visible in the low-contrast '98 MGS image of the
Face, but I was pretty sure it was the feature Vince DiPietro
identified as the "eyeball" in the Viking images. This latest
image confirms it.

 >I not also that there are thousands of craters on the surface of
 >Mars, and millions on other bodies throughout the solar system.
 >Thus, I conclude that the chances that this crater-like feature
 >on the surface of Mars is not a crater are, well, damn slim.

The chances are damn slim that this is a crater. If it _were_ a
crater, the chances would be damn slim that the meteoroid that
created it just happened to strike the surface of the Face at
the right place to serve as the eye predicted by the
artificiality hypothesis. Double damn!







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 10

                 Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Fleming

From: Lan Fleming <apollo18@swbell.net>
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 13:07:29 -0600
Fwd Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 14:56:38 -0500
Subject: Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Fleming


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 09:14:18 EST
 >Fwd Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 10:01:18 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Young

 >Although I see what appears to be a crater in the image, can
 >anyone show me evidence of a "pupil".


What I see in the image is an eye-shaped depression with an
outcropping that could plausibly be interpreted as the cornea.
It has that in common with a crater and nothing else. Where is
the ejecta blanket? Why is it oval, like an eye rather than
circular like the vast majority of craters? Some craters are
oval if they strike the surface at a grazing angle, but they are
relatively rare, even on the Moon which is blanketed by craters.
Craters are sparsely distributed on Mars, too. There are only
one or two features that look as if they might be craters in
this image.

This "crater" also has a structure in its center that
corresponds to the iris of an eye. This would have to be
interpreted as the central peak if the depression was a crater.
The problem with that is that only craters of several kilometers
in diameter develop central peaks. This depression is far too
small to be a crater with a central peak. It also lies within a
larger dark oval area that corresponds to the depression of the
eye socket between the brow and cheekbone of a face.

I wrote an article about the "eye" feature back in 1998.

http://www.vgl.org/webfiles/mars/nasa-report/NASA.htm

It was barely visible in the low-contrast '98 MGS image of the
Face, but I was pretty sure it was the feature Vince DiPietro
identified as the "eyeball" in the Viking images. This latest
image confirms it.

 >I not also that there are thousands of craters on the surface of
 >Mars, and millions on other bodies throughout the solar system.
 >Thus, I conclude that the chances that this crater-like feature
 >on the surface of Mars is not a crater are, well, damn slim.

The chances are damn slim that this is a crater. If it _were_ a
crater, the chances would be damn slim that the meteoroid that
created it just happened to strike the surface of the Face at
the right place to serve as the eye predicted by the
artificiality hypothesis. Double damn!








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 10

               Re: CI: 2-9-01 - Face on Mars: A Closer, Better

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 17:04:46 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 18:54:44 -0500
Subject: Re: CI: 2-9-01 - Face on Mars: A Closer, Better


 >Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 21:51:59 -0800 (PST)
 >From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >Subject: CI: 2-9-01 - Face on Mars: A Closer, Better Look
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >2-9-01
 >The Cydonian Imperative
 >For Immediate Release
 >The Face on Mars: A Closer, Better Look

 >by Mac Tonnies

 >Illustrated and linked version at:

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

<snip>

 >The almond-shaped depression is surrounded by interesting
 >"radiating" terrain that, like details such as the "harelip"
 >seen in the 1998 image, suggests decoration - or, according to
 >Bara's article, some form of honeycombed construction.

How about the radiating pattern caused by debris from a
cratering impact?

<snip>

 >The anomalous "teardrop" that has been noted by Cydonia
 >researchers for decades is also plainly visible in the new
 >image, and appears to be a distinct feature as opposed to a
 >piece of erosional debris (possibly emanating from the "nose
 >ridge" under the force of westerly Martian winds).

A superimposed later windblown crater is far more likely.

 >If the Face itself is artificial, it's extremely likely that the
 >"teardrop" is as well.

Unless, of course, it is still a sperimposed later windblown
crater.  Thousands are on the surface of Mars.

See the face pixture:

http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/01_31_01_releases/cydonia/M16-00184p_subfram
e.gif


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 10

                 Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Fleming

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 17:32:56 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 18:57:12 -0500
Subject: Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Fleming


 >From: Lan Fleming <apollo18@swbell.net>
 >Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 13:07:29 -0600
 >Fwd Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 14:56:38 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Fleming

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 09:14:18 EST
 >>Fwd Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 10:01:18 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Young

 >>Although I see what appears to be a crater in the image, can
 >>anyone show me evidence of a "pupil".

 >What I see in the image is an eye-shaped depression with an
 >outcropping that could plausibly be interpreted as the cornea.
 >It has that in common with a crater and nothing else. Where is
 >the ejecta blanket?

Can't you see it, Lan?

See the original Malin newly released pix of the "face" at
http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/01_31_01_releases/cydonia/M16-00184p_subfram
e.gif

The ejecta blanket is quite clear from an orientation of about
45 deg all the way around to 270 deg and is still visible to
about 295 degrees. It is just about the width of a typical
impact crater ejecta blanket, about 1 crater radius (see any
standard text on the Moon, such as Wilhelms' The Geologic
History of the Moon). The so-called "pupil" of the Face' eye is
probably the slightly brighter bottom of the eye crater. It can
even be just made out in this pix.

Give it up, Lan.

 >Why is it oval, like an eye rather than
 >circular like the vast majority of craters?

The reason it doesn't seem to go all the way around is because
of the little later impact crater at about the 5 deg position.
Even it has its own little "pupil", actually the bottom of the
crater. For a similar example, see any picture of the Lunar
crater Aristarchus.

 >This "crater" also has a structure in its center that
 >corresponds to the iris of an eye. This would have to be
 >interpreted as the central peak if the depression was a crater.

Not if it was only the bottom of the crater.

The chances are damn slim that this is a crater.

Slim? There are thousands, if not tens of thousands of craters
all around it.

C'mon, Lan, give it up.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 10

               Re: CI: 2-9-01 - Face on Mars: A Closer, Better

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 17:04:46 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 18:54:44 -0500
Subject: Re: CI: 2-9-01 - Face on Mars: A Closer, Better


 >Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 21:51:59 -0800 (PST)
 >From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >Subject: CI: 2-9-01 - Face on Mars: A Closer, Better Look
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >2-9-01
 >The Cydonian Imperative
 >For Immediate Release
 >The Face on Mars: A Closer, Better Look

 >by Mac Tonnies

 >Illustrated and linked version at:

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

<snip>

 >The almond-shaped depression is surrounded by interesting
 >"radiating" terrain that, like details such as the "harelip"
 >seen in the 1998 image, suggests decoration - or, according to
 >Bara's article, some form of honeycombed construction.

How about the radiating pattern caused by debris from a
cratering impact?

<snip>

 >The anomalous "teardrop" that has been noted by Cydonia
 >researchers for decades is also plainly visible in the new
 >image, and appears to be a distinct feature as opposed to a
 >piece of erosional debris (possibly emanating from the "nose
 >ridge" under the force of westerly Martian winds).

A superimposed later windblown crater is far more likely.

 >If the Face itself is artificial, it's extremely likely that the
 >"teardrop" is as well.

Unless, of course, it is still a sperimposed later windblown
crater.  Thousands are on the surface of Mars.

See the face pixture:

http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/01_31_01_releases/cydonia/M16-00184p_subfram
e.gif


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 11

               Re: CI: 2-9-01 - Face on Mars: A Closer, Better

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 17:28:34 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 09:42:44 -0500
Subject: Re: CI: 2-9-01 - Face on Mars: A Closer, Better


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 17:04:46 EST
 >Subject: Re: CI: 2-9-01 - Face on Mars: A Closer, Better Look
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

 >>The almond-shaped depression is surrounded by interesting
 >>"radiating" terrain that, like details such as the "harelip"
 >>seen in the 1998 image, suggests decoration - or, according to
 >>Bara's article, some form of honeycombed construction.

 >How about the radiating pattern caused by debris
 >from a cratering impact?

Very doubtful. I've never seen anything like this
surrounding any craters, and I've persused quite a
few. The "radiating" celled pattern Bara mentions and
I mention in my article conforms to the _elliptical_
depression of the eye. Your argument that the "eye"
has to be a crater is weak. It may well be natural,
but it meteor impact doesn't explain this.

 >>The anomalous "teardrop" that has been noted by Cydonia
 >>researchers for decades is also plainly visible in the new
 >>image, and appears to be a distinct feature as opposed to a
 >>piece of erosional debris (possibly emanating from the "nose
 >>ridge" under the force of westerly Martian winds).

 >A superimposed later windblown crater is far more
 >likely.

Ummm...Have you looked at the picture, Bob? The
feature is clearly _convex_. _Most_ uncraterlike.
Plus it's rectangular...

 >>If the Face itself is artificial, it's extremely
 >likely that the
 >>"teardrop" is as well.

 >Unless, of course, it is still a sperimposed later
 >windblown
 >crater. Thousands are on the surface of Mars.

See above.

Best,

=====
Mac Tonnies (macbot@yahoo.com) 816-561-0190
105 Ward Parkway #900, Kansas City, MO 64112
Me: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/mtvi.html
Cydonia: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/cydonia.html
Books: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/bookreviews.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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 11

                          Re: AA Film Redux - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 21:57:58 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 09:57:30 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Gates


 >From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 16:28:17 -0800

<snip>

 >>From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >>Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 17:55:23 -0800

 >>A. The Cameraman does not exist;

 >Serge,

 >I believe this is an incorrect statement but time will tell.

Some people have believed that UFO disclosure was going to
happen every year for the past 30 years. Doesn't mean its in
fact going to happen.

As for the camerman, _if_ and _when_ a warm body shows up that
claims to be the camerman, his story can be examined. Until then
all anybody has is absolutly nothing.

I do predict that when the "camerman moment of truth" happens,
we will hear a long tale from Ray or somebody akin to, about how
he died blah blah blah

 >>B. Ray Santilli is a liar;

 >We are all liars, some time or another; but is he lying about
 >the AA? I doubt it!

Calling us "all liars" doesn't change the fact. The facts are that
Ray buddy told tales and stories that either a) couldn't be verified
or b) weren't correct for whatever the reason.

 >>C. Hesemann's judgement and position in the AA case if flawed.

 >MH is very clear about what his investigations show. The AA is
 >legitimate!

The tent footage is phony. No question about that. The question
then becomes "did Ray get the Tent footage from the same source
as the AA film. If answer is yes then we have a camerman giving
us bogus footage. If answer is no, then Ray had yet and again
another purported camerman feeding him films. I also recall that
the AA defenders also profoundly defended the tent footage,
right up until it was hoaxed out

 >>Yet, you don't back off.

 >Not even for a second.

 >>Denial of reality, doctoring of information and wishful
 >>fantasies make you a skeptidebunker, Ed.

 >Are you serious. I hold a strong position because the evidence
 >I've collected indicates that the AA is authentic and I'm a
 >"skeptidebunker"? You must be kidding!

Lets face it, everytime you look at the AA film, you look at it
from the point of view of a person who believes that all the
evidence points to the fact that its real. Kind of like a guy
who watches Shindlers List endlessly and is absolutly convinced
that the movie was absolutly real in every sense of the word.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 11

                 Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Fleming

From: Lan Fleming <apollo18@swbell.net>
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 22:06:41 -0600
Fwd Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 09:59:48 -0500
Subject: Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Fleming


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 17:32:56 EST
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Fleming


 >The ejecta blanket is quite clear from an orientation of about
 >45 deg all the way around to 270 deg and is still visible to
 >about 295 degrees. It is just about the width of a typical
 >impact crater ejecta blanket, about 1 crater radius (see any
 >standard text on the Moon, such as Wilhelms' The Geologic
 >History of the Moon). The so-called "pupil" of the Face' eye is
 >probably the slightly brighter bottom of the eye crater. It can
 >even be just made out in this pix.

It may be clear to you, but the surrounding area, with a shape
that repeats the almond shape of the inner depression, is dark
and has a curious cellular structure. I've seen lots of pictures
of crater ejecta blankets and they look nothing like this. If
you want to see an ejecta blanket, take a look at the '98 Face
image. There's a large crater to the lower left of the Face. The
ejecta blanket is bright, not dark. The floor of the crater is
slightly raised, but not at all like the "pupil" (Calling this
feature the "iris" or "cornea" would be more correct. The pupil
is the small central aperture that admits light into an eye.).


 >>Why is it oval, like an eye rather than
 >>circular like the vast majority of craters?

 >The reason it doesn't seem to go all the way around is because
 >of the little later impact crater at about the 5 deg position.
 >Even it has its own little "pupil", actually the bottom of the
 >crater. For a similar example, see any picture of the Lunar
 >crater Aristarchus.

I don't know what you're referring to. Aristarchus is a typical
large crater that is almost perfectly circular. See:

http://cass.jsc.nasa.gov/research/lunar_orbiter/img/4-150H3.jpg

It's very bright, and kind of washed-out in this image.

As for the "little impact crater" that you claim is obscuring
the otherwise routine circular crater shape of the "eye", sorry.
I can't see it in the MGS image. I'm afraid it's a figment of
your imagination. There is, however, a small crater on the
western wall of the landform, just above the base and to the
left of the "eye." It's quite circular and has a dark floor.

The "eye" is not circular. Even if part of it were obscured by
your imaginary crater, it's obvious that the radius of curvature
of the rims is too high given the width of the crater for it to
be circular. For any circle, if you draw a chord of length 2W
extending from one point on the rim to another, and measure the
length, L, of a line drawn from the center of the circle and
bisecting the chord, the radius is just the square root of W^2 +
L^2. I did the measurement on the upper and lower rims of the
"eye," which are sharply defined, and the resulting radius of
curvature was between 83 and 89 pixels for the upper and lower
rims. The problem with that is that the "crater" is only about
90 pixels wide from the upper to lower rim, so its radius is
only 45 pixels -- about half the radius of curvature of the
rims.

Ignoring for the moment that the "eye" appears to taper down to
points on the left and right just like an eye, the fact that the
radius of curvature of the upper and lower rims is twice the
radius of the depression implies an elliptical crater with a
major axis twice as long as the minor axis. That degree of
ellipticity is uncommon in craters, even on the Moon where there
are lots of craters.

 >>The chances are damn slim that this is a crater.

 >Slim? There are thousands, if not tens of thousands of craters
 >all around it.

I don't see thousands of craters in this image; I see one clear
one. You seem to be confusing the Moon with Mars, which has a
much lower crater density, especially in the Northern Hemisphere
where the Face is located.

 >C'mon, Lan, give it up.

C'mon, Bob. Give up the crater nonsense. It's silly. I'm not
saying that this eye-shaped depression can't possibly be
natural. There are lots of processes that can result in the
formation of surface concavities. Cratering is not the only
thing, but it's not at all likely in this case. If natural
processes did create the "eye", they conspired to give it just
the right shape and position to satisfy the predictions of the
artificiality hypothesis.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 11

                    Joseph Smith And The Ten Lost Tribes

From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 00:33:22 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 10:02:15 -0500
Subject: Joseph Smith And The Ten Lost Tribes


In northeastern Connecticut there was a couple who during the
19th century journeyed west. The woman was a writer and had
completed a manuscript about the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel.
During their trip west they encountered and befriended Joseph
Smith. As they got to know each other better the woman told
Smith about her writings. Smith asked to see the manuscript.
After he received it, he would not return it. Later, he
announced his visions. The woman was most upset when she read
what she claimed she had written as the basis of Smith's
religion.

She later returned to Connecticut and continued to claim to be
the author of much of what today is the Book of Mormon. The
Church of Latter Day Saints rejected her claim.

Now I read this little story years ago, but should have made a
copy. Surely, ufology casts a wide net when they try to entangle
Joseph Smith in the mix. However, if anyone is interested, I
will try to obtain a copy of this story.

BTW It really doesn't matter if the above is true or not; most
religions are anchored in faith, not cold hard logic. So such
stories do not invalidate such religious beliefs.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 11

               Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated -

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 01:18:59 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 10:06:16 -0500
Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated -


on 2/10/01 10:00 AM, UFO UpDates - Toronto at updates@sympatico.ca wrote:

 >From: Matt Hurley <m.hurley@ntlworld.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated
 >Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 20:47:55 -0000

 >Hello All,

 >I've now added more images to my site, corrected some
 >inaccuracies and provided links to artist biographies and
 >galleries.

 >Regards,

 >Matt

 >http://homepage.ntlworld.com/m.hurley/index.html


Hiya Matt,

You know the old saying about having to watch out for the
'quiet' ones? Your website is a lot like that. It is a powerful
collection of images sitting there quietly awaiting discovery.
To me, they 'shout' out a truth that many are wont to recognize.
Whatever the UFO phenomenon is, it has certainly been with us
for a very long time.

Thank you so much for gathering all this graphical material and
putting it all under one roof. It is a truly compelling and
provocative collection of images. Great job. A website of major
importance and significance for anyone interested in
"archeo-ufology."


Regards,

John Velez,
Patron of the Arts ;)


*BTW, EBK and myself spent 20 minutes discussing your website on
his 'Strange Days,...Indeed' radio program, Saturday night. Hope
it brings you traffic. People need to see your presentation.

JV  ;)

................................................................

"Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind."
                         www.spacelab.net/~jvif/
................................................................








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 11

                  Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 01:54:00 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 10:22:27 -0500
Subject: Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Velez


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 17:32:56 EST
 >Subject: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Fleming
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Lan Fleming <apollo18@swbell.net>
 >>Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 13:07:29 -0600
 >>Fwd Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 14:56:38 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Fleming

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 09:14:18 EST
 >>>Fwd Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 10:01:18 -0500
 >>>Subject: Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Young

 >>>Although I see what appears to be a crater in the image, can
 >>>anyone show me evidence of a "pupil".

 >>What I see in the image is an eye-shaped depression with an
 >>outcropping that could plausibly be interpreted as the cornea.
 >>It has that in common with a crater and nothing else. Where is
 >>the ejecta blanket?

 >Can't you see it, Lan?

 >See the original Malin newly released pix of the "face" at
 >http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/01_31_01_releases/cydonia/M16-00184p_subfr
ame.gif

 >The ejecta blanket is quite clear from an orientation of about
 >45 deg all the way around to 270 deg and is still visible to
 >about 295 degrees. It is just about the width of a typical
 >impact crater ejecta blanket, about 1 crater radius (see any
 >standard text on the Moon, such as Wilhelms' The Geologic
 >History of the Moon). The so-called "pupil" of the Face' eye is
 >probably the slightly brighter bottom of the eye crater. It can
 >even be just made out in this pix.

 >Give it up, Lan.

 >>Why is it oval, like an eye rather than
 >>circular like the vast majority of craters?

 >The reason it doesn't seem to go all the way around is because
 >of the little later impact crater at about the 5 deg position.
 >Even it has its own little "pupil", actually the bottom of the
 >crater. For a similar example, see any picture of the Lunar
 >crater Aristarchus.

 >>This "crater" also has a structure in its center that
 >>corresponds to the iris of an eye. This would have to be
 >>interpreted as the central peak if the depression was a crater.

 >Not if it was only the bottom of the crater.

 >The chances are damn slim that this is a crater.

 >Slim? There are thousands, if not tens of thousands of craters
 >all around it.

 >C'mon, Lan, give it up.


Gents,

Has it actually been established that the features in the area
are caused by impact? To my (amateur astronomers eye) the
"crater" and its ejecta (just to the visual North of the "eye")
could be an extinct volcano caldera. The material appears to
have 'flowed/oozed' out onto the landscape and does not 'appear'
to have been violently ejected by an impact.

It 'could be' the extinct crater and lava chimney from a once
active volcano. One that was possibly exposed and eroded by eons
of dust storms. The "ejecta" from that crater looks more like
_volcanic effusion_ than the 'back- spray' of a meteoric impact.
If the geological origin of the features in the region are
'volcanic' (as opposed to impact) then the "eye" and its central
peak (pupil) could simply be an ancient and exposed/badly eroded
volcano caldera.

Any geologists on the List?


Regards,

John Velez, With one "eye" on Mars!  ;)







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 11

                      Convening of Special Grand Jury?

From: Larry W. Bryant <overtci@bellatlantic.net>
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 23:09:55 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 10:44:51 -0500
Subject: Convening of Special Grand Jury?


Request for the Convening of a Federal Special Grand Jury

TO:  Mr. Mervyn M. Mosbacker
      U. S. Attorney for the Southern District of Texas
      P. O. Box 61129
      Houston, TX  77208

FROM:  Larry W. Bryant
        3518 Martha Custis Drive
        Alexandria, VA  22302

DATE:  February 10, 2001


The U. S. military officials who conducted the retrieval of a
(occupied) crash-landed "flying saucer" from Mexican soil near
Ciudad Acuna~ back in the first week of December 1950 not only
escaped full accountability for this covert mission's unfair and
unlawful deception of both the Mexican government and the
general public worldwide; they also failed to appreciate that
some day, even if more than half a century later, they and/or
their successors would begin to perceive a dismantling of the
official wall of secrecy surrounding that mission and its
aftermath.

Now, you, sir, have the opportunity to contribute to that
dismantling -- and thus to help restore some measure of public
trust in the affairs of our government, and to help Mexico
reclaim a part of its history stolen from it by certain U. S.
officials having no right to do so.

Here I refer to the investigative-and-reporting function of the
federal grand jury.

Now that momentum-for-disclosure has been building for the past
several years -- in the form of affidavit testimony from, and
audio-/video-taped interviews with, key witnesses as gathered by
private researchers into the case -- we need an adequate, safe
forum by which to let this evidence (including a pivotal F.B.I.
memo confirming a related counterintelligence "high alert")
speak for itself.

Accordingly, I ask that you coordinate with the chief judge of
your federal district court to empanel, as soon as possible, a
special grand jury to evaluate this already amassed evidence and
to begin soliciting and gathering any additional evidence for a
formal report on what happened when, by whom, how, and why
during and after the retrieval mission.

Please let me know promptly when you receive the court's
go-ahead for the empanelment of this grand jury -- so that I may
proceed with further coordination.

When you accept this opportunity to help set the record straight
(and thereby help bring to justice those responsible for the
mission/coverup's abuse of authority and violation of the public
trust), you will have added your own mark upon cosmic history.

Thank you for your prompt and comprehensive fulfillment of this
request.



                         LARRY W. BRYANT
                         Director, Washington, D.C., Office
                         Citizens Against UFO Secrecy









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 11

               Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated -

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 09:29:40 -0600
Fwd Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 10:50:02 -0500
Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated -


 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 01:18:59 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated

 >>From: Matt Hurley <m.hurley@ntlworld.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated
 >>Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 20:47:55 -0000

Previously, John referenced the following site:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/m.hurley/index.html

and wrote:

 >You know the old saying about having to watch out for the
 >'quiet' ones? Your website is a lot like that. It is a powerful
 >collection of images sitting there quietly awaiting discovery.
 >To me, they 'shout' out a truth that many are wont to recognize.
 >Whatever the UFO phenomenon is, it has certainly been with us
 >for a very long time.

 >Thank you so much for gathering all this graphical material and
 >putting it all under one roof. It is a truly compelling and
 >provocative collection of images. Great job. A website of major
 >importance and significance for anyone interested in
 >"archeo-ufology."

Hi, John!

I really must agree with you on this. It's one thing for
skeptics and believers to argue about the authenticity of a
given ufo photo or video in the age of mass communication and
technology. It is something else altogether to see identical
imagery of UFOs clearly depicted in paintings from a primitive
era.

What makes it all the more significant is the lack of mass
communication which, in itself, is suspect for the
"contamination factor" ever present in modern UFO reports. One
has to believe it is highly unlikely that multiple artists,
separated by such time and distance, would "accidentally"
incorporate identical imagery into their works.

Obviously, these saucer shaped craft represent something seen,
rather than imagined, and the casualness in how they are
presented in the art only adds to the believability.

While it is true that people of that time were more susceptible
to superstition and religious dogma, they also had an
open-mindedness about the fantastic that makes me envious in
many, many ways.

Oh well. I stumble forward through an uncertain future, guided
by jaded eyes. The crowd gathers to watch me trip, yet 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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 11

                    Joseph Smith And The Ten Lost Tribes

From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 00:33:22 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 10:02:15 -0500
Subject: Joseph Smith And The Ten Lost Tribes


In northeastern Connecticut there was a couple who during the
19th century journeyed west. The woman was a writer and had
completed a manuscript about the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel.
During their trip west they encountered and befriended Joseph
Smith. As they got to know each other better the woman told
Smith about her writings. Smith asked to see the manuscript.
After he received it, he would not return it. Later, he
announced his visions. The woman was most upset when she read
what she claimed she had written as the basis of Smith's
religion.

She later returned to Connecticut and continued to claim to be
the author of much of what today is the Book of Mormon. The
Church of Latter Day Saints rejected her claim.

Now I read this little story years ago, but should have made a
copy. Surely, ufology casts a wide net when they try to entangle
Joseph Smith in the mix. However, if anyone is interested, I
will try to obtain a copy of this story.

BTW It really doesn't matter if the above is true or not; most
religions are anchored in faith, not cold hard logic. So such
stories do not invalidate such religious beliefs.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 11

               Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated -

From: Matt Hurley <m.hurley@ntlworld.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 15:59:15 -0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 13:27:06 -0500
Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated -


 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 01:18:59 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated

 >>From: Matt Hurley <m.hurley@ntlworld.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated
 >>Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 20:47:55 -0000

 >>Hello All,

 >>I've now added more images to my site, corrected some
 >>inaccuracies and provided links to artist biographies and
 >>galleries.

 >>Regards,

 >>Matt

 >>http://homepage.ntlworld.com/m.hurley/index.html

 >Hiya Matt,

 >You know the old saying about having to watch out for the
 >'quiet' ones? Your website is a lot like that. It is a powerful
 >collection of images sitting there quietly awaiting discovery.
 >To me, they 'shout' out a truth that many are wont to recognize.
 >Whatever the UFO phenomenon is, it has certainly been with us
 >for a very long time.

 >Thank you so much for gathering all this graphical material and
 >putting it all under one roof. It is a truly compelling and
 >provocative collection of images. Great job. A website of major
 >importance and significance for anyone interested in
 >"archeo-ufology."

 >Regards,

 >John Velez,
 >Patron of the Arts ;)

 >*BTW, EBK and myself spent 20 minutes discussing your website on
 >his 'Strange Days,...Indeed' radio program, Saturday night. Hope
 >it brings you traffic. People need to see your presentation.

Thanks for the comments. I've been toying with the idea of doing
a book on the subject.

Ideally I'd like to visit all the gallaries/churches where these
pictures hang but there's a big financial hurdle there :-)
Regards,

Matt









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 11

             Re: Joseph Smith And The Ten Lost Tribes - Thompson

From: Paul Thompson - ParaScope <MrApol@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 11:02:01 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 13:30:49 -0500
Subject: Re: Joseph Smith And The Ten Lost Tribes - Thompson


 >From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Joseph Smith And The Ten Lost Tribes
 >Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 00:33:22 -0500

<snip>

 >It really doesn't matter if the above is true or not; most
 >religions are anchored in faith, not cold hard logic. So such
 >stories do not invalidate such religious beliefs.

What a remarkable thing to say.


PBT








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 11

                Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 12:13:28 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 13:33:23 -0500
Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Maccabee


Richard Hall, who maintains a confidential email address, has
written to me as follows:

      I agree completely with your statement of today (Feb. 10)
      about ET hypothesis as the most reasonable one given what
      we know, but not necessarily the final answer. Since Dennis
      Stacy has "taken our names in vain" with the apparent
      epithet (or at least the uncomplimentary connotation) of
      being "ET believers" we should challenge Dennis to say what
      is wrong about exploring the ET hypothesis and identifying
      oneself with the viewpoint that this is a reasonable thing
      to do, and also ask him what are his "acceptable
      hypotheses?"


      Regards,

      Dick Hall


.........................








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 11

               Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated -

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 13:57:00 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 17:48:26 -0500
Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated -


 >Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 09:29:40 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 01:18:59 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated

 >>>From: Matt Hurley <m.hurley@ntlworld.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated
 >>>Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 20:47:55 -0000

 >Previously, John referenced the following site:

 >http://homepage.ntlworld.com/m.hurley/index.html

 >and wrote:

 >>You know the old saying about having to watch out for the
 >>'quiet' ones? Your website is a lot like that. It is a powerful
 >>collection of images sitting there quietly awaiting discovery.
 >>To me, they 'shout' out a truth that many are wont to recognize.
 >>Whatever the UFO phenomenon is, it has certainly been with us
 >>for a very long time.

 >>Thank you so much for gathering all this graphical material and
 >>putting it all under one roof. It is a truly compelling and
 >>provocative collection of images. Great job. A website of major
 >>importance and significance for anyone interested in
 >>"archeo-ufology."

 >Hi, John!

 >I really must agree with you on this. It's one thing for
 >skeptics and believers to argue about the authenticity of a
 >given ufo photo or video in the age of mass communication and
 >technology. It is something else altogether to see identical
 >imagery of UFOs clearly depicted in paintings from a primitive
 >era.

Those paintings really are a stunning and surprising find. I
know the one (with the man and the dog in the background looking
up at a UFO in a scene that features the Madonna and Child) has
been around for awhile. But the others just catch you
'off-guard' with the repeated use of (UFO) imagery. Boggles the
mind.

 >What makes it all the more significant is the lack of mass
 >communication which, in itself, is suspect for the
 >"contamination factor" ever present in modern UFO reports. One
 >has to believe it is highly unlikely that multiple artists,
 >separated by such time and distance, would "accidentally"
 >incorporate identical imagery into their works.

You're right about 'no TV' or 'Newspaper' being responsible for
"media contamination". These guys were mostly 'commissioned'
artists I'm sure. They were probably painting what they were
_asked_for_ or something they had witnessed for themselves.
Either way, the presence of 'classic' UFO-shaped objects in the
sky is most compelling for those who, in 2001, struggle to
understand/make sense of, the impossible.

 >Obviously, these saucer shaped craft represent something seen,
 >rather than imagined, and the casualness in how they are
 >presented in the art only adds to the believability.

I agree. There is something unassuming about how these objects
are incorporated/depicted in the paintings. Almost as if the
artist is sure that the viewer will understand the
meaning/nature of the imagery. (The 'objects' that are painted
into the sky.)

 >While it is true that people of that time were more susceptible
 >to superstition and religious dogma, they also had an
 >open-mindedness about the fantastic that makes me envious in
 >many, many ways.

More than open-mindedness, I think they were honestly
"recording" what was known or believed to be true/fact at the
time.

 >Oh well. I stumble forward through an uncertain future, guided
 >by jaded eyes. The crowd gathers to watch me trip, yet again.

Regardless of which side of the issue we are on we are all
stumbling and tripping along trying to make sense of this
extraordinary UFO business. You're not alone Roger.

Wanna hold hands?  <LOL>


Regards,

John Velez,
Just as scared and uncertain as the next guy.

..................................................................
   "Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind."
                             www.spacelab.net/~jvif/
..................................................................









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 11

                  Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 14:08:49 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 17:51:17 -0500
Subject: Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Young


 >Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 01:54:00 -0500
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 17:32:56 EST
 >>Subject: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Fleming
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Lan Fleming <apollo18@swbell.net>
 >>>Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 13:07:29 -0600
 >>>Fwd Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 14:56:38 -0500
 >>>Subject: Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Fleming

 > Has it actually been established that the features in the area
 >are caused by impact? To my (amateur astronomers eye) the
 >"crater" and its ejecta (just to the visual North of the "eye")
 >could be an extinct volcano caldera. The material appears to
 >have 'flowed/oozed' out onto the landscape and does not 'appear'
 >to have been violently ejected by an impact.

  John:

Yes, you could be right. It's a good point. The thing is, though
that what looks like the ejecta blanket is about the right width
(1/2 the crater radius).


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 11

               Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated -

From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 15:22:48 +0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 17:54:18 -0500
Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated -


 >From: Matt Hurley <m.hurley@ntlworld.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated
 >Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 15:59:15 -0000

 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 01:18:59 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated

 >>Thank you so much for gathering all this graphical material and
 >>putting it all under one roof. It is a truly compelling and
 >>provocative collection of images. Great job. A website of major
 >>importance and significance for anyone interested in
 >>"archeo-ufology."

 >Thanks for the comments. I've been toying with the idea of doing
 >a book on the subject.

 >Ideally I'd like to visit all the gallaries/churches where these
 >pictures hang but there's a big financial hurdle there :-)


Hello Matt,

Would you consider adding photographs of Egyptian hieroglyphics,
Mayan and Aztec art and engravings and some of the other
anomalous paintings on cave walls and rocks etc.to your website
collection or book, possibly under some other heading? It would
be nice to have all of these curious artistic or historically
documented allusions to what we now term UFOs under one "roof"
so to speak.

Well done in any event.

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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 11

                Re: Convening of Special Grand Jury? - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 14:21:13 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 17:56:25 -0500
Subject: Re: Convening of Special Grand Jury? - Young


 >From: Larry W. Bryant <overtci@bellatlantic.net>
 >Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 23:09:55 -0500
 >To: usatty.txs@usdoj.gov
 >Cc: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Convening of Special Grand Jury?

 >Request for the Convening of a Federal Special Grand Jury

Dear readers:

Oh, for God's sake.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 11

               Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated -

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 14:26:28 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 17:58:12 -0500
Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated -


 >Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 09:29:40 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 01:18:59 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated

 >>>From: Matt Hurley <m.hurley@ntlworld.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated
 >>>Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 20:47:55 -0000

 >Previously, John referenced the following site:

 >http://homepage.ntlworld.com/m.hurley/index.html

<snip>

 >What makes it all the more significant is the lack of mass
 >communication which, in itself, is suspect for the
 >"contamination factor" ever present in modern UFO reports. One
 >has to believe it is highly unlikely that multiple artists,
 >separated by such time and distance, would "accidentally"
 >incorporate identical imagery into their works.

Hi, Roger, John, Matt:

Religious art, in itself, was a principal "mass communication"
media of the time. Cultural transmission didn't begin with
modernity. To prove this, consider why so many pictures of
Madonna and Child looked alike.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 11

               Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated -

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 14:36:50 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 18:01:07 -0500
Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated -


 >From: Matt Hurley <m.hurley@ntlworld.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated
 >Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 15:59:15 -0000

 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 01:18:59 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated

 >>>From: Matt Hurley <m.hurley@ntlworld.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated
 >>>Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 20:47:55 -0000

 >>>I've now added more images to my site, corrected some
 >>>inaccuracies and provided links to artist biographies and
 >>>galleries.


 >>>http://homepage.ntlworld.com/m.hurley/index.html

 >>Hiya Matt,

 >>You know the old saying about having to watch out for the
 >>'quiet' ones? Your website is a lot like that. It is a powerful
 >>collection of images sitting there quietly awaiting discovery.
 >>To me, they 'shout' out a truth that many are wont to recognize.
 >>Whatever the UFO phenomenon is, it has certainly been with us
 >>for a very long time.

 >>Thank you so much for gathering all this graphical material and
 >>putting it all under one roof. It is a truly compelling and
 >>provocative collection of images. Great job. A website of major
 >>importance and significance for anyone interested in
 >>"archeo-ufology."

 >>Regards,

 >>John Velez,
 >>Patron of the Arts ;)

 >Thanks for the comments. I've been toying with the idea of doing
 >a book on the subject.

 >Ideally I'd like to visit all the gallaries/churches where these
 >pictures hang but there's a big financial hurdle there :-)
 >Regards,


Hi Matt,

You may have misinterpreted my "Patron of the Arts" tagger. I
can't fund a trip to Disney World much less a European Jaunt for
you to research a book!  <LOL> (Just humor!)

A book is an excellent idea. It would probably require long,
grinding, and extensive research. Consulting art historians,
museums, archives, (the Vatican! They must have a ton of stuff
buried in their archives) would be a laborious and time
intensive activity. (Were it to be researched thoroughly) I wish
you luck and look forward to reading a book dedicated to the
subject.

Are you a journalist or writer? Art historian?
As for $ for the 'research' trip; there are some song lyrics
that may help/provide a solution:

"Shake_that_mo-ney_maker bay-bee, shake that mo-ney
maker!"   <LMAO> (More humor!)

Warm regards, and thanx again for a terrific website.


John Velez

Poor but honest "Patron" of the Arts

................................................................
  "Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind."
                            www.spacelab.net/~jvif/
................................................................









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 11

                  Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 14:42:50 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 18:02:39 -0500
Subject: Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Young


 >Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 22:06:41 -0600
 >From: Lan Fleming <apollo18@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 17:32:56 EST
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Fleming

  <snip>

 >As for the "little impact crater" that you claim is obscuring
 >the otherwise routine circular crater shape of the "eye", sorry.
 >I can't see it in the MGS image. I'm afraid it's a figment of
 >your imagination.

<snip>

 >C'mon, Bob. Give up the crater nonsense. It's silly.

Lan:

It is now abundantly clear what is going on here.


I hope that you have clear and blue 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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 11

             Re: Joseph Smith And The Ten Lost Tribes - Aldrich

From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 15:12:05 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 18:05:29 -0500
Subject: Re: Joseph Smith And The Ten Lost Tribes - Aldrich


 >From: Paul Thompson - ParaScope <MrApol@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 11:02:01 EST
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Joseph Smith And The Ten Lost Tribes - Thompson


 >>From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Joseph Smith And The Ten Lost Tribes
 >>Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 00:33:22 -0500

<snip>

 >>It really doesn't matter if the above is true or not; most
 >>religions are anchored in faith, not cold hard logic. So such
 >>stories do not invalidate such religious beliefs.

 >What a remarkable thing to say.


PBT

Hardly, unless you were from the generation that did not take
"Western Civilization" in school. Much of which the West is, is
rooted in thousands of years old religious beliefs. You may deny
the beliefs, but how we think, behave, and act are indeed
profoundly influenced by religious beliefs which are daily
called into doubt by logic and historical fact. Much as many
would like to divorce religious beliefs from our lives the very
assumptions of our civilization and social contract were and are
influenced by things that might be demonstrated in the physical
world as being untrue.

It doesn't really matter if Abraham did in fact the really
exist, nor that he did intend to scarifice his son in obedience
to his God. This tale and its moral lesson and the idea of
social contract have infludence billions today and throughout
history.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 11

               Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated -

From: Lan Fleming <apollo18@swbell.net>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 13:51:41 -0600
Fwd Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 18:06:56 -0500
Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated -


 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 09:29:40 -0600
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated -


 >Obviously, these saucer shaped craft represent something seen,
 >rather than imagined, and the casualness in how they are
 >presented in the art only adds to the believability.

 >While it is true that people of that time were more susceptible
 >to superstition and religious dogma, they also had an
 >open-mindedness about the fantastic that makes me envious in
 >many, many ways.

The way I understand it, the psycho-sociologists theorize that
artists in olden times who put saucer-shaped objects into their
art work were motivated by excessive religious zeal. Maybe
Catholic theologians have a ready explanation of the religious
symbolism behind images of saucers hovering above the Virgin
Mary. I don't remember anything about flying saucers being a
part of religious dogma from Sunday school, but then I was
raised a Presbyterian.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 11

                 Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Fleming

From: Lan Fleming <apollo18@swbell.net>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 13:43:56 -0600
Fwd Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 18:08:27 -0500
Subject: Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Fleming


 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 01:54:00 -0500
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Velez


 >Gents,

 >Has it actually been established that the features in the area
 >are caused by impact? To my (amateur astronomers eye) the
 >"crater" and its ejecta (just to the visual North of the "eye")
 >could be an extinct volcano caldera. The material appears to
 >have 'flowed/oozed' out onto the landscape and does not 'appear'
 >to have been violently ejected by an impact.

That seems a lot more plausible explanation to me than an impact
crater. The physical constraints on the ultimate shapes of
volcanic vents are not, I don't believe, nearly as strong as the
constraints tending to produce circular impact craters. However,
this "ejecta" seems to be strangely localized around the "vent."
None of the ejecta seems to have landed on top of the adjacent
"brow" ridge. Volcanic ejecta, like impact ejecta, should expand
out vertically as well as horizontally.

Referring back to the '98 article I wrote about how the
shadowing changes between the two Viking images, I still think
this dark outer region is a shallow surface concavity similar to
the eye socket surrounding an eye rather than an albedo feature.
Or at least I don't think it's completely an albedo feature. But
as I've already said, a surface concavity created by
undetermined processes doesn't mean the same thing as an
artificially created structure.

We need more information. That's why I hope NASA will someday
take a photograph showing the _whole_ face. SPSR member Dr. John
Brandenburg commented that NASA seems to be doing the "Dance of
the Seven Veils" with these Face images. I just hope we don't
have five more veils to go through.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 11

                 Re: Joseph Smith And The Ten Lost Tribes -

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 17:23:56 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 18:15:15 -0500
Subject: Re: Joseph Smith And The Ten Lost Tribes -


 >From: Paul Thompson - ParaScope <MrApol@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 11:02:01 EST
 >Subject: Re: Joseph Smith And The Ten Lost Tribes
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Joseph Smith And The Ten Lost Tribes
 >>Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 00:33:22 -0500

 ><snip>

 >>It really doesn't matter if the above is true or not; most
 >>religions are anchored in faith, not cold hard logic. So such
 >>stories do not invalidate such religious beliefs.

 >What a remarkable thing to say.


 >PBT


Remarkable but largely true. I was brought up Catholic, which I
must admit to the religion most active at the time I was being
indoctrinated in't... the fifties, when Morty was not yet in his
teens. I was taught to accept that which I did not understand
as a mystery and to believe based on faith. Faith being the
epitome of truth. "Take it on faith" were the watchwords.

I am not a student of religion, although I was required to study
comparative religions in college, and the words contain a measure
of truth. Indeed, faith is the cornerstone of most religions.

Enter the most hated (or maligned) words in the English language.
"New Age". Like the time on this venue when it was argued that to
change the phrase "UFO" to something else less grating would
effect a different reaction on citizens - that time ... and like
it, to change the phrase "New Age" is to avoid the truth. New Age
thinking precludes faith. And if one ignores channeling, ghosts
in the bathroom appearing in the most awkward of times (sigh),
then this being a new age, perhaps the phrase New Age is more
appropriate than not.

Besides, wasn't it Dylan who wrote, "When you got no faith,
then you got unbelief!"? There you have it. The truth, finally
revealed. And by none other than Bobby Zimmerman.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 11

                       Portrait of Richard C. Hoagland

From: Kurt Jonach <ewarrior@electricwarrior.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 13:34:13 -0800
Fwd Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 18:18:07 -0500
Subject: Portrait of Richard C. Hoagland


------------------------------------------------------------
PORTRAIT OF RICHARD C. HOAGLAND

The Electric Warrior : Gallery February 11, 2001
http://www.electricwarrior.com/gallery/ewArtWorks0005.htm

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

A MUG SHOT OF THE MARS GUY

Richard Hoagland recently borrowed one of my images, so relying
on his good sense of humor, I borrowed one of his.

Hoagland is the man most responsible for popularizing the notion
of a face on Mars. His 1987 'The Monuments of Mars', is the
definitive book on the topic. Given the controversial subject of
this speculative science, it's not surprising that Hoagland is
perpetually at odds with critics on both sides of the issue.

His friends will correctly tell you that the image I selected
isn't the best photo of him, but it might be among the most
telling. In the Spring of 1999, Hoagland fought for his life in
a Miami, Florida hospital. He's still with us and that tells us
something about the man's tenacity. But consider this: Most
public figures are too concerned with their image to offer such
a photo on their official Web site. Would you do it?

The mission statement, "To boldly go where someone has gone
before," are from Hoagland's site The Enterprise Mission. The
artist has digitally groomed the photo to a healthier glow.
Notice also the placement of a plane of blue sky between the
hand and the head, which yields an acceptable illusion of
volume, without relying on computer generated mechanical
perspective.

There are plenty of photographs of Richard Hoagland. Brought to
you now via the Net, this rendering of Hoagland's courageous,
life-affirming photo is, in every sense of the
term, a contemporary portrait.

http://www.electricwarrior.com/img/ewHoaglandPortrait.jpg

------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE GALLERY

http://www.electricwarrior.com/gallery/

The Electric Warrior Website announces a retrospective of
digital media artworks on canvas, created over the last
year in association with various feature articles.

� Cydonut Mosaic
Mosaics are an ancient decorative art form using small pieces
of variously colored pieces arranged to comprise pictures or
patterns. In 1995 Robert Silvers created a software
application that created photomosaics from thousands of
smaller images...

http://www.electricwarrior.com/gallery/ewArtWorks0001.htm

� Paranormal Green Alien
The image composition for Paranormal Green Alien places a
classic saucer shaped UFO against an undecorated sky. The
challenge for this piece was to composite the saucer using a
number of famous UFO images, while populating the sky with
only the image of a mothership...

http://www.electricwarrior.com/gallery/ewArtWorks0002.htm

� Cydonut Matrix
This work is a 2x2 matrix of high-contrast, colorized
renderings of the Cydonia Face on Mars. The uncanny human
likeness in each panel is derived from the Mars Viking image
35A72, which introduced the controversial Martian landform...

http://www.electricwarrior.com/gallery/ewArtWorks0003.htm

� A Real Beauty
This 2x2 matrix was inspired by KKSamurai's Face at Meridiani.
The artist imagined Terry James' remarkably human anomaly
could be visualized as two faces in profile, comprising a full
face image...

http://www.electricwarrior.com/gallery/ewArtWorks0004.htm

------------------------------------------------------------
THE ELECTRIC WARRIOR
February 11, 2001
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.

Please provide a linked reference to The Electric Warrior
Website.

Web developers, the URL address for this content is:
http://www.electricwarrior.com/gallery/ewArtWorks0005.htm

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

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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 11

               Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated -

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 13:57:00 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 17:48:26 -0500
Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated -


 >Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 09:29:40 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 01:18:59 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated

 >>>From: Matt Hurley <m.hurley@ntlworld.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated
 >>>Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 20:47:55 -0000

 >Previously, John referenced the following site:

 >http://homepage.ntlworld.com/m.hurley/index.html

 >and wrote:

 >>You know the old saying about having to watch out for the
 >>'quiet' ones? Your website is a lot like that. It is a powerful
 >>collection of images sitting there quietly awaiting discovery.
 >>To me, they 'shout' out a truth that many are wont to recognize.
 >>Whatever the UFO phenomenon is, it has certainly been with us
 >>for a very long time.

 >>Thank you so much for gathering all this graphical material and
 >>putting it all under one roof. It is a truly compelling and
 >>provocative collection of images. Great job. A website of major
 >>importance and significance for anyone interested in
 >>"archeo-ufology."

 >Hi, John!

 >I really must agree with you on this. It's one thing for
 >skeptics and believers to argue about the authenticity of a
 >given ufo photo or video in the age of mass communication and
 >technology. It is something else altogether to see identical
 >imagery of UFOs clearly depicted in paintings from a primitive
 >era.

Those paintings really are a stunning and surprising find. I
know the one (with the man and the dog in the background looking
up at a UFO in a scene that features the Madonna and Child) has
been around for awhile. But the others just catch you
'off-guard' with the repeated use of (UFO) imagery. Boggles the
mind.

 >What makes it all the more significant is the lack of mass
 >communication which, in itself, is suspect for the
 >"contamination factor" ever present in modern UFO reports. One
 >has to believe it is highly unlikely that multiple artists,
 >separated by such time and distance, would "accidentally"
 >incorporate identical imagery into their works.

You're right about 'no TV' or 'Newspaper' being responsible for
"media contamination". These guys were mostly 'commissioned'
artists I'm sure. They were probably painting what they were
_asked_for_ or something they had witnessed for themselves.
Either way, the presence of 'classic' UFO-shaped objects in the
sky is most compelling for those who, in 2001, struggle to
understand/make sense of, the impossible.

 >Obviously, these saucer shaped craft represent something seen,
 >rather than imagined, and the casualness in how they are
 >presented in the art only adds to the believability.

I agree. There is something unassuming about how these objects
are incorporated/depicted in the paintings. Almost as if the
artist is sure that the viewer will understand the
meaning/nature of the imagery. (The 'objects' that are painted
into the sky.)

 >While it is true that people of that time were more susceptible
 >to superstition and religious dogma, they also had an
 >open-mindedness about the fantastic that makes me envious in
 >many, many ways.

More than open-mindedness, I think they were honestly
"recording" what was known or believed to be true/fact at the
time.

 >Oh well. I stumble forward through an uncertain future, guided
 >by jaded eyes. The crowd gathers to watch me trip, yet again.

Regardless of which side of the issue we are on we are all
stumbling and tripping along trying to make sense of this
extraordinary UFO business. You're not alone Roger.

Wanna hold hands?  <LOL>


Regards,

John Velez,
Just as scared and uncertain as the next guy.

..................................................................
   "Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind."
                             www.spacelab.net/~jvif/
..................................................................









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 11

               Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated -

From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 15:22:48 +0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 17:54:18 -0500
Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated -


 >From: Matt Hurley <m.hurley@ntlworld.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated
 >Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 15:59:15 -0000

 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 01:18:59 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated

 >>Thank you so much for gathering all this graphical material and
 >>putting it all under one roof. It is a truly compelling and
 >>provocative collection of images. Great job. A website of major
 >>importance and significance for anyone interested in
 >>"archeo-ufology."

 >Thanks for the comments. I've been toying with the idea of doing
 >a book on the subject.

 >Ideally I'd like to visit all the gallaries/churches where these
 >pictures hang but there's a big financial hurdle there :-)


Hello Matt,

Would you consider adding photographs of Egyptian hieroglyphics,
Mayan and Aztec art and engravings and some of the other
anomalous paintings on cave walls and rocks etc.to your website
collection or book, possibly under some other heading? It would
be nice to have all of these curious artistic or historically
documented allusions to what we now term UFOs under one "roof"
so to speak.

Well done in any event.

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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 11

               Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated -

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 01:18:59 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 10:06:16 -0500
Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated -


on 2/10/01 10:00 AM, UFO UpDates - Toronto at updates@sympatico.ca wrote:

 >From: Matt Hurley <m.hurley@ntlworld.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated
 >Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 20:47:55 -0000

 >Hello All,

 >I've now added more images to my site, corrected some
 >inaccuracies and provided links to artist biographies and
 >galleries.

 >Regards,

 >Matt

 >http://homepage.ntlworld.com/m.hurley/index.html


Hiya Matt,

You know the old saying about having to watch out for the
'quiet' ones? Your website is a lot like that. It is a powerful
collection of images sitting there quietly awaiting discovery.
To me, they 'shout' out a truth that many are wont to recognize.
Whatever the UFO phenomenon is, it has certainly been with us
for a very long time.

Thank you so much for gathering all this graphical material and
putting it all under one roof. It is a truly compelling and
provocative collection of images. Great job. A website of major
importance and significance for anyone interested in
"archeo-ufology."


Regards,

John Velez,
Patron of the Arts ;)


*BTW, EBK and myself spent 20 minutes discussing your website on
his 'Strange Days,...Indeed' radio program, Saturday night. Hope
it brings you traffic. People need to see your presentation.

JV  ;)

................................................................

"Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind."
                         www.spacelab.net/~jvif/
................................................................







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 11

                 Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Fleming

From: Lan Fleming <apollo18@swbell.net>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 13:43:56 -0600
Fwd Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 18:08:27 -0500
Subject: Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Fleming


 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 01:54:00 -0500
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Velez


 >Gents,

 >Has it actually been established that the features in the area
 >are caused by impact? To my (amateur astronomers eye) the
 >"crater" and its ejecta (just to the visual North of the "eye")
 >could be an extinct volcano caldera. The material appears to
 >have 'flowed/oozed' out onto the landscape and does not 'appear'
 >to have been violently ejected by an impact.

That seems a lot more plausible explanation to me than an impact
crater. The physical constraints on the ultimate shapes of
volcanic vents are not, I don't believe, nearly as strong as the
constraints tending to produce circular impact craters. However,
this "ejecta" seems to be strangely localized around the "vent."
None of the ejecta seems to have landed on top of the adjacent
"brow" ridge. Volcanic ejecta, like impact ejecta, should expand
out vertically as well as horizontally.

Referring back to the '98 article I wrote about how the
shadowing changes between the two Viking images, I still think
this dark outer region is a shallow surface concavity similar to
the eye socket surrounding an eye rather than an albedo feature.
Or at least I don't think it's completely an albedo feature. But
as I've already said, a surface concavity created by
undetermined processes doesn't mean the same thing as an
artificially created structure.

We need more information. That's why I hope NASA will someday
take a photograph showing the _whole_ face. SPSR member Dr. John
Brandenburg commented that NASA seems to be doing the "Dance of
the Seven Veils" with these Face images. I just hope we don't
have five more veils to go through.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 11

                  Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 14:42:50 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 18:02:39 -0500
Subject: Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Young


 >Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 22:06:41 -0600
 >From: Lan Fleming <apollo18@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 17:32:56 EST
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Fleming

  <snip>

 >As for the "little impact crater" that you claim is obscuring
 >the otherwise routine circular crater shape of the "eye", sorry.
 >I can't see it in the MGS image. I'm afraid it's a figment of
 >your imagination.

<snip>

 >C'mon, Bob. Give up the crater nonsense. It's silly.

Lan:

It is now abundantly clear what is going on here.


I hope that you have clear and blue 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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 11

             Re: Joseph Smith And The Ten Lost Tribes - Aldrich

From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 15:12:05 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 18:05:29 -0500
Subject: Re: Joseph Smith And The Ten Lost Tribes - Aldrich


 >From: Paul Thompson - ParaScope <MrApol@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 11:02:01 EST
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Joseph Smith And The Ten Lost Tribes - Thompson


 >>From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Joseph Smith And The Ten Lost Tribes
 >>Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 00:33:22 -0500

<snip>

 >>It really doesn't matter if the above is true or not; most
 >>religions are anchored in faith, not cold hard logic. So such
 >>stories do not invalidate such religious beliefs.

 >What a remarkable thing to say.


PBT

Hardly, unless you were from the generation that did not take
"Western Civilization" in school. Much of which the West is, is
rooted in thousands of years old religious beliefs. You may deny
the beliefs, but how we think, behave, and act are indeed
profoundly influenced by religious beliefs which are daily
called into doubt by logic and historical fact. Much as many
would like to divorce religious beliefs from our lives the very
assumptions of our civilization and social contract were and are
influenced by things that might be demonstrated in the physical
world as being untrue.

It doesn't really matter if Abraham did in fact the really
exist, nor that he did intend to scarifice his son in obedience
to his God. This tale and its moral lesson and the idea of
social contract have infludence billions today and throughout
history.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 12

               Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated -

From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 20:45:41 +0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 02:23:00 -0500
Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated -


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 14:26:28 EST
 >Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>What makes it all the more significant is the lack of mass
 >>communication which, in itself, is suspect for the
 >>"contamination factor" ever present in modern UFO reports. One
 >>has to believe it is highly unlikely that multiple artists,
 >>separated by such time and distance, would "accidentally"
 >>incorporate identical imagery into their works.

 >Hi, Roger, John, Matt:

 >Religious art, in itself, was a principal "mass communication"
 >media of the time. Cultural transmission didn't begin with
 >modernity. To prove this, consider why so many pictures of
 >Madonna and Child looked alike.


Because they were all copying from the same publicity photo,
right?


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 12

               Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated -

From: dledger@ns.sympatico.ca (Donald . Ledger)
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 20:50:53 +0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 02:29:19 -0500
Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated -


 >From: Matt Hurley <m.hurley@ntlworld.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated
 >Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 15:59:15 -0000

<snip>

 >Thanks for the comments. I've been toying with the idea of doing
 >a book on the subject.

 >Ideally I'd like to visit all the gallaries/churches where these
 >pictures hang but there's a big financial hurdle there :-)

Hi Matt,

Move to Canada, write two books and get them published. Quit
your day job and then you might be eligible for a $2,000.00
travel grant from the Cdn. Arts Council. That's about $1,350.00
US. Does this help?


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 12

                     Urgent Disclosure Project - Update

From: Alfred Webre <EcoRadio@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 20:24:32 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 02:33:45 -0500
Subject: Urgent Disclosure Project - Update


Please Post and Distribute As Desired

Since August of 2000, the CSETI Disclosure Project has recorded
the testimony of over 100 military, government and related
witnesses to UFO events and projects from around the world. The
testimony of these courageous witnesses creates a permanent
archive with the most profound implications as it constitutes
dozens of first-hand, often top-secret witnesses to UFO events,
internal UFO-related government projects and covert government
activities related to UFOs, Extraterrestrial Intelligence and
exotic energy and propulsion system projects. These 100
witnesses constitute the tip of a larger pool of over 400
prospective witnesses, many of whom would prefer coming forward
first in formal Congressional hearings - which we hope will
follow the upcoming planned disclosure event.

This testimony is on broadcast quality digital videotape and
audio tape. Printed transcriptions of the testimony are
currently being created.

We are requesting that any further military, government,
government-contractor or related witnesses to UFO events and
projects contact CSETI Director Dr. Steven Greer immediately for
inclusion in the briefing materials and the upcoming disclosure
event. Such witnesses may contact Dr. Greer via the CSETI
website at www.CSETI .org or at 540-456-8302 (government
witnesses only should use this number, please).

Additionally, any other substantial, supporting evidence, such
as government documents, high quality UFO photographs and
videotaped images, hard evidence etc. should similarly be
referred to the project for inclusion in the final briefing
materials and disclosure Press Conference.

The date for the Disclosure Press Conference and related
activities in Washington DC has been set and will occur in the
Spring of this year (2001).

Prior to the Disclosure Press Conference we will be conducting
private briefings for key leaders in society, government and
related institutions (for example, members of the US Congress,
White House staff, scientific and religious leaders etc). If you
have good access to such leaders and can assist with arranging a
briefing please contact Dr. Greer as soon as possible.

This body of testimony is being edited and the over 100 hours of
testimony will be condensed into a 2 hour briefing video.
Additionally, a written briefing document consisting of witness
testimony transcripts, government documents and important case
material and policy papers is being prepared for use in the
briefings and in the Disclosure Press Conference in Washington.

The Disclosure Press Conference will present many of the
government witnesses in person, and the other evidence and
briefing materials will be available to the media at that time.
People with excellent national and international media contacts
who can assist pro bono with media coordination are invited to
contact Dr. Greer also.

Unfortunately, a documentary containing this witness testimony
will not be available as there are insufficient funds to
complete such a project.

We would like to thank all of the supporters and contributers to
this historic effort and especially the witnesses who have come
together to let the world know the truth about this very
important matter.

Anyone who would like to help support this effort is invited to
make a tax-deductible contribution to : The Dislcosure Project,
PO Box 265, Crozet Va 22932.

Further updates will be issued as the date for the event
approaches.

Again, we would like to thank our many supporters for their
assistance in and dedication to disclosing the truth.

The Disclosure Project
CSETI
11 February 2001

posted by Alfred Webre

__________
EcoNews Service - Always online for Ecology, Consciousness & Universe
Exopolitics.
EcoNews http://www.ecologynews.com/
Prague http://mujweb.cz/www/ecologynews/
mailto:econews@ecologynews.com/Vancouver, BC V6M 1V8







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 12

                 Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Stacy

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 19:37:21 -0600
Fwd Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 02:37:55 -0500
Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Stacy


 >Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 12:13:28 -0500
 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >Richard Hall, who maintains a confidential email address, has
 >written to me as follows:

 >      I agree completely with your statement of today (Feb. 10)
 >      about ET hypothesis as the most reasonable one given what
 >      we know, but not necessarily the final answer. Since Dennis
 >      Stacy has "taken our names in vain" with the apparent
 >      epithet (or at least the uncomplimentary connotation) of
 >      being "ET believers" we should challenge Dennis to say what
 >      is wrong about exploring the ET hypothesis and identifying
 >      oneself with the viewpoint that this is a reasonable thing
 >      to do, and also ask him what are his "acceptable
 >      hypotheses?"
 >
 >
 >      Regards,
 >
 >      Dick Hall

Bruce, Dick, List,

The ETH "as the most reasonable one given what we know"?

What is it, exactly, that we _know_ again, just to refresh my
memory?

Don't mean to be totaly flip, but I'm busy tonight. Will try to
answer at greater length tomorrow.

But if you're both making preponderance of evidence arguments
for something, then what Something are you arguing for if not
the something of ET visitation as a fact, albeit one
unrecognized by science at large?

If you're not actively leaning towards ET-contact as an
established fact for UFO reports, then it's incumbent on you to
supply alternative explanantions/scenarios, not me. In the
meantime, I read you both as being extremely in favor of the ET
as Fact Hypothesis (ETFH).

Rather than me convincing you of my position, I would like to be
convinced of yours. Any takers?

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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 12

                Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated

From: Wendy Christensen <christensen@catlas.mv.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 20:47:53 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 02:42:59 -0500
Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated


 >From: Matt Hurley <m.hurley@ntlworld.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated
 >Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 15:59:15 -0000

 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 01:18:59 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated

 >>Thank you so much for gathering all this graphical material and
 >>putting it all under one roof. It is a truly compelling and
 >>provocative collection of images. Great job. A website of major
 >>importance and significance for anyone interested in
 >>"archeo-ufology."

Being of a suspicious turn of mind, and also personally aware of
cases in which otherwise sober-sided academics and professionals
enjoyed creating or otherwise promugating a little private
pictorial joke or two from time to time; as well as aware of the
enormous opportunities and clever techniques for retouching
photos -- techniques that pre-date the Internet and Photoshop by
decades -- I would rather like to see the original artworks
before passing judgement on whether or not the objects under
discussion do, indeed, appear in those original artworks. Not
that they don't, or that I am making claims either way... but
I'd want to see the actual paintings/frescoes/tapestries first.

I do recall reading that that some of the Egyptian wall
paintings and/or carvings that purported to show helicopters and
modern aircraft have been shown to be either fakes or have been
satisfactorily explained in terms of actual ancient Egyptian
symbology by someone conversant with same.

This is certainly a fascinating topic for study -- but I would
insist upon viewing he actual artifacts in situ (the actual
wall, in the case of a fresco, or a well-provenanced painting in
a church or in a reputable museum's collection.)


Fascinated but suspicious 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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 12

                Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated

From: Roger Annette Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 19:52:01 -0600
Fwd Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 02:45:01 -0500
Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated


 >From: Lan Fleming <apollo18@swbell.net>
 >Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 13:51:41 -0600
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated -

 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 09:29:40 -0600
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated -

Previously, Lan wrote:

 >The way I understand it, the psycho-sociologists theorize that
 >artists in olden times who put saucer-shaped objects into their
 >art work were motivated by excessive religious zeal. Maybe
 >Catholic theologians have a ready explanation of the religious
 >symbolism behind images of saucers hovering above the Virgin
 >Mary. I don't remember anything about flying saucers being a
 >part of religious dogma from Sunday school, but then I was
 >raised a Presbyterian.

Hi, Lan!

I was raised a 'Frisbyterian'. We believed that when you die,
you soul gets stuck up on the roof.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 12

                Re: Convening of Special Grand Jury? - McCoy

From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 18:25:24 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 02:47:00 -0500
Subject: Re: Convening of Special Grand Jury? - McCoy


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 14:21:13 EST
 >Subject: Re: Convening of Special Grand Jury?
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Larry W. Bryant <overtci@bellatlantic.net>
 >>Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 23:09:55 -0500
 >>To: usatty.txs@usdoj.gov
 >>Cc: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Convening of Special Grand Jury?

 >>Request for the Convening of a Federal Special Grand Jury

 >Dear readers:

 >Oh, for God's sake.

Hello all, Bob,

I have this funny feeling this "Special" Grand Jury will fly
like a Snap-on Toolbox.

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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 12

               Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated -

From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 03:34:27 -0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 02:52:12 -0500
Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated -


Regarding:

 >From: Matt Hurley <m.hurley@ntlworld.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated
 >Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 20:47:55 -0000

Matt wrote:

 >I've now added more images to my site...

Matt,

This is an interesting insight into current perceptions about
historical portrayals of 'UFOs', especially 'flying saucers'.

As we now recognise, the founding perception of 'flying saucers'
was a complete misnomer, which originated from the media's
mistaken context of Kenneth Arnold's description of the _flight
characteristics_ re those nine, undulating, fluttering and
gliding, aerial objects, in formation, which puzzled him, on 24
June, 1947.

Although some, if not many, will still cover their ears or look
away, it's a fact that Arnold dissociated himself from the
'flying saucer' stereotype, for example, as confirmed in a 1950
interview:

ARNOLD: That's right. Now of course some of the reports they did
take from newspapers which did not quote me properly. Now, when I
told the press, they misquoted me, and in the excitement of it
all, one newspaper and another on got it as ensnarled up that
nobody knew just exactly what they were talking about, I guess.

MURROW: Here's how the name "flying saucer" was born.

ARNOLD: These objects more or less fluttered like they were, oh,
I'd say, boats on very rough water or very rough air of some
type, and when I described how they flew, I said that they flew
like they take a saucer and throw it across the water. Most of
the newspapers misunderstood and misquoted that too. They said
that I said that they were saucer-like; I said that they flew in
a saucer-like fashion.
[END]

See:

http://www.project1947.com/fig/kamurrow.htm


That confirmed, obviously any representation of 'flying saucers'
has a specious foundation, which equally applies to purported,
historical depictions.


One painting, suggested as historical evidence of 'flying
saucers' is the 'The Baptism of Christ', by Flemish artist, Aert
De Gelder.

However, what is actually being implied here?

This painting, as with any other, is merely the artist's
conception of that legendary event.

It's not, as perhaps sometimes seems to be presumed, a
'photograph' of what occurred.


If any such religious painting is believed to include an apparent
'flying saucer' or 'UFO', the question is not - doesn't this
evidence some ET connection - it's why the artist incorporated
that symbolism.

As should be expected, there is, in fact, no ET connotation to
paintings which represent 'The Baptism of Christ'. A 'flying
disc' and 'rays of light from above' are inherent, symbolic
artefacts.

'The Baptism of Christ', by Andrea della Verrocchio, depicts a
portrait of Jesus being anointed, or hit over the head, by a
hand-held 'flying saucer' - see:

http://cgfa.kelloggcreek.com/v/p-verrocc1.htm

Consider also, 'The Baptism of Christ (detail)', by Ghirlandaio -
see:

http://cgfa.kelloggcreek.com/ghirlandaio/p-ghirlandaio10.htm


That frequently depicted 'Godly dove' and 'celestial rays of
light' can also be found in 'Baptism of Christ', by Guido Reni -
see:

http://cgfa.kelloggcreek.com/r/p-reni1.htm

Additionally, see those 'beams of light' in Joachim Patini's
Triptych (left panel) -

http://cgfa.kelloggcreek.com/p/p-patinir4.htm


A 'Heavenly dove' and 'symbolic disc' feature in, 'The Baptism of
Christ', by Perugino - see:

http://cgfa.kelloggcreek.com/perugino/p-perugin8.htm

Again, we find them in, 'The Baptism of Christ', by Piero della
Francesca - see:

http://cgfa.kelloggcreek.com/francesc/p-frances1.htm

It might even be noted - don't those clouds look like 'flying
saucers'!


There's further striking imagery in the attributed painting at:

http://www.culture.gr/2/21/218/218ab/00/l2-61.html


And a 'disc-shaped object' at top, which seems to be emitting 'a
'beam of light', can be seen in the painting at:

http://www.culture.gr/2/21/218/218ab/00/l2-61.html

Those disc-shaped 'halos' surrounding the incumbents presumably
represent 'divine' status, and not that they have just been
abducted by flying saucers.

'God' is also portrayed as offering a celestial disk in the
'baptismal' painting at

http://www.bnf.fr/enluminures/images/jpeg/i6_0026.jpg


As consummately and readily demonstrated, there's zero basis for
any claims of historical evidence re ET contact in these
wonderful, religious paintings.


The small number - 2 or 3? - which include 'hat-like' aerial
objects are intriguing. What were the artists representing,
which, significantly, has no foundation in extensive religious
material?

Who knows - perhaps some art historians might be able to assist?

However, in terms of 'UFO' evidence, we must ask - in view of the
above, factual, clarifications - how those 'Billy Meier' type
'flying saucer shapes' - have any bearing which can be remotely
substantiated.

As for those 14th century 'Rocket-man', fresco, images.... aren't
they extraordinary.

Yet, as they are apparently illustrations of 'The Crucifixion',
where is any basis for even considering these are representations
of 'spaceships'?


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 12

                 Re: Portrait of Richard C. Hoagland - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 23:38:51 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 03:06:18 -0500
Subject: Re: Portrait of Richard C. Hoagland - Young


 >From: Kurt Jonach <ewarrior@electricwarrior.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Portrait of Richard C. Hoagland
 >Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 13:34:13 -0800

Kurt:

Thanks for the hagiography.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 12

                         Re: AA Film Redux - Sawwer

From: William Sawer <syntax@i4free.co.nz>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 18:17:51 +1300
Fwd Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 03:10:56 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Sawwer


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 21:57:58 EST
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >>Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 16:28:17 -0800

 ><snip>

 >>>From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >>>Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 17:55:23 -0800

 >>>A. The Cameraman does not exist;

 >>Serge,

 >>I believe this is an incorrect statement but time will tell.

 >Some people have believed that UFO disclosure was going to
 >happen every year for the past 30 years. Doesn't mean its in
 >fact going to happen.

This has nothing to do with the discussion in point.

 >As for the camerman, _if_ and _when_ a warm body shows up that
 >claims to be the camerman, his story can be examined. Until then
 >all anybody has is absolutly nothing.

Not quite true... there is the film/video, the cameramans
statement, Rays statements, even tho' he's a businessman and
guilty of minimising the extent of our communities microscopic
analysis of his words in this effort to turn a profit in _his
Business_.. Not UFOlogy!

 >I do predict that when the "camerman moment of truth" happens,
 >we will hear a long tale from Ray or somebody akin to, about how
 >he died blah blah blah

I doubt that... Ray will say not one word when the cameraman
dies. I reckon he's had enough!

 >>>B. Ray Santilli is a liar;

 >>We are all liars, some time or another; but is he lying about
 >>the AA? I doubt it!

 >Calling us "all liars" doesn't change the fact. The facts are that
 >Ray buddy told tales and stories that either a) couldn't be verified
 >or b) weren't correct for whatever the reason.

I don't think anyone is calling everyone liars. I feel Ed is
stating that we are all guilty of various untruths at _some_
time. C'mon on.

 >>>C. Hesemann's judgement and position in the AA case if flawed.

 >>MH is very clear about what his investigations show. The AA is
 >>legitimate!

 >The tent footage is phony. No question about that. The question
 >then becomes "did Ray get the Tent footage from the same source
 >as the AA film. If answer is yes then we have a camerman giving
 >us bogus footage. If answer is no, then Ray had yet and again
 >another purported camerman feeding him films. I also recall that
 >the AA defenders also profoundly defended the tent footage,
 >right up until it was hoaxed out

As I recall Ray got the tent footage along with the genuine
article footage from the same sources..al mixed in together.
Yes....many were fooled by the hoax of the tent footage, as we
were al supposed to be as stated by the ppl that made it. We are
still left with the "non-junk" rolls that haven't been proved to
be anything but genuine

 >>>Yet, you don't back off.

 >>Not even for a second.

 >>>Denial of reality, doctoring of information and wishful
 >>>fantasies make you a skeptidebunker, Ed.

".... not even for a second"

Do you really think Ed and Neil and any number of others are
that stupid to stand up for it when it's so plain to you that
it's a hoax.

_No_ evidence from you apart from a few stretchings of facts by
a businessman whom didn't know what he was getting into, not to
mention a pretty astute (?) businessman (Volker) who hasn't said
a word about fakes/hoaxes and seems quite content with his
purchase. Surely Volker would be taking Ray to court for fraud
etc if it was truly a hoax!

 >>Are you serious. I hold a strong position because the evidence
 >>I've collected indicates that the AA is authentic and I'm a
 >>"skeptidebunker"? You must be kidding!

 >Lets face it, everytime you look at the AA film, you look at it
 >from the point of view of a person who believes that all the
 >evidence points to the fact that its real. Kind of like a guy
 >who watches Shindlers List endlessly and is absolutly convinced
 >that the movie was absolutly real in every sense of the word.

...and you look at it from the point of view who doesn't believe
all the evidence that points to it being _real_. Check?

And of course "Shindlers List" is dramatised, and no one
believes the movie to be an _accurate_ account. No matter how
you see it


Regards,

William









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 12

                  Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 02:18:14 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 03:13:22 -0500
Subject: Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Velez


 >Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 13:43:56 -0600
 >From: Lan Fleming <apollo18@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 01:54:00 -0500
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Velez

I wrote:

 >>Gents,

 >>Has it actually been established that the features in the area
 >>are caused by impact? To my (amateur astronomers eye) the
 >>"crater" and its ejecta (just to the visual North of the "eye")
 >>could be an extinct volcano caldera. The material appears to
 >>have 'flowed/oozed' out onto the landscape and does not 'appear'
 >>to have been violently ejected by an impact.

Lan responds:

 >That seems a lot more plausible explanation to me than an impact
 >crater. The physical constraints on the ultimate shapes of
 >volcanic vents are not, I don't believe, nearly as strong as the
 >constraints tending to produce circular impact craters. However,
 >this "ejecta" seems to be strangely localized around the "vent."
 >None of the ejecta seems to have landed on top of the adjacent
 >"brow" ridge. Volcanic ejecta, like impact ejecta, should expand
 >out vertically as well as horizontally.

Hi Lan, hi All,

It's tough to determine 'elevations' from aerial photographs
unless there are (fortunately placed) shadows that one can use
to determine which piece of terrain is higher than which. The
lack of material (ejecta) on surrounding structures could easily
be explained by centuries of erosion by violent weather and sand
storms. The reason I think these features are visible at all is
due to erosion. If features like the "eye" bear any resemblance
to "known" volcanic structures (extinct, ancient volcanos here
on earth) then as far as I'm concerned, 'Mystery solved!'

The thing that has me 'going' about the eye is the fact of the
"pupil" structure that folks are using to justify their theory
of artificiality. There are two 'geological/volcanic' features
that 'could be' the cause of what we see on the Martian surface.

1. On earth, ancient, extinct, and highly eroded volcano's look
like a "crater" with a central "lava chimney" structure. A great
many craters on the Moon feature central structures of varying
shape and detail. A crater with some kind of central feature/
structure is not "uncommon." Quite to the contrary.

2. A "bump" (like the pupil feature) could be the visible outer
shell/surface of a 'gas or lava bubble' that cooled before it
managed to break through to the surface. There are many such
features recorded in and near to volcanically active areas.
(underwater 'hotspots' especially.) Although in this example we
are talking about a small and localized 'bubble' of material, It
is that same kind of "surface moving over a hotspot" action that
is responsible for the rising up of the Hawaiian chain of
Islands.

That is why I asked if there was a bona-fide geologist on the
List. (And preferably a 'planetary geologist.') I'm a rank
amateur so I'm mostly talking through my hat and my limited
knowledge of the subject.

The 'eye' feature on Mars could very well be an "artificially"
produced artifact. I just think it's important to check out as
many of the prosaic explanations as possible (thinkable) before
taking any arguments for artificiality into serious
consideration.

Just a purely subjective comment here. (Although one that is
based on a lifetime of practice and a degree of mastery.) As an
artist, if I was going to excavate a whole mountain to create a
"humanoid face;" I would have been a lot more careful about the
placement of the eye (which is way off line) and the
proportional size as compared to the other features/components
of the "face." It's the kind of placement and perspective one
would expect from an amateur artist. I don't pretend to know
"alien thought processes or logic" but I don't think they would
have assigned a job like that to their 'worst' artist. Little is
said about the poor sizing and placement of this alleged
artificial eye structure.

Tell you what Lan, the "real enigma" about that whole piece of
terrain is the "outer shape!" The plateau is shaped like a
'shield' for pity's sake. It has two clearly _ square _ corners
on each end of the top. That, to me represents more of an enigma
than the fact that some internal structures on top of it happen
to be arranged/placed in such a way as to bear humanoid
resemblance. (And an "archetypical" not 'photographic'
resemblance at that.)

Nature doesn't produce nice square features like that. Unless
something completely freakish is happening with the weather and
erosion patterns on Mars. Same goes for the "pyramidal" shapes
of some of the other structures nearby. I think the Face is
secondary in importance (in terms of the artificiality argument)
than are these "geometrical" oddities in the local (Cydonia)
surface structures.

And yes, it would really be nice if freaking NASA would
re-photograph the 'whole' face rather than portions of it. I
want to know how they explain the "angles" in all of those
pyramidal/crystal-like structures.


Regards,

John Velez
Interested Earthling

..................................................................
   "Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind."
                             www.spacelab.net/~jvif/
..................................................................








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 12

               Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated -

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 04:40:20 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 08:25:50 -0500
Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated -


 >Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 15:22:48 +0000
 >From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated

 >>From: Matt Hurley <m.hurley@ntlworld.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated
 >>Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 15:59:15 -0000

 >>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 01:18:59 -0500
 >>>Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated

 >>>Thank you so much for gathering all this graphical material and
 >>>putting it all under one roof. It is a truly compelling and
 >>>provocative collection of images. Great job. A website of major
 >>>importance and significance for anyone interested in
 >>>"archeo-ufology."

 >>Thanks for the comments. I've been toying with the idea of doing
 >>a book on the subject.

 >>Ideally I'd like to visit all the gallaries/churches where these
 >>pictures hang but there's a big financial hurdle there :-)

 >Hello Matt,

 >Would you consider adding photographs of Egyptian hieroglyphics,
 >Mayan and Aztec art and engravings and some of the other
 >anomalous paintings on cave walls and rocks etc.to your website
 >collection or book, possibly under some other heading? It would
 >be nice to have all of these curious artistic or historically
 >documented allusions to what we now term UFOs under one "roof"
 >so to speak.

 >Well done in any event.


Hiya Don, Matt, All,

Glad you mentioned the above Don. I was tempted to suggest to
Matt that he consider the Australian "*Wandjima" pictograms for
the collection. I held off doing it because the website is
dedicated to historical depictions of "UFOs." Not aliens.

(*The Wandjima images are identical to our 'modern' grey aliens.)

You make great suggestions though. I hope he takes you up on
them. It would make the offering richer, broader, and deeper.


Regards,

John Velez
Love what's there already, wanna see more!  ;)


.................................................................
  "Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind."
                            www.spacelab.net/~jvif/
.................................................................








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 12

                 Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Liddle

From: Sean Liddle <gortrix@kos.net>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 14:01:47 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 08:58:18 -0500
Subject: Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Liddle


 >Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 02:18:14 -0500
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In

 >That is why I asked if there was a bona-fide geologist on the
 >List. (And preferably a 'planetary geologist.') I'm a rank
 >amateur so I'm mostly talking through my hat and my limited
 >knowledge of the subject.


Well, I work as an independent consultant to two Canadian
consulting firms one of which is partially geotechnical in
origin.

If someone were to give me a nice list of appropriate URLs for
reference and a few questions you wanted asked (a few, as I am
going to get this for free and time is money to consultants), I
will present the email to two engineers who specialize in
geology and geotechnology for and commentary.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 12

                 Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Liddle

From: Sean Liddle <gortrix@kos.net>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 14:01:47 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 08:58:18 -0500
Subject: Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Liddle


 >Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 02:18:14 -0500
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In

 >That is why I asked if there was a bona-fide geologist on the
 >List. (And preferably a 'planetary geologist.') I'm a rank
 >amateur so I'm mostly talking through my hat and my limited
 >knowledge of the subject.


Well, I work as an independent consultant to two Canadian
consulting firms one of which is partially geotechnical in
origin.

If someone were to give me a nice list of appropriate URLs for
reference and a few questions you wanted asked (a few, as I am
going to get this for free and time is money to consultants), I
will present the email to two engineers who specialize in
geology and geotechnology for and commentary.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 12

                Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated

From: Wendy Christensen <christensen@catlas.mv.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 20:47:53 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 02:42:59 -0500
Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated


 >From: Matt Hurley <m.hurley@ntlworld.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated
 >Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 15:59:15 -0000

 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 01:18:59 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated

 >>Thank you so much for gathering all this graphical material and
 >>putting it all under one roof. It is a truly compelling and
 >>provocative collection of images. Great job. A website of major
 >>importance and significance for anyone interested in
 >>"archeo-ufology."

Being of a suspicious turn of mind, and also personally aware of
cases in which otherwise sober-sided academics and professionals
enjoyed creating or otherwise promugating a little private
pictorial joke or two from time to time; as well as aware of the
enormous opportunities and clever techniques for retouching
photos -- techniques that pre-date the Internet and Photoshop by
decades -- I would rather like to see the original artworks
before passing judgement on whether or not the objects under
discussion do, indeed, appear in those original artworks. Not
that they don't, or that I am making claims either way... but
I'd want to see the actual paintings/frescoes/tapestries first.

I do recall reading that that some of the Egyptian wall
paintings and/or carvings that purported to show helicopters and
modern aircraft have been shown to be either fakes or have been
satisfactorily explained in terms of actual ancient Egyptian
symbology by someone conversant with same.

This is certainly a fascinating topic for study -- but I would
insist upon viewing he actual artifacts in situ (the actual
wall, in the case of a fresco, or a well-provenanced painting in
a church or in a reputable museum's collection.)


Fascinated but suspicious 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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 12

                 Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Stacy

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 19:37:21 -0600
Fwd Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 02:37:55 -0500
Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Stacy


 >Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 12:13:28 -0500
 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >Richard Hall, who maintains a confidential email address, has
 >written to me as follows:

 >      I agree completely with your statement of today (Feb. 10)
 >      about ET hypothesis as the most reasonable one given what
 >      we know, but not necessarily the final answer. Since Dennis
 >      Stacy has "taken our names in vain" with the apparent
 >      epithet (or at least the uncomplimentary connotation) of
 >      being "ET believers" we should challenge Dennis to say what
 >      is wrong about exploring the ET hypothesis and identifying
 >      oneself with the viewpoint that this is a reasonable thing
 >      to do, and also ask him what are his "acceptable
 >      hypotheses?"
 >
 >
 >      Regards,
 >
 >      Dick Hall

Bruce, Dick, List,

The ETH "as the most reasonable one given what we know"?

What is it, exactly, that we _know_ again, just to refresh my
memory?

Don't mean to be totaly flip, but I'm busy tonight. Will try to
answer at greater length tomorrow.

But if you're both making preponderance of evidence arguments
for something, then what Something are you arguing for if not
the something of ET visitation as a fact, albeit one
unrecognized by science at large?

If you're not actively leaning towards ET-contact as an
established fact for UFO reports, then it's incumbent on you to
supply alternative explanantions/scenarios, not me. In the
meantime, I read you both as being extremely in favor of the ET
as Fact Hypothesis (ETFH).

Rather than me convincing you of my position, I would like to be
convinced of yours. Any takers?

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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 12

                  Re: Mussolini's UFO Files - Disc-Diagrams

From: Alfredo Lissoni <retecun@tiscalinet.it>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 15:19:04 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 09:47:32 -0500
Subject: Re: Mussolini's UFO Files - Disc-Diagrams


 >Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 22:02:16 +0100
 >From: clearlight@t-online.de (Josh Goldstein)
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Mussolini's UFO Files - Disc-Diagrams

 >>Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 14:32:46 -0800
 >>From: Alfredo Lissoni <retecun@tiscalinet.it>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Mussolini's UFO Files - Disc-Diagrams


 >Hello Alfredo, It looks fascinating. Is it possible for you to
 >give an English translation of the captions?

 >Thanks, Josh Goldstein

Hi,

Unfortunately I'm not very able to speak English... so, all my
newspapers articles about all the history of Mussolini's UFO
files are posted at:

http://www.cun-italia.netXXXXXX

but only in Italian; if you have a good translator, you can
download them and put in your translator... I think Ken hasn't
access to the website because he's in Japan; or, you connect
new:

http://www.cun-italia.net/fasfile/fafil.htm

(in March an Italian editor shall publish a photographic book
about it, with all the original documents... you can see it)

If there�s someone who�s able to translate it, he�s welcome!!!


Best wishes from Italy,

Alfredo Lissoni
Italy's National UFO Center











   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 12

               Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated -

From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 11:24:37 +0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 09:53:20 -0500
Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated -


 >From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated
 >Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 03:34:27 -0000

 >Regarding:

 >>From: Matt Hurley <m.hurley@ntlworld.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated
 >>Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 20:47:55 -0000

 >Matt wrote:

 >>I've now added more images to my site...

Don't waste your time with this drivel Matt. Easton's perceptial
problem continues. He tries to confuse apple with oranges once
again. None of the paintings he has offered up has any relation
to the paintings you have saved to your site. The bowls used to
annoint the head of Christ are in no way representative of the
images of paintings you've depicted on your site. Batting Christ
over the head with a "flying saucer" indeed. Aura's or halos
around the heads of the figures has been in paintings and
depictions for centuries, symbolizing heavenly demeanor-or what
ever.

 >Those disc-shaped 'halos' surrounding the incumbents presumably
 >represent 'divine' status, and not that they have just been
 >abducted by flying saucers.

You are the only one suggesting that. They have nothing to do
with the paintings offered by Matt. They are a far cry from
objects freely suspended in the sky with no apparent
relationship to the subject of the painting.

This is a poor attempt to confuse the issue which Easton is
known for. His quest for the crown as the debunker extrodinaire
being handed down from Klass is sad to watch. If you want to
really debunk this James, then a least have the common sense to
refer to the same paintings as the rest of us. Come up with
prosaic explanations for them, not your refutions of paintings
which no one is disputing in the first place. Setting up
strawmen to knock down James. That's what that ploy is known as.

BTW James you still haven't admitted you were so obviously
proven wrong about the Vulcan Bomber explanation.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 12

               Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated -

From: Matt Hurley <m.hurley@ntlworld.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 16:08:08 -0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 10:50:29 -0500
Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated -


 >Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 20:47:53 -0500
 >From: Wendy Christensen <christensen@catlas.mv.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Historical Artwork And UFOs

 >>From: Matt Hurley <m.hurley@ntlworld.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated
 >>Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 15:59:15 -0000

 >>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 01:18:59 -0500
 >>>Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated

 >>>Thank you so much for gathering all this graphical material and
 >>>putting it all under one roof. It is a truly compelling and
 >>>provocative collection of images. Great job. A website of major
 >>>importance and significance for anyone interested in
 >>>"archeo-ufology."

 >Being of a suspicious turn of mind, and also personally aware of
 >cases in which otherwise sober-sided academics and professionals
 >enjoyed creating or otherwise promugating a little private
 >pictorial joke or two from time to time; as well as aware of the
 >enormous opportunities and clever techniques for retouching
 >photos -- techniques that pre-date the Internet and Photoshop by
 >decades -- I would rather like to see the original artworks
 >before passing judgement on whether or not the objects under
 >discussion do, indeed, appear in those original artworks. Not
 >that they don't, or that I am making claims either way... but
 >I'd want to see the actual paintings/frescoes/tapestries first.

Hi Wendy

You raise a valid point. I realised this when I created the
site, thats why I've provided links to the actual places where
they are depicted.

If people are really interested there's nothing stopping them
e-mailing the curators at these places is there?

There's only so much one can do when showing 2 D art on a
website :-)


Regards,

Matt









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 12

               Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated -

From: Matt Hurley <m.hurley@ntlworld.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 16:14:32 -0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 10:57:11 -0500
Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated -


 >From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated
 >Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 03:34:27 -0000

 >Regarding:

 >>From: Matt Hurley <m.hurley@ntlworld.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated
 >>Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 20:47:55 -0000

 >Matt wrote:

 >>I've now added more images to my site...

 >Matt,

<snip>

 >As consummately and readily demonstrated, there's zero basis for
 >any claims of historical evidence re ET contact in these
 >wonderful, religious paintings.

 >The small number - 2 or 3? - which include 'hat-like' aerial
 >objects are intriguing. What were the artists representing,
 >which, significantly, has no foundation in extensive religious
 >material?

 >Who knows - perhaps some art historians might be able to assist?

 >However, in terms of 'UFO' evidence, we must ask - in view of the
 >above, factual, clarifications - how those 'Billy Meier' type
 >'flying saucer shapes' - have any bearing which can be remotely
 >substantiated.

 >As for those 14th century 'Rocket-man', fresco, images.... aren't
 >they extraordinary.

 >Yet, as they are apparently illustrations of 'The Crucifixion',
 >where is any basis for even considering these are representations
 >of 'spaceships'?


Hi James,

Thanks for your lengthy analysis.

Nowhere on my website do I postulate an ET hypothesis for what I
show. I was careful not to do this.

Thats up to the individual to decide. We can all look at an
image and read different things into something.

The aim of the site is just to show people some "unusual
artwork". If they think there's an ET connection then fine, if
they don't then that's equally fine by me.

"No one's artwork is bigger than the UFO phenomenon"


Regards,

Matt








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 12

               Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated -

From: Matt Hurley <m.hurley@ntlworld.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 16:18:49 -0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 10:59:49 -0500
Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated -


 >Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 15:22:48 +0000
 >From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated

 >>From: Matt Hurley <m.hurley@ntlworld.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated
 >>Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 15:59:15 -0000

 >>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 01:18:59 -0500
 >>>Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated

 >>>Thank you so much for gathering all this graphical material and
 >>>putting it all under one roof. It is a truly compelling and
 >>>provocative collection of images. Great job. A website of major
 >>>importance and significance for anyone interested in
 >>>"archeo-ufology."

 >>Thanks for the comments. I've been toying with the idea of doing
 >>a book on the subject.

 >>Ideally I'd like to visit all the gallaries/churches where these
 >>pictures hang but there's a big financial hurdle there :-)


 >Hello Matt,

 >Would you consider adding photographs of Egyptian hieroglyphics,
 >Mayan and Aztec art and engravings and some of the other
 >anomalous paintings on cave walls and rocks etc.to your website
 >collection or book, possibly under some other heading? It would
 >be nice to have all of these curious artistic or historically
 >documented allusions to what we now term UFOs under one "roof"
 >so to speak.

 >Well done in any event.


Hi Don and all,

I may start to add cave painting and other stuff as I'm rapidly
running out of medieval and rennaisance art :-)

I've always found the metallic Lolladoff plate interesting with
its saucer and little grey (Bob Dean has shown this in talks)


Regards,

Matt









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 12

               Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated -

From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 13:10:10 +0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 11:24:45 -0500
Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated -


 >Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 13:51:41 -0600
 >From: Lan Fleming <apollo18@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 09:29:40 -0600
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated

 >>Obviously, these saucer shaped craft represent something seen,
 >>rather than imagined, and the casualness in how they are
 >>presented in the art only adds to the believability.

 >>While it is true that people of that time were more susceptible
 >>to superstition and religious dogma, they also had an
 >>open-mindedness about the fantastic that makes me envious in
 >>many, many ways.

 >The way I understand it, the psycho-sociologists theorize that
 >artists in olden times who put saucer-shaped objects into their
 >art work were motivated by excessive religious zeal. Maybe
 >Catholic theologians have a ready explanation of the religious
 >symbolism behind images of saucers hovering above the Virgin
 >Mary. I don't remember anything about flying saucers being a
 >part of religious dogma from Sunday school, but then I was
 >raised a Presbyterian.

Or here's a thought, maybe they were adding a little real,
everyday context to the religious "faith" of the time. Sort of
like grounding religion in reality by putting into the paintings
common everyday objects seen in the sky or background-like the
Sun, Moon, stars clouds, birds, houses trees, mountains, UFOs.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 12

                          Re: AA Film Redux - Evans

From: Roger Annette Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 10:08:35 -0600
Fwd Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 11:26:47 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Evans


 >From: William Sawer <syntax@i4free.co.nz>
 >Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 18:17:51 +1300
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Sawwer

 >>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 21:57:58 EST
 >>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, Robert wrote:

 >>As for the camerman, _if_ and _when_ a warm body shows up that
 >>claims to be the camerman, his story can be examined. Until then
 >>all anybody has is absolutly nothing.

William replied:

 >Not quite true... there is the film/video, the cameramans
 >statement, Rays statements, even tho' he's a businessman and
 >guilty of minimising the extent of our communities microscopic
 >analysis of his words in this effort to turn a profit in _his
 >Business_.. Not UFOlogy!

<snip>

 >I don't think anyone is calling everyone liars. I feel Ed is
 >stating that we are all guilty of various untruths at _some_
 >time. C'mon on.

Hi, William!

I have tried to extract myself from this discussion so that it
would pass on. However, it is time for a reality check. First
off when you say:

 >Not quite true... there is the film/video, the cameramans
 >statement, Rays statements,...

This would mean something positive only if:

1) AA were viewed off of camera original footage and not a video
tape. This has not happened.

2) Ray would offer up the evidence that would validate his
claims. This has not happened.

3) There was any evidence that the alleged cameraman even
existed. This has not happened.

At this point, therefore, Robert Gates is absolutely correct.
The proponents of AA have nothing in their corner other than
zealous rationalizations about something that they already
believe in; proof be damned.

As far as who or who is not a liar; Ray has made claims and
money off of AA without lifting one little finger to
substantiate what could possibly be the most important footage
since the Zapruder home movie. What I find ironic is how
believers in AA spend incredible amounts of energy and time
looking for and rationalizing the most insignificant of
subjective evidence in support of AA while ignoring more obvious
signs of a scam as outlined in points 1,2 and 3, above.

Ultimately, the movie has already ended, the lights have come up
and AA supporters sit waiting for a happy ending long after
everyone else has left the theater in disgust. A glance about
finds Santilli's seat suspiciously empty, as well, having long
vacated it in favor of the ticket booth to count his profits.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 12

               Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated -

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 04:40:20 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 08:25:50 -0500
Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated -


 >Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 15:22:48 +0000
 >From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated

 >>From: Matt Hurley <m.hurley@ntlworld.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated
 >>Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 15:59:15 -0000

 >>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 01:18:59 -0500
 >>>Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated

 >>>Thank you so much for gathering all this graphical material and
 >>>putting it all under one roof. It is a truly compelling and
 >>>provocative collection of images. Great job. A website of major
 >>>importance and significance for anyone interested in
 >>>"archeo-ufology."

 >>Thanks for the comments. I've been toying with the idea of doing
 >>a book on the subject.

 >>Ideally I'd like to visit all the gallaries/churches where these
 >>pictures hang but there's a big financial hurdle there :-)

 >Hello Matt,

 >Would you consider adding photographs of Egyptian hieroglyphics,
 >Mayan and Aztec art and engravings and some of the other
 >anomalous paintings on cave walls and rocks etc.to your website
 >collection or book, possibly under some other heading? It would
 >be nice to have all of these curious artistic or historically
 >documented allusions to what we now term UFOs under one "roof"
 >so to speak.

 >Well done in any event.


Hiya Don, Matt, All,

Glad you mentioned the above Don. I was tempted to suggest to
Matt that he consider the Australian "*Wandjima" pictograms for
the collection. I held off doing it because the website is
dedicated to historical depictions of "UFOs." Not aliens.

(*The Wandjima images are identical to our 'modern' grey aliens.)

You make great suggestions though. I hope he takes you up on
them. It would make the offering richer, broader, and deeper.


Regards,

John Velez
Love what's there already, wanna see more!  ;)


.................................................................
  "Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind."
                            www.spacelab.net/~jvif/
.................................................................








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 13

                         Re: AA Film Redux - Morris

From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 17:01:11 +0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 11:33:04 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Morris


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 21:57:58 EST
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca


Robert, All.

I hadn't intended to wade in here but...

 >As for the camerman, _if_ and _when_ a warm body shows up that
 >claims to be the camerman, his story can be examined. Until then
 >all anybody has is absolutly nothing.

Not so.

As regards the cameraman and his story, there _are_ a number of
things which can and have been checked out, with positive
results.

He provided the "wacky" date for the event, over a month earlier
than the "classic" Roswell event, ie the days spanning the end
of May and into early June 1947.

Witnesses have been found and interviewed who attest to a slow
moving "fireball" observed to fall into the area identified by
the cameraman as the crash site in the early hours of May 31st
1947.

 From a hand drawn map provided by the cameraman the crashsite
was identified on the ground. In local records it was found that
on June 1st 1947 the US Army laid claim to the old Manganise
Mine in the cliffs above this location with the intention to
reopen the mine. 2 weeks later all operations ceased and the
mine is recorded again as being closed. A happy coincidence? A
mining manouver? Or, a diversion to explain their presence?

Has Ray Santilli been to New Mexico and spent time researching
all this? Not as far as I know. I guess the "cameraman" could
have, as he already admits to revisiting the site himself in the
mid 1980's.

 >Calling us "all liars" doesn't change the fact. The facts are that
 >Ray buddy told tales and stories that either a) couldn't be verified
 >or b) weren't correct for whatever the reason.

See above, this statement isn't quite true.

 >The tent footage is phony. No question about that. The question
 >then becomes "did Ray get the Tent footage from the same source
 >as the AA film. If answer is yes then we have a camerman giving
 >us bogus footage. If answer is no, then Ray had yet and again
 >another purported camerman feeding him films. I also recall that
 >the AA defenders also profoundly defended the tent footage,
 >right up until it was hoaxed out

The story behind the "Tent Footage" is indeed a can of worms,
both Ray's and the hoaxer's story's prompt more questions than
they answer. What is certain is that Ray had access to the Tent
Footage early in March of 1995, Philip Mantle received a tape of
the footage at this time. What is also clear from events is that
by May 95 and the first invited showing of the AA film the Tent
Footage was already _off_ the agenda. You then have to ask
yourself why would Ray pull that footage _before_ it had had
public exposure?, nobody was crying "hoax", few had even had the
opportunity to see it, and it wasn't _that_ bad a hoax. If
anyone can still find a copy of "Penetrating the Web Vol2" in
the deleted bin at your local video store it worth buying it
just for the few minutes of this footage that's tagged on the
end.

So, was it a hoax played on Ray that he wised up to?, or a
deliberate attempt to "cultivate" further footage for the pot?.
Certainly the events as they took place from mid March thro to
Aug of 95 would seem to support the idea that "something" caused
Ray to wise up one way or another regarding the handling of the
Tent Footage, and this "something" caused him to quietly drop
it.

Maybe the forgotten fact that the Tent Footage _did_ appear
eventually on a video totally unconnected with Ray's company,
gives some support to the idea that the Tent Footage's real
owners/creators were, after an abortive attempt to release it
via Ray, forced to cast round for some alternative outlet for
it, unfortunatly by doing this they acknowleged _they_ must have
had control of the Tent Footage, _not_ Ray Santilli.


For those interested here's Ray's 1998 statement re the Tent
Footage:


Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998

THE TENT FOOTAGE

Philip Mantel has informed me that he has secured an interview
from someone claiming to have information regarding the "Tent
Footage".

As a great deal has been made of the so called "Tent Footage" I
would like to clarify the situation and place the following on
record:

The Tent Footage was the first film material I collected from
the cameraman, it was in the form of 16mm film and in very poor
condition. I brought it back to England and asked a studio
facility in Buckinghamshire to retrieve whatever image they
could from it. A few weeks after delivery the Studio presented
me with the film which has become known as the ""Tent Footage" I
was told that this was all that could be retrieved from the
film.

I had informed the cameraman by telephone that we were able to
retrieve some image and indeed showed the film to Philip Mantel
and other interested parties.

I returned to the States later to collect the main film and
showed the "Tent Footage" on VHS to the cameraman. At this point
he stated that he did not remember either the image being
portrayed or the style in which it had been filmed. I was
concerned but collected the remaining film (which was in far
better condition) and returned to the United Kingdom.

Upon my return I contacted the studio to find out more about the
images from the "Tent Footage".  I got the impression that as a
joke the film had been interfered with, but nobody was owning
up. This meant that with regard to the "Tent Footage" I was
uncertain as to what was real and what was not, and if the film
had been interfered with, I could not use it. _This_ is why I
completly pulled back from using the film.

As a result I informed all parties that had come into contact
with the Tent Footage (and I am sure they will confirm this)
that I was _not_ confident with regard to the Tent Footage and
further that it should _not_ be used in conjunction with the
autopsy film, this instruction went to all broadcasters
including Fox (Kiviat).

Indeed when Kiviat wanted to use the Tent Footage for a
subsequent program I was totally against it. However he still
wished to use it and to that end he provided me with a written
disclaimer dated November 1995 which was to be used during the
broadcast. In the end I won the point and the film was not used.
The situation regarding the Tent Footage was known to all, it
was not appropriate to use as it may have been interfered with.

It was the only thing I could do, as I did not want it to
compromise the main autopsy film.

I believe I did the responsible thing in removing the "Tent
Footage" from circulation at the very beginning.

My position regarding the Autopsy film and the reels recovered
remains unchanged. Any discussion regarding the Tent Footage is
completely irrelevant. I did not use that studio again, and
neither the studio or anyone associated with the studio had
anything whatsoever to do with the autopsy film.

The autopsy film is what it is, and nothing will change that.



Ray Santilli

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

Neil

--
*        *         *         *         *         *         *         *
Neil Morris.       /101101101 Virtual Bumper Stickers Inc 10110101010\
Dept of Physics.   1                                                 1
Univ of Manchester 0                                                 0
Schuster Labs.     1  Computer Programmers DO IT with BITS of BYTES  1
Brunswick St.      0                                                 0
Manchester.        1                                                 1
M13.9PL.  UK.      \0101010110010110110010110101101011011110101011010/

                    Radio Callsign G8KOQ
                E-mail: neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk
          Public PGP Key available at www.keyserve.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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 13

                 Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 11:37:28 -0600
Fwd Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 11:34:47 -0500
Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Clark


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 19:37:21 -0600

 >>Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 12:13:28 -0500
 >>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>


Dennis,

 >If you're not actively leaning towards ET-contact as an
 >established fact for UFO reports, then it's incumbent on you to
 >supply alternative explanantions/scenarios, not me. In the
 >meantime, I read you both as being extremely in favor of the ET
 >as Fact Hypothesis (ETFH).

Could you explain what the adverb "extremely" is doing in the
latter sentence?  And if you believe it belongs there, do you
believe that Dick Hall and George Adamski are intellectually
distinguishable? Just curious.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 13

                  Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Evans

From: Roger Annette Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 13:11:45 -0600
Fwd Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 12:35:23 -0500
Subject: Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Evans


 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 02:18:14 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca


Previously, John wrote:

 >Just a purely subjective comment here. (Although one that is
 >based on a lifetime of practice and a degree of mastery.) As an
 >artist, if I was going to excavate a whole mountain to create a
 >"humanoid face;" I would have been a lot more careful about the
 >placement of the eye (which is way off line) and the
 >proportional size as compared to the other features/components
 >of the "face." It's the kind of placement and perspective one
 >would expect from an amateur artist. I don't pretend to know
 >"alien thought processes or logic" but I don't think they would
 >have assigned a job like that to their 'worst' artist. Little is
 >said about the poor sizing and placement of this alleged
 >artificial eye structure.

Hi,John!

Your point is a good one. I am an artist, also, and have
wondered the same thing. It's a lot like my observations about
AA. Why not use a better cameraman to document something so
important?

On the other hand, if the "face" is real, we have no idea if the
beings that created it look like us or not. What I mean is, look
at Japanese animation. Certainly Japanese artists know what an
American looks like, yet they continually draw non-Asian
characters as ultra glassy "round-eyes" that resemble no
westerner that I've ever met. Perhaps the beings responsible for
the face don't really look like us enough for them to ascertain
that the symmetry is askew. Perhaps it is enough that there are
simply two eyes, a nose and a mouth. Not trying to encourage
galactic bigotry, but maybe we all look the same to Martians!

In that sense, the face could have very well been designed by
the best artist they had! Then again, maybe the engineering team
screwed the job totally and the artist was pissed. (My one
chance! I could'a been a contenda. Now I'll never get that
pyramid commission!)


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 13

                                  UFO Biz!

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 14:43:55 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 12:37:22 -0500
Subject: UFO Biz!


Hi All,

The following is an excerpt from an e-mail invitation I
received recently.

 >I am a group cruise expert, which creates theme voyages
 >that focus on uniting people with similar interests.  Since
 >the cruise industry is rapidly growing why not incorporate the
 >best of both worlds. During the journey, I would be onboard
 >to coordinate the events and my organization would handle
 >all the reservations. Your involvement would be to host a
 >cocktail party, Q & A session, booking signing sessions and
 >socializing with guests during dinner.  Your cruise and
 >roundtrip airfare would be paid along with your fee.

 >I thank you for your time and I look forward to hearing from
 >you.

Free cruise, free airfare, my 'personal' fee (whatever that is)
and all I have to do is 'show up' and share my abduction
experiences. These people are legit. I checked it out.

"So what the Hell is wrong with any of that?" I hear many of you
saying.

"If somebody offered that to me, I'd jump on it!" I hear others
say.

"What is this guy complaining about? Take the money and run!"
Well, it's not so easy, and the more I think about it the more
the "offer" bothers me.

I have to live with myself.

Although some may have a higher tolerance level for indulging
guile and guilt, my threshold is low in that department. I had
'something' happen to me. (More than once) I "reported" it. I am
a witness and a victim of something I cannot explain or prove.
If I just slap on a smile, and prostitute my life experiences,
these people are ready to throw trips and money at me by the
handful. Shoot, I'll bet if it turns out that I'm a good enough
'story teller' that they'd make these kinds of offers regularly.

I'm not going to elaborate further. Those who understand 'where'
I'm coming from don't need further elaboration. I just wanted to
make you guys aware of some of the "business" (money making)
that has attached itself to ufology and to ufologists. I didn't
get involved in ufology to make money, or a name for myself.
Although I have received legitimate invitations, I'm not trying
to sell any books either. If I was just slightly less scrupulous
you would not be receiving this post, and I would be out
cruising in the Caribbean, getting a nice tan, making money and
popping sun bunnies.

People have to make a living. I'm not knocking the authors and
others who do this kind of thing for a living. (Work the cruises
and lecture circuit.) It's just not appropriate for me, (as a
witness) and mostly because I'm not in this for money or fame.
Something activists like myself are accused of at every
opportunity. (CSICOP in particular is fond of broadcasting that
little walnut.)

I have privately (and now publicly) declined the offer. It
wasn't "easy" to do. I've been working hard for over thirty
years supporting a family and providing them with a home and all
their many needs. My wife and myself have not had a formal
vacation in 15 years. We both work hard. We've earned one.

But not this way. Not if I have to sell my self out for it. The
people at the cruise line must be bilking the passengers out of
a small fortune to be able to offer me all that they did and
still make a profit. These are sober business people. They don't
"invest" unless they expect a healthy return. Think about the
money that must be involved.

UFO "Biz" Holly-gollywood!  ;)    Not why I'm here.

Regards,

John Velez, Freezing my ass in New York City
                                         *************
                              "Nothing is at last sacred but
                             the integrity of your own mind."
                                 www.spacelab.net/~jvif/
                                         *************









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 13

                          Secrecy News -- 02/12/01

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@igc.org>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 15:24:13 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 12:39:30 -0500
Subject: Secrecy News -- 02/12/01


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
February 12, 2001

**NUCLEAR FORCE STRUCTURE TO BE REASSESSED
**RUSSIA REJECTS TENET CHARACTERIZATION
**NARA OPENS MORE NIXON FILES
**DOE REEVALUATES SECURITY POLICIES


NUCLEAR FORCE STRUCTURE TO BE REASSESSED

The Bush Administration is poised to issue a classified
directive ordering a comprehensive review of the U.S. nuclear
arsenal, the New York Times reported on Friday.

While the specific contents of the Bush directive are highly
classified, the Times story said its broad outlines are
reflected in a report issued last month by the non-governmental
National Institute of Public Policy (NIPP).  Several of the
authors of the report have joined the Administration to work on
strategic policies.

The NIPP report argues against treaty-based nuclear arms control
and in favor of maximum U.S. flexibility in reconstituting
nuclear forces.  Within that loose framework, however, it also
allows for arms reductions, a possibility suggested by President
Bush during last year's campaign.

"Preserving the U.S. capability to adapt [to changing strategic
conditions] does not exclude the potential for U.S. nuclear
force reductions, now or in the future," the NIPP study says.
"A proper nuclear posture review may determine that U.S. nuclear
force requirements can be met at lower force levels."

The NIPP study may be found on the organization's web site here:

http://www.nipp.org/Adobe/volume%201%20complete.pdf

Though lucid and free of bombast, the study is also full of
unexamined assumptions and dubious claims.

The authors identify various features of the strategic
environment affecting the size of the U.S. arsenal that make it
difficult to definitively answer the question "how much is
enough?"  But most of these factors (e.g., the identity of the
future adversary, the vulnerability of U.S. forces to preemptive
attack, enemy use of defensive measures, and even the
"political-psychological importance of nuclear numbers") would
only become significant with a vastly smaller nuclear arsenal
than the U.S. now possesses.  If the guiding question were
instead "how much is too much?" then it would be clear that that
threshold has long since been crossed.

The authors lament that "Cold War-style arms control...
contributes to U.S.-Russian political enmity" because it commits
both sides to Mutual Assured Destruction.  As a fact of
political life, however, far more U.S.-Russian friction is
created by U.S. steps to repudiate traditional arms control,
such as the failure to confirm a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
or possible abrogation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

The authors sensibly argue that "Specific nuclear force posture
recommendations should follow a comprehensive review of
technical, operational, and political variables."  But they go
on to make the unsupported claim that "The U.S. nuclear force
posture historically has been shaped by such a process." In
reality, it appears that U.S. nuclear force posture has always
been shaped far more by bureaucratic factors, including
inter-service rivalry, than by any such comprehensive review.

In fact, the size of the U.S. arsenal has often been skewed
irrationally toward expansion. In his recent memoir, nuclear
weaponeer Sam Cohen recalled a Strategic Air Command exercise in
the 1950s in which SAC analysts were asked to determine "how
many bombs of what bang would be required to produce a specified
level of damage" to a hypothetical city.  The answer came back
that "three bombs whose bangs were almost ten times that of the
bomb dropped on Hiroshima" would be required.  The punch line
was that the hypothetical city in the exercise actually was
Hiroshima, and the analysts had grossly exaggerated the weaponry
needed to destroy it.  ("Shame," pp. 86-87).

But all public discussion of these issues is somewhat beside the
point, since with rare exceptions nuclear force planning has
always been unconstrained by public opinion or by even the most
rudimentary forms of democratic control.

Thus, when Senator Bob Kerrey last year requested a classified
briefing on the nuclear targeting process -- which is a critical
factor in determining the size of the arsenal -- his request was
denied.  The idea that a senior elected official with relevant
oversight responsibility and jurisdiction could be denied such
information even on a classified basis is no less shocking just
because it has long been standard practice.  Senator Kerrey's
account of this episode, previously reported (SN, 12/18/00), was
presented here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2000/kerrey2.html

The NIPP authors are oblivious to this continuing offense
against American democracy, and it does not enter into their
thinking.  But strategic considerations aside, deep reductions
in the size of the nuclear arsenal would be one way to assert
democratic control over this largely unaccountable element of
the U.S. government.


RUSSIA REJECTS TENET CHARACTERIZATION

The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement
criticizing the testimony of Director of Central Intelligence
George J. Tenet last week, in which he had said that Russia was
striving "to restore some aspects of the Soviet past" and was
actively engaged in proliferation of missile technologies and
weapons of mass destruction.

Tenet's statements are "astonishing, to put it mildly," the
Foreign Ministry said on February 9.  "On the whole, the 'dark
revelations' of George J. Tenet about Russia and our relations
with the United States may play up to the hawkish sentiments in
the U.S. Congress and help increase the CIA budget, but they in
no way correspond to the real state of affairs," the Russian
statement claimed.

The translated text of the Foreign Ministry statement is posted
here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2001/02/russia-mofa.html


NARA OPENS MORE NIXON FILES

The National Archives and Records Administration announced in a
Federal Register notice today that additional files from the
Nixon Presidency will be opened to the public on April 5.

Of particular interest, "several series within the National
Security Council files have been systematically reviewed for
declassification and will be made available. In addition, a
number of documents which were previously withheld from public
access have been re-reviewed for release and/or declassified
under the provisions of Executive Order 12958."  See:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2001/02/fr021201.html


DOE REEVALUATES SECURITY POLICIES

The Department of Energy is moving "to assess the impacts of
existing security and counterintelligence orders on the science
and security environment"in the DOE national laboratories.

In response to an ongoing study by a new Commission on Science
and Security, chaired by former Deputy Secretary of Defense John
Hamre, Energy Secretary Bill Richardson initiated policy reviews
prior to his departure from government affecting a range of
security policies including foreign visits, polygraph testing,
and "sensitive but unclassified" information.

Although Energy Secretary Abraham has recently suspended some of
his predecessor's regulatory initiatives, the security review
appears to be proceeding on track.

For specifics, see Secretary Richardson's January 18 memorandum
here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/doe_011801.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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 13

             Re: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Salvaille

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 13:55:56 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 13:40:40 -0500
Subject: Re: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Salvaille

 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 19:37:21 -0600

 >>Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 12:13:28 -0500
 >>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

<snip>

 >What is it, exactly, that we _know_ again, just to refresh my
 >memory?

 >Don't mean to be totaly flip, but I'm busy tonight. Will try to
 >answer at greater length tomorrow.

 >But if you're both making preponderance of evidence arguments
 >for something, then what Something are you arguing for if not
 >the something of ET visitation as a fact, albeit one
 >unrecognized by science at large?

 >If you're not actively leaning towards ET-contact as an
 >established fact for UFO reports, then it's incumbent on you to
 >supply alternative explanantions/scenarios, not me. In the
 >meantime, I read you both as being extremely in favor of the ET
 >as Fact Hypothesis (ETFH).

 >Rather than me convincing you of my position, I would like to be
 >convinced of yours. Any takers?

<snip>

Hello Dennis, Bruce and List,

Ah! The old trick of the shoe phone.

What is this? An analphabet by choice who wants to be convinced
of the merits of the written word?

No? OK. Let's try some of those:

A Helicopter-UFO Encounter over Ohio
http://www.jse.com/ufo_reports/Zeidman/toc.html

Greenwich, Summer 1956
UFO was tracked by air traffic control radar (GCA) at two USAF-
RAF stations, with apparently corresponding visual sightings
http://www.ncas.org/condon/text/case02.htm

Read only those two.

Find an original explanation, e.g. one that has not been found
yet, because the cases remain unexplained.

Write a maximum of 100 lines for each case. Consider _all_ the
data and post it.

Please don't sleep on the switch and come up with the usual BS.
Keep in mind that there are more than 2000 rare diseases in the
US affecting less than .1% of the population. Using the same
reasoning, don't play ostrich with explained/unexplained ratios.

Your work will be evaluated on its merits. Menzelian
explanations and Klassic approaches are thus implicitely banned.
Dodging of facts, doctoring of information, cheap shots,
voluntary stupidity, wishful thinking, selective amnesia,
omission of data and gullibility will only give you a score of
0/100 and a dreadful 'F'.

In some circles, this might bring you to stardom, but consider
it an intellectual suicide for an honest man.

Did I tell you these are the _first two_ cases you'll have to
work on? There is more to do once you've finished working on
them.

Take your time.

You wouldn't want to botch the job, would you?


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 13

                       UFO/ET Congress - 2001 - Update

From: Tom Benson <sparkle@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 21:25:49 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 13:46:12 -0500
Subject: UFO/ET Congress - 2001 - Update


 >The 12th Great UFO/ET Congress of 2001, Our Space Odyssey

 >The subject UFO, etc. congress will be held on March 31 &
 >April1, 2001 at The Days Inn, Rt. 1073 USHwy #206 near New
 >Jersey Turnpike Exit #7, Bordentown, New Jersey.

Dear List:

The following is an update on the subject UFO conference.
Additional speakers include: Bob Durant, a reseacher who has
focused for several years on the different aspects of the
Roswell UFO crash. He will address the General Ramey
memorandum, and various interpretations and analyses of its
words meanings. Jan Alrich, the Coordinator of Project 1947, the
worldwide effort to document the origins of the modern UFO
phenomenon will discuss the over 3,000 newsclips, catalogued for
1947, and othe areas of interest including the 1900 -1946, 1948
-1965 periods as well as early official and scientific
investigation. His illustrated lecture with videos will involve
prominent early people such as Fred Durant, a CIA employee, who
recorded the Robinson Panel (convened by the CIA in 1953) and
skeptical Thorton Page and former panel member, who later
changed his ideas and became a Member of the Board of Scientists
for Dr. J.Allen Hynek's Center for UFO Studies organization.>

Don Ecker's writeup on his lecture has been expanded. Don will
critically evaluate, lunar photographs of other researchers. He
has spent eight years researching strange, unexplained and
provocative forms found on the Moon. His illustrated talk will
show Lunar animal reports and photographs that show us the Moon
is not just a dead body.

Pat Marcattilio can be contacted on Saturdays and Sundays by
telephone, all day instead of the earlier posted hours.

Tom Benson








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 13

               Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 21:15:58 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 13:49:41 -0500
Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Mortellaro


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 19:37:21 -0600


 >>Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 12:13:28 -0500
 >>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>Richard Hall, who maintains a confidential email address, has
 >>written to me as follows:

 >>   I agree completely with your statement of today (Feb. 10)
 >>   about ET hypothesis as the most reasonable one given what
 >>   we know, but not necessarily the final answer. Since Dennis
 >>   Stacy has "taken our names in vain" with the apparent
 >>   epithet (or at least the uncomplimentary connotation) of
 >>   being "ET believers" we should challenge Dennis to say what
 >>   is wrong about exploring the ET hypothesis and identifying
 >>   oneself with the viewpoint that this is a reasonable thing
 >>   to do, and also ask him what are his "acceptable
 >>   hypotheses?"

 >>   Regards,

 >>   Dick Hall

 >Bruce, Dick, List,

 >The ETH "as the most reasonable one given what we know"?

 >What is it, exactly, that we _know_ again, just to refresh my
 >memory?

 >Don't mean to be totaly flip, but I'm busy tonight. Will try to
 >answer at greater length tomorrow.

 >But if you're both making preponderance of evidence arguments
 >for something, then what Something are you arguing for if not
 >the something of ET visitation as a fact, albeit one
 >unrecognized by science at large?

 >If you're not actively leaning towards ET-contact as an
 >established fact for UFO reports, then it's incumbent on you to
 >supply alternative explanantions/scenarios, not me. In the
 >meantime, I read you both as being extremely in favor of the ET
 >as Fact Hypothesis (ETFH).

 >Rather than me convincing you of my position, I would like to be
 >convinced of yours. Any takers?

Why?  Seems you've already made your mind up.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 13

                 Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Fleming

From: Lan Fleming <apollo18@swbell.net>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 20:35:05 -0600
Fwd Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 13:51:36 -0500
Subject: Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Fleming


 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 02:18:14 -0500
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Velez

 >Lan responds:

 >>That seems a lot more plausible explanation to me than an impact
 >>crater. The physical constraints on the ultimate shapes of
 >>volcanic vents are not, I don't believe, nearly as strong as the
 >>constraints tending to produce circular impact craters. However,
 >>this "ejecta" seems to be strangely localized around the "vent."
 >>None of the ejecta seems to have landed on top of the adjacent
 >>"brow" ridge. Volcanic ejecta, like impact ejecta, should expand
 >>out vertically as well as horizontally.

 >Hi Lan, hi All,

 >It's tough to determine 'elevations' from aerial photographs
 >unless there are (fortunately placed) shadows that one can use
 >to determine which piece of terrain is higher than which. The
 >lack of material (ejecta) on surrounding structures could easily
 >be explained by centuries of erosion by violent weather and sand
 >storms. The reason I think these features are visible at all is
 >due to erosion. If features like the "eye" bear any resemblance
 >to "known" volcanic structures (extinct, ancient volcanos here
 >on earth) then as far as I'm concerned, 'Mystery solved!'

Well, everything bears some resemblance to everything else, so I
guess we have a universal mystery-solving technique. I don't
know of anything that would preclude volcanic vents from being
shaped like an eye. The extraordinary thing would be that there
just happens to be one where there _ought_ to be an eye-shaped
depression if the Face is really an intentional representation
of a face. There is, although there was virtually no hint of it
in the Viking images except that Vince DiPietro's "bit slice"
technique indicated there was some central structure hidden in
the shadow of the "eye socket" in Viking frame 35A72.

 >1. On earth, ancient, extinct, and highly eroded volcano's look
 >like a "crater" with a central "lava chimney" structure. A great
 >many craters on the Moon feature central structures of varying
 >shape and detail. A crater with some kind of central feature/
 >structure is not "uncommon." Quite to the contrary.

Most lunar craters are made by meteoric impact, not by
volcanoes. Neither types of crater are so common in the Northern
Hemisphere on Mars that you could expect to have one of the
right size and shape showing up just where you "need" an eye to
be.

 >That is why I asked if there was a bona-fide geologist on the
 >List. (And preferably a 'planetary geologist.') I'm a rank
 >amateur so I'm mostly talking through my hat and my limited
 >knowledge of the subject.

There are two geologists in SPSR. They'll probably give their
opinion about the "eye" eventually. My guess is that they will
say it _might_ be a volcanic vent, which is different from
saying that it absolutely has got to be one.

 >The 'eye' feature on Mars could very well be an "artificially"
 >produced artifact. I just think it's important to check out as
 >many of the prosaic explanations as possible (thinkable) before
 >taking any arguments for artificiality into serious
 >consideration.

I agree -- to a point. But the null hypothesis is that the Face
is just a peculiar-looking mesa. It would not predict there was
a feature of the right size and shape at this location to serve
as an "eye" to any great level of probability, just as it
wouldn't predict there were two other features that correspond
to nostrils at the correct end of a ridge that's in the right
place to serve as a nose. You can't just say there are jillions
of craters on Mars, so that can explain anything you want. The
probability needs to be estimated for the right feature to show
up in the right place as the result of random natural events.
The only "crater" --volcanic or otherwise -- in the entire MGS
image that is the right size, shape, _and_ orientation to serve
as an eye happens to be pretty much where it should be.

 >Just a purely subjective comment here. (Although one that is
 >based on a lifetime of practice and a degree of mastery.) As an
 >artist, if I was going to excavate a whole mountain to create a
 >"humanoid face;" I would have been a lot more careful about the
 >placement of the eye (which is way off line) and the
 >proportional size as compared to the other features/components
 >of the "face."

Way out of what line??? If the left edge of the "headdress" is
assumed to be the vertical direction of the Face, then the line
of the "eye" slopes down about 10 or 12 degrees from the
horizontal in the direction of the "nose."  I also measured the
width of the eye feature, and it appears to be 1/6 of the width
of the Face. I understand that correct human proportions are
that the width of an eye is about 1/5 of the width of the face.
The proportions and orientations don't seem teribly out of line
to me.

 >Tell you what Lan, the "real enigma" about that whole piece of
 >terrain is the "outer shape!" The plateau is shaped like a
 >'shield' for pity's sake. It has two clearly _ square _ corners
 >on each end of the top. That, to me represents more of an enigma
 >than the fact that some internal structures on top of it happen
 >to be arranged/placed in such a way as to bear humanoid
 >resemblance. (And an "archetypical" not 'photographic'
 >resemblance at that.)

This is another thing that held up under high resolution. The
original Viking images appeared to show straight edges, and they
were still there in the MGS images. That usually doesn't happen.
For example, the "Straight Wall" on the Moon  that's seen from
Earth-based telescopes didn't look straight at all in the
high-res Lunar Orbiter images.

 >And yes, it would really be nice if freaking NASA would
 >re-photograph the 'whole' face rather than portions of it. I
 >want to know how they explain the "angles" in all of those
 >pyramidal/crystal-like structures.

Now that the main mapping phase of the MGS mission is over,
maybe they'll  be free to get some more Cydonia images for
"infotainment" purposes as they say at MSSS.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 13

                 Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Stacy

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 20:48:32 -0600
Fwd Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 13:53:21 -0500
Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Stacy


 >Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 12:13:28 -0500
 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >Richard Hall, who maintains a confidential email address, has
 >written to me as follows:

 >   I agree completely with your statement of today (Feb. 10)
 >   about ET hypothesis as the most reasonable one given what
 >   we know, but not necessarily the final answer. Since Dennis
 >   Stacy has "taken our names in vain" with the apparent
 >   epithet (or at least the uncomplimentary connotation) of
 >   being "ET believers" we should challenge Dennis to say what
 >   is wrong about exploring the ET hypothesis and identifying
 >   oneself with the viewpoint that this is a reasonable thing
 >   to do, and also ask him what are his "acceptable
 >   hypotheses?"


 >   Regards,

 >   Dick Hall


Dear Dick,

Earlier I said that I would respond to your comments at greater
length. However, I'm now content to let my last comments pretty
much stand as they are. If you want me to apologize for listing
you as a rabid, true believer, then you have it.

That said, there is of course nothing wrong with "exploring the
ET hypothesis" as such. SETI scientists, after all, do it every
day! And have the good grace, when pressed, to admit that they
don't have any convincing evidence for their particular case, or
results for their troubles.

Just a bunch of assumptions based on the Drake equation, which
is basically an argument based on large numbers and little else.
They don't refer quite as blithely to "given what we know," as
you do, to make their case.

The fact of the matter is that we "know" practically zilch about
UFOs and whether they represent visitations by real physical
beings from another planet -- or not.

Thus the ETH remains but one of several possible solutions to
the UFO enigma, assuming, of course, there is a single solution,
which I seriously doubt.

In the meantime, I see no particular reason to investigate, or
write about, UFOs as if the ETH was the underlying basis (or
bias) of same.

Which many ufologists do. That was my point, which was
originally in response to a Jerry Clark post on this thread to
the effect that...well, read the thread

If you aren't one of those ufologists, then, again, you have my
apology.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 13

                        Re: AA Film Redux - Salvaille

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 11:26:35 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 14:25:17 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Salvaille


 >From: William Sawer <syntax@i4free.co.nz>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 18:17:51 +1300

 >>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 21:57:58 EST
 >>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >>>Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 16:28:17 -0800

<snip>

 >>>I believe this is an incorrect statement but time will tell.

 >>Some people have believed that UFO disclosure was going to
 >>happen every year for the past 30 years. Doesn't mean its in
 >>fact going to happen.

 >This has nothing to do with the discussion in point.

[...]

 >I doubt that... Ray will say not one word when the cameraman
 >dies. I reckon he's had enough!

[...]

 >I don't think anyone is calling everyone liars. I feel Ed is
 >stating that we are all guilty of various untruths at _some_
 >time. C'mon on.

[...]

 >>The tent footage is phony. No question about that. The question
 >>then becomes "did Ray get the Tent footage from the same source
 >>as the AA film. If answer is yes then we have a camerman giving
 >>us bogus footage. If answer is no, then Ray had yet and again
 >>another purported camerman feeding him films. I also recall that
 >>the AA defenders also profoundly defended the tent footage,
 >>right up until it was hoaxed out

 >As I recall Ray got the tent footage along with the genuine
 >article footage from the same sources..al mixed in together.
 >Yes....many were fooled by the hoax of the tent footage, as we
 >were al supposed to be as stated by the ppl that made it. We are
 >still left with the "non-junk" rolls that haven't been proved to
 >be anything but genuine

[...]

 >Do you really think Ed and Neil and any number of others are
 >that stupid to stand up for it when it's so plain to you that
 >it's a hoax.

 >_No_ evidence from you apart from a few stretchings of facts by
 >a businessman whom didn't know what he was getting into, not to
 >mention a pretty astute (?) businessman (Volker) who hasn't said
 >a word about fakes/hoaxes and seems quite content with his
 >purchase. Surely Volker would be taking Ray to court for fraud
 >etc if it was truly a hoax!

<snip>

Hello William, Robert, Ed and List,

A couple of days ago, I issued a post exposing evident
distortion of reality from the parts of Santilli and Hesemann.
Mind you, I did not engage in philosophical debate, conjectures
or speculations. Only facts.

I got _zero_ argumentation from AA film proponents.

Is it surprising? No.

As usual in the AA issue, we see ample use of double doses of
Alka-zheimer: fizz-fizz in a glass of water and no more memories
of what is.

It is proven that Santilli is a liar, that the Cameraman does not
exist, that Hesemann is full of it...

The silence, troubled only by the fizz of Alka-zheimer,
obliterates _en passant_ a few other pertinent facts, like the
millions made by Volker and Santilli and the AA material sales
by many AA apostles.

Then again: "Ray said, the Cameraman said, Hesemann proved. Ed
says. Neil thinks..."

Wait a minute! It is proven that Santilli is a liar, that the
Cameraman does not exist, that Kiviat doctored his documentary.
FOX made mucho money, Santilli made mucho money, Volker made
mucho money and Hesemann _advirtises_ his book on AA.

Silence, Alka-zheimer and mantras.

The unbeatable hand at double dummy canuchi.

Slap me.

This must be the Circus.

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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 13

                     Chilean Ufologists Request Document

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@juno.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 14:59:45 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 14:28:49 -0500
Subject: Chilean Ufologists Request Document



SOURCE: "El Mercurio" de Chile (newspaper)
DATE: Monday, February 12, 2001

UFOLOGISTS REQUEST DECLASSIFICATION OF GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS


LA SERENA (Alexis Alarcn).- After issuing the so-called La
Serena Communiqu, the IV International Symposium on Ufology
concluded in this Chilean city.

The document asks Ricardo  Lagos, President of the Nation, to
arrange for the declassification of official documents regarding
the Unidentified Flying Object (UFO) phenomenon in this country,
and the implementation of a policy of transparency with regard
to the subject.

The agenda of the latest round of this meeting was centered
around such subjects ast the links between the Internet and the
UFO phenomenon and its treatment in the news media.

Likewise, an agreement was reached to hold the 1st Congress on
Child Ufology, aimed at providing basic concepts on the
phenomenon to minors.


#######
Translation (C) 2001. S. 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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 13

                          Filer's Files #7 -- 2001

From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 15:37:41 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 14:31:20 -0500
Subject: Filer's Files #7 -- 2001


Filer's Files #7 -- 2001, MUFON Skywatch Investigations
George A. Filer, Director, Mutual UFO Network Eastern
February 12, 2001, Sponsored by Electronic Arts; Majorstar@aol.com.
Webmaster Chuck Warren http://www.filersfiles.com,

UFO REPORTS CONTINUE AT HIGH RATE AS SCIENCE REVEALS NEW
DISCOVERIES:

NEAR SPACECRAFT SURVIVES ASTEROID LANDING --The NEAR Shoemaker
Spacecraft probe touched down on the surface of the asteroid
Eros today. The mission was controlled by John Hopkins
University Applied Physics Lab. He craft completed a five year,
2 billion mile mission for the robot craft. The spacecraft
returned remarkable close up views of the asteroid's surface as
it swooped down to its historic landing. The photos can be seen
at: http://spaceflightnow.com/

MARS FINDINGS HINT AT LIFE

BBC News Online science editor Dr David Whitehouse reports Tiny
magnetic grains found in a meteorite from Mars are identical to
grains produced by some strains of bacteria on Earth.
Researchers claim, If you did not know that this rock was from
Mars, and if you studied it, you would conclude that it contains
evidence for past life. Dr Kathie Thomas-Keprta, Lockheed Martin
Corporation. The new findings will reopen the debate about
whether the rock contains fossil evidence of ancient life on the
Red Planet. The study, published in the journal Geochimica
Cosmochimica Acta, took four years to complete. Those behind it
include some of the original scientists that first put forward
the controversial idea that odd structures on the meteorite
called ALH84001 represented the remains of Martian microbes.
Just over a dozen Martian meteorites like ALH84001 have been
found on Earth, "If you did not know that this rock was from
Mars,you would conclude that it contains evidence for past life.
Thanks to BBC News | SCI/TECH

EVOLUTIONARY DESTINY IS IN OUR GRASP, SAY SCIENTISTS

Mark Henderson, science correspondent of UK Times reports:
"Mankind will have the ability to control and alter its
evolutionary destiny within 30 years using secrets unlocked by
the mapping of the human genetic code, one of the architects of
the Human Genome Project said yesterday." Rapid advances in the
understanding of human DNA will allow the development of drugs
that use personal genetic "fingerprints" to target disease,
therapies to repair defective genes and, ultimately, the
manipulation of man's genetic future, according to Francis
Collins, director of the National Genome Research Institute in
the United States.  By 2010, scientists will have developed
accurate tests for a dozen common genetic illnesses, and
preventive treatments to match, he predicted. By 2020, doctors
will be able to alter the genes passed on to children, leading
to the first genetically engineered human beings. By 2030,
genetic medicine will mean most Britons will live to the age of
90.  However, Dr Collins cautioned against relying too much on
genetic manipulation. "The human genome will not help us to
undertand the spiritual side of humankind, or to know who God is
or what love is," he said at the Biovision world life sciences
forum in Lyons. Thanks to Ambrovista
BCC:http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,2-81232,00.html

STUDY COULD UPSET LAWS OF PHYSICS

LONG ISLAND -- Robert Roy Britt SPACE.COM reports, An
international team of researchers announced Thursday findings in
the subatomic world that, if proven accurate, could upset a
basic set of laws that scientists use to describe the physical
world. The potential change in thinking would force cosmologists
to reconsider the origin, and daily operation of the universe.
THE DISCOVERY involves the study tiny particles called muons.
The data, generated at Brookhaven National Laboratory, conflicts
with previous measurements that explained the behavior of the
subatomic particles. A muon is a subatomic particle, something
like an electron but heavier. They are so tiny that they aren't
made of smaller particles, yet they play an outsized role in
shaping the physical world. Brad Keister, director of the
nuclear physics program at the National Science Foundation, said
the finding, if it holds up, will change how cosmologists view
the evolution of the universe back to and including the Big
Bang. The work, will also put researchers on the trail of new
theories to explain missing matter in the universe, Keister
said. Scientists have only accounted for some 10 percent or less
of the mass known to exist. The rest, noted by how its gravity
affects visible objects, is sometimes called dark matter. These
studies may help explain gravity. Thanks to -- Robert Roy Britt
at SPACE.COM

Editor's Note: Scientists are making new discoveries on a
regular basis potentially upsetting the laws of physics. What
hasn't reached the news is that mankind's DNA appears to have
undergone major manipulation in the past suggesting that outside
forces managed our genes and human development. God, angels or
aliens may have interfered with our gene pool. Fifty new planets
have been found outside our solar system. Let's assume we find
small living organisms on Mars, it would seem likely we would
attempt to improve the Martian life forms like someone
apparently did with ours.

NEW YORK FAST MOVING SAUCER

POUGHQUAG, DUTCHESS COUNTY - Peter Davenport reports a witness
saw an object which appeared to be red in color from the bottom
and was moving from a north westerly direction heading southeast
on January 20, 2001. The object was moving very fast at 9:53 AM
and was shaped like a saucer. The object was moving very fast
and suddenly took off with such speed it vanished from sight
within an instant. I have seen aircraft and used to be a pilot
and have never seen anything like this nor have I ever seen an
object just vanish from sight just as quickly as it appeared.
Thanks to Peter Davenport Director NUFORC www.ufocenter.com

NEW JERSEY GREEN LIGHT

TRENTON -- Astronomer Scott Forrest told us during our monthly
MUFON Meeting that he made his first sighting of an unidentified
flying object on February 1, 2001, over the capital at 4:45 PM.
A green object flying at high speed estimated at 18,000 mph flew
over traveling from south to north in the late afternoon sunset.
The object was the size of a dime at arm's length. The light was
-5 and brighter than Venus in the sky. Thanks to Scott Forrest.
Monthly MUFON meetings directed by Pat Marcatillio are held at
the Hamilton Library the first Wednesday of each month at 7:30
PM, in Hamilton, New Jersey. Everyone is invited.

NEW JERSEY DISC

CHERRY HILL --- Eric Almen writes, "I was about 10 years old and
sitting in the 'TV-room' watching the Adam's Family with my mom
when my sister and father yelled from the front yard, ''quick
come out and see this. I went out to see a saucer shaped UFO
with colors around the edges. It silently hovered and after
about a minute the lights around the edges went dim and the
saucer took off in a blur again without a sound. We couldn't see
where it gone but the next day there was an article in the local
news section about several sightings around the Cherry Hill
Barclay Farm area. One friend of the families was a higher up in
the Air Force and he saw it too. His comment was, "We have
nothing in our technology to maneuver or take off with that kind
of accuracy and speed all at once." I would like to find that
newspaper article. Thanks to Eric Almen

DELAWARE 1881 GHOST REPORT

DELMARVA - George Reynolds the Director of NE Maryland MUFON
writes that the Assistant State Director of Delaware Carl Feindt
has been searching the Wilmington, "Morning News". On October 6,
1881, the news 120 years ago stated, "Peninsula people have been
seeing ghosts and supernatural objects with alarming frequency
during the last three weeks." The first instances of these
heavenly sightings comes from Royal Oak, Maryland, a small
village near the Atlantic ocean. A little girl saw after
nightfall, before the moon was up, whole platoons of angels
slowly marching to and fro in the clouds, their white robes and
helmets glistening with a weird light. At intervals, the
heavenly visitors would dance mournfully to the sound of unheard
music. She rushed in to her parents telling them of the heavenly
sight and fell down in fright. Her father rushed outside and was
rewarded with a sight of the unearthly spectacle. The news was
passed around the community by word of mouth and in an
incredibly short space of time the inhabitants were out in
masses gazing g in open mouth astonishment, while the
white-robed host, seemingly offended at the immense amount of
genuine astonishment and wonder they were creating, slowly faded
from sight leaving the people of Royal Oak firm believers.

The phenomena seems to have been especially manifest in Sussex
County, Delaware. "William West, a farmer living near Georgetown
saw almost an identical appearance of the vision seen. He saw
bands of soldiers of great size , in dazzling uniforms, their
muskets quivering and shimmering in the pale weird light that
seemed to be everywhere, marching with military precision and
presenting arms to the sound of unheard commands. The vision was
startling and lasted long enough to be seen by several of his
neighbors. A man named Coverdale, who was driving through the
country on a lonely road, to his astonishment saw the same band
of soldiers. Many people living near Laurel, saw the same
extraordinary phenomenon at the same time. They felt they saw in
the midst of the soldiers, conspicuous by reason of his size and
commanding presence, the hero and martyred President Garfield.
These strange and supernatural appearances were seen by many
people, among them the superstitious who have circulate the
belief that the world will speedily come to an end. Thanks to
George Reynolds MUFON Newsletter NE Maryland.

VIRGINIA UFO

LYNCHBURG -- Andy & Robin Hodge report there was a UFO sighting
video taped by a resident in Lynchburg, Virginia on the last day
of January. It was reported on the news by the weatherman. He
said he was not sure what the object was and that he was not an
expert in the field. I saw the video and would have guessed it
to be a meteor, but this fellow said that it wasn't, implying
that it was unidentifiable. Thanks to Andy & Robin Hodge
ahodge@roava.net.

ILLINOIS ORBS RETURN

ROCKFORD -- Todd Livengood reports that on February 10, 2001, "I
just had the most remarkable event happen to me at exactly 10:30
PM on Saturday. I finally saw the strange glowing orange orbs
over Rockford, Illinois. It was witnessed by my brother Rick,
his girlfriend Carrie, myself and five other witnesses on
Alpine. There were nine orbs with the same intensity and
producing a glowing orange light. Then at random individual ones
would flash off then turn back on. At one point all off them
flashed off except for three. That formed a triangle. Then the
light intensity shot up very brightly then dimmed back to normal
then the other orbs flashed back on . They swirled around one
another moving slowly. I estimate the sighting lasted 15
minutes. It was very remarkable. The multiple sightings here
don't seem to be so random. I have dates and times and most of
all where they seem to always be spotted. It always seems to be
around the Mulford, State St. and Alpine St. area of Rockford.
And it always seems to be any where around the time of 8:00 to
10:00 PM. My brother and I are investing in some Telescopic
night time photography equipment. Were going to try to get a
close up photo of these orbs. The sighing we saw last night was
very close. My brother and I are x-military. We have done night
time combat maneuvers. We have seen ball lightning and just
about anything else most people would think as very
extraordinary. Now my brother Rick has seen combat in Panama and
the middle east and he has witnessed a lot of new technology in
warfare, and he was the first to say (Todd, I have never seen
anything like this before in my life). And we are now more open
to talk about it with the locals, because as we were watching
the event we were pulled over along the side of the street and I
would glance over to see lines of cars. There had to be at least
10 or more cars pulled over as we were. Thanks to Todd
Livengood.

CALIFORNIA SAUCER

PORTERVILLE -- I watched a UFO cruise by my house at low
altitude, noiselessly with Ferris wheel lights and a strange
saucer shape. It was between 8:45-9:00 PM on January 25, 2001.
It was a cloudy night with rain falling sporadically, I was
letting my cat out when I noticed a Saucer shaped vehicle moving
very slowly with no noise whatsoever. It was about 200 feet
altitude and it was close enough that I could tell it to be
about the size of an 18-wheeler truck. At arm's length the craft
would be the size of your thumb from nail to knuckle. My best
guess is that it was about 300 yards out. I was looking west
from my porch, and the vehicle was traveling south at five miles
per hour, coming to full stops occasionally for 1 or 2 seconds
then continuing on till it disappeared from my sight. It had
spinning lights red, blue, white and green and looked like a
circus Ferris wheel. The sighting took place within a 2-3 minute
period. I realized that I was standing in my front yard with
nothing but my underwear and I returned to my home . Thanks to
Peter Davenport NUFORC www.ufocenter.com

CALIFORNIA UFO HOVERING OVER LOS ANGELES FREEWAY

ENCINO -The witness was driving home from Encino on the Ventura
Freeway 101 on January 21, 2001, and saw a helicopter with a
spot light on. He thought this could mean there is a police
chase going on in the nearby vicinity. The witness stated, "I
kept my eye on the craft as I drove and I began to notice that
the spot wasn't actually on but the helicopter was hovering very
slowly and smoothly around 7:30 PM. I then noticed that what I
had mistaken for a spotlight was simply one very large white
light and the craft had NO BLADES." The altitude of the craft
was twice that of what a normal helicopter would be navigating
at, yet the craft was large enough to where my perspective of
it's altitude was skewed due to it's size. Alarmed, I began
driving directly underneath the craft and looked up to see that
it APPEARED to be triangular and had a series of ODDLY-COLORED
lights flashing on it's underside. I am a skeptic now as I was
prior to last night's events. Nonetheless, I'm entirely certain
there were/are others who saw what I did since the freeway was
fairly busy. Thanks to Peter Davenport NUFORC  www.ufocenter.com

UNITED KINGDOM FLYING TRIANGLE SIGHTING

LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND -- Bill Bimson reports from the Merseyside
Anomalies Research Association (MARA) that on the 8th of
February 2001, the witness observed an incredible sighting of
unidentified craft. I live in Aigburth (Liverpool) in back of St
Michaels and my flat faces towards Sefton Park where I had a
clear daylight sighting nearly 3 years ago. Recently, at the
time of the moon eclipse I saw small bright flashing lights
which seemed to be hovering or moving swiftly in circular flight
paths towards the park. Tonight was much more astounding. I saw
a green flash of light outside my window around 7.45 PM so I
went to look. It was another full moon evening, and the sky was
quite light. Underneath the moon, I noticed a large extremely
straight vapor trail, that looked most unlike the trails planes
leave, being much wider and thicker. I then noticed there were
lights hovering over the park again. I called my mother, and she
said she could see the vapor trail, but nothing else. I went
back to the window, and I saw many white lights and one red
gathered together.

As it moved towards my house I realized it was a huge triangular
shaped craft: The white lights ran along each side and there was
a red line of light down the center, the apex at the front as it
moved right over my house, where I lost vision of it. Four
minutes later another huge triangular shape came over the roof
top and flew towards the park, but this one had many different
colored lights (orange, green, red, white as I recall) which
alternated. This moved rapidly towards the lake-end of the park
behind the trees where it hovered and then moved out of sight.
The smaller lights and another larger cluster of lights were
still moving around distantly in the same area over the park for
10 to 15 minutes. My mother was told her friends son also saw a
very large craft flying towards the park last night. Despite the
enormous size/closeness of the two craft that went directly over
my house , there was no engine noise. A jumbo jet of that size
would be so close as to shake the house and be quite deafening!
Any further reports of this sighting to be sent to Bill Bimson
wbimson02@cableinet.co.uk   MARA www.mara.org.uk

MANCHESTER - Steve Mara reports that a UFO was spotted on
February 11, 2001, by numerous witnesses who claim the bits of
its tail was falling off. Most UFO researchers refer to this as
'splintering.' Some witnesses stated it shot off at a high
speed, others say it winked out. The Manchester International
Airport said they had picked up nothing unusual, but were aware
of the sighting and contributed it to meteor activity. However,
the Manchester Astronomical Society were aware of no meteor
activity at all. The BBC later reported that the Jodrell Bank
observatory confirmed it to be a meteor, which explained the
initial portion of the sighting, but possibly not the later
reports which stated the object shot off at a high rate of
speed.  Thanks to Steve Mara =

GLOUCESTER -- Cosmic Conspiracies received a report of a strange
green object flew over on February 8, 2001. The witness stated,
"My extremely sensible son was watching a police helicopter
around 7:15 PM when a "large green ball" suddenly flew low
across the sky and directly underneath the helicopter that was
hovering above Painswick Road roundabout." It was heading
roughly toward Cheltenham then it vanished. From the direction
it seemed to have appeared from a flock of Pigeons were flying;
he wondered if it had disturbed their roost as they do not fly
in the dark? I would guess the direction to have been South West
to North East. Thanks to Dave at Cosmic Conspiracies
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk UFORCE International Director(UK)

NATIONAL NEWS WON'T COVER CHEMTRAILS

Tim Cooper writes, "I have identified all the major national
news and information media in the U.S. that have not, and will
not, cover the chemtrail mystery, investigate the JFK
assassination conspiracy, and the Clinton-Mena connection to
drug operations in Arkansas. Most, if not all, are influenced
and have been controlled by the Pentagon, US Intelligence, since
1963. I have provided the list, and who ever wants to find out
who owns them, they'll have to do their own homework. You will
note that most are in New York, the political power base of the
United States and are dominated by just four media empires.
Anyone associated with intelligence can verify what I said.
There is no such thing as freedom of the press in this country.
All major news stories are dictated in New York and from the
White House..Please see
http://home.sprintmail.com/~rigoletto/reports/media_censorship.h
tm

Editors Note: My experience is that neither the intelligence
agencies nor the news media are that well organized to be able
to control all outlets. If you can provide convincing evidence
the story will get out.

PRESIDENT CARTER TELLS SHIRLEY MACLAINE ABOUT UFOs

Donald Ratsch writes, according to a Larry King Show, Shirley
Maclaine revealed that former President Carter told her about
UFO crashes and alien bodies. The transcript of this exchange
started with a caller from Cocoa, Florida. Larry King says,
"Cocoa Florida with Shirley Maclaine, hello. Caller responds,
"Hello, Good evening Larry and Shirley, About two weeks ago,
Nicholas Cage was on the Letterman Show and said Shirley had
told him that President Carter had told her he had seen
recovered alien spacecraft and aliens in a hanger. Can you tell
me exactly what President Carter said?" Shirley Maclaine
replied, "He didn't tell me that, but he told me many times that
when I first wrote "Out On A Limb" that he would support me,
that it was true, that there were crafts, that he believed there
were occupants, why should we be the only people in the
universe. He wanted to shine the sunshine laws on intelligence,
to expose it, to see how the people would react, but he didn't
and wouldn't and couldn't as he explained to me." King: back
with our remaining moments with Shirley Maclaine right after
this. (Larry King Show, May 1995)

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 over an
hour long tape of UFOs shot in space. Jeff spends hundreds of
hours watching the shuttle broadcasts from space and is now an
expert on NASA missions and even those onboard the shuttle are
unlikely to see what Jeff does. Using Jeff's directions you will
be able to learn the difference between space junk, ice crystals
and real UFOs. 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 Is, 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 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 2001 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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 13

                                    Greys

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 15:32:34 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 14:33:47 -0500
Subject: Greys


Dear MTVM:

Thank you for the message (below).

I hope you don't mind if I copy your warning to others.

-Larry Hatch

= = = = = =

 >MTVM wrote:

 >The Greys are Demons. Do not post pictures of them or God
 >will shred your little soul like confetti and torch you in
 >a Hell-fire.

 >TVM <mtvm@home.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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 13

                          UFO Over Veracruz, Mexico

From: Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo <ufomiami@prodigy.net>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 22:04:28 -0600
Fwd Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 14:36:38 -0500
Subject: UFO Over Veracruz, Mexico


Hi!!

See the photos of a UFO flying over Veracruz, Mexico on
Christmas 2000.

Visit:

http://virgilio1.homestead.com/FotosOVNI.html


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
CHUPACABRAS(Espaol) http://ufomiami.homestead.com/index.html
CHUPACABRAS (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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 13

               Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated -

From: Gary Anthony <garyant@mithrand.karoo.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 04:51:41 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 14:40:18 -0500
Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated -


 >From: Wendy Christensen <christensen@catlas.mv.com>
 >Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 20:47:53 -0500
 >Fwd Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 02:42:59 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated

Wendy recently wrote:-

 >I do recall reading that  some of the Egyptian wall
 >paintings and/or carvings that purported to show helicopters and
 >modern aircraft have been shown to be either fakes or have been
 >satisfactorily explained in terms of actual ancient Egyptian
 >symbology by someone conversant with same.

Knowing ancient Egyptian Wendy, I can state categorically that
the Abydos wall figures which you are referring to are indeed
what are called palimpsests. That is when one set of hieroglyphs
have been etched in fresher clay over another and then the newer
clay has fallen away to reveal two writings co-joined. It is
even possible to determine here which hieroglyphs are over
which. A photo of this wall was featured in a book called 'The
Hall of Records' digitally enhanced and which has helped fuel
further controversy and idle speculation about it.

As to Matthew's website art, I can vouch for at least a couple,
which I have seen first hand - but whether they are meant to
depict UFOs, spacecraft, or not, is a matter for closer
scrutiny. It's certainly a recognised fact that strange
anomalous aerial phenomenon go back to ancient history - however
it is another clearly stating the case. I for one would like to
learn a lot more about the Kosovo example on Matthew's site, as
this has vexed me for some time.

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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 13

               Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated -

From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 04:09:12 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 14:46:21 -0500
Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated -


 >Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 19:52:01 -0600
 >From: Roger Annette Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Lan Fleming <apollo18@swbell.net>
 >>Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 13:51:41 -0600
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated -

 >>>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>>Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 09:29:40 -0600
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated -

 >Previously, Lan wrote:

 >>The way I understand it, the psycho-sociologists theorize that
 >>artists in olden times who put saucer-shaped objects into their
 >>art work were motivated by excessive religious zeal. Maybe
 >>Catholic theologians have a ready explanation of the religious
 >>symbolism behind images of saucers hovering above the Virgin
 >>Mary. I don't remember anything about flying saucers being a
 >>part of religious dogma from Sunday school, but then I was
 >>raised a Presbyterian.

 >Hi, Lan!

 >I was raised a 'Frisbyterian'. We believed that when you die,
 >you soul gets stuck up on the roof.

Now Roger, you haven't brushed up on your Frisbytarian gospel.
You gave a great description of Frisbytarian Hell for nasty
frisbys that don't fly to their targets. Frisby Heaven is when
the best parts of your soul get tossed to and caught by many
others. Sort of like posterity - frisbyterity that is. The
reason the Frisbytarians revere saucer shaped discs rather than
crosses. This is fully described in the Wham-O Bible, Chapter
One, Stuck on the roof.

Announcements

Two new groups of intermediate and advanced frisbytherapy will
begin 7:00 March 1 at the 1st Independent Frisbytarian Temple of
Wham-O. Please note: Lefthanded clients must have succesfully
completed the course titled Frisby for Leftys. The intermediate
class is the first introduction of dogs and old frisbys.

The Teachings of the Plastic Disc and UFOs will be discussed at
this monthly meeting of the Dulce canyon Frisbytarian alien
truth cabal. The key subject to be debated will be whether
Lt.Colonel Phillip Corso revealed that frisbys were recovered
from Roswell along with The Teachings of Great Wham-O (The
Wham-O bible). Did Lt.Col.Corso covertly release the first
frisbys into human use? Why were The Teachings of Great Wham-O
only disseminated to those very few people who needed to know
and who held the highest security clearances? Special access was
required until after the frisbyfixion of our saviour upon his
golden disc, when the best parts of his soul were tossed out for
all to catch. The Great Wham-O and the Truth cabal have saved
our soul. Praise the disc! Hallelujah! Hosannas!

Josh Goldstein
The Mad Monk of the Redwoods








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 13

              Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Brookesmith

From: Mendoza - Peter Brookesmith<Mendoza@appleonline.net>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 01 03:14:32 +0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 14:50:30 -0500
Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Brookesmith


With the compliments of the Duke of Mendoza:

 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 12:13:28 -0500
 >Fwd Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 13:33:23 -0500
 >Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Maccabee

 >Richard Hall, who maintains a confidential email address, has
 >written to me as follows:

 >      I agree completely with your statement of today (Feb. 10)
 >      about ET hypothesis as the most reasonable one given what
 >      we know, but not necessarily the final answer. Since Dennis
 >      Stacy has "taken our names in vain" with the apparent
 >      epithet (or at least the uncomplimentary connotation) of
 >      being "ET believers" we should challenge Dennis to say what
 >      is wrong about exploring the ET hypothesis and identifying
 >      oneself with the viewpoint that this is a reasonable thing
 >      to do, and also ask him what are his "acceptable
 >      hypotheses?"
 >
 >      Regards,
 >
 >      Dick Hall


Naturally the true background to this is far more devious and
sordid than anything covered by "taking a name in vain" could
ever suggest. But suffice to know that Dennis, in the context of
the discussion only slightly covered on UpDates, was merely
offering a few ufologists who, in his view, took the ETH for
granted in one way or another. (Use your imaginations. No? Okay,
I mean whose thinking ranges from "ET are here - and here's the
proof!" to "ET is the most reasonable explanation for UFOs."

There is, of course, absolutely nothing wrong with exploring the
ETH and, unless he has been going out with other girls behind my
back, Dennis has never suggested anything of the kind. What he
has done, however, is publish a few pieces that explore (or
expose) the ETH in ways gawping UFO "tourists" - to use the Boy
Bishop of Canby's rather patronizing term for you peasants out
there who've never published anything - and other True Believers
don't like. That is to say, said pieces rather put the kybosh on
the reasonableness of the ETH. This is not a way to win friends
in this neck of the woods, but Dennis and I - he & I once saw an
actual black helicopter together, remember - have got used to
that. This may explain why we both use a lot of Tabasco these
days. (Mrs Patak's Lime Pickle goes a long way.)

And as Dennis has already remarked: it's up to Dick Hall to
justify _his_ faith in the ETH, not vice versa. Dennis can doubt
that justification and all the Hallic evidence all he wants. He
is under NO obligation to produce an alternative hypothesis. As
long as the evidential linkage between UFO experiences and ET
beings & craft remains zero, and as long as Darwin's theory
remains respectable among scientists, there's little compulsion
to produce such an alternative as a general, _blanket_
explanation for all the variety of UFO experiences.

When it comes down to individual cases, of course, there are
plenty of alternatives to call on. Which one might apply depends
entirely on the circumstances of the case.


best wishes
Mendoza



----------------------------------
"Never underestimate the power
of stupid people in large groups."
__________________________________








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 13

               Re: Urgent Disclosure Project - Update - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 01:09:56 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 14:54:53 -0500
Subject: Re: Urgent Disclosure Project - Update - Gates


 >From: Alfred Webre <EcoRadio@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 20:24:32 EST
 >Subject: Urgent Disclosure Project - Update
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Please Post and Distribute As Desired

 >Since August of 2000, the CSETI Disclosure Project has recorded
 >the testimony of over 100 military, government and related
 >witnesses to UFO events and projects from around the world. The
 >testimony of these courageous witnesses creates a permanent
 >archive with the most profound implications as it constitutes
 >dozens of first-hand, often top-secret witnesses to UFO events,
 >internal UFO-related government projects and covert government
 >activities related to UFOs, Extraterrestrial Intelligence and
 >exotic energy and propulsion system projects. These 100
 >witnesses constitute the tip of a larger pool of over 400
 >prospective witnesses, many of whom would prefer coming forward
 >first in formal Congressional hearings - which we hope will
 >follow the upcoming planned disclosure event.

_If_ Congressional hearings happen this is a good thing. A
couple of things need to be kept in mind. If the Republicans are
the ones "supporting" and or "sponsoring the hearings, you can
count on the fact that the Democrats will have such
"investigators" and consultants such as Oberg, Klass and other
skepticbunker want to be.  If the Democrats are the ones
supporting and promoting the hearings, you can probably already
guess that it will be the Republicans who consult with Klass et
al.

The next question that needs to be asked is: "Will the hearings
be politically expidient?" Or in other words does UFO/ET
disclosure further or detract from the Bush/Republican effort to
put their agenda on track for the future?

 >This testimony is on broadcast quality digital videotape and
 >audio tape. Printed transcriptions of the testimony are
 >currently being created.

Thats all wonderful and good. The question needs to be asked
"Will these witnesses and testimony survive close examination,
or will they go to pieces. All if will take is one witness to
claim that he or she was the head of some branch of the military
for three years and in fact it was only months. The
"opposition," without mercy, will land on them and go to town so
to speak. It will also be used as an effort to discredit the
entire hearings.

Point being is that all it would take is _one_ so called high
profile witness to discredit the whole subject. These so called
witnesses, testimony and background should be throughly
examined, checked and so forth even before the book of testimony
is published.

<snip>

 >The date for the Disclosure Press Conference and related
 >activities in Washington DC has been set and will occur in the
 >Spring of this year (2001).

Like the 10s of thousands of press conferences likely being held
in DC this spring. Not to mention press conferences being held
between various groups protesting varous subjects at the
capitol.

 >Prior to the Disclosure Press Conference we will be conducting
 >private briefings for key leaders in society, government and
 >related institutions (for example, members of the US Congress,
 >White House staff, scientific and religious leaders etc). If you
 >have good access to such leaders and can assist with arranging a
 >briefing please contact Dr. Greer as soon as possible.

A noble effort, but we should be realistic about this. Define
the word "key leaders." In theory Greer could be briefing the
same people supporting and going along with the coverup. Kind of
ironic isn't it.

You can almost guarantee that the President of the US won't have
time to attend, nor will the so called leadership of congress of
committee chairs. In fact who will attend is flunkys and
staffers. They will probably say "gee, that was an interesting
briefing...." then they will go back to whatever project or job
needs to be done or on the leaders desk by tomorrow.

What Greer should do is tie it into some kind of feed bag or
buffet. You know free food greases the wheels so to speak in DC.
It also makes "another press conference" something to look
forward to.

 >This body of testimony is being edited and the over 100 hours of
 >testimony will be condensed into a 2 hour briefing video.

Would be an interesting video. I am sure that after the press
conference, the public would be free to buy said video for say
$29.95....make the check out to CSETI, blah blah.

 >Additionally, a written briefing document consisting of witness
 >testimony transcripts, government documents and important case
 >material and policy papers is being prepared for use in the
 >briefings and in the Disclosure Press Conference in Washington.

Hmm, witness testimony transcripts..that will be interesting.
Government documents? Probably items ranging from the latest
MJ-12 document to be unloaded from unnamed sources, to various
documents that have already been in public record. Important
case material...photos, etc...could be interesting. Policy
papers? Probably a recap of various Greer writings on the
subject of ETs and disclosure.

 >The Disclosure Press Conference will present many of the
 >government witnesses in person, and the other evidence and
 >briefing materials will be available to the media at that time.
 >People with excellent national and international media contacts
 >who can assist pro bono with media coordination are invited to
 >contact Dr. Greer also.

Again, CSETI had better check the witnesses out before splashing
them out in public. All it takes is one. Naturally should that
happen it will be blamed on the evil coverup etc etc. Many of us
remember how Greer posted on his web site an alleged account
about a helo pilot who supposedly flew out Delta force people
from Mount Blanca after an ET/US Military encounter with Sarin
nerve gas.  After the story didn't check out a week or so later,
it was finally taken off the web site and CSETI apologists went
to great lengths to excuse and explain it away. If Greer makes a
similar screw up in DC no amount of apologizing and excuse
making will hold water, especially to potential national press
members and purported "key leaders."

 >Unfortunately, a documentary containing this witness testimony
 >will not be available as there are insufficient funds to
 >complete such a project.

But, I am sure that if some "angel" came forward with
a wad of cash, somehow, someway, the video would
be made available for a fee.

<snip>

 >Further updates will be issued as the date for the event
 >approaches.

Breathlessly I await. :)


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 13

                          Re: AA Film Redux - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 01:46:45 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 14:59:00 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Gates


 >From: William Sawer <syntax@i4free.co.nz>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 18:17:51 +1300

 >>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 21:57:58 EST
 >>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >>>Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 16:28:17 -0800

 >><snip>

 >>>>From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >>>>Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 17:55:23 -0800

 >>>>A. The Cameraman does not exist;

 >>>Serge,

 >>>I believe this is an incorrect statement but time will tell.

 >>Some people have believed that UFO disclosure was going to
 >>happen every year for the past 30 years. Doesn't mean its in
 >>fact going to happen.

 >This has nothing to do with the discussion in point.

It does. Belief of something does not mean that it will happen.
For example in the 80s the militia cronies all "believed" that
Armageddon was going to happen no later then 1988.
Just because somebody "believes" that the camerman exists
does not mean that in fact and reality he does.

 >>As for the camerman, _if_ and _when_ a warm body shows up that
 >>claims to be the camerman, his story can be examined. Until then
 >>all anybody has is absolutly nothing.

 >Not quite true... there is the film/video, the cameramans
 >statement, Rays statements, even tho' he's a businessman and

Yup, film and video that is in question, the purported camermans
statement which cannot be connected to a living warm body, and
Rays various tales and storys that even Rays supporters admit
did much damage to the credibility of the AA film.

 >guilty of minimising the extent of our communities microscopic
 >analysis of his words in this effort to turn a profit in _his
 >Business_.. Not UFOlogy!

I am glad to see that you realize that Ray was attempting to
turn a profit in his business. The gulliable believers always
maintain that Ray didn't make any money at all on AA. Its been
suggested that Ray sold worldwide approx 400 -800 thousand
copies of the video. At $19.95 a copy Volker/Ray could have made
between 6 - 8 million dollars. Pretty good deal if you ask me,
especially when Hollywood people have said that you could create
an AA type production for around 100-200 thousand dollars.

 >>I do predict that when the "camerman moment of truth" happens,
 >>we will hear a long tale from Ray or somebody akin to, about how
 >>he died blah blah blah

 >I doubt that... Ray will say not one word when the cameraman
 >dies. I reckon he's had enough!

Lets wait and see. If the pressure gets strong enough to produce
a camerman, thats when we will hear a tale about how he died.
(In Rays arms, clutching the key roll of film that has President
Truman looking at the dead alien carcass.  :) )

Likely there is likely no reason for Ray to produce a camerman
at this point.

 >>>>B. Ray Santilli is a liar;

 >>>We are all liars, some time or another; but is he lying about
 >>>the AA? I doubt it!

 >>Calling us "all liars" doesn't change the fact. The facts are that
 >>Ray buddy told tales and stories that either a) couldn't be verified
 >>or b) weren't correct for whatever the reason.

 >I don't think anyone is calling everyone liars. I feel Ed is
 >stating that we are all guilty of various untruths at _some_
 >time. C'mon on.

Its called damage control, i.e. explaining away all the tales and
storys that couldn't be verified or weren't correct.

 >>>>C. Hesemann's judgement and position in the AA case if flawed.

 >>>MH is very clear about what his investigations show. The AA is
 >>>legitimate!

 >>The tent footage is phony. No question about that. The question
 >>then becomes "did Ray get the Tent footage from the same source
 >>as the AA film. If answer is yes then we have a camerman giving
 >>us bogus footage. If answer is no, then Ray had yet and again
 >>another purported camerman feeding him films. I also recall that
 >>the AA defenders also profoundly defended the tent footage,
 >>right up until it was hoaxed out

 >As I recall Ray got the tent footage along with the genuine
 >article footage from the same sources..al mixed in together.

In essence the same camerman that gave us AA, also
produced/discovered/found phony tent footage that in appearance
was similar to the AA film. This same footage was defended just
as vocally as the AA is now, that is until the footage was
hoaxed out.

 >Yes....many were fooled by the hoax of the tent footage, as we
 >were al supposed to be as stated by the ppl that made it. We are
 >still left with the "non-junk" rolls that haven't been proved to

If Ray's camerman produced or obtained phony tent footage, this
casts doubt on the AA, unless you are a gulliable believer, then
it probably furthers the thought that the AA is real and they
will just overlook the camermans flight into hoaxville.

 >be anything but genuine

 >>>>Yet, you don't back off.

 >>>Not even for a second.

 >>>>Denial of reality, doctoring of information and wishful
 >>>>fantasies make you a skeptidebunker, Ed.

 >".... not even for a second"

 >Do you really think Ed and Neil and any number of others are
 >that stupid to stand up for it when it's so plain to you that
 >it's a hoax.

Just remember in the beginning some of the AA supporters
defended the tent footage literally to its absolute death. Now
they only talk about it in passing, while they focus on AA
footage. Should it come out to be an admitted hoax (like the
Tent footage) the supporters will move on, and only talk about
the AA in passing.

 >_No_ evidence from you apart from a few stretchings of facts by
 >a businessman whom didn't know what he was getting into, not to
 >mention a pretty astute (?) businessman (Volker) who hasn't said
One could also say that if they were "astute" they would have had
the film checked out by Kodak and or independent film experts.

 >a word about fakes/hoaxes and seems quite content with his
 >purchase. Surely Volker would be taking Ray to court for fraud
 >etc if it was truly a hoax!

Why? If Volker and Ray are in fact in business together, 6 to 8
million dollars is a nice chunk of change. Even if they split it
50/50.

 >>>Are you serious. I hold a strong position because the evidence
 >>>I've collected indicates that the AA is authentic and I'm a
 >>>"skeptidebunker"? You must be kidding!

 >>Lets face it, everytime you look at the AA film, you look at it
 >>from the point of view of a person who believes that all the
 >>evidence points to the fact that its real. Kind of like a guy
 >>who watches Shindlers List endlessly and is absolutly convinced
 >>that the movie was absolutly real in every sense of the word.

 >...and you look at it from the point of view who doesn't believe
 >all the evidence that points to it being _real_. Check?

 >And of course "Shindlers List" is dramatised, and no one
 >believes the movie to be an _accurate_ account. No matter how
 >you see it.

The point was that if you are a gulliable believer, you would be
inclined to "believe" that Shindlers List was an "accurate
account." If the movie maker has done his or her job of blending
reality with fantasy, the audience will not be able to tell the
difference between the two no matter how many times they see the
movie.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 13

                          UFO Over Veracruz, Mexico

From: Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo <ufomiami@prodigy.net>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 22:04:28 -0600
Fwd Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 14:36:38 -0500
Subject: UFO Over Veracruz, Mexico


Hi!!

See the photos of a UFO flying over Veracruz, Mexico on
Christmas 2000.

Visit:

http://virgilio1.homestead.com/FotosOVNI.html


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
CHUPACABRAS(Espaol) http://ufomiami.homestead.com/index.html
CHUPACABRAS (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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 13

                        Re: Secrecy News -- 02/14/01

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@igc.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 13:35:27 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 16:38:40 -0500
Subject: Re: Secrecy News -- 02/14/01


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
February 14, 2001

**VULNERABILITY OF DOE NUCLEAR MATERIALS ALLEGED
**SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE SQUABBLES
**SECRECY NEWS FROM ALL OVER


VULNERABILITY OF DOE NUCLEAR MATERIALS ALLEGED

The risk of theft of nuclear materials at Department of Energy
facilities is unacceptably high, according to a DOE security
contractor.

"Clear evidence of actual risk to Special Nuclear Materials at
key DOE sites and in transit" was identified in a classified DOE
Inspector General report last year, wrote Ronald E. Timm,
president of RETA Security, in a February 9 letter to DOE
Secretary Spencer Abraham.

Yet despite these and similar findings by other investigators,
"nothing was done," Mr. Timm complained.  "Special Nuclear
Materials were at risk then, Special Nuclear Materials are at
risk today, and, without significant changes, Special Nuclear
Materials will be at risk in the future."

The force of Mr. Timm's letter is diminished by a breathless
tone and a tendency to extreme formulations.  ("Terrorists have
a ready supply of Special Nuclear Materials already existing and
available within our borders.")  His concern about the adequacy
of nuclear material safeguards, however, is shared by others
inside and outside of government.

But one official seasoned by long experience with the DOE
bureaucracy said that this concern was not yet an effective
political factor.

"This President and this Congress are not going to spend
billions to fix the weapons complex unless there is a serious
and very dramatic physical event," the official said.  "Absent
that, the contractors and DOE managers will muddle along losing
more classified information, protecting information that doesn't
need to be protected for national security reasons, and
accepting some of the risks to SNM and facilities."

The text of Mr. Timm's letter, widely copied to congressional
offices, is posted here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2001/02/timm.html


SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE SQUABBLES

Leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee are quarreling over
whether the Committee Chairman, Senator Richard Shelby, will
continue to control hiring of the Committee's staff or whether
the Democratic members, led by Vice Chairman Senator Bob Graham,
will be entitled to hire their own staff.  The dispute was
reported today by the New York Times and last week by the
Washington Post:

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/14/politics/14INTE.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31018-2001Feb5.html

While the outcome of this conflict could become important in
some circumstances, the fact is that when it comes to
intelligence oversight the practical differences between the two
parties are distressingly small.

One indication of the bipartisan convergence of opinion is a
statement made by Senator Graham at an intelligence committee
hearing on February 7 endorsing increased intelligence spending:
"This committee plays a very special role [in determining the
future of intelligence spending].  We have a special
responsibility to represent the interest of the intelligence
community before those who will make these budgetary decisions."

The surprising notion that the oversight committees should be
advocates for intelligence and should "represent the interest of
the intelligence community" was first articulated in 1996 by
Republican Rep. Larry Combest, then-chairman of the House
Intelligence Committee.  He lamented the traditionally
adversarial character of intelligence oversight.

Combest's once counterintuitive conception is now the dominant
view, shared by leading Democrats like Sen. Graham.

It is a remarkable reversal.  The intelligence committees were
originally established to serve as proxies for the public, and
to act on behalf of the public in overseeing intelligence.
Today, however, the committees increasingly serve as proxies for
the intelligence agencies, advancing their budgetary interests
and their legislative initiatives.  Oversight as it was once
understood will have to come from somewhere else.


SECRECY NEWS FROM ALL OVER

Official controls over national security information continue to
shift in interesting ways in many corners of the world.

"Russian researchers have made the decision to declassify the
principle of operation of the so-called explosive ignition
thermonuclear facility developed by the research institute of
technical physics in Snezhinsk," according to a February 11
report from Interfax News Agency.  The action apparently refers
to an explosive-driven nuclear fusion process for generating
electrical power.  See:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2001/02/ru021101.html

"Military secrecy is a fiction," said Venezuela's new defense
minister, Jos Vicente Rangel this week.  Secrecy is valid "only
for the deployment of military forces.  This is basic.  But the
old conception of secrecy, which is absolutely anachronistic,
has in fact been overcome."  As a result, declassification of
documents is a done deal ("un asunto resuelto"), according to a
February 13 report in the Venezuelan newspaper El Nacional.  See
"El secreto militar es una ficcin":

http://www.el-nacional.com/eln13022001/pd1s1.htm

Also this week, the government of Vietnam has provided details
of its secrecy policy for the first time, according to Agence
France Presse.  The new Vietnamese secrecy system that takes
effect on April 1 will include three classification levels, and
will encompass such state secrets as the number of bank notes in
circulation and the size of monetary reserves, as well as
information on national security, foreign policy and internal
Party disputes.

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

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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 13

                                  Re: Greys

From: Sean Liddle <gortrix@kos.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 15:06:00 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 16:40:14 -0500
Subject: Re: Greys


 >Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 15:32:34 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Greys

 >>MTVM wrote:

 >>The Greys are Demons. Do not post pictures of them or God
 >>will shred your little soul like confetti and torch you in
 >>a Hell-fire.

 >>TVM <mtvm@home.com>


Larry, you realize that I have to send an electronic postcard to
MTVM now with nice Grey artwork, don't you.

:)

Sean 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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 13

                     Re: E-Mail Addresses? - Schuessler

From: John Schuessler <schuessler@mho.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 13:21:10 -0700
Fwd Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 16:42:42 -0500
Subject: Re: E-Mail Addresses? - Schuessler


 >From: Giuliano 'Jimmy' Marinkovicc <9a4ag@clarc.org>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Date: Fri,  9 Feb 2001 13:42:11 -0600 (CST)
 >Subject: E-Mail Addresses?


 >Dear friends and co-operators,

 >Does anyone know e-mail addresses from the following ufologists:

 >Stephen Katunaric
 >Aioha McGrew
 >Walt Andrus
 >Richard Hall

 >In our national mainstream daily newspaper 'Vechernji List'
 >(Nightly paper) in an article in the February 1 2001 issue, it
 >was mentioned that a delegation from MUFON will visit Croatia
 >for a UFO skywatch.

 >In the article Richard Hall and Stephen Katunaric have been
 >mentioned in that sense. The article is also talking about Aioha
 >McGrew and Walt Andrus. I want to confirm that information and
 >to see if its credible. So if anyone know e-mails from those
 >ufologists please contact me.


Walt Andrus does not have email. He may be reached at:

830-372-2935.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 13

                 Re: UFO/ET Congress - 2001 - Update - Ecker

From: Don Ecker <decker@ufomag.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 12:54:10 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 17:04:35 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO/ET Congress - 2001 - Update - Ecker


 >From: Tom Benson <sparkle@earthlink.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: UFO/ET Congress - 2001
 >Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 21:25:49 -0400

 >>The 12th Great UFO/ET Congress of 2001, Our Space Odyssey

 >Dear List:

 >Don Ecker's writeup on his lecture has been expanded. Don will
 >critically evaluate, lunar photographs of other researchers. He
 >has spent eight years researching strange, unexplained and
 >provocative forms found on the Moon. His illustrated talk will
 >show Lunar animal reports and photographs that show us the Moon
 >is not just a dead body.

 >Pat Marcattilio can be contacted on Saturdays and Sundays by
 >telephone, all day instead of the earlier posted hours.

 >Tom Benson


Since I am the one giving the lecture, I have _no_idea_ where
the above came from! I am giving a talk on my _lunar_research_
using the Photos I have obtained.

I am _not_ critiquing other researchers nor do I have _any_ idea
what this is about "lunar animals".

Just to set the record straight!


Don Ecker
UFO Magazine
Los Angeles, CA.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 14

              Re: Joseph Smith And The Ten Lost Tribes - Aubeck

From: Chris Aubeck <caubeck@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 12:43:11 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 15:04:10 -0500
Subject: Re: Joseph Smith And The Ten Lost Tribes - Aubeck


 >From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Joseph Smith And The Ten Lost Tribes
 >Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 00:33:22 -0500

 >In northeastern Connecticut there was a couple who during the
 >19th century journeyed west. The woman was a writer and had
 >completed a manuscript about the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel.

 >During their trip west they encountered and befriended Joseph
 >Smith. As they got to know each other better the woman told
 >Smith about her writings. Smith asked to see the manuscript.
 >After he received it, he would not return it. Later,he
 >announced his visions. The woman was most upset when she read
 >what she claimed she had written as the basis of >Smith's
 >religion.

 >She later returned to Connecticut and continued to
 >claim to be the author of much of what today is the Book of
 >Mormon. The Church of Latter Day Saints rejected her claim.

 >Now I read this little story years ago, but should
 >have made a copy. Surely, ufology casts a wide net when they try
 >to entangle Joseph Smith in the mix. However, if anyone is
 >interested, I will try to obtain a copy of this story.

Hi Jan,

Well, yes, if you do find a copy of the original story it would
be useful for what I'm writing about 19th century 'encounters.'

I think if Smith's claims were shown to be false, the content of
his lies would serve as a fine illustration of the similarity
between 'imagined encounters uncontaminated by the UFO-culture'
and allegedly real encounters today. The parallels between
Smith's testimony and today's CEIIIs and IVs are strong enough
to look into no matter whether it's from the point of view of a
mythologist or a UFO believer.

The 'net of ufology' must necessarily be wide. Input must come
from all sides. There must be an eclectic effort to gather
information not only about what a UFO is but also what a UFO
isn't. (Eg, If you want to distinguish a possibly piloted
vehicle from a comet you first have to know what comets are
like. Thinking you know what spaceships are like isn't good
enough.)

If we want to put Smith's tale in a different category from
today's abductees', let's find some good reasons to do so. Just
because it happened a long time ago, or because Smith started a
religion, or because what he said was probably untrue, doesn't
mean we should close our eyes to the underlying correspondences
between his testimony and the ones that are made nowadays. (Even
if it looks more like literary criticism than traditional
ufology.)

If Smith had described the angel Moroni as a dwarfish entity
with grey skin and huge eyes, or had mentioned something that
looked a bit like a silver dinner plate hovering overhead, this
discussion would have already taken a different direction (and
these two ingredients are not always present in every abduction
pie).

Ufology is not the study of UFOs but of written/graphic/oral
reports of UFOs. And then it's usually the impact those reports
make on us that determines their importance.

If, say, Whitley Strieber turns out to be full of BS, what
should we do with abduction accounts that include images that
were never reported before his books were published? Whatever we
thought of them, we'd first have to find out which ones they
were. We could not throw Strieber's books on the dung heap so
soon.

The Villas Boas case has precious little in common with Betty
Hill's story but, genuine or not, it is historically important
because it predates the Hills' abduction. So what about similar
incidents predating the genesis of the Flying Saucer Era by
centuries?


Chris Aubeck









                         The UFO UpDates Archive
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 14

                        UK House of Lords (Part One)

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 14:34:05 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 15:08:23 -0500
Subject: UK House of Lords (Part One)


Lord Hill-Norton's (full list) of Questions in the House of Lords
regarding the Rendlesham Forest Incident:

Includes my comments: Georgina Bruni

Part One

23 Jan 2001 : Column WA7

Blundeston Prison and Hollesley Bay YCC: Possible Evacuation
Lord Hill-Norton asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether staff at Blundeston Prison or Hollesley Bay Youth
Correction Centre received any instructions to prepare for a
possible evacuation at some time between 25 and 30 December
1980; and if so, why these instructions were issued.[HL319]

23 Jan 2001 : Column WA8

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord
Bassam of Brighton): We can find no record of any such
instructions.

G.Bruni Comments:

Lord Hill-Norton asked a similar Question a few years ago
concerning Highpoint prison. The Answer was that the warden's
log for that period was no longer available. The reason for
these Questions was because a prison officer had claimed that
Highpoint had been on alert for evacuation on 27 December 1980.
Since then (see my book) I have learnt of two more local prisons
that were said to be on alert (as above). I am not satisfied
with the Answer and hope that Lord Hill-Norton will ask it again
in more detail. We need to know why they can find no records.
Have these logs gone missing too and, if so, why?

25 Jan 2001 : Column WA21
Rendlesham Forest Incident

Lord Hill-Norton asked Her Majesty's Government: Whether they
are aware of any involvement by Special Branch personnel in the
investigation of the 1980 Rendlesham Forest incident.[HL303]

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Special Branch officers may
have been aware of the incident but would not have shown an
interest unless there was evidence of

25 Jan 2001 : Column WA22

a potential threat to national security. No such interest
appears to have been shown.

G.Bruni Comments:

According to the Deputy Base Commander of AFOSI RAF
Bentwaters/Woodbridge (at time of incident) Special Branch would
have been alerted. My argument is that the incident was a threat
to national security because these objects were intruding on
British territory and could have been anything from Soviet craft
to terrorists, therefore SB should have at least checked out the
incident before passing it over to another agency. The commander
actually offered the names of the SB officers that would have
had this information. I did not publish their names for obvious
reasons. If no interest was shown then we must question our
security agencies.

Lord Hill-Norton asked Her Majesty's Government:  Whether
personnel from Porton Down visited Rendlesham Forest or the area
surrounding RAF Walton in December 1980 or January 1981; and
whether they are aware of any tests carried out in either of
those two areas aimed at assessing any nuclear, biological or
chemical hazard.[HL301]

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The staff at the Defence
Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) Chemical and Biological
Defence (CBD) laboratories at Porton Down have made a thorough
search of their archives and have found no record of any such
visits.

G.Brini Comments:

That should have been RAF "Watton" not Walton. According to my
witness from RAF Watton, some agency, presumably from Porton
Down, did visit Watton and investigate the area on the perimeter
of the base. Then the question is, if they were not from Porton
Down, which is the place one would expect it to be, where was
the unit from? I expect like the first Answer, any reference to
this event has been carefully logged elsewhere.

Lord Hill-Norton asked Her Majesty's Government: Whether they
are aware of any uncorrelated targets tracked on radar in
November or December 1980; and whether they will give details of
any such incidents.[HL302]


Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Records dating from 1980 no
longer exist. Paper records are retained for a period of three
years before being destroyed. Recordings of radar data are
retained for a period of thirty days prior to re-use of the
recording medium.

G.Bruni Comments:

It is a fact that radar tracking tapes are re-used but there
should be paper records. If this is the case then why was
researcher Nick Redfern able to get verbatim data (from the
logs) in 1987.

Unidentified Flying Objects

Lord Hill-Norton asked Her Majesty's Government: What is the
highest classification that has been applied to any Ministry of
Defence document concerning Unidentified Flying Objects.[HL304]

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: A limited search through
available files has identified a number of documents graded
Secret. The overall classification of the documents was not
dictated by details of specific sightings of "UFOs".

G.Bruni Comments:

I think that is very interesting and if the Rendlesham files are
secret as I would expect them to be, we may never see them.

30 Jan 2001 : Column WA49
Rendlesham Forest/RAF Bentwaters Incident

Lord Hill-Norton asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they will detail the underground facilities at the
former RAF Bentwaters installation; and what is the purpose of
these facilities.[HL320]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Symons of
Vernham Dean):

There are no underground facilities at the former RAF
Bentwaters.

G.Bruni Comments:

Actually, there are underground facilities at Bentwaters but
they are sealed. The security chief at the installation who gave
me a guard and permission to investigate the buildings, told me
the underground facilities were sealed when the MOD put the base
up for sale. He had written several times to the MOD requesting
details of these but although they promised to look into the
matter, he received nothing. I also discovered a door in the
main command post that was clearly an entrance to an underground
facility because it could not lead to anywhere above ground. The
guard had no keys for this very important door that was covered
in warning signs. According to the chief of security there are





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 14

                        UK House of Lords (Part Two)

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 14:34:10 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 15:11:11 -0500
Subject: UK House of Lords (Part Two)

Lord Hill-Norton's (full list) of Questions in the House of
Lords regarding the Rendlesham Forest Incident:

Includes my comments: Georgina Bruni

Part Two

Lord Hill-Norton asked Her Majesty's Government: Whether they
are aware of any involvement in the 1980 Rendlesham Forest
incident by either Ministry of Defence Policy or personnel from
the Suffolk Constabulary.[HL321)

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The Minister of Defence is not
aware of any involvement by the Ministry of Defence Police in
the alleged incident. The Ministry of Defence's knowledge of
involvement by the Suffolk Police is limited to a letter dated
28 July 1999 from the Suffolk Constabulary to Georgina Bruni
that is contained in the recent book.

G.Bruni Comments:

According to the Deputy Base Commander of AFOSI RAF
Bentwaters/Woodbridge (at time of incident), a member of the
ARRS and two other commanders, the MOD police would have been
informed immediately. If the MOD have to resort to my book for
information then we must question why this is so. Where are
these records?

Lord Hill-Norton asked Her Majesty's Government: Whether they
are aware of any investigation of the 1980 Rendlesham Forest
incident carried out by the United States Air force, the Air
Force Office of Special Investigations or any other United
States agency.[HL322]

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The Ministry of Defence's
knowledge of an investigation by the US authorities into the
alleged incident in Rendlesham Forest in 1980 is limited to the
information contained in the memorandum sent by Lt Col Halt
USAF, Deputy Base Commander at RAF Woodbridge, to the RAF
Liaison Officer at RAF Bentwaters on 13 January 1981.

G.Bruni Comments:

Notice there is no mention of the covering note from Squadron
Leader Donald Moreland which is titled "Unidentified Flying
Objects (UFOs)" Also no mention of the telephone calls he made
concerning the incident, which really should have been logged
considering they were from the British Liaison Officer. What has
happened with this case is that the MOD have not left a paper
trail.

30 Jan 2001 : Column WA50

Lord Hill-Norton asked Her Majesty's Government: Whether, in the
light of the new information contained in Georgina Bruni's book
You Can't Tell the People, they will now launch an investigation
into the Rendlesham Forest incident and the response to this
incident by the United States Air Force and the Ministry of
Defence.[HL352]


Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: No additional information has
come to light over the last 20 years to call into question the
original judgment by the Ministry of Defence that nothing of
defence significance occurred in the location of Rendlesham
Forest in 1980. Accordingly there is no reason to hold an
investigation now.

G.Bruni Comments:

This is the Answer that really annoys me (it's the standard
line) because I am aware (from a memo that had my name on it)
and has since been stamped "restricted" that certain high
officials have read my book. Therefore the MOD must have all the
new information. If the officials in office at this time are not
aware of anything else due to the cover-up, then the information
in my book alone should be enough to open an investigation.

Lord Hill-Norton asked Her Majesty's Government: Whether they
have made any approach to, or received any approach from, any
United States government or military agency concerning Georgina
Bruni's book You Can't Tell the People; and, if so, whether they
will give details of any such approach. [HL353]

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: As a matter of courtesy, the
Ministry of Defence informed Headquarters 3rd Air Force at RAF
Mildenhall about the book. The US authorities have not
subsequently approached the Ministry of Defence on the issue.

G.Bruni Comments:

If there is no additional information then why would it be
necessary to alert RAF Mildenhall about my book. After all, it's
just a UFO story and according to the MOD it is of no defence
interest....

Lord Hill-Norton asked Her Majesty's Government: Whether they
now agree with the analysis of the basic facts of the Rendlesham
Forest/RAF Bentwaters incident in the fourth paragraph of Lord
Hill-Norton's letter to Lord Gilbert of 22 October 1997,
reported on page 429 of Georgina Bruni's book You Can't Tell the
People; or, if not, in what respect they disagree. [HL354]

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The Ministry of Defence's
position regarding this alleged sighting remains as it did at
the time of Lord Gilbert's reply to the noble Lord's letter of
22nd October 1997. From surviving departmental records, we
remain satisfied that nothing of defence significance occurred
on the nights in question.


G.Bruni Comments:

That's a very interesting reply considering Lord Gilbert's reply
suggested that they did not routinely contact witnesses who
submit reports of UFOs. In this instance the witness was Lt
Colonel Charles I Halt, Deputy Base Commander of a NATO
installation in Britain that deployed nuclear weapons.

Does this mean that anybody can hover over and land a craft on
the perimeter of a British military base and scare the hell out
of numerous military personnel and get away with it?

If that is the case then it's amazing that Britain has not been
invaded years ago.

Lord Hill-Norton has had a passionate interest in this case for
many years and has done a good job in trying to get answers and,
I know he is as annoyed as others that the MOD keep avoiding the
issues.

I stand by my case, this incident has to be of extreme defence
significance. The problem is (and I quote our former Prime
Minister who was in office at the time of the incident -
Margaret Thatcher) "You can't tell the people".


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 14

               Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated -

From: Donnie Shevlin <dshevlin@charter.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 09:35:22 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 15:13:15 -0500
Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated -


 >From: Wendy Christensen <christensen@catlas.mv.com>
 >Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 20:47:53 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated

 >Being of a suspicious turn of mind, and also personally aware of
 >cases in which otherwise sober-sided academics and professionals
 >enjoyed creating or otherwise promugating a little private
 >pictorial joke or two from time to time; as well as aware of the
 >enormous opportunities and clever techniques for retouching
 >photos -- techniques that pre-date the Internet and Photoshop by
 >decades -- I would rather like to see the original artworks
 >before passing judgement on whether or not the objects under
 >discussion do, indeed, appear in those original artworks. Not
 >that they don't, or that I am making claims either way... but
 >I'd want to see the actual paintings/frescoes/tapestries first.

 >I do recall reading that that some of the Egyptian wall
 >paintings and/or carvings that purported to show helicopters and
 >modern aircraft have been shown to be either fakes or have been
 >satisfactorily explained in terms of actual ancient Egyptian
 >symbology by someone conversant with same.

 >This is certainly a fascinating topic for study -- but I would
 >insist upon viewing he actual artifacts in situ (the actual
 >wall, in the case of a fresco, or a well-provenanced painting in
 >a church or in a reputable museum's collection.)

 >Fascinated but suspicious Purrrrs...

 >Wendy Christensen


Hi Errol, John V., Wendy and all,

Wendy has a good point. I believe that I've seen most of these
paintings and the sort on an old 'In Search Of' many years ago.
I've always wanted to get a more permanent look at them. Thank
you Matt for your collection, but I have some doubts too. I've
dabbled in painting for quite a number of years. And when I'm
painting I'm either using 'still life' or memory to make my
'masterpieces' ( joking). Unless I'm painting a new creation of
my own, which to my recollection doesn't exist, normally
landscapes, I try to keep to a true image the best I can.

Were these artist, if these paintings are authentic, painting
from memory? For a few of these paintings this can not be the
case. The painting "The Baptism of Christ" by Aert De Gelder in
1710 obviously could not have been painted by memory. This is
what is called an 'Artist Rendition' or to be more blunt,
fantasy painting. He is attempting to capture a moment in time
that he did not live to see. So he attempts to depict the
surroundings and general appearances the best he can. Anyone who
has ever attempted this tends to use items from their own
memories to substitute what they could not have seen. So where
in his mind did he pull this rounded disc and laser type
lighting from? Was it something that he himself may had seen?
Perhaps the sighting of an object similar to that of what he
painted inspired him to create this painting.

Like Wendy said, with out being able to see the physical
painting for myself, I can not judge why or how. I can only
speculate and assume, and you know what assuming does, it makes
an *ss out of u and me..

Donnie Shevlin







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 14

                        Return of The Rockford Lights

From: Kenny Young <ufo@fuse.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 10:42:07 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 15:14:51 -0500
Subject: Return of The Rockford Lights


Prankster balloonist behind night lights?

Feb. 14, 2001
By MARK BONNE
Rockford Register Star

ROCKFORD -- The odd visions continue to baffle many, but a new
theory has begun to gel in response to the latest reports of
bright lights in the night sky.

Several sources speculated Tuesday that orange and gold glowing
orbs spotted Saturday night were helium balloons carrying flares
or candles, likely launched from someone's back yard as a
novelty or prank.

More than 40 people � some from as far as Byron and Caledonia
contacted the Rockford Register Star to relate accounts of a
phenomenon that started New Year's Eve 1999 and returned twice
in as many months.

Lee Carlson said four amber-colored lights floated past his
Hillcrest Road home in a path from Gregory Elementary School,
across Newburg Road and past A.C. Thompson Elementary School.

"I heard them pop as they went by and saw them slowly burn out,"
said Carlson, who suspects the balloons landed near the U.S.
post office or Hamilton Sundstrand headquarters on Harrison
Avenue.

Duane Ingram, a physics and astronomy professor at Rock Valley
College, said he doubts from descriptions he's heard that people
are mistaking stars, constellations or planets as the phantom
lights.

Ingram said juvenile hijinks seems a more plausible explanation.

Such tricks could include lasers shot against low clouds on dry
nights or items attached to helium balloons, such as tiny
flashlights or flares.

"Let's see. Saturday night? Come on," he said.

Federal Aviation Administration spokeswoman Liz Isham Cory
confirmed Tuesday that nothing unusual showed up on radar
Saturday, including at the Greater Rockford Airport. But she
noted that operators in the Quad Cities control tower saw bright
lights that coincided with the Jan. 11 rash of reports in
Rockford.

Cory blamed weather.

"These lights seem to have a seasonal pattern," she said. "They
appear on cold, clear nights and have done so at the beginning
of the year."

Peter Davenport, director of the UFO Reporting Center in
Washington, a nonprofit organization that posts sightings from
across the country, including several from Rockford, said local
reports "don't appear to be consistent with extraterrestrial
crafts," mostly because of slow travel speed.

"I suspect some human being is behind these," he said.

Kathy Webb, wife of RVC theater director Mike Webb, said she
watched from campus Saturday as a dozen lights shifted position
to form the letters J, A, X and V.

"I think they're aliens," she said. "But I don't think they're
going to hurt us. I think they're just observing, to see what
our lives are like compared to theirs."

End of article
--
      U F O   R e s e a r c h
     http://home.fuse.net/ufo/






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 14

                          Re: AA Film Redux - Evans

From: Roger Annette Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 10:59:09 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 15:16:05 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Evans


 >From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 17:01:11 +0000
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Morris
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, Neil posted this statement from Ray Santilli:

 >My position regarding the Autopsy film and the reels recovered
 >remains unchanged. Any discussion regarding the Tent Footage is
 >completely irrelevant. I did not use that studio again, and
 >neither the studio or anyone associated with the studio had
 >anything whatsoever to do with the autopsy film.

 >The autopsy film is what it is, and nothing will change that.

 >Ray Santilli

Hi, Neil, all...

"Nothing will change that"?

What absolute nonsense! Ray talks as if he has no control over
the validation process of AA. _This_ is the kind of nonsensical
crap that casts a very, very dark cloud over Santilli's
credibility. For those that say there is no evidence that Ray
ever lied about AA, here is the smoking gun. His above statement
that "Nothing will change that" is as bold faced a lie as ever
existed. The fact is that Ray, and _only_ Ray, has the means to
prove the validity of AA and he refuses to do so in the face of
overwhelming public doubt about the footage. It's one thing to
maintain silence about AA and let everyone conjecture and debate
the credibility of AA or Santilli. It is another thing
altogether to maintain that there is nothing that he can do to
clear the self imposed mystery surrounding AA.

His statement is a lie.

Ray is a liar.

Because of this, AA is fake until proven otherwise.

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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 14

                         Re: AA Film Redux - Morris

From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 17:45:01 +0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 15:19:19 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Morris


 >Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 10:08:35 -0600
 >From: Roger Annette Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >>From: William Sawer <syntax@i4free.co.nz>
 >>Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 18:17:51 +1300
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Sawwer

 >>>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 21:57:58 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

 >Hi, William!

 >I have tried to extract myself from this discussion so that it
 >would pass on. However, it is time for a reality check. First
 >off when you say:

 >>Not quite true... there is the film/video, the cameramans
 >>statement, Rays statements,...

 >This would mean something positive only if:

 >1) AA were viewed off of camera original footage and not a video
 >tape. This has not happened.


Roger,

Even _if_ we had access to the film stock Ray reckons he bought
from the cameraman, it wouldn't do us that much good as 20 out
of the alleged 22 reels were positive safty prints _not_ camera
original. And as far as I know the one reel of _original_ neg
wasn't recoverable.

Any further examination of the film base at this stage is now
academic though, as the "majority" shareholder in the film
Volker, claims he now has it locked away in a European Bank
vault. Ray no longer has control of the film stock.

Two film fragments were passed to researchers back in 1995 and
though niether showed images of the autopsy body, one of these
fragments did contain images consistant with the autopsy room.
In 1956 Kodak changed its film-base from acetate-propionate to
triacetate, the samples were on acetate-propionate film. The
edge codes registered on the safty print _from_ the neg stock it
was exposed with were Kodak's 1947 codes. At the last call Kodak
were asking for 15+ feet of the film stock to pin down the date
with any greater accuracy, _but_ you would still only be dating
the safty prints _not_ the original camera negative stock.

 >2) Ray would offer up the evidence that would validate his
 >claims. This has not happened.

See my post of Tue, 13 Feb 2001 11:33:04, claims made by the
cameraman and passed on by Ray _have_ been validated by
witnesses back in New Mexico.

 >3) There was any evidence that the alleged cameraman even
 >existed. This has not happened.


Again see above, elements of _his_ story _do_ hold water after 50+
years.

 >At this point, therefore, Robert Gates is absolutely correct.
 >The proponents of AA have nothing in their corner other than
 >zealous rationalizations about something that they already
 >believe in; proof be damned.


Again see above, just not so.

 >As far as who or who is not a liar; Ray has made claims and
 >money off of AA without lifting one little finger to
 >substantiate what could possibly be the most important footage
 >since the Zapruder home movie.

Ray got into this _to_ make money, full stop. He was not
interested in the cosy and closed world of UFO research and
researchers. Let's try to remember there's a big, bad, nasty
world out there were if you don't make a proffit you don't tend
to last very long. You think he acted out of the kindness of his
heart to further UFO research when he handed over Volker's money
for it???.

 >What I find ironic is how
 >believers in AA spend incredible amounts of energy and time
 >looking for and rationalizing the most insignificant of
 >subjective evidence in support of AA while ignoring more obvious
 >signs of a scam as outlined in points 1,2 and 3, above.

Independant witnesses to the crash... insignificant...
subjective?

 >Ultimately, the movie has already ended, the lights have come up
 >and AA supporters sit waiting for a happy ending long after
 >everyone else has left the theater in disgust. A glance about
 >finds Santilli's seat suspiciously empty, as well, having long
 >vacated it in favor of the ticket booth to count his profits.


No Roger, I think you walked out shortly after reel one, but
some of us still want to see the end credits through.

Neil..



--
*        *         *         *         *         *         *         *
Neil Morris.       /101101101 Virtual Bumper Stickers Inc 10110101010\
Dept of Physics.   1                                                 1
Univ of Manchester 0                                                 0
Schuster Labs.     1  Computer Programmers DO IT with BITS of BYTES  1
Brunswick St.      0                                                 0
Manchester.        1                                                 1
M13.9PL.  UK.      \0101010110010110110010110101101011011110101011010/

                    Radio Callsign G8KOQ
                E-mail: neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk
          Public PGP Key available at www.keyserve.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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 14

                  Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 19:21:43 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 15:25:56 -0500
Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Hall


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 20:48:32 -0600

 >Dear Dick,

 >Earlier I said that I would respond to your comments at greater
 >length. However, I'm now content to let my last comments pretty
 >much stand as they are. If you want me to apologize for listing
 >you as a rabid, true believer, then you have it.

 >That said, there is of course nothing wrong with "exploring the
 >ET hypothesis" as such. SETI scientists, after all, do it every
 >day! And have the good grace, when pressed, to admit that they
 >don't have any convincing evidence for their particular case, or
 >results for their troubles.

 >Just a bunch of assumptions based on the Drake equation, which
 >is basically an argument based on large numbers and little else.
 >They don't refer quite as blithely to "given what we know," as
 >you do, to make their case.

 >The fact of the matter is that we "know" practically zilch about
 >UFOs and whether they represent visitations by real physical
 >beings from another planet -- or not.

 >Thus the ETH remains but one of several possible solutions to
 >the UFO enigma, assuming, of course, there is a single solution,
 >which I seriously doubt.

 >In the meantime, I see no particular reason to investigate, or
 >write about, UFOs as if the ETH was the underlying basis (or
 >bias) of same.

 >Which many ufologists do. That was my point, which was
 >originally in response to a Jerry Clark post on this thread to
 >the effect that...well, read the thread

 >If you aren't one of those ufologists, then, again, you have my
 >apology.

Dennis,

No apology necessary, unless you truly are unable to distinguish
between ga-ga UFO believers and people like me, Dick Haines, and
Bruce Maccabee. It is redundant to say "ET as fact hypothesis."
An hypothesis is simply that: a tentative explanation that you
assume for the time being may be the answer, and then weigh it
against the evidence continually while considering alternative
hypotheses. (That is, if you are being scientific.) In other
words, "ET as possible or probable fact."

By the way, you avoided answering my questions. My hypotheses
are ET, secret devices, cosmic jokers, or all mistakes. What are
yours?

Also, we do know quite a lot about UFOs descriptively and
factually as you will see if you read my new book. You will also
see how little sense psychosocial explanations or mistaken
observer notions make.


Regards,

Dick

P.S. To everyone: This e-mail address is the open and public one
that is included on my web site. I am interested only in
discussions about UFO facts, hypotheses, science, sightings, and
analysis of data and will not be commenting on any of the
peripheral topics or issues. Nor will I participate in ad
hominem arguments or personally insulting or demeaning remarks.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 14

                  Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Hale

From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 18:09:35 +0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 15:27:26 -0500
Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Hale


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 19:37:21 -0600


 >But if you're both making preponderance of evidence arguments
 >for something, then what Something are you arguing for if not
 >the something of ET visitation as a fact, albeit one
 >unrecognized by science at large?


Hi All,

I often read this claim put out by sceptics. Personally I am of
the opinion,that indeed Science is now treating the possible
exsistence of ET life somewhere out there in the universe as
very feasible.

Time to drop the dead donkey maybe?

Roy

"You are on a beach, pick up one small grain of sand from the
beach and you have Earth's size within the Universe, now tell me
we are all alone"








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 14

                           Re: UFO Biz! - Tonnies

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 10:47:05 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 15:29:31 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO Biz! - Tonnies


 >Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 14:43:55 -0500
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: UFO Biz!

<snip>

 >I have privately (and now publicly) declined the offer. It
 >wasn't "easy" to do. I've been working hard for over thirty
 >years supporting a family and providing them with a home and
 >all their many needs. My wife and myself have not had a formal
 >vacation in 15 years. We both work hard. We've earned one.

 >But not this way. Not if I have to sell my self out for it.
 >The people at the cruise line must be bilking the passengers
 >out of a small fortune to be able to offer me all that they
 >did and still make a profit. These are sober business people.
 >They don't "invest" unless they expect a healthy return. Think
 >about the >money that must be involved.

I, for one, am offering my sincere congratulations for what I,
too, feel is the "right" decision.


=====
Mac Tonnies (macbot@yahoo.com) 816-561-0190
105 Ward Parkway #900, Kansas City, MO 64112
Me: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/mtvi.html
Cydonia: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/cydonia.html
Books: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/bookreviews.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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 14

                  Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 14:36:09 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 15:33:22 -0500
Subject: Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Young


 >Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 20:35:05 -0600
 >From: Lan Fleming <apollo18@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 02:18:14 -0500
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Velez

 >>1. On earth, ancient, extinct, and highly eroded volcano's look
 >>like a "crater" with a central "lava chimney" structure. A great
 >>many craters on the Moon feature central structures of varying
 >>shape and detail. A crater with some kind of central feature/
 >>structure is not "uncommon." Quite to the contrary.

 >Most lunar craters are made by meteoric impact, not by
 >volcanoes. Neither types of crater are so common in the Northern
 >Hemisphere on Mars that you could expect to have one of the
 >right size and shape showing up just where you "need" an eye to
 >be.

Whoa, Lan, you've got this reasoning exactly backwards. If a
volcano looks like an "eye", than _any_ volcano would end up
being just where one "needs" and eye. Hi, Lan, John, All:

Take a look at one on the Moon, Hyginus, from the Consolidated
Lunar Atlas:

http://cass.jsc.nasa.gov/pub/research/cla/images/img/D12.jpg

Or another view from the Lunar Orbiter Photo Atlas:

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/research/lunar_orbiter/img/4-97H1.jpg


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 14

                   Link Between UFOs, Helicopters & Mutes?

From: Colm Kelleher - NIDS <nids@earthlink.net>
Date: 14 Feb 2001 19:39:13 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 15:39:47 -0500
Subject: Link Between UFOs, Helicopters & Mutes?


National Institute for Discovery Science

http://www.nidsci.org


Statistical Association between UFO/helicopters and Animal
Mutilations? Analysis of a Wave of Anomalous Activity in
Montana.


1975-1977 was a period of frequent reports of UFO sightings
around the United States. 1975-1977 also coincided with peak
reports of a phenomenon known as animal mutilation.

For more details on animal mutilation see:

http://www.nidsci.org/articles/articles2.html

The community around Great Falls, Montana was no exception to
this nationwide trend. However, two features about Great Falls
are of interest with respect to this NIDS report.

The first is that Great Falls was (and is) home to Malmstrom Air
Force Base (MAFB). MAFB and its surrounding area was an integral
part of the nation's missile launching capability during the
cold war with 221 Minuteman III missile silos, and functioned as
an important section of the entire 'Northern Tier' early warning
system for incoming Soviet missiles.

The second atypical feature about Great Falls was an unusually
open-minded and energetic sheriff's captain. Captain Keith
Wolverton was prepared to go the extra mile in investigating
UFOs, animal mutilations and bizarre happenings in the area.

Wolverton's energy and dedication were instrumental in alerting
the people of Cascade County, and even in nearby Teton County,
that if they reported UFOs, animal mutilations or unidentified
flying lights, they would not be ridiculed and their reports
would not be trivialized.

Captain Wolverton allowed NIDS full access to his original
papers and files detailing the investigations that he carried
out on behalf of the Cascade County sheriff's department in
1975-1977. NIDS was able to analyze the data in these files and
they comprise an interesting picture of a wave of anomalous
activity within a 40-mile radius of Great Falls and MAFB.

Captain Wolverton's files comprised the original police
blotters, original memoranda and original photo negatives
detailing the department's investigations into 192 UFO and
unknown helicopter sightings, and 67 reports of animal
mutilations, the vast majority happening within a forty miles
radius of MAFB.

The timing of the UFO wave around MAFB is almost exactly
contemporaneous with similar anomalous incidents that happened
in October 1975 at Loring AFB Maine, Wurdsmith AFB Michigan,
Minot AFB North Dakota and at the Canadian Air Force base at
Falconbridge Ontario.

The purpose of this paper is to examine two separate and
unrelated questions:

(a) Was there a linkage between the animal mutilations (temporal
and geographical) and the unidentified aircraft flying in the
area around Cascade County Montana 1975 through 1977 and

(b) did the repeated unauthorized incursions of these flying
objects over MAFB and missile silo airspace, when examined in
the context of simultaneous incursions at other AFBs across the
Northern Tier, constitute a national security issue for the
United States?

NIDS reports the first statistically significant correlation
between mutilations and UFO/helicopter activity in the full
report (25 pages) in the What's New section of the NIDS web site
at:

http://www.nidsci.org.

Further, we propose that the UFO wave in Montana had National
Security implications.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 14

                 Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Stacy

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 14:27:08 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 15:42:10 -0500
Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Stacy


 >From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 21:15:58 EST
 >Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 19:37:21 -0600

<snip>

 >Why?  Seems you've already made your mind up.


Jim,

Glad to see you know what's going on in my mind!

Guess you haven't read my book:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0380802651/qid=982179547/sr=1-1/ref=sc_b_
1/107-5283509-7540535


Or visited our website:

http://www.anomalist.com


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 14

                              Re: Greys - Jones

From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 22:09:34 +0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 09:12:16 -0500
Subject: Re: Greys - Jones


 >Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 15:32:34 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Greys

 >Dear MTVM:

 >Thank you for the message (below).

 >I hope you don't mind if I copy your warning to others.

 >-Larry Hatch

 >>MTVM wrote:

 >>The Greys are Demons. Do not post pictures of them or God
 >>will shred your little soul like confetti and torch you in
 >>a Hell-fire.

 >>TVM <mtvm@home.com>

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Being that I am a Christian, I believe in Christ, not in
religion, I am affronted when people say things like this.

When I tell people that I am a Christian as well as a believer
in UFOs I always get asked something along the lines of "aren't
they mutually exclusive?" Well the answer is no. Why? Well it is
simple, where in the bible does it say that God only created
life here on Earth?

Thought for the day; If God really does exist, why, O why, do we
have to put up with idiots like this?

--

    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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 14

                 Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 17:15:58 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 09:14:12 -0500
Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Sparks


 >From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 13:55:56 -0800

<snip>

 >Greenwich, Summer 1956
 >UFO was tracked by air traffic control radar (GCA) at two USAF-
 >RAF stations, with apparently corresponding visual sightings
 >http://www.ncas.org/condon/text/case02.htm

 >Read only those two.

 >Find an original explanation, e.g. one that has not been found
 >yet, because the cases remain unexplained.


Hi Serge,

This is the famous Lakenheath-Bentwaters case of Aug 13-14,
1956. Do you not recognize it? Certain UK debunkers have found
official RAF documentation on the case which they think destroys
the case, which they have been sitting on for a long time, and
they won't release the material until they can do maximum
damage. They have been working with one of the RAF radar
controllers who had come forward in 1978 to try to "turn him"
against the USAF radar controller who had come forward ten years
earlier to the Condon Committee. They claim the RAF man's
testimony discredits the USAF man's account.

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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 14

                         Re: AA Film Redux - Morris

From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 22:53:37 +0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 09:24:57 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Morris


 >From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 11:26:35 -0800


 >Hello William, Robert, Ed and List,

 >A couple of days ago, I issued a post exposing evident
 >distortion of reality from the parts of Santilli and Hesemann.
 >Mind you, I did not engage in philosophical debate, conjectures
 >or speculations. Only facts.

 >I got _zero_ argumentation from AA film proponents.

Serge,

I have posted _several_ _facts_  provided by researchers who
have gone out and done their "donkey work" out in NM, I have not
received any counters from you or anyone else so far on this
list, are you ignoring them?.

 >Is it surprising? No.

It is to me.

 >As usual in the AA issue, we see ample use of double doses of
 >Alka-zheimer: fizz-fizz in a glass of water and no more memories
 >of what is.

 >It is proven that Santilli is a liar,

I totally agree, Ray Santilli agrees... readily, to clouding the
water over the identity of the cameraman. He's no doubt led us
all a merry chase on other matters too over the acquisition of
the film. After all, if the basic framework of the deal is true,
he was aiding and abetting a US citizen to defraud the US IRS
and export possible US Govt property out of the country without
authority. I think I'd want to cover my tracks to some extent.

 >that the Cameraman does not
 >exist

How do you come to this conclusion?.

 >that Hesemann is full of it...

That's a sweeping statement to make, and though Mike _may_
jump in with both feet from time to time it hardly describes the
actual research he _has_ carried out during the trips he's made
out to NM to follow up on this case.

 >The silence, troubled only by the fizz of Alka-zheimer,
 >obliterates _en passant_ a few other pertinent facts, like the
 >millions made by Volker and Santilli and the AA material sales
 >by many AA apostles.

 >Then again: "Ray said, the Cameraman said, Hesemann proved. Ed
 >says. Neil thinks..."

 >Wait a minute! It is proven that Santilli is a liar, that the
 >Cameraman does not exist, that Kiviat doctored his documentary.
 >FOX made mucho money, Santilli made mucho money, Volker made
 >mucho money and Hesemann _advirtises_ his book on AA.

 >Silence, Alka-zheimer and mantras.

 >The unbeatable hand at double dummy canuchi.

 >Slap me.

 >This must be the Circus.

So, every one's jumped on the AA band-wagon milking it for all
it's worth, seems like "good old capitalism" hard at work here,
what more proof of a scam do you need?.

Well it doesn't answer a question I have, and if Errol will
oblige by forwarding the image I've attached (it's been on the
RPIT website for the past year, site's being rebuilt at
www.rpit.org).

How did Ray know about the "backtoback J" symbol hidden away in
the debris in Gen Ramey's office on the 8th July 1947, so as to
plant it on a beam hidden away in the _background_ of the "AA
Debris Footage"?.

And not only that, how did he manage it with a further 3 (so
far) distinct symbols seen in both sets of debris??.

I've mentioned these _facts_ before on this list and so far I've
had no credible response. Bond Johnson's Fort Worth Photographs
showing the debris _are_ historical documents, ask the UTA
Library, has Ray tampered with them?? or researched them, in
detail??, not as far as I know.

If the safety print dating is correct at no later than 1956
+-2yrs, was anyone aware of the UTA images so as to be able to
check out these details and create a hoaxed AA film containing
them?.

Awareness of the UTA images only came to light _after_  Jesse
Marcel blew the whistle on Roswell back in 1979, and 23 years
_after_  the last batch of the specific type of Kodak safety
print film, as used in the AA, had been manufactured.

I grant you one random smudge looking very much like another
random smudge _could_ be written off as chance, 2 might be a
coincidence, 3's getting into the area of "deep strangeness",
and 4?, _all_ on the same piece of AA debris?.

Now that really has me scratching my head to explain away.

Neil.


[] santsymb.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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 14

                       UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 6 Number 7

From: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 21:31:53 +0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 09:32:31 -0500
Subject: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 6 Number 7


(Sent early this week as I have to have a
minor operation this Thursday - John)
==============================

Posted on behalf of Joseph Trainor.

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

      UFO ROUNDUP
Volume 6, Number 7
February 15, 2001
Editor: Joseph Trainor

http://ufoinfo.com/roundup/


NEAR LANDS ON EROS

"NASA engineers successfully landed the first space probe on an
asteroid Monday," February 12, 2001, "and reported continuing
contact with the craft."

The Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous (NEAR) robot spacecraft
entered orbit around the asteroid Eros, located 13 million miles
(21 million kilometers) from Earth, in February 2000.

"'We're still getting a signal,' said mission chief Robert
Farquhar of Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory
in Laurel, Maryland during a live Webcast of the event. His lab
is responsible for the NEAR-Shoemaker spacecraft."

"With the craft running out of fuel, and the $223 million
mission coming to an end, planners decided to try the landing in
a final bid to capture the best asteroid images possible."

"A gripping five-and-a-half hour descent featured five separate
firings of the spacecraft's engine, which gently deposited the
spacecraft onto the surface" of Eros.

"'It's been a really exciting mission and a heck of a ride,'
team scientist Noam Izenberg said in an interview."

"The probe's instruments and cameras have for a year
investigated the surface of Eros, a 21-mile-long
(34-kilometer-long), shoe-shaped asteroid whose eccentric orbit
carries it, at its closest, to within 13 million miles (21
million kilometers) of Earth."

"The information gathered by the mission might help scientists
decide how best to deflect a similar asteroid if it headed for
Earth."

"Mission engineer Andrew Santo said a morning burn went off
smoothly, irrevocably removing the probe from an altitude 16
miles (27 kilometers) above" the asteroid. "Four more (rocket)
burns cut landing speed down to about four miles per hour."

"As it fell, the probe captured images of surface features as
small as four inches (10 centimeters) across."

"Mission controllers report a continuing weak signal from the
spacecraft, which appears to have landed., as hoped for, with
its antennae and solar panels still functioning." (See USA
Today for February 13, 2001, "Probe lands on gigantic near-Earth
asteroid," page 1A.)

LANTERNS OR UFOs? A MALAYSIAN MYSTERY

"Flashes of bright orange light were sighted over Bandar
Sunway, 16 kilometers (10 miles) from Petaling Jaua," in the
Southeast Asian country of Malaysia "on Monday, February 5,
2001."

"The spectacle lasted for ten minutes before the lights
disappeared from the clear skies."

"Witnesses said the lights resembled eight flaming balls which
floated north in a straight row over the office buildings in the
Plaza Mentari at about 8:10 p.m."

"Scores of people who witnessed the incident were baffled over
the sight and many called up the district police headquarters to
ask for a clarification."

"A witness, who declined to be named, said the objects appeared
to be moving towards each other before disappearing into the
night sky."

"The (Malaysian) Department of Civil Aviation in Subang,
located 10 kilometers (6 miles) from the incident, said an
aircraft was flying in the vicinity at that time."

"The staff running the control room of the Royal Malaysian Air
Force (RMAF)" base near Kuala Lumpur, the national capital,
"said they had not received any reports about the sightings.
They declined to comment further."

A couple of days later, the Malaysian newspaper The Star
reported that it had an answer to the UFO sightings in Petaling
Jaya. "UFOs spotted hovering near a Malaysian city turned out
to be 'good luck' lanterns."

"Traffic came to a standstill in Petaling Jaya as people stared
at the red, orange, pink and white lights."

"But a newspaper reporter followed the UFOs and discovered they
were 'good luck' lanterns released from a local temple."

"Wani Mathiah of The Star said the paper lanterns were being
released as part of the Chap Goh Meh celebration." (See The Star
for February 6, 2001, "Flaming UFOs spotted," and for February
8, 2001, "UFOs were 'good luck' lanterns." Many thanks to Gerry
Lovell, John M. Novak and Todd Lemire for these newspaper
articles.)

(Editor's Comment: So the Malaysian UFOs were just floating
paper lanterns, eh? Then what are we to make of the following
report?)

FLIGHT OF ORANGE UFOs PASSES OVER THAILAND

On Friday, February 9, 2001, at 9:30 p.m., Elizabeth Wigg and
her husband were walking along a street in Chang Mai, a city in
northern Thailand when they spotted some unusual lights
approaching from the south.

"We saw approximately seven to ten glowing orange and pink
balls in the sky above us," Elizabeth reported, "Very high up in
the sky, moving at a very rapid speed, moving towards the
north. They were not interacting with each other but moving
independently. They were glowing orange and pink--almost a fire
colour, and were completely round. "

The UFOs' altitude "was hard to say but when in the sky, they
covered about a quarter of our vision (field of view--J.T.) in
about a minute, which was how long we watched them before they
disappeared behind some office buildings."

Chang Mai is about 375 kilometers (225 miles) north of Bangkok,
the national capital.

(Editor's Comment: Interesting. Another sighting of UFOs in
Southeast Asia four days after the event in Petaling Jaya. Were
these the Malaysian 'good luck' lanterns traveling hundreds of
miles to the northwest against the prevailing wind? Or a flight
of UFOs heading back to their base in the Himalayas?)

SKUNK APE PHOTOGRAPHED NEAR SARASOTA, FLORIDA

"Bigfoot researchers are going ape over photographs of a
Bigfoot-like creature living near Sarasota, Florida."

"The photos were taken last September (2000) by a 65-year-old
woman and shows what appears to be a white-bearded creature that
resembles the monster from the 1987 movie Harry and the
Hendersons."

"Although the woman's identity is unknown, she sent photos of
the so-called 'Skunk Ape' to Sarasota County police and asked
them if there had been any reports of missing orangutangs."

"So far, no creatures have been captured, but cryptozoologist
Loren Coleman says Sarasota cops have received reports of 'an
apelike animal bothering people.'"

"Coleman isn't ruling out a hoax but thinks the photos might be
the first true evidence of the Skunk Ape, a smaller version of
Bigfoot."

UFO Roundup readers can view and download these Skunk Ape
photos by visiting Loren Coleman's website. Set your browser for
http://www.lorencoleman.com (See the Boca Raton, Fla.
Sun-Sentinel for February 10, 2001. Also the Tampa, Fla.
Tribune for February 12, 2001. Many thanks to Loren Coleman for
these newspaper articles.)


T-SHAPED UFO SIGHTED OVER COLUMBUS, OHIO

On Thursday, February 8, 2001, Stephanie H. and two companions
were driving on Highway 2 near Kelso Road in Columbus, Ohio
when, she reported, "another person in the car said, 'Is that
an airplane?' It was hovering above (the corner of) Hudson
Street and Indianola Avenue. It hovered about 10 seconds. Then
we tried to get closer and it took off. It was going a bit
faster than an airplane would. It was in the shape of a T. It
looked a little squared. It had lights hanging from the bottom
of the craft. that were giving off light. I am assuming it (the
UFO) was black." (Many thanks to Cliff Capers of Skywatch
International for this report.)

CIGAR-SHAPED UFO SEEN IN ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO

On Friday, February 9, 2001, at 7:10 a.m., Richard S. spotted a
bright cigar-shaped UFO over the Sandia Mountains east of
Albuquerque, New Mexico.

"At work I have an opportunity to face due east with a clear
view of the Sandia Mountains all day long," Richard reported,
"Large windows from floor to ceiling. There was heavy gray
cloud cover that morning with a patch of blue sky. The sun just
peaked over the mountains."

The UFO approached from the northwest, "very high," he added,
"A flash out of a patch of high clouds descending into another
dark cloud bank. The UFO was higher than 35,000 feet (10,500
meters) greater than 45 degrees (above the horizon--J.T.)
dipping to a lower cloud level at an altitude of 25,000 feet
(7,500 meters). The sighting lasted no more than two seconds as
it dropped into the cloud cover."

Richard described the UFO as "a fat cigar shape with a
magnesium flash color, a dark center, a glowing orange border
very bright and very large. Its size was approximately that of
an eyeglasses nose piece (held) at arm's length." (Email Form
Report)

YELLOW UFO HOVERS OVER ECCLES, SUSSEX, UK

On Wednesday, February 2, 2001,at 11:15 p.m., P.Y. was at his
home in Eccles, Sussex, UK when he saw an unusually bright light
approaching from the southeast, over the ocean. ""It was a
yellow light, very bright, shining downwards, surrounded
completely by smaller red lights. The whole thing appeared to be
circular. It was stationary in the sky for about five minutes
and disappeared instantly when car headlights coming up a hill
approached it. I would place the height (altitude) at about
1,000 feet as it was visible just above some trees."

He described the UFO as "a very bright yellow light, circular
in shape, surrounded by six to eight smaller red lights which
appeared to be joined to the main light."

"There are no street lights of any kind in that direction as I
live in the countryside and that direction is the sea
approximately four miles (6 kilometers) away. I am a
57-year-old man and not given to fancies and certainly not tired
or drunk. I do believe I have seen something unusual." (Email
Form Report)

UFO FLAP BREAKS OUT IN NORTHERN ARGENTINA

"Older residents call it a 'strange light phenomenon' but
younger ones straightforwardly classify it as a UFO. At least
ten residents of" of the barrio Oro Blanco in the city of Saenz
Pena in northern Argentina "agree that for the past four days,
between midnight and 1 a.m., luminous boldly-colored objects
have been flying over the area at low altitude."

Saenz Pena is just south of the border with Paraguay and is
located about 520 kilometers (312 miles) north of Buenos Aires,
the capital of Argentina.

"According to the locals, the color and movement of the objects
do not correspond to that of a satellite or an airplane nor any
other commonly-sighted object. An older woman living on Calle
19 (street) in Oro Blanco claims having seen them since last
Tuesday and Wednesday (February 6 and 7, 2001) and the last time
others saw the object was on Friday (February 9, 2001)."

"Now people are meeting every night at the same time on this
city block in order to see the lights and try to figure out what
is happening. Skeptics are also invited to join in so they
could see with their own eyes."

"'It flew very low, didn't come from a high elevation, looked
like a large star but at low altitude,--it became larger later
on. It appeared from the south and headed northwards. It then
began to rise until it became smaller as if suddenly going
upward and becoming a tiny little star,' said Rodolfo Acosa,
pointing to the horizon and describing what he claims to have
seen on Friday," February 9, 2001.

"On Thursday, (February 8, 2001) residents claimed having seen
something similar to what would be seen the following day but
traveling in an opposite direction."

"'It began about 12:45 a.m. and it traveled from east to west.
It looked like a luminous ball, much larger than a star and
flying at low altitude,' another witness remarked."

"They finally realized that it could not be an airplane since
they were familiar with airplane flight times, and these lights
were perfectly distinguishable from aircraft, they noted, 'One
night, the airplane was up front and the object was following
from behind. Furthermore, the airplane was flying much faster,'
remarked young Maria Lujan."

"Residents of Oro Blanco took advantage of the presence of an
expert, Senor Galvan, who works at the airport control tower.,
and he told them--according to the locals--that people had been
calling the airport and reporting the same phenomenon for
several nights."

"'They say it's a research satellite or something like that
but, but what happens is that it doesn't always keep to the same
orbit. One day it's going in one direction, and the next day
it's going in another. It appears with a 20 to 25 minute time
difference more or less, and it is also extremely shiny,'
remarked another resident named Acosta." (See the Argentinean
newspaper Diario Norte de Chaco for February 11, 2001, "Alleged
UFO causes stir in Saenz Pena." Muchas gracias a Scott
Corrales, autor de los libros Chupacabras and Other Mysteries y
Forbidden Mexico, y tambien Gloria Coluchi para ese articulo de
diario.)

MYSTERIOUS PREHISTORIC BONES FOUND IN AUSTRALIA

"Reports have been received of very old human remains found
near Lake Mungo," New South Wales, Australia, "that supposedly
are quite distinct and separate in their DNA from all other
known human populations."

The remains "presumably represent a population even more
ancient than 'African Eve.'"

"The remains are thought to be hundreds of thousands of years
old. Scientists have managed to extract DNA. They have come to
the conclusion that they have found a fully human person who is
not genetically similar to anyone else who is alive today. All
human beings alive today can be traced by mitochondrial DNA to a
single human female living in Africa about 200,000 years ago."

(Editor's Comment: If the Australian find needs a name, how
about Mungo Jerry?)

The Australian find "is not part of the 'genetic lineage'.' The
scientists have tentatively concluded that that there were
entire human populations tens of thousands of years ago who
have completely died out leaving no trace."

Some theorists believe that the remains may belong to the
Yowie, a black-furred hominid, smaller than Bigfoot, that has
been seen from time to time in the Australian Outback.

Another theory is that "Mungo Jerry" might be a member of the
prehistoric population of Australia that was wiped out during
the Deluge.

Most people are familiar with the story of Noah's Ark from the
Bible. Yet there are ancient stories of a worldwide flood all
over the world. Here are a few:

Greece--According to the sage Apollodorus, Deucalion was the
king of Pithia, just south of Thessaly. He married Pyrrha, the
daughter of Epimetheus and Pandora. Warned by the gods of
Olympus that Earth was about to be destroyed by a gigantic
flood, he built a small wooden ark for himself and Pyrrha, rode
out the Deluge and landed on Mount Parnassus.

Sumeria (modern Iraq)--Ut-napishtim was warned of the Deluge by
the god Enki. He built an ark even bigger than Noah's, square in
shape, loaded aboard his wives, children, grandchildren and
every animal he could find. His ark touched down on Mount Nisir
in Iran.

(Editor's Comment: History majors, it's pop quiz time. For
extra academic credit, see if you can answer the following two
questions. The answers are at the end of this story.

(1) What city did Ut-napishtim come from?

(2) What was the name of Ut-napishtim's father?)

India--According to the Satapatma Brahmana, Manu the fisherman
caught a small fish that spoke to him in a human voice. The fish
said it was the god Vishnu and--you guessed it--the world was
about to be destroyed by a giant flood. With his children Mitra
and Varuna, Manu built a huge square ark and rode out the
Deluge, ending up on a mountaintop in the Himalayas.

Burma (modern Myanmar)--Nan-chaung and his sister-wife,
Chang-ko were at the pagoda when a god appeared and told them to
build a large covered boat because the Deluge was coming. They,
too, landed in the Himalayas.

Mexico--Teocipactli and his wife Xochiquetzal were at the
now-vanished temple of Adkulel north of Lake Texcoco. The god
Tlaloc appeared to them and warned of a gigantic flood that
would sweep over the country and destroy the wicked city of
Cholula.

The aboriginal tries of Australia have similar Deluge legends.
According to the Kurnai people of Victoria state and the
Narrinyeri people of South Australia, there was a black-skinned
race living on the island continent before the great flood, and
these people built cities in western New South Wales, just north
of the Victoria state line.

The god Bunjil appeared to Nepelle and his three wives. He said
the gods had decided to destroy the evil cities and told the
quartet to flee to the south and not to stop until they reached
the coast. Nepelle and his women took refuge on Point Macleay.
They remained there until Borun the pelican told them that land
had dried out enough to walk safely upon. The four trekked
north after the flood and their descendants repopulated
Australia.

Is "Mungo Jerry" one of the "Old Race?" It's a possibility.
(See Folklore and Legends of Some Victoria Tribes by Mrs. Mary
E.B. Hewitt. Many thanks to T. Peter Park for this story.)

(Editor's Comment: And here's the answers to our Sumerian pop
quiz.

(1) Shurruppak, one of the seven antediluvian cities of Sumer.

(2) Dad's name was Ubar-Tutu.

And if you haven't read Epic of Gilgamesh yet, you had better
do so before finals.)

EGYPT UNVEILS MORE PREHISTORIC MYSTERIES

Conventional archaeology teaches that Egyptian civilization
began with the Old Kingdom around 2700 B.C. But recent finds are
showing that the civilization may actually be millennia older.

At the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America in
Reno, Nevada last November (2000), Dr. Robert Schoch delivered a
15-minute address on Further Evidence Supporting a Pre-2500
B.C. Date for the Great Sphinx of Giza, Egypt.

Dr. Schoch pointed out that limestone in the burial shaft of
Queen Khent-icaus near the Red Pyramid at Dhashur showed
evidence of severe weathering by torrential rains. The shaft
may actually have been constructed prior to 6000 B.C. The
Egyptians of the queen's reign (circa 2300 B.C.) might have
re-discovered the existing shaft and lowered the queen's mummy
to the bottom.

Further south, in Egypt's Eastern Desert, "a British team, led
by world-famous digger David Rohl, found 6,000-year-old carvings
on rocks, boulders and cliff faces showing what everyday life,
special ceremonies and religious beliefs were like in ancient,
ancient Egypt--the much-wondered-about time before the Great
Pyramid of Giza was built in 2700 B.C."

"'Until the last two or three years, people had only been
looking in the Nile valley, not considering what might be out in
the desert, particularly as it seems so inaccessible and
inhospitable today,' says Dr. Toby Wilkinson, an Egyptologist
from Christ's College, Cambridge, UK., who recently led a group
of experts around the area dubbed the Eastern Desert Survey."

"'No one had stopped to think that it might have been different
thousands of years ago. In this last trip along, we discovered
30 new sites!'" he added.

Some of the prehistoric rock art the Eastern Desert Survey has
turned up is truly amazing. Paintings show religious ceremonies
and large oarboat galleys, propelled by fifty slaves, which
carried on a thriving trade on the Nile. These galleys appear to
have brought the wealth of central Africa into Egypt--gold,
tropical fruits, live animals and lumber. (Editor's Comment:
What really interested me was the painting of a warrior with an
upraised shield. The painting dates from between 6000 and 5000
B.C. The very same image is found on the cylinder seals of
ancient Mohenjo-daro in Pakistan and also on the rongo-rongo
boards of Easter Island. Now I'm starting to wonder if this
universal symbol might be an astrological sign--a representation
of the constellation Orion. Perhaps Dr. Wilkinson and his team
have found a prehistoric Egyptian calendar.)

"'These drawings are the Sistine Chapel of pre-dynastic
Egypt,'" he added.

"The drawings depict a nomadic people who roamed the land with
their cattle. Contrary to the uninhabited nothingness that
exists today, the Egypt of 6,000 years ago (4000 B.C.) was
covered with rivers, lakes and streams where the people had"
their cattle drink.

"The etchings also show hippos and giraffes and an array of
other beasts that populated the fertile, vegetation-rich land."

"And there are lots of boats but not primitive dugout
canoes--the vessels are elaborate and technologically advanced,
giving shocked archaeologists a glimpse of a past they never
suspected."

(Editor's Comment: So it looks like Texas author Robert E.
Howard (1906-1936) was right about his supposed "Hyborian Age,"
at least in Egypt.)

'These drawings have huge significance,' says Dr. Wilkinson.
'Before we found them, there was a missing link between ancient
Egypt and what went before.'"

"'We can also see a direct link between this religious art and
the religious art of the Pharaohs 3,000 years later.'"

"'These drawings mean that we can no longer believe that
Egyptian culture sprang from nowhere. They are forcing us to
rethink the origins of that ancient civilization and their
entire lifestyle, a culture developed long before we had
originally thought.'" (See Atlantis Rising for February 2001,
"New evidence for much earlier dawn of Egyptian civilization,
presented to American Geologists," page 10; and the tabloid
National Examiner for January 30, 2001, "Discovered: Egypt
before the Pharaohs," pages 46 and 47.)

ATLANTIS FERRIES DISCOVERY TO THE SPACE STATION

"Space shuttle Atlantis blasted off Wednesday," February 7,
2000, "with the most expensive and pivotal piece of the
International Space Station--a $1.4 billion science lab."

"Atlantis and its crew of five soared into a clear sky at 6:13
p.m. with a rising full moon providing a gleaming backdrop."

Crew members included shuttle commander Kenneth Cockrell, pilot
Mark Polansky, and mission specialists Robert Curbeam, Marsha
Ivins and Thomas Jones.

"'You got a good day to go fly,' launch director Mike Leinbach
told the astronauts moments before liftoff. 'We wish you luck as
you deliver the heart and soul of the International Space
Station. And have fun.""

Nestled in Atlantis's cargo bay was the "crown jewel" of the
ISS, also known as Station Alpha. This was the 16-ton $1.4
billion orbital laboratory called Destiny.

"The lab is shaped like a soda can but in size and surface--28
feet long (8 meters( long with a shiny aluminum coating,
resembles an old (1948 Airstream) travel trailer."

Destiny weighed so much that it had to be stripped of its
scientific equipment for this flight. The equipment will go
aloft on the next shuttle flight. The "soda can" is also so
large that it had only a couple of inches' clearance between its
surface and the gunwales of the shuttle's cargo bay.

"Destiny is 28 feet (8 meters( long, 14 feet (4 meters) in
diameter, and weighs more than 30,000 pounds and is made of up
of 415,000 parts and 26 miles (42 kilometers) of wiring."

""The lab is being sent up with only five of its 23 'racks,'
coat-closet shaped units that can be slid into and out of the
lab's walls for easy replacement. The first five racks contain
only basic utilities" needed to get the lab operational.

Atlantis, with Polansky on the flight deck, caught up with
Station Alpha on Friday, February 8, 2001. The station was
orbiting Earth at an altitude of 220 miles (352 kilometers).

On Saturday, February 10, 2001, mission specialist Marsha Ivins
had the most critical task. As operator of the shuttle's cargo
arm, she had to ease Destiny ever so slowly out of the cargo
bay, swing it into position and attach the cylinder-shaped lab
to its station berth. Ivins told Voice of America that she had
repeated dreams about this agonizingly precise maneuver in the
days before launch. Yet the difficult maneuver proceeded without
any serious difficulties. (See USA Today for February 6, 2001,
"Shuttle will deliver floating lab," page 5A, and for February
8, 2001, "Shuttle totes space station's 'crown jewel,' page 7A.

 From the UFO Files...

1960: UPPER MICHIGAN'S STRANGE SPOOK LIGHT

"Dusk creeps slowly along the forested road near Dog Meadow
between the sleepy villages of Watersmeet and Paulding in
Michigan's Upper Peninsula. After the tourists have visited the
waterfalls at Bond Falls Flowage and the casino in Watersmeet,
they park their cars along Robbins Road in the Ottawa National
Forest and gaze down the power line paralleling the old highway
that still bears evidence of a long-abandoned railroad grade.
They are waiting for the Paulding Light that regularly seems to
dance along the wires of the tall power lines."

"Then a pinpoint-like firefly appears in the darkness,
wavering, growing in brilliance and size, following the wires.
The light swings erratically, then disappears. Occasionally
smaller red lights appear and fade. All is silent except for the
whispers of tourists and wind in the pines."

"Although most people refer to the Paulding Light in the
singular, the lights do not limit themselves to to one
occurrence a night, or indeed may not show up at all."

"'There are almost as many theories as there are visitors,
including that it might be distant headlights from traffic on
U.S. (Route) 45,' said Paul Blettner, Assistant District
Ranger, U.S. Forest Service, Watersmeet Ranger Station. He said
visitors should be given the option to choose whatever
explanation they prefer."

"Residents do not recall when the wavering lights were first
seen. More than thirty years ago, local teens were thrilling
tourists with tales of the light they said followed the lines
all the way from Cemetery Road in the distant hills to Dog
Meadow. Girls squealed and grabbed their dates in terror. Boys
heroically offered protection in their waiting arms. The best
place to hear the stories of the Paulding Light is while
standing alongside the road south of Big Rock as twilight
slides into full darkness."

"Some say the eerie light is the ghost of the pioneer mailman
who delivered the mail up and down the old route to Green Bay,
Wisconsin. He ran the winter trail by dogsled. One snowy
morning, when the mail was late, they found him and his dogs,
with throats slashed, sprawled beside the sled. The spot where
this grisly murder took place is called Dog Meadow to this day.
Legend says the lights are those of the murdered mailman,
returning night after night to gather up his dogs."

"The Forest Service tells a similar tale. A nearby sign reads"

PAULDING LIGHT

This is the location from which the famous Paulding Light can
be observed. Legend explains its presence as a railroad
brakeman's ghost destined to remain forever at the site of his
untimely death. He continually waves his signal lantern as a
warning to all who come to visit. To observe the phenomenon,
park along this forest road facing north. The light will appear
each evening in the distance along the power line right-of-way.

"Others agree the light is a lantern but claim the railroad man
was the engineer...He still returns at twilight searching for
his soul."

"Other folks lean toward the tale of Pancake Joe. Pancake ran a
pool hall in the nearby village of Watersmeet. He saved enough
money to buy a rock farm at Paulding along the old Military
Road. Life was good for old Pancake until the power lines went
through, and he fought it all the way. Folks say he is still
fighting, climbing the poles most every night to dance up and
down the lines, raising sparks and scaring folks."

"'I have noticed that the longer our visitors have lingered in
Jarvi's Bar down in the valley, the brighter the lights seem to
be,' one long-time resident said."

"Visitors who return during the daylight hours see only forest,
power lines and the boulder called Big Rock, where the road
curves before ducking down into the valley. One piece of
(local) literature gives directions on how to approach the spot
where the light appears--'Approximately four miles north of
Watersmeet on Highway 45, Robbins Pond Road. Stop at the top of
the second hill, park and wait and watch!'"

"Residents find the light quite comforting. They blame it for
everything from uncooperative weather to car problems, cranky
spouses and even an occasional spell of poor fishing." (See the
book Haunts of the Upper Great Lakes by Dixie Franklin, Thunder
Bay Press, , Grand Rapids, Mich., 1997, pages 3 to 9.)

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 2001 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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 15

                         Re: AA Film Redux - Gehrman

From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 16:39:30 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 09:36:02 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Gehrman


 >From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 11:26:35 -0800

 >A couple of days ago, I issued a post exposing evident
 >distortion of reality from the parts of Santilli and Hesemann.
 >Mind you, I did not engage in philosophical debate, conjectures
 >or speculations. Only facts.

 >I got _zero_ argumentation from AA film proponents.

Serge,

Why don't you buy a copy of the AA CDs and then we can continue
this discussion?

I can't answer for Ray and Ray obviously doesn't want to be part
of this.  All I can tell you is that while my dealings with Ray
have been, at times, frustrating, I never felt he was being
dishonest nor did I get the feeling that he could ever commit a
fraud.

He doesn't like the way he's been treated and portrayed by folks
who don't have the slightest idea of what he's all about. Ray is
convinced that the AA is authentic and he thinks we've missed
the boat by not believing his simple story. I have his first
on-line interview and the essential points have not change since
then: Ray bought twenty -two rolls of film from the cameraman,
financed by Volker. He promised he would not reveal the
cameraman's identity and he admits to being deceptive, but only
to misdirect investigators away from the cameraman.Ray then had
the footage processed and soon presented it to the world. (Do
you know that he showed it to the US Congress?)

Then Truly Dangerous Company came on the scene, and the rest, as
they say, is history.  As much as I'd like to I don't have the
time to rehash the history of the AA.  While I haven't hidden my
views on the subject, I've only asked folks to keep an open
mind, because we intend to present new evidence.

Your views are also clear and I respect your right to hold them.
As I said, time will tell which of us is correct.

I don't quite understand the reaction to our AA CD offering.

I haven't had one order, at least not one legitimate order. I'm
giving a few copies to folks who have supplied me with
information,but I thought I'd have forty or fifty researchers
from the list take a look.

I think you'll be absolutely amazed at the quality. It's by far
the most interesting and compelling footage I've ever viewed.

The CDs are easy to install and are quickly opened with most
media players.

We'd like to have as many UFO researchers viewing the footage
and related Ft Worth photos as possible. Then we can begin to
discuss what we observe.

Ed











   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 15

                Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 19:51:36 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 09:42:25 -0500
Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Maccabee


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 19:37:21 -0600


 >>Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 12:13:28 -0500
 >>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

Richard Hall responded to my comments about the ET hypothesis:

 >>Richard Hall, who maintains a confidential email address, has
 >>written to me as follows:

 >>I agree completely with your statement of today (Feb. 10)
 >>about ET hypothesis as the most reasonable one given what
 >>we know, but not necessarily the final answer. Since Dennis
 >>Stacy has "taken our names in vain" with the apparent
 >>epithet (or at least the uncomplimentary connotation) of
 >>being "ET believers" we should challenge Dennis to say what
 >>is wrong about exploring the ET hypothesis and identifying
 >>oneself with the viewpoint that this is a reasonable thing
 >>to do, and also ask him what are his "acceptable
 >>hypotheses?"


Dennis responded,

 >The ETH "as the most reasonable one given what we know"?

 >What is it, exactly, that we _know_ again, just to refresh my
 >memory?

 >Don't mean to be totaly flip, but I'm busy tonight. Will try to
 >answer at greater length tomorrow.

 >But if you're both making preponderance of evidence arguments
 >for something, then what Something are you arguing for if not
 >the something of ET visitation as a fact, albeit one
 >unrecognized by science at large?>

 >If you're not actively leaning towards ET-contact as an
 >established fact for UFO reports, then it's incumbent on you to
 >supply alternative explanantions/scenarios, not me. In the
 >meantime, I read you both as being extremely in favor of the ET
 >as Fact Hypothesis (ETFH).

 >Rather than me convincing you of my position, I would like to be
 >convinced of yours. Any takers?

Gee, Dennis, you have a short memory. So I'll repost what I
wrote:

The first pargraph discusses the ETH:

 >I'll let the others in the list speak for themselves, should
 >they so desire. As for me and the ETH, I have said that it seems
 >to me to be the _simplest_ explanation - the easiest to
 >understand - in the sense that I can imagine us going "there"
 >(human transport to other planets). The argument against this is
 >not based on physics but on sociology: who would want to spend
 >many of years traveling from one solar system to another? If
 >there is a desire or need, lifespans notwithstanding,
 >representatives of the human race could go there... hence they
 >could come here. That is the ETH based on what we already know
 >(e.g., nuclear rockets, perhaps photon rockets, to travel at a
 >goodly speed).

The next paragraph refers to alternates:

 >However, there have been more esoteric (IMHO) proposals such as
 >dimensional travel (which is getting a boost these days from
 >theoretical physics i.e, superstring theory, that says there are
 >other dimensions "close" to ours in an overall 11 or more
 >dimensional "multiverse.") Dimensional travel theories can work
 >in one of two ways: transport from a completely different 4-D
 >universe into our universe or transport from one point in our
 >4-D universe to another point in our 4-D universe by going
 >through a 5th (or higher) dimension (wormhole theory). This
 >latter transport could explain "faster then light" travel.

 >Some have suggested time travel by itself: the aliens wouldn't
 >have to "go anywhere" in terms of 3-D distance, but merely go
 >back in time to our time.

 >These theories rely on suppositions about phenomena (dimensions,
 >time) for which we have scant evidence, if any. That's why I say
 >the ETH is the easiest to understand from our present point of
 >view about nature. That doesn't mean it is necessarily _the_
 >correct solution.

The following paragraph alludes to "what we know," which was the
subject of you request. I suppose I should have said... "what I
know".... namely that there are unexplained sightings which are
_highly_ suggestive of craft controlled by Other Intlligences:

 >Of course, this reasoning refers to the sightings/reports which
 >describe clearly some strange craftlike objects observed to do
 >"impossible" things. Skeptics would say there are no such
 >sightings, so why theorize? They would say simply assign all
 >sightings to one of three classes: misidentification (of known,
 >although perhaps rare phenomena or known phenomena seen under
 >unusual conditions), hoax, delusion.

 >I don't know whether Dennis accepts any sighting with lies
 >outside these three categories, or, if so, what the
 >characteristics of the reported object/phenomenon might be, But
 >for me, it has been proved that:

 >A) _Something_ strange has been really flying around and it lies
 >outside those three identification (i.e., TRUFOs - true UFOs)>>

 >B) Many TRUFO sightings appear to have been caused by strange
 >craft/objects flying (or landed) within the sight of witness(es).

 >See: http://brumac.8k.com

So, Dennis, are there any unexplained sightings which you accept
as being indicative of solid objects... craft... created by
non-humans (other intelligences)?

If not, we may as well end this discussion because I feel no
need to iterate for the n'th time sightings which cannot be
explained by known./conventional/unusual but natural, and
unintelligent, etc. phenomena. If you believe that there is no
such sighting then I presume you can offer convincing
explanations for all the sightings listed on my web site
(above).

(NOTE: one may not be able to determined whether or not an
explanation is _correct_, but one decide whether or not an
explanation is _convinving_. Although "convincing" is
subjective.... resides in the mind of the beholder... one can
certainly establish "relative convincingness" of various
explanations... and reject those that make little or no sense in
the context of the sighting.)









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 15

                 Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Fleming

From: Lan Fleming <apollo18@swbell.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 19:58:20 -0600
Fwd Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:09:39 -0500
Subject: Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Fleming


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 14:36:09 EST
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In - Young

 >>Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 20:35:05 -0600
 >>From: Lan Fleming <apollo18@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Cydonia Heavyweight Weighs-In
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >>Most lunar craters are made by meteoric impact, not by
 >>volcanoes. Neither types of crater are so common in the Northern
 >>Hemisphere on Mars that you could expect to have one of the
 >>right size and shape showing up just where you "need" an eye to
 >>be.

 >Whoa, Lan, you've got this reasoning exactly backwards. If a
 >volcano looks like an "eye", than _any_ volcano would end up
 >being just where one "needs" and eye. Hi, Lan, John, All:

So volcanic vents magically appear where you want them to? This
is what you are implying. I tend to believe they appear more or
less at random in such a way that the probability of their
appearance at any given location can be determined before the
fact. If there are any volcanic vents (eye-shaped or otherwise)
in Cydonia, they seem to be pretty scarce. The only candidate
seems to be located in a very small area of the Face landform
exactly where an eye-shaped cavity would be expected if the
artificiality hypothesis were correct.

It would be one thing to look for "eyes" in an image of Mars and
then go fishing for nearby features that could be mentally
forced into a perception of a face, but that isn't at all the
case here. What we have is some low-resolution Viking images
taken a quarter century ago that showed a face-like landform.
The "skeptical" assertion was that features such as the one
corresponding to an eye socket was just a trick of light and
shadow and would go away in higher resolotion images. That
assertion has been proven false in this case. There is a real,
eye-shaped feature there.

The way the game of science is supposed to be played is that
when a hypothesis makes a successful a priori prediction of
something for which the null hypothesis only assigns a very low
probability, then the hypothesis wins the game (but not
necessarily the set or match). According to those rules, the
artificiality hypothesis has one a big one and the null
hypothesis has lost. But you don't seem to want to play by those
rules.

 >Take a look at one on the Moon, Hyginus, from the Consolidated
 >Lunar Atlas:

 >http://cass.jsc.nasa.gov/pub/research/cla/images/img/D12.jpg

 >Or another view from the Lunar Orbiter Photo Atlas:

 >http://www.lpi.usra.edu/research/lunar_orbiter/img/4-97H1.jpg


I don't really know what significance you attach to these images. They
appear to me to show a lot of lunar impact craters, none of them
corresponding very well to the feature in question.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 15

                 Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Stacy

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 21:22:32 -0600
Fwd Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:16:00 -0500
Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Stacy


 >From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 13:55:56 -0800

 >>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 19:37:21 -0600

 >No? OK. Let's try some of those:

 >A Helicopter-UFO Encounter over Ohio
 >http://www.jse.com/ufo_reports/Zeidman/toc.html

 >Greenwich, Summer 1956
 >UFO was tracked by air traffic control radar (GCA) at two USAF-
 >RAF stations, with apparently corresponding visual sightings
 >http://www.ncas.org/condon/text/case02.htm

 >Read only those two.

 >Find an original explanation, e.g. one that has not been found
 >yet, because the cases remain unexplained.

 >Write a maximum of 100 lines for each case. Consider _all_ the
 >data and post it.

 >Please don't sleep on the switch and come up with the usual BS.
 >Keep in mind that there are more than 2000 rare diseases in the
 >US affecting less than .1% of the population. Using the same
 >reasoning, don't play ostrich with explained/unexplained ratios.

 >Your work will be evaluated on its merits. Menzelian
 >explanations and Klassic approaches are thus implicitely banned.
 >Dodging of facts, doctoring of information, cheap shots,
 >voluntary stupidity, wishful thinking, selective amnesia,
 >omission of data and gullibility will only give you a score of
 >0/100 and a dreadful 'F'.

 >In some circles, this might bring you to stardom, but consider
 >it an intellectual suicide for an honest man.

 >Did I tell you these are the _first two_ cases you'll have to
 >work on? There is more to do once you've finished working on
 >them.

 >Take your time.

 >You wouldn't want to botch the job, would you?


Serge,

Love you, too! Smooch! (Between the two of us.)

Answer to your first question:

Was there any radar confirmation in the Coyne case??

No, but radar confrirmaionin he second?

Aw, crap, Windows is such a oiece if mess.

Will respond late if so inclined.

Windows sux!

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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 15

                      AUFORN QLD First Meeting for 2001

From: Diane Harrison - Director AUFORN <tkbnetw@powerup.com.au>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:55:17 +1100
Fwd Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:17:37 -0500
Subject: AUFORN  QLD First Meeting for 2001


Australia

AUFORN  QLD First Meeting for 2001

Public Meet February 16th 2001
This Friday:

AUFORN Qld public meeting will
now be held at the:

Salisbury Community Center
183 Lillian Avenue
Salisbury.

Start Time 7.30 p.m  going to till late

Tea and Coffee included
and a light snack.

The meeting will cover UFO event's which have happened
since our last meeting in November 2000 to now 2001.

(1) We will be discussing the AUFORN investigators
course for 2001 for new and old investigators.
(2) We will be organising our Camp Outs for the rest
of the year.
(3) We will be discussing UFO case being investigated
at present.
(4) We will have update information regarding the
bringing down of  the Russian Space Station MIR
into the Pacific Ocean of Australia and up todate
UFO news from around the world.

It will be a jammed packed night of information
sharing, we hope you can make it, all are welcome!

Contact details
Diane Harrison
Tel 07 38088567
--

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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 15

                             Re: Greys - Aldrich

From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 00:15:28 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:21:01 -0500
Subject: Re: Greys - Aldrich


 >From: Sean Liddle <gortrix@kos.net>
 >Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 15:06:00 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto
 >Subject: Re: Greys

 >>Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 15:32:34 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Greys

 >>>MTVM wrote:

 >>>The Greys are Demons. Do not post pictures of them or God
 >>>will shred your little soul like confetti and torch you in
 >>>a Hell-fire.

 >>>TVM <mtvm@home.com>


 >Larry, you realize that I have to send an electronic postcard to
 >MTVM now with nice Grey artwork, don't you.

 >:)

 >Sean KAPRA

Sean,

Shame, shame, didn't you parents teach to not to tease caged
animals. MTVM is caged in a brain with really confined space and
no sense of humor. <G>


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 15

                        Re: AA Film Redux - Friedman

From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 08:46:15 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:25:30 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Friedman


 >Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 10:08:35 -0600
 >From: Roger Annette Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >>From: William Sawer <syntax@i4free.co.nz>
 >>Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 18:17:51 +1300
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Sawwer

 >>>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 21:57:58 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Previously, Robert wrote:

 >>>As for the camerman, _if_ and _when_ a warm body shows up that
 >>>claims to be the camerman, his story can be examined. Until then
 >>>all anybody has is absolutly nothing.

 >William replied:

 >>Not quite true... there is the film/video, the cameramans
 >>statement, Rays statements, even tho' he's a businessman and
 >>guilty of minimising the extent of our communities microscopic
 >>analysis of his words in this effort to turn a profit in _his
 >>Business_.. Not UFOlogy!

 ><snip>

 >>I don't think anyone is calling everyone liars. I feel Ed is
 >>stating that we are all guilty of various untruths at _some_
 >>time. C'mon on.

 >Hi, William!

 >I have tried to extract myself from this discussion so that it
 >would pass on. However, it is time for a reality check. First
 >off when you say:

 >>Not quite true... there is the film/video, the cameramans
 >>statement, Rays statements,...

 >This would mean something positive only if:

 >1) AA were viewed off of camera original footage and not a video
 >tape. This has not happened.

 >2) Ray would offer up the evidence that would validate his
 >claims. This has not happened.

 >3) There was any evidence that the alleged cameraman even
 >existed. This has not happened.

 >At this point, therefore, Robert Gates is absolutely correct.
 >The proponents of AA have nothing in their corner other than
 >zealous rationalizations about something that they already
 >believe in; proof be damned.

 >As far as who or who is not a liar; Ray has made claims and
 >money off of AA without lifting one little finger to
 >substantiate what could possibly be the most important footage
 >since the Zapruder home movie. What I find ironic is how
 >believers in AA spend incredible amounts of energy and time
 >looking for and rationalizing the most insignificant of
 >subjective evidence in support of AA while ignoring more obvious
 >signs of a scam as outlined in points 1,2 and 3, above.

 >Ultimately, the movie has already ended, the lights have come up
 >and AA supporters sit waiting for a happy ending long after
 >everyone else has left the theater in disgust. A glance about
 >finds Santilli's seat suspiciously empty, as well, having long
 >vacated it in favor of the ticket booth to count his profits.


Ray Santilli has indeed lied often as I noted in my book TOP
SECRET/MAJIC. He claimed in our first conversation that Harry
Truman was visible in the footage, that he had shown that Truman
was in Dallas at the time of the autopsy, that he had verified
that with the Truman Library, that the film had been dated by
Kodak , etc.. He later said the film had been shot by Jack
Barnett, the first cinematographer to film Elvis. Barnett (who
indeed filmed Elvis) was never in the military, died in the late
1960s.

Truman isn't in the film and was not in NM or TX June-October
1947. Ray then switched and said it was on the way to Ottawa.
That was a train trip in mid-June and a very public one. Ottawa
is 400 Miles N. of DC with Dallas 1200 miles SW. and these are
just for starters. Yes, I did meet in person with Ray twice
besides the phone calls. He lied.

Stan Friedman







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 15

                          Re: AA Film Redux - Evans

From: Roger Annette Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 08:57:56 -0600
Fwd Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:40:20 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Evans


 >From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 16:39:30 -0800
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Gehrman

 >>From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >>Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 11:26:35 -0800

Previously. Serge wrote:

 >>A couple of days ago, I issued a post exposing evident
 >>distortion of reality from the parts of Santilli and Hesemann.
 >>Mind you, I did not engage in philosophical debate, conjectures
 >>or speculations. Only facts.

 >>I got _zero_ argumentation from AA film proponents.

Ed writes:

 >Why don't you buy a copy of the AA CDs and then we can continue
 >this discussion?

 >I can't answer for Ray and Ray obviously doesn't want to be part
 >of this.  All I can tell you is that while my dealings with Ray
 >have been, at times, frustrating, I never felt he was being
 >dishonest nor did I get the feeling that he could ever commit a
 >fraud.

 >He doesn't like the way he's been treated and portrayed by folks
 >who don't have the slightest idea of what he's all about. Ray is
 >convinced that the AA is authentic and he thinks we've missed
 >the boat by not believing his simple story.

Hi all,

After much brow beating, spanning more than a week or so, I
finally agreed to look at Ed's CDs. As I figured,  he
immediately emailed me with excuses about not being very
technical, not completely understanding how to make a CD copy,
etc. I am still waiting for the CD's of his footage, all the
time wondering why he doesn't just make a VHS and send it to me,
instead. After all, VHS is still going to be better than an MPEG
video on a CD and any idiot can make a VHS copy.

Just how prepared were you for people to accept your challenge of
looking at the footage, Ed?

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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 15

                       Argentina: UFOs Over Saenz Pena

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@juno.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 14:01:22 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 18:23:23 -0500
Subject: Argentina: UFOs Over Saenz Pena


SOURCE: Diario "Norte" de Chaco (Argentina)
DATE: Monday, February 12, 2001

NEW UFO ACCOUNTS FROM SAENZ PENA


SAENZ PEA, (Agency)-- As of this week, more residents of Saenz
Pena will turn their attention heavenwards at night due to the
phenomena witnessed by residents of the Oro Blanco sector, who
claim having seen a strange light in the sky since Tuesday last
week. In an effort to identify the alleged UFOs, residents of
Resistencia have added themselves to the effort, visiting the
city's air traffic control tower to identify the objects from
that location.

It has become a tradition in Oro Blanco to wait for the flying
object's passing -- resembling a large luminous ball flying at
low altitude and speed, making movements which are not typical
of aircraft or other known vehicles. These characteristics arise
from the testimony of locals who have become frequent witnesses
to the passing of these UFOs and whose stories have appeared in
NORTE newspaper.

On midnite on Saturday, a group of residents of Oro Blanco, a
neighborhood located behind this city's sports compelx, gathered
to see the luminous object once more, but the overcast skies
hampered their viewing. In spite of this, they pointed out that
they would meet again today or in coming days to scan the skies
once more.

These UFO sightings were allegedly confirmed by one of the
employees of the airport control tower who also lives in Oro
Blanco. He further told his neighbors that the city air facility
has been receiving phone calls since last Tuesday from persons
asking if the strange lights were those of an airplane.

In this regard, Rodolfo Acosta, one of the residents who is most
enthusiastic about the UFO sightings, noted that technicians
from Resistencia would visit the area in an effort to identify
the UFOs through the use of optical equipment.


#############

Translation (C) 2001. 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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 15

                Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Roberts

From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 20:26:34 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 18:31:03 -0500
Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Roberts


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 17:15:58 EST
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact

In response to Serge S., Brad wrote:

 >This is the famous Lakenheath-Bentwaters case of Aug 13-14,
 >1956. Do you not recognize it?

You should recognise it. I believe our very own Jerry Clark
refers to the case as one which is:

'A challenge to all who would seek to reduce every UFO report to
a prosaic cause'.

We like a challenge.

 >Certain UK debunkers

Not debunkers Brad, sceptics. Different creature altogether. But
we'll let that pass for now.

 >have found
 >official RAF documentation on the case which they think
 >destroysthe case, which they have been sitting on for a long
 >time, and they won't release the material until they can do
 >maximum damage.

This shows the paucity of knowledge Brad relies on regarding the
re-investigation of this instructive case. A few email exchanges
with Dave Clarke being his source. It also shows just how
radical misperception can creep into even a seasoned (i.e. one
taken with a pinch of salt) ufologist's mind.

 >They have been working with one of the RAF radar
 >controllers who had come forward in 1978 to try to "turn him"
 >against the USAF radar controller who had come forward ten
 >years earlier to the Condon Committee. They claim the RAF man's
 >testimony discredits the USAF man's account.

Oh dear! Freddie Wimbledon's account of the events is purely
contributory to the wealth of new evidence on this case Brad.
And you evidence for us trying to 'turn' Wimbledon? Don't be
silly - prove what you say. Have you spoken to Wimbledon, Brad?
Or Perkins? Or anyone else directly involved in the case? No?

Thought not.

To say this case has been around in the public domain since the
late '60s and considering the amount of type Brad has wasted on
it one would be tempted to suggest that he might have actually
done some investigation. Exchanging letters with people does not
constitute investigating Brad - getting out there and talking to
the people involved, face to face, as we have done with the four
Venom crew (who were in the air, scrambled by Wimbledon) is far
more profitable. It also helps if you peruse the documentary
evidence, available in places where that sort of thing is
available.

So, for now - excited as you are Brad - you'll just have to
wait. We're baking an exceedingly fine cake and like any good
master bakers we don't want to spoil it until the icing on the
word 'Judy' has set firm.

Perhaps - just for fun and, as Jerry says, a 'challenge' -
perhaps you'd like to step up to the line and, quite clearly,
state exactly what about the Lakenheath case you still find
remarkable in any way.

Back to the master baking.

Over to you Brad.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 15

                               George Adamski?

From: Gary Anthony <garyant@mithrand.karoo.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 00:13:16 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 19:04:14 -0500
Subject: George Adamski?


Hi list,

Does anyone out there have a 1953/54, i.e. first edition copy of
Desmond Leslie's book 'Flying Saucers Have Landed?' If so you
may be able to help with a question that I have...

Thanks.

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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 16

                    INEXPLICATA #8 (Spring 2001) On Line

From: Scott Corales <lornis1@juno.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 09:52:29 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 13:43:46 -0500
Subject: INEXPLICATA #8 (Spring 2001) On Line



Dear Friends,

The Institute of Hispanic Ufology is pleased to announce that
the eighth issue of Inexplicata (Spring 2001) is finally on line
for your perusal at www.inexplicata.com . Our first issue of the
Millennium features contributions by Manuel Carballal, Dr.
Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo, Dr. Rafael Lara Palmeros and Raul Nunez.

Very best regards to all, and happy reading.


Scott Corrales

Director, Institute of Hispanic Ufology
Editor, Inexplicata--The Journal of Hispanic Ufology
lornis1@yahoo.com
www.inexplicata.com





Dear Friends,

The Institute of Hispanic Ufology is pleased to announce that
the eighth issue of Inexplicata (Spring 2001) is finally on line
for your perusal at www.inexplicata.com . Our first issue of the
Millennium features contributions by Manuel Carballal, Dr.
Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo, Dr. Rafael Lara Palmeros and Raul Nunez.

Very best regards to all, and happy reading.


Scott Corrales

Director, Institute of Hispanic Ufology
Editor, Inexplicata--The Journal of Hispanic Ufology
lornis1@yahoo.com
www.inexplicata.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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 16

                      Alien Conspiracy - 'Kingdom Come'

From: Terry Blanton <commengr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 10:36:06 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 13:44:06 -0500
Subject: Alien Conspiracy - 'Kingdom Come'


EBK and listers,

Has anyone read 'Kingdom Come' by Jim Hougan? I am about 1/3 of
the way through it and just completed a scene which combines
Roswell, BVM, Crop Circles, nvCJD, Cattle Mutes, etc. into one
big conspiracy package. Although it wasn't intended to be funny,
I blew coffee through my nose at the description of *the* Alien
Autopsy film embedded into this spy adventure.

If you haven't read it, you probably should; but, don't tell me
how it ends!

See:

http://www.crescentblues.com/2_6issue/kingdom_come.shtml  or

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0345433246/qid=982335090/sr=1-5/ref=sc_b_
5/102-5325518-9265755

I got it as a book on tape from my local library.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 16

                Lakenheath [was: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ]

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:51:06 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 13:53:09 -0500
Subject: Lakenheath [was: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ]


 >From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 20:26:34 -0000

 >>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 17:15:58 EST
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact

 >>This is the famous Lakenheath-Bentwaters case of Aug 13-14,
 >>1956. Do you not recognize it?

 >You should recognise it. I believe our very own Jerry Clark
 >refers to the case as one which is:

 >'A challenge to all who would seek to reduce every UFO report to
 >a prosaic cause'.

 >We like a challenge.

 >>Certain UK debunkers

 >Not debunkers Brad, sceptics. Different creature altogether. But
 >we'll let that pass for now.

 >>have found
 >>official RAF documentation on the case which they think
 >>destroysthe case, which they have been sitting on for a long
 >>time, and they won't release the material until they can do
 >>maximum damage.

 >This shows the paucity of knowledge Brad relies on regarding the
 >re-investigation of this instructive case. A few email exchanges
 >with Dave Clarke being his source. It also shows just how
 >radical misperception can creep into even a seasoned (i.e. one
 >taken with a pinch of salt) ufologist's mind.

 >>They have been working with one of the RAF radar
 >>controllers who had come forward in 1978 to try to "turn him"
 >>against the USAF radar controller who had come forward ten
 >>years earlier to the Condon Committee. They claim the RAF man's
 >>testimony discredits the USAF man's account.

<snip>

Hi,

Brad's ideas are absurd (and 100% wrong). Such notions that we
are somehow 'turning' witnesses explains why we decided some
time ago not to prematurely discuss what was emerging on the
Lakenheath 1956 case but to instead produce a full report with
all the facts and the various i's dotted and t's crossed.

We have almost done that now and any person who will let the
facts speak for themselves will be surprised to see the way the
case unwinds.

The purpose of this message is merely to note the following.
Whilst Andy Roberts and Dave Clarke and Paul Fuller have been
chasing up and finding a lot of vital new data from other
sources on the case, the actual contact with the former RAF
'radar' commander  to which Brad Sparks refers - the man who
actually scrambled the two venoms in l956 - has thus far
entirely been conducted by myself.

So the accusations he makes about 'debunkers' pushing this man
have to be personally levelled at me.

I have had lengthy conversations with this witness, we have
exchanged several letters and he has supplied copious
documentation. By this process we have gradually clarified a
number of points that mesh well with the data Andy, Dave and
Paul have uncovered. But at no time have I made any effort to
distort his testimony. In fact it was he who shared his pointed
views about this case with me - not the other way around - as
the record will more than prove.

Far from being a debunking exercise this has been a fact
gathering mission - something Ufology could have done on this
case many years ago.

I take considerable offence at the wild suggestion that I have
made the slightest attempt to 'turn' this witness. I let him
tell me his story and gradually clarified his arguments .

Indeed - by delicious irony - I have been the only one of the
four involved in this case to have retained a view that
something unexplained might have occurred that night. In fact so
much so that right up until this week I was arguing against one
explanation with my co-researchers - as they will all attest.

I was doing so - it transpired - from a faulty premise. I now
accept that they were probably right and I was probably wrong.

We have also covered ourselves from the inevitable charges of
seeking to distort the evidence - which were sadly predictable .
Having to think that far ahead and be ready to respond to the
backlash from Ufology is a key reason why it has taken so long
to get to publishing this report.

If we could have expected a fair hearing where facts are what
count and Ufologists judge those facts on their merits rather
than raise up clad in the armour of prejudice against evil
hordes of  'debunkers' out to destroy the subject then we
probably could have done this more rapidly.

Those of you who have been sitting patiently waiting - if you
value facts, first hand research and a true insight into a
famous case then you will not be disappointed.

And for the record I am certainly not a debunker. I still think
that there are unsolved cases and novel phenomena behind some
events.  But you have to view the evidence for each case as it
stands individually and say so when any case clearly fails.

Lakenheath 1956 is far from the case we all once thought it was.

But clinging to it as a definitive moment in UFO history (as I
once thought it was) is simply not going to be credible any
more. Nobody is more sorry to have to accept that than I am. But
wishful thinking and what I'd like to be true will always lose
out to what the facts decree in how I see the way to do UFO
investigation.

Hopefully many of you will come to accept that too and move on.

Getting to the truth behind a case is a good thing and
positively benefits the rest of Ufology . You follow where the
trail of evidence leads and have the guts to stand up and say
where you end up whether you like it or not. Anything less and
you are letting the subject down, failing science,  doing a
disservice to your colleagues,  misleading all the many honest
witnesses out there and - most of all - being dishonest with
yourself.

If debunking is what I would call pursuing the truth then so be
it.

It will still be the truth. And that's what matters.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 16

               Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated -

From: Chris Aubeck <caubeck@hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 16:33:49 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 13:55:33 -0500
Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated -



 >Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 13:10:10 +0000
 >From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated


 >>The way I understand it, the psycho-sociologists theorize that
 >>artists in olden times who put saucer-shaped objects into their
 >>art work were motivated by excessive religious zeal. Maybe
 >>Catholic theologians have a ready explanation of the religious
 >>symbolism behind images of saucers hovering above the Virgin
 >>Mary. I don't remember anything about flying saucers being a
 >>part of religious dogma from Sunday school, but then I was
 >>raised a Presbyterian.

 >Or here's a thought, maybe they were adding a little real,
 >everyday context to the religious "faith" of the time. Sort of
 >like grounding religion in reality by putting into the paintings
 >common everyday objects seen in the sky or background-like the
 >Sun, Moon, stars clouds, birds, houses trees, mountains, UFOs.

Hi to all,

I don't think that adding UFOs to religious paintings made them
any more realistic exactly. However, they could have been
examples of God's work that people would easily relate to.

I remember a Christian trying to convince me that God existed by
saying things like "Haven't you seen how glorious the Sun is?"
"Haven't you gazed at the stars?" "Nobody who has contemplated
the marvels of nature can claim to have never witnessed a
miracle..." etc.

Whether the pictures showed meteors or Martians, few could deny
having seen something unexplainable and mysterious in the night
sky in their lifetimes. UFOs in paintings and engravings
reminded people that not everything could be explained away,
which was tantamount to saying that the supernatural or the
divine had to exist.

What is needed now is a research effort to find representations
of 'aliens' in ancient art. This would not prove anything -
except perhaps that the image of the Grey predates the genesis
of modern ufology.


Chris Aubeck








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 16

                                'Time Storms'

From: Dave Baker <davbak@ic24.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 16:45:51 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 13:57:31 -0500
Subject: 'Time Storms'


Hi List,

The latest issue of Project Red Book, the monthly magazine
produced by the Yorkshire UFO Society (UK) is now on sale. It
features an in-depth interview with Jenny Randles discussing her
latest book 'Time Storms'.

Anyone interested should contact me by e-mail, and I'll give you
the details.


Dave Baker
YUFOS








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 16

                  Something Rotten at the Core of Science?

From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 09:02:45 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 14:00:02 -0500
Subject: Something Rotten at the Core of Science?


EBK & Listers,

I'm sending this to the List as one example of why the evidence
from legitimate UFO investigations is never published in leading
scientific journals.

Ed

-----

Something Rotten at the Core of Science?
by David F. Horrobin

http://news.bmn.com/hmsbeagle/95/viewpts/op_ed

Trends in Pharmacological Sciences
Vol. 22, No. 2, February 2001

Abstract

A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision and an analysis of the peer
reviewsystem substantiate complaints about this fundamental
aspect of scientific research. Far from filtering out junk
science, peer review may be blocking the flow of innovation and
corrupting public support of science.

The U.S. Supreme Court has recently been wrestling with the
issues of the acceptability and reliability of scientific
evidence. In its judgement in the case of Daubert v. Merrell
Dow, the court attempted to set guidelines for U.S. judges to
follow when listening to scientific experts. Whether or not
findings had been published in a peer-reviewed journal provided
one important criterion. But in a key caveat, the court
emphasized that peer review might sometimes be flawed, and that
therefore this criterion was not unequivocal evidence of
validity or otherwise. A recent analysis of peer review adds to
this controversy by identifying an alarming lack of correlation
between reviewers recommendations.

The Supreme Court questioned the authority of peer review. Many
scientists and lawyers are unhappy about the admission by the
top legal authority in the United States that peer review might
in some circumstances be flawed [1]. David Goodstein, writing in
the Guide to the Federal Rules of Evidenceone of whose functions
is to interpret the judgement in the case of Daubertstates that
Peer review is one of the sacred pillars of the scientific
edifice [2]. In public, at least, almost all scientists would
agree. Those who disagree are almost always dismissed in
pejorative terms such as maverick, failure, and drivenby
bitterness.

Peer review is central to the organization of modern science.
The peer-review process for submitted manuscripts is a crucial
determinant of what sees the light of day in a particular
journal. Fortunately, it is less effective in blocking
publication completely; there are so many journals that most
even modestly competent studies will be published provided that
the authors are determined enough. The publication might not be
in a prestigious journal, but at least it will get into print.
However, peer review is also the process that controls access to
funding, and here the situation becomes much more serious. There
might often be only two or three realistic sources of funding
for a project, and the networks of reviewers for these sources
are often interacting and interlocking. Failure to pass the
peer-review process might well mean that a project is never
funded. Science bases its presumed authority in the world on the
reliability and objectivity of the evidence that is produced. If
the pronouncements of science are to be greeted with public
confidenceand there is plenty of evidence to suggest that such
confidence is low and erodingit should be able to demonstrate
that peer review, one of the sacred pillars of the scientific
edifice, is a process that has been validated objectively as a
reliable process for putting a stamp of approval on work that
has been done. Peer review should also have been validated as
reliable method for making appropriate choices as to what work
should be done. Yet when one looks for that evidence it is
simply not there.

Why not apply scientific methods to the peer review process? For
30 years or so, I and others have been pointing out the
fallibility of peer review and have been calling for much more
openness and objective evaluation of its procedures [3-5]. For
the most part, the scientific establishment, its journals, and
its grant-giving bodies have resisted such open evaluation. They
fail to understand that if a process that is as central to the
scientific endeavor as peer review has no validated experimental
base, and if it consistently refuses open scrutiny, it is not
surprising that the public is increasingly skeptical about the
agenda and theconclusions of science.

Largely because of this antagonism to openness and evaluation,
there is a great lack of good evidence either way concerning the
objectivity and validity of peer review. What evidence there is
does not give confidence but is open to many criticisms. Now,
Peter Rothwell and Christopher Martyn have thrown a bombshell
[6]. Their conclusions are measured and cautious, but there is
little doubt that they have provided solid evidence of something
truly rotten at the core of science.

Forget the reviewers. Just flip a coin.

Rothwell and Martyn performed a detailed evaluation of the
reviews of papers submitted to two neuroscience journals. Each
journal normally sent papers out to two reviewers. Reviews of
abstracts and oral presentations sent to two neuroscience
meetings were also evaluated. One meeting sent its abstracts to
16 reviewers and the other to 14 reviewers, which provides a
good opportunity for statistical evaluation. Rothwell and Martyn
analyzed the correlations among reviewers recommendations by
analysis of variance. Their report should be read in full;
however, the conclusions are alarmingly clear. For one journal,
the relationships among the reviewers opinions were no better
than that obtained by chance. For the other journal, the
relationship was only fractionally better. For the meeting
abstracts, the content of the abstract accounted for only about
10 to 20 percent of the variance in opinion of referees, and
other factors accounted for 80 to 90 percent of the variance.

These appalling figures will not be surprising to critics of
peer review, but they give solid substance to what these critics
have been saying. The core system by which the scientific
community allots prestige (in terms of oral presentations at
major meetings and publication in major journals) and funding is
a non-validated charade whose processes generate results little
better than does chance. Given the fact that most reviewers are
likely to be mainstream and broadly supportive of the existing
organization of the scientific enterprise, it would not be
surprising if the likelihood of support for truly innovative
research was considerably less than that provided by chance.

Objective evaluation of grant proposals is a high priority.
Scientists frequently become very angry about the publics
rejection of the conclusions of the scientific process. However,
the Rothwell and Martyn findings, coming on top of so much other
evidence, suggest that the public might be right in groping its
way to a conclusion that there is something rotten in the state
of science. Public support can only erode further if science
does not put its house in order and begin a real attempt to
develop validated processes for the distribution of publication
rights, credit for completed work, and funds for new work.
Funding is the most important issue that most urgently requires
opening up to rigorous research and objective evaluation.

What relevance does this have for pharmacology and
pharmaceuticals? Despite enormous amounts of hype and optimistic
puffery, pharmaceutical research is actually failing [7]. The
annual number of new chemical entities submitted for approval is
steadily falling in spite of the enthusiasm for techniques such
as combinatorial chemistry, high-throughput screening, and
pharmacogenomics. The drive to merge pharmaceutical companies is
driven by failure, and not by success.

The peer review process may be stifling innovation.

Could the peer-review processes in both academia and industry
have destroyed rather than promoted innovation? In my own field
of psychopharmacology, could it be that peer review has ensured
that in depression and schizophrenia, we are still largely
pursuing themes that were initiated in the 1950s? Could peer
review explain the fact that in both diseases the efficacy of
modern drugs is no better than those compounds developed in
1950? Even in terms of side-effects, where the differences
between old and new drugs are much hyped, modern research has
failed substantially. Is it really a success that 27 of every
100 patients taking the selective 5-HT reuptake inhibitors stop
treatment within six weeks compared with the 30 of every 100 who
take a 1950s tricyclic antidepressant compound? The
Rothwell-Martyn bombshell is a wake-up call to the cozy
establishments who run science. If science is to have any
credibilityand also if it is to be successfulthe peer-review
process must be put on a much sounder and properly validated
basis or scrapped altogether.

David F. Horrobin, a longtime critic of anonymous peer review.
heads Laxdale Ltd., which develops novel treatments for
psychiatric disorders. In 1972 he founded Medical Hypotheses,
the only journal fully devoted to discussion of ideas in
medicine.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 16

                NASA - Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy'

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 14:04:37 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 14:04:37 -0500
Subject: NASA - Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy'


Source: NASA Watch

http://www.nasawatch.com/index.html



15 February 2001: Fox Airs "Moon Conspiracy"

Here's how Fox promoted their show:

"MOON LANDING QUESTIONED ON THE ALL-NEW SPECIAL 'CONSPIRACY
THEORY: DID WE LAND ON THE MOON' FEB. 15 ON FOX"

NASA put a man on the moon for the first time in 1969 -- or did
it? Could the entire moon program have been an elaborate
deception staged to fool the public? The conspiracy theories are
investigated in the all-new one-hour special"


Editor's rant: I can't even begin to find the right sentences to
describe this TV show - but I will try. Individual words such as
"idiotic", "ridiculous", "scandalous", "irresponsible",
"stupid", "fraudulent", "sloppy", and just plain "wrong" come to
mind.

Among the most ridiculous claims in this program was that
astronauts were killed (by NASA) to keep them silent "because
they knew too much" and that the Apollo landings on the moon
were faked. The only counterpoint to these baseless claims
presented on-air were several short clips featuring the late
Brian Welch from NASA PAO. This was all packaged together and
promoted as a serious inquiry into a possible conspiracy on the
part of NASA.

Congratulations Fox. Now millions of school-aged children have
been exposed to your nonsense - and it is going to take the hard
work of their parents (whom you've also misinformed) and their
teachers to fix the damage.

If Fox executives had any sense of fairness and civic
responsibility they'd offer an hour of prime time to
representatives from NASA and the scientific community to refute
this one hour collection of rumors, unsubstantiated innuendo,
and wanton conspiracy mongering - and undo the damage that has
been done.

You can send your comments to Fox TV at askfox@foxinc.com

Update: this post from the MSNBC Space Bulletin Board is from a
school teacher I know in the midwest.

"Some of the teachers in my school are going nuts with kids
talking about this dumb FOX special on the "Moon Landing Hoax".
Does anyone know of any good, skeptical web sites to which I can
refer my colleagues so that they can have some ammunition to
refute the claims of these conspiracy theorists."

http://www.badastronomy.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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 16

                          Secrecy News -- 02/14/01

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@igc.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 13:35:27 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 14:07:19 -0500
Subject: Secrecy News -- 02/14/01


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
February 14, 2001

**VULNERABILITY OF DOE NUCLEAR MATERIALS ALLEGED
**SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE SQUABBLES
**SECRECY NEWS FROM ALL OVER

VULNERABILITY OF DOE NUCLEAR MATERIALS ALLEGED

The risk of theft of nuclear materials at Department of Energy
facilities is unacceptably high, according to a DOE security
contractor.

"Clear evidence of actual risk to Special Nuclear Materials at
key DOE sites and in transit" was identified in a classified DOE
Inspector General report last year, wrote Ronald E. Timm,
president of RETA Security, in a February 9 letter to DOE
Secretary Spencer Abraham.

Yet despite these and similar findings by other investigators,
"nothing was done," Mr. Timm complained.  "Special Nuclear
Materials were at risk then, Special Nuclear Materials are at
risk today, and, without significant changes, Special Nuclear
Materials will be at risk in the future."

The force of Mr. Timm's letter is diminished by a breathless
tone and a tendency to extreme formulations.  ("Terrorists have
a ready supply of Special Nuclear Materials already existing and
available within our borders.")  His concern about the adequacy
of nuclear material safeguards, however, is shared by others
inside and outside of government.

But one official seasoned by long experience with the DOE
bureaucracy said that this concern was not yet an effective
political factor.

"This President and this Congress are not going to spend
billions to fix the weapons complex unless there is a serious
and very dramatic physical event," the official said.  "Absent
that, the contractors and DOE managers will muddle along losing
more classified information, protecting information that doesn't
need to be protected for national security reasons, and
accepting some of the risks to SNM and facilities."

The text of Mr. Timm's letter, widely copied to congressional
offices, is posted here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2001/02/timm.html


SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE SQUABBLES

Leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee are quarreling over
whether the Committee Chairman, Senator Richard Shelby, will
continue to control hiring of the Committee's staff or whether
the Democratic members, led by Vice Chairman Senator Bob Graham,
will be entitled to hire their own staff.  The dispute was
reported today by the New York Times and last week by the
Washington Post:

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/14/politics/14INTE.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31018-2001Feb5.ht
ml

While the outcome of this conflict could become important in
some circumstances, the fact is that when it comes to
intelligence oversight the practical differences between the two
parties are distressingly small.

One indication of the bipartisan convergence of opinion is a
statement made by Senator Graham at an intelligence committee
hearing on February 7 endorsing increased intelligence spending:
"This committee plays a very special role [in determining the
future of intelligence spending].  We have a special
responsibility to represent the interest of the intelligence
community before those who will make these budgetary decisions."

The surprising notion that the oversight committees should be
advocates for intelligence and should "represent the interest of
the intelligence community" was first articulated in 1996 by
Republican Rep. Larry Combest, then-chairman of the House
Intelligence Committee.  He lamented the traditionally
adversarial character of intelligence oversight.

Combest's once counterintuitive conception is now the dominant
view, shared by leading Democrats like Sen. Graham.

It is a remarkable reversal.  The intelligence committees were
originally established to serve as proxies for the public, and
to act on behalf of the public in overseeing intelligence.
Today, however, the committees increasingly serve as proxies for
the intelligence agencies, advancing their budgetary interests
and their legislative initiatives.  Oversight as it was once
understood will have to come from somewhere else.


SECRECY NEWS FROM ALL OVER

Official controls over national security information continue to
shift in interesting ways in many corners of the world.

"Russian researchers have made the decision to declassify the
principle of operation of the so-called explosive ignition
thermonuclear facility developed by the research institute of
technical physics in Snezhinsk," according to a February 11
report from Interfax News Agency.  The action apparently refers
to an explosive-driven nuclear fusion process for generating
electrical power.  See:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2001/02/ru021101.html

"Military secrecy is a fiction," said Venezuela's new defense
minister, Jos Vicente Rangel this week.  Secrecy is valid "only
for the deployment of military forces.  This is basic.  But the
old conception of secrecy, which is absolutely anachronistic,
has in fact been overcome."  As a result, declassification of
documents is a done deal ("un asunto resuelto"), according to a
February 13 report in the Venezuelan newspaper El Nacional.  See
"El secreto militar es una ficcin":

http://www.el-nacional.com/eln13022001/pd1s1.htm

Also this week, the government of Vietnam has provided details
of its secrecy policy for the first time, according to Agence
France Presse.  The new Vietnamese secrecy system that takes
effect on April 1 will include three classification levels, and
will encompass such state secrets as the number of bank notes in
circulation and the size of monetary reserves, as well as
information on national security, foreign policy and internal
Party disputes.

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

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



Intelligence Forum (http://www.intelforum.org) is sponsored by Intelligence
and National Security, a Frank Cass journal (http://www.frankcass.com/jnls/ins.h
tm)







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 16

              Re: Lakenheath [was: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ]

From: Dave Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 18:06:40 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 14:13:03 -0500
Subject: Re: Lakenheath [was: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ]


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Sparks
 >Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 17:15:58 EST


Greetings to UFO UpDates - long time no see, missed the sport!

 >Certain UK debunkers have found official RAF documentation on
 >the case which they think destroys
 >the case, which they have been sitting on for a long time, and
 >they won't release the material until they can do maximum
 >damage.

As an example of adding further layers of distortion to an
already highly mythologised case, Brad Spark's comments deserve
a special prize.

Yes, the UFOIN team have collected a considerable amount of new
evidence relating to the Lakenheath radar case, but where has it
been claimed our inquiry 'destroys' it? It will certainly debunk
(Oxford dictionary definition: 'show up as innacurate or false')
the 'accepted' version of events repeated and perpetuated ad
nauseum since 1969 by everyone from Thayer to Sturrock and most
recently by Georgina Bruni - the latest to get the facts
completely wrong.

A lot of people will soon be eating their words, but as far as
I'm concerned the final judgement on the case remains 'open.'
I'm prepared to concede a 'true USO' (unidentified stationary
object) - albeit an invisible and ephemeral one - might well
have been present. Which is quite something for me!

But how Brad could possibly 'know' what we 'think' at this
stage, when he has no knowledge of what we have found is amusing
to say the least, and will certainly be instructive for our
study. This couldn't be an example of a someone making their
mind up before they have even seen the evidence, could it?

Is this not a chracteristic usually associated with 'debunkers'
or 'pelicanists'?

More likely, it is because Sparks is afraid of losing face -
having to face up to the fact that what he and others have
written, or believed, about a 'classic case' is in fact not
worth the paper it was written upon?

Poor investigation and even poorer interpretation exposed to the
light of day, a painful experience for most UFOlogists. As for
"sitting on" material - we have been working on this case for
little over one year; hardly any time at all to conduct a
thorough re-investigation which has involved weeks of work in
archives, hours of interviews, days of travelling and contacts
across the world.

Georgina took three years to 're-investigate' the Rendlesham
Forest case, and proved nothing.

Brad has supposedly been involved in the Lakenheath case for 20
years, and still can't get his facts right.

So I don't believe having to wait 12 months for UFOIN to publish
what we have found out about Lakenheath should be regarded as
too much of an inconvenience.

As the British magician Paul Daniel's catchphrase goes, "You're
going to like it, not a lot..."

 >They have been working with one of the RAF radar
 >controllers who had come forward in 1978 to try to "turn him"
 >against the USAF radar controller who had come forward ten years
 >earlier to the Condon Committee. They claim the RAF man's
 >testimony discredits the USAF man's account.

The situation must be pretty desperate if Brad is having to
resort to the old "you have forced a witness to change his/her
story" chestnut.

If this is what you *really* believe Brad, then how do you
explain the following:

I began re-investigating the Lakenheath case one year ago, and
had little or no knowledge or interest in the details before
that time.

Freddie Wimbledon, the RAF radar controller you refer to, first
came forward in 1978 by writing to the London Sunday Times and
FSR. He was sent a copy of the USAF radar controller's original
letter to the Condon Study (dated 13 February 1968) by your 'old
friend' Gordon Thayer.

Wimbledon annotated sections of Perkin's letter with the
following phrases: "RUBBISH" (the American translation of which
I believe is 'garbage') and his description of the alleged Venom
intercept is likened to something from "a Hollywood Movie."

Squadron Leader Wimbledon made these annotations in his own hand
between 1978 and 1980, when he was involved in lengthy
correspondence with Gordon Thayer, the author of the Condon
Study's version of the case. He also produced, at that time, a
lengthy commentary destroying the credibility of the USAF
controller's version of events.

I repeat, Wimbledon did all of this between 1978 and 1980 when I
was a schoolboy!

Is Brad suggesting that during 1978, knowing or caring less
about UFOs or Lakenheath, I suddenly went AWOL from my
classroom, hopped on a train to London and held a senior RAF
officer at gunpoint whilst I forced him 'trash' the account of a
'highly reliable' American witness?

Anyone with any integrity can now see that Brad Sparks'
allegation that we have somehow, in the last 12 months, "turned"
Wimbledon against Perkins for the farago of nonsense it surely
is.

It is simply more evidence, if such were needed, for the lack of
adequate investigation, or even knowledge of the basic facts,
which has bedeviled everything that has been written about
Lakenheath since it first came to attention of USAF Intelligence
in 1956.

Dr J. Allen Hynek said as much in his Memorandum for the Record
to Project Blue Book on 17 October 1956 - just two months after
the events, viz "...it is to be regretted that so unusual a
sighting reported did not contain more factual material on which
to base an evaluation."

Brad Sparks claims to have been a key investigator in the
Lakenheath case for 20 years. Yet it appears he has not done
anything other than 'recycle' second and third hand accounts of
it.

Strange is it not that he does not appear to have spoken to
*any* of the witnesses, or indeed to have been privy to the
correspondence between Wimbledon and Thayer - whose summary of
the case he says he edited for inclusion in Storey's UFO
Encyclopedia.

Did Thayer not trust Sparks with such 'sensitive' material? Or
did Thayer decide to "sit on" material which did not support his
belief that a "true UFO" was involved.

Is this evidence of a cover-up or simply incompetence?

To borrow Georgina's highly useful phrase - "you can't tell the
people."










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 16

                              Posting Protocols

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 14:15:18 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 14:15:18 -0500
Subject: Posting Protocols

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

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

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

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

  2.    Line-length

Please make your lines no more than 65 characters long

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

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


  3.    Attribution

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

 >Date: 09 Feb 01 00:00:01 EST
 >From: Genghis@mukluk.com <Bobb Grunge>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >Subject: UFO UpDate: Grays are Grey Area

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


  4.    Quoting

_Always_ quote from the message to which you are responding.

Quotes should come _before_ you key your response.

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

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

No spaces before or after the '>'

Please remove the '>' from blank lines.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 16

                         Re: AA Film Redux - Gehrman

From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 11:18:29 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 14:17:48 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Gehrman


 >Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 08:57:56 -0600
 >From: Roger Annette Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Hi all,

 >After much brow beating, spanning more than a week or so, I
 >finally agreed to look at Ed's CDs.

  Yes, we tried to convince you that you should take a look at the CDs.

 >As I figured,  he
 >immediately emailed me with excuses about not being very
 >technical, not completely understanding how to make a CD copy,
 >etc.

As I explained in that e-mail (several days after getting your
address) I was originally going to have the CDs copied for me
but since I had so few orders, I decided to do it myself. I
admit to not be on the technical side, but I was able to muddle
thought the installation process and am sending you the three CD
set. (We had thought we would need four)


 >Just how prepared were you for people to accept your challenge of
 >looking at the footage, Ed?

I think we're very well prepared but take a good look and see
what you can find out and then we can talk it over. Maybe you'll
find a zipper or seam.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 16

                  Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 19:44:43 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:01:06 -0500
Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Hall


 >From: Mendoza - Peter Brookesmith<Mendoza@appleonline.net>
 >Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >Date: Tue, 13 Feb 01 03:14:32 +0000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>


 >Naturally the true background to this is far more devious and
 >sordid than anything covered by "taking a name in vain" could
 >ever suggest. But suffice to know that Dennis, in the context of
 >the discussion only slightly covered on UpDates, was merely
 >offering a few ufologists who, in his view, took the ETH for
 >granted in one way or another. (Use your imaginations. No? Okay,
 >I mean whose thinking ranges from "ET are here - and here's the
 >proof!" to "ET is the most reasonable explanation for UFOs."

 >There is, of course, absolutely nothing wrong with exploring the
 >ETH and, unless he has been going out with other girls behind my
 >back, Dennis has never suggested anything of the kind. What he
 >has done, however, is publish a few pieces that explore (or
 >expose) the ETH in ways gawping UFO "tourists" - to use the Boy
 >Bishop of Canby's rather patronizing term for you peasants out
 >there who've never published anything - and other True Believers
 >don't like. That is to say, said pieces rather put the kybosh on
 >the reasonableness of the ETH. This is not a way to win friends
 >in this neck of the woods, but Dennis and I - he & I once saw an
 >actual black helicopter together, remember - have got used to
 >that. This may explain why we both use a lot of Tabasco these
 >days. (Mrs Patak's Lime Pickle goes a long way.)

 >And as Dennis has already remarked: it's up to Dick Hall to
 >justify _his_ faith in the ETH, not vice versa. Dennis can doubt
 >that justification and all the Hallic evidence all he wants. He
 >is under NO obligation to produce an alternative hypothesis. As
 >long as the evidential linkage between UFO experiences and ET
 >beings & craft remains zero, and as long as Darwin's theory
 >remains respectable among scientists, there's little compulsion
 >to produce such an alternative as a general, _blanket_
 >explanation for all the variety of UFO experiences.

 >When it comes down to individual cases, of course, there are
 >plenty of alternatives to call on. Which one might apply depends
 >entirely on the circumstances of the case.



Dear Duke,

I enjoy your humor and we all need to have a good laugh now and
then.

But all seriousness aside, Dennis seems to be using exploration
of the ET hypothesis equivalently with gullible believer. You
use the word "faith" in connection with my use of the ET
hypothesis. Wrong! I have very little faith in anything other
than good Bourbon.

I fail to understand how you can say (unless you are joking)
that Dennis can be as critical as he likes of how I and my
colleagues go about studying UFOs without having any obligation
to suggest what his alternative explanation(s) or hypotheses
are.

Has Dennis demolished the ET hypothesis? That's news to us! And
if so, how has he explained the cases that we take seriously as
not being explained? Clearly there is a presumption here that
the ET hypothesis is not a reasonable one.


Dick







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 16

                           Lakenheath Pre-Judgment

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 20:02:56 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 18:45:03 -0500
Subject: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment


All this finger-pointing both ways is silly until the UFOIN
report is published and peer reviewed. I for one look forward to
it with great interest. Such detailed case investigations are
essential to serious ufology.

Dick Hall









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 16

                   Re: Urgent Disclosure Project - Update

From: Wendy Christensen <christensen@catlas.mv.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:22:01 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 21:21:31 -0500
Subject: Re: Urgent Disclosure Project - Update


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 01:09:56 EST
 >Subject: Re: Urgent Disclosure Project - Update
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Alfred Webre <EcoRadio@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 20:24:32 EST
 >>Subject: Urgent Disclosure Project - Update
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >...Greer should do is tie it into some kind of feed bag or
 >buffet. You know free food greases the wheels so to speak in DC.
 >It also makes "another press conference" something to look
 >forward to.

This would make it even more likely that the so-called
"briefing" would attract only low-level staffers and flunkies.
It is a well-known DC phenomenon that staffers, lo-level
pressies and their ilk pretty much subsist on the freebie eats
handed out at press-releases and political/embassy receptions.
Actual congresscritters and the "key leaders" (whatever that
means) are apt only to show up at high-visibility events, and
then only if they are promised so many minutes of friendly
on-air time.

However, for better or worse, anything Greer puts on is likely
(with more than a little justification) to be seen as a freak
show, a spot of live entertainment and diversion.

Did you notice Greer's sly little way of  begging for help: If
anyone has good contacts with "key leaders," they are exhorted
to contact the good Doctor? Wait a minute, I thought Greer
already had entree to the highest circles of power!! Isn't that
what he's always claiming? Why is he fishing for contacts all of
a sudden? Hmmmmm....?

If the gov't has all this "secret knowledge" hidden, they'll out
it when they're good and ready, for political or other expedient
reasons. Otherwise, it'll come out (if it exists) only when
somebody gets hold of it and leaks it for reasons of their own.

Not holding my breath...

Purrrrs...

wac








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 16

                        Re: AA Film Redux - Salvaille

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:28:39 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 21:23:21 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Salvaille


 >Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 22:53:37 +0000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Salvaille

 >>From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >>Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 11:26:35 -0800

Hello Neil and List,

<snip>

 >>that Hesemann is full of it...

 >That's a sweeping statement to make, and though Mike _may_
 >jump in with both feet from time to time it hardly describes the
 >actual research he _has_ carried out during the trips he's made
 >out to NM to follow up on this case.

<snip>

My previous post proved the following concerning Hesemann's
position: all verifiable assertions on Hesemann's site concerning
elements of authenticity in the AA case are UN-TRUE.

<snip>

 >Well it doesn't answer a question I have, and if Errol will
 >oblige by forwarding the image I've attached (it's been on the
 >RPIT website for the past year, site's being rebuilt at
 >www.rpit.org).

 >How did Ray know about the "backtoback J" symbol hidden away in
 >the debris in Gen Ramey's office on the 8th July 1947, so as to
 >plant it on a beam hidden away in the _background_ of the "AA
 >Debris Footage"?.

 >And not only that, how did he manage it with a further 3 (so
 >far) distinct symbols seen in both sets of debris??.

<snip>

This is the easiest answer. Please view my take of this evidence
in the attached .jpg file. Please note that my interpretation of
the RPIT image is copyrighted information. You must mention my
name if you want to use it.

<snip>

 >I've mentioned these _facts_ before on this list and so far I've
 >had no credible response. Bond Johnson's Fort Worth Photographs
 >showing the debris _are_ historical documents, ask the UTA
 >Library, has Ray tampered with them?? or researched them, in
 >detail??, not as far as I know.

<snip>

Rephrase that: you have had no response you _would_ believe.

I recall James Bond Johnson's take on Roswell has been seriously
challenged by Kevin Randle and the alleged symbols discovered by
the RPIT effort are the result of circular reasoning. Some
people are confusing photographic interpretation with a
Rorschach test.

 >If the safety print dating is correct at no later than 1956
 >+-2yrs, was anyone aware of the UTA images so as to be able to
 >check out these details and create a hoaxed AA film containing
 >them?.

<snip>

Another IF? Why don't you just ask good old Ray?

<snip>

 >Awareness of the UTA images only came to light _after_  Jesse
 >Marcel blew the whistle on Roswell back in 1979, and 23 years
 >_after_  the last batch of the specific type of Kodak safety
 >print film, as used in the AA, had been manufactured.

<snip>

_Who_ provided _what_ piece of film for the Kodak analysis?

Your IF has graduated to urban legend in less than 10 lines.

Remember, man: Santilli is a liar, the Cameraman does not exist
and Hesemann's position on AA is flawed.

<snip>

 >I grant you one random smudge looking very much like another
 >random smudge _could_ be written off as chance, 2 might be a
 >coincidence, 3's getting into the area of "deep strangeness",
 >and 4?, _all_ on the same piece of AA debris?.

 >Now that really has me scratching my head to explain away.

<snip>

Can't figure that one out, Neil.

RPIT suggests that the Greys even never reached the stage of
chisel- hammer writing: their symbology uses no straight line,
no ellipse, no circle, or no figure whatsoever that could make
it more advanced than the scribbles of a 2-year-old child.

As for any parallel with Santilli, you're trying to prove a
fraud with a Rorschach test and wishful imagery with a fraud.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 16

              Re: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 6 Number 7 - Christensen

From: Wendy Christensen <christensen@catlas.mv.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:36:53 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 21:26:11 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 6 Number 7 - Christensen


 >Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 21:31:53 +0000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>
 >Subject: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 6 Number 7

 >(report on finding the source of glowing spheres in Thailand...)

 >(Editor's Comment: Interesting. Another sighting of UFOs in
 >Southeast Asia four days after the event in Petaling Jaya. Were
 >these the Malaysian 'good luck' lanterns traveling hundreds of
 >miles to the northwest against the prevailing wind? Or a flight
 >of UFOs heading back to their base in the Himalayas?)

As I recall, the "good luck" lanterens were released from a
temple in conjunction with the celebration of some kind of
religious holiday. Would it not make sense that similar
celebrations, with similar lantern releases, were taking place
at other similar temples in the South Asia region around the
same time? (Holiday celebrations often go on over a period of
days.) And might not this explain a similar sight at a similar
time a few hundred miles away? And might Occam's razor not
suggest that this is a more logically parsimonious explanation
than "...a flight of UFOs heading back to their base...?"


Parsimonious Purrrrs...

wac







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 16

                           Re: Lakenheath - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:58:38 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 21:34:59 -0500
Subject: Re: Lakenheath - Sparks


 >From: Dave Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Lakenheath [was: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ]
 >Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 18:06:40 -0000

 >>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Sparks
 >>Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 17:15:58 EST

 >Greetings to UFO UpDates - long time no see, missed the sport!

 >>Certain UK debunkers have found official RAF documentation on
 >>the case which they think destroys
 >>the case, which they have been sitting on for a long time, and
 >>they won't release the material until they can do maximum
 >>damage.

 >As an example of adding further layers of distortion to an
 >already highly mythologised case, Brad Spark's comments deserve
 >a special prize.

Instead of distortion, in fact you've proven my point, only that
you quibble over the exact wording. Instead of "destroying" the
case you say (next para.) you're "debunking" it. But later on
you yurself admit that the RAF controller is "destroying" the
USAF controller's account. Your word there. Amazing how you can
be so sure the RAF man is right and the USAF man is wrong.


 >Yes, the UFOIN team have collected a considerable amount of new
 >evidence relating to the Lakenheath radar case, but where has it
 >been claimed our inquiry 'destroys' it? It will certainly debunk
 >(Oxford dictionary definition: 'show up as innacurate or false')
 >the 'accepted' version of events repeated and perpetuated ad
 >nauseum since 1969 by everyone from Thayer to Sturrock and most
 >recently by Georgina Bruni - the latest to get the facts
 >completely wrong.

 >A lot of people will soon be eating their words, but as far as
 >I'm concerned the final judgement on the case remains 'open.'
 >I'm prepared to concede a 'true USO' (unidentified stationary
 >object) - albeit an invisible and ephemeral one - might well
 >have been present. Which is quite something for me!

 >But how Brad could possibly 'know' what we 'think' at this
 >stage, when he has no knowledge of what we have found is amusing
 >to say the least, and will certainly be instructive for our
 >study. This couldn't be an example of a someone making their
 >mind up before they have even seen the evidence, could it?

For someone who claims I don't know anything about what you've
supposedly found you sure talk a lot about it, and seem to have
no memory of the developments with the Venom pilot interviews
going back 3-4 years before your involvement barely 1 year ago,
which have been public.

Apparently your goal and that of your colleagues is to silence
all comment on these developments in the case for endless and
unspecified durations while you take full advantage of your UK
location to "investigate" the case and gloat over your special
access that those of us on other continents do not have. And
that is your continual message how you're going to prove
everyone else to be such idiots and how you have had such
privileged access, and are so competent and diligent because you
are local and we are not, etc. etc.

 >Is this not a chracteristic usually associated with 'debunkers'
 >or 'pelicanists'?

Here you go with your ridicule tactic.

 >More likely, it is because Sparks is afraid of losing face -
 >having to face up to the fact that what he and others have
 >written, or believed, about a 'classic case' is in fact not
 >worth the paper it was written upon?

Here you go with your gloating over your special local access in
the UK to the UK witnesses. And your ridicule tactic.

 >Poor investigation and even poorer interpretation exposed to the
 >light of day, a painful experience for most UFOlogists. As for
 >"sitting on" material - we have been working on this case for
 >little over one year; hardly any time at all to conduct a
 >thorough re-investigation which has involved weeks of work in
 >archives, hours of interviews, days of travelling and contacts
 >across the world.

More ridicule smear tactics, gloating over your geography,
showing how you're going to prove all those stupid UFOlogists
wrong. Very mature attitude.

 >Georgina took three years to 're-investigate' the Rendlesham
 >Forest case, and proved nothing.

 >Brad has supposedly been involved in the Lakenheath case for 20
 >years, and still can't get his facts right.

 From what I can tell from our email correspondence you still
can't get your facts right -- oops, I'm not supposed to say
anything about the case until that Great Day of UFOIN's
Debunkery of the 1956 Lakenheath Case!

 >So I don't believe having to wait 12 months for UFOIN to publish
 >what we have found out about Lakenheath should be regarded as
 >too much of an inconvenience.

Does this mean 12 months past or 12 months more into the future
before the UFOIN Gods of Delphi speak their oracles of wisdom
proving the world so stupid, ignorant, incompetent, lazy,
foolish, etc.?

 >As the British magician Paul Daniel's catchphrase goes, "You're
 >going to like it, not a lot..."

 >>They have been working with one of the RAF radar
 >>controllers who had come forward in 1978 to try to "turn him"
 >>against the USAF radar controller who had come forward ten years
 >>earlier to the Condon Committee. They claim the RAF man's
 >>testimony discredits the USAF man's account.

 >The situation must be pretty desperate if Brad is having to
 >resort to the old "you have forced a witness to change his/her
 >story" chestnut.

I didn't say "forced." Apparently you don't believe there is any
such thing as leading a witness, or encouraging them along a
certain line to reinforce a personal idiosyncrasy or viewpoint.
The only thing that can be done is "force" in your view. Wow! We
need to get you into the Pro-Abduction field right away!!! You
would be a hero to abductionologists -- a defender of the
impossibility of influencing or leading a witness or abductee.

 >If this is what you *really* believe Brad, then how do you
 >explain the following:

 >I began re-investigating the Lakenheath case one year ago, and
 >had little or no knowledge or interest in the details before
 >that time.

 >Freddie Wimbledon, the RAF radar controller you refer to, first
 >came forward in 1978 by writing to the London Sunday Times and
 >FSR. He was sent a copy of the USAF radar controller's original
 >letter to the Condon Study (dated 13 February 1968) by your 'old
 >friend' Gordon Thayer.

 >Wimbledon annotated sections of Perkin's letter with the
 >following phrases: "RUBBISH" (the American translation of which
 >I believe is 'garbage') and his description of the alleged Venom
 >intercept is likened to something from "a Hollywood Movie."

 >Squadron Leader Wimbledon made these annotations in his own hand
 >between 1978 and 1980, when he was involved in lengthy
 >correspondence with Gordon Thayer, the author of the Condon
 >Study's version of the case. He also produced, at that time, a
 >lengthy commentary destroying the credibility of the USAF
 >controller's version of events.

See. You yourself do admit the word "destroying" as I had said --
"destroying" the USAF controller's account.

 >I repeat, Wimbledon did all of this between 1978 and 1980 when I
 >was a schoolboy!

 >Is Brad suggesting that during 1978, knowing or caring less
 >about UFOs or Lakenheath, I suddenly went AWOL from my
 >classroom, hopped on a train to London and held a senior RAF
 >officer at gunpoint whilst I forced him 'trash' the account of a
 >'highly reliable' American witness?

In fact I was directly involved in that correspondence through
both Thayer and Friedman. Again, you fail to realize (because
you don't want to blow up your sarcastic snide remarks) that
this correspondence is how I identified Wimbledon's personal
idiosyncrasies as to the case.

Wimbledon was personally jealous of his role in the case and
insisted that no one but he could possibly have been in
communication with the Venom fighter interceptors, so therefore
on that basis of his personal presumption he declared the USAF
radar controller Forrest Perkins' account "RUBBISH" etc.
Wimbledon of course could not and did not bother caring to
explain how it was possible that Perkins knew so many details of
the interception if he was not in radio communication at the
time -- alleged inaccuracies of the details don't affect the
fact that Perkins was in on the radio link contrary to
Wimbledon.

 >Anyone with any integrity can now see that Brad Sparks'
 >allegation that we have somehow, in the last 12 months, "turned"
 >Wimbledon against Perkins for the farago of nonsense it surely
 >is.

Your strawman about me claiming Wimbledon was "forced" shows
your desperation to avoid the real issue of "influence." It can
all be very innocent. You (or Jenny or whomever) simply present
Wimbledon your elaborate theory of the case and ask him for
comment. His memory -- as memory researchers have proven -- can
be influenced by such "refreshing" and the new details can merge
with the old actual memories from 40+ years ago. It's called
Post-Event Information by memory researchers.

 >It is simply more evidence, if such were needed, for the lack of
 >adequate investigation, or even knowledge of the basic facts,
 >which has bedeviled everything that has been written about
 >Lakenheath since it first came to attention of USAF Intelligence
 >in 1956.

 >Dr J. Allen Hynek said as much in his Memorandum for the Record
 >to Project Blue Book on 17 October 1956 - just two months after
 >the events, viz "...it is to be regretted that so unusual a
 >sighting reported did not contain more factual material on which
 >to base an evaluation."

 >Brad Sparks claims to have been a key investigator in the
 >Lakenheath case for 20 years. Yet it appears he has not done
 >anything other than 'recycle' second and third hand accounts of
 >it.

Apparently you don't read email very well or you would know I
was involved with the correspondence with Wimbledon.

 >Strange is it not that he does not appear to have spoken to
 >*any* of the witnesses, or indeed to have been privy to the
 >correspondence between Wimbledon and Thayer - whose summary of
 >the case he says he edited for inclusion in Storey's UFO
 >Encyclopedia.

How would you know what I was privy to or not?

 >Did Thayer not trust Sparks with such 'sensitive' material? Or
 >did Thayer decide to "sit on" material which did not support his
 >belief that a "true UFO" was involved.

Thayer's correspondence with Wimbledon occurred _after_ the
article for the Encyclopedia of UFOs. So did most of his
correspondence with Klass, by the way, which started before and
continued for years after.

 >Is this evidence of a cover-up or simply incompetence?

More of your smear tactics and inability to get dates right.

 >To borrow Georgina's highly useful phrase - "you can't tell the
 >people."

You can't tell the people anything but bluster, arrogance, and
condescension, instead of sticking to the facts of the case and
leaving personalities aside.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 16

                    Re: UFO Over Veracruz, Mexico - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 16:05:31 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 21:37:09 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO Over Veracruz, Mexico - Velez


 >From: Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo <ufomiami@prodigy.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: UFO Over Veracruz, Mexico
 >Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 22:04:28 -0600

 >Hi!!

 >See the photos of a UFO flying over Veracruz, Mexico on
 >Christmas 2000.

 >Visit:

 >http://virgilio1.homestead.com/FotosOVNI.html

 >Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo

 >Miami UFO Center (Espa�ol)  http://ufomiami.nodos.com
 >Miami UFO Reporter (English)
 >http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/1341/index.html
 >CHUPACABRAS(Espa�ol) http://ufomiami.homestead.com/index.html
 >CHUPACABRAS (English) http://bloodpredator.homestead.com/index.html
 >Patagrande -Bigfoot- (Espa�ol) http://patagrande.homestead.com/index.html

Hola Dr. Sanchez-Ocejo, hi All,

Excellent photos doctor. Thank you for sharing them. Have they
been put through a formal analysis process yet? Did anyone
capture video of the object?

Regards,
John Velez


                                         *************
                              "Nothing is at last sacred but
                             the integrity of your own mind."
                                 www.spacelab.net/~jvif/
                                         *************







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 17

              Re: NASA - Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy'

From: dledger@ns.sympatico.ca (Donald . Ledger)
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 18:03:50 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 09:01:52 -0500
Subject: Re:  NASA - Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy'


UFO UpDates - Toronto wrote:

 >From: UFO UpDates - Toronto

 >Source: NASA Watch

 >http://www.nasawatch.com/index.html

 >15 February 2001: Fox Airs "Moon Conspiracy"

 >Here's how Fox promoted their show:

 >"MOON LANDING QUESTIONED ON THE ALL-NEW SPECIAL 'CONSPIRACY
 >THEORY: DID WE LAND ON THE MOON' FEB. 15 ON FOX"

 >NASA put a man on the moon for the first time in 1969 -- or did
 >it? Could the entire moon program have been an elaborate
 >deception staged to fool the public? The conspiracy theories are
 >investigated in the all-new one-hour special"
 >
 >Editor's rant: I can't even begin to find the right sentences to
 >describe this TV show - but I will try. Individual words such as
 >"idiotic", "ridiculous", "scandalous", "irresponsible",
 >"stupid", "fraudulent", "sloppy", and just plain "wrong" come to
 >mind.

<snip>

Hi Errol,

I guess you posted this. I got one from NASA too. Tell its
writer, welcome to the club, and he/she will be looking in the
wrong place if he/she goes to the skeptics list. They will have
to look up the "True Believers" list for the Man on the Moon
hypothisis.

I just couldn't help it.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 17

                          Secrecy News -- 02/16/01

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@igc.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:45:41 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 09:03:25 -0500
Subject: Secrecy News -- 02/16/01


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
February 16, 2001

**NSC WITHHOLDS NEW PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE
**NEW STATE DEPT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES
**GARFINKEL TO CHAIR WAR CRIMES WORKING GROUP


NSC WITHHOLDS NEW PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE

The National Security Council is refusing to release the
unclassified text of the Bush Administration's first "National
Security Presidential Directive," the New York Times reported
today:

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/16/politics/16SECU.html

This is a disappointing reversion to a past practice that had
been partially overcome in the Clinton Administration.

Presidential directives are a largely unaccountable instrument
of executive authority.  They are used to establish and
implement national security policy, and they often authorize the
commitment of government resources.  Yet they are usually
classified and Congress is not routinely notified of their
existence or contents.

According to a 1992 General Accounting Office study
(GAO/NSIAD-92-72), the previous Bush Administration did not
declassify any of its presidential directives in its first three
years.  (Several have been declassified since then.)  Although
most Clinton Administration directives, known as "Presidential
Decision Directives," remain classified, President Clinton did
authorize release of his first two directives in 1993 with no
fuss at all.

The new Bush Administration's withholding of its unclassified
first directive suggests an unwelcome affinity for
indiscriminate secrecy.

A compilation of some past presidential directives that have
been declassified is available online here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/direct.htm


NEW STATE DEPT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES

The State Department Historical Advisory Committee, which
oversees the production of the official Foreign Relations of the
United States series, on Monday approved several new sets of
minutes from its quarterly meetings.

Following internal and external protests over the scanty
presentation of the minutes of its September 2000 meeting, the
Committee has returned to a more ample, though still somewhat
muted format.

The minutes of the April 2000 meeting were reissued with an
extended account of the closed session on "The CIA and the
Foreign Relations Series."  Topics included CIA's categorical
refusal to declassify any issues of the President's Daily Brief,
the role of the so-called High Level Panel in declassifying
covert actions, and the declassification of covert action
budgets.  See:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/advisory/state/hac0400.html

These issues were explored further in the July 2000 meeting,
which reported that "Director of Central Intelligence Tenet
remains firm in his position that the President's Daily Brief
may not be released for publication" no matter how old or
historically significant it may be.  Meanwhile the retrograde
President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board continues to
claim that it "owns" the documents of its predecessor agencies
and opposes the documents' release.  See:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/advisory/state/hac0700.html

The latest meeting minutes, from December 2000, are posted here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/advisory/state/hac1200.html


GARFINKEL TO CHAIR WAR CRIMES WORKING GROUP

Steven Garfinkel, Director of the Information Security Oversight
Office, has been named chair of the Nazi War Crimes and Japanese
Imperial Government Records Interagency Working Group (IWG). He
replaces Acting Archivist Michael J. Kurtz in that role.

The former Nazi War Crimes Interagency Working Group was
expanded by legislation last year to encompass declassification
and release of documents concerning Japanese Imperial Army war
crimes during World War II.

The redoubtable Garfinkel will continue to serve as ISOO
director, a post he has held for over 20 years.  A National
Archives press release announcing his new appointment by the
Archivist of the United States is posted here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2001/02/iwg.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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 17

                         Re: AA Film Redux - Tonnies

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 14:10:38 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 09:06:17 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Tonnies


 >Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 22:53:37 +0000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Salvaille

<snip>

 >Awareness of the UTA images only came to light _after_ Jesse
 >Marcel blew the whistle on Roswell back in 1979, and 23 years
 >_after_ the last batch of the specific type of Kodak safety
 >print film, as used in the AA, had been manufactured.

Wait one moment. The alien autopsy/cameraman scenario hinges on
its representing _another_ (non-Roswellian) saucer crash, as
thoroughly demonstrated in Mantle and Hesemann's
less-than-insightful book on the subject.

Now, it appears AA proponents are back-peddling by taking highly
dubious photos of indiscernable smudges to _unite_ the AA
scenario with the alleged crash at Roswell.

You can't have it both ways: the symbols described by Roswell
witnesses don't even vaguely resemble the angular glyphs we see
in the so-called "debris footage." This smacks of
desperation--and this is coming from someone who retains a
(very) narrow slot in my "gray basket" for potential
authenticity of the AA film--er--video.

 >I grant you one random smudge looking very much like another
 >random smudge _could_ be written off as chance, 2 might be a
 >coincidence, 3's getting into the area of "deep strangeness",
 >and 4?, _all_ on the same piece of AA debris?.

 >Now that really has me scratching my head to explain away.

Having seen the perils of "seeing things" in clouds of pixels
(see my website devoted to possible Mars artifacts), I honestly
don't think there's anything here worth scratching one's head
about. Maybe after a few rounds in a sensory deprivation tank
I'd feel differently. But right now these look like smudges and
wishful thinking.

=====
Mac Tonnies (macbot@yahoo.com) 816-561-0190
105 Ward Parkway #900, Kansas City, MO 64112
Me: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/mtvi.html
Cydonia: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/cydonia.html
Books: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/bookreviews.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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 17

                         Re: AA Film Redux - Morris

From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 23:00:09 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 09:09:11 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Morris


 >Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 10:59:09 -0600
 >From: Roger Annette Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >>Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 17:01:11 +0000
 >>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Morris
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Previously, Neil posted this statement from Ray Santilli:

 >>My position regarding the Autopsy film and the reels recovered
 >>remains unchanged. Any discussion regarding the Tent Footage is
 >>completely irrelevant. I did not use that studio again, and
 >>neither the studio or anyone associated with the studio had
 >>anything whatsoever to do with the autopsy film.

 >>The autopsy film is what it is, and nothing will change that.

 >>Ray Santilli

 >Hi, Neil, all...

 >"Nothing will change that"?

 >What absolute nonsense! Ray talks as if he has no control over
 >the validation process of AA. _This_ is the kind of nonsensical
 >crap that casts a very, very dark cloud over Santilli's
 >credibility.

Roger,

Do some homework here, Oct _1995_, French channel TF1 tracked
down Volker in Austria and managed to "drag" a few words out of
him. He _confirmed_ he had possession of _all_ the AA footage
_and_ he had it safely locked away in a bank vault. Further,
_he_ was satisfied with his investment and the validity of the
footage and didn't give a s*&%t what anyone else thought. And
yes,he was that blunt in the interview, seems to be a very blunt
fellow.

 >For those that say there is no evidence that Ray
 >ever lied about AA, here is the smoking gun. His above statement
 >that "Nothing will change that" is as bold faced a lie as ever
 >existed. The fact is that Ray, and _only_ Ray, has the means to
 >prove the validity of AA and he refuses to do so in the face of
 >overwhelming public doubt about the footage.

In the light of the above testimony from Volker back in late
1995 please explain just _how_ Ray is supposed to do this
_without_ access to the footage?, you're chasing the wrong
target.

 >It's one thing to
 >maintain silence about AA and let everyone conjecture and debate
 >the credibility of AA or Santilli. It is another thing
 >altogether to maintain that there is nothing that he can do to
 >clear the self imposed mystery surrounding AA.

If he has no film in his possession as Volker maintains, how can
he?, and as for "lying" about the cameraman's identity, think
back to the heated discussions on _this_ very list just a few
short months ago about breaching witness anonymity?. If having
given the cameraman assurance he wouldn't identify him, what
makes Ray's situation _any_ different from the very many
researchers on this list who give this self same pledge to
_their_ witnesses?.

One rule for Ufology?, another for Ray Santilli?.


 >His statement is a lie.

 >Ray is a liar.

 >Because of this, AA is fake until proven otherwise.


So it boils down to Ray being a "shark" and wanting to make a
buck out of the AA... therefore it _must_ be a hoax.

He hasn't had the film in his possession since late 1995 and
_cann't_ provide samples... therefore it _must_ be a hoax.

He guaranteed he'd give the cameraman anonymity and won't break
his agreement... therefore it _must_ be a hoax.

Ah.. and yes, Ray _has_ lied... therefore it _must_ be a hoax.

There's no mention of the film at all in this logic, just Ray.

And in the end it _won't_ change a single frame of the film's
content, as with my other hobby-horse, the Fort Worth Images,
observation of the image content will tell the story in the end.
But it seems we're all _far_ too busy barracking Ray Santilli to
be bothered looking at what's in the film.

It reminds me very much of the old saying, if you don't like the
message and can't change it,  look out if you're the messenger,
because you'll be the one to "get it in the neck!".

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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 17

                 Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Stacy

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 18:41:45 -0600
Fwd Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 09:10:56 -0500
Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Stacy


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 19:44:43 -0000

 >>From: Mendoza - Peter Brookesmith<Mendoza@appleonline.net>
 >>Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>Date: Tue, 13 Feb 01 03:14:32 +0000
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

<snip>

 >I fail to understand how you can say (unless you are joking)
 >that Dennis can be as critical as he likes of how I and my
 >colleagues go about studying UFOs without having any obligation
 >to suggest what his alternative explanation(s) or hypotheses
 >are.

Dick,

Only time for a quickie tonight, more manana.

I don't think I was being particularly critical of you and your
colleagues, and, if you remember, I took your name off my list.
Go back and look at it again, btw, just to see if you still want
to count everyone thereon as a colleague.

You also have to remember the original context of those remarks
-- made in reaction to Jerry Clark's assumptions (rosy-lensed,
in my view) about why ufologists have so little examined the ETH
itself.

And you also have to remember that it's not incumbent on a book
or movie critic to produce a better book or movie than the one
he's criticizing, solely in order to support his criticisms. Put
another way: I know what I like when I see it.

And in that regard, I find your remarks about abductions in the
current MUFON Journal pretty much an exemplary approach to the
subject.

Enjoy your bourbon. I'm off in search of some armagnac.

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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 17

                             Re: Greys - Liddle

From: Sean Liddle <gortrix@kos.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 04:57:00 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 09:14:28 -0500
Subject: Re: Greys - Liddle


 >From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Greys
 >Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 00:15:28 -0500

 >Sean,

 >Shame, shame, didn't you parents teach to not to tease caged
 >animals. MTVM is caged in a brain with really confined space and
 >no sense of humor. <G>

 >Jan Aldrich

Ha ha! I'll tell you a brief story.

One day when I was in college, I was sitting in the laundry room
of my apartment building. This friendly old dude that I always
saw in the elevator and always said "Hi." to my wife and I, was
there reading near the (only) door, so I sat across from him and
started reading myself. (Picture that I have to essentially
climb over this guy to get out if I am in a hurry). Out of the
blue, after a few brief comments about mundanities, he says:

"They are demons you know."

I responded with what I thought to be a friendly "Oh? Who's
that?" He then went on a 15 minute tirade about aliens being
satanic minions whilst now standing and blocking my exit. Then
he offered to lend me the book which I declined.

He was then calm and back to his normal, quiet, self.

Yipes.


Sean

Kingston Aerial Phenomenon
Research Association
(KAPRA)
Kingston, Ontario
http://www.uk.geocities.com/kapraufo








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 17

              Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Brookesmith

From: Mendoza - Peter Brookesmith <Mendoza@appleonline.net>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 01 02:23:00 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 09:19:17 -0500
Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Brookesmith

With the compliments of the Duke of Mendoza:

 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 19:44:43 -0000
 >Fwd Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:01:06 -0500
 >Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Hall

 >>From: Mendoza - Peter Brookesmith<Mendoza@appleonline.net>
 >>Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>Date: Tue, 13 Feb 01 03:14:32 +0000
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>


 >Dear Duke,

Ahem, Mr Hall. The correct form is "Your Grace". ;-)

 >I enjoy your humor and we all need to have a good laugh
 >now and then.

 >But all seriousness aside,

Thankyou for the nod toward the humor. This probably makes you a
sophisticated individual of rare culture and taste. There are a
few benighted rednecks out there in the sticks who still don't
quite see it, you know. So I  take it you meant "all joking
aside", even if I wouldn't have -- I mean, here we are talking
about UFOs...

 >Dennis seems to be using
 >exploration of the ET hypothesis equivalently with
 >gullible believer. You use the word "faith" in connection
 >with my use of the ET hypothesis. Wrong! I have very
 >little faith in anything other than good Bourbon.

I feel much the same about Chateau d'Yquem. I think you're
overstating Dennis's position -- on the basis, at least, of my
discussions, explorations even! of the ETH he and I have had. I
myself have explored the ETH from time to time, on the latest
occasion (and at greatest length) in three articles in Fortean
Times recently. Sorry, I don't have the issue numbers, dates, or
page numbers to hand. When I have finished casting all my prose
in bronze and lined the many rooms of Pegasus Acres with the
results I'll be able to do that, but it's a long job.

Less laboriously I'm saying one can explore the ETH quite
efficiently and indeed rationally without either being a
gullible believer or dismissing it, as one chooses. All I ask
myself is that such explorations acknowledge the latest findings
of science instead of hanging out with comforting but antique
ideas, eschew arguments from design, and face squarely the
implications of neo-Darwinism. One can extend those,
particularly contingency theory, from the biological into the
social and historical realm -- which I think is no more dubious
a transference than the notions that mass = energy in relativity
theory or that disorder is equivalent to heat in thermodynamics.
When one does so, the likelihood of the emergence of alien
technologists with a yen to explore space looks excessively
chancy. Not impossible, but not a lottery I'd buy a ticket for.

 >I fail to understand how you can say (unless you are
 >joking) that Dennis can be as critical as he likes of how
 >I and my colleagues go about studying UFOs without having
 >any obligation to suggest what his alternative
 >explanation(s) or hypotheses are.

I can say this with a straight face because, as far as I know,
Dennis is simply expressing his sense of the failings of the
ETH, not proposing alternative explanations for particular cases
or UFOs in general. His position seems to be something like "ETH
proponents don't convince me, and here's why." The burden of
proof is on the proposer of the hypothesis. That can fail
through faulty internal logic -- for instance, that the evidence
shows no linkage from the alleged facts to ET involvement. The
distinction between the skeptical demand to provide better
evidence and the denier's or scoffer's (a much more useful term
than the abused and battered word "debunker", in the context),
is helpful given by Marcello Truzzi in "On Some Unfair Practices
Towards Claims of the Paranormal" [Edward Binkowski (ed),
Oxymoron: Annual Thematic Anthology Of The Arts And Sciences,
Vol.2: The Fringe (New York: Oxymoron Media, Inc., 1998)]:


"Perhaps the most insidious rhetorical trick has been the
misappropriation of the label "skeptic" to describe what are
actually _scoffers_. As sociologist Robert K. Merton pointed
out, organized skepticism is a fundamental norm in science.
However, the term skepticism is properly defined as _doubt_, not
_denial_. It is a position of agnosticism, of nonbelief rather
than disbelief. The true skeptic (a doubter) asserts no claim,
so has no burden of proof. However, the scoffer (denier) asserts
a _negative_ claim, so the burden of proof science places on any
claimant must apply. When scoffers misrepresent their position
as a form of "hard-line" skepticism, they really seek escape
from their burden to prove a negative position. "Perhaps the
greatest confusion related to the needed distinction between
skeptics and scoffers concerns their different reactions to the
failure by a claimant to support an anomaly claim. The skeptics'
attitude towards extraordinary claims (for example, those of
parapsychology) where proponents have so far produced inadequate
evidence to convince most scientists that their hypotheses about
anomalies are true is characterized as a case _not proved_. A
skeptic contends that "the absence of evidence is not evidence
of absence." The scoffer, on the other hand, sees the failure of
proponents as evidence that an anomaly claim has been
_disproved_. The perspective of the scoffer, as with most
dogmatists, tends to distinguish only black from white and fails
to acknowledge gray areas. (Our criminal justice system may
likewise be too dichotomous. Thus, similar reasoning led some
citizens to conclude that the murder acquittal of O.J. Simpson
meant he was judged innocent when he was merely found to be not
guilty. Science might better follow the path of Scottish Law
which allows for three possible judgements: guilty, not guilty
or innocent, and not proven.)"


I'd argue against the universal adoption Scottish legal practice
for social reasons, but perhaps not here. >Clearly there is a
presumption here that the >ET hypothesis is not a reasonable
one.

I don't think it is. I've said why at length elsewhere and am
not inclined to repeat here what anyone can find in print as
well as in various discussions fully archived on the UFOMind
website. What strikes me as a frequent failing of those who do
is the admission that rejecting the ETH as unreasonable is
itself a reasonable position to take. Having said that I expect
someone to squeak "but that's not _fair_" or words to that
effect.

But take Bruce Maccabee's recent arguments:

 >As for me and the ETH, I have said that it seems
 >to me to be the _simplest_ explanation - the easiest to
 >understand - in the sense that I can imagine us going
 >"there" (human transport to other planets).

Anthropomorphism. Who knows how aliens would think?

As for simple... !

 >However, there have been more esoteric (IMHO) proposals
 >such as dimensional travel (which is getting a boost these
 >days from theoretical physics i.e, superstring theory, that
 >says there are other dimensions "close" to ours in an
 >overall 11 or more dimensional "multiverse.")

My understanding is that the extra dimensions are "wrapped up"
into excessively tiny spaces, and unwrapping them would need as
much energy as was unleashed during the Big Bang. In other
words, more than would be accessible to _any_ technology
without, basically, buggering the Universe as we know it at the
same time. Perhaps theories, or hypotheses, have moved on since
I last nosed around this issue.

 >Dimensional travel theories can work in one of two ways:
 >transport from a completely different 4-D universe into our
 >universe or transport from one point in our 4-D universe to
 >another point in our 4-D universe by going through a 5th
 >(or higher) dimension (wormhole theory). This latter
 >transport could explain "faster then light" travel.

The notion that wormholes can transport anything bigger than
"Planck's length" (4 x 10^33cm) doesn't hold up. In theory
wormholes are arrived at by treating time as an imagined
spacelike entity, which it may do in reality only in Big-
Bang-like conditions -- according to the theory -- but you still
have this titchy space into which to cram your would-be
vee-hickle. Not even a virus would make it.

Fair enough: Bruce hints that there are problems with these
exotic notions, but doesn't examine them. He falls back on the
ETH as "the simplest" explanation when that is anything but
simple in fact, if you care to look at it critically and
dispassionately. And you still have the linkage problem. The
lack of demonstrated linkage between UFO reports (a term that
you may take it includes "UFO-related experiences") and anything
ET is one reason I used the word "faith". Another inspiration
for the term is a kind of backflip to the various apoplexies
Darwin caused among various bishops. Yet another is the kind of
Pavlovian tic, demonstrated in tropical strength near here by
Brad Sparks recently, complete with silly accusations of
corruption, at the slightest hint that some cherished case is
under threat. I see this on this List all the time. I tend to
infer that something besides scientific objectivity seems to be
under threat, when this kind of barrel-scraping explosion
occurs, and "faith" is a shorthand for everything implied. If
you want a good long examination of why I think the ETH at large
is an expression of faith in the religious sense, do visit  the
Magonia website. There are a few jokes in there too.

That's all from me on all that, but I should add that I
certainly didn't mean to give the impression that Dennis had
demolished the ET hypothesis. Look through the List archives,
though, and you'll find he's done a pretty good job of
demolishing the arguments of its defenders in the past, and
stood up manfully to their gratuituous abuse, too.

best wishes
Mendoza


----------------------------------
"Never underestimate the power
of stupid people in large groups."
__________________________________








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 17

                           Help With 'SG' Research

From: Christopher Kelly <tophar@pacific.net.au>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 13:13:43 +1100
Fwd Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 09:29:32 -0500
Subject: Help With 'SG' Research


Hi,

I need help in investigating a building that I saw in a magazine
some years back now. The magazine didn't have many pages to it,
But it did have a lot of info on UFOs etc. I cannot for the life
of me remember its name. But it did have a list of UFO craft and
a list of the different type of Grey's as well as a half-lizard
half-human Alien near the back.

I was most interested in a building that I believe they were
calling the Star Gate? But don't quote me on that. This Building
has had me intrigued for years.

The inside dimensions of the Building in this magazine looked to
be about 100 to 200 meters long, about 20 or 30 meters wide and
about 10 high with columns running down either side. It had, I
believe a gap at the far end were a large circular ring once
stood in front of a large carved stone block. Sitting at the
entrance part of the building was a round capsule looking thing,
it kind of looked like two soup bowls put together. It looked to
be large as the person standing near it was quite small in
comparison.

I for some years wondered how could this building be a Star
Gate?, But it just so happened that a friend I know was working
on what is now known as a Rail Gun. For those of you that don't
know what a Rail Gun is. It is a Gun that fires projectiles by
using Magnetic fields to accelerate a small object. The speed at
which a object can be accelerated to is very impressive.

Anyway, I was looking at my drawing of the so called Star Gate
building (a drawing I did from memory as I had the magazine lost
or thrown out on me) When I started to remember what my friend
had been working on with the Rail Gun. I started to wonder if
this building could be used with the same principle as the
Rail Gun?.

If large slabs of gold were positioned on the columns down the
length of the building and gold was used to cover parts of the
inside of the corridor. It could be possible to create  a large
magnetic field within the corridor. One would have to have
control over the amount of energy being created within the
corridor as the device would have to receive as well as send the
capsule or what ever it is that was or would be sent. This is
why I guess they used slabs of gold as the slabs could be moved
in and out to increase or decrease the magnetic field and to
change the polarity of the magnetic field.

I still find it hard to get my head around a Human being put
inside of a capsule and sent hurtling down this corridor, I mean
the GA forces alone would kill them, Wouldn't It?. And then there
is the re-entry, The GA forces there would also be so great it
would kill any living thing within the capsule. But I do know a
little about the speeds at which a object can be accelerated to
and as I said it is very impressive, This is why I continued on
investigating. Also a large rocket can be launched into space
using this principle, But would not be able to survive the
almost instant increase in GA forces. Which is why it is not used
today to launch rockets.

I would dearly like to put this research into this building to
bed once and for all, If only I could find out were this damn
building is in South America. So after at least 5 years of
looking I cannot find it and I have written to Archeologist and,
Well you name it I have just about written to them all. I only
have to mention the word Star Gate and that ends any help from
most I have written too.

So I am trying a last-ditch effort to find this building by
asking those knowledgeable people here if they have come across
any info on this building or even just the name of that magazine
would help me a lot. ( The phrase, "Help me OB1 you're my only
hope.", comes to mind as I am writing this. Were is that OB1
when you need him?)

I personally have no idea if a Star Gate is possible. But by
knowing the location of that building and if there are any
others like it around the world. I could at least carry on my
investigations or as I said put it to bed once and for all. Any
info would be greatly appreciated. I wish I had more info to
give to help anyone that mite know about this place in South
America.



On a different note about debunkers etc., I would like to point
out a old Intelligence trick used to destabilize groups and
Governments. It is much easier for those wishing to upset groups
etc. to start arguments etc. within a group to destabilize it than
to arrest people or threaten them etc. Once people within the
group start going at each others throat, the group will fall
apart on it's own. I suggest that not all that is said against
researchers researching into UFOs should be taken too much to
heart. I mean let's face it, we are dealing with a subject that
will always bring out the de-bunker in must people. I also
believe most of the scientific community doesn't want UFOs to
be confirmed. After all,if UFOs are confirmed they will look
pretty silly for having said for so many years that UFOs cannot
be real.

When ever I get people calling me crazy or a moron etc., I Just
remember the crazy morons that set out to sea into the unknown
back when the world thought the Earth was flat. It was those
crazy morons that pushed back the ignorance of that time and
opened up the world for many others. I guess one needs to be a
little crazy to venture off into the unknown. Well at least I
think it helps if your a little crazy. :-)


Cheers,

Chris








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 17

                  Re: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact -

From: Mendoza - Peter Brookesmith <Mendoza@appleonline.net>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 01 02:52:27 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 09:32:12 -0500
Subject: Re: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact -


Compliments of the Duke:

 >Subject:     Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Hall
 >Sent:        17/02/01 01:22
 >To:          UFO UpDates - Toronto, updates@sympatico.ca
 >From:        Mendoza


 >With the compliments of the Duke of Mendoza:

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 19:44:43 -0000
 >>Fwd Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:01:06 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Hall

 >>>From: Mendoza - Peter Brookesmith <Mendoza@appleonline.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>>Date: Tue, 13 Feb 01 03:14:32 +0000
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

In this reply to Dick Hall I wrote:

 >The notion that wormholes can transport anything bigger than
 >"Planck�s length" (4 x 10^33cm) doesn�t hold up. In theory

I hope Planck has stopped twirling in his crypt. Planck's length
is of course 4 x 10^-33cm. Apologies for the error.


best wishes

Mendoza


----------------------------------
"Never underestimate the power
of stupid people in large groups."
__________________________________








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 17

                 Re: Argentina: UFOs Over Saenz Pena - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 22:12:56 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 09:36:04 -0500
Subject: Re: Argentina: UFOs Over Saenz Pena - Young


 >From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@juno.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 14:01:22 -0500
 >Subject: Argentina: UFOs Over Saenz Pena

 >SOURCE: Diario "Norte" de Chaco (Argentina)
 >DATE: Monday, February 12, 2001

 >NEW UFO ACCOUNTS FROM SAENZ PENA

<snip>

 >It has become a tradition in Oro Blanco to wait for the flying
 >object's passing -- resembling a large luminous ball flying at
 >low altitude and speed, making movements which are not typical
 >of aircraft or other known vehicles. These characteristics arise
 >from the testimony of locals who have become frequent witnesses
 >to the passing of these UFOs and whose stories have appeared in
 >NORTE newspaper.

Hi, Scott:

What exactly are the characteristics of the motions described by
the witnesses and published in the paper NORTE?

 >On midnite on Saturday, a group of residents of Oro Blanco, a
 >neighborhood located behind this city's sports compelx, gathered
 >to see the luminous object once more, but the overcast skies
 >hampered their viewing.

When a repeatedly seen object does not make its reappearance on
an overcast night, one is always tempted to consider the
possibility - however remote - that an astronomical object is
involved.

When the object was seen, could you give a date, time, location
and direction that the object was seen. How long was the object
seen and how did it disappear?

Thanks.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 17

               Encyclopedia Of The Unexplained - Debate Forum

From: Steve Wilson Snr. <Ndunlks@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 23:23:38 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 09:38:49 -0500
Subject: Encyclopedia Of The Unexplained - Debate Forum


Unexplained Mysteries - http://www.unexplained-mysteries.freeserve.co.uk


Encyclopedia Of The Unexplained Debate Forum
--------------------------------------------

Among today's updates to the site, is our new "Debates Forum",
which can be accessed by clicking on the "Discussion Forum" link
anywhere in the site. The new Debates Forum section, is intended
to allow visitors to discuss fundamental questions regarding the
unexplained, such as "Do Aliens Visit Earth" and such. To
participate, it couldn't be simpler. Simply click on the
Discussion Forum link on the site, and select the "Multi-Topical
Debate Forum" at the top of the forums list.

To post a message as a reply to any of the debates currently
being discussed, or to start a debate of your own, simply post
what youd like to say as a message in the forum. If you are
starting a new debate, please include the word "Debate :" at the
start of the debate title.

Remember that you do not need to register to participate - to
discuss in any of our forums, simply enter a name or nickname
into the name box on the post message screen, but leave the
password box blank.

If you feel you'd like to contribute to a debate - please by all
means do so. The forum is there to be used.

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

Other updates today include :

A new UFO / Alien Sightings Location Map in the sightings database
3 New Encyclopedia Entries
1 New Link
1 New Sighting Added

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

webmaster@unexplained-mysteries.freeserve.co.uk

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.freeserve.co.uk











   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 17

                         Re: Lakenheath - McGonagle

From: Joe McGonagle <joem_cgonagle@yahoo.com>
Date: 17 Feb 2001 04:33:22 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 09:42:22 -0500
Subject: Re: Lakenheath - McGonagle


I am coming in here not having read all of the posts due to mail
problems, so if I have misunderstood something, I apologise in
advance.

I ought to point out that I am not a member of UFOIN, so I have
no particular torch to carry.

I understand that you (Brad) have been criticised for lack of
thoroughness in investigating this case (BTW, I am not familiar
with the case myself, so I am not in a position to make a
judgement on that). This critcism was, I understand, based on
the premise that you were unaware of witness information from
Squadron Leader Wimbledon. That would have been an excusable
oversight, given the geographical problems involved.

But.....


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:58:38 EST
 >Subject: Re: Lakenheath
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Dave Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Lakenheath [was: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ]
 >>Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 18:06:40 -0000

<snip>

 >>Squadron Leader Wimbledon made these annotations in his own
 >>hand between 1978 and 1980, when he was involved in lengthy
 >>correspondence with Gordon Thayer, the author of the Condon
 >>Study's version of the case. He also produced, at that
 >>time, a lengthy commentary destroying the credibility of
 >>the USAF controller's version of events.

 >See. You yourself do admit the word "destroying" as I had
 >said -- "destroying" the USAF controller's account.

 >>I repeat, Wimbledon did all of this between 1978 and 1980
 >>when I was a schoolboy!

 >>Is Brad suggesting that during 1978, knowing or caring less
 >>about UFOs or Lakenheath, I suddenly went AWOL from my
 >>classroom, hopped on a train to London and held a senior
 >>RAF officer at gunpoint whilst I forced him 'trash' the
 >>account of a 'highly reliable' American witness?

 >In fact I was directly involved in that correspondence
 >through both Thayer and Friedman. Again, you fail to realize
 >(because you don't want to blow up your sarcastic snide
 >remarks) that this correspondence is how I identified
 >Wimbledon's personal idiosyncrasies as to the case.

 >Wimbledon was personally jealous of his role in the case and
 >insisted that no one but he could possibly have been in
 >communication with the Venom fighter interceptors, so
 >therefore on that basis of his personal presumption he
 >declared the USAF radar controller Forrest Perkins'
 >account "RUBBISH" etc.
 >Wimbledon of course could not and did not bother caring to
 >explain how it was possible that Perkins knew so many details
 >of the interception if he was not in radio communication at
 >the time -- alleged inaccuracies of the details don't affect
 >the fact that Perkins was in on the radio link contrary to
 >Wimbledon.

<snip>

I understand you to mean that you were aware of Wimbledon's
version of events, but that you chose not to document it-if that
is correct, then that is surely inexcusable?

To have posession of contradictory evidence, from a relatively
senior military source, and discard it on the intuition that the
witness was tainted by jealousy suggests to me that his evidence
was unsuitable because it didn't fit in with your view of the
case.

I may be completely wrong, perhaps you did publish his evidence?
If so, please correct me.

Also, it seems clear to me that you accept that Wimbledon's
version seriously challenged the evidence provided by
Perkins-what has changed since UFOIN got in touch with him? Is
his evidence any more or less challenging now than it was in
1978-80? If not, what exactly are you suggesting?


Regards,

Joe McGonagle







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 17

                         Re: AA Film Redux - Sawers

From: William Sawers <syntax@i4free.co.nz>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 18:12:01 +1300
Fwd Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 09:44:29 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Sawers


 >Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 22:53:37 +0000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Salvaille

 >>From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >>Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 11:26:35 -0800

 >>Hello William, Robert, Ed and List,

 >>A couple of days ago, I issued a post exposing evident
 >>distortion of reality from the parts of Santilli and Hesemann.
 >>Mind you, I did not engage in philosophical debate, conjectures
 >>or speculations. Only facts.

 >>I got _zero_ argumentation from AA film proponents.


Serge

If you haven't noticed there has been a slight hold-up with mail
in some quarters, your replies are coming.

I received a post from Neil explaining the turn of events re the
tent footage so you weren't quite ignored.....

to be continued....


William








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 17

                              Re: Greys - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 01:24:56 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 09:47:24 -0500
Subject: Re: Greys - Hatch


 >Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 15:06:00 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Sean Liddle <gortrix@kos.net>
 >Subject: Re: Greys

 >>Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 15:32:34 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Greys

 >>>MTVM wrote:

 >>>The Greys are Demons. Do not post pictures of them or God
 >>>or God will shred your little soul like confetti and torch
 >>>torch you in a Hell-fire.

 >>>TVM <mtvm@home.com>

 >Larry, you realize that I have to send an electronic postcard
 >to MTVM now with nice Grey artwork, don't you.

 >:)

 >Sean KAPRA


Aw gee Sean! Do you really want to jerk
this poor man's chain and spoil his fun?

I was tempted to send him the URL to _this_ amazing website:
(but I reconsidered)

http://www.abovegod.com/

It might be fun to watch the the two whackos battle it out, but
then they would _both_ have our email addresses, and that's not
very clever.


Best wishes

- Larry Hatch

PS:  Abovegod.com has to be the looniest and most diverting rant
I have seen on the web. Please pop a beer or whatever and check
it out. Amazing.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 17

                           Re: Lakenheath - Clarke

From: Dave Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 10:42:40 -0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 09:55:26 -0500
Subject: Re: Lakenheath - Clarke


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Lakenheath
 >Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:58:38 EST

Greetings list, Brad, all...


 >Instead of distortion, in fact you've proven my point, only that
 >you quibble over the exact wording. Instead of "destroying" the
 >case you say (next para.) you're "debunking" it. But later on
 >you yourself admit that the RAF controller is "destroying" the
 >USAF controller's account. Your word there. Amazing how you can
 >be so sure the RAF man is right and the USAF man is wrong.

Oxford English Dictionary, 9th Edition, debunk: "expose the
falseness of (a claim etc)."

The claims debunked are the "accepted" version of the Lakenheath
case - copied, recycled and distorted through endless re-telling
in an endless stream of books and magazine articles.

Note the "accepted" version - not the fact that _something_
happened - because _something_ most certainly did!

Is Brad Sparks saying the "accepted" version is set in stone,
like Biblical tablets - that there is no need to question, to
inquire, to trace further sources, track down witnesses who have
never been interviewed?

Where have I claimed that the account of the RAF man is "right"?

I am simply saying what _he maintains_ and continues to
_maintain_, regardless of what anyone else says. Whether he is
right or wrong can only be measured in the light of other,
independent, evidence which we now have.

To turn on its head, how does Brad Sparks _know_ that the USAF
man is "right"?

What we do know for a fact is that the USAF controller, whatever
his role, was not in charge of the interception - the RAF
controller was.

What we know is that the USAF Controller was not sat at the
controls, or at the radar, of the Venom NF-3 which was scrambled
by the RAF Controller.

So who qualifies for the most important witness - the pilot and
navigator in the sky, doing the interception, or some USAF
chappie _listening in_ on the action?

A USAF controller who admits he _could not understand_ the
English accent used by the pilots!

A USAF controller who was writing an account of what he
remembered 12 years _after_ the event - without the help of
_any_ contemporaneous evidence whatsoever!

A USAF controller who could not even remember the month these
events occurred ("sometime between January and September"), but
nevertheless had such a precise memory for what he overheard in
a busy control room, during the heat of action, in an accent he
admits he did not understand that he had been able to memorise
exact phrases "Roger Lakenheath I've got my guns locked on
him..."

We can only interpret history by the comparison of sources and
texts. The most reliable of sources, in this case at least, are
those produced at the time - i.e. the contemporaneous ones.

It is only by using these sources as a base line, and by
balancing what both the RAF man, the Venom aircrews and the USAF
RATCC controller says that we can arrive at the best possible
"fit".

This is how history is reconstructed, not by blind belief and
adherence to one particular source which fits one's own
prejudices.

 >For someone who claims I don't know anything about what you've
 >supposedly found you sure talk a lot about it, and seem to have
 >no memory of the developments with the Venom pilot interviews
 >going back 3-4 years before your involvement barely 1 year ago,
 >which have been public.

I'm perfectly aware of what transpired during the Venom pilot
interviews 3 to 4 years ago. In the last six months we have
traced and undertaken extensive interviews with the pilots and
navigators of both aircraft.

What you _think_ you know about what they say or don't say, is
immaterial.

I think you should heed Dick Hall's advice, have some patience,
and wait to see what they have to say.

 >Apparently your goal and that of your colleagues is to silence
 >all comment on these developments in the case for endless and
 >unspecified durations while you take full advantage of your UK
 >location to "investigate" the case and gloat over your special
 >access that those of us on other continents do not have. And
 >that is your continual message how you're going to prove
 >everyone else to be such idiots and how you have had such
 >privileged access, and are so competent and diligent because you
 >are local and we are not, etc. etc.

Well if such a ridiculous assertion was true, it hasn't worked
has it? I think it would take an international power failure to
"silence" Brad Sparks.

Thousands of words of worthless armchair speculation do not add
up to much.

The fact remains that we have traced and interviewed the primary
witnesses and traced contemporaneous documentation on the case.

Surely that's something that ufology should be happy about,
shouldn't it?

We haven't set out to "destroy" the case - but we want to know
the truth, as much as it is possible to reach a version of
"truth" after all these years.

Would Brad prefer it if we just carried on recycling a
hopelessly inaccurate version for another 50 years?

Nobody is gloating or trying to score points - when this work is
concluded _everyone_ who is interested will get a free copy (via
the web) if they want to see what we have found.

As for my bluster, arrogance and condescension - why do you
think I decided to tip-toe back onto UpDates again? Mixing with
so many experts on such matters is bound to rub off.

How about this example of "arrogance and condescension":

 >Wimbledon was personally jealous of his role in the case and
 >insisted that no one but he could possibly have been in
 >communication with the Venom fighter interceptors, so therefore
 >on that basis of his personal presumption he declared the USAF
 >radar controller Forrest Perkins' account "RUBBISH" etc.
 >Wimbledon of course could not and did not bother caring to
 >explain how it was possible that Perkins knew so many details of
 >the interception if he was not in radio communication at the
 >time -- alleged inaccuracies of the details don't affect the
 >fact that Perkins was in on the radio link contrary to
 >Wimbledon.

And the author was? Yes! Brad Sparks...

There's an English expression which involves the words "pot"
"kettle" and "black", and the cap fits.

So let's put an end to the bluster and stick to the facts. You
will be appraised of them soon enough.

All best wishes

Dave Clarke










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 17

                              Re: Greys - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 01:37:24 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 09:59:56 -0500
Subject: Re: Greys - Hatch


 >Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 22:09:34 +0000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: Greys - Jones

 >>Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 15:32:34 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Greys

 >>Dear MTVM:

 >>Thank you for the message (below).

 >>I hope you don't mind if I copy your warning to others.

 >>-Larry Hatch

 >>>MTVM wrote:

 >>>The Greys are Demons. Do not post pictures of them or God
 >>>will shred your little soul like confetti and torch you in
 >>>a Hell-fire.

 >>>TVM <mtvm@home.com>

 >I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

 >Being that I am a Christian, I believe in Christ, not in
 >religion, I am affronted when people say things like this.

 >When I tell people that I am a Christian as well as a believer
 >in UFOs I always get asked something along the lines of "aren't
 >they mutually exclusive?" Well the answer is no. Why? Well it is
 >simple, where in the bible does it say that God only created
 >life here on Earth?

 >Thought for the day; If God really does exist, why, O why, do we
 >have to put up with idiots like this?


Hello again Sean:

I'm pretty much a religious non-believer, but I'm sure that we
can agree on one point... as you said, religious beliefs,
especially the Judeo-Christian tradition and UFOs are definitely
not mutually exclusive. Belief in one does not preclude "belief"
(or preferably assigning some reasonable probability) to the
other.

Even the very conservative Roman Catholic hierarchy as has said
as much; that nothing in scripture affirms nor dismisses the
possibility of intelligent beings elsewhere.

Should we ever get some definite evidence of alien intelligence
via SETI or other means, it would cause a great stir in
ecclesiastical circles!

I expect that much of this would revolve around the possibility
of the Almighty having some different "arrangement" with those
living on another world... Suppose their Adam and Eve did _not_
sin for example. Would they still need a "redeemer"?


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 17

                              A Minor Diversion

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 04:44:46 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 10:26:22 -0500
Subject: A Minor Diversion


Dear Listeroos:

Recently, on the Art Bell (or surrogate) Show, there was some
clown advocating Hollow Earth again (sigh!). This is my radio
entertainment commuting home from work around midnight.

The entrances are near the poles of course, "that's why science
hasn't found them... maybe there is life there... maybe that's
where UFOs come from .."

Anyhow, while pitying the poor polar bear who falls down such a
hole, and disregarding the fact that the entire arctic ocean
would simply dump down the same hole, a question occurred to me.

To wit: What is hotter... the surface of the Sun, or the center
of the Earth? I don't have the answer, but a quick browse
indicates that I'm not the only one who doesn't know. Our
deepest drill holes are something on the order of 10-20 miles, a
small fraction of one percent of the radius of the Earth, or the
distance to the center.

Extrapolating from the thermal gradients so far measured (so
many degrees per kilometer of depth) I see figures on the order
of 4000 or 5000 degrees C for Earth's center.

Those temps sound much like the surface of the Sun, so I must
ask: Would _you_ put a UFO factory on the surface of the Sun?
Never mind attracting competent employees for now.

Frankly, I am suspicious of the _low_ temperatures extrapolated
for the Earth's core. As a rank amateur, I would have guessed
temps orders of magnitude higher.

There could be a sustained nuclear reaction, an ongoing atomic
bomb as it were, from our heaviest element there for all I
know... selectively sunken due to high density.

What is the temperature at the core of an atom bomb, or just
some controlled atomic pile? It sounds exactly like hell to me,
and that's where Art's guest seems to want to go.


Please forgive this minor diversion!

... and best wishes as always,

- Larry Hatch

PS: My car radio conks out about halfway home, on schedule,
every night. Thus I cannot tell you whether mister Hollow Earth
is selling books, tapes, or just trying to impress his
girlfriend. The radio moderator (Bell?) played right along
regardless. I'll bet EBK would have asked him better questions.
[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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 17

                            Re: Lakenheath - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 13:53:16 -0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 10:28:37 -0500
Subject: Re: Lakenheath - Hall


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:58:38 EST
 >Subject: Re: Lakenheath
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

Children, children! Go to your rooms. Let UFOIN publish the
report, and they will either "put their money where their mouth
is" or not. I don't care who struck John first. Let's see the
report and then discuss and debate its merits.


Dick Hall

P.S. Sorry about any protocol violations. I am still learning
how to use this Hotmail e-mail and can't figure out how to
"quote" or delete segments.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 17

                Re: UFO Over Veracruz, Mexico - Sanchez-Ocejo

From: Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo <ufomiami@prodigy.net>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 09:11:36 -0600
Fwd Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 10:31:09 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO Over Veracruz, Mexico - Sanchez-Ocejo


 >Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 16:05:31 -0500
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: UFO Over Veracruz, Mexico

 >>From: Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo <ufomiami@prodigy.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: UFO Over Veracruz, Mexico
 >>Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 22:04:28 -0600

 >>Hi!!

 >>See the photos of a UFO flying over Veracruz, Mexico on
 >>Christmas 2000.

 >>Visit:

 >>http://virgilio1.homestead.com/FotosOVNI.html

 >Excellent photos doctor. Thank you for sharing them. Have they
 >been put through a formal analysis process yet? Did anyone
 >capture video of the object?

We are trying to get the originals and the negatives for
analysis, also we are looking for more witnesses. No video, only
photos!


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
CHUPACABRAS(Espaol)    http://ufomiami.homestead.com/index.html
CHUPACABRAS (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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 17

             Re: NASA - Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy' -

From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 08:41:07 -0600
Fwd Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 10:34:56 -0500
Subject: Re: NASA - Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy' -


 >Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 18:03:50 +0000
 >From: dledger@ns.sympatico.ca (Donald . Ledger)
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: NASA - Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy'

 >>From: UFO UpDates - Toronto

 >>Source: NASA Watch

 >>http://www.nasawatch.com/index.html

 >>15 February 2001: Fox Airs "Moon Conspiracy"

 >>Here's how Fox promoted their show:

 >>"MOON LANDING QUESTIONED ON THE ALL-NEW SPECIAL 'CONSPIRACY
 >>THEORY: DID WE LAND ON THE MOON' FEB. 15 ON FOX"

 >>NASA put a man on the moon for the first time in 1969 -- or did
 >>it? Could the entire moon program have been an elaborate
 >>deception staged to fool the public? The conspiracy theories are
 >>investigated in the all-new one-hour special"

 >>Editor's rant: I can't even begin to find the right sentences to
 >>describe this TV show - but I will try. Individual words such as
 >>"idiotic", "ridiculous", "scandalous", "irresponsible",
 >>"stupid", "fraudulent", "sloppy", and just plain "wrong" come to
 >>mind.

 ><snip>

 >Hi Errol,

 >I guess you posted this. I got one from NASA too. Tell its
 >writer, welcome to the club, and he/she will be looking in the
 >wrong place if he/she goes to the skeptics list. They will have
 >to look up the "True Believers" list for the Man on the Moon
 >hypothisis.


To the outraged;

Our sensibilities have been so ritually abused by the lack a
general forthcomingness from the leadership of our institutions
that we are ripe (and probably programmed) for _any_ proffered
buffoonery. Sometimes, I think all would agree, experience
dictates that it is easier to believe that something has NOT
occurred than that it has. Truly, our garden-variety credulity
has been jerked back and forth across the line of plausibility
so hard and often by likely conspiracy that we can't see our
sensible and rational hands in front of our faces.

Don't decry the aggregate stupidity. That is shallow,
self-defeating, and finally inaccurate. Rather, decry what works
so passionately to keep people stupid. That's a much better
target for the rage of ones very rational irritation. Besides,
starless skies, errant shadows, spotless landing pads, and
waving flags go a _long_ way toward demonstrating more than a
mere suggestion of suspicion in the current regard. I would like
to continue to believe that people went to the moon, for prides
sake if nothing else. I just wouldn't be surprised if they
didn't. I've _seen_ UFOs. I never saw anyone walk on the moon.
I have personal experience with the former. I only have
'someone's' already suspect _Word_ for the latter. What would you
have me continue to believe?

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, scourged by
scurrilous skepti-feebroids.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 17

                         Re: George Adamski? - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 02:41:50 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 10:37:05 -0500
Subject: Re: George Adamski? - Hatch


 >From: Gary Anthony <garyant@mithrand.karoo.co.uk>
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: George Adamski?
 >Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 00:13:16 -0000

 >Does anyone out there have a 1953/54, i.e. first edition copy of
 >Desmond Leslie's book 'Flying Saucers Have Landed?' If so you
 >may be able to help with a question that I have...


Hi Gary:

The oldest copy I ever saw was co-authored by Desmond Leslie and
(gasp!) George Adamski. As I take it, they put two narratives
into one volume; at least in the American edition.

This one is from the British Book Center, NY,NY 1956, and almost
certainly a reprint of the original you refer to. I never saw
that, nor do I now have a copy of either.

Credulous or not, I think Leslie is regarded as an honest
fellow; while Adamski... let's just say the phrase
"three-dollar-bill" keeps sloshing around in my sodden head!


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 17

                       Re: AA Film Redux - Zeigermann

From: Ralf Zeigermann <kag15@dial.pipex.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 15:35:30 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 10:40:14 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Zeigermann


 >Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 14:10:38 -0800 (PST)
 >From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >Having seen the perils of "seeing things" in clouds of pixels
 >(see my website devoted to possible Mars artifacts), I honestly
 >don't think there's anything here worth scratching one's head
 >about. Maybe after a few rounds in a sensory deprivation tank
 >I'd feel differently. But right now these look like smudges and
 >wishful thinking.

Mac,

You are promoting a heap of rocks on Mars and you (and others)
see a 'face' in it, while for me (and others) it's just a pile
of rocks.

In the AA you (and others) can clearly see a _body_ and this
'body' clearly doesn't look like a dummy or prop to me (and
others).

Whether this 'body' is something alien or a distorted human
being still remains to be solved. Or unsolved.

And yes, RPIT is about 'smudges'; but at least we don't see a
face where no face is.

'Clouds of Pixels' - maybe Antonioni was just right with 'Blow
Up'. But maybe he wasn't....


Cheers,

Ralf

----------------------------------------------------
Ralf's 3D-Site
Infos 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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 17

                  Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 16:41:32 -0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 13:31:46 -0500
Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Hall


 >From: Mendoza - Peter Brookesmith <Mendoza@appleonline.net>
 >Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >Date: Sat, 17 Feb 01 02:23:00 +0000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >With the compliments of the Duke of Mendoza:

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 19:44:43 -0000
 >>Fwd Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:01:06 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Hall

 >>>From: Mendoza - Peter Brookesmith<Mendoza@appleonline.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>>Date: Tue, 13 Feb 01 03:14:32 +0000
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>Dear Duke,

 >Ahem, Mr Hall. The correct form is "Your Grace". ;-)

 >>I enjoy your humor and we all need to have a good laugh
 >>now and then.

<snip>

I am overwhelmed by your erudition. Yet, as an erstwhile formal
student of philosophy you seem to be arguing from theory
(deductively) rather than from data (inferentially).

Both you and Dennis suggest that I have taken his comments out
of context. Actually the context doesn't really matter; he
implied in a pejorative manner that people like me, Dick Haines,
and Bruce Maccabee were ET believers, or that he suspected same.
He has since apologized for seeming to link me with gullible
believers, so there is no need to belabor the point. But, my
argument is strictly empirical. Theory be damned.

As I see it the evidence strongly suggests an ET answer and the
"link" you call for is there to see if you study the total
picture. I have presented it in my new book*, and will continue
to present it in various fora. And we will have to agree to
disagree about Dennis' responsibility to suggest alternatives if
he is not convinced the ET hypothesis is a worthy one.



*[The UFO Evidence
   by Richard Hall (Editor)

   Hardcover - 784 pages Vol 2 (February 2001)
   Scarecrow Pr; ISBN: 0810838818 --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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 17

                        Re: A Minor Diversion - Hart

From: Gary Hart <geehart@frontiernet.net>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 11:36:42 -0600
Fwd Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 13:33:58 -0500
Subject: Re: A Minor Diversion - Hart


 >Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 04:44:46 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: Toronto List <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: A Minor Diversion

 >Dear Listeroos:

 >To wit: What is hotter... the surface of the Sun, or the center
 >of the Earth? I don't have the answer, but a quick browse
 >indicates that I'm not the only one who doesn't know.
 >Please forgive this minor diversion!


Hey Larry,

I can't answer your question but can pose one even better: what
is hotter - the surface of the sun or a place on the surface of
the earth?

The answer will surprise you...


Gary Hart







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 18

                            Re: Greys - McCartney

From: Pat McCartney <ElPatricio@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 14:31:43 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 11:00:34 -0500
Subject: Re: Greys - McCartney


 >Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 04:57:00
 >o: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Sean Liddle <gortrix@kos.net>
 >Subject: Re: Greys

 >>From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Greys
 >>Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 00:15:28 -0500

 >... This friendly old dude that I always saw in the elevator
 >and always said "Hi." to my wife and I, was there reading
 >near the (only) door, so I sat across from him and
 >started reading myself. (Picture that I have to essentially
 >climb over this guy to get out if I am in a hurry). Out of the
 >blue, after a few brief comments about mundanities, he says:

 >"They are demons you know."

<snip>

 >He was then calm and back to his normal, quiet, self.

 >Yipes.

Sean,

I think ufology's greatest hurdle is overcoming traditional
beliefs such as the fundamentalist view that if there are
aliens, they must be the demons of the Old Testament to be
consistent with the Word of God.

Despite the stunning wealth of knowledge available today to us
all, easily two-thirds of humanity clings to traditional belief
as their bedrock philosophy. Taking that belief away is
tantamount to a liberal zealot like myself persuading a Rush
Limbaugh that his view of the world is, how shall we say,
self-serving and reactionary?

Discussions about individual UFO cases, including those
strenuously pursued by researchers on this list, chip away
incrementally at this legacy of received "wisdom."

But, let's face it, the leap from our existing ethnocentric
beliefs to one more resembling Star Wars is a drastic one for
many, and won't come easily. I suppose, accepting the ETH as
reasonable, that this sort of thing has gone on countless times
over the millennia, and suspect that many spacefaring cultures
_if they are out there_ would have a First Contact protocol for
that reason.

After all, the 1955 Brookings Institute study warned that all
less-advanced cultures on Earth suffered irreparable harm when
exposed to more-advanced cultures during the colonial era.

I think it takes generations for the old beliefs to die out.
Until then, the majority culture will continue to use ridicule
and denial to marginalize the study of UFOs and those people who
believe their existence is likely.

Demons, indeed.


Pat McCartney








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 18

                   Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Bourdais

From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 14:34:10 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 11:02:24 -0500
Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Bourdais


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment
 >Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 20:02:56 -0000

 >All this finger-pointing both ways is silly until the UFOIN
 >report is published and peer reviewed. I for one look forward to
 >it with great interest. Such detailed case investigations are
 >essential to serious ufology.

 >Dick Hall


Agreed!

But, let's hope that Renny Randles et al will be better than on
Rendlesham.

And that the pilot's testimonies "who have seen nothing" will be
loud and clear.

The "Cometa boys" are waiting and getting older).


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 18

                        Re: AA Film Redux - Bourdais

From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 14:34:15 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 11:11:13 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Bourdais


 >Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 23:00:09 +0000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux

 >>Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 10:59:09 -0600
 >>From: Roger Annette Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >>>Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 17:01:11 +0000
 >>>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Morris
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

I confess I have been only glimpsing this thread, but now I feel
like reminding everyone of a couple of points which seem
to have been lost.

The first one is the information given by Bob Shell, that
Captain McAndrews told him he had seen the film in the US Air
Force archives before its release by Santilli.

Please re-read this answer by Bob Shell to my message of
January 29, 1999:


UFO UpDate: Re: Santilli's Film Scraps
Date: 01/02/99 03:17:23
From: updates@globalserve.net (UFO UpDates - Toronto)

Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 10:13:06 +0000
Subject: Re: Santilli's Film Scraps
From: Bob Shell <bob@bobshell.com>
To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>


 >From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 16:38:45 EST
 >To: updates@globalserve.net
 >Subject: Re: Santilli's Film Scraps

 >>Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 08:07:05 +0000
 >>Subject: Re: Santilli's Film Scraps
 >>From: Bob Shell <bob@bobshell.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

 >>This could also account for Capt. McAndrew's comment to me
 >>that he had seen the same film in Air Force archives.

 >This is one of the most important informations that you have
 >made, it seems to me.

 >And here is a simple question:

 >Did Capt. McAndrew tell you, even rougly, when he saw that "same
 >film" in the Air Force archives?

I don't think he mentioned a specific date but I had the
impression from context that he was speaking of seeing it some
years earlier.  He also indicated having seen more of the film
than Santilli had.

 >At least, did he see it before, or after the release of the film
 >by Santilli?

Before.

 >If he saw it after, it would not be worth mentioning since, very
 >soon, thousands of copies were distributed worldwide: it could
 >be any of these copies!

 >So, I suppose he meant that he had seen it before. Then, I don't
 >see many possibilities:

 >1) The AA footage is an authentic military film,

 >or

 >2) It is a fake made by the military, or a related agency. (In
 >this case, it could well be a fake close to a real one).

 >In both cases, Santilli had only a copy of it, and was of course
 >unable to give a foot of original film for datation, but this is
 >not a key point in this context. It could have been shot any
 >time.

 >3) Here is another possibility: captain McAndrew lied to you!

Of course that is possible.

 >Then the question is: why?

 >Is he another Richard Doty??

 >If so, what about the "Roswell Report, Case Closed" authored by
 >the same?

He did a good job, apparently. He was promoted out of this job
and sent off to spook school.


(End of Shell's message to the list)


The second point came from Colin Andrews.

Colin Andrew's testimony has been cited in the book
'Beyond Roswell' by Philip Mantle and Michael Hesemann
(pages 206 and 207).

He says that, on June 26, 1995, he visited Ray Santilli with two
other researchers - the Japanese, Johsen Takano and the Chinese,
Dr Hoang-Yung Chiang from Taiwan.

Both Takano and Hoang-Yung, after screening the film, told him
that they had seen it already. Johsen, when his government had
requested UFO information from the American government. The film
was part of the documentation brought to Tokyo by a CIA courier.
Hoang-Yung, in the course of an official visit to the CIA's
headquarters in Langley, Virginia, where they had been shown
several hours of film.

Is this story an invention of Mantle and Hesemann?

I checked with Colin Andrews himself, and he confirmed it to me
entirely, in a private mail.

Now, does that mean that the film is authentic?

No, it does not. But it does give a clue about its origin.

If we suppose for a moment that the whole thing was a secret
service operation, in order to ruin the Roswell Case at a time
when the inquiries were becoming more and more embarrassing, it
has been a tremendous success.

In France, it was a complete disaster for ufology.

Remember, the long awaited film was released just before the
long awaited GAO report, and no one paid attention to it in the
press.

May I add another grain of salt?

I think we may also consider that such an operation would have a
second, long term, aim: to get the public used to such powerful
images.

In such a perspective, people like Santilli (who could not even
spell Roswell!) and Volker Spielberg, were just second hands
obeying orders.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 18

                        Re: George Adamski? - Anthony

From: Gary Anthony <garyant@mithrand.karoo.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 19:35:03 -0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 11:15:15 -0500
Subject: Re: George Adamski? - Anthony


Hi List,

Just thought I would post this mail as a 'thank you' for the
excellent response, which I've had from UpDates subscribers in
relation to my Desmond Leslie publication question  - in a post
entitled 'George Adamski?'.

Now I have a better idea what relevant reference to obtain for
my current research.

Thanks to 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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 18

                           Re: Lakenheath - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 14:45:12 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 11:18:01 -0500
Subject: Re: Lakenheath - Sparks


 >From: Joe McGonagle <joem_cgonagle@yahoo.com>
 >Date: 17 Feb 2001 04:33:22 +0000
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Lakenheath


 >I am coming in here not having read all of the posts due to mail
 >problems, so if I have misunderstood something, I apologise in
 >advance.

 >I ought to point out that I am not a member of UFOIN, so I have
 >no particular torch to carry.

 >I understand that you (Brad) have been criticised for lack of
 >thoroughness in investigating this case (BTW, I am not familiar
 >with the case myself, so I am not in a position to make a
 >judgement on that). This critcism was, I understand, based on
 >the premise that you were unaware of witness information from
 >Squadron Leader Wimbledon. That would have been an excusable
 >oversight, given the geographical problems involved.

 >But.....


 >>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:58:38 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Lakenheath
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Dave Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Lakenheath [was: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ]
 >>>Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 18:06:40 -0000

 ><snip>

 >>>Squadron Leader Wimbledon made these annotations in his own
 >>>hand between 1978 and 1980, when he was involved in lengthy
 >>>correspondence with Gordon Thayer, the author of the Condon
 >>>Study's version of the case. He also produced, at that
 >>>time, a lengthy commentary destroying the credibility of
 >>>the USAF controller's version of events.

 >>See. You yourself do admit the word "destroying" as I had
 >>said -- "destroying" the USAF controller's account.

 >>>I repeat, Wimbledon did all of this between 1978 and 1980
 >>>when I was a schoolboy!

 >>>Is Brad suggesting that during 1978, knowing or caring less
 >>>about UFOs or Lakenheath, I suddenly went AWOL from my
 >>>classroom, hopped on a train to London and held a senior
 >>>RAF officer at gunpoint whilst I forced him 'trash' the
 >>>account of a 'highly reliable' American witness?

 >>In fact I was directly involved in that correspondence
 >>through both Thayer and Friedman. Again, you fail to realize
 >>(because you don't want to blow up your sarcastic snide
 >>remarks) that this correspondence is how I identified
 >>Wimbledon's personal idiosyncrasies as to the case.

 >>Wimbledon was personally jealous of his role in the case and
 >>insisted that no one but he could possibly have been in
 >>communication with the Venom fighter interceptors, so
 >>therefore on that basis of his personal presumption he
 >>declared the USAF radar controller Forrest Perkins'
 >>account "RUBBISH" etc.
 >>Wimbledon of course could not and did not bother caring to
 >>explain how it was possible that Perkins knew so many details
 >>of the interception if he was not in radio communication at
 >>the time -- alleged inaccuracies of the details don't affect
 >>the fact that Perkins was in on the radio link contrary to
 >>Wimbledon.

 ><snip>

 >I understand you to mean that you were aware of Wimbledon's
 >version of events, but that you chose not to document it-if that
 >is correct, then that is surely inexcusable?

Hi Joe,

That is not correct. Wimbledon's version was included at the
time. And there was further correspondence after the article was
published by Thayer (and I'm sure others corresponded with
Wimbledon after his highly public letter to the editor). There
was no Internet back then. I assisted Thayer who was involved in
a heavy correspondence with Klass on the case that I lost track
of after having to leave the UFO field for several years due to
a personal tragedy.

 >To have posession of contradictory evidence, from a relatively
 >senior military source, and discard it on the intuition that the
 >witness was tainted by jealousy suggests to me that his evidence
 >was unsuitable because it didn't fit in with your view of the
 >case.

What we had from Wimbledon at the time wasn't all contradictory,
it was largely supportive, and it was included -- there was an
unidentified radar target tracked by Wimbledon's Neatishead
radar in agreement with what Lakenheath radar was tracking and
there was an attempted Venom intercept. And the obvious jealousy
wasn't commented upon. Wimbledon was no more "senior" in the
sense you're using than Perkins was, who was a senior Air Force
radar controller of many years' experience.

However, Wimbledon claimed that the USAF would not even have
been privy to the radio communication frequencies used in the
Venom intercepts and therefore Perkins could not possibly have
listened in on the intercept -- when quite obviously Perkins did
and that fact was supported by the TWX communications in the
USAF files from Aug 1956. I think Thayer discounted this
discrepancy as a memory problem by Wimbledon 20-25 years after
the event. However now we'll get to hear what Wimbledon has to
say 40-45 years after the fact and see if his memory has
improved.

 >I may be completely wrong, perhaps you did publish his evidence?
 >If so, please correct me.

Yes, see above.

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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 18

                         Re: AA Film Redux - Morris

From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 21:51:51 +0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 11:27:32 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Morris


 >From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:28:39 -0800


 >>Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 22:53:37 +0000
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Salvaille

 >>>From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >>>Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 11:26:35 -0800

 >Hello Neil and List,

 ><snip>

 >>>that Hesemann is full of it...

 >>That's a sweeping statement to make, and though Mike _may_
 >>jump in with both feet from time to time it hardly describes the
 >>actual research he _has_ carried out during the trips he's made
 >>out to NM to follow up on this case.

 ><snip>

 >My previous post proved the following concerning Hesemann's
 >position: all verifiable assertions on Hesemann's site concerning
 >elements of authenticity in the AA case are UN-TRUE.

Serge,

Please be point specific, it's very easy to make scatter gun
statements _without_ arguments, I hope in my exchanges with both
yourself and Roger I have attempted to counter each claim with
itemised explanations from the record.

 ><snip>

 >>Well it doesn't answer a question I have, and if Errol will
 >>oblige by forwarding the image I've attached (it's been on the
 >>RPIT website for the past year, site's being rebuilt at
 >>www.rpit.org).

 >>How did Ray know about the "backtoback J" symbol hidden away in
 >>the debris in Gen Ramey's office on the 8th July 1947, so as to
 >>plant it on a beam hidden away in the _background_ of the "AA
 >>Debris Footage"?.

 >>And not only that, how did he manage it with a further 3 (so
 >>far) distinct symbols seen in both sets of debris??.

 ><snip>

 >This is the easiest answer. Please view my take of this evidence
 >in the attached .jpg file. Please note that my interpretation of
 >the RPIT image is copyrighted information. You must mention my
 >name if you want to use it.

[The image was not forwarded - nor was the one attached to this
  message - there are too many subscribers whose providers will
  not handle attachments - they bounce. Please post files to URLs
  and reference those sites in future posts-ebk]

 ><snip>

 >>I've mentioned these _facts_ before on this list and so far I've
 >>had no credible response. Bond Johnson's Fort Worth Photographs
 >>showing the debris _are_ historical documents, ask the UTA
 >>Library, has Ray tampered with them?? or researched them, in
 >>detail??, not as far as I know.

 ><snip>

 >Rephrase that: you have had no response you _would_ believe.

Ok, I'll rephrase that, at this moment in time I've had _no_
response that can explain this situation.

 >I recall James Bond Johnson's take on Roswell has been seriously
 >challenged by Kevin Randle

There are two points of contention here, the first, regarding
phone interviews done by KR, it's not my place to go into these,
Bond's responses are on record in this forum.

The second is Bond's claim to be _the_ only news photographer to
be present in Gen Ramey's office and that KR and DS's "news
conference" did not take place.

What's the RPIT evidence?.

Firstly circumstantial, other than the single Newton image which
appeared much later on the night of the 8th July, far too late
for morning deadlines, _the_ only pictures to be published
_anywhere_ were those taken by Bond Johnson, this point has been
extensively researched by a number of people who have checked
between one and two hundred news title editions around July 8th
1947.

The only pictures to appear were Bond's.

Where were all the others _if_ there was a news conference with
multiple reporters and photogs??. It's also noteworthy that the
copy that ran with these pictures was, as a rule either verbatim
wire service copy or the same locally editorialised, where is
all this _other_ copy?.

Witness testimony, unlike KR and DS who were I assume  basing
their take of events from Jesse Marcel's recollections of his
time in FW, and it must also be noted Thos DuBose, Ramey's COS
at the time, totally dismissed _any_ photographs having been
taken until confronted with Bond's pictures, to which he
responded " well yes, that is the stuff they brought from
Roswell". RPIT now have a witness to all the further events that
night in the offices of The Fort Worth Star-Telegram after Bond
Johnson left some time after 6pm.

It is this witness who now _confirms_ Bond's belief _no_ press
conference was called out at FWAAF, he was there in the St
office all that night, he know's who and by what means all the
reports regarding  Roswell were handled that night by the ST,
and _no_ press conference was called. Note, the ST was the
nearest news office to FWAAF and the title was _the_ largest
circulating newspaper in the south of the USA, at that time.

There was no press conference at FWAAF as envisaged by KR and DS.

And like Ray Santilli, I'm not at this point going to identify
the witness.

 >and the alleged symbols discovered by
 >the RPIT effort are the result of circular reasoning. Some
 >people are confusing photographic interpretation with a
 >Rorschach test.

Again if Errol will oblige I've attached another example,
readers, please draw your own conclusions, are these "symbols"
merely a byproduct of the little grey cells trying to make sense
out of chaos?. Please note the sharply defined edges to the "M"
type symbol and others. This image was on my old site for some
months prior to it's closure in mid Dec last.

 >>If the safety print dating is correct at no later than 1956
 >>+-2yrs, was anyone aware of the UTA images so as to be able to
 >>check out these details and create a hoaxed AA film containing
 >>them?.

 ><snip>

 >Another IF? Why don't you just ask good old Ray?

Kodak provided the historical date of the film base changeover,
and a leading Italian University provided the chemical analysis
of the film sample. "If" was a poor choice of word on my part.

 ><snip>

 >>Awareness of the UTA images only came to light _after_  Jesse
 >>Marcel blew the whistle on Roswell back in 1979, and 23 years
 >>_after_  the last batch of the specific type of Kodak safety
 >>print film, as used in the AA, had been manufactured.

 ><snip>

 >_Who_ provided _what_ piece of film for the Kodak analysis?

Philip Mantle, fragment with alleged autopsy room image.

 >Your IF has graduated to urban legend in less than 10 lines.

 >Remember, man: Santilli is a liar, the Cameraman does not exist
 >and Hesemann's position on AA is flawed.

I've agreed all along with your #1.

But #2 and #3 you have yet to substantiate.

 ><snip>
 >
 >>I grant you one random smudge looking very much like another
 >>random smudge _could_ be written off as chance, 2 might be a
 >>coincidence, 3's getting into the area of "deep strangeness",
 >>and 4?, _all_ on the same piece of AA debris?.
 >
 >>Now that really has me scratching my head to explain away.

 ><snip>

 >Can't figure that one out, Neil.

 >RPIT suggests that the Greys even never reached the stage of
 >chisel- hammer writing: their symbology uses no straight line,
 >no ellipse, no circle, or no figure whatsoever that could make
 >it more advanced than the scribbles of a 2-year-old child.

In my eyes the symbols seen in the FW pics are _very_ aesthetic
in form, and who said the authors were grey?, certainly not me.

 >As for any parallel with Santilli, you're trying to prove a
 >fraud with a Rorschach test and wishful imagery with a fraud.

You're free to have your opinion Serge, but to me the odds of 4
_consecutive_ symbols on one piece of Santilli film debris,
symbols which were _never_ publicised even at the hight of the
AA debate in 1995/6, these popping up in multiple instances in
50+ year old photographs with a proven secure history and of
alleged debris from an event along similar lines with a close
proximity in time?.

This set circumstances says something very different to me.

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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 18

                       Re: A Minor Diversion - Tenney

From: John Tenney <jelt2000@email.msn.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 18:26:57 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 11:32:03 -0500
Subject: Re: A Minor Diversion - Tenney


 >Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 04:44:46 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: Toronto List <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: A Minor Diversion

 >To wit: What is hotter... the surface of the Sun, or the center
 >of the Earth? I don't have the answer, but a quick browse
 >indicates that I'm not the only one who doesn't know. Our
 >deepest drill holes are something on the order of 10-20 miles, a
 >small fraction of one percent of the radius of the Earth, or the
 >distance to the center.

 >Extrapolating from the thermal gradients so far measured (so
 >many degrees per kilometer of depth) I see figures on the order
 >of 4000 or 5000 degrees C for Earth's center.

Larry,

I believe our sun has a surface temperature of 6000 degrees C,
but that's not why I'm responding, what really drives me "crazy"
is that I totally and whole-heartedly remember being taught in
school (Elementary, Jr High, High School, etc) that the center
of the Earth was a molten, fiery, lava-ish core.

Isn't this what everyone was taught?

I've discussed it with friends and the ones that can remember
agree with me. The reason that I've discussed this issue with
friends recently is because in October I picked up a friend's
son from his elementary school, (my old elementary school as a
matter of fact) and I decided to go in and look around for old
timesake.

As I stood and snooped by a fourth grade science class door I
was amazed to hear the teacher telling all of her students about
the, "cold, solid metal core" of the Earth.

I thought maybe I had heard wrong so I went back later to ask
her what she was talking about and although she wasn't there to
answer my questions I found a poster on the back wall of the
class showing a cut-away of the Earth - and there you go, a
solid, cold core of metal. Is it just me, am I remembering wrong
or has science pulled a "switcharoo" since I've been out of
school?

hmmm
John E.L. Tenney


P.S. My car conks out too everyday on my way to work, maybe
someone is trying to tell me something... or maybe I should've
spent more than $75.00 for my car. hmmm again.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 18

                          Re: AA Film Redux - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 16:27:32 -0600
Fwd Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 17:09:30 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Evans


 >From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 23:00:09 +0000
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Morris

 >>Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 10:59:09 -0600
 >>From: Roger Annette Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

At one point, Santilli spoke of the AA footage:

 >>"Nothing will change that"?

I replied:

 >>What absolute nonsense! Ray talks as if he has no control over
 >>the validation process of AA. _This_ is the kind of nonsensical
 >>crap that casts a very, very dark cloud over Santilli's
 >>credibility.

Neil responded:

 >Do some homework here, Oct _1995_, French channel TF1 tracked
 >down Volker in Austria and managed to "drag" a few words out of
 >him. He _confirmed_ he had possession of _all_ the AA footage
 >_and_ he had it safely locked away in a bank vault. Further,
 >_he_ was satisfied with his investment and the validity of the
 >footage and didn't give a s*&%t what anyone else thought. And
 >yes,he was that blunt in the interview, seems to be a very blunt
 >fellow.

Hi, Neil!

For starters, let's assume that Ray and Volker are not in this
together which, in itself, would be quite an assumption since
they both have a vested financial interest. During the critical
early days of AA when he was _supposedly_ trying to do things to
verify the validity of AA, Santilli did everything _except_ what
he needed to do and that was let a film expert look at the
original footage with an alien in it. Never mind the camera
original versus print argument; Santilli _thought_ he had camera
original footage, therefore he had no reason to _not_ have it
tested and looked at by someone like Bob Shell of Kodak.
Santilli chose _not_ to do that. In addition, Santilli purposely
kept people investigating AA at arms length from the alleged
cameraman, even though identifying the cameraman would go a long
way towards verifying the story of AA.

Again, Santilli and company have had _plenty_ of opportunities
to clear the air about AA. Personally, I think the story of
Volker hoarding the film is nonsense. Volker knows the film is
suspect, and that's the only reason he won't release it. Both
Volker and Santilli stand to make so much more if the film were
verified than they do letting it supposedly rot in Volker's
vault. However, I will correct myself about Santilli being a
liar; Santilli and Volker are _both_ liars.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 18

                               UFOWATCHDOG.COM

From: Royce J. Myers III - The Watchdog <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 17:34:41 -0800
Fwd Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 17:15:00 -0500
Subject: UFOWATCHDOG.COM


Greetings,

It is with great regret that I announce 'eXpos: The Watchdog of
Ufology' will no longer be in operation. The reason for this?
Simply put, the current website does not have sufficient
capacity for the sheer amount of information that I have
received. Several people have been requesting that more be done
and have also expressed to me they feel that 'eXpos has
provided a much needed 'service' to ufology and the general
public. I currently do not feel that 'eXpos has been providing
as great a service with this limited capacity and frankly, my
expectations for 'eXpos were much higher.

I sincerely appreciate the support that I have received. To
those of you that have assisted and supported me in this
endeavor, and to those of you that are faithful subscribers, I
sincerely thank you. I now feel that the time has come to move
on to another project, which I have and am pleased to announce
the end of 'eXpos and the beginning of:

UFOWATCHDOG.COM
"Don't Trip On Your Open Mind."
http://www.ufowatchdog.com

I look forward to hearing from the many subscribers currently on
this list and also hearing from those new to UFOWATCHDOG.COM
The site has expanded and has a great new look to it. I invite
you to please stop by and see what its all about for yourself.

For those of you that have received this announcement in error,
I apologize for the intrusion. If you would like to be removed
from the list, please send an e-mail with 'unsubscribe' in the
subject line and your e-mail address will be removed
immediately. For those current subscribers, do nothing. You will
continue to receive e-updates and your information will always
remain in strict confidence. If you have received this message
and are not a current subscriber but would like to subscribe to
"THE WATCHDOG" e-updates, then do nothing and your name will
remain on the list. Address all e-mail to
ufowatchdog@earthlink.net

Here is just a sample of what's waiting for you at
UFOWATCHDOG.COM:

***NEWS***

~ Reed Hoax Resurfaces: The Dog, The Dead Alien and the Hoax That Won't Die
~ Psi-Tech Sues Ed Dames: Former Psi-Tech President accused of Stealing Company
Files
~ NASA Responds to FOX TV's "Moon Conspiracy"
~ Lowery Abduction Case To Be Presented
~ "World's Foremost UFO Researcher" Exposed

***UFO DIRTBAG OF THE MONTH FOR FEBRUARY 2001***
"The Shameless Psychic and His Prophecy of Lies" UFOWATCHDOG.COM
Investigates the Claims of Sean David Morton

***UFO HALL OF FRAUDS, DIRTBAGS, DUPES AND MORONS***

Thank you for your time and attention. And as always, don't trip
on your open mind...

Sincerely,

Royce J. Myers III, Editor
UFOWATCHDOG.COM








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 18

              Re: UNASA - Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy'

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 22:01:32 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 18:03:12 -0500
Subject: Re: UNASA - Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy'


 >From: UFO UpDates - Toronto

 >Source: NASA Watch

 >http://www.nasawatch.com/index.html

 >15 February 2001: Fox Airs "Moon Conspiracy"

 >Here's how Fox promoted their show:

 >"MOON LANDING QUESTIONED ON THE ALL-NEW SPECIAL 'CONSPIRACY
 >THEORY: DID WE LAND ON THE MOON' FEB. 15 ON FOX"

 >NASA put a man on the moon for the first time in 1969 -- or did
 >it? Could the entire moon program have been an elaborate
 >deception staged to fool the public? The conspiracy theories are
 >investigated in the all-new one-hour special"

Personally I prefer the 2 hour special called Capricorn 1  :)
Probably just as accurate as the Fox special.

 >Editor's rant: I can't even begin to find the right sentences to
 >describe this TV show - but I will try. Individual words such as
 >"idiotic", "ridiculous", "scandalous", "irresponsible",
 >"stupid", "fraudulent", "sloppy", and just plain "wrong" come to
 >mind.

 >Among the most ridiculous claims in this program was that
 >astronauts were killed (by NASA) to keep them silent "because
 >they knew too much" and that the Apollo landings on the moon
 >were faked. The only counterpoint to these baseless claims
 >presented on-air were several short clips featuring the late
 >Brian Welch from NASA PAO. This was all packaged together and
 >promoted as a serious inquiry into a possible conspiracy on the
 >part of NASA.

 From the same good people who unloaded the alien autopsy on
everybody not to mention other such specials.

 >Congratulations Fox. Now millions of school-aged children have
 >been exposed to your nonsense - and it is going to take the hard
 >work of their parents (whom you've also misinformed) and their
 >teachers to fix the damage.

Of course you realize that many of the so called school
text books have flaws and major mistakes in them as reported
awhile back on national news.  Bottom line is text books
can be just as accurate as the fox special and thats not saying
much.

 >If Fox executives had any sense of fairness and civic
 >responsibility they'd offer an hour of prime time to
 >representatives from NASA and the scientific community to refute
 >this one hour collection of rumors, unsubstantiated innuendo,
 >and wanton conspiracy mongering - and undo the damage that has
 >been done.

Why?  They have already milked the money cow and people have
already watched it. Why let facts get in the way of
entertainment?


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 18

                          Re: AA Film Redux - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 22:05:25 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 18:07:30 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Gates


 >From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 11:18:29 -0800

 >>Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 08:57:56 -0600
 >>From: Roger Annette Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Hi all,

 >>After much brow beating, spanning more than a week or so, I
 >>finally agreed to look at Ed's CDs.

 >Yes, we tried to convince you that you should take a look at the CDs.

 >>As I figured,  he
 >>immediately emailed me with excuses about not being very
 >>technical, not completely understanding how to make a CD copy,
 >>etc.

 >As I explained in that e-mail (several days after getting your
 >address) I was originally going to have the CDs copied for me
 >but since I had so few orders, I decided to do it myself. I
 >admit to not be on the technical side, but I was able to muddle
 >thought the installation process and am sending you the three CD
 >set. (We had thought we would need four)

 >>Just how prepared were you for people to accept your challenge of
 >>looking at the footage, Ed?

 >I think we're very well prepared but take a good look and see
 >what you can find out and then we can talk it over. Maybe you'll
 >find a zipper or seam.

I was hoping that you would roll Roger a VHS copy as well as the
CD, that way he could have both in hand when he checks it out.


Cheers,

Robert







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 18

                          Re: AA Film Redux - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 22:21:27 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 20:13:32 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Gates


 >Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 15:35:30 +0000
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >From: Ralf Zeigermann <kag15@dial.pipex.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 14:10:38 -0800 (PST)
 >>From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>Having seen the perils of "seeing things" in clouds of pixels
 >>(see my website devoted to possible Mars artifacts), I honestly
 >>don't think there's anything here worth scratching one's head
 >>about. Maybe after a few rounds in a sensory deprivation tank
 >>I'd feel differently. But right now these look like smudges and
 >>wishful thinking.

 >Mac,

 >You are promoting a heap of rocks on Mars and you (and others)
 >see a 'face' in it, while for me (and others) it's just a pile
 >of rocks.

Personally I see nothing more then rock formations and so forth
on Mars, likewise with AA I see special effects wizard at work.

 >In the AA you (and others) can clearly see a _body_ and this
 >'body' clearly doesn't look like a dummy or prop to me (and
 >others).

In many of the movies made in the 80s and 90s the dead bodys
don't look like dummys or props to me, likewise when I look at
Jurassic park the T Rex appears to be real, even down to the
water splashing when he makes steps. Although I know for a fact
that all of the above is fake.

As I have said before if the movie maker has done his or her job
correctly they have totally blurred the line between real and
phony. While you believe the AA is real, that doesn't translate
out to it in fact being real.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 18

                  Re: Dec 1950 Crash & Willingham - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 01:17:29 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 20:15:17 -0500
Subject: Re: Dec 1950 Crash & Willingham - Sparks


 >From: Jeff King <Boroimhe@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 20:48:58 EST
 >Subject: Re: Dec 1950 Crash & Willingham
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 13:22:33 -0500
 >>updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Dec 1950 Crash & Willingham

 >All hail to the List:

 >In his recent posting, Bruce Maccabee concludes with:

 >>The 'bottom line' is that Willingham could well have, correctly,
 >>remembered that radar detected the object and at the same time
 >>he may have incorrectly assumed that it was detected by the DEW
 >>line radar that was well publicized in 1953. He was not, after
 >>all, involved in the development of radar so would not be
 >>expected to know how various radar setups were designated.


 >Interesting. When the Air Force used the "mixed-up different
 >years" argument in Case Closed, people went ballistic. Now it's
 >used to rehabilitate a witness.

 >A more serious problem with Willingham's story is his claim to
 >be flying out of Dyess Air Force Base in 1950. Dyess wasn't
 >opened until 1956. Groundbreaking didn't even occur until 1953.
 >Perhaps he wasn't involved enough in his career to know the
 >various bases to which he was assigned.

 >At least Willingham's story is internally consistent. He
 >scrambled out of a base that didn't exist to intercept a UFO
 >detected on a radar system that also didn't exist. Maybe his UFO
 >really crashed in 1953, or 1956, or ...

 >Jeff King


Hi Jeff,

Thanks for the info on Dyess' history. This adds to the
previously mentioned anachronistic contradictions to
Wiollingham's story are as to the radar trackings and the F-94,
although I think Zechel did look into the history of when Dyess
AFB became operational but wasn't able to get the specifics you
did.

There is now an online Air Defense Radar website at:

  http://www.radomes.org/museum/

Under Air Defense Radar -->Early Radar -->LASHUP one can find a
map of U.S. air defense radars in April 1950 which shows no
radars at all in Texas, and none in Colorado that could have
observed Willingham's alleged 90-degree turn. Nor any in Nevad,
Idaho, or Utah along the way from Washington State to Texas.

There are site tables that show that the first operational air
defense radars in Texas went online in 1952. (See Air Defense
Radar -->Radar Sites --> Radar Time Lines.) None were in
existence in Dec 1950, the date Zechel forced onto the
Willingham story and now enshrined as a sacred date in MJ-12
cult religion. Same for Colorado etc. Willingham didn't just
"confuse" the DEW Line radar that didn't yet exist because the
DEW Line _never_ existed in Texas or anywhere outside the Arctic
or sub-Arctic. There wasn't _any_ radar to confuse at all.

The other anachronism was the deployment of the brand-new
F-94's. Zechel could not find any record that F-94's were
deployed to Texas in late 1950.

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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 18

                    Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Randles

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 14:40:08 -0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 20:18:00 -0500
Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Randles


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment
 >Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 20:02:56 -0000

 >All this finger-pointing both ways is silly until the UFOIN
 >report is published and peer reviewed. I for one look forward to
 >it with great interest. Such detailed case investigations are
 >essential to serious ufology.



Hi,


I agree.

This comment is appreciated and it is all we are asking of
anyone I should add.

Thanks for such a responsible reaction.

We don't wish to 'turn' anybody  and certainly haven't been
ploughing witnesses with our pet theories as suggested in
another e-mail. That's silly.

We merely wish to present the facts that we have discovered on
this famous case and you can then all make up your own mind from
them.

Its as simple and non contentious as that.

I have long argued (see several of my earlier books) that
Lakenheath was a highly impressive case. I'd be delighted to say
that were still true after this investigation and don't have any
vested interest in making my own prior comments about it look
inappropriate. But that's the way the cookie crumbled and what
do you expect me to do but honestly tell you that?

Facts here decree what they do and after my conversations with
several direct eye witnesses (who all tell a consistent story)
it would be foolish of me to say other than that this case is
not what we thought it was. That's a fair summation of the data.

And really there isn't any point in arguing it out on this list
or egging us into giving up more at this stage as you cannot
possibly judge properly from a less than fully informed
perspective until you see the evidence.

That is all that we are asking you to wait and do. We have every
intention of publishing the full facts for you all to study and
at that point will gladly entertain any kind of open debate on
this list. That doesn't seen unfair.

We are close to having all of the evidence in place. But we are
not rushing because we have no other agenda here at all -
despite the claims to the contrary. Our only interest is to do a
careful job of data collection and document what we have found
for the benefit of fellow researchers.

Then you can all happily take what we say or leave it.

Hardly a matter to lead to personal recriminations surely?


Best wishes,

Jenny Randles








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 18

                          Re: AA Film Redux - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 09:57:31 -0600
Fwd Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 20:20:20 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Evans


Correction

 >From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 23:00:09 +0000
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Morris

 >>Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 10:59:09 -0600
 >>From: Roger Annette Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

In a previous response to Neil I wrote:

 >Never mind
 >the camera original versus print argument; Santilli _thought_ he had
 >camera original footage, therefore he had no reason to _not_ have it
 >tested and looked at by someone like Bob Shell of Kodak.


I meant to write "Bob Shell _or_ Kodak". I know that Bob Shell
does not work for Kodak, less people just tuning in think I'm
more out of my mind than usual.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 18

                             Speaking Of Demons

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 16:24:51 -0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 20:22:48 -0500
Subject: Speaking Of Demons


This will probably get me in trouble, but what the heck!

I can imagine a scenario quite consistent with the UFO data
(depending of course on which data each of us considers
relevant) in which the powers behind UFOs are "demonic". Not in
the Biblical sense, though if UFOs have been around that long
some of the ancient references could conceivably have been to
the same phenomenon.

If abductions are really happening, then we ain't exactly
dealing with saints. In another sense, some data suggests that
'they' are yanking our chains in other ways too.

Mind you, I didn't say that I believe this or accept it as the
truth. It is only an intellectual exercise and certainly not
demonstrable or falsifiable at this point.


Dick Hall








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 18

             Re: NASA - Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy' -

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 11:53:11 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 20:24:15 -0500
Subject: Re: NASA - Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy' -


 >From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: NASA - Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy'
 >Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 08:41:07 -0600

 >>Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 18:03:50 +0000
 >>From: dledger@ns.sympatico.ca (Donald . Ledger)
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: NASA - Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy'

 >>From: UFO UpDates - Toronto

 >To the outraged;

<snip>

 >starless skies,

Al:

Please explain why the television pictures broadcast from the
Space Shuttle and Space Station today do not show a star-studded
sky. Please be specific as to the level of conspiracy needed to
produce this effect. Then discuss alternatives to your
hypothesis.

<snip>

 >I never saw anyone walk on the moon.

<snip>

 >I only have 'someone's' already suspect _Word_ for the latter.
 >What would you have me continue to believe?

Have you ever been to Australia, or Antarctica? If you have not,
do you believe that there is such a place? What is your reason
for such an irrational belief?


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 18

                          Re: AA Film Redux - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 11:15:16 -0600
Fwd Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 20:25:56 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Evans


 >From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 14:34:15 EST
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Bourdais
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>


 >>Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 23:00:09 +0000
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux

Previously, Gildas wrote of AA:

 >>>This could also account for Capt. McAndrew's comment to me
 >>>that he had seen the same film in Air Force archives.

<snip>

 >I don't think he mentioned a specific date but I had the
 >impression from context that he was speaking of seeing it some
 >years earlier.  He also indicated having seen more of the film
 >than Santilli had.

<snip>

 >>So, I suppose he meant that he had seen it before. Then, I don't
 >>see many possibilities:

 >>1) The AA footage is an authentic military film,

 >>or

 >>2) It is a fake made by the military, or a related agency. (In
 >>this case, it could well be a fake close to a real one).

 >>In both cases, Santilli had only a copy of it, and was of course
 >>unable to give a foot of original film for datation, but this is
 >>not a key point in this context. It could have been shot any
 >>time.

 >>3) Here is another possibility: captain McAndrew lied to you!

Hi, Gildas!

All considered, prospects numbers 1 and 2 above make the most
sense, if sense is to be made from such limited information
regarding AA. In the end, AA could be both an authentic military
film as well as a fake made by the military. That is to say that
the alien still isn't real; but since the film could have
originated within the military, then descriptions 1 and 2 both
apply.

What is important to keep in mind is that Santilli had been told
that others had already seen the footage. Now in the context of
the US Goberment's constant denial that we've never been visited
by aliens or that ET craft really exists, just what is the
likelihood that such damning, "authentic" footage would be
available floating around out there long enough for others,
including Japanese investors, to have also seen it? Seems more
likely that the government knew that the footage wasn't real,
therefore, it wasn't seen as a security threat. Combine this
pre-existing knowledge with the fact that Bob Shell gave
Santilli the bad news that he did not have camera original, and
Santilli and Volker certainly had to know that the footage was
more suspect than not.

For Santilli to maintain the position of validity regarding AA,
and to maintain that there is nothing he can do to help clear
the air regarding said validity is nonsense. Perhaps Santilli
did not create the AA footage. Who knows? Certainly he knows
that the footage is not authentic in the "alien" sense of the
word.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 18

                           Re: Lakenheath - Bruni

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 17:18:32 -0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 20:27:22 -0500
Subject: Re: Lakenheath - Bruni


 >From: Dave Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Lakenheath [was: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ]
 >Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 18:06:40 -0000

 >the 'accepted' version of events repeated and perpetuated ad
 >nauseum since 1969 by everyone from Thayer to Sturrock and most
 >recently by Georgina Bruni - the latest to get the facts
 >completely wrong.

Dave, I have never claimed to have investigated the Lakenheath
case, but have mentioned it in my book "You Can't Tell The
People" because it involved RAF Bentwaters, one of the bases I
was investigating concerning the Rendlesham Forest incident. The
information was taken from the only official records available,
with the names offered by respectable French journalist Bernard
Thouanel.I have a copy of the BBC tape that Jenny raved about
but it proves nothing. So, if the facts are wrong concerning
these official records then I look forward to you proving it.

If you are referring to RAF documents I think you will find that
there will not be too much information to go on, but I may be
wrong. I learnt early in the day that many RAF and USAF
documents are watered down and in some cases altered.

 >Georgina took three years to 're-investigate' the Rendlesham
 >Forest case, and proved nothing.

I strongly object to that statement and suggest you read the
book properly with an open mind. The book could not "prove" what
the objects were because they were and still remain UFOs.
However, it proved it was not the lighthouse, if that's what you
mean. There is an abundance of information in the book relating
to what took place before, during and after the incident, but
the debunkers have dismissed the book as if it does not exist,
continuing to promote their theories based on old information.
The new information of course demolishes their theories.

With regard to your witness, I find it odd that Jenny Randles
and co have dismissed the Rendlesham witnesses testimonies.Yet
you all seem to be saying that the witness in the Lakenheath
case is to be believed. I just think it's very strange that in
one case the witness testimony doesn't count, yet when it suits
the situation, suddenly it counts.

It will be interesting to see your new evidence. And do try not
to be too cocky and critical of the American researchers who
worked on this case, in many respects they did a far better job
than the British researchers, and they aren't a train ride away!


Best wishes

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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 18

             Re: NASA - Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy' -

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 11:42:51 -0600
Fwd Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 20:28:55 -0500
Subject: Re: NASA - Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy' -


 >From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
 >Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 08:41:07 -0600
 >Subject: Re: NASA - Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy' -
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, Alfred wrote:

<snip>

 >Besides,
 >starless skies, errant shadows, spotless landing pads, and
 >waving flags go a _long_ way toward demonstrating more than a
 >mere suggestion of suspicion in the current regard. I would like
 >to continue to believe that people went to the moon, for prides
 >sake if nothing else. I just wouldn't be surprised if they
 >didn't.

<snip>

Hi, Alfred!

I'm curious, do you feel that we did not go to the moon? I know
you say you would like to believe, but your post makes me
wonder.

Regarding the errant shadows, no stars, etc. Here we have an
example of what people's perceptions of reality can be in the
face of _real_ reality. In another, lingering thread, I have
bemoaned the idea that AA looks more like what people _think_
archival, documentary footage of an autopsy would look like as
opposed to what it would really look like.

The "fake-moon-landing" proponents (foonies?) ironically take
the opposite stance. They look at the lack of stars as a sign of
fakery when, in fact, a starless sky is _exactly_ what one would
see if on the moon during the "day" just like here on Earth. I
find this amusing because, if NASA really did go to great
lengths to create a "reality" that was technically accurate, the
foonies obviously prefer their own reality that has been skewed
due to watching too many science fiction movies where the stars
are always visible; lighting imbalances be damned. It would seem
that, if the landing was faked by NASA, they would have been
better off trying to please peoples' perceptions of what a moon
landing would look like instead of going for technical accuracy.

But then, people like myself would be going, "Wait a minute..."


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 18

                         Re: AA Film Redux - Morris

From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 17:47:11 +0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 20:31:29 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Morris


 >Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 21:51:51 +0000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux

 >>From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >>Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:28:39 -0800

<snip>

 >[The image was not forwarded - nor was the one attached to this
 >message - there are too many subscribers whose providers will
 >not handle attachments - they bounce. Please post files to URLs
 >and reference those sites in future posts--ebk]

 >><snip>

Errol and UpDaters,

Point taken here and sorry to cause you problems, in future if I
reference an image I will upload this to my website and
reference the URL.

Regarding the image I referenced in the posting in question it
can be accessed now on my website in large and small formats at:

http://www.thefortworthphotographs.freeserve.co.uk/images/ml-m-sma.jpg

(24k)


http://www.thefortworthphotographs.freeserve.co.uk/images/ml-m-sma-large.jpg

(155k)








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 18

                     Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 12:11:52 -0600
Fwd Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 20:33:10 -0500
Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Clark


 >From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 14:34:10 EST
 >Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment
 >>Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 20:02:56 -0000


Gildas,

 >>All this finger-pointing both ways is silly until the UFOIN
 >>report is published and peer reviewed. I for one look forward to
 >>it with great interest. Such detailed case investigations are
 >>essential to serious ufology.

 >Agreed!

 >But, let's hope that Jenny Randles et al will be better than on
 >Rendlesham.

 >And that the pilot's testimonies "who have seen nothing" will be
 >loud and clear.

 >The "Cometa boys" are waiting and getting older).

I, too, look forward to seeing whatever Randles/Roberts/Clarke
have come up with and determining whether it's more compelling
than the failed (though much-hyped) attempt to debunk the
Rendlesham case. The jeering, boasting posting by Andy Roberts
does not, however, exactly inspire confidence about the
objectivity of the investigation. I guess we'll find out one way
or another at some point.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 18

                    Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Roberts

From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 16:25:42 -0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 20:35:20 -0500
Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Roberts


 >From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 14:34:10 EST
 >Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

Gildas wrote:

 >But, let's hope that Renny Randles et al will be better than on
 >Rendlesham.

'et al'? eh?

None of the people involved with the Lakenheath/Bentwaters
reinvestigation (besides Jenny) have had anything to do with
Rendlesham.

Get your facts right Gildas.

I, for one, wouldn't dream of investigating a case beginning
with 'R'!

 >And that the pilot's testimonies "who have seen nothing" will
 >be loud and clear.

Oh, it's loud and clear Gildas, you can bet your sweet bippy on
that one. So loud and clear that their laughter is still ringing
in my ears.

 >The "Cometa boys" are waiting and getting older).

All things come to he who waits.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 18

                 Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Stacy

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 14:28:07 -0600
Fwd Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 20:38:48 -0500
Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Stacy


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 16:41:32 -0000

 >>From: Mendoza - Peter Brookesmith <Mendoza@appleonline.net>
 >>Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>Date: Sat, 17 Feb 01 02:23:00 +0000
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >I am overwhelmed by your erudition. Yet, as an erstwhile formal
 >student of philosophy you seem to be arguing from theory
 >(deductively) rather than from data (inferentially).

 >Both you and Dennis suggest that I have taken his comments out
 >of context. Actually the context doesn't really matter; he
 >implied in a pejorative manner that people like me, Dick Haines,
 >and Bruce Maccabee were ET believers, or that he suspected same.
 >He has since apologized for seeming to link me with gullible
 >believers, so there is no need to belabor the point. But, my
 >argument is strictly empirical. Theory be damned.

 >As I see it the evidence strongly suggests an ET answer and the
 >"link" you call for is there to see if you study the total
 >picture. I have presented it in my new book*, and will continue
 >to present it in various fora. And we will have to agree to
 >disagree about Dennis' responsibility to suggest alternatives if
 >he is not convinced the ET hypothesis is a worthy one.


Dick,

I went back and looked at my original post  from 2/07/01. Here
it is in its entirety:

---

Hell (pardon my French),

The only question being debated here is who's a ufologist and
who's not.

In other words, semantics raises its ugly head again. Of course
ufology wouldn't have this problem if BA's, MS' s and PhD's in
same were offered, which they aren't.

"From my point of view, all of the following are dedicated and
self-proclaimed ufologists who unequivocably acept the ETH as
ipso facto:

Kevin Randle
Donald Schmitt
Ron Galganski (sp?)
Budd Hopkins
David Jacobs
Linda Moulton Howe
Walt Andrus
John Schuessler
George Filer
Stanton Friedman
Tom Carey (sp?)
Karl Pflock (he believes in the Hill case)
John Carpenter (he believes in everything)
Donald Ware (ditto)
Bruce Maccabee (watch him equvocate)
Woods Father & Son (who cares?), and others.

And I have my suspicions about Richards Haines & Hall.

---

Perhaps I should have said unequivocably accept the ETH as "more
or less" ipso facto. The point is, I don't see anything
particularly perjorative about the above remarks, nor do I refer
to "gullible believers" therein, as you state. An observation is
not necessarily perjorative, last time I looked, if it merely
(or mainly) states the present status quo.

You've allayed my suspicions about your personal position on the
spectrum of ETH acceptors, as I've already admitted.

And here's the context in which my original post was made, which
you seem to think "doesn't really matter":

---

Exactly the point I made early on in the course of what has
proved to be a mostly interminable, tiresome, pointless
exchange.  As I remarked then, ufologists tend not to give the
ETH a great deal of thought precisely because they either know
or sense that at this stage, there is nothing to be done with
it. It can be neither proved nor disproved, thus most
ufologists' focus on casework, analysis, history, and other
pragmatic, here-and-now projects.

Jerry Clark

---

That's from a 2/15/01 post by Jerry.

Obviously, I tend to agree with Peter Brookesmith here, whose
argument is that most ufologists tend not to give the ETH a
great deal of ink (or thought) because they (more or less) take
it for granted. *That* was the point of my post.

As for citing alternative suggestions, you have only to read my
own book, The Field Guide to UFOs (co-authored with Patrick
Huyghe) to see numerous examples of same for specific cases. We
also include the ETH as one possibility.

So it's not that I think the ETH is unreasonable or unworthy of
positing or pursuit. I am simply not convinced of its fact or
primacy by the evidence adduced in support of same. One could
easily think of any number of circumstances in which the
argument would be moot. Of all the catastrophic consequences of
contact Clark mentions, he omits the one of a possible viral
infection. Well, why not?

Obviously, if the aliens bore some sort of virus or bacteria
that proved fatal, or let's just say extremely discomfiting to
humans, end of argument. But that obviously hasn't happened, has
it, unless one accepts one of the more paranoid fringe claims
that the aliens are actually behind the AIDs virus.

I look out my window from this desk, however, and see that the
sun is still shining and birds still chirping in the trees.
Might not one argue, at least philosophically, that because
civilization *hasn't* collapsed that, ipso facto, we oviously
aren't in widespread contact with, or subject to contamination
by, physical extraterrestrial entities?

Similarly, what if, in more than 50 years of surveillance, a UFO
*had* fallen to earth in a way that couldn't conceivably be
covered up and over by the military, say, in downtown
Cincinatti, Dallas, or St. Petersburg? But that hasn't happened,
either. Such thought experiments could continue almost ad
infitum (the point of the Fermi Paradox).

And that's before even remotely beginning to address some of the
troubling scientific issues raised by such recent books as Rare
Earth and the long article by Mike Davis that Patrick and I
published in The Anomalist 5.

For that matter, there's even Hynek's "embarrassment of riches"
observation embodied, somewhat ironically in my mind, by your
own two massive compilations of UFO evidence. In all
seriousness, can there really be *that* many saucers and
civilizations zipping through our terrestrial skies, night after
night,  for the last half-century or so, if not longer? Or are
we only looking for one white crow?

As an aside, I might add that for all the ruckus Jerry's
comments have raised about the treatment (or acceptance) of the
ETH within ufology, he's been extremely reticent in rectifying
the problem of which he complains. I've offered him several
opportunities on this thread to discuss some of the issues
raised by the Davis article and the Rare Earth book (I believe
the authors of the latter are Ward and Brownlee), largely to
little avail.

And so it goes.


Dennis Stacy
http://www.anomalist.com







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 18

              Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy'

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 19:19:02 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 20:40:18 -0500
Subject: Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy'


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 22:01:32 EST
 >Subject: Re: UNASA - Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy'
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >>From: UFO UpDates - Toronto

 >>Source: NASA Watch

 >>http://www.nasawatch.com/index.html

 >>15 February 2001: Fox Airs "Moon Conspiracy"

 >>Here's how Fox promoted their show:

 >>"MOON LANDING QUESTIONED ON THE ALL-NEW SPECIAL 'CONSPIRACY
 >>THEORY: DID WE LAND ON THE MOON' FEB. 15 ON FOX"

 >>NASA put a man on the moon for the first time in 1969 -- or did
 >>it? Could the entire moon program have been an elaborate
 >>deception staged to fool the public? The conspiracy theories are
 >>investigated in the all-new one-hour special"

 >Personally I prefer the 2 hour special called Capricorn 1  :)
 >Probably just as accurate as the Fox special.

 >>Editor's rant: I can't even begin to find the right sentences to
 >>describe this TV show - but I will try. Individual words such as
 >>"idiotic", "ridiculous", "scandalous", "irresponsible",
 >>"stupid", "fraudulent", "sloppy", and just plain "wrong" come to
 >>mind.

 >>Among the most ridiculous claims in this program was that
 >>astronauts were killed (by NASA) to keep them silent "because
 >>they knew too much" and that the Apollo landings on the moon
 >>were faked. The only counterpoint to these baseless claims
 >>presented on-air were several short clips featuring the late
 >>Brian Welch from NASA PAO. This was all packaged together and
 >>promoted as a serious inquiry into a possible conspiracy on the
 >>part of NASA.

 >From the same good people who unloaded the alien autopsy on
 >everybody not to mention other such specials.

 >>Congratulations Fox. Now millions of school-aged children have
 >>been exposed to your nonsense - and it is going to take the hard
 >>work of their parents (whom you've also misinformed) and their
 >>teachers to fix the damage.

 >Of course you realize that many of the so called school
 >text books have flaws and major mistakes in them as reported
 >awhile back on national news.  Bottom line is text books
 >can be just as accurate as the fox special and thats not saying
 >much.

 >>If Fox executives had any sense of fairness and civic
 >>responsibility they'd offer an hour of prime time to
 >>representatives from NASA and the scientific community to refute
 >>this one hour collection of rumors, unsubstantiated innuendo,
 >>and wanton conspiracy mongering - and undo the damage that has
 >>been done.

 >Why?  They have already milked the money cow and people have
 >already watched it. Why let facts get in the way of
 >entertainment?


Hi,

Does anyone have a good response to the photos of background
hills that were said to be identical in two different Apollo
missions, one photo with a Lunar Module in the foreground and
the other without? They overlaid the pics and showed the hills
were identical. Is this a photo fake by Fox?

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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 18

                  'Strange Evidence' - DNA Investigation Of

From: Bill Chalker <bill_c@bigpond.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 10:57:42 +1100
Fwd Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 20:45:53 -0500
Subject: 'Strange Evidence' - DNA Investigation Of


IUR article now on line - DNA investigation of biological evidence

Thanks to CUFOs my International UFO Reporter (IUR) article,
"Strange Evidence", on the DNA investigation of possible UFO
abduction related evidence is now on line on the J. Allen Hynek
Center for UFO Studies (CUFOS) web site in PDF form (which
requires Adobe Acrobat Reader) to facilitate downloading of the
article:

http://www.cufos.org/IUR_articles.html

Also on the CUFOS site is my article on Nobel Prize winner Kary
Mullis - "An Interesting aside" - which describes his possible
abduction related experiences and that of others on his northern
Californian property.  Mullis' PCR technique was utlised in our
DNA investigation of the "alien hair" sample:

http://www.cufos.org/iur_Spring99_addendum.html

A summary of the whole affair, which includes some reference to
updated research can be found at the UFO UpDates Archive:

http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2001/jan/m09-013.shtml

"Strange Evidence" includes the DNA sequence information, the
full analytical report and a detailed interview with Peter
Khoury, the Sydney Australian abductee, whose 1992 experience
led to the recovery of a biological sample that was subsequently
subjected to a detailed DNA study that yielded intriguing and
unusual results.


Regards,

Bill Chalker








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 19

                        Re: A Minor Diversion - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 04:29:17 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 03:13:32 -0500
Subject: Re: A Minor Diversion - Hatch


 >From: Gary Hart <geehart@frontiernet.net>
 >Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 11:36:42 -0600
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: A Minor Diversion

 >>Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 04:44:46 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: Toronto List <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: A Minor Diversion

 >>Dear Listeroos:

 >>To wit: What is hotter... the surface of the Sun, or the center
 >>of the Earth? I don't have the answer, but a quick browse
 >>indicates that I'm not the only one who doesn't know.
 >>Please forgive this minor diversion!

 >Hey Larry,

 >I can't answer your question but can pose one even better: what
 >is hotter - the surface of the sun or a place on the surface of
 >the earth?

 >The answer will surprise you...


Hello Gary:

I suppose one could argue that the center of an exploding
volcano might qualify. But! Anything that hot, implies and even
hotter source, since the magma will cool somewhat on expansion
and in traveling thru cooler materials near to the Earth's
surface.

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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 19

                        Re: A Minor Diversion - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 12:09:18 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 03:22:14 -0500
Subject: Re: A Minor Diversion - Hatch


 >From: John Tenney <jelt2000@email.msn.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: A Minor Diversion
 >Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 18:26:57 -0500

 >>Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 04:44:46 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: Toronto List <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: A Minor Diversion

 >>To wit: What is hotter... the surface of the Sun, or the center
 >>of the Earth? I don't have the answer, but a quick browse
 >>indicates that I'm not the only one who doesn't know. Our
 >>deepest drill holes are something on the order of 10-20 miles, a
 >>small fraction of one percent of the radius of the Earth, or the
 >>distance to the center.

 >>Extrapolating from the thermal gradients so far measured (so
 >>many degrees per kilometer of depth) I see figures on the order
 >>of 4000 or 5000 degrees C for Earth's center.

 >Larry,

 >I believe our sun has a surface temperature of 6000 degrees C,
 >but that's not why I'm responding, what really drives me "crazy"
 >is that I totally and whole-heartedly remember being taught in
 >school (Elementary, Jr High, High School, etc) that the center
 >of the Earth was a molten, fiery, lava-ish core.

 >Isn't this what everyone was taught?

 >I've discussed it with friends and the ones that can remember
 >agree with me. The reason that I've discussed this issue with
 >friends recently is because in October I picked up a friend's
 >son from his elementary school, (my old elementary school as a
 >matter of fact) and I decided to go in and look around for old
 >timesake.

 >As I stood and snooped by a fourth grade science class door I
 >was amazed to hear the teacher telling all of her students about
 >the, "cold, solid metal core" of the Earth.

 >I thought maybe I had heard wrong so I went back later to ask
 >her what she was talking about and although she wasn't there to
 >answer my questions I found a poster on the back wall of the
 >class showing a cut-away of the Earth - and there you go, a
 >solid, cold core of metal. Is it just me, am I remembering wrong
 >or has science pulled a "switcharoo" since I've been out of
 >school?

 >hmmm
 >John E.L. Tenney

 >P.S. My car conks out too everyday on my way to work, maybe
 >someone is trying to tell me something... or maybe I should've
 >spent more than $75.00 for my car. hmmm again.



Hello John:

Yes, I found the same thing browsing here.

By a "solid metal core" they do not mean a piece of solid metal
like you would see on the surface. The core is under tremendous
pressure, forcing otherwise liquid metals into a seemingly
artificial solid state (or phase) that could not obtain at the
surface.

If a chunk of this solid were magically and instantly
transported to the surface, it would melt instantly if not
explode.

My point is that it just gets hotter and hotter as you descend.
It does not get hotter, and then cool back down as you pass some
core boundary, it is pressure alone forcing the solid state.

Something similar is theorized for inner portions of Jupiter
where hydrogen gas gets compressed more and more until is
collapses, under pressure, into a metallic phase/state which is
never seen on a planetary surface. Maybe in some laboratory.

The Solid Core theory was bolstered by reflected seismic waves
from natural earthquakes, and repeatedly so I take it. I found
it a strange concept at first also.

I would bet $3 that the center of the Earth is hotter than the
surface of the Sun, but that's just me.


Best wishes

- Larry Hatch

= = = = = = =







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 19

              Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy'

From: Bbob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 21:21:35 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 03:25:01 -0500
Subject: Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy'


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 19:19:02 EST
 >Subject: Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy'
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Does anyone have a good response to the photos of background
 >hills that were said to be identical in two different Apollo
 >missions, one photo with a Lunar Module in the foreground and
the other without? They overlaid the pics and showed the hills
 >were identical. Is this a photo fake by Fox?

Hi, Brad:

Do you recall which Apollo missions it was? Maybe there was a
mix-up in two pixs, one taken in front of and the other behind
the lander?

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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 19

                         Re: AA Film Redux - Tonnies

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 18:37:04 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 03:29:11 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Tonnies


 >Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 11:15:16 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

 >Perhaps Santilli did not create the AA footage. Who knows?
 >Certainly he knows that the footage is not authentic in the
 >"alien" sense of the word.

I don't think Santilli produced the "real" autopsy. He might not
even know exactly where it originated. That said, it's almost
without doubt a fake. What surprises me is that no one's taken
credit for it yet! There's really no more "big money" to be made
in AA videotapes, is there?  I had the impression the public
fascination with the tape ended in '96 (at the latest).

I propose this was done by someone (not necessarily the U.S.
government) as a sociological experiment, in which case the
footage may very well have been making limited rounds within the
military complex for a while as part of a psychological study of
some kind.


=====
Mac Tonnies (macbot@yahoo.com) 816-561-0190
105 Ward Parkway #900, Kansas City, MO 64112
Me: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/mtvi.html
Cydonia: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/cydonia.html
Books: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/bookreviews.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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 19

                         Re: AA Film Redux - Tonnies

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 18:47:44 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 03:51:23 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Tonnies


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 22:21:27 EST
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

 >You are promoting a heap of rocks on Mars and you (and others)
 >see a 'face' in it, while for me (and others) it's just a pile
 >of rocks.

That's perfectly fine with me. But I do think a distinction
needs to be made between the "alien autopsy" footage and the
Face on Mars, as it's a rather crucial one: the "Face" -
whatever it is, and I've always conceded it may be nothing more
than a weird rock formation - is indisputably real: not in the
sense that it's artificial, but in the sense that there is
indeed a face-shaped mesa on Mars that is the focus of much
debate.

(That said, how anyone with access to properly rectified and
contast-enhanced photos can deny a face-like appearance is
rather beyond me.)

With the AA footage, we don't know whether we're dealing with a
"real" event or not, as there's no established provenance.


=====
Mac Tonnies (macbot@yahoo.com) 816-561-0190
105 Ward Parkway #900, Kansas City, MO 64112
Me: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/mtvi.html
Cydonia: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/cydonia.html
Books: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/bookreviews.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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 19

             Cydonina Imperative - 2-18-01: Is the Eye Faceted?

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 19:45:18 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 03:54:00 -0500
Subject: Cydonina Imperative - 2-18-01: Is the Eye Faceted?


2-18-01

THE CYDONIAN IMPERATIVE


Is the Eye Faceted?

by Mac Tonnies

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



[image]

The "eye" on the Face. The apparent "faceted" "iris"-like
structure rests in the middle of an almond-shaped depression,
which in turn is surrounded by anomalous radiating "cells."

A close look at the "eye" as shown in the new Mars Global
Surveyor Face photograph reveals the alleged "pupil" (more
accurately, the "iris" or "cornea," if this is an artificial
edifice) to be a "squashed" pyramid with its two primary facets
aligned roughly with the "City" complex. While this structure
deviates from the perfect circle expected by some, it is
nonetheless an intriguing find difficult to reconcile with
gelogical processes, such as volcanic venting and meteor impact.
(If the "eye" depression is the eroded vestige of a crater, as
suggested by some, then it's extremely unlikely that an
elevated, clearly defined feature would exist in the center.
It's my personal opinion that known geological processes could
not have conspired to produce the Face's "eye.")

A faceted formation such as the one observed may have once
served as a light-reflecting device for its hypothetical
builders. This seems to strengthen the contention that the Face
was meant to be seen from above. Perhaps computer modeling can
show us whether the uniquely "faceted" iris is in a position to
reflect sunlight in a culturally significant manner and/or if
this striking formation was designed to be seen from the
direction of the "City."

[image]

Kynthia's clay rendering. Note presence of "eye" and "teardrop"
on the Face (viewed in profile from the west).

Photoclinometric ("shape-from-shading") analysis by Mark
Carlotto has shown us that the Face retains a humanoid
resemblance even when seen from the ground. This finding was
validated by an analogue sclupture by Kynthia based on the 1998
Face image, in which the "teardrop" is also visible (see Face
photos). This discovery effectively buries NASA's "trick of
light" explanation, which remains the agency's official
position.

It should be reinforced that the "eye" was a predicted feature,
not at all visible on the low-resolution Viking photos taken in
the 1970s. The "eye," with its enigmatic "iris," constitutes a
verified hypothesis favoring a non-natural origin of the Face
mesa. Such evidence demands a serious re-appraisal of the Face
by NASA.

New images, if taken, should tell us more.

-end-







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 19

                   Re: Dec 1950 Crash & Willingham - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 13:52:23 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 03:57:42 -0500
Subject: Re: Dec 1950 Crash & Willingham - Hatch


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 01:17:29 EST
 >Subject: Re: Dec 1950 Crash & Willingham
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Jeff King <Boroimhe@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 20:48:58 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Dec 1950 Crash & Willingham
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>>Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 13:22:33 -0500
 >>>updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Dec 1950 Crash & Willingham

 >>All hail to the List:

 >>In his recent posting, Bruce Maccabee concludes with:

 >>>The 'bottom line' is that Willingham could well have, correctly,
 >>>remembered that radar detected the object and at the same time
 >>>he may have incorrectly assumed that it was detected by the DEW
 >>>line radar that was well publicized in 1953. He was not, after
 >>>all, involved in the development of radar so would not be
 >>>expected to know how various radar setups were designated.

 >>Interesting. When the Air Force used the "mixed-up different
 >>years" argument in Case Closed, people went ballistic. Now it's
 >>used to rehabilitate a witness.

 >>A more serious problem with Willingham's story is his claim to
 >>be flying out of Dyess Air Force Base in 1950. Dyess wasn't
 >>opened until 1956. Groundbreaking didn't even occur until 1953.
 >>Perhaps he wasn't involved enough in his career to know the
 >>various bases to which he was assigned.

 >>At least Willingham's story is internally consistent. He
 >>scrambled out of a base that didn't exist to intercept a UFO
 >>detected on a radar system that also didn't exist. Maybe his UFO
 >>really crashed in 1953, or 1956, or ...


 >Thanks for the info on Dyess' history. This adds to the
 >previously mentioned anachronistic contradictions to
 >Willingham's story are as to the radar trackings and the F-94,
 >although I think Zechel did look into the history of when Dyess
 >AFB became operational but wasn't able to get the specifics you
 >did.

 >There is now an online Air Defense Radar website at:

 > http://www.radomes.org/museum/

 >Under Air Defense Radar -->Early Radar -->LASHUP one can find a
 >map of U.S. air defense radars in April 1950 which shows no
 >radars at all in Texas, and none in Colorado that could have
 >observed Willingham's alleged 90-degree turn. Nor any in Nevad,
 >Idaho, or Utah along the way from Washington State to Texas.

 >There are site tables that show that the first operational air
 >defense radars in Texas went online in 1952. (See Air Defense
 >Radar -->Radar Sites -->Radar Time Lines.) None were in
 >existence in Dec 1950, the date Zechel forced onto the
 >Willingham story and now enshrined as a sacred date in MJ-12
 >cult religion. Same for Colorado etc. Willingham didn't just
 >"confuse" the DEW Line radar that didn't yet exist because the
 >DEW Line _never_ existed in Texas or anywhere outside the Arctic
 >or sub-Arctic. There wasn't _any_ radar to confuse at all.

 >The other anachronism was the deployment of the brand-new
 >F-94's. Zechel could not find any record that F-94's were
 >deployed to Texas in late 1950.


Hello Brad!

I might add that the Lashup page is hard to find at first. You
need to look well down the left-hand scroll-bar past Texas
Towers, Alaska... Canadian... until you reach Early Radar just
below Tech Training/Tyndall.

Then, under Early Radar click on LASHUP for the highly
interesting map.  Huge areas are devoid of radar, especially in
the Western states.

Three sites in close proximity in north-central New Mexico stand
alone (together) with nothing for a thousand miles perhaps in
all directions!

The only other sites shown West of the Mississippi are in
California (several), Washington state and the extreme NW corner
of Oregon, one only there.

That leaves Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Texas,
Oklahoma, the Dakotas, Kansas, Nebraska etc. etc. radar naked in
1950.  Being far from knowledgeable about this, it comes as a
surprise to me.

Here is a map of UFO sightings for 1950 in North America from my
website for comparison.

  http://www.jps.net/larryhat/NAM50.html

I see no correlation, positive or negative at first glance.

Could it be that the map only shows some certain types of
military radar, and that other types were more common?

What exactly is/was "Lashup"?


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 19

                         Re: AA Film Redux - Rudiak

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 23:17:20 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 04:01:18 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Rudiak


 >From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 21:51:51 +0000
 >Fwd Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 11:27:32 -0500
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Morris


 >>From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >>Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:28:39 -0800


In prefacing my response, I would like to point out that I have
had a number of very cordial and interesting e-mails with Neil
Morris in which we've exchanged information and a lot of give
and take. I think of Neil as a genuine good guy. He is an
intelligent and honest person and I mean him no disrepect.

On the other hand, I fear he has fallen under the sway of the
RPIT group and its minister of propaganda, J. Bond Johnson (I'm
sure Neil would strenuously disagree). I am writing this
response to Neil's post to point out some clearly erroneous
information and to clarify other matters.

 >>I recall James Bond Johnson's take on Roswell has been seriously
 >>challenged by Kevin Randle

 >There are two points of contention here, the first, regarding
 >phone interviews done by KR, it's not my place to go into these,
 >Bond's responses are on record in this forum.

Since Kevin Randle sent me a complete set of interview tapes
about 2 years ago, it was easy to review the original evidence
(the tapes and also some letters of correspondence) and see who
was telling the truth about the interviews and who was spinning
the story.

Bond Johnson has simply lied about those initial interviews and
changed his story for reasons only he knows. He has also
repeatedly accused Kevin Randle of altering the tapes and
issuing inaccurate transcripts. This again is completely false.

A detailed refutation of some of his false statements based on
the actual tapes can be found in the UFO Updates archives at:

http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2000/apr/m29-028.shtml

Another rebuttal to Johnson's incessant spin-doctoring, which
includes much of the same material below, can be found at:

http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2000/apr/m27-001.shtml


 >The second is Bond's claim to be _the_ only news photographer to
 >be present in Gen Ramey's office and that KR and DS's "news
 >conference" did not take place.

 >What's the RPIT evidence?.

 >Firstly circumstantial, other than the single Newton image which
 >appeared much later on the night of the 8th July, far too late
 >for morning deadlines,

Not true Neil. The Newton image appeared in the morning July 9
edition of the Philadelphia Inquirer and had a civilian wire
service attribution. This is very strong if not conclusive
evidence that there was another civilian photographer in Ramey's
office.

 >_the_ only pictures to be published
 >_anywhere_ were those taken by Bond Johnson, this point has been
 >extensively researched by a number of people who have checked
 >between one and two hundred news title editions around July 8th
 >1947.

I'm the one who did the looking at nearly two hundred July 8
newspapers, and your statement isn't correct. The Philadelphia
Inquirer edition showing Newton's picture refutes the argument
that Bond Johnson was the only photographer there. The picture
showed up in a few other newspapers as well that I found, but
the Inquirer is the only paper I know of that showed it the
following morning.

 >The only pictures to appear were Bond's.

Nope. There was also the Newton picture, thus there had to be at
least one other photographer there at some time. I asked Newton
myself if he remembers having his picture taken and, for what
it's worth, he says that he does (though not by whom). He also
told me he remembers two and maybe as many as four reporters
there asking him questions. You can also read quotes from him in
various AP and UP stories of the time. This is suggestive,
though not conclusive, that the AP and UP had people there.

 >Where were all the others _if_ there was a news conference with
 >multiple reporters and photogs??. It's also noteworthy that the
 >copy that ran with these pictures was, as a rule either verbatim
 >wire service copy or the same locally editorialised, where is
 >all this _other_ copy?.

Again Associated Press and United Press did run stories quoting
Newton. Both had offices in nearby Dallas. In fact (based on the
UP teletype messages saved by Roswell reporter Frank Joyce), the
UP had one of their people in Dallas on the story as early as
4:15 pm., over two hours before the AP announced the official
Newton balloon identification at 6:30. That's more than enough
time to get somebody over to Fort Worth to directly cover this
big news story of the day.

 >Witness testimony, unlike KR and DS who were I assume basing
 >their take of events from Jesse Marcel's recollections of his
 >time in FW,

Don't forget Gen. Dubose and Irving Newton, both of whom were
_also_ there, and both of whom stated they remembered several
reporters being there. This wasn't just the story of Jesse
Marcel.

The existence of at least one other press photographer is proven
by the Newton photo which appeared the next morning. And then
there are the Newton quotes which appeared in AP and UP stories.
These obviously can't be attributed to Bond Johnson

 >and it must also be noted Thos DuBose, Ramey's COS
 >at the time, totally dismissed _any_ photographs having been
 >taken until confronted with Bond's pictures, to which he
 >responded " well yes, that is the stuff they brought from
 >Roswell".

This is very incomplete accounting of Dubose's many interviews
on the matter, and obviously comes from the highly suspect
Shandera "interviews" with Dubose. Even though Shandera produced
lengthy "transcripts", he has also been unable to produce the
tape recordings that would have been needed to produce such
detailed "transcripts." He is also unable to reproduce even
notes of the conversation.

On the other hand, there are a number of _recorded_ interviews
with Dubose which completely contradict your assertion and RPITs
that Dubose wasn't aware of the photographs and claimed the
stuff in the photos was from Roswell.

E.g., this is Dubose's statement from his sworn affidavit
written _before_ the Shandera interviews: "The material shown in
the photographs taken in Maj. Gen. Ramey's office was a weather
balloon. The weather balloon explanation for the material was a
story to divert the attention of the press."

 >RPIT now have a witness to all the further events that
 >night in the offices of The Fort Worth Star-Telegram after Bond
 >Johnson left some time after 6pm.

Neil, I've been hearing about this mystery witness for over a
year now, and have never gotten a name or even exactly what this
person had to say.

I strongly suspect your understanding of what this person has to
say comes heavily filtered through RPIT's minister of
propaganda, whose constantly changing and edited accounts I
don't exactly trust.

E.g., I sent Bond Johnson the Philadelphia Inquirer story and
photo of July 9 showing the photo of Irving Newton, and
emphasized that this indicated the presence of another civilian
photographer. I had e-mails where Bond Johnson basically agreed
with me. Then he promptly forgot all about this important piece
of evidence that ran against the grain of the RPIT Roswell spin,
and started reasserting all over again that he was the only
photographer there. Then I had to remind him again of the
Inquirer photo, and he said he forgot about it.

Now I'm finding I have to rebut this same mistaken notion yet
again. Facts are facts Neil. Bond Johnson wasn't the only
photographer there and the Newton photo _proves_ it.

 >It is this witness who now _confirms_ Bond's belief _no_ press
 >conference was called out at FWAAF, he was there in the St
 >office all that night, he know's who and by what means all the
 >reports regarding Roswell were handled that night by the ST,

So he was at the S-T, but he wasn't in Ramey's office like
Newton, Marcel, and Dubose. So how does this mystery witness
know what was happening there?

Reporters could have shown up there after Bond Johnson left and
Ramey could have held an impromptu press conference (meaning
that the S-T would not have been notified - they didn't cover
Newton's appearance, did they?). Ramey made a big point of
calling in a weather officer to make an official identification
of the weather balloon and radar target (a story Ramey had been
putting out for nearly two hours prior to this).

Irving Newton has often told the story of how Ramey called him
personally on the phone and ordered him off his post, over
Newton's protest (he was the officer in charge of the joint
weather post and flight control and had to leave the post
unmanned).

Ramey wanted the next press release to affirm the official
weather balloon identification. He wanted this spread far and
wide to help kill the story. What better way than to have a few
reporters there when Newton made the identification? The
reporters asked Newton some questions about the weather balloons
and of course there was that very important photo taken which
absolutely proves that at least one other reporter showed up
after Bond Johnson.

 >and _no_ press conference was called.

Then how do you explain the Newton photo? How do you explain the
Newton quotes? How do you explain three witnesses who were
actually there saying there was one?

A press conference also doesn't have to be officially "called.,"
i.e., the press doesn't have to be notified ahead of time that
one is going to be held. It can be totally impromptu. Some press
people show up after Johnson leaves, Ramey wants to put the
finishing touch on his weather balloon cover story with an
official identification. So he calls Newton and tells him to
"get his ass over here," then invites the reporters in and tells
them that a weather officer will be there any minute to identify
the weather balloon. Newton arrives, his photo is taken by
_somebody else_ other than J. Bond Johnson, he is asked some
more questions, and the official weather balloon ID story goes
out over the AP wire soon afterwards.

The existence of other reporters there at some later time is
based on the Newton photo, wire service stories quoting Newton,
and on the testimony of three people who actually _were_ there,
not just the conjecture of Bond Johnson who wasn't, or that of
RPIT's mystery witness, whose actual testimony still isn't in
the public record.

 >Note, the ST was the
 >nearest news office to FWAAF and the title was _the_ largest
 >circulating newspaper in the south of the USA, at that time.

Which by no means precludes other newspapers or news agencies
showing up there at a later time. Don't forget the Newton photo,
or the AP/UP branch offices in nearby Dallas, or even Bond
Johnson's story of the AP sending over two wire-photo
technicians from Dallas to the Star-Telegram. Also don't forget
that the AP dispatched a reporter and photographer from their
Albuquerque branch to cover the story directly in Roswell.
Albuquerque is a lot further from Roswell than Dallas is from
Fort Worth. This was a very big story at the time.

BTW, I don't want to hear the same old saw about how we lack the
names of the other reporters, as if this necessarily disproves
their existence. Wire service stories and photos rarely carry
bylines. E.g., Kellahin and Adair, the two AP people sent to
Roswell, didn't receive byline credit for the AP stories and the
Brazel photo that came from their efforts in Roswell. We only
know of them because the Roswell Daily Record happened to
mention them being there for Mack Brazel's press conference. And
it seems they were mentioned only because the Brazel photo was
the first wire-photo ever sent from Roswell. To the Daily
Record, that was a story in itself.

(Isn't it interesting that even sheep rancher Mack Brazel had a
press conference, but evidence that General Ramey had one as
well is written off by RPIT as some sort of fantasy of Randle
and Schmitt?)

 >There was no press conference at FWAAF as envisaged by KR and >DS.

You can say this all you want as if it were necessarily true,
but there is clearly very good evidence to the contrary.

Why is it so damn important to you guys that Bond Johnson be the
only reporter on the spot? Maybe because that's what he wants to
believe and the rest of you are just following along? Why has he
completely ignored the Philadelphia Inquirer Newton photo of
July 9 that I send him and reminded him of again and again? That
photo alone disproves his spin of being the one and only
reporter in Ramey's office.

 >And like Ray Santilli, I'm not at this point going to identify
 >the witness.

Why not? If nothing else, his _actual_ testimony should be
posted so it can be scrutinized. I really don't like this RPIT
policy of releasing information through teasers, especially when
the teasers probably originate from RPIT's minister of
propaganda.

 >>and the alleged symbols discovered by
 >>the RPIT effort are the result of circular reasoning. Some
 >>people are confusing photographic interpretation with a
 >>Rorschach test.

 >Again if Errol will oblige I've attached another example,
 >readers, please draw your own conclusions, are these "symbols"
 >merely a byproduct of the little grey cells trying to make sense
 >out of chaos?. Please note the sharply defined edges to the "M"
 >type symbol and others. This image was on my old site for some
 >months prior to it's closure in mid Dec last.

I've tried to reserve judgment on debris analysis, though I
remain very skeptical that it is going to show anything
conclusive. To my eye and just about everybody else's except
RPIT's, what was displayed on Ramey's floor is the remains of a
weather balloon and a broken up radar target. According to
Marcel and Dubose, the weather balloon was the cover story and
not the real stuff.

Now _possibly_ some other debris from Roswell got mixed up with
the cover story balloon during all the confusion, so I thought
it a worthwhile endeavor to analyze what was there for something
clearly unusual or out of place. But I don't buy for a second
that the vast majority of material wasn't anything else other
than a weather balloon.

The real mother lode in the photos, Neil, is the Ramey message,
not the debris. There we find clear phrases where Gen. Ramey
continues to describe the crash object in an internal memo as a
"disc", not a balloon, whereas at the bottom of the message
Ramey is talking of a weather balloon press release to the
public and adding RAWIN target demonstration crews to firm up
the story. How the crash object was to be identified in public
and how it was actually described internally were two different
things entirely.

Furthermore the message speaks of later shipping something "IN
the disc" to Fort Worth by B-29 or C-47. There is nothing IN a
balloon or radar target that can be shipped.  And of course
there is that damning phrase "the VICTIMS of the wreck," which
again can't be explained by a Mogul balloon crash.

There's quite a bit more to the Ramey message (such as it being
addressed to Gen. Vandenberg at the Pentagon), but even these
snippets absolutely disprove a Mogul balloon crash as the cause
of the Roswell events. There were "victims" and Ramey continues
to call the crash object a "disc" and how they were later going
to ship something "in the disc." What was inside a "Mogul
balloon" to be shipped - helium gas?


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 19

                     Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Toal

From: Ted Toal <ttoal@jps.net>
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 21:01:36 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 04:02:40 -0500
Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Toal


Re Wandering Discussion of ET Hypothesis & ET Fact

If an amateur ufologist may be permitted to toss in some of his
thoughts on this subject....


I often hear the ETH and other hypotheses discussed as
all-or-nothing hypotheses, instead of granting the likelihood
that there is more than one hypothesis that is in fact correct.

Given what we know so far about the number of other planetary
systems in our galaxy and the possibilities of life evolving
elsewhere, I don't think anyone can argue realistically that the
ETH is not an eminently reasonable and likely explanation for
some UFO sightings.

Extrapolating from current trends in technology, including
especially genetic engineering, nanotechnology, neurobiology,
microelectronics, computer science, robotics, and quantum
physics, the Arthur C. Clarke mantra that sufficiently advanced
technology is no different than magic becomes very, very clearly
PURE TRUTH.  And from that we can speculate that technology that
is millions of years beyond ours must be operating in realms
unimaginable for us.  Call those realms extradimensional, or
spiritual, or whatever.  It seems reasonable that hypotheses
invoking realms beyond the universe as we currently perceive it
are likely to also be viable hypotheses to explain some UFO
phenomena.

This idea that we will "solve" the "UFO problem" by finding the
"right" hypothesis or the single answer - that's silly, throw it
out.  UFO phenomena are not a problem to solve, but an
indication of greater realities that we are seeking to come to
some sort of terms with.  Don't be rigid with your expectation
of the form that answers will take - expect many germane
answers, together describing a far greater reality than we are
currently aware of.


Ted Toal








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 19

                Cydonian Imperative: The Cliff's 'Great Wall'

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 21:52:41 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 04:04:36 -0500
Subject: Cydonian Imperative: The Cliff's 'Great Wall'



THE CYDONIAN IMPERATIVE


The Cliff's "Great Wall"

by Mac Tonnies

see:

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



[image]

The new image of the Cliff. See blowup of defile, or "wall,"
below.

In a previous article (Anomalous Geomorphology and the Cliff), I
outlined the strange circumstances that point toward a possible
artificial origin for the landform known (somewhat arbitrarily)
as the "Cliff." Robert Harrison, writing on his Cydonia Quest
website, has provided a thorough and credible examination of the
same feature, pictured below.

[image]

Harrison notes that the Cliff's elevated defile, or "wall,"
appears to be segmented. Moreover, the unusual white lines
fringing its base, like those seen lining the
"Coathanger/Dolphin" below the Face (and also seen in the
notorious "pipes" discussed on The Enterprise Mission) invite
speculation.

[image]

The Cliff seen in context. Note possible excavated impact ejacta
to right of Cliff.

Were the Cliff and its upper defile present before or after the
meteor impact that left its "splash"-style crater to the
immediate right? Harrison argues that the "wall" shows signs of
structural stress consistent with having existed before the
impact. If so, this may detract from the "artificial horizon"
hypothesis proposed by Richard Hoagland in "The Monuments of
Mars." (The Cliff is parallel to the Face; proposed inhabitants
of the City could have seen the Face superimposed before the
Cliff's ruler-straight defile in an unknown
astronomical/cultural context.)

With or without the attendant crater, the Cliff and its massive
wall-like defile present a challenge to geological models. It
appears "modular," as if built out of architectural "vertebrae."
And its presence atop the tapered Cliff mesa seems
all-but-inexplicable; so far as I know, there is not an
analogous feature elsewhere on Mars.

As noted elsewhere on this site, the "chewed"-looking terrain to
the Cliff's immediate right suggests a possible excavation; seen
in the high resolution provided by the MGS, this terrain is
actually criss-crossed with strange, curving fractures, many of
which are filled with the same curious parallel lines noted on
the Cliff itself.

High-resolution images of the Cliff are needed to discern
fine-scale detail of the structured-looking "wall," hopefully
providing us with an explanation for this bizarre morphology.

-end-







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 19

                         WB Network NY UFO Abduction

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 04:05:07 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 05:15:47 -0500
Subject: WB Network NY UFO Abduction


  WB Network Announces Brooklyn, NY UFO Abduction for their 11 PM News

The New York TV Channel 11 (which is the WB Network) has been
announcing spots all day about their coverage of an early 1990's
UFO Abduction case which evidently took place in Brooklyn, New
York City.  They have been placing these spots all evening,
including interviewing the person who was involved, speaking of
about 20 witnesses to the craft and making other positive
allegations about their own coverage of the event.

It remains to be seen just how the story will be covered in
light of previous tongue in cheek and downright insulting
actions heretofore delivered by network media ... and this one
is actually featured on a prime time network news program.

I suggest we all tune in to our local WB network news program
tonight at 11PM and see how it is presented. The presumption is
that if there is money involved, it is likely a fake...
according to some.


Best regards,

Jim Mortellaro
Prince of the Abductees, without portfolio







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 19

                          Re: Lakenheath - Randles

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 10:57:57 -0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 05:18:14 -0500
Subject: Re: Lakenheath - Randles


 >From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Lakenheath
 >Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 17:18:32 -0000

 >>From: Dave Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Lakenheath [was: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ]
 >>Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 18:06:40 -0000

 >>the 'accepted' version of events repeated and perpetuated ad
 >>nauseum since 1969 by everyone from Thayer to Sturrock and most
 >>recently by Georgina Bruni - the latest to get the facts
 >>completely wrong.

 >I have a copy of the BBC tape that Jenny raved about
 >but it proves nothing. So, if the facts are wrong concerning
 >these official records then I look forward to you proving it.

Hi,

As I have told Georgina - but she doesn't seem ready to believe -
the 'copy of the BBC tape' she describes is simply a copy of the
brief extract transmitted from three lengthy interviews that I
filmed with the witnesses for a programme on Ministry of Defence
/Public Record Office files on UFOs. I made this programme for
the BBC in l996.

Lakenheath/Bentwaters was a minor part of that programme and was
not discussed in any detail on screen. It was used only to
illustrate records of a UFO case not now accessible via the
public record but which by all expectation ought to have been.
Consequently there was no attempt to discuss what the air crew
saw.

In other words you cannot judge what the witnesses said about
the case from a brief snatch used for a quite different purpose
on air. Their full interviews are what count - and have been
repeated in greater detail and via other researchers since to
confirm and clarify - even though there's not a shred of doubt in
what they said to me in l996 either. Despite what Georgina is
claiming.

In all these interviews the air crew say the same thing and its
what I've reported all along that they claim (see 'Something in
the Air' / 'UFO Danger in the Air' in l997).

These stories - including what they told me on camera in 1996 -
all absolutely DO prove exactly what I have been telling you for
some time now and are crystal clear. Any attempt to make it seem
otherwise is doomed to failure and disappointment. This is not a
threat or shady tactic - its merely a statement of the situation
offered by me in friendship to you all to stop anyone making
themselves look foolish as they will do if they try to insist
the air crew offer even a shred of suspicion that they saw
something.

They didn't - and frankly that's that.

So I would strongly advise that nobody cling to the forlorn hope
that Georgina is giving to you. It will lead you astray from the
truth about this case.

Sorry to say this bluntly , but that's the way it is.

And like I keep saying, you will all have every proof you need
that this is not bluster but mere a friendly statement of the
facts when you see the UFOIN report.

Please be patient just a little longer. Surely that's not too
much too ask after 45 years?

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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 19

             Re: NASA - Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy' -

From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 06:25:16 -0600
Fwd Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 05:27:33 -0500
Subject: Re: NASA - Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy' -


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 11:53:11 EST
 >Subject: Re: NASA - Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy'
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: NASA - Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy'
 >>Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 08:41:07 -0600

 >>>Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 18:03:50 +0000
 >>>From: dledger@ns.sympatico.ca (Donald . Ledger)
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Re: NASA - Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy'

 >>>From: UFO UpDates - Toronto

 >>To the outraged;

 ><snip>

...well yeah, Bob! You have to snip that to insure that you
inoculate your well buffered immunity to my more open ended and
open minded meme. Promising to address your skin deep and so
trifling comments later, and quickly, to the relief of some of
the (oh so ritually honored) List members, I have to say that
you broadly miss the whitewashed side of the proverbial
livestock shelter, Bob.

It must be comforting to know such a rock hard foundation,
trust, and confidence in the general forthcomingness that exists
around you, especially given the aggregate inspiration those
three things provide along with the faultless institutional
leadership subject to perfect accountability and oversight...
<sigh>. Bobby... dude. Things aren't the way you think they are.
Start looking across grain at things, develop an alien view if
you will <not grinning>, and find on this detached personal
investigation that you are the subject of a very cleverly
insinuated program of conscientiously applied oral hygiene and
regular professional care. ...and I don't mean that in a good
way. <now I'm grinning>

 >>starless skies,

 >Al:

 >Please explain why the television pictures broadcast from the
 >Space Shuttle and Space Station today do not show a star-studded
 >sky.

Not star studded, but stars... some regular smear of light and
shadow suggesting depth and sky. Even as a kid I was bothered
about that featureless sky. Besides, what about flags, shadows
and landing pads? The official response is blustering outrage
and smirking denial. Both of the preceding could suggest guilt,
and have proved so in the _recent_ past so often that it does
not require citation. Seriously, I'm not the irrational believer
here.

 >Please be specific as to the level of conspiracy needed to
 >produce this effect. Then discuss alternatives to your
 >hypothesis.

I might as well ask you to be as specific about the assumptions
you have to hurdle to demonstrate your governments complete
forthcomingness with regard to subjects ufological! Don't dally
there, Roberto. Asking for specifics and then a defense of those
specicifics as measured by your comparison with more comfortable
alternatives is the last refuge of a scoundrel, especially in a
system where you have common sense suspicions regarding the
quality of the information you are getting in the _first_ place.
Performance of this position is sociopathic, acceptance a
demonstration of complacent naivet. You don't address the
concern I raised, at all, with that very reasonable sounding
request, you only celebrate the convenient dogmatic. I've made
my position clear regarding *alleged* ubiquitous conspiracy in a
recent paper -- you had no comment on that, even given your
penchant for artful snippage. <g>.


 ><snip>

Ahhh, yes. Better snip that. That grabs a little too close to
the short and curlies, don't it? <g>.

 >>I never saw anyone walk on the moon.

 ><snip>

You really can make anyone say what you want them to say with
this editing technique, Bobbo. Clever, if a little clumsy and
ham handed! <g>. I express a sentiment regarding a too easy and
largely unearned acceptance of the "official position" and come
off in a creative edit as an unlearned rube who believes
professional wrestling is real and men never walked on the moon.
Well done <golf clapping>.

 >>I only have 'someone's' already suspect _Word_ for the latter.
 >>What would you have me continue to believe?

 >Have you ever been to Australia, or Antarctica?

No actually, but I would be fascinated to learn how you so
obviously stood at the foot of lunar lander as who-ever-it-was
<g>LEAPED off the ladder (where was the good sense in _that_
btw?), and took that "giant leap for man-kind." What's it like
to take a space-walk, Bob? From your _personal_ experience. And
how about entertaining us with stories of your adventures on the
moon?

 >What is your reason
 >for such an irrational belief?

Apples and oranges, Robert. Apples and oranges chopped into that
time honored suit of fallacious straw and stuffed into the hide
of the easily demolished argument in pursuit of avoidance of the
cloying uncomfortable.

 >If you have not,
 >do you believe that there is such a place?

I believe that there are all sorts of different _kinds_ of
places. You, apparently, only accept what institutions of
demonstrated corruption have fed to you (?), not to put too fine
a point on it. <g>.

 >Clear skies,

 >Bob Young

Father knows best! <g>.

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, scourged by
the scurrilous skepti-feebroids.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 19

                    Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Easton

From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 12:48:12 +0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 05:50:18 -0500
Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Easton


Regarding:

 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment
 >Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 20:02:56 -0000

Richard Hall wrote:

 >All this finger-pointing both ways is silly until the UFOIN
 >report is published and peer reviewed. I for one look forward to
 >it with great interest. Such detailed case investigations are
 >essential to serious ufology.

Richard,

Please, let's not forget if you practised what you preach when it
was one of _your_ favourite cases, the 'Rendlesham forest UFO'
debacle, that was the subject of a research publication which
revealed critical new evidence.

You castigate those who 'finger-point' before impending research
material is published.

Yet, it was FUFOR and Richard Hall who couldn't wait to do so
when I published 'Rendlesham Unravelled', on 1 March, 1998.

And that was before the contents had even been read.

Not only that, you contacted one of the main witnesses to warn
them of the forthcoming publication.


So please spare us the patronising counsel, especially how 'Such
detailed case investigations are essential to serious ufology'.

If demonstrating further why 'ET UFO' beliefs are in fact borne
of mundane terrestrial causes, they are as welcome as a
Protestant in the Vatican.


The full story of this background to 'Rendlesham Unravelled' was
laid bare in 'Voyager Newsletter No. 15', see:

http://www.ufoworld.co.uk/v15.txt

Permit me an extract; I want to ensure it's understood what the
issues are here.

[BEGIN]

If there was in any way an imperative 'UFO' incident - this
doesn't require the source to be from outer space - I've done all
that I can to have it considered seriously and presented
credibly.

It was only a few months ago that I persuaded the UK's most
respected national newspaper they might find a newsworthy story
by contacting Halt and providing the UK forum Halt has stated he
hoped to have one day. Although they did get in touch with Halt,
so far as I'm aware he didn't accept this opportunity.


An obstacle to overcome when highlighting evidence which
threatens to, or obviously does, offer an explanation for a
prominent 'UFO' case is the adverse reaction from those who have
long believed it was conversely important evidence, if not
'proof', of contact by aliens. By default, it also impacts on the
claimed 'inexplicable' nature of other UFO cases and that
intrinsic belief in a government 'cover up'.

Typically, the reaction is hostile, vehement and often dismissive
of new evidence which hasn't even been studied. As one
experienced 'ufologist' cautioned just prior to publication of
'Rendlesham Unravelled':

"I hope you have your 'shit shelter' ready!

Your report is a real service to serious ufology. Those of us who
really care about the facts and the truths they embody/illuminate
are in your debt.

As the blizzard of brickbats falls around you, remember this
admonition which Senator Barry Goldwater used to keep on the wall
of his Washington office: Illegitimum non Carborundum".
[END]


And so it proved when 'Rendlesham Unravelled' was published:

"In my opinion, the debunking of this incident is so laughable
that I don't know where to begin to point out errors in it. The
whole premise of the article is incorrect and it insults the
intelligence of all those involved! Does anyone believe that
Security Policemen with weapons and senior military officers,
also with weapons, are given to mistaking lighthouses for other
things?"
[END]

"Agreed. This is a debunking ploy that I've seen used over and
over again. It's ludicrous to claim that someone saw a
lighthouse, or Venus, or Mars, or anything else that was there
the day before and will be there the day after; and the day after
that, etc., etc."
[END]

"The 'they saw the lighthouse' theory is warmed over garbage.
What some would like people to believe is that after years and
years of operation in which the base security would have noticed
and gotten used to--meaning the lighthouse would no longer be out
of the ordinary and would not suddenly attract attention during a
Dec night. Better said, it would be like a normal person that
watches the news and reads the newspaper waking up today and
saying "Shazam....Bill Clinton is President of the United
States...why I just noticed...." The lighthouse theory is a
broken bulb at best".
[END]

"If critics of Rendlesham have important new, unconsidered
evidence to share, I wish they'd do it instead of replowing the
same old ground.

I spoke with Halt at length two days ago (27 February) by
telephone and appraised him of the fact that Easton was promoting
a soon-to-be-released monograph that ostensibly explained the
complex of sightings as nothing more than the famous flying
Orford Ness lighthouse (and lightship, perhaps). Halt is adamant
that he didn't mistake the lighthouse for a UFO; he was well
aware of its presence on the skyline. After all, he did have
occasion to periodically walk about the base at night. Do these
critics really believe that an AF lt.-col., deputy base commander
was so disconnected from reality and his surrounding environment
that he couldn't recognize a lighthouse's blinking beacon?"
[END]

Ad nauseam...

Those latter comments were more significant though, they came
from Robert Swiatek, a director of FUFOR [Fund for UFO Research].

On 4 March, Mr Swiatek had more to say:

As a matter of fact I just downloaded Easton's article today
(Tues.) and read it on my way home from work. In short, I was
underwhelmed and feel it's a loopy article. I frankly expected a
bit more new information than appears in the piece...

In my opinion, Easton's reshuffled the same old 52-card deck and
now somehow sees different cards.

I don't have time to write pages and pages here, but will
summarize some lowlights that really grated on me. None of the
events that Halt describes sound anything like a bright fireball,
which usually traverses the sky in a few seconds, or a re-
entering satellite, which also flashes overhead quickly,
occasionally spewing off parts of the rocket or satellite body.
Yet it's obvious Easton believes this to be the explanation,
hence the long diatribe about why Halt is "mistaken about the
dates." They have to be wrong to fit with Easton's beliefs.
Still, nothing new here; the date issue has been debated for
years.

Also funny how Easton plays the old my-sources-must-remain-
confidential routine, while asking us to Trust me, I'm telling
the truth about all this. Too much to hope for actual names, I
suppose. And documents--he's seen only photocopies. Let the pro-
MJ-12 proponents pull this tactic and you'd be all over them...
Come on, enough's enough here: Come clean with everything--
especially the anonymous sources--so we can judge for ourselves;
otherwise don't waste our time.

Notice how many weasel words are salted into his article. It
would do Clinton proud. To wit: "a bright object may have
produced this 'burn out' effect"; "Clearly, this seems to be the
lighthouse beacon"; "lens' could have produced distorted images."
Get the feeling Jim might be trying a bit too hard to convince us
of his beliefs when the facts just aren't there to support them?

It's especially rich when he throws notorious debunker Ridpath's
opinion into our faces--a man who wasn't there on the scene--as
though this somehow outweighs the testimony of on-site commander
Halt who saw the lighthouse day in, day out for months on end".
[END]


So, following some six months of not inconsiderable efforts, Halt
was finally contacted and the call made by a representative of
FUFOR, Robert Swiatek.

We might have anticipated that Halt would be asked if he could
please answer some relevant questions, or at least comment on the
two-mile chase of a lighthouse beacon, acknowledged in those
original witness statements.

Instead, on 27 February', Swiatek 'appraises' Halt of an
impending article and affirms the lighthouse would never have
fooled anyone.

Astonishingly, Swiatek then states he hadn't actually read the
extensive material in 'Rendlesham Unravelled' - which confirms
how the participants admitted the initial UFO scare resulted in
an abortive two mile pursuit of Orford Ness lighthouse - until 3
March!

In retrospect, obviously I wish I had known earlier this was to
be an outcome, however, it was an obligation to honour certain
protocols.

I see that I did reply to Swiatek:

 >In my opinion, Easton's reshuffled the same old 52-card deck and
 >now somehow sees different cards.

You're not appreciating some pretty fundamental points.

We never previously had all the cards laid on the table, possibly
still don't, but published for the first time, were details from
the original witness statements. These document how events
unfolded and are the missing 'aces' in understanding the true
perspective.

It's now evident there are major discrepancies between later
claims made by Jim Penniston and what was documented at the
outset. It's also only now realised the lighthouse beacon was
sufficiently unfamiliar in the forest setting that three security
policemen followed a 'beacon light' for two miles before this was
recognised.

It's a fact had never been mentioned by either Burroughs,
Penniston or Halt in any subsequent commentaries.


 >I don't have time to write pages and pages here, but will
 >summarize some lowlights that really grated on me. None of the
 >events that Halt describes sound anything like a bright
 >fireball, which usually traverses the sky in a few seconds, or a
 >re-entering satellite, which also flashes overhead quickly,
 >occasionally spewing off parts of the rocket or satellite body.

You're confusing events from the two separate incidents.

The 'bright fireball' relates to the first night's events, not
Halt's adventures in the forest.

 >Yet it's obvious Easton believes this to be the explanation,
 >hence the long diatribe about why Halt is "mistaken about the
 >dates." They have to be wrong to fit with Easton's beliefs.
 >Still, nothing new here; the date issue has been debated for
 >years.

It might help if you take time to consider the above pointers
first of all. Then hopefully the clarification of the dates will
be understood.

There isn't any argument that the first date in Halt's memo is
wrong - the original witness testimonies confirm the date and
time as 26th December 1980, events commencing at approx. 0300.

The evidence confirming the correct date of the second night's
events has been set out and is now agreed by those who know the
historical case well, for example, Jenny Randles and Ian Ridpath.

I'm not aware of anyone who contends, with opposing evidence,
otherwise.

 >Also funny how Easton plays the old my-sources-must-remain-
 >confidential routine, while asking us to Trust me, I'm telling
 >the truth about all this.

Before I saw a copy of these specific documents, their origin was
already proven to some of the prominent list members here. It
isn't an issue, although you have every right to query this
further.

The only reason I didn't mention the source, is simply that I
strictly didn't have permission to yet.

If you had read the article in more detail, you might also have
noticed the following reference:

[7] 'Bentwaters, Part III: The Testimony of John Burroughs', by
Antonio Huneeus, Fate 46, No 9, September 1993, pp 70-71.

Note: This article contains a quotation which is the beginning of
Burroughs' testimony, now obtained in full.
{End}

So at least part of Burroughs' testimony had previously been
known about over four years ago.

As you are in touch with Colonel Halt, why not simply ask him to
confirm these affidavits are those he stated were obtained at the
beginning of January 1981?

 >It's especially rich when he throws notorious debunker Ridpath's
 >opinion into our faces--a man who wasn't there on the scene--as
 >though this somehow outweighs the testimony of on-site commander
 >Halt who saw the lighthouse day in, day out for months on end.

Ridpath has however researched the scene of the crimes and can
therefore offer an informed opinion. This similarly applies to
Jenny Randles, who's description of the terrain I provided to
illustrate it's deceptive nature.

Again, if you had taken more time to study this case further, it
was being determined that Halt would not necessarily have been
familiar with the lighthouse as seen at tree-level, in the
sloping forest.

All that's visible from the base is the distant lighthouse beam
sweeping the horizon, not the pulsating light which can seen from
within the forest, which was outwith the jurisdiction of the
USAF.

Do we detect traces of a possible lack of objectivity, Rob.

I don't mind clarifying some issues, but only within reason.
Hopefully this still can be applied and you can accept it is
reasonable to ask if many of your misgivings are perhaps in need
of a rethink.

What would be of invaluable assistance, is if you could ask Col.
Halt to comment on some relevant questions.
[END]


Francis Ridge added his views:

I have to admit I'm more up-to-speed on older cases, so when it
comes to cases such as these I know who to contact. I have spoken
with several and will be talking to others who are also eminently
qualified to comment on this case.

It appears at the very outset that you have apparently gone off
half-cocked regarding this matter and really don't know the
subject as well as you thought. It also appears that you have
illustrated poor judgement, been leaping to conclusions, and
simply listening to the wrong people. But you're the one that
brought it up. We'll see how it plays out.

Richard Hall is sending me some updates based on Halt's latest
comments.
[END]


I had replied:

[...]

Not only is it an objectionable 'knee-jerk' reaction, if you were
familiar with the background it would be recognised I had
previously been a staunch supporter that the case might have some
substance, see, for example:

'The Unopened Files', (a 'sister' publication to 'UFO Magazine'
(UK)), issue 'Autumn 1997': 'Rendlesham 1997: New Testimonies
Suggest UFO Encounters Very Real', by James Easton, pp 62-69 and
78-79.

[...]

What anyone believes is consummately irrelevant.

It's only the facts which are of consequence and only facts were
highlighted.

[...]

Perhaps you haven't fully digested the evidence and that it
confirms, beyond any debate, the central witnesses from the first
night's events were deceived by the lighthouse beacon.

It's not clear why this isn't understood, the point was explained
and documented.

It might help if I substantiate this further:

"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".

Extract: original statement from Airman First Class John
Burroughs.


"Only the beacon light was still blinking. We figured the lights
were coming from past the forest, since nothing was visible as we
passed through the woody forest. We could see a glowing near the
beacon light, but as we got closer we found it to be a lit-up
farmhouse. After we had passed through the forest, we thought it
had to be an aircraft accident. So did CSC [Central Security
Control] as well. But we ran and walked a good 2 miles past our
vehicle, until we got to a vantage point where we could determine
that what we were chasing was only a beacon light off in the
distance. Our route through the forest and field was a direct
one, straight towards the light".

Extract: original statement from Airman Ed Cabansag.


Is this now sufficient to establish that the lighthouse beacon
wasn't recognised as such?

The description of the location from Jenny Randles was included
for a reason; to illustrate how deceptive nearby landmarks could
be, given the sloping terrain.

That, plus the above witness statements, are facts.

[...]

I have explained, via the previously unpublished witness
statements, how it was originally reported and that neither Halt,
Burroughs or Penniston ever publicly disclosed the abortive two
mile 'beacon' chase that first night.

Nothing said by yourself or any respondents on this list, at the
time of writing, amounts to more than an adverse reaction.

Perhaps in future, some of the evidence might actually be
addressed.
[END]


And so it goes. Many of those who believe in 'UFOs' and all which
that encompasses, do so with a religious conviction.

Richard Hall, Chairman of FUFOR, then directly offered his
opinions:

[...]

Cabansag did not go into the woods with Burroughs and Penniston.

[...]

Halt's TESTIMONY is full, complete, on the record, and highly
credible. His information anchors the entire case.

Again, no need to stay focused on CREDIBLE witnesses.

[John Stepkowski wrote:]

 >James tried for months to get in touch with various people,
 >including Halt, to ask them questions prior to publication. Now
 >that it's out in the open, maybe some of these questions will be
 >answered.

 >I hope so. But there _are_ questions for Halt to answer and if
 >he's willing to answer them, we're all the richer for it. All
 >this "debunker" stuff and personal insults just doesn't belong
 >on a serious list. Let's wait to see what happens and whether,
 >finally, Halt will address some of the questions James has been
 >trying to get him to answer for months.

To a considerable degree, he has answered the questions - and
will be doing more so.

Halt does not necessarily respond to ill-informed questions from
hostile-sounding people. I don't blame him, given the track
record of UFO "investigators".

Richard Hall
[END]

Hall voiced some further comments - posted on his behalf by
Swiatek, which, on 10 March, 1998, I replied to as follows:

Robert,

It's regrettable to hear that Richard Hall and colleagues in
communication with Col. Halt do not intend to provide any
assistance in resolving the questions which now undermine the
'Rendlesham Forest' case and seem to have no desire to address
them at all.

I know that many others with an objective interest anticipated
hearing why Halt maintains that the Orford Ness lighthouse would
never have deceived the base personnel, even in it's various
guises from unfamiliar locations, such as inside the forest.
Obviously, this seems to be somewhat at odds with original
witness statements now available, which report that the beacon
was a major factor in the 'strange lights' perceived. A factor to
the extent that during the possible aircraft crash investigated
by Burroughs, Cabansag and Penniston, the patrol ventured into
the forest for some two miles before recognising that a 'beacon
light' originated from that same lighthouse!

The quite considerable anomalies now evident from former Staff
Sergeant Jim Penniston's more recent claims versus the facts
documented at the time, we also eagerly awaited Halt's comments
on and trusted he might possibly be able ask Penniston for an
explanation, lest the case should proceed any further as
'Rendleshambles'.

As regards the pending publication of Hall's book - could this
already be beyond amendment and updating - it was appreciated he
was in a similarly awkward position which Jenny Randles accepted
facing when made aware of the recently expansive evidence.

To her great credit, even whilst promoting her latest [and
recommended] book on the case, 'UFO Crash Retrieval?' (note the
question mark!), Jenny displayed commendable integrity by
publicly expressing her fears that developments did not auger
well for a sustained belief in a less than prosaic resolution.

[...]

Of most importance, Hall states:

"My forthcoming account of the case in 'THE UFO EVIDENCE: II' is
based on direct communications with Colonel Halt, who has been
very helpful and cooperative, and on the same set of documents
from the CAUS files that others are talking about".

If nothing else, can we please confirm where CAUS obtained copies
of the witness statements and how long the startling revelations
about the lighthouse has been known about?
[END]


Richard Hall's insistence that Ed Cabansag didn't accompany
Burroughs and Penniston into the forest that first night is of
course completely mistaken. I'm not sure why it was ever
debatable if Hall had access to the same material. Ed Cabansag's
testimony is an account of his travels through the forest and
beyond, 'in search of the light'.


It was never anyone else's responsibility to assist with
endeavours, or help attain answers to the fundamental questions
and issues brought to awareness. A number of people did though
and I expressed appreciation in the subsequent 'Resolving
Rendlesham: New Insights and Past Claims Examined', published in
August 1998.

Ultimately, my objective was to ensure that previously unknown,
crucial evidence - not only from the CAUS files - was made
available and this was achieved, albeit under trying
circumstances.

One question which remains unanswered is what would have happened
otherwise. Would the key evidence contained in those five, early
witness statements never have been known about, outwith the few
who were aware these documents existed?

Without access to those earliest testimonies, it would surely
have proved absolutely impossible to ever make sense of this
case.


Was there really a 'cover up', fearing that if the proven,
documented misperception of Orford Ness lighthouse as a 'UFO' was
disclosed, then this would naturally undermine the story's entire
credibility?

No, not that I can see and even the premise is unlikely.

More probable is that the significance of these documents and a
need to make other case researchers aware of their contents
simply wasn't realised or given due consideration. If there's
another explanation, many people with an interest in the
'Rendlesham' affair would sure like to hear it.

Particularly disappointing is that journalist Salley Rayl - who
did understand the case and had written about it for OMNI
magazine - wasn't appraised of the full facts when it was
announced Halt and Penniston had agreed to be interviewed by
Salley for 'Project: watchfire', hosted by the Microsoft
Network, in 1997.

Although those detailed interviews resulted in new information
and claims, the story now being told, especially by Penniston,
was hugely contrary to evidence documented in those written
affidavits.

If Salley had known about this, those landmark interviews could
have confronted the many inconsistencies and so much more might
have been clarified at that time.

Still, it's only a UFO story and an exercise in attempting to
solve a complex puzzle.

It's been a revealing exercise, in many respects.


When it was recognised that the evidence presented in 'Rendlesham
Unravelled' was rock-solid, had been thoroughly researched and
verified, it gradually became accepted there was no escaping the
facts revealed. In a more conciliatory atmosphere, Francis Ridge
wrote:

"What is important, I just wanted to tell you that we all
appreciate your research efforts (even if we don't always agree)
and wish you the very best".
[END]

Some wise words came from elsewhere:

"Let me add my name to the growing number who appreciate the
efforts of James Easton to unravel the Rendlesham matter. He has
added immeasurably to our knowledge as to what really happened
there. And, though it may be disappointing to many (including
myself), if the truth really is that nothing of note took place
in the Rendlesham Forest in late December 1980, then we must
accept it. Otherwise, we would be only fooling ourselves. The
real mystery then, is how such a false picture of events was
allowed to take hold. The answer could be most instructive. Too
much garbage is proliferating in this field. We need to know why,
and to put a stop to it. Between the myth-makers, and the True
Believers, this field is in serious trouble. It's time for a
major clean-up".
[END]

Even Jerome Clark was almost positive:

"I hold no particular brief for Rendlesham, and I commend Mr.
Easton.

[...]

As we wait, I plan not to join the rush to judgement, which is
not to say that I fail to appreciate and admire your efforts in
trying to untangle the knot that is Rendlesham".

[...]

[END OF NEWSLETTER EXTRACT]


By their deeds shall ye know them.



I wrote:

"If nothing else, can we please confirm where CAUS obtained
copies of the witness statements and how long the startling
revelations about the lighthouse has been known about?"

Is that question ever going to be answered, and if not, why not?


Can Antonio Huneeus perhaps now also please explain, as I have
previously asked him directly, where, in 1993, he obtained a copy
of Burroughs' original statement and why, whilst he quoted from
it, he never revealed that Burroughs acknowledged therein that
his patrol had indeed pursued Orford Ness lighthouse, thinking it
was a 'UFO'?


I have recently been able to interview John Burroughs and will
have more to say about that in due course.

In the meantime, I'll post separately some comments he has made,
confirming that Penniston, Cabansag [Burroughs verifies he was
with them at all times] and himself at least partially mistook
Orfordness lighthouse for a 'UFO' and that the lighthouse simply
wasn't a familiar local landmark.


Burroughs remains adamant that they never actually witnessed any
structured object.

How can that be equated with Penniston's infinitely and
increasingly more elaborate version of events?

As I suggested, even in 'Rendlesham Unravelled', was obvious, you
need to also ask why Penniston's original statement - publicly
revealed therein for the first time ever - is also the story of
never having been able to identify or get close to the source of
some 'puzzling' lights.

I'm sure, when published, Burroughs comments about these enormous
discrepancies will prove to be interesting.


Halt would obviously never have witnessed a 'structured object'
either, as he confirmed to Salley Rayl.

However, I have recently published some new evidence which
further, significantly unravels events from the night of Halt's
involvement - the security police now being on an excited 'UFO'
alert.

Incredibly, I have located archive documents indicating that the
same 'UFO' which Halt observed was seen earlier that night by
another patrol.

This was so alarming, that they seemingly fired at it.


The full story, plus other new and important case material from
various contributors, can be found in the 'UFO Skeptics'
archives, at:

http://debunk.listbot.com

Click on 'View the List Archive'.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 20

                 Why It's Likely 'We're Not Alone In Cosmos'

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 09:42:20 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 09:42:20 -0500
Subject: Why It's Likely 'We're Not Alone In Cosmos'




From: UFO UpDates - Toronto

Source: The Toronto Star

Feb. 20, 2001. 12:49 AM

http://www.thestar.com/

[World News]

Why It's Likely 'We're Not Alone In Cosmos'

Leslie Papp
Staff Reporter

"It's one more indication that life might be
common in the galaxy. There's no direct
evidence there's another Earth, but it's
pointing in that direction."
  - U of T astronomer Norman Murray


SAN FRANCISCO - A Toronto astronomer has found fresh evidence
that we're likely not alone in the cosmos.

After analyzing the iron content of stars, Norman Murray of the
University of Toronto has concluded "Earth-like bodies' orbit
around most stars in our galaxy.

And, if that many stars have planets, it greatly increases the
odds of having other 'Earths' that can support life.


"It's one more indication that life might be common in the
galaxy," Murray told reporters at a science conference here.
"There's no direct evidence there's another Earth, but it's
pointing in that direction."

His findings were released yesterday at the annual meeting of
the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the
world's largest federation of scientists.

Murray found that a high iron content is common to our sun and
to the 55 sun-like stars which are known to have giant planets.
The existence of these planets has been deduced through their
huge gravitational pull, which exerts a visible influence on
their "sun." In one case, a planet has actually been observed
passing across the face of its parent star.

Using imaging technology that can establish the materials
stewing within stars, Murray examined the iron level in 466
stars. Subjecting that data to a series of intricate
calculations, he found statistical patterns which showed the
iron must have been added after the stars had formed.


Murray examined the iron level in 466 stars

And he systematically eliminated possible iron sources until
concluding there could only be one source: orbiting planetary
material.

Our own solar system shows how planets spin iron into the sun,
he said.

A huge ring of iron-rich asteroids between Mars and Jupiter is
continually being disrupted by Jupiter's gravity, sending some
asteroids spinning out of our solar system and others hurtling
into the sun. A few are caught by Earth's gravity and become
meteors.Over eons, iron twice the mass of Earth has accumulated
in the sun. Murray said. And there's a similar iron "signature"
in the other sun-like stars known to have planets.

Based on iron content, "there are Earth-like bodies orbiting
around most stars in the galaxy," he said.

If just half the galaxy's stars have some sort of planet, and if
even one per cent of those planets were Earth-like, it would
mean the existence of more than a billion "Earths," he said.

Murray said it's possible to have iron-rich asteroids spinning
around a star without any planets.

But, for that orbiting iron to get into the star, some planet
would need to disrupt asteroids and send them crashing into the
star.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 20

               The Rendlesham Forest 'UFO' Incidents - Easton

From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 12:51:26 +0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 09:45:53 -0500
Subject: The Rendlesham Forest 'UFO' Incidents - Easton


Cross-posted from 'UFO Skeptics', for information:


 >Date: Jan 13 2001 21:53:52 EST
 >From: "James Easton" <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >Subject:  Re: The Rendlesham Forest 'UFO' Incidents

Regarding:

 >From: "carpenter_joel" <ufx@mindspring.com>
 >To: "UFO Skeptics" <debunk@listbot.com>
 >Subject: Re: The Rendlesham Forest 'UFO' Incidents
 >Date: 14 January 2001 02:07

Joel wrote:

 >Every Inquisition needs a Devil's Advocate, I guess.* I'm
 >curious as to how Brad Spark's points about the Orfordness
 >lighthouse below can be addressed.

 >They seem like genuine issues. Any opinions?

 >"(a) Wrong Direction
 >(b) Wrong Location for Visibility
 >(c) Wrong Color
 >(d) Wrong Duty Cycle (Steady vs. Strobe)
 >(e) Wrong Dynamics (Moving vs. Stationary,
 >"Dripping/Shooting/Exploding")
 >(f) Wrong Shape (oval with dark "pupil" center, instead of
 >strobing point source)
 >(g) Wrong Angular Size (1/3 to 1/2 full moon vs. point
 >source)."


Joel,

They have repeatedly been addressed and thoroughly, factually
explained, see for instance my response to Sparks' 'SKEPTIC
FACTOID' claims at:

http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2000/sep/m16-008.shtml

These issues are also frequently addressed in the research
material on my web site and even summarised in the last
'Voyager' newsletter:

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. [END OF
NEWSLETTER EXTRACT]


I will add some comments on continued claims those original
witness statements were written by the MIB, falsely stating the
lighthouse was, at least partly, misidentified as a 'UFO'.

Although I'm not yet in a position to publish details of recent
discussions with John Burroughs, one of the three security
policemen involved in the initial incident, which was, as I've
said before, a catalyst for all that followed, I'm sure John
won't object if I confirm he has recently verified to me:

Re the statements -

"Halt was the one who held back the statements and they were not
changed".

"They were first made available by Col Halt during the filming
of Unsolved Mysteries".

Re the lighthouse -

"We did follow a light not knowing what it was but we at no time
did we feel that it was the object we first saw. We had lost
contact with the object we first saw and wanted to see what the
flashing light in the distance was".

Which is exactly what is documented in those statements.

The distant 'flashing light', which Burroughs confirmed in his
statement came "from a lighthouse", was not therefore a familiar
landmark - especially as intermittently observed from within the
undulating, dense, forest terrain at eye-level.

As Halt didn't interview Burroughs, Cabansag and Penniston until
a week later [he's explained this was due to the holiday
period], when Halt set out to statedly "debunk" reports that our
'UFO' had returned, he was presumably completely unaware how the
initial, abortive 'UFO' pursuit involved a distant, flashing
light that was only after investigation apparently found to
originate from Orford Ness [Orfordness] lighthouse.


We know exactly where Halt perceived the 'UFO' to be, as I
revealed in 'Resolving Rendlesham':

An organisation which has been instrumental in making efforts to
solve the mystery has been the 'UFO Forum' on the Microsoft
network.

Under the auspices of 'Project: watchfire', in 1997 they hosted
internet conferences with Halt and Penniston, chaired by
American Journalist A.J.S. (Salley) Rayl.

Salley has interviewed Halt on a number of occasions and Diana
Botsford, the Forum Manager, has been exceptionally helpful in
making research material available to me.

When Col. Halt participated in the forum's question and answer
session, he clarified for the first time some key points.

Knowing beforehand I would be unable to participate, Diana and
Salley were asked if they could raise some questions on my
behalf. As this was also prior to the original witness
testimonies being discovered, there remained uncertainty on my
part about the dating of the two incidents and I wondered if
Halt could explain why the dates in his memo to the Ministry of
Defence (MoD) were apparently incorrect and why he had on
occasions given various dates for both.

Jenny [Randles] has long suspected that, for reasons we would
one day understand, Halt may deliberately have confused the
dates on his memo to the MoD, it being less conceivable that he
had made such basic errors.

As is often the situation, the explanation was elementary, the
conference transcript confirming:

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...

I'm sure Jenny and many others will be surprised to learn that
Halt didn't consider the memo's strict accuracy to be important
and puzzled why he didn't verify the dates from the witness
statements he had not long since taken, or by conferring with
participants from both nights.

As mentioned in 'Rendlesham Unravelled', Gaynor South at
Secretariat(Air Staff)2a1a wrote to me:

"You have questioned whether the Ministry of Defence thoroughly
investigated the events which are alleged to have taken place at
RAF Woodbridge/Rendlesham Forest. From Departmental records
available for the period in question, we have established that
all available information was looked at at the time by air
defence experts who were satisfied that nothing had occurred to
suggest that the UK Air Defence Region had been breached by
unauthorised foreign military activity on the nights in
question. In the absence of evidence corroborating Col Halt's
memo, which was sent some two weeks after the events in 1980,
and in the light of the Department's air defence remit, no
action was then deemed necessary".

If the MoD sincerely thought the 'nights in question' were only
those contained in Halt's memo, obviously that may have misled
them entirely.

Halt was asked about the assertion he had been deceived by the
Orford Ness lighthouse and replied:

"First, the lighthouse was visible the whole time. It was
readily apparent, and it was 30 to 40 degrees off to our right.
If you were standing in the forest where we stood, at the
supposed landing site or whatever you want to call it, you could
see the farmer's house directly in front of us. The lighthouse
was 30 to 35 degrees off to the right, and the object was close
to the farmer's house and moving from there to the left, through
the trees".

Here, as never before, Halt provides specific details of the
perspective he believed to be accurate. When he states, "If you
were standing in the forest where we stood, at the supposed
landing site or whatever you want to call it, you could see the
farmer's house directly in front of us", that's correct and the
Orford Ness lighthouse is in a direct line of sight, east,
towards the coast.

However, when he claims, "The lighthouse was 30 to 35 degrees
off to the right." that seems to be consequentially incorrect;
the Shipwash lightship was "off to the right", the lighthouse
was straight ahead, where Halt observed the 'unidentified light'
to be.

His comment that "the object was close to the farmer's house",
again places the light source in the line of sight to Orford
Ness lighthouse, whereas he believed the lighthouse to be much
further south.

[...]

  Science writer Ian Ridpath first proposed that Col. Halt had
  mistaken the beam from the nearby lightship to be that of the
  lighthouse and consequently thought the lighthouse beacon,
  which appears as a small, brilliant, pulsating light through
  the trees, to be an unidentified object within the forest.

Ian has also been immensely helpful to my research, making his
considerable experience available.

[...]

During the conference, Halt was also asked to describe the
'object' he personally witnessed, this being seen when in the
'clearing' next to the farmer's house, at the exact spot where
the 'ground indentations' or 'landing site' had been designated
following Burroughs, Cabansag and Penniston's adventures:

"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".

He neglects to mention that some of the 'phenomena' was
witnessed using a 'Starlight scope', or 'Starscope' image
intensifier, as confirmed in his microcassette recording:

HALT: Let's go back to the edge of the clearing 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 gone quiet
now. We're heading about 110, 120 degrees from site out through
to the clearing now.

[...]

OK, we're looking at the thing, we're probably about two to
three hundred yards away. 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. [End]

One of the main objections to Halt's party having misidentified
the lighthouse is that the rotating beacon (as opposed to beam
from it) was relatively small from that distance. As Jenny
remarks in 'UFO Crash Landing?', "Frankly, the first time I saw
the lighthouse at night I was 80 percent convinced that this was
the explanation. When I first heard the Halt tape this
conviction rose to 90 per cent. It only plummeted after talking
to eye- witnesses like John Burroughs who were out there,
although, I did have some concern because the lighthouse appears
as nothing more than a tiny pulsing light, not a massive red
object...".

Halt has now removed that latter obstacle.

In a statement which may prove something of a shock to those who
perceived the 'crucible of terror' to be relatively large, Halt
explained to Sally Rayl:

RAYL: Now, I know it's hard to tell because it was dark that
night, but any idea what size the initial red object was? Any
idea?

HALT: Nah. I would just have to guess. My guess would be
probably two to three feet, maybe a little less".

RAYL: Two to three feet?

HALT: From the distance, in diameter.

RAYL: In diameter. So, it's a very small object?

HALT: It was a very small object, but it was very bright.

RAYL: But not a craft that could hold a human being, for
example?

HALT: No. It couldn't have been. But it appeared to [be] under
some kind of intelligent control. [End]

Such a small light is now well within the realms of being the
lighthouse beacon, which was intensely bright. [END OF EXTRACT]

Courtesy of Ian Ridpath, there's a photograph, scanned at
various resolutions, showing the farmhouse and proximity of
Orfordness lighthouse, on my website at:

http://www.ufoworld.co.uk/ftp/ridpath1.jpg
http://www.ufoworld.co.uk/ftp/ridpath2.jpg
http://www.ufoworld.co.uk/ftp/ridpath3.jpg

Is it too much to ask that Sparks could, for once, ask Col. Halt
to address these issues?

It's not those who have unravelled the facts and set the
evidence in context who won't tackle the difficult questions,
perhaps fearing what they might actually reveal.

I've asked Halt on more than one occasion if he could please
comment on these matters and he never has.

Until Sparks, Richard Hall, or any of those who 'believe' Halt's
'UFO' might have been/probably/definitely was an alien
spacecraft and who, like Hall, are in contact with Halt, will
themselves make some effort to ask 'awkward' questions of Halt
directly, what more need be said about the questions
highlighted.

They have evidently been answered. [END]



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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 20

             Re: NASA - Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy' -

From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 06:52:41 -0600
Fwd Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 09:51:46 -0500
Subject: Re: NASA - Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy' -


 >Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 11:42:51 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: NASA - Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy'
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
 >>Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 08:41:07 -0600
 >>Subject: Re: NASA - Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy' -
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Previously, Alfred wrote:

 ><snip>

 >>Besides,
 >>starless skies, errant shadows, spotless landing pads, and
 >>waving flags go a _long_ way toward demonstrating more than a
 >>mere suggestion of suspicion in the current regard. I would like
 >>to continue to believe that people went to the moon, for prides
 >>sake if nothing else. I just wouldn't be surprised if they
 >>didn't.

 ><snip>

 >Hi, Alfred!

 >I'm curious, do you feel that we did not go to the moon? I know
 >you say you would like to believe, but your post makes me
 >wonder.

Oh I'm sure we went eventually. I don't _know_ that we went at
all. Can't know. My leadership has been caught lying to me too
much for me to be able to take official word about _anything_.
It's _Them_ promoting the anarchy, not me. They expect me to
tell _them_ the truth -- penalize me if I don't. Institutions
are not held to the same standard. Doesn't that bother you?

 >Regarding the errant shadows, no stars, etc. Here we have an
 >example of what people's perceptions of reality can be in the
 >face of _real_ reality. In another, lingering thread, I have
 >bemoaned the idea that AA looks more like what people _think_
 >archival, documentary footage of an autopsy would look like as
 >opposed to what it would really look like.

The only thing that really bothers me about the dismissal of the
AA footage is it's use as a demonstration that there is no truth
to _anything_ ufological. The footage looks fake to me, forgetting
the initial promice it promoted that ET ufology was going to at
last get some serious attention -- just another caudal
manipulation. <g>.

 >The "fake-moon-landing" proponents (foonies?) ironically take

Gotta watch the labeling, hoss. When you point one finger, you
point three back at yourself. Start in with labels and I go ugly
early with personal attacks on scurrilous skepti-feebroids and
other unbrave complacents. <g>.


 >the opposite stance. They look at the lack of stars as a sign of
 >fakery when, in fact, a starless sky is _exactly_ what one would
 >see if on the moon during the "day" just like here on Earth. I
 >find this amusing because, if NASA really did go to great
 >lengths to create a "reality" that was technically accurate, the
 >foonies obviously prefer their own reality that has been skewed
 >due to watching too many science fiction movies where the stars
 >are always visible; lighting imbalances be damned. It would seem
 >that, if the landing was faked by NASA, they would have been
 >better off trying to please peoples' perceptions of what a moon
 >landing would look like instead of going for technical accuracy.

I think that that is the bone of contention, n'est-ce pas, that
their technical accuracy sucked? By the way, only asking because
I don't know, but who panned the camera up when the lunar lander
made it's explosive departure? I don't think anybody has asked
that question.

 >
 >But then, people like myself would be going, "Wait a minute..."

I think you should probably be going, "Wait a minute..." most of
the time. I know _I_ do. <g>.

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, scourged by
the scurrilous skepti-feebroids.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 20

                         Re: AA Film Redux - Morris

From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 13:02:38 +0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 09:53:31 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Morris


 >Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 09:57:31 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Correction

 >>From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >>Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 23:00:09 +0000
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Morris

 >>>Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 10:59:09 -0600
 >>>From: Roger Annette Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >In a previous response to Neil I wrote:

 >>Never mind
 >>the camera original versus print argument; Santilli _thought_ he had
 >>camera original footage, therefore he had no reason to _not_ have it
 >>tested and looked at by someone like Bob Shell of Kodak.

 >I meant to write "Bob Shell _or_ Kodak". I know that Bob Shell
 >does not work for Kodak, less people just tuning in think I'm
 >more out of my mind than usual.


Roger,

I believe Bob's position is little changed from Oct 95, Volker
at that time already had possession of all the footage and Ray
was unable to have him relinquish any for further testing, also
by this time Kodak were becoming ultra careful and were
demanding a minimum of 50 frames to test, they also required a
complete reel of film be brought to their offices and the said
50 frames be seen to be part of the stock containing images of
the autopsy body, just to cover their backside and
understandable considering the publicity any dating would
generate. Bob at this time had gone as far as he could with the
information and samples he had access to and had become very
frustrated by Volker's intransigence. The samples he had _were_
genuine pre 1956/7 safety stock and the original negative stock
from which it was made was dated 1947, 3 Kodak offices including
Rochester NY confirmed the symbol dating in writing.

In July of 1996 Prof Carrado Malanga of The University of Pisa
Industrial Chemistry Dept carried out spectroscopic testing of
one of the AA samples, his conclusions were that the base
material of the film was Cellulose Polyacetate produced by
Eastman Kodak in their type series 1-5, he could exclude series
types 1 and 2 but of the remainder, Kodak had only published
data on the series 4 base, but the spectrum of the sample
matched this perfectly. Even so because he was unable to check
against types 3 and 5 Prof Malanga would only rate his results
at 95%. This did confirm though that the sample's base material
_was_ that of 1956 vintage or before,  as after this date the
generic base type was discontinued by Kodak.

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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 20

                         Re: AA Film Redux - Morris

From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 13:26:47 +0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:10:42 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Morris


 >Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 11:15:16 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 14:34:15 EST
 >>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Bourdais
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>>Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 23:00:09 +0000
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >>>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux

 >What is important to keep in mind is that Santilli had been told
 >that others had already seen the footage.

Roger,

Reports (and there were several) of previous sightings of AA or
similar footage only surfaced _after_ news of the AA film got
out.

 >Now in the context of
 >the US Goberment's constant denial that we've never been visited
 >by aliens or that ET craft really exists, just what is the
 >likelihood that such damning, "authentic" footage would be
 >available floating around out there long enough for others,
 >including Japanese investors,

They weren't investors, rather interested parties from Taiwan
and introduced by Colin Andrews in Aug 1995, as Colin here
writes.

"After the interview of Ray Santilli by Prof. Chiang, I was
surprised to hear Chiang say that he had seen photographs from
this film before! My first thought was the rumor going around
which stated that this film was made in Brazil 5-7 years ago and
is a hoax. But Chiang assured me that he had seen the film after
Taiwan officials had made a request last year to the U.S.
government for access to UFO material. The Taiwan government was
sent 80 black-and-white photos which Chiang says showed the same
material as in Santilli's film. I had heard this same thing
before from a Japanese colleague, Johsen Takano. I recently gave
an interview to Takano in L.A. at the UFO Expo West for the
Japanese UFO Museum which will be opening next year. I had
previously arranged for Takano to meet with Santilli in Hong
Kong to see the film on behalf of the Museum. In L.A., Takano
told me that he had seen this film before, after a Japanese
government request was made to the U.S. for material on the
Roswell event."

 >to have also seen it? Seems more
 >likely that the government knew that the footage wasn't real,
 >therefore, it wasn't seen as a security threat. Combine this
 >pre-existing knowledge with the fact that Bob Shell gave
 >Santilli the bad news that he did not have camera original,

Ray said all along he bought 20 reels of _safety_print_ out of
22 reels total.

 >and
 >Santilli and Volker certainly had to know that the footage was
 >more suspect than not.

 >For Santilli to maintain the position of validity regarding AA,
 >and to maintain that there is nothing he can do to help clear
 >the air regarding said validity is nonsense.

If Ray hadn't got the footage and Volker had it locked away, as
he confirmed, then there seems little else Ray _could_ have done
other than bluff his way through.

 >Perhaps Santilli
 >did not create the AA footage. Who knows? Certainly he knows
 >that the footage is not authentic in the "alien" sense of the
 >word.

No it's _definitely_ on Kodak stock.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 20

                            'Mothman' Movie News

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:34:58 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:34:58 -0500
Subject: 'Mothman' Movie News


Source: Pittsburg Post-Gazette

http://www.post-gazette.com/magazine/20010220pellington8.asp

Director In The Mood For Psychological Thriller

Tuesday, February 20, 2001

By Ron Weiskind, Post-Gazette Movie Editor

Mark Pellington knows what he wants and has a knack for
describing it in words as distinctive as the images he puts on
screen. The director of "The Mothman Prophecies" did not want to
make a horror film or a monster movie, although the project is
based on a book by John A. Keel that is replete with images of
UFOs, alien visitors and a large manlike creature with wings and
burning red eyes.

These were elements that "debased and devalued the integrity of
the story. They verged on science fiction and almost bordered on
the ridiculous", the director says during a meal break,
dominating the table front and center in a dining hall at Point
Park College.

He wanted to "push it toward the ideas of perception, knowledge,
reflection, mysterious elements of destiny, someone's inexorable
pull toward something they don't understand, following a man on
his journey."

Above all, he believes in not explaining everything to the
audience. "You need to feed them and entertain them. The idea of
real or not real, known or unknown -- it's pretty clear when
things don't fit in this movie, when they become too
melodramatic or wacky. When they remain enigmatic, mysterious or
emotional, it works."

"Hopefully, we're dealing with themes and emotions that have
depth and resonance that go beyond the typical genre film."

When the movie shot one cold night at an abandoned factory site
in or near Penn Hills, Pellington dubbed it "The Zone Of Fear"
-- apparently to put an image in the heads of cast and crew that
would serve the emotions he wanted to bring out in those
particular scenes.

Pellington quotes Richard Gere, the movie's star, describing the
film as "a metaphysical thriller." The director himself calls it
"a psychological mystery with natural surreal overtones."

In the mood yet?

Producer Tom Rosenberg oversaw Pellington's previous film, the
thriller "Arlington Road", and thought he had the right stuff
for "The Mothman Prophecies".

"This movie has to have a certain style and tone," Rosenberg
says. "The camera and lighting is very important. Mark is
terrific with the camera. He has a lot of style."

Pellington, 38, stands out on the set, a tall, stocky man with
unruly black hair and horn-rimmed glasses who may watch one take
from behind a set of video monitors and plant himself right next
to Gere for a series of extreme close-ups.

A native of Baltimore -- home to such idiosyncratic filmmakers
as Barry Levinson and John Waters -- Pellington was intrigued
when Rosenberg sent him Richard Hatem's original script for
"Mothman." But he was mixing "Arlington Road" at the time and
had other things on his mind.

Rosenberg kept sending him new drafts, and finally he got
together with two pals, Louis Klahr and Ernie Marrerro, whom he
calls adherents of "the non-Hollywood school of screenwriting."
They worked on the script until it fit his vision of what
"Mothman" should be.

"It's still Richard Hatem's house. We remodeled it.", Pellington
says.

Once he signed on, Pellington was adamant about shooting in
Pittsburgh, a city he knew from visiting college friends who
live here and from shooting a number of Iron City Beer
commercials in 1992.

"I knew it had the terrain, I knew it had good crews and it was
American," he says. The other option was shooting in Canada,
which offered economic benefits but not the right look.

"We needed a town with a bridge leading into it. In Pittsburgh
we had a choice of 10 of them," each with its own personality
and mood.

He wound up choosing Kittanning, a town that "has a reality to
it, but also a little mystery and some sadness."

He calls the workers on "Mothman," who are about 85 percent
local, "the best crew I've ever worked with. I'm having too good
a time and I'm feeling too good about stuff. There is a certain
energy and spirit to this movie."

Pellington also praised Gere, who has contributed good ideas and
"a giving spirit" to the film.

"He has been extremely supportive to me and my unorthodox,
nonlinear, abstract way of communicating."

Pellington seems to be doing all right so far.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 20

                 Chilean Government Handed UFO Files To U.S.

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@juno.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 08:40:07 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:39:27 -0500
Subject: Chilean Government Handed UFO Files To U.S.


Chile: Chilean Gov't Turned Over Secret UFO Files to U.S.

Source: Agence France Presse
Date: Sunday, February 18, 2001 10:48 PM

Chilean Government Turned Over Secret UFO Files To U.S.

Santiago, Feb 18 (AFP-NA)-- The Chilean Air Force (FACH) turned
over secret information regarding UFO sightings to the U.S.
Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) according to statements issued
in Santiago on Sunday by Ovnivision, an organization composed of
researchers of this phenomenon.

Documents declassified by the DIA include sightings recorded in
Arica, Iquique, Antofagasta and Charanal in northern Chile, as
well as the area of Mininco in the south and the Chlean
Antarctic, according to the organization's web page.

The United States, according to Ovnivision, posesses documents
with similar cases in other Latin American countries.

The reports were prepared by USAF Colonel Hubert Brandon and
cover a 30 year period beginning in 1950 and, according to the
source, it cannot be ruled that a similar exchange of
information continues "at the present time."

"The Chilean Air Force has repeatedly stated, to the point of
exhaustion, that there are no UFO files," adds the electronic
publication, recalling the words of Gen. Ricardo Bermudez,
president of the Comit de Estudio de Fenmenos Areos Anmalos,
during the last International Air and Space Fair (FIDAE) held in
Santiago in March 2000

AFP-NA








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 20

                  Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 13:45:57 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:46:45 -0500
Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Hall


 >From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >To: "02 - UFO UpDates Subscribers":;
 >Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Stacy
 >Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 20:38:48 -0500

 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 14:28:07 -0600

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 16:41:32 -0000

 >I went back and looked at my original post  from 2/07/01. Here
 >it is in its entirety:

 >---


 >And I have my suspicions about Richards Haines & Hall.

 >---

 >Perhaps I should have said unequivocably accept the ETH as "more
 >or less" ipso facto. The point is, I don't see anything
 >particularly perjorative about the above remarks, nor do I refer
 >to "gullible believers" therein, as you state. An observation is
 >not necessarily perjorative, last time I looked, if it merely
 >(or mainly) states the present status quo.


Dennis,

In my shorthand posting I did slightly mis-state what you had
said, but I think my meaning is clear.

Your comments did list names of people whom you labelled ET
believers in a seemingly pejorative way; I doubt that any of us
follows every statement posted in every thread, so it is easy to
get things distorted at times.

I accept your statement that it is okay to advocate ETH; but
then you turn around and start citing theoretical arguments that
supposedly make the ETH dubious. (So did the original Project
SIGN scientific consultants while not paying attention to what
people were reporting.)

I'm working the other end of the same stick, building up a case
from empirical data. Both approaches have something to offer.

I respect your opinions and think our approaches should be
complementary.

Personally, I don't like arguments from theory being used to
say, in effect, they can't get here from there or have no reason
to come here from there. Those amount to little more than
defending the paradigm while failing to adequately explain what
it is people are seeing, and experiencing.










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 20

               Researcher Caveats Saturday's Chilean Sighting

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@juno.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 08:47:05 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:50:05 -0500
Subject: Researcher Caveats Saturday's Chilean Sighting


Dear Readers,

Our friend and colleague Luis Eduardo Pacheco has cautioned us
that the UFO seen on Saturday the 16th of this month may have
been an experimental balloon. His message received by IHU this
morning:


We have proceeded to update our website by presenting a full
report on the subject, including a map of the trajectory
followed by [the object] responsible for this sighting: a French
MIR balloon launched on the previous day from Bauru in Brazil.

To avoid saturating the lists, I am including the link to our
page for direct access to the report in question:

http://www.informealfa.com.ar


Mr. Pacheco is a thorough and cautious researcher whose work has
been held in high esteem in his native Argentina.


Sincerely,

Scott Corrales
IHU









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 20

              Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy'

From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
Date: 19 Feb 2001 09:33:04 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:54:28 -0500
Subject: Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy'


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 19:19:02 EST
 >Subject: Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy'
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 22:01:32 EST
 >>Subject: Re: UNASA - Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy'
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >>>From: UFO UpDates - Toronto

 >>>Source: NASA Watch

 >>>http://www.nasawatch.com/index.html

 >>>15 February 2001: Fox Airs "Moon Conspiracy"

 >>>Here's how Fox promoted their show:

 >>>"MOON LANDING QUESTIONED ON THE ALL-NEW SPECIAL 'CONSPIRACY
 >>>THEORY: DID WE LAND ON THE MOON' FEB. 15 ON FOX"

 >>>NASA put a man on the moon for the first time in 1969 -- or did
 >>>it? Could the entire moon program have been an elaborate
 >>>deception staged to fool the public? The conspiracy theories are
 >>>investigated in the all-new one-hour special"

 >>Personally I prefer the 2 hour special called Capricorn 1 :)
 >>Probably just as accurate as the Fox special.

<snip>

 >Does anyone have a good response to the photos of background
 >hills that were said to be identical in two different Apollo
 >missions, one photo with a Lunar Module in the foreground and
 >the other without? They overlaid the pics and showed the hills
 >were identical. Is this a photo fake by Fox?


Good question, Brad because that one kind of stuck with me too.
That was the problem with the presentation.

We do not know the exact references to the photos so that we
could check them out. Refuting some of the allegations with
specific point-by-point rebuttals would have been better.

Were those pics of the hills taken on the same mission? Or was
it Foxy fakery?


Bill H








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 20

                     Re: Re: A Minor Diversion - Easton

From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 17:43:45 +0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:56:06 -0500
Subject: Re: Re: A Minor Diversion - Easton


 >Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 04:44:46 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: Toronto List <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: A Minor Diversion


Larry wrote:

 >Recently, on the Art Bell (or surrogate) Show, there was some
 >clown advocating Hollow Earth again (sigh!). This is my radio
 >entertainment commuting home from work around midnight.

 >To wit: What is hotter... the surface of the Sun, or the center
 >of the Earth? I don't have the answer, but a quick browse
 >indicates that I'm not the only one who doesn't know. Our
 >deepest drill holes are something on the order of 10-20 miles, a
 >small fraction of one percent of the radius of the Earth, or the
 >distance to the center.


Larry,

Some recent research indicates Earth's core temperature to be
circa 5500 degrees centigrade, comparative to the Sun's surface
(the photosphere) at approximately 6000 degrees centigrade. See,
for example, 'Earth's core nearly as hot as the Sun'. at:

http://explorezone.com/archives/99_09/30_earth_core.htm


 >What is the temperature at the core of an atom bomb, or just
 >some controlled atomic pile?

The temperature at the core of the sun is calculated to be
around 15,000,000 degrees centigrade. When a nuclear weapon
explodes, an approximate temperature of 10,000,000 degrees
centigrade is produced within a millionth of a second.

Immediately after the explosion time, the temperature of the
weapon material is "several tens of million degrees" - see, 'The
Scientific Aspects of Nuclear Explosion Phenomena', at:

http://www.enviroweb.org/issues/nuketesting/nukeffct/enw77b3.htm


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 20

                           Re: Lakenheath - Clarke

From: Dave Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 18:12:48 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:59:03 -0500
Subject: Re: Lakenheath - Clarke


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Subject: Re: Lakenheath
 >Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 14:45:12 EST
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Joe McGonagle <joem_cgonagle@yahoo.com>
 >>Date: 17 Feb 2001 04:33:22 +0000
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Lakenheath

 >>I understand you to mean that you were aware of Wimbledon's
 >>version of events, but that you chose not to document it-if that
 >>is correct, then that is surely inexcusable?

 >That is not correct. Wimbledon's version was included at the
 >time.

Was it?

If Brad is referring to Story's Encyclopedia entry of 1980 the
single reference made to any contradictions between the accounts
provided by the RAF and USAF sources is the statement: "...an
intriguing aspect of this case is that both the Lakenheath RATCC
and the RAF Interception Control team... were and still are
convinced that their respective radar was used to vector the
Venom to the respective target."

Thayer's 1980 account conveniently omits the alleged phrases
used by the RAF pilots ("Roger... I've got my guns locked on
him... the damnest thing I ever saw"), as reported from the
memory of the USAF RATCC controller in pre-1980 accounts of the
case - but no explanation is offered, and no reference is made
to the fact that Thayer knew the RAF Controller had dismissed
these as "nonsense" and "fiction."

Perhaps Thayer chose not to mention this, because
by 1980 he had become aware of the fact that the aircraft
involved in the interception, the Venom NF-3 did not, at
that time, have a "gunlock" facility!

Faulty memory eh? But of course, the USAF man's testimony could
not possibly be wrong, could it?

 >>To have posession of contradictory evidence, from a relatively
 >>senior military source, and discard it on the intuition that the
 >>witness was tainted by jealousy suggests to me that his evidence
 >>was unsuitable because it didn't fit in with your view of the
 >>case.

 >Wimbledon was no more "senior" in the
 >sense you're using than Perkins was, who was a senior Air Force
 >radar controller of many years' experience.

The facts are that at the time of the 1956 incident the USAF NCO
was listed as "T/Sgt.... radar Air Traffic Control Center Team
Supervisor" (Blue Book telegram BOI-485, 16 August 1956). Note:
Air Traffic Control centre.

Whatever his skills were, the fact is that he had never been
trained as an Interception Controller and could not have
undertaken a interception using the equipment available at
Lakenheath (a radar which had been installed only for a couple
of months, and had no vector scanning or height finding
capability).

At the time the RAF man was Chief Controller at the main radar
station in Norfolk - responsible for monitoring the Eastern
Sector radar and with a duty to scramble aircraft from the
Battle Flight 24 hours a day, should any foreign intruder
attempt to approach the English coast.

The Chief Controller would have been an officer, Squadron Leader
or equivalent and in this case and had four others- including a
second officer (Fighter Controller) and a corporal under his
command.

I'll leave it to others to judge who was more "senior" in the
context of the events we are discussing, or even whether this is
relevant.

 >However, Wimbledon claimed that the USAF would not even have
 >been privy to the radio communication frequencies used in the
 >Venom intercepts and therefore Perkins could not possibly have
 >listened in on the intercept -- when quite obviously Perkins did
 >and that fact was supported by the TWX communications in the
 >USAF files from Aug 1956. I think Thayer discounted this
 >discrepancy as a memory problem by Wimbledon 20-25 years after
 >the event. However now we'll get to hear what Wimbledon has to
 >say 40-45 years after the fact and see if his memory has
 >improved.


Brad's claims about what the RAF Controller says about the role
the USAF played are not entirely correct, and no one is
disagreeing that faulty memory has played a major role in
producing confusion and contradiction.

However, it is a very one-sided argument to claim that one
participant's version is unreliable because of faulty memory but
another version (which also relies upon memory, a 12 year old
recollection) is acceptable! As we have seen with the "gunlock"
claim, the USAF's man version is fatally flawed. That is
independently verifiable fact. Venoms had no gunlock facility in
1956. How, then, can we accept anything else he says- especially
timings, heights, distances, etc recalled 12 years after the
events?

This kind of imprecise witness descriptions are what Brad uses
all the time to compute what he believes are extremely precise
heights and triangulations of supposed UFOs. But as he should
have realised, the basis of all this is the witness testimony.
If this is not reliable in the first place, then the whole pack
of cards collapses - "garbage in, garbage out."

No doubt Brad will argue that the USAF account is backed up by
the Blue Book records and teletypes, but that argument will not
stand up either because there are just as many contradictions as
there agreements between the two sources - particularly with
regards to timings.

The only way to make sense of all this is to accept none of
these sources as 100 percent "correct" (although all of them
clearly contain some elements of truth) and make progress by
locating additional, independent, evidence which allows a fresh
interpretation of the events.

All best wishes

Dave Clarke












   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 20

                Argentina: Local Residents Terrified by "Imp"

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@juno.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 13:24:23 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:03:04 -0500
Subject: Argentina: Local Residents Terrified by "Imp"


Dear Readers,

For some reason, Argentina has been a perpetual source of
stories regarding diminutive entities best described as "imps".
Last year we featured stories on the police station that had to
be vacated after officers reported a small, nonhuman creature
walking into the premises. Hoaxes? Children playing pranks? You
be the judge.

Scott Corrales
Institute of Hispanic Ufology

++++++++++++++++

SOURCE: Diario Austral de Temuco
DATE: Sunday, February 18, 2001

Local Residents Terrified By "Imp"

As occurs in fairy tales and myths, a strange being has been
appearing repeatedly at night in the town of Pitrufquen.

The creature involved would be an "imp", which according to the
testimony of some local children, has manifested itself in a
patch of vacant land near the homes located in that city's
Manuel Rodriguez street.

The children attested that the mysterious entity, which only
appears at night, "is small, since he's no taller than 50
centimeters, and he's been appearing since September in the same
spot."

They likewise noted that the entity hides in a sort of cave
located at the site, not far from the backyard of the children's
house. "We would go and see him every night. At first we thought
that it was a "guagua" (newborn) living it a house close to
where the creature hides. Then we realized that the baby was
always crying, and we thought that it knew when the imp was
approaching," explained the youngsters.

"Sometimes we would shine our flashlights on him at night. The
light would blind him and make him crouch. That's when we could
see things on the side of his head, which looked like ears. He'd
squeal so that we'd go away, and that's why we started throwing
stones at him. He would follow us, but we always managed to get
away, " they stressed.

The children explained that after these incidents, they never
again came near the place. "It scared us, because he could do
anything. Besides, he's real strong, because he moved a car that
was near the place and he'd beat up on the dogs," they noted.

The youngsters added that "the imp even got into the Hospital to
pester the people there. That's why lots of people came to see
him. Firemen and "Carabineros" and detectives showed up to keep
an eye on things and find out what was going on."

Delmira Munoz, the children's aunt, corroborated their version
of the events. "Whenever my nephews visited that place, they
would come across a little crouching man wearing a sort of
blanket over his back. The other neighbors can also say the
same, since many of them have seen it. Fortunately, this entity
hasn't come all the way to our house, and that's why the
children have no problems sleeping. But if they bother it, it
reacts violently," she stated.

Delmira Munoz also noted that there were suggestions that the
alleged imp had been captured. "The hospital's officials had
said that it had been caught and sent to Temuco to perform
experiments on it."

Hernan San Martin, another witness to this mysterious entity's
presence, recalled that "one day I was drinking tea with my
wife, I heard the children throwing stones at something. We went
out for a look, and my wife told me that a little man  was
walking around. I went to check what was going on and found a
sort of cave in which it seemed to hide. That's when the kids
told me it was a little man with wizened features, hairy,
piglike ears and shining eyes."

San Martin remarked that after the incident, he wasn't all that
convinced by the children's story. "However, my wife and I
thought we could feel it approaching the house in the dark. I
made an effort to catch a glimpse of him, but I couldn't,
because it's very astute."

As time went by, he noticed that part of his hens and chickens
were slowly dying. "The likeliest explanation is that this
critter killed them. What I find strangest of all is that it
only drank their blood. All of these events led us to find out
more about it. People told us that it was an imp raised in the
countryside and would never be seen in a city. They further told
us that it obeys a master and is loyal to him.

Hernan San Martin finally observed that in spite of the alleged
imp's aggressive tendencies, it has not hurt the children until
now. "It appears to have only wanted to play with them. But it
behaves violently toward animals, since its hurt our cats and
dogs don't want to go near it, because it frightens them."

# # # #

Translation (C) 2001. S. 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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 20

                         Re: AA Film Redux - Gehrman

From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 10:40:39 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 19:09:25 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Gehrman


 >Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 14:10:38 -0800 (PST)
 >From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >Wait one moment. The alien autopsy/cameraman scenario hinges on
 >its representing _another_ (non-Roswellian) saucer crash, as
 >thoroughly demonstrated in Mantle and Hesemann's
 >less-than-insightful book on the subject.

Mac,

While the dates do differ(end of May as opposed to the 2nd-3rd
of July) the AA is a Roswell event. How the event the cameraman
filmed is connected to the July crash and recovery is still
unknown. We've never argued that the two events were the same,
but the similarity of debris and symbols indicated to us the two
were related.

I believe the Barney Barnett crash is the event the cameraman
filmed. Even though the two were a month apart, doesn't mean
that the crafts the creatures were flying weren't constructed in
the same manner, including the same strange symbols.

I think it's also logical that creatures probably all looked
about the same.

 >Now, it appears AA proponents are back-peddling by taking highly
 >dubious photos of indiscernable smudges to _unite_ the AA
 >scenario with the alleged crash at Roswell.

These are not dubious photos. Their history is well known and
the symbols are contained within the photos. We're just taking a
closer with new technology. I think Neil was as surprised at
what he found as the rest of us. We certainly weren't expecting
to find this exciting evidence. If you don't believe us, why
don't you see for yourself?

 >You can't have it both ways: the symbols described by Roswell
 >witnesses don't even vaguely resemble the angular glyphs we see
 >in the so-called "debris footage."

Which witnesses are you talking about and which descriptions?
When was the last time you examined the debris footage
carefully? Besides we're not talking about the obvious symbols,
but symbols tucked away in the debris which are not observable
without magnification.


 >This smacks of
 >desperation--and this is coming from someone who retains a
 >(very) narrow slot in my "gray basket" for potential
 >authenticity of the AA film--er--video.

What was the evidence that caused you to be so skeptical of the
AA. We're trying to find all the possible objections, so what
were yours?

If you have none, then we'd like you to examine our evidence and
see if it, in its totality, doesn't constitute proof.

I believe that most folks felt that the AA must be a fraud and
haven't given it much thought, or felt that since folks like
Stanton and Mac didn't think it legitimate, then it must be a
hoax. Most folks didn't realize that hardly any of the critics
had looked at the AA carefully or critically.


 >But right now these look like smudges and
 >wishful thinking.

I'm very surprised that you'd say something like this. I think
you need to take another look. And why haven't you ordered a set
of AA CDs?


Ed








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 20

                    Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Roberts

From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 18:43:18 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 19:12:38 -0500
Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Roberts


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment
 >Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 12:11:52 -0600

Jerry wrote:

 >I, too, look forward to seeing whatever Randles/Roberts/Clarke
 >have come up with and determining whether it's more compelling
 >than the failed (though much-hyped) attempt to debunk the
 >Rendlesham case.

Jerry,

Do some research for a change. I have never written more than a
few lines (if that) on the Rendlesham case.

 >The jeering, boasting posting by Andy Roberts
 >does not, however, exactly inspire confidence about the
 >objectivity of the investigation.

Perhaps I should have written it in another style? But you know
as well as I even had I written it in the style of a Harvard
Lecturer (say) complete with footnotes and annotations, you
would have said, "The ......... posting by Andy Roberts" etc.

 >I guess we'll find out one way or another at some point

You will. But I'll predict here and now that whatever we come up
with your belief in this case (have you investigated it?) will
over ride any of the multitude of facts we put before you.

Count on it Pilgrims.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 20

                        Re: AA Film Redux - Bourdais

From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 13:50:17 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 19:15:58 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Bourdais


 >Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 11:15:16 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 14:34:15 EST
 >>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Bourdais
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>>Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 23:00:09 +0000
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >>>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux

 >Previously, Gildas wrote of AA:

 >>>>This could also account for Capt. McAndrew's comment to me
 >>>>that he had seen the same film in Air Force archives.

 ><snip>

 >>I don't think he mentioned a specific date but I had the
 >>impression from context that he was speaking of seeing it some
 >>years earlier.  He also indicated having seen more of the film
 >>than Santilli had.

 ><snip>

 >>>So, I suppose he meant that he had seen it before. Then, I don't
 >>>see many possibilities:

 >>>1) The AA footage is an authentic military film,

 >>>or

 >>>2) It is a fake made by the military, or a related agency. (In
 >>>this case, it could well be a fake close to a real one).

 >>>In both cases, Santilli had only a copy of it, and was of course
 >>>unable to give a foot of original film for datation, but this is
 >>>not a key point in this context. It could have been shot any
 >>>time.

 >>>3) Here is another possibility: captain McAndrew lied to you!

 >Hi, Gildas!

 >All considered, prospects numbers 1 and 2 above make the most
 >sense, if sense is to be made from such limited information
 >regarding AA. In the end, AA could be both an authentic military
 >film as well as a fake made by the military. That is to say that
 >the alien still isn't real; but since the film could have
 >originated within the military, then descriptions 1 and 2 both
 >apply.

 >What is important to keep in mind is that Santilli had been told
 >that others had already seen the footage. Now in the context of
 >the US Goberment's constant denial that we've never been visited
 >by aliens or that ET craft really exists, just what is the
 >likelihood that such damning, "authentic" footage would be
 >available floating around out there long enough for others,
 >including Japanese investors, to have also seen it?


Yes, this is the at the heart of the discussion.

Why would secret services let such images "float around", and
even send them to the Japanese government?

Again, there is the idea of gradual, controled release of some
information regarding very secret operations such as crash
retrievals and contacts.

If there are such operations, they obviously have to solve a
problem: how to let the world know without risking an
explosion?

This gradual release could well be the only solution.
One possible action would be to release images which are
not authentic but more or less close to the real ones.

On the other hand, If these images are completely false, I don't
se the point in showing them to anybody, especially to
foreigners.

In a word, they cannot keep such secrets forever and they have
to do something about it.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 20

                           Re: Lakenheath - Clarke

From: Dave Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 19:26:39 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 19:19:14 -0500
Subject: Re: Lakenheath - Clarke


 >From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
 >Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 17:18:32 -0000
 >Subject: Re: Lakenheath
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>From: Dave Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Lakenheath [was: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ]
 >>Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 18:06:40 -0000

 >>the 'accepted' version of events repeated and perpetuated ad
 >>nauseum since 1969 by everyone from Thayer to Sturrock and most
 >>recently by Georgina Bruni - the latest to get the facts
 >>completely wrong.

 >Dave, I have never claimed to have investigated the Lakenheath
 >case, but have mentioned it in my book "You Can't Tell The
 >People" because it involved RAF Bentwaters, one of the bases I
 >was investigating concerning the Rendlesham Forest incident. The
 >information was taken from the only official records available,
 >with the names offered by respectable French journalist Bernard
 >Thouanel.I have a copy of the BBC tape that Jenny raved about
 >but it proves nothing. So, if the facts are wrong concerning
 >these official records then I look forward to you proving it.


Hi Georgina,

Well for starters the respectable French journalist Bernard
Thounal made a most basic error, which you repeated. Your book
(pg 367) provides what you say are the names of the "RAF pilots"
involved in the Lakenheath interception. The names are in fact
the names of two navigators! They were highly amused when I
showed them your book, but no doubt you could get the mistake
rectified in the next edition.

The fact that the names are wrong means that the paragraphs
which follow (quoting an alleged conversation between the wrong
pilots) are nonsense. Innacuracy is compounded by the fact that
the exchange you report, which included phrases such as "the
damnest thing I've ever heard" did not take place as reported, a
fact I think even Gordon Thayer came to accept by 1980 (can you
imagine an RAF pilot in 1956 using such Americanised slang?).

You are totally right that the hastily filmed interview with two
of the men outside RAF Lakenheath didn't prove anything, but so
what? You obviously felt it was worth using as a basis for your
innacurate summary of the case!

I accept you did not investigate the case - just relied on
second and third hand evidence, just like everyone else who has
launched into print on this one. Which was precisely the point I
was making!

While you're here you might remember a review of a book called
"The UFOs that Never Were" where a certain Georgina Bruni picked
out a list of factual errors allegedly made by one of the
authors in the Rendlesham chapter. Your take was that because
some basic errors had been made, this meant that you could
safely dipense with taking anything in the other chapters
seriously.

Applying your own argument can we safely dismiss the contents of
"You Can't Tell the People" on the basis of the errors above?

 >>Georgina took three years to 're-investigate' the Rendlesham
 >>Forest case, and proved nothing.

 >I strongly object to that statement and suggest you read the
 >book properly with an open mind. The book could not "prove" what
 >the objects were because they were and still remain UFOs.
 >However, it proved it was not the lighthouse, if that's what you
 >mean. There is an abundance of information in the book relating
 >to what took place before, during and after the incident, but
 >the debunkers have dismissed the book as if it does not exist,
 >continuing to promote their theories based on old information.
 >The new information of course demolishes their theories.

So the best you can say for your much-promised and much- hyped
tome is that it proves that the objects still remain UFOs? Well,
even if I agreed - which I don't - that hardly amounts to very
much does it?

UFOs can be just about anything.

The best you could come up with is some half-hearted theory
about time-travellers, interesting but completely unprovable. I
was hoping that one of the serious newspapers might take up the
story, and finally put someone in the know on the spot. But the
fact that only the News of the World and GMTV seem to have paid
it any attention just goes to show that, as I said, it takes the
case no further and proves _nothing_. That's just my opinion,
and no I haven't investigated the case and I think its gone
beyond any kind of objective investigation now, too many egos,
lecture tours, belief systems and bank balances stand in the way
of clarity. Despite the above, I really enjoyed your book, it
was very well written unlike hundreds of other tomes with
silvery saucers on the front which grace the bookshelves. But
being a good read does not mean to say I have to agree with your
conclusions. You promised that when the book was published it
would put to bed the "lighthouse" theory after all. It has not
done so, in my opinion. Neither do I think that Ian Ridpath will
be rushing to Chelsea to make that gentlemanly apology either.
In fact, the most important piece of evidence in the whole book
in my opinion is the letter from Inspector Mike Topliss of the
Suffolk Constabulary, who put the whole thing in perspective as
only a local copper could.

Note - my opinion.

I was hoping for some conclusive proof, but what do we get?
Gordon Williams and Donald Moreland say absolutely nothing that
we didn't already know - and just underlines the fact that no
one "in the know" took the case seriously in the first place.
But you can safely ignore my rantings, as I'm sure you will
anyway.

 >With regard to your witness, I find it odd that Jenny Randles
 >and co have dismissed the Rendlesham witnesses testimonies.Yet
 >you all seem to be saying that the witness in the Lakenheath
 >case is to be believed. I just think it's very strange that in
 >one case the witness testimony doesn't count, yet when it suits
 >the situation, suddenly it counts.

What Jenny says or doesn't say about the Rendlesham case and its
witnesses are her opinions, not mine or anyone else involved in
the Lakenheath investigation. The two are entirely separate.

If you re-read my posts regarding the latter, you will see that
I/we are not saying one witness is better than the other. All
witness statements - especially on nebulous matters such as UFOs
- should be regarded as suspect unless there is independent
evidence to corroborate what is being said or claimed. In the
Lakenheath case, there is truth and falsehood in all of them.

Any private detective worth his or her salt would surely agree
with this basic rule of evidence, would they not?







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 20

                         Re: AA Film Redux - Gehrman

From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 12:30:14 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 19:21:05 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Gehrman


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 22:05:25 EST
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >I was hoping that you would roll Roger a VHS copy as well as the
 >CD, that way he could have both in hand when he checks it out.

 >Cheers,

 >Robert

I don't have the betacam video from which the AA CDs were
digitized. Neil did that but if you're implying some sort of
fraud on our part, then I don't know what to say in return.
We're being as open and honest about our research as is
possible.  We want a discussion covering what others find on the
CDs. If you don't want to participate, then fine, but why
wouldn't you? I sent the AA CD's to Roger last Friday so he
should have them tomorrow.

He can copy the CDs on his hard drive and then send them on to
you. You can do the same then send them on to someone else and
on and on until everyone has a copy on their hard drive. Then
we'll all be interpreting the same information. Whether Ray lied
is immaterial to the discussion.

Stanton and Bruce and Jerry Clark and everyone else should be
involved.

That's what I'd like to see happen.


Ed









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 20

                   Feel Like A Bag O'Dirt - Roswell Dirt?

From: Tom Thehofanous <theofa@idirect.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 20:50:46 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 23:26:49 -0500
Subject: Feel Like A Bag O'Dirt - Roswell Dirt?


Source: eBay

http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=560070147


1947 ROSWELL NM UFO CRASH SITE SOIL SAMPLE
Item #560070147

Collectibles: Science Fiction: General

This auction has ended but the item has been relisted. Go to item now.


Currently  $2.00
First bid  $2.00
Quantity 5
# of bids 4 bid history
Time left Auction has ended.

Location ROSWELL, NM--HOME OF THE ALIENS & CRASH SITE
Country USA

Started Feb-12-01 14:36:45 PST
Ends    Feb-19-01 14:36:45 PST

Description 1947 CRASH SITE SOIL SAMPLE

In the summer of 1947, an unidentified flying craft allegedly
crashed near the town of Roswell, NM. My husband's grandfather
was living just outside of Roswell in those days. He was
acquainted with a gentleman who knew Mr. Mac Brazel. Mr. Brazel
was located on the ranch where the crash happened.

Although they did not truly understand the significance of what
had happened, Mr. Brazel and the gentleman known by my husband's
grandfather, scooped up a 5-gallon pail of dirt and rocks while
they were walking over the site.

After the article about the crash appeared in the Roswell Daily
Record newspaper, the military was brought in on it. The area
was sealed off from the public and Mr. Brazel was detained for
about 7 days by the military.

The 5-gallon pail of dirt was given to to my husband's
grandfather three days after it had been scooped up from the
crash site by the other two gentlemen. My husband's grandfather
was to keep it for Mr. Brazel's friend until he came for it. He
never did. It remained in my husband's grandfather's storage
room for years.

They moved between Roswell and Carlsbad several times during the
intervening years, but the grandfather always kept up with that
dirt. After his grandfather died many years ago, my husband kept
the dirt in storage at his Mom's property.

My son suggested that we offer small plastic bags of this dirt
and make them available to people interested in the 1947 Roswell
UFO Crash. My husband and I thought about it and talked it over
for about a week. My husband was reluctant at first but then
decided that there are many people who are very interested in
the crash. He figures that it is a part of America and should be
shared.

We are offering these small bags with labels to as many people
who are interested while supplies last. Only a few bags will be
offered since my husband doesn't wish it give it all away. Since
only a few will ever be offered, my husband said to offer them
at a minimum bid of $2.00 + $1.50 shipping and handling and when
they are all gone that will be that. Good luck bidding!!

If you are interested in the 1947 Roswell UFO Crash, then you
will want to have one of these "one-of-a-kind" mementos of
something extraordinary that occurred in the desert plains of
New Mexico over 50 years ago. If you have a successful bid, you
shall be one of only a few that will own such a souvenir! A
certificate of authenticity will accompany your souvenir.

Terms of Sale

Buyer pays $1.50 fixed shipping/handling in Unites States. $5.00
shipping/handling internationally. I do not offer combined
shipping. Email notice to the high bidder must be answered
within 3 days and payment must be received within 10 days of
notice. No refunds or exchanges.

I accept credit card payments through Paypal,
Money Orders only...no personal checks please.

Items are usually shipped the same day payment is received.
New Mexico residents must add 6.5% sales tax.












   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 20

              Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy'

From: David Bolton <David@Bolton.SOL.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 20:52:26 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 23:41:34 -0500
Subject: Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy'


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 19:19:02 EST
 >Subject: Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy'
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Does anyone have a good response to the photos of background
 >hills that were said to be identical in two different Apollo
 >missions, one photo with a Lunar Module in the foreground and
 >the other without? They overlaid the pics and showed the hills
 >were identical. Is this a photo fake by Fox?

I haven't seen the program - but how about this:

(a) how do we know that the photos were from two different
missions?

(b) The hills would have been at some considerable distance from
the landing site (to give the astronauts a reasonable chance of
landing somewhere flat). Therefore, the paralax differences
between two photographs looking in the same direction, but a few
yards laterally displaced, would be negligible. Hence, you can
get two identical backgrounds - but one shot with the LEM in the
foreground, and one without.

It all hinges on whether the photos were, indeed, from two
different missions. We only have Fox's word for that - so it
*has* to be true ;-)

This whole "documentary" just sounds like another "Alternative
3" type hoax - but inverted.

Besides, I thought this had been done-to-death in the film
"Capricorn One" (except that was Mars, of course).


-- David G Bolton <David@Bolton.SOL.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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 20

              Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy'

From: Joachim Koch <Achimdkoch@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 16:52:24 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 23:44:16 -0500
Subject: Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy'


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 19:19:02 EST
 >Subject: Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy'
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Does anyone have a good response to the photos of background
 >hills that were said to be identical in two different Apollo
 >missions, one photo with a Lunar Module in the foreground and
 >the other without? They overlaid the pics and showed the hills
 >were identical. Is this a photo fake by Fox?

Hi Brad and All,

Regarding this topic I recommend very much to study the
following source: "Dark Moon - Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers"
by Bennet and Percy, ISBN 1 898541 108 (Paperback)

Beside stunning photographic evidence regarding the thesis of
the authors this source answers the following questions:

-Did you know that a second craft was going to the Moon at the
same time as 'Apollo 11'?

-Do you know that potentially lethal radiation is prevalent
throughout deep space?

-Do you know that there are serious discrepancies in the account
of the Apollo 13 'accident'?

-Did you know that 'live' colour TV from the Moon was not
actually live at all?

-Do you know that lighting was used in the Apollo photographs-
yet none was taken to the Moon?

The source uncovers a deception that emanates from the very top
regarding the exploration of the Moon and more than amply
demonstrates that NASA has a case to answer. It is an
extensively researched and balanced assessment of the people and
parallels within USSR/USA space programs and raises many
subjects that some may not wish to address.

A Hasselblad spokesman said when the photographic evidence was
presented to him: "Yes, it does appear that Aldrin is standing in a
spotlight.  I can't explain why, you will  have to find Amstrong and ask
him."

And:

-Did you know that the Lunar Surface Camera had no viewfinder?


Joachim Koch








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 20

                     Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 22:55:18 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:19:59 -0500
Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact


A condensed but highly representative version of my argument is
freely available to internet users (as compared to the high cost
of The UFO Evidence, Volume II) by accessing a commissioned
article I wrote for Joe Firmage at:

www.isso.org/inbox/science.htm

I would be very interested in hearing from non-ETH "believers"
(that sort of labelling cuts both ways) about their reaction to
what I have to say there.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 20

             Re: NASA - Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy' -

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 21:03:09 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:22:14 -0500
Subject: Re: NASA - Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy' -


 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 11:42:51 -0600
 >Fwd Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 20:28:55 -0500
 >Subject: Re: NASA - Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy'

 >The "fake-moon-landing" proponents (foonies?) ironically take
 >the opposite stance. They look at the lack of stars as a sign of
 >fakery when, in fact, a starless sky is _exactly_ what one would
 >see if on the moon during the "day" just like here on Earth. I
 >find this amusing because, if NASA really did go to great
 >lengths to create a "reality" that was technically accurate, the
 >foonies obviously prefer their own reality that has been skewed
 >due to watching too many science fiction movies where the stars
 >are always visible; lighting imbalances be damned. It would seem
 >that, if the landing was faked by NASA, they would have been
 >better off trying to please peoples' perceptions of what a moon
 >landing would look like instead of going for technical accuracy.

Time for another King Roger science reality check.

The reason we see no stars in the daytime here on Earth is
because Earth has something called an atmosphere (heard of it
Roger?), which the Moon does not. The atmosphere has particulate
matter (dust, air droplets, etc.) which scatters the bright
sunlight towards our eyes obscuring the dimmer starlight.

On the airless moon, one can indeed see stars during daytime,
just as someone in the space shuttle can above the Earth's
atmosphere on the daylit side of the Earth.

If the stars didn't show in NASA moon landing photos, then I
suspect it had to do with film dynamic range, f/stop and shutter
speed.  Because the surface of the moon is very brightly lit in
daytime, the film and camera settings would have to compensate
to prevent overexposure.  Otherwise, the surface details would
be completely washed out.

I do wish Roger would go back to high school and pass those
basic science courses he obviously flunked the first time
around.

No, I don't think NASA faked the moon landings.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 20

                        Satellite Object Cases Pt. I

From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 23:21:24 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:26:05 -0500
Subject: Satellite Object Cases Pt. I


I would like to commend Herb Taylor on his study currently in
progress of "satellite object" cases. I urge everyone to provide
any help and support you can!

These cases have been termed "motherships," "cloud cigars,"
etc., etc., however, "satellite object cases" is probably the
best description. Generally, in such UFO cases a large object is
seen associated with smaller objects. There are many aspects to
these cases sometimes involving unusual appearance or
disappearance, generation of and absorption of the smaller
objects, generation of smoke, fog, or vapor termed as
cloud-like, and various light phenomena associated with the
objects.

A classic case would be the 8 September 1958 incident witnessed
by Strategic Air Command officers, including the reporter, USAF
navigator, Major Paul A. Duich at Offut Air Force Base,
Nebraska. Richard Hall's UFO Evidence, Volume I, gives the
following summary :

"1. UFO first appeared as a vapor streak, bright flare of light.
Then turned red-orange, solid shaped became distinct. Major
Duich described the object as pencil like with the major axis in
the vertical.] Black specks appeared, cavorted near the lower
end.

"2. Specks disappeared, object tilted to 45 degrees from the
horizonal, begun moving slowly WSW.

"3. Object tipped to horizontal, then as it moved into the
distance titled upwards again."

Time was approximately 6:40 pm and observation duration was
approximately 20 minutes.

Consulting some compilations available here and a few other
sources, I was able to come up with more than 50 of these cases.
Certainly this is not even the beginning of comprehensive
catalogue.

Both Michel and Vallee thought these cases of great importance.
Richard Hall has in The UFO Evidence I and his new second
volume, The UFO Evidence, Volume II, A Thirty Year Report has
compiled a large number of these cases. The list below draws on
both these compilations.

Herb Taylor seeks the original sources, if possible, and any
additional information such as weather and other environmental
factors, etc.

Certainly, he would be interested in any cases not on this list
and, of course, additional details for cases here.

Contact information is

HerbUFO@AOL.COM

Thank you.

Jan Aldrich
Project 1947
http://www.project1947.com/
P. O. Box 391
Canterbury, CT 06331, USA
(860) 546-9135

Satellite Object Cases  I

Sources:

Bloecher, Ted, The Report on the UFO Wave of 1947, NICAP, 1967,
ROUWO1947

Gross, Loren, The Fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse, (series)
1958, private, 1998-1999, FHOTA 1958

Hall, Richard, ed., The UFO Evidence, Barnes and Nobles, 1997,
UFOE I

Hall, Richard, ed., The UFO Evidence, Volume II: A Thirty Year
Report, Scarecrow Press, 2000, UFOE II

Sowiak-Rudej, Paul "Cloud Cigars and Cigar Shaped UFOs, UFOIC,
UFO Reporter, Vol. 1 #2, 1992,

http://www.ufor.asn.au/Vol1No2-13.html

  CC&CSU

Date and Location Source

1944 Summer              UFOE I
Grenada, MS

1947 April 29            ROUWO1947
Tucson, AZ


1947 Jun 21              ROUWO1947
Spokane, WA

1947 Jun 24              ROUWO1947
Portland, OR

1947 Jun 30              ROUWO1947
Norwood, OH

1947 Jul 6               ROUWO1947
Tucson, AZ

1947 Jul 6               ROUWO1947
Palmdale, CA

1947 Jul 7               ROUWO1947
Tacoma, WA

1947 Jul 7               ROUWO1947
Cicero, IL

1947 Jul 7               ROUWO1947
Manchester, ME

1951 Fall                UFOE I
Birmingham to
Chattanooga

1951 early Oct           UFOE I
Anderson, 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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 20

                        Satellite Object Cases Pt. II

From: "Jan Aldrich" <jan@cyberzone.net>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 23:24:59 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:28:53 -0500
Subject: Satellite Object Cases Pt. II


Greetings List

Please note that the Singapore case of April 1952 part of the
compilation in The UFO Evidence, volume I, has been removed as
this report is probably of bombers flying over creating vapor
trails.

It should also be noted that lack of reports during certain time
periods is probably not meaningful here considering that a full
literature search has not been conducted.

Herb Taylor's contact information is


HerbUFO@AOL.COM

Thank you,

  Jan Aldrich
Project 1947
http://www.project1947.com/
P. O. Box 391
Canterbury, CT 06331, USA
(860) 546-9135

Satellite Object Cases  II

Sources:

Bloecher, Ted, The Report on the UFO Wave of 1947, NICAP, 1967,
ROUWO1947

Gross, Loren, The Fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse, (series)
1958, private, 1998-1999, FHOTA 1958

Hall, Richard, ed., The UFO Evidence, Barnes and Nobles, 1997,
UFOE I

Hall, Richard, ed., The UFO Evidence, Volume II: A Thirty Year
Report, Scarecrow Press, 2000, UFOE II

Sowiak-Rudej, Paul "Cloud Cigars and Cigar Shaped UFOs, UFOIC,
UFO Reporter, Vol. 1 #2,

http://www.ufor.asn.au/Vol1No2-13.html

  CC&CSU

1952                     UFOE I
San Mateo, CA

1952 Jul 23              UFOE I
Culver City, CA

1952 Aug 28              UFOE I
Benham, Bucks, UK

1952 Oct 17              UFOE I
Oloron College, France

1952 Oct 27              UFOE I
Gaillac, France

1952 Dec 6               UFOE I
Gulf of Mexico

1954 Jun 30              UFOE I
nr. Labrador

1954 Jul 8               UFOE I
Abbey Lakes, Lanc, UK

1954 Aug 23              UFOE I
Vernon, France

1954 Sep 14              UFOE I
Vendee, France

1954 Sep 22              UFOE I
Fontainbleu, France

1954 Sep 27              UFOE I
Rixheim, France

1954 Oct 3               UFOE I
Lievin & Ablain-
St. Nazaire, France

1954 Oct 10/11           UFOE I
Riom, France

1955 Feb 16              UFOE I
nr Pinchincha volcano Peru

1957 Oct 6               UFOE I
Tucson, AZ

1957 Dec 15              UFOE I
Alminde, Jutland, Denmark

  1958 Jan 11             UFOE I
Vista, CA

1958 Mar 3               UFOE I
nr. Marshall, TX

1958 April               FHOTA 1958
Tucson, AZ

1958 Jun 18              FHOTA 1958
Coral Gables, FL

1958 Sep 8               UFOE I
Offut AFB, NE

1960 Sep 10              UFOE I
nr. Scituate, MA

1960 Oct 4               UFOE I
Cressy, Launceton
Australia

1961 May 3               UFOE I
Toonpang, NSW
Australia

1961 Jun 4               UFOE I
Blue Ridge Summit, PA








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 20

                      Satellite Object Cases IV - Pt.IV

From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 23:37:40 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:39:53 -0500
Subject: Satellite Object Cases IV - Pt.IV


Greetings List,

I would like to forward this Satellite Object case from Herb
Taylor.

Jan Aldrich
Project 1947
http://www.project1947.com/
P. O. Box 391
Canterbury, CT 06331, USA
(860) 546-9135

This report was originally published in S.P.A.C.E., Bulletin
#19, July 1958. The basic facts are as follows:

"On June 18, 1958, at approximately 11:45 P.M., two sisters, and
the 12-year old daughter of one of them, were out driving in
Coral Gables, Florida. They saw a peculiar shaped light in the
sky that seemed to be shining brightly through the slight
overcast above. It was cigar-shaped, and all three witnesses
agreed that the length was about six full moons. The color was a
very intense blue, and the object seemed to contract and expand.
While they drove home, the cloud cover passed away, and they
could see it a little better, but still not in sharp outline. It
seemed to have a fuzzy appearance. The 12-year old then saw at
one point an orange ball shoot out from the main object. Then
they say that at least a dozen of these small orange balls shot
out of the main object.

Some came out from one end, some from the other, and one seemed
to take off straight up. Having now reached home they continued
watching, but the large object shortly disappeared, just as if
you turn off a light. The total duration was about a half-hour,
and the angle of elevation was almost directly overhead.

About 15 minutes later, it suddenly appeared again, this time
farther north. It stayed stationary in this position for another
15 or 20 minutes, during which time all three witnesses saw four
or five more of the green lights this contradiction of color
needs to be cleared up - HT) leave the large object.

Then just as suddenly as the first time, it disappeared again.
Nothing further was seen."

Feel free to offer any comments or observations on the above
matter.

Regards, Herb Taylor

HerbUFO@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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 21

             Budd Hopkins' IF Seminar Announcement 3/10/01 (NYC)

From: Intruders Foundation <IFConfer@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 23:56:28 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 07:04:01 -0500
Subject: Budd Hopkins' IF Seminar Announcement 3/10/01 (NYC)



Intruders Foundation Seminar Series Announcement

ABDUCTEE PANEL DISCUSSION

Saturday, March 10, 2001

As part of its ongoing educational seminar series, the Intruders
Foundation (IF) will be presenting an abductee panel discussion
that will feature three individuals who have undergone UFO
abductions.  The panel members will describe their experiences
at length, in an informal interview format with Budd Hopkins,
who has conducted hypnotic regression sessions with each of the
three.  This casual format will allow interested members of the
audience to join in the discussion with questions, thoughts, and
if they wish, their own experiences.

Twice before, IF presented this kind of seminar and it proved to
be so fascinating and informative that audience members asked
for a program of this type to be repeated as an annual feature.

We have every reason to believe that our March panel will be
as compelling as the previous abductee panels, and look forward
to the evening.

(NOTE: Due to the need for witness confidentiality, we do not
release the names of our participating panelists.)


REGISTRATION & INFORMATION

The seminar will be held on March 10th at the meeting rooms of
A.R.E., on the tenth floor of 150 W. 28th Street, New York, NY.
  The price of the seminar is $30 for non-members and $20 for
members of IF, seniors, and students.  Reservations must be
made by telephone at 212-645-5278, and will be filled on a first
come, first served basis. Payment must be made in advance to
secure the reservation.  Make checks payable to the Intruders
Foundation, P.O. Box 30233, New York, NY 10011.  Only 50
reservations will be accepted.

On-street parking is generally available in the neighborhood.
The seminar will begin at 7:30 PM and end at 10:00 PM.  Doors
open at 7:00 PM. There will be a one half-hour intermission,
during which light complimentary refreshments will be served.
A book table will offer books, videotapes, and other material
for sale to those interested.  For additional information, call
IF at 212-645-5278.

Hope to see you there!

----------

The Intruders Foundation Seminar Series is presented in the
interests of open-minded scientific learning and the free
exchange of research, ideas, and theories.  IF makes no
specific claims or endorsements regarding any materials, views,
or subject matter presented by our guests.

----------

Want to know more about Budd Hopkins and his nonprofit
scientific research organization, as well as past and future IF
events?  Please visit our website…

Intruders Foundation Website:  www.intrudersfoundation.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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 21

                       Re: Speaking Of Demons - Aubeck

From: Chris Aubeck <caubeck@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:56:01 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 07:05:34 -0500
Subject: Re: Speaking Of Demons - Aubeck


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 16:24:51 -0000
 >Fwd Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 20:22:48 -0500
 >Subject: Speaking Of Demons


 >This will probably get me in trouble, but what the heck!

 >I can imagine a scenario quite consistent with the UFO data
 >(depending of course on which data each of us considers
 >relevant) in which the powers behind UFOs are "demonic". Not in
 >the Biblical sense, though if UFOs have been around that long
 >some of the ancient references could conceivably have been to
 >the same phenomenon.

 >If abductions are really happening, then we ain't exactly
 >dealing with saints. In another sense, some data suggests that
 >'they' are yanking our chains in other ways too.

 >Mind you, I didn't say that I believe this or accept it as the
 >truth. It is only an intellectual exercise and certainly not
 >demonstrable or falsifiable at this point.


 >Dick Hall


Hello Richard,

Your idea about demonic aliens was interesting, though it
has been proposed before in a number of different forms
(see the writings of maybe 25 authors ranging from Gordon
Creighton and Salvador Freixedo to Patrick Harper and Whitley
Strieber).

I have a special interest in 'demonic' cases owing to my
research into Medieval encounter cases. The parallels between
devils and aliens (and fairies and aliens) is often downplayed,
but my extensive studies of the available material shows the
correlations to run deep.

Of special interest in this regard is the way Jacobs' claims in
The Threat coincide exactly with tales of incubi.

I have prepared three chapters on these topics for a forthcoming
book, though I do not have any conclusions to offer and I refuse
to enter into theological debates.

But it really is a fascinating field.

(One of my discoveries was that when the practically always
innocent victims of the Inquisition were forced to invent
testimonies about their experiences, their fantasies very often
exactly coincided with modern abduction accounts. There are
several possible reasons for this, including the possibility
that some genuinely experienced abductions later became the
stereotypical folk narratives demanded by the Inquisitors. But
I'd rather not get into that now!)


Chris Aubeck








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 21

               Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated -

From: Chris Aubeck <caubeck@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 12:33:12 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 07:27:00 -0500
Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated -


 >From: Matt Hurley <m.hurley@ntlworld.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated
 >Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 18:50:30 -0000


Hello Matt,

I forgot to mention it in my last message re your site (Feb
16th), but I suppose you know that the Fund for UFO Research
awarded Italian science writer Daniela Giordano the 1998 Donald
E. Keyhoe journalism award for her work in Nuevo Orione (an
astronomical and space magazine).

She received an award of $750 for an article 'UFOs Depicted In
Ancient Artworks'.

Maybe you should check it out?

Chris Aubeck










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 21

                      Re: Re: A Minor Diversion - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 07:27:42 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 07:29:12 -0500
Subject: Re: Re: A Minor Diversion - Evans


 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 12:09:18 -0800
 >Subject: Re: A Minor Diversion - Hatch
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>From: John Tenney <jelt2000@email.msn.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: A Minor Diversion
 >>Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 18:26:57 -0500

Previously, Larry wrote:

 >>>To wit: What is hotter... the surface of the Sun, or the center
 >>>of the Earth? I don't have the answer, but a quick browse
 >>>indicates that I'm not the only one who doesn't know. Our
 >>>deepest drill holes are something on the order of 10-20 miles, a
 >>>small fraction of one percent of the radius of the Earth, or the
 >>>distance to the center.

<snip>

 >My point is that it just gets hotter and hotter as you descend.
 >It does not get hotter, and then cool back down as you pass some
 >core boundary, it is pressure alone forcing the solid state.

Hi, Larry!

I know absolutely nothing about this subject, but I have been in
quite a few underground caves. If, as you say, it gets hotter
and hotter as you descend, then how come it gets cooler and
cooler the further one descends into a cavern? Every tour of a
cavern that I've ever gone on, the guide always suggests taking
a sweater or something because it stays so cool. In fact, every
guide makes a point of how nice it is underground, even though
no air-conditioning or air supply is ever employed. What gives?

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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 21

             Re: The Rendlesham Forest 'UFO' Incidents - Ledger

From: Donald Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:37:43 +0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 07:32:18 -0500
Subject: Re: The Rendlesham Forest 'UFO' Incidents - Ledger


 >Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 12:51:26 +0000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >Subject: The Rendlesham Forest 'UFO' Incidents


 >>From: "carpenter_joel" <ufx@mindspring.com>
 >>To: "UFO Skeptics" <debunk@listbot.com>
 >>Subject: Re: The Rendlesham Forest 'UFO' Incidents
 >>Date: 14 January 2001 02:07

 >Joel wrote:

 >>Every Inquisition needs a Devil's Advocate, I guess.* I'm
 >>curious as to how Brad Spark's points about the Orfordness
 >>lighthouse below can be addressed.

 >>They seem like genuine issues. Any opinions?

 >>"(a) Wrong Direction
 >>(b) Wrong Location for Visibility
 >>(c) Wrong Color
 >>(d) Wrong Duty Cycle (Steady vs. Strobe)
 >>(e) Wrong Dynamics (Moving vs. Stationary,
 >>"Dripping/Shooting/Exploding")
 >>(f) Wrong Shape (oval with dark "pupil" center, instead of
 >>strobing point source)
 >>(g) Wrong Angular Size (1/3 to 1/2 full moon vs. point
 >>source)."

 >Joel,

 >They have repeatedly been addressed and thoroughly, factually
 >explained, see for instance my response to Sparks' 'SKEPTIC
 >FACTOID' claims at:

It's curious how Easton's selective drivel continues to make it
through on this List, reiterating his own theories while not
addressing those questions constantly put to him.

He hits and then ignores pointed questions that demolish his
theories. He still hasn't come up with the name of the type of
light they use in that lighthouse - the one that can shine right
through a hill.

Of course as an avid debunker he does not have to prove
anything, just an attempt to confuse, while burying any weak
points in endless rhetoric.

Wonder where he picked up that habit?


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 21

                         Credibility and Credo Mutwa

From: Chris Aubeck <caubeck@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 15:58:03 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 07:35:38 -0500
Subject: Credibility and Credo Mutwa


I have been researching African folklore in connection with
CE-IIIs and CE-IVs, and have come upon a wealth of new and old
material. However, I have been having some difficulty validating
many of South African philosopher/healer/guru Credo Mutwa's
claims.

I can verify a few of his stories about African belief but many
of them seem (seem, but I am not accusing him of anything just
yet) of his own invention. What Mack mentions in 'Passport to the
Cosmos' is just the tip of an iceberg that stands quite Way Out.

I'm not even sure what kind of help I need at the moment,
whether to correspond with an expert in the field of African
mythology or just to see if anyone has any solid reason to
proclaim him a fraud (at least as far as UFOs are concerned).

I hope someone out there can help me along the right path and
out of David Icke's involvement in Mutwa's case. I just keep
turning up Icke, Reptile Creatures, videos for sale and
references to how wonderful Credo Mutwa is in the twin worlds(?)
of Spirituality and International Politics.


Chris Aubeck









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 21

                Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:26:11 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 07:41:56 -0500
Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Maccabee


 >From: Mendoza - Peter Brookesmith <Mendoza@appleonline.net>
 >Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >Date: Sat, 17 Feb 01 02:23:00 +0000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >With the compliments of the Duke of Mendoza:

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 19:44:43 -0000
 >>Fwd Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:01:06 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Hall

 >>>From: Mendoza - Peter Brookesmith<Mendoza@appleonline.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>>Date: Tue, 13 Feb 01 03:14:32 +0000
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>Dear Duke,

 >Ahem, Mr Hall. The correct form is "Your Grace". ;-)

My Dear "Your Grace:"

First, let m thank you for reminding us all of the appropriate
use of the term "scoffer", for which the term "debunker" has
been incorrectly substituted.

 >"Perhaps the most insidious rhetorical trick has been the
 >misappropriation of the label "skeptic" to describe what are
 >actually _scoffers_. As sociologist Robert K. Merton pointed
 >out, organized skepticism is a fundamental norm in science.
 >However, the term skepticism is properly defined as _doubt_, not
 >_denial_. It is a position of agnosticism, of nonbelief rather
 >than disbelief. The true skeptic (a doubter) asserts no claim,
 >so has no burden of proof. However, the scoffer (denier) asserts
 >a _negative_ claim, so the burden of proof science places on any
 >claimant must apply. When scoffers misrepresent their position
 >as a form of "hard-line" skepticism, they really seek escape
f>rom their burden to prove a negative position. "Perhaps the
 >greatest confusion related to the needed distinction between
 >skeptics and scoffers concerns their different reactions to the
 >failure by a claimant to support an anomaly claim. The skeptics'
 >attitude towards extraordinary claims (for example, those of
 >parapsychology) where proponents have so far produced inadequate
 >evidence to convince most scientists that their hypotheses about
 >anomalies are true is characterized as a case _not proved_. A
 >skeptic contends that "the absence of evidence is not evidence
 >of absence." The scoffer, on the other hand, sees the failure of
 >proponents as evidence that an anomaly claim has been
 >_disproved_. The perspective of the scoffer, as with most
 >dogmatists, tends to distinguish only black from white and fails
 >to acknowledge gray areas. (Our criminal justice system may
 >likewise be too dichotomous. Thus, similar reasoning led some
 >citizens to conclude that the murder acquittal of O.J. Simpson
 >meant he was judged innocent when he was merely found to be not
 >guilty. Science might better follow the path of Scottish Law
 >which allows for three possible judgements: guilty, not guilty
 >or innocent, and not proven.)"

You continued:

 >Clearly there is a
 >presumption here that the ET hypothesis is not a reasonable
 >one.

 >I don't think it is. I've said why at length elsewhere and am
 >not inclined to repeat here what anyone can find in print as
 >well as in various discussions fully archived on the UFOMind
 >website. What strikes me as a frequent failing of those who do
 >is the admission that rejecting the ETH as unreasonable is
 >itself a reasonable position to take. Having said that I expect
 >someone to squeak "but that's not _fair_" or words to that
 >effect.

 >But take Bruce Maccabee's recent arguments:

 >>As for me and the ETH, I have said that it seems
 >>to me to be the _simplest_ explanation - the easiest to
 >>understand - in the sense that I can imagine us going
 >>"there" (human transport to other planets).>

 >Anthropomorphism. Who knows how aliens would think?

Missed the point: does it matter how aliens think? I'm making an
argument based on the physics as we know it. we _can_ get there
from here, even if it takes a _long_ time. IMHO, the argument
that "they can't get here from there" is not based on physics
but on "sociology:" if some humans were willing to travel for
thousands of years they could get to another star using dumb old
chemical rockets. Use nuclear rockets and shorten the time. Use
photon rockets and get further speed. Could we do this today?
('we' = human race) No. We can only go the the nearest planets.
Could we do it in a 100 years? Probably. In a thousand years?
I'd say definitely. Of course, by then we might have somethig
better than photon rockets.

Point: We can't rule out the possibility that aliens might think
i tworthwhile to takewhatever time necessary totravel to earth
(and , one presumes, other planets as well).

Now, I said ETH involving spaceflight was the simplest...
because we understand the physics that will let us do it _now_
(or within a 100 years, which is effectively now in terms of
galactic ages). Anything else such as time or dimensional travel
requires an extrapolation of thinking beyond what we can now do.
So far as I know no one has "teleported" a single cell through
another dimension... to say nothing of a human.

That's not to say we won't be able todo such a thing in a
hundred years. I just don't know about that. But I do know about
space travel.

 >>However, there have been more esoteric (IMHO) proposals
 >>such as dimensional travel (which is getting a boost these
 >>days from theoretical physics i.e, superstring theory, that
 >>says there are other dimensions "close" to ours in an
 >>overall 11 or more dimensional "multiverse.")

 >My understanding is that the extra dimensions are "wrapped up"
 >into excessively tiny spaces, and unwrapping them would need as
 >much energy as was unleashed during the Big Bang. In other
 >words, more than would be accessible to _any_ technology
 >without, basically, buggering the Universe as we know it at the
 >same time. Perhaps theories, or hypotheses, have moved on since
 >I last nosed around this issue.>

Our present concepts of how and "where" other dimensions exist
may be wrong... assuming they do exist. Although there is a lot
of theorizing, until someone actually does a higher dimension
experiment (whatever that would be) we just won't know what the
requirements in energy or whatever to get to or travel through
other dimensions. (Perhaps it takes a whopping energy to get
through from our dimension to another, but you get all that
energy back when you return to our dimensions. Perhaps, the
"separation" between "sheets" in our dimension are so small that
something like quantum tunnelling is possible... requireing
little energy.)

Bottom Line: We just don't know (about higher dimensions)...
(but we do know about space travel... and will know more "soon")


 >>Dimensional travel theories can work in one of two ways:
 >>transport from a completely different 4-D universe into our
 >>universe or transport from one point in our 4-D universe to
 >>another point in our 4-D universe by going through a 5th
 >>(or higher) dimension (wormhole theory). This latter
 >>transport could explain "faster then light" travel.>

 >The notion that wormholes can transport anything bigger than
 >"Planck's length" (4 x 10^-33cm) doesn't hold up. In theory
 >wormholes are arrived at by treating time as an imagined
 >spacelike entity, which it may do in reality only in Big-
 >Bang-like conditions -- according to the theory -- but you still
 >have this titchy space into which to cram your would-be
 >vee-hickle. Not even a virus would make it.

 >Fair enough: Bruce hints that there are problems with these
 >exotic notions, but doesn't examine them. He falls back on the
 >ETH as "the simplest" explanation when that is anything but
 >simple in fact, if you care to look at it critically and
 >dispassionately.

On the scale of difficulty based on what we now know, IMHO,
ETH/space travel is still the simplest... which does not mean
that space travel is "simple." (Carrying humans is more
difficult that carrying machines. )

 >And you still have the linkage problem. The
 >lack of demonstrated linkage between UFO reports (a term that
 >you may take it includes "UFO-related experiences") and anything
 >ET is one reason I used the word "faith".

I agree that the demonstration of linkage can use better
evidence, such asa radar track ofa single ET craft from "way out
there" to a location on the earth where there is a confirmed
sighting of a TRUFO/ALien Flying Craft. There have been radar
tracks over short distances including a Malmstrom AFB where the
unknown zipped upwards and was lost to the radar at about
200,000 ft. (1975 SAC base flyover).


 >That's all from me on all that, but I should add that I
 >certainly didn't mean to give the impression that Dennis had
 >demolished the ET hypothesis. Look through the List archives,
t>hough, and you'll find he's done a pretty good job of
 >demolishing the arguments of its defenders in the past, and
 >stood up manfully to their gratuituous abuse, too.

SETI has become famous (or infamous) for ET theorizing without
any evidence. Therefore ufologists should not be criticized for
ET theorizing based on sighting evidence.

The more basic argument in ufology is not whether it is ET or
something else, but rather whether or not something truly
unexplained and unexplainable (in terms of known, if rare,
phenomena) is and has been occurring.

Those people who have concluded that there really is something
unusual here can justifiably argue over the ETH or whatever. All
those who deny that there is something going on should get their
explanations ready for analysis... something Dennis hasn't done.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 21

                          Re: AA Film Redux - Evans

From: Roger Annette Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:22:08 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 07:44:07 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Evans


 >From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 13:02:38 +0000
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Morris

 >>Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 09:57:31 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, I had written:

 >>>Never mind
 >>>the camera original versus print argument; Santilli _thought_ he had
 >>>camera original footage, therefore he had no reason to _not_ have it
 >>>tested and looked at by someone like Bob Shell or Kodak.

Neil replied:

 >I believe Bob's position is little changed from Oct 95, Volker
 >at that time already had possession of all the footage and Ray
 >was unable to have him relinquish any for further testing, also
 >by this time Kodak were becoming ultra careful and were
 >demanding a minimum of 50 frames to test, they also required a
 >complete reel of film be brought to their offices and the said
 >50 frames be seen to be part of the stock containing images of
 >the autopsy body, just to cover their backside and
 >understandable considering the publicity any dating would
 >generate. Bob at this time had gone as far as he could with the
 >information and samples he had access to and had become very
 >frustrated by Volker's intransigence. The samples he had _were_
 >genuine pre 1956/7 safety stock and the original negative stock
 >from which it was made was dated 1947, 3 Kodak offices including
 >Rochester NY confirmed the symbol dating in writing.

Hi, Neil!

Well, something is amiss, here. You maintain that testing proved
the film to be negative stock. However, note the following post
from Bob Shell:

 >From: Bob Shell <bob@bobshell.com>
 >Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 10:43:20 -0400 (EDT)
 >Fwd Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 14:11:47 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Roswell 'Alien Autopsy' Film Junk

 >Bull!  This film was REVERSAL processed, and this is far more
 >likely to produce an overexposed look than an underexposed look.

So which is it? Was it reversal film or negative film? Or was it
negative film that was reversal processed? And so what if Kodak
wanted 50 frames (about 2 seconds worth) of the footage for
testing? All Kodak wanted was to see that the alien image
existed within the same continuous piece of film. The testing
could then be done on the head or tail of that film; no damage
to the alien image would even be necessary. If Santilli and
company were so dead set on verifying the image, then why _not_
agree to Kodak's terms? There really is no logical reason,
unless Santilli and Volker already knew the film was suspect.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 21

                          Re: AA Film Redux - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:34:33 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 07:49:24 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Evans


 >From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 13:26:47 +0000
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Morris

 >>Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 11:15:16 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, Neil wrote:

 >Ray said all along he bought 20 reels of _safety_print_ out of
 >22 reels total.

Hi, Neil!

This is not true. Note the following post from Bob Shell:

 >From: Bob Shell <bob@bobshell.com>
 >Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 14:02:52 +0000
 >Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 16:34:08 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Santilli Knew 'Tent Footage' Was a Fraud?

 >AFTER we proved to Santilli that it was copy film he asked the
 >cameraman and he said something like "of course it is copy film,
 >I made the copies myself on the printer at the base lab."
 >Whether Ray has tried to get recourse for the deception I do not
 >know.

Santilli has not said "all along" that he had print film. He
originally thought he had camera original and only learned that
it was print film when Bob proved it to him. Clearly, there was
a deception on the part of the alleged cameraman. That, alone,
should have raised a red flag with Santilli as to the validity
of the film. Therefore, prior to knowing that the film was a
print, Santilli should have been willing to have what he
"thought" was camera original validated by Kodak. Again, there
is no excuse for not doing this. For Santilli to maintain that
there was "nothing he could do" is a bold faced lie.

Finally, I wrote:

 >>Perhaps Santilli
 >>did not create the AA footage. Who knows? Certainly he knows
 >>that the footage is not authentic in the "alien" sense of the
 >>word.

Neil replied:

 >No it's _definitely_ on Kodak stock.

I haven't got a clue what that means in regard to this
discussion. But, for what it's worth, the AA footage has never
been proven to be on _any_ film stock of any kind. The AA
footage could have easily been shot on video and processed
electronically to simulate the frame rate, contrast, grain, etc.
Your last statement has no validation as no film footage of the
alien has ever been seen out side of Santilli and friends.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 21

                     Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 17:56:51 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 07:54:47 -0500
Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Hall


 >From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >To: "02 - UFO UpDates Subscribers":;
 >Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Easton
 >Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 05:50:18 -0500

 >Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 12:48:12 +0000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment

 >Regarding:

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment
 >>Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 20:02:56 -0000

 >Richard Hall wrote:

 >>All this finger-pointing both ways is silly until the UFOIN
 >>report is published and peer reviewed. I for one look forward to
 >>it with great interest. Such detailed case investigations are
 >>essential to serious ufology.

 >Richard,

 >Please, let's not forget if you practised what you preach when it
 >was one of _your_ favourite cases, the 'Rendlesham forest UFO'
 >debacle, that was the subject of a research publication which
 >revealed critical new evidence.

 >You castigate those who 'finger-point' before impending research
 >material is published.

 >Yet, it was FUFOR and Richard Hall who couldn't wait to do so
 >when I published 'Rendlesham Unravelled', on 1 March, 1998.

 >And that was before the contents had even been read.

 >Not only that, you contacted one of the main witnesses to warn
 >them of the forthcoming publication.

 >So please spare us the patronising counsel, especially how 'Such
 >detailed case investigations are essential to serious ufology'.

 >If demonstrating further why 'ET UFO' beliefs are in fact borne
 >of mundane terrestrial causes, they are as welcome as a
 >Protestant in the Vatican.


James,

There are so many false statements or distortions in this
incredibly long and repetitious posting that I hardly know where
to begin.

You tend to use rather inflammatory word choices, which I will
choose to ignore for the most part.

Rendlesham Forest is not one of my "favorite cases," though I do
think it is a highly significant one and I think Georgina Bruni
has pretty much made that clear with truly significant new
evidence.

Halt said that Cabansag did not enter the forest, not me, and I
was only reporting what he said. He apparently did make a few
minor errors, but they are pretty insignificant overall.

I do practice what I preach and have never engaged in what you
accuse me of, nor has FUFOR as an entity. In case you haven't
noticed, Rob Swiatek and I are two different people each
speaking for ourselves.

You seem to think that you have explained the Rendlesham case.
Fine. You are entitled to your opinion.

Now you should learn to be a little more civil toward people who
disagree with you, as I certainly do. However, I have not
prejudged anything (the case could still turn out to have a
terrestrial explanation) nor have I personally attacked you and
I won't be drawn into it now. I have merely criticized some of
your statements and arguments, which is the way peer review is
supposed to operate.

Harry Truman had another famous saying, "If you can't stand the
heat, get out of the kitchen."


Dick Hall








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 21

              Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy'

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 13:20:21 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 07:56:24 -0500
Subject: Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy'


 >From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
 >Date: 19 Feb 2001 09:33:04 -0800
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy'


 >>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 19:19:02 EST
 >>Subject: Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy'
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 22:01:32 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: UNASA - Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy'
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >>>>From: UFO UpDates - Toronto

 >>>>Source: NASA Watch

 >>>>http://www.nasawatch.com/index.html

 >>>>15 February 2001: Fox Airs "Moon Conspiracy"

 >>>>Here's how Fox promoted their show:

 >>>>"MOON LANDING QUESTIONED ON THE ALL-NEW SPECIAL 'CONSPIRACY
 >>>>THEORY: DID WE LAND ON THE MOON' FEB. 15 ON FOX"

 >>>>NASA put a man on the moon for the first time in 1969 -- or did
 >>>>it? Could the entire moon program have been an elaborate
 >>>>deception staged to fool the public? The conspiracy theories are
 >>>>investigated in the all-new one-hour special"

 >>>Personally I prefer the 2 hour special called Capricorn 1 :)
 >>>Probably just as accurate as the Fox special.

 ><snip>

 >>Does anyone have a good response to the photos of background
 >>hills that were said to be identical in two different Apollo
 >>missions, one photo with a Lunar Module in the foreground and
 >>the other without? They overlaid the pics and showed the hills
 >>were identical. Is this a photo fake by Fox?


 >Good question, Brad because that one kind of stuck with me too.
 >That was the problem with the presentation.

 >We do not know the exact references to the photos so that we
 >could check them out. Refuting some of the allegations with
 >specific point-by-point rebuttals would have been better.

 >Were those pics of the hills taken on the same mission? Or was
 >it Foxy fakery?


 >Bill H


Hi Bill,

Nice to hear from you. I've gotten a few email responses to my
question. One person claimed that identical hills appear on 5
different Apollo missions. I've asked for documentation by date,
mission/photo numbers, etc. The response was in effect to tell
me to look it up myself and plow through thousands of NASA
photos to find these alleged matches -- I replied that if
someone has already done that let's see the results. I'm waiting
to hear back.

Another person said the views of background hills shown on Fox
with and without the Lunar Module in the foreground could simply
be shots taken in front of and behind the LM in the same
direction. However, the distances and perspectives would differ
in that case and that will be visible on careful examination. We
need the photos documented in order to do that.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 21

              Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy'

From: Ron Cecchini <Ron.Cecchini@GD-CS.COM>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 15:33:02 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 07:58:56 -0500
Subject: Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy'


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 19:19:02 EST
 >Subject: Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy'
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Does anyone have a good response to the photos of background
 >hills that were said to be identical in two different Apollo
 >missions, one photo with a Lunar Module in the foreground and
 >the other without?


Yes, check out:


Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy Page:

http://www.badastronomy.com/


He does a review of the Fox show at:


Fox TV and the Apollo Moon Hoax

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html


Two news articles on the show (that also mention Plait):


CNN - NASA debunks moon landing hoax conspiracy

http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/space/02/19/nasa.moon/index.html


USA Today - Astronomers mock Fox show about moon fakery

http://usatoday.com/usatonline/20010215/3069311s.htm


Take care.










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 21

                     Re: Speaking Of Demons - Fernandes

From: Joaquim Fernandes <jfernan@clix.pt>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 20:35:00 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:02:32 -0500
Subject: Re: Speaking Of Demons - Fernandes


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Speaking Of Demons
 >Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 16:24:51 -0000

 >This will probably get me in trouble, but what the heck!

 >I can imagine a scenario quite consistent with the UFO data
 >(depending of course on which data each of us considers
 >relevant) in which the powers behind UFOs are "demonic". Not in
 >the Biblical sense, though if UFOs have been around that long
 >some of the ancient references could conceivably have been to
 >the same phenomenon.

 >If abductions are really happening, then we ain't exactly
 >dealing with saints. In another sense, some data suggests that
 >'they' are yanking our chains in other ways too.

 >Mind you, I didn't say that I believe this or accept it as the
 >truth. It is only an intellectual exercise and certainly not
 >demonstrable or falsifiable at this point.


I would like to 'update' the comment of Richard Hall about the
"demonic' side of the UFO phenomena well translated behind the
religious apparitions of the 'Marian Kind', e.g. Fatima.

When their content does not fit with the doctrinal "corpus" of
the Catholic Church these events can be labeled as "demoniac".


Joaquim Fernandes

UFP
Porto










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 21

                       Re: Greys and Demons - Cecchini

From: Ron Cecchini <Ron.Cecchini@GD-CS.COM>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 16:15:47 - 0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:41:07 -0500
Subject: Re: Greys and Demons - Cecchini


 >From: Pat McCartney <ElPatricio@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 14:31:43 EST
 >Subject: Re: Greys
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >I think ufology's greatest hurdle is overcoming traditional
 >beliefs such as the fundamentalist view that if there are
 >aliens, they must be the demons of the Old Testament to be
 >consistent with the Word of God.

I've given alot of thought to that (for my own personal
reasons), and basically, if you have your Fundamentalist
Christian hat on, what it comes down to is simply this:

Prophecy.

If you're going to accept a strict, "literal" interpretation of
the End Time scenario as described in the Judeo-Christian texts
(the use of quotes is to denote that prophecy is full of
symbolism, and so some things may be literal, and some may be
symbolic - the "fun" is trying to figure out which is which!
But for our purposes here, by "literal" I mean the Christian
"End Times", "Rapture", "Second Coming", etc.), then you also
have to accept that there is going to be a Satanic "mass
delusion" that God allows to be promulgated, as prophesied in
Revelations, which, if left unchecked, would "deceive the very
Elect".

These two things - an End Times, accompanied by a Grand
Delusion, whose goal would be presumably to convince the world
that God does not exist, that there is no Satan, no End Times,
no "Antichrist", no Second Coming, that the disappearance of a
few million people was _not_ due to "the Rapture of the Church",
yada, yada - lend themselves very well, in my opinion, to
fitting within a certain... oh, how shall I say... a certain
kind of mass UFO abduction scenario accompanied by the
introduction of an alleged "ET" (or "ET-human hybrid") who
demonstrates all kinds of "powers" and takes control of the
world, etc.

(Hey, I'm not saying I believe this - I'm just giving the POV
of the Christian Conspiracy Theorist, something I know a bit
about.)

As has been noted here in this thread, Scripture really doesn't
rule out that the J-C God could have created other Intelligences
(a fallacious notion that has often been associated as being a
part of Christian orthodoxy), but - and here's where I really
start to flail around and speculate and give my opinion - if
_all_ that other Judeo-Christian stuff is true and so forth,
then I, personally, have to think that God would not allow this
species (us humans) to come in contact with some other species
until his End Times plans have fully played out.

I can't argue this theologically... hell, I can't argue any of
this period, as, like I said, I don't necesarily believe (or
dis- believe) any of this... I'm just a lonely little Agnostic
trying to keep tabs on all of you's.

 >I think it takes generations for the old beliefs to die out.
 >Until then, the majority culture will continue to use ridicule
 >and denial to marginalize the study of UFOs and those people
 >who believe their existence is likely.

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its
opponents, but rather because its opponents die, and a new
generation grows up that is familiar with it." - Max Planck










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 21

                         Alien Autopsies Are "True"!

From: Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo <ufomiami@prodigy.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 16:44:05 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:45:15 -0500
Subject: Alien Autopsies Are "True"!


(Title) "Alien Autopsies is true!"

Local news station WSVN, channel 7, Fox, aired an interview with
former Army Sergeant-Major Robert Dean, on Sunday February 18 at
11 P.M.

In the interview, Mr. Dean claimed that in 1964 saw Medical
Reports of autopsies of "extraterrestrials". He stated that
there were 4 different races, one of them similar to us, 4 to
4.5 feet tall. He did not care about personal repercussions, and
the government should said the true to the public.

Anyone know about this interview?


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
CHUPACABRAS(Espaol)    http://ufomiami.homestead.com/index.html
CHUPACABRAS (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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 21

                        Re: A Minor Diversion - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 07:51:22 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:47:02 -0500
Subject: Re: A Minor Diversion - Hatch


 >Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 17:43:45 +0000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: A Minor Diversion

 >>Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 04:44:46 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: Toronto List <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: A Minor Diversion

 >Larry wrote:

 >>Recently, on the Art Bell (or surrogate) Show, there was some
 >>clown advocating Hollow Earth again (sigh!). This is my radio
 >>entertainment commuting home from work around midnight.

 >>To wit: What is hotter... the surface of the Sun, or the center
 >>of the Earth? I don't have the answer, but a quick browse
 >>indicates that I'm not the only one who doesn't know. Our
 >>deepest drill holes are something on the order of 10-20 miles, a
 >>small fraction of one percent of the radius of the Earth, or the
 >>distance to the center.

 >Larry,

 >Some recent research indicates Earth's core temperature to be
 >circa 5500 degrees centigrade, comparative to the Sun's surface
 >(the photosphere) at approximately 6000 degrees centigrade. See,
 >for example, 'Earth's core nearly as hot as the Sun'. at:

 >http://explorezone.com/archives/99_09/30_earth_core.htm

 >>What is the temperature at the core of an atom bomb, or just
 >>some controlled atomic pile?

 >The temperature at the core of the sun is calculated to be
 >around 15,000,000 degrees centigrade. When a nuclear weapon
 >explodes, an approximate temperature of 10,000,000 degrees
 >centigrade is produced within a millionth of a second.

 >Immediately after the explosion time, the temperature of the
 >weapon material is "several tens of million degrees" - see, 'The
 >Scientific Aspects of Nuclear Explosion Phenomena', at:

 >http://www.enviroweb.org/issues/nuketesting/nukeffct/enw77b3.htm

 >James Easton.
 >E-mail: voyager@ufoworld.co.uk
 >www.ufoworld.co.uk


Hello James:

I browsed up similar estimates for Earth core temperatures
too.
These numbers seem low to me, but I bow to the experts.

With an Earth radius something like 3975 miles or 6400 km,
this implies an _average_ thermal gradient of well less than
one degree C per kilometer of depth.  Maybe the gradient is
steeper near the surface only.



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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 21

                     Re: Help With 'SG' Research - Kelly

From: Christopher Kelly <tophar@pacific.net.au>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 13:37:35 +1100
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:01:23 -0500
Subject: Re: Help With 'SG' Research - Kelly


I have received some e-mails about my request for info on 'SG'
research. I see I should have pointed out that I don't believe
it is possible to jump from Star system to Star system or Galaxy
to Galaxy. I don't believe the Jump Gates were used for this for
a couple of reasons.

1. For the Jump Gates to work you have to have two of them at
least. This means that someone or something must go and set up
another Star Jump Gate on a planet in another Galaxy. This could
take hundreds of years to do, or even thousands of years. By the
time it was setup most of the people wanting to use it would be
long gone. Making the hole project a waste of time and if one
could get to another planet and setup a Jump Gate in ones life
time. Then what would the need for the Jump Gate be?.

2. Also, the gates would only be able to be used once ever so
many hundreds of years when the stars are alined right. This
means that even if the Jump gates did get set up then they could
only be used for a short period of time. This alone would stop
most people wanting to set one up.

There are just too many problems with setting up a Star Jump
Gate for Star System to Star System travel.

Planet to Planet jumps within a solar system could be more
feasible. But again the gates could only be used for short
periods when the planets were in a lineament. Making it not so
appealing to set up.

I in fact felt the Jump Gates were being used for Continent to
Continent jumps here on Earth. There has been some wonderful
Research done by a number of people over the last few years in
regards to the distance between Ancient buildings and the angle
in relation to each of these buildings. I don't think these
buildings are alined and spaced out to each other with such
precision by chance.

If one was to set up a Jump Gate System, Then knowing were the
other gate was would be a must. You would have to know the
distance and angle of the other gate as there would be no room
for error when Jumping. However a very small + & - factor could
be compensated for by using the Ring at the end of the building.
The large ring could in fact send out a large cone shaped
magnetic field. So that when the incoming Capsule/projectile
reached the gate it was being sent to. The cone shaped magnetic
field would help guide the capsule/projectile into the corridor
for reentry.

This is what I feel the ring is used for. Much the same way a
funnel is used and not as a device to dial out with.

At least there is evidence to help support the possibility of
Jump gates being used here on Earth for Continent to Continent
jumps. I still don't believe Humans were being sent by these
devices. But materials, Food, Information in the form of
documents ect could have been sent. Well this is how I am
looking at the devices and it's possible use.

The one really big problem with identifying these buildings is
the fact that they were built so many years ago and that many
cultures have used them since. Many of these post cultures have
added there own interpretation of the buildings and have in many
cases changed the appearance of the buildings. Not to mention
removing all the gold and crystals that once covered the
buildings. In some case the hole building has been pulled apart
and the materials used to build something else.

Until we have a much better understanding of the natural
materials the Ancient used, (gold quartz, Ect) I don't think we
will ever be able to prove beyond doubt that Jump Gates were
used or are possible. But there is to much evidence out there to
ignore such possibilities altogether.


Chris








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 21

              Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy'

From: Sean Liddle <gortrix@kos.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 00:09:41 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:06:46 -0500
Subject: Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy'


I missed the show. I planned for a week to watch it out of 50%
amusement and 50% curiosity. I hope it is repeated. I must say
that, on the topic of the initial moon landing, I would not be
surprised to hear news of a faked landing.

However, the evidence I have read elsewhere does not point to a
firm conclusion nor does what others have recounted from the
recent Fox show on this List.

What I am trying to say is that since the Soviets beat the
Americans into space with Sputnik and beat them to the Moon with
robotic rovers, one should not be surprised that, at the height
of the Cold War, the American Government would be tempted to do
something as rash as fake a landing to instill national pride or
some other such thing. Its just the question of weather they
really did so.

Still want to see the show, silly or not it can't be any less
amusing than anything else on TV. :)


Sean Liddle

Kingston Aerial Phenomenon Research Association (KAPRA)
Kingston, Ontario
http://www.uk.geocities.com/kapraufo









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 21

              Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy'

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 00:23:28 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:08:26 -0500
Subject: Re:  NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy'


 >From: Joachim Koch <Achimdkoch@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 16:52:24 EST
 >Subject: Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy'
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 19:19:02 EST
 >>Subject: Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy'
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Does anyone have a good response to the photos of background
 >>hills that were said to be identical in two different Apollo
 >>missions, one photo with a Lunar Module in the foreground and
 >>the other without? They overlaid the pics and showed the hills
 >>were identical. Is this a photo fake by Fox?

 >Hi Brad and All,

 >Regarding this topic I recommend very much to study the
 >following source: "Dark Moon - Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers"
 >by Bennet and Percy, ISBN 1 898541 108 (Paperback)

 >Beside stunning photographic evidence regarding the thesis of
 >the authors this source answers the following questions:

 >-Did you know that a second craft was going to the Moon at the
 >same time as 'Apollo 11'?

 >-Do you know that potentially lethal radiation is prevalent
 >throughout deep space?

 >-Do you know that there are serious discrepancies in the account
 >of the Apollo 13 'accident'?

 >-Did you know that 'live' colour TV from the Moon was not
 >actually live at all?

 >-Do you know that lighting was used in the Apollo photographs-
 >yet none was taken to the Moon?

 >The source uncovers a deception that emanates from the very top
 >regarding the exploration of the Moon and more than amply
 >demonstrates that NASA has a case to answer. It is an
 >extensively researched and balanced assessment of the people and
 >parallels within USSR/USA space programs and raises many
 >subjects that some may not wish to address.

 >A Hasselblad spokesman said when the photographic evidence was
 >presented to him: "Yes, it does appear that Aldrin is standing in a
 >spotlight. I can't explain why, you will have to find Amstrong and ask
 >him."

 >And:

 >-Did you know that the Lunar Surface Camera had no viewfinder?


Hi,

This doesn't answer my questions about identical hill
backgrounds in photos from allegedly two different Apollo
missions (I've been emailed privately that there are supposedly
5 different Apollo missions with identical backgrounds). With
such an abundance of evidence I'd like to see just _one_ fully
documented.

I don't really want to hear about lighting, second craft,
radiation, etc. Just answer the question.

And I want to see dates, NASA photo numbers, and details of the
locations of the terrain as given by NASA and how those are
wrong. If this is the coverup of the millennium that has
supposedly been proven beyond doubt then it is incumbent on
those making the claim to prove it.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 21

                     Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 18:51:51 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:22:39 -0500
Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Clark


 >From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment
 >Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 18:43:18 -0000


 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment
 >>Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 12:11:52 -0600


Andy and patient and gentle listfolk:

 >>I, too, look forward to seeing whatever Randles/Roberts/Clarke
 >>have come up with and determining whether it's more compelling
 >>than the failed (though much-hyped) attempt to debunk the
 >>Rendlesham case.

 >Do some research for a change. I have never written more than a
 >few lines (if that) on the Rendlesham case.

And, as I've had occasion to note, they are sufficient to raise
grave questions about your objectivity, not to mention your
maturity. It's hard to imagine a serious investigator searching
for the facts, whether they validate or invalidate his prior
beliefs, who would write such a jeering, insulting posting, the
subject of which seems as much the hoped-for humiliation of
perceived enemies as the gathering of materials leading to some
defensible conclusion.

 >>The jeering, boasting posting by Andy Roberts
 >>does not, however, exactly inspire confidence about the
 >>objectivity of the investigation.

 >Perhaps I should have written it in another style? But you know
 >as well as I even had I written it in the style of a Harvard
 >Lecturer (say) complete with footnotes and annotations, you
 >would have said, "The ......... posting by Andy Roberts" etc.

 >>I guess we'll find out one way or another at some point

 >You will. But I'll predict here and now that whatever we come up
 >with your belief in this case (have you investigated it?) will
 >over ride any of the multitude of facts we put before you.

Unlike you, I have no emotional commitment to the case, one way
or another. Or to any other UFO case, as far as that's
concerned. I have emotional commitments, but they're to other
human beings, not to nebulous phenomena which may or may not
exist, may or may not be important. I'm sorry that, from every
indication betrayed by your childish taunting and boasting, it
appears you may not possess the temperament that would give any
objective observer confidence in your abilities or conclusions.
And if you can't see that, if you can imagine a critic only as a
foolish or venal character -- a depised enemy -- whom you have
to trounce at all costs, you are in some serious trouble. I
personally wouldn't trust a pro- UFO investigator who acts as
you have acted here. I would conclude that individual was a
wildly biased true believer. Like you, apparently.

 >Count on it Pilgrims.

And you can also count on a camel's passing through the eye of a
needle before Andy Roberts starts acting like a mature,
balanced, unbiased investigator and speaking accordingly. I am
relieved, however, that my friend Jenny Randles, whom I trust
and respect (and who, needless to say, has not conducted herself
as Andy has), is there to provide some adult supervision.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 21

             Re: NASA - Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy' -

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 20:11:53 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:24:36 -0500
Subject: Re: NASA - Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy' -


 >From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
 >Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 06:52:41 -0600
 >Subject: Re: NASA - Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy' -
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 11:42:51 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Re: NASA - Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy'
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, I had written:

 >>The "fake-moon-landing" proponents (foonies?) ironically take
 >>the opposite stance. They look at the lack of stars as a sign of
 >>fakery when, in fact, a starless sky is _exactly_ what one would
 >>see if on the moon during the "day" just like here on Earth. I
 >>find this amusing because, if NASA really did go to great
 >>lengths to create a "reality" that was technically accurate, the
 >>foonies obviously prefer their own reality that has been skewed
 >>due to watching too many science fiction movies where the stars
 >>are always visible; lighting imbalances be damned. It would seem
 >>that, if the landing was faked by NASA, they would have been
 >>better off trying to please peoples' perceptions of what a moon
 >>landing would look like instead of going for technical accuracy.

Alfred replied:

 >Gotta watch the labeling, hoss. When you point one finger, you
 >point three back at yourself. Start in with labels and I go ugly
 >early with personal attacks on scurrilous skepti-feebroids and
 >other unbrave complacents. <g>.

 >I think that that is the bone of contention, n'est-ce pas, that
 >their technical accuracy sucked? By the way, only asking because
 >I don't know, but who panned the camera up when the lunar lander
 >made it's explosive departure? I don't think anybody has asked
 >that question.


Hi, Alfred!

Actually, I was making fun of people that come up with silly
names for people that don't have the same views as themselves
(hence the silly term "foonies"). The truth is that the Fox show
did raise one interesting point regarding the duality of hills
in the distance. The lack of visible stars and the such I
understand. The repeating hills from two different moonshots is
something else altogether.

Makes me go, "Wait a minute..."


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 21

             Re: Feel Like A Bag O'Dirt - Roswell Dirt? - Young

From: Bob Young  <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 00:48:33 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:33:39 -0500
Subject: Re: Feel Like A Bag O'Dirt - Roswell Dirt? - Young


 >From: Tom Thehofanous <theofa@idirect.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Feel Like A Bag O'Dirt - Roswell Dirt?
 >Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 20:50:46 -0800

 >Source: eBay

 >http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=560070147

 >1947 ROSWELL NM UFO CRASH SITE SOIL SAMPLE
 >Item #560070147

 >Collectibles: Science Fiction: General

 >This auction has ended but the item has been relisted. Go to item now.

 >Currently  $2.00
 >First bid  $2.00
 >Quantity 5
 ># of bids 4 bid history
 >Time left Auction has ended.

Dirtbags.

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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 21

              Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy'

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 00:52:11 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:36:10 -0500
Subject: Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy'


 >From: David Bolton <David@Bolton.SOL.co.uk>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 20:52:26 -0000
 >Subject: Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy'

 > This whole "documentary" just sounds like another "Alternative
 >3" type hoax - but inverted.

 >Besides, I thought this had been done-to-death in the film
 >"Capricorn One" (except that was Mars, of course).

David,

Poor choice of words. Capricorn One starred, among others,
O. J. Simpson.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 21

                 Re: Dec 1950 Crash & Willingham - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 00:54:21 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:41:51 -0500
Subject: Re: Dec 1950 Crash & Willingham - Maccabee


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 01:17:29 EST
 >Subject: Re: Dec 1950 Crash & Willingham
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >>From: Jeff King <Boroimhe@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 20:48:58 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Dec 1950 Crash & Willingham
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >>>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>>Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 13:22:33 -0500
 >>>updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Dec 1950 Crash & Willingham

 >>All hail to the List:>

 >>In his recent posting, Bruce Maccabee concludes with:

 >>>The 'bottom line' is that Willingham could well have, correctly,
 >>>remembered that radar detected the object and at the same time
 >>>he may have incorrectly assumed that it was detected by the DEW
 >>>line radar that was well publicized in 1953. He was not, after
 >>>all, involved in the development of radar so would not be
 >>>expected to know how various radar setups were designated.


 >>Interesting. When the Air Force used the "mixed-up different
 >>years" argument in Case Closed, people went ballistic. Now it's
 >>used to rehabilitate a witness.

 >>A more serious problem with Willingham's story is his claim to
 >>be flying out of Dyess Air Force Base in 1950. Dyess wasn't
 >>opened until 1956. Groundbreaking didn't even occur until 1953.
 >>Perhaps he wasn't involved enough in his career to know the
 >>various bases to which he was assigned.

 >>At least Willingham's story is internally consistent. He
 >>scrambled out of a base that didn't exist to intercept a UFO
 >>detected on a radar system that also didn't exist. Maybe his UFO
 >>really crashed in 1953, or 1956, or ...

 >Thanks for the info on Dyess' history. This adds to the
 >previously mentioned anachronistic contradictions to
 >Wiollingham's story are as to the radar trackings and the F-94,
 >although I think Zechel did look into the history of when Dyess
 >AFB became operational but wasn't able to get the specifics you
 >did.


A check should be made to find out if there was an Army or Air
Force airfield at or near that location BEFORE the name "Dyess"
became official.  Note that radar was not uncommon after WWII.
But there were no "air defense radars" until the1950's when some
preexisting radars were designated as ADR until new ones could
be built (see below)

 >There is now an online Air Defense Radar website at:

 >http://www.radomes.org/museum/

 >Under Air Defense Radar -->Early Radar -->LASHUP one can find a
 >map of U.S. air defense radars in April 1950 which shows no
 >radars at all in Texas, and none in Colorado that could have
 >observed Willingham's alleged 90-degree turn. Nor any in Nevad,
 >Idaho, or Utah along the way from Washington State to Texas.

 >There are site tables that show that the first operational air
 >defense radars in Texas went online in 1952. (See Air Defense
 >Radar -->Radar Sites -->Radar Time Lines.) None were in
 >existence in Dec 1950, the date Zechel forced onto the
 >Willingham story and now enshrined as a sacred date in MJ-12
 >cult religion. Same for Colorado etc. Willingham didn't just
 >"confuse" the DEW Line radar that didn't yet exist because the
 >DEW Line _never_ existed in Texas or anywhere outside the Arctic
 >or sub-Arctic. There wasn't _any_ radar to confuse at all.>

In my MUFON symposium paper on the ImmediateHigh Alert I wrote:


"There is a discrepancy in Willinghams 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."


There were radars before there were 'air defense radars'. Had
there been no previously existing radars there would have been
nothing to tie together or 'lash-up' in order to create the
'Lashup' system of air defense radars.

The real question is how many Air Force or Army Air force bases
had search radar sets?

Search radars were capable of 150-200 mile range. Perhaps the
base history from about 1940 onward would provide information on
when the first radar sets were installed at any particular
army/air force base.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 21

                 Re: The Rendlesham Forest 'UFO' Incidents -

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 00:54:48 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:50:36 -0500
Subject: Re: The Rendlesham Forest 'UFO' Incidents -


 >Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 12:51:26 +0000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >Subject: The Rendlesham Forest 'UFO' Incidents


 >Cross-posted from 'UFO Skeptics', for information:


 >>Date: Jan 13 2001 21:53:52 EST
 >>From: "James Easton" <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >>Subject: Re: The Rendlesham Forest 'UFO' Incidents>

 >Regarding:

 >>From: "carpenter_joel" <ufx@mindspring.com>
 >>To: "UFO Skeptics" <debunk@listbot.com>
 >>Subject: Re: The Rendlesham Forest 'UFO' Incidents
 >>Date: 14 January 2001 02:07

While being loath to become encumbered and tarred with the
feathers of Rendlesham, yet my physics/optics sensibilities are
disturbed by certain reasoning and conclusions regarding Halt;'s
description of the red light he saw.

In the post cited above Easton has provided the "Data" twice:

<snip>

 >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.

<snip>

 >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]

<snip>

 >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.

(Gee, I guess that Halt didn't notice the radio mast lights
before he saw the red light. Or at least he didn't report
seeing them.... tch tch! Too bad he wasn't recording at
the exact instant of the "explosion" so that the tape wouldn't
make it appear as"an entirely separate observation." )

<snip>

 >During the conference, Halt was also asked to describe the
 >'object' he personally witnessed, this being seen when in the
 >'clearing' next to the farmer's house, at the exact spot where
 >the 'ground indentations' or 'landing site' had been designated
f>ollowing Burroughs, Cabansag and Penniston's adventures:

 >"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".>

 >He neglects to mention that some of the 'phenomena' was
 >witnessed using a 'Starlight scope', or 'Starscope' image
 >intensifier, as confirmed in his microcassette recording:

 >HALT: Let's go back to the edge of the clearing 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 gone quiet
 >now. We're heading about 110, 120 degrees from site out through
 >to the clearing now.

[...]

 >OK, we're looking at the thing, we're probably about two to
 >three hundred yards away. 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. [End]

Easton makes much of the fact that SOME of the observation time
by Halt was made through a starlight scope. It appears that
Easton is suggesting that use of the starlight scope could make
the yellow beacon light look red. We have a problem of color
here: Halt repeatedly refers to the red light... and Easton must
admit that at least part, if not most, of the time Halt was
looking at the light with his naked eye. Halt also "admits" that
he seesat one time a "yellowish tinge."

So, let me fist point out that a few miles of atmosphere is not
going to convert a yellowish light into a red light. This would
be a sizeable spectral shift accomplished in the atmosphere by
scattering of blue and yellow out of the beam while allowing the
preponderance of red to pass along the beam to the observer.
Such a thing _can_ happen when the light passes through a
hundred miles or more (see, for, example, red sunset or
sunrise... when the sunlight passes through several hundred
miles of atmosphere).

Hence, IMHO, Halt could have reported a yellow light as red only
if he had a severe optical color error or deficiency (not
"colorblind").

On the other hand, viewing through a starlight scope would
produce a red image only if the starlight scope itself used a
red phosphor to present the light amplified image. IF this were
the case and if Halt were loooking at a yellowish beacon light,
one might expect Halt to realize that the starlight scope image
was providing the wrong color and to mention the fact.

Instead, Halt says nothing about the color through the starlight
scope. This is likely because he tacitly assumes (assumes
without stating) that "everyone" knows that a starlight scope
does not transmit the true color. ONe could check, but I believe
the image would be green o perhaps whitish.

Halt's description of the image in the starlight scope as
looking (I presume)circular with the dark ("hollow") center
sounds to me like a defocused image. He also says the image is
bright enough that it almost "burns your eye.:" Of course, his
eyes were dark adapted and so they were operating at maximum
sensitivity. Anyone who has looked through a light amplifying
scope will know that lights that appear reasonably bright to the
naked eye will be exceeding bright or "bloomed out" in a
starlight scope image. A starlight scope will show lights that
are too dim for the naked eye to see. The only good reasons for
using a starlight scope on a light that you can easily see
without the scope are (a) the scope has provides a magnified
view and thus might provide more detail (unless the image is so
bright as to bloom out and vocer detail) or (b) to see if there
is a darker structure or much weaker lights associated with the
main light. Halt describes the red light as having a dark center
. The description is given AS IF he could see the dark center
with the naked eye. Perhaps this was true, but I woudl rather
assume (without evidence to the contrary) that the "dark
center:" was not visible to the naked eye, but onlyappeared as a
central portion of the image in the starliht scope (which
probably showed green, not red) and, seeing the dark center in
the scope Halt assumed the scope was showing him a true feature
of the light, whereas the central dark areawas actually, IMHO,
anartifact of the scope being slightly out of focus. Of course,I
could be wrong. Maybe the red object really did have a dark
center. In either case, this description is difficult to
understand if the yellowish beacon light were the source. Easton
should describe how a yellowish light can look red to the naked
eye...

 >One of the main objections to Halt's party having misidentified
 >the lighthouse is that the rotating beacon (as opposed to beam
 >from it) was relatively small from that distance. As Jenny
 >remarks in 'UFO Crash Landing?', "Frankly, the first time I saw
 >the lighthouse at night I was 80 percent convinced that this was
 >the explanation. When I first heard the Halt tape this
 >conviction rose to 90 per cent. It only plummeted after talking
 >to eye-witnesses like John Burroughs who were out there,
 >although, I did have some concern because the lighthouse appears
 >as nothing more than a tiny pulsing light, not a massive red
 >object...".>

 >Halt has now removed that latter obstacle.

 >In a statement which may prove something of a shock to those who
 >perceived the 'crucible of terror' to be relatively large, Halt
 >explained to Sally Rayl:

 >RAYL: Now, I know it's hard to tell because it was dark that
 >night, but any idea what size the initial red object was? Any
 >idea?

 >HALT: Nah. I would just have to guess. My guess would be
 >probably two to three feet, maybe a little less".

 >RAYL: Two to three feet?

 >HALT: From the distance, in diameter.>

 >RAYL: In diameter. So, it's a very small object?

 >HALT: It was a very small object, but it was very bright.

 >RAYL: But not a craft that could hold a human being, for
 >example?

 >HALT: No. It couldn't have been. But it appeared to [be] under
 >some kind of intelligent control. [End]

 >Such a small light is now well within the realms of being the
 >lighthouse beacon, which was intensely bright. [END OF EXTRACT]


Easton argues that Halt'sdescription of a small light is
consistent with a beacon light which might have a lens several
feet in diameter.

However, one must take into account Halt's estimate of distance:
200-300 yards. If Halt really felt it was that far away and was
automatically taking this into account when he said 3 ft
diameter, then what he wasreally giving was his impression of
the angular size: 3 ft/600 ft = .005 radians. Is it reasonable
to assume he could have estimated the distance? Certainly, if
the object passed between him and some objects (like trees) at a
known distance.

However, Easton tacitly (without stating it) assumes that Halt
was looking at the distant lighthouse beacon which has a
diameter of the lens of several feet. Of course, the angular
size would be tiny, much less than 0.005 radians.

How, then could Halt get the impression that a 3 ft light
several miles distant was actually a 3 ft light only 600-900 ft
distant?

Answer is, he wouldn't... unless' the beacon light were so
bright as to create a large dazzling image in his eye. Could it
have been that bright? I can't answer that and the best one
could do is make a guess.

To an observer standing where Halt stood, is the beacon bright
enough to seem to be only a few hundred yards away? (Note that
the world's most famous UFO,Venus, is often reported as being
"close" when it is at maximum brightness.)

One thing not taken into account by Easton, and, unfortunately
not mentioned by Halt, is the parallax effect: If the object
were only 200-300 yards away the shift in the sighting direction
to the object with a shift in observer position could be quite
obvious, whereas the shift in the direction to the beacon witha
shift in observer position would be negligible.

At any rate, Easton writes:

 >Such a small light is now well within the realms of being the
 >lighthouse beacon, which was intensely bright.

With the implication that there is no contradition between
Halt's description and an observation of the distant beacon.

Easton should demonstrate that the distant beacon was, in fact,
"intensely bright" at the location of Halt's observation.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 21

              Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy'

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 01:26:02 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:10:49 -0500
Subject: Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy'


 >From: Joachim Koch <Achimdkoch@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 16:52:24 EST
 >Subject: Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy'
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 19:19:02 EST
 >>Subject: Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy'
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Does anyone have a good response to the photos of background
 >>hills that were said to be identical in two different Apollo
 >>missions, one photo with a Lunar Module in the foreground and
 >>the other without? They overlaid the pics and showed the hills
 >>were identical. Is this a photo fake by Fox?

 >Hi Brad and All,

 >Regarding this topic I recommend very much to study the
 >following source: "Dark Moon - Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers"
 >by Bennet and Percy, ISBN 1 898541 108 (Paperback)

 >Beside stunning photographic evidence regarding the thesis of
 >the authors this source answers the following questions:

 >-Did you know that a second craft was going to the Moon at the
 >same time as 'Apollo 11'?

 >-Do you know that potentially lethal radiation is prevalent
 >throughout deep space?

 >-Do you know that there are serious discrepancies in the account
 >of the Apollo 13 'accident'?

 >-Did you know that 'live' colour TV from the Moon was not
 >actually live at all?

 >-Do you know that lighting was used in the Apollo photographs-
 >yet none was taken to the Moon?

 >The source uncovers a deception that emanates from the very top
 >regarding the exploration of the Moon and more than amply
 >demonstrates that NASA has a case to answer. It is an
 >extensively researched and balanced assessment of the people and
 >parallels within USSR/USA space programs and raises many
 >subjects that some may not wish to address.

 >A Hasselblad spokesman said when the photographic evidence was
 >presented to him: "Yes, it does appear that Aldrin is standing
 >in a spotlight. I can't explain why, you will have to find
 >Amstrong and ask him."

 >And:

 >-Did you know that the Lunar Surface Camera had no viewfinder?

 >Joachim Koch

Hi Joachim, hi All,

While we're on the subject of NASA, I'd like to take the
opportunity to resurrect the corpses of past UFO-related reports
that originated from our (so called) civilian space program,
NASA. It's not just the Moon landing, or Mars and how they have
been photographing Cydonia piece-meal, there is a virtual
laundry-list of UFO-related material that has been accumulating
since the inception of the agency.

I'd like to tack my list onto Joachim's if I may.

1. Mercury mission, May 16, 1963, astronaut Gordon Cooper spots
a "UFO" over Australia and reports hearing "voices" speaking in a
language "unknown" on earth. (There must be recordings from that
flight somewhere so that this particular report could be checked
out. It comes up again! See #7 below.)

2. Gemini 4, June 3,1964, astronauts McDivitt & White report a
sighting of a large cylinder over Hawaii.

3. Gemini 7, Dec 4,1965, astronauts Borman & Lovell photograph a
large "UFO" that had been "following them."

4. Gemini 9 June 3,1966, astronauts Stafford & Cernan report
that from the time they left the ground, they were followed by
"UFOs." Their crew and the ground crew both witnessed the
"UFOs."

5. Gemini 10 July 18,1966, astronauts Young & Collins report
seeing 2 "UFOs" near the Moon and a much larger one near Earth.

6. Gemini 11 September 12,1966, astronauts Gordon & Conrad
report a long "UFO" over Madagascar.

7. Apollo 8, Dec 21,1968, astronauts Borman, Lovell, & Anders
report 4 disc-shaped "UFOs" while orbiting the Moon. They also
reported hearing someone speaking in an unidentifiable language.
(Not the first time these strange transmissions have been picked
up and reported by our men in space.)

8. Apollo 10 May 18-26,1969, astronauts Stafford, Young & Cernan
report seeing 2 "UFOs" while orbiting the Moon and a large "UFO"
with red lights near earth on their return.

9. Apollo 12 Nov 14 1969, astronauts Conrad, Bean report 2
"UFOs" orbiting the Moon.

10. And finally, on another Apollo mission astronauts Cernan,
Evans, & Schmidt reported seeing "UFOs" near the earth, near the
Moon, and in-between.

Astronaut Cernan's name comes up several times on the above
list. Does anyone know if Cernan has ever made any public
comments/statements regarding these UFO sighting reports?

Does anyone know if 'recordings' of the "voices" the astronauts
reported hearing on two separate missions have ever been
released/analyzed/reviewed?

And I haven't listed all the sightings and video that has come
out of the many Shuttle missions either!

NASA, gotta love the way they keep us mushrooms in the dark, and
sated with manure.  ;)

"*Nothing lies hidden in darkness that shall not see the light
of day and stand revealed."

That goes for the stony hearts of mountains as well as Men's
Souls.

(*Sorry, I forget the source. But I have never forgotten the
words. Something I heard long ago that has stayed with me. :)


Regards,

John Velez


                     *************
                "Nothing is at last sacred but
               the integrity of your own mind."
                 www.spacelab.net/~jvif/
                     *************









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 21

                             The Halt Questions

From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:42:03 +0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:12:57 -0500
Subject: The Halt Questions


Cross-posted from 'UFO Skeptics', for information:


Date: Jan 29 2001 11:59:59 EST
From: "James Easton" <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
Subject: The Halt Questions

In the transcript of Salley Rayl's 22 April, 1997 interview with
Jim Penniston, she remarks that, concerning the late December,
1980 Rendlesham Forest 'UFO' scares, "not one critic has ever
interviewed Penniston".

The opportunity to interview witnesses is of course sometimes
unattainable and Salley, evidently not a 'critic' in any way,
did perhaps have considerable resources available - at that time
working for the Microsoft Network.

Lest it should ever again be implied that no-one with any
'searching' questions had made an effort to ask these of the
main witnesses, Penniston has been invited to answer the same
questions which were recently put, personally, to John
Burroughs.

A detailed list can be provided, however, many of these have
previously been highlighted via the publications on my website,
at:

http://www.ufoworld.co.uk/rendlshm.htm

Additionally, the following correspondence was recently sent to
Col. Halt, with the intent it could, at least, be placed on
record.

[...]

The letter read:


Dear Col. Halt,

Last year, I was able to persuade the prestigious 'Sunday Times'
newspaper that there were sufficient questions about the
December 1980 'UFO' events at RAF Bentwaters and RAF Woodbridge,
that you might welcome being able to discuss this with them.

You have previous indicated an earnest wish to have one
opportunity, to publish your own story, in Britain.

I understand they did contact you, to no avail.


As there have been so many investigative breakthroughs during
the past 2-3 years, our understanding of the true facts is
greatly improved, to the extent it seems we can now explain
significant aspects of that celebrated 'UFO' flap.

I would, in turn, welcome an opportunity to ask if you could
please consider answering some related questions, which I'm
aware many people expect could resolve even more of the facts.

The prominent questions which require to be addressed, or at
least publicly placed on record as such, are as follows:

1. As I'm sure you realise, science writer Ian Ridpath was first
to suggest that Orfordness lighthouse might prove to be the
source of 'UFO' sightings on base.

This idea was dismissed by yourself and other participants.

However, as you know, on 1 March, 1998 I publicly revealed the
existence of the witness statements you requested in early
January, 1981. These documented how a 'lighthouse' had, in
truth, played a major role in our initial 'UFO' incident', which
was the catalyst for all that followed.

Why, in none of those subsequent public accounts, did Burroughs,
Penniston or yourself ever, once, acknowledge the lighthouse was
not actually a familiar landmark and had been misidentified as a
'UFO' in the early hours of 26 December, 1980?


2. As you didn't request written testimonies from Burroughs,
Cabansag or Penniston [BC&P] until the beginning of January, can
you confirm that none of the numerous personnel, including
yourself, who went in search of 'UFOs' during the night/early
morning of 27/28 December, realised the deceptive lighthouse
beacon had been mistaken for a 'UFO' by BC&P?


3. When you first read their statements, it would surely have
been evident that the lighthouse probably also played a major
role in the 'UFO' excitement on 27/28th.

Was this never investigated - did nobody ever establish the
possibilities and rule out the lighthouse as a factor - before
you wrote to the Ministry of Defence concerning those 'UFO'
sightings?


4. In your memo to the Ministry, it's claimed that, concerning
the initial night's incident, "The object was described as being
metallic in appearance and triangular in shape, approximately
two to three meters across the base and approximately two meters
high".

Yet, of the three patrolmen who investigated the origin of those
'strange lights', only one of them, Staff-Sergeant Penniston,
actually alleged there was a structured object at all. To this
day, John Burroughs is adamant he never witnessed a 'craft',
merely enigmatic lights.

Furthermore, in his written statement, Penniston claims he was
never closer than 50 meters - an awful long way in the dark of
night and amidst a dense forest - to a perceived object, which
he depicts as box-shaped, not triangular.

The fact he was never any nearer is borne out by those
additional two testimonies you obtained - from Shift-Commander
Fred Buran and Master-Sergeant Chandler - which document that
Penniston was never able to pin-point the source of those
elusive lights and ultimately pursued the lighthouse beacon.

Do you agree that only Penniston described a 'craft', that he
originally stated it was never actually located and this is
corroborated by the four other statements?


5. In your memo to the Ministry, it's stated that when you
personally investigated the continued reports of 'UFOs:

"Later in the night a red sun-like light was seen through the
trees. It moved about and pulsed. At one point it appeared to
throw off glowing particles and then broke into five separate
white objects and then disappeared".

This is a story you have repeated in later years.

However, surely this simply never happened, as clearly evidenced
by your own microcassette recording of these events?

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 your recording, 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]

Obviously, you were frequently using a 'starlight scope' image
intensifier, 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 your 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".

You recorded:

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]

There was no 'explosion' involving the red light and these white
lights are an entirely separate observation, almost certainly
the lights atop five tall radio masts, visible from where you
were located at that time.

More significantly, the red light couldn't have exploded as it
was seen again, a fact you have never mentioned in any public
accounts.

 From the tape recording:

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]


Did it never subsequently occur that this flashing light,
seeming to 'move about a bit' and 'flash from time to time' and
also now realised to be "clear off to the coast", was Orfordness
lighthouse?

Was it also never considered, even after the revelations in
BC&P's statements, that the 'strange flashing light' you first
observed in the forest and which statedly resembled "an eye
winking at you", plus was intensely bright, was consistent with
the lighthouse beacon?

Presumably, you do now appreciate that the beacon, only
intermittently visible through the undulating, dense forest and
appearing to be at eye-level, could appear to be moving from the
observer's viewpoint.

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 - the former is merely an unusual, household
lighting effect and the latter is a strobe-like light from a
lightship.


A seemingly extraordinary and entirely separate occurrence,
documented in your recording, relates to the 'beams of light',
ostensibly emitted by 'star-like' objects.

In your memo, you wrote:

"The objects to the north appeared to be elliptical through an
8- 12 power lens. They then turned to full circles. The objects
to the north remained in the sky for an hour or more. The object
to the south was visible for two or three hours and beamed down
a stream of light from time to time. Numerous individuals,
including the undersigned, witnessed the activities in
paragraphs 2 and 3".


What exactly is an '8-12 power lens' and how frequently was it
being used?

In various interviews with Salley Rayl [I know Salley and she is
kept up-to-date with research developments] you claimed that the
'beam' directed nearby to you was 'pencil thin' and laser-like.

Later that night, you were observing, from distance, these
'beams' being directed onto the base and elsewhere. How were you
able to see such thin light-beams from far away?


The following is an extract from one of your 1997 interviews
with Salley, which she published as an on-line [Internet]
article:

"We've crossed the farmer's field past his house and across the
road, stumbled through a small stream and went out into a large
plowed field. Somebody noticed several objects in the sky to the
north - three objects clearly visible with multiple-colored
lights on them. The objects appeared elliptical and then they
turned full round, which I thought was quite interesting. All
three doing that. They were stationary for awhile and then they
started to move at high speed in sharp angular patterns as
though they were doing a grid search. About that same time,
somebody noticed the south, a similar object, it was round - did
not change shape - and at one point it appeared to come toward
us at a very high speed. It stopped overhead and sent down a
small pencil-like beam, sort of like a laser beam. It was an
interesting beam in that it stayed - it was the same size all
the way down the beam. It illuminated the ground about ten feet
from us and we just stood there in awe wondering whether it was
a signal, a warning, or what it was. We really didn't know."

...The beam, says Halt, just went away. "It clicked off as
though someone threw a switch, and the object receded, back up
into the sky," he says. "Then it moved back toward Bentwaters
and continued to send down beams of light, at one point near the
weapons storage facility. We knew that, because we could hear
the chatter on the radio."

Halt was baffled. Whatever this object was, wherever it was
from, it must have been under intelligent control. Within a
couple of minutes, it was gone. Perhaps it retreated high into
the skies with the other erratically moving lights up there. It
was hard to say.

At around 4:30 a.m., Halt called the investigation off. "It was
a cold winter night," he says. "The wind was blowing, we were
wet, and I just ordered everybody back to the base. I saw no
reason to stay out there any longer. We left those objects up
there."

All told, Halt estimates that somewhere between 30 and 40 people
stationed at various places around the dual
Bentwaters-Woodbridge base, saw the object emitting beams that
night. And that meant, says Halt, that this situation had to be
dealt with and contained. "The thoughts running through my mind
were: 'How am I going to explain this. Nobody's going to believe
this. It's just too ridiculous.' But it couldn't be ignored,
because now too many people were involved." [END OF ARTICLE
EXTRACT]


Although I have interviewed numerous personnel who were
stationed on base at that time night, including Chris Armold,
Steve LaPlume, Jerry Valdes and Sergeant Randy Smith, located in
the Weapons Storage Area [WSA], no-one either witnessed or ever
heard about 'beams of light' being directed onto the base.

How is this explained and wouldn't such an unprecedented
security breach have resulted in a reaction with determinable,
lasting consequences.

Why is there seemingly no trace of this?


6. In 'Left at East Gate', Larry Warren and Peter Robbins claim
that you told them 'off the record', how those beams of light
had penetrated the hardened [nuclear] bunkers in the WSA.

I have asked them both if they are certain about this and they
responded that you told them so, "face to face".

Sergeant Randy Smith was on duty that night and confirms there
was, certainly to his knowledge, no such occurrence. Next day
and thereafter, according to Sergeant Smith, it was simply
"business as usual".

Can you please clarify what's behind the published claims in
'Left at East Gate', the fact these were verified to me and
that, again, any substantiating evidence is to the contrary?


7. In a recent book, 'You Can't Tell the People', by Georgina
Bruni, it's claimed those witness statements are 'not authentic'
and/or were 'tampered with' by the 'Men In Black'. Apparently
the reasoning is that the lighthouse surely wouldn't have fooled
anyone. It unquestionably did, so far as BC&P are concerned -
Burroughs has recently confirmed that to me.

It's further alleged by Bruni that you have never released all
of the microcassette recording because it was too 'sensitive'
and the 'world wasn't ready for it', etc.

I am aware you did actually explain to Salley Rayl that you
merely recorded what seemed pertinent and this was the same
microcassette recording subsequently released via Harry Harris.

However, can you comment further on these published allegations?


When Salley asked, "what would close the book on this for you?",
you replied:

"I have to have a lot of questions answered".

Hopefully, it's now evident that many of them possibly have
been, and still can be.

Surely, that is an objective we all share.

And any aspects which might remain inexplicable, could just be
worthy of a much less confused focus...


Yours sincerely,

etc.
[END]


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 21

                          Re: Lakenheath - Randles

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:56:37 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:16:54 -0500
Subject: Re: Lakenheath - Randles


Hi,

I think that to (hopefully) close on Lakenheath 1956 - until our
report appears and we can discuss the evidence properly - I want
to summarise my perspective on this case.

For many years I - like most of you - believed this was an
important case - perhaps the most important to occur in the UK.
I cover it in 'Science and the UFOs' in l986 to that effect.
This was based on what seemed like excellent research by
numerous scientists and important papers on it by Condon,
Thayer, McDonald et al.  Of course, I took their research very
seriously. As have you all.

I was aware of a number of British 'sidelines' to this case that
had received little attention - notably Freddy Wimbledon's views
as the radar officer who scrambled the venoms and the alleged
(but totally unproven) visual sighting of UFO plus a venom over
Ely.

However, whilst filming and scripting a low budget BBC TV
documentary about the public record office data on UFOs
(Britain's Secret UFO Files - co funded by the BBC and Sci Fi
channel! in l996) I was lucky - through a BBC contact - to talk
to one pilot and two of the navigators from the two venoms. I
was the first ufologist to talk to them since the event had
occurred and what they told me (two of them on camera) was
stunning. It totally disputed the classic version of the case
and yet matched what Wimbledon was saying in several major
aspects.

For the record they have to this day never met nor talked with
nor had they until I named him even heard of Wimbledon. So there
was no collusion.

As it was not the purpose of the documentary (which was about
official records not this case) I only showed a brief extract of
the two navigators at Lakenheath with their log books intact
completely verifying their version. This fulfilled my programme
aim because they had official proof of a file that was missing
from the UK government records and which the MoD told me had
been destroyed. Hence the title of the show about Britain's
secret UFO files.

Nonetheless, these couple of minutes on screen only scratch the
surface of what the three air crew had told me in interview
(even on camera) and what one of them said (again on camera) in
interview at his home. This data changed my perspective on the
case. It had to have done with any serious investigator who was
not totally blind to the truth. Wouldn't you think it reasonable
to listen to what the only eye witnesses to openly speak out in
this case were actually saying for the first time in 40 years?

I noted the gist of what they said in my book 'Something in the
Air' (l997) and tried to make clear the true version of events
as now reported by them. But I intended to develop this into a
full report for Ufology on the case - with interview transcripts
etc - as soon as I was contractually free to use my interviews.

In l999 when COMETA published I politely informed them - via a
net discussion - that their account of Lakenheath was wrong,
noting that it relied on old versions now superceded by the air
crew testimony. I got an almost completely negative response
from several quarters - such as Georgina Bruni - who claimed
that her reading of what the air crew said on TV differed from
my own. Even though I had been there and spent hours with the
air crew and she saw a brief extract on TV.

I explained then - as I explain now - that this was just a
snatch from a much longer interview used for a different purpose
and assured her that there was no question of what these air
crew were saying. Their words were crystal clear.  There was NO
visual sighting - let alone - gun lock - of any UFO. Nor did the
fabled 'cat and mouse' air battle where the UFO flew behind the
venom take place as alleged in UFO history.

To these comments - plus a promise of a full scale UFOIN report
to come - I got continued disbelief. There was simply a string
of comments from several people about UFOIN being debunkers out
to destroy this case and how there were other venoms up there
and what we said didn�t make sense in the light of what was
known, etc.  And Georgina's book a year later further suggested
that this new version wasn't being listened to properly.

As you can see the discovery of the truth about this case was an
accident of fate. All I did was pursue it towards the conclusion
to which the facts that then unfolded ultimately decreed. If any
of you want to call that bias or skepticism it is absurd and it
is deeply worrying about the true nature of Ufology that anyone
would consider a straightforward quest for the facts as anything
other than an absolute neccesity.

Anyhow this rather startling response from Ufology was what
caused UFOIN to take more slowly the production of our report.
We knew from this reaction that if we didn�t get everything
properly documented it would be rejected as debunking. As the
truth about this case is important and needs presenting properly
we have gone to a great deal of trouble and created a team of
four (myself plus Andy Roberts, Dr David Clarke and Paul Fuller)
to explore every avenue.

Andy and Dave carried out new interviews with all four air crew
(the missing pilot having been traced). I carefully discussed
the case with Freddy Wimbledon. New leads. New documents. Lots
of other things came from the ongoing research. We carried out
the first full study of this case - something we would hope that
Ufology would applaud, rather than write off before it has even
appeared.

We are close to completion now and have long made clear that we
will publish openly and freely when we are ready. All we have
ever asked is your patience to see a report that has taken
longer because we found more than we expected and because the
somewhat hasty conclusions dreamt up by Ufology required us to
be diligent and circumspect as we went along.

I have said what I think the evidence points towards, but you
will have to study the full report to see the whys and
wherefores. That's surely not unreasonable.

As for this being in any way an attempt by debunkers to destroy
a case - that is pure fantasy. It is an attempt by Ufologists to
tell you what we have found from first hand investigation of the
actual witnesses.

How anyone can consider that to be anything other than good
Ufology is beyond me.


Best wishes,

Jenny Randles








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 21

              Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy'

From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 11:02:12 +0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:19:39 -0500
Subject: Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy'


Factual rebuttals to the pitiable 'moon landing hoax' claims can
be found at:

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#mt_anim


Plus, thanks to Jim Oberg for also highlighting:

http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/index.htm


This is a pertinent example of debunking.

In one of the foremost postings to 'UFO Skeptics', I wrote:

Some subscribers will be familiar with Dr. Bernard Haisch, a
professional astronomer who was Editor-in-Chief for the 'Journal
of Scientific Exploration', a publication which takes a more
liberal view of proclaimed 'scientific' evidence that ET is
here.

Haisch has a web site at:

http://www.ufoskeptic.org/

The domains, ufoskeptic.com and ufoskeptic.net are also
redirected here.

Ostensibly the view of a 'UFO Skeptic', Haisch headlines
'ufoskeptic.org' as, 'An information site on the UFO phenomenon
by and for professional scientists'.

He then suggests the term 'skeptic' represents:

'Skeptic - One who practices the method of suspended judgment,
engages in rational and dispassionate reasoning as exemplified
by the scientific method, shows willingness to consider
alternative explanations without prejudice based on prior
beliefs, and who seeks out evidence and carefully scrutinizes
its validity'.

I note however that in a recent newsgroup posting, the prolific
'commentator' and infinitely less than skeptical Jack Sarfatti,
has revealed some private mail, in which Haisch reportedly
writes:


Hi Jack,

You might be interested in the new website I just posted today
to begin to recapture the term skeptic from the debunkers:

http://www.ufoskeptic.org

Cheers,
Bernie

Dr. Bernard Haisch
California Institute for Physics & Astrophysics
366 Cambridge Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94306

Director, California Institute for Physics & Astrophysics (CIPA)
Scientific Editor, The Astrophysical Journal [End]


What does Haisch envisage in his apparently clandestine
endeavours to 'recapture the term skeptic from the debunkers'?

It's appropriate for a 'UFO Skeptics' forum to question Haisch's
interpretation of a UFO skeptic and how this applies to
"professional scientists".

The Oxford English Dictionary defines 'sceptic' [strictly the
true spelling] as being derived from the Latin 'scepticus' and
now meaning "one who doubts the validity of what claims to be
knowledge in some particular department of inquiry (e.g.
metaphysics, theology, natural science, etc.)"

Also, "one who maintains a doubting attitude with reference to
some particular question or statement".


The same dictionary confirms that 'debunk' means "to remove the
nonsense (or false sentiment) from"...


It seems Haisch's understanding of a 'skeptic' is, if not
actually diversely opposed, certainly a different interpretation
than it's literal meaning.

What he perceives a 'debunker' to be, is also puzzling.

It smacks of the mentality, common amongst those who believe
all/some 'UFOs' are alien spaceships, that a debunker is an
'unbeliever', a 'destructive force'; the unclean and the
undead...

I've asked Haisch if he could, publicly, expand on this
seemingly bizarre interpretation of 'skeptic' and 'debunker' and
why he perceives they are in conflict.

As an aside, the Oxford English Dictionary references a
quotation which dates from 1608 and evidences that almost 400
years ago, there were some serious skeptics around!

"Hee is a scepticke and dare hardly giue [give] credit to his
senses". [END]


Coincidentally, with no knowledge of the impending FOX program,
I also mentioned the 'moon landing hoax' video:

UFO Magazine (UK) are currently reviving those wacko 'Nasa Faked
the Moon Landings' claims and promoting their sale of a new
video, entitled, 'What Happened on the Moon', by David S. Percy
ARPS and David Groves PhD - see:

http://www.ufomag.co.uk/index.htm

[...]

UFO Magazine accuse, "This has to be one of the most
controversial, most damming and most believable portions of egg
ever delivered to the face of NASA".

Well, no. It's just another exercise in marketing pap at the
expense of the gormless and gullible and a huge embarrassment
for any pretence that 'ufology' should [ever] be taken seriously
by science or the media.

[...]

Still, can't you just hear the howls of protest from FUFOR
towers et al as 'ufology' is sold down the Swanee yet again.

Erm... no you can't actually and seemingly never do. I wonder
why that is.

Lee Shargel remains innocent. [END]


The 'moon landing hoax' is a pertinent example which emphasises
the differing points of view apropos debunkers, skeptics and
those who will readily promote and sell the most ludicrous bunk,
supposedly in the heartfelt interest of 'ufology'.

It's not only of course UFO Magazine who come under the latter
category in the UK.


Step right up folks, step right up...


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 21

                Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Friedman

From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:07:47 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:29:04 -0500
Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Friedman


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 22:55:18 -0000

 >A condensed but highly representative version of my argument is
 >freely available to internet users (as compared to the high cost
 >of The UFO Evidence, Volume II) by accessing a commissioned
 >article I wrote for Joe Firmage at:

 >www.isso.org/inbox/science.htm

 >I would be very interested in hearing from non-ETH "believers"
 >(that sort of labelling cuts both ways) about their reaction to
 >what I have to say there.


Dick's outstanding article should be required reading for
anybody interested in truly Unidentified Flying Objects. But I
won't hold my breath for a rational response from the non-ETH
'believers'. The first 2 rules for these guys are "Don't bother
me with the facts, my mind is made up." and "What the public
doesn't know, I am not going to tell them."

Since I was on Dennis' list, I might as well make clear where I
stand.

1. I don't use the term ETH. After all, the evidence (Read
Dick's piece, Jim McDOnald's 71 page congressional testimony, a
collection of Ted Phillips' physical trace cases, some of the
best abduction reports, etc etc) is overwhelming that _some_ UFOs
are intelligently controlled ET craft.

These best cases of observations by competent observers and
investigations by competent investigators clearly involve
manufactured objects behaving (maneuvering if one prefers) in
ways we Earthlings could not at that time duplicate. This
doesn't say  why, how, wherefrom, but just _not_ from _here_.
The notion that there is no link between these cases and an ET
origin is absurd. In more than 400 of the Physical Trace cases,
we have observations of strange looking beings connected to
craft able to land and take off out in the middle of nowhere
often silently. Are these circus beings hired by the CIA?

2. I have, I hope, made my position clear in my 1968
Congressional testimony, in more than 5 dozen articles, 2 books,
a CD-ROM, some videos and more than 700 lectures in 50 states, 9
Provinces, and 13 other countries. I don't think I can be called
an "apologist ufologist" or "closet ufologist".

3. I have been unable to find any reason for abandoning the
notion that _some_ UFOs are ET craft. Trips to nearby stars are
feasible with what we already know; no less what we will learn
in the near future. None of the SETI arguments stand up to
careful scrutiny. Secrets can be kept.


Stanton Friedman








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 21

                        Re: A Minor Diversion - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:36:20 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:30:25 -0500
Subject: Re: A Minor Diversion - Young


 >Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 07:27:42 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: A Minor Diversion
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 12:09:18 -0800
 >>Subject: Re: A Minor Diversion - Hatch
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >I know absolutely nothing about this subject, but I have been in
 >quite a few underground caves. If, as you say, it gets hotter
 >and hotter as you descend, then how come it gets cooler and
 >cooler the further one descends into a cavern? Every tour of a
 >cavern that I've ever gone on, the guide always suggests taking
 >a sweater or something because it stays so cool. In fact, every
 >guide makes a point of how nice it is underground, even though
 >no air-conditioning or air supply is ever employed. What gives?

Hi, Roger, Larry:

I think on the scale that you're talking about, Rog, relatively
shallow caverns near the surface, the temperature is in the low
50s. The chilliness you experienced is just getting away from
the entrance and the warmer surface air. The 50s temperature
was perfect for many of our ancestors during the ice ages, no
need for central heating. Fires at the cave entrances assisted
the flow of air toward the living areas near the entrance during
cold weather, as well as keeping the critters out. Of course,
the cave bears had to be dealt with.

Maybe somebody on the list who has been a deep miner has
some more info on this.


Clear skies and good spelunking,

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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 21

               Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated -

From: Matt Hurley <m.hurley@ntlworld.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 13:47:33 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:32:52 -0500
Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated -


 >From: Chris Aubeck <caubeck@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated
 >Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 12:33:12 -0000

 >>From: Matt Hurley <m.hurley@ntlworld.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Historical Artwork And UFOs Site Updated
 >>Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 18:50:30 -0000

 >Hello Matt,

 >I forgot to mention it in my last message re your site (Feb
 >16th), but I suppose you know that the Fund for UFO Research
 >awarded Italian science writer Daniela Giordano the 1998 Donald
 >E. Keyhoe journalism award for her work in Nuevo Orione (an
 >astronomical and space magazine).

 >She received an award of $750 for an article 'UFOs Depicted In
 >Ancient Artworks'.

 >Maybe you should check it out?


Thanks for that Chris,

It stated in episode one of 'UFOs Then and Now' that she "achieved
international recognition" so I guess that's what they are
referring to.

I've sent an email to CENTRO UFOLOGICO NAZIONALE to see if they
can give me her e-mail address. She might be interested in my
site as it's similar material to what she was/is researching.

Maybe she'll have some pics which aren't on my site.


Matt

htttp://homepage.ntlworld.com/m.hurley/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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 21

                          Re: AA Film Redux - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:46:58 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:34:04 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Young


 >Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:22:08 -0600
 >From: Roger Annette Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >>Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 13:02:38 +0000
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Morris

 >So which is it? Was it reversal film or negative film? Or was it
 >negative film that was reversal processed?

Which had been copied onto something which was older? Does this
suggest that the "original film" ain't?


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 21

                Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Hamilton

From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
Date: 21 Feb 2001 06:28:54 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 18:11:34 -0500
Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Hamilton


 >Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:26:11 -0500
 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>From: Mendoza - Peter Brookesmith <Mendoza@appleonline.net>
 >>Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>Date: Sat, 17 Feb 01 02:23:00 +0000
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>With the compliments of the Duke of Mendoza:

 >>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>>Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 19:44:43 -0000
 >>>Fwd Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:01:06 -0500
 >>>Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Hall

 >>>>From: Mendoza - Peter Brookesmith<Mendoza@appleonline.net>
 >>>>Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>>>Date: Tue, 13 Feb 01 03:14:32 +0000
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>>Dear Duke,

 >>Ahem, Mr Hall. The correct form is "Your Grace". ;-)

 >My Dear "Your Grace:"

 >First, let m thank you for reminding us all of the appropriate
 >use of the term "scoffer", for which the term "debunker" has
 >been incorrectly substituted.

 >>"Perhaps the most insidious rhetorical trick has been the
 >>misappropriation of the label "skeptic" to describe what are
 >>actually _scoffers_. As sociologist Robert K. Merton pointed
 >>out, organized skepticism is a fundamental norm in science.
 >>However, the term skepticism is properly defined as _doubt_, not
 >>_denial_. It is a position of agnosticism, of nonbelief rather
 >>than disbelief. The true skeptic (a doubter) asserts no claim,
 >>so has no burden of proof. However, the scoffer (denier) asserts
 >>a _negative_ claim, so the burden of proof science places on any
 >>claimant must apply. When scoffers misrepresent their position
 >>as a form of "hard-line" skepticism, they really seek escape
 >>from their burden to prove a negative position. "Perhaps the
 >>greatest confusion related to the needed distinction between
 >>skeptics and scoffers concerns their different reactions to the
 >>failure by a claimant to support an anomaly claim. The skeptics'
 >>attitude towards extraordinary claims (for example, those of
 >>parapsychology) where proponents have so far produced inadequate
 >>evidence to convince most scientists that their hypotheses about
 >>anomalies are true is characterized as a case _not proved_. A
 >>skeptic contends that "the absence of evidence is not evidence
 >>of absence." The scoffer, on the other hand, sees the failure of
 >>proponents as evidence that an anomaly claim has been
 >>_disproved_. The perspective of the scoffer, as with most
 >>dogmatists, tends to distinguish only black from white and fails
 >>to acknowledge gray areas. (Our criminal justice system may
 >>likewise be too dichotomous. Thus, similar reasoning led some
 >>citizens to conclude that the murder acquittal of O.J. Simpson
 >>meant he was judged innocent when he was merely found to be not
 >>guilty. Science might better follow the path of Scottish Law
 >>which allows for three possible judgements: guilty, not guilty
 >>or innocent, and not proven.)"

 >You continued:

 >>Clearly there is a
 >>presumption here that the ET hypothesis is not a reasonable
 >>one.

 >>I don't think it is. I've said why at length elsewhere and am
 >>not inclined to repeat here what anyone can find in print as
 >>well as in various discussions fully archived on the UFOMind
 >>website. What strikes me as a frequent failing of those who do
 >>is the admission that rejecting the ETH as unreasonable is
 >>itself a reasonable position to take. Having said that I expect
 >>someone to squeak "but that's not _fair_" or words to that
 >>effect.

 >>But take Bruce Maccabee's recent arguments:

 >>>As for me and the ETH, I have said that it seems
 >>>to me to be the _simplest_ explanation - the easiest to
 >>>understand - in the sense that I can imagine us going
 >>>"there" (human transport to other planets).>

 >>Anthropomorphism. Who knows how aliens would think?

 >Missed the point: does it matter how aliens think? I'm making an
 >argument based on the physics as we know it. we _can_ get there
 >from here, even if it takes a _long_ time. IMHO, the argument
 >that "they can't get here from there" is not based on physics
 >but on "sociology:" if some humans were willing to travel for
 >thousands of years they could get to another star using dumb old
 >chemical rockets. Use nuclear rockets and shorten the time. Use
 >photon rockets and get further speed. Could we do this today?
 >('we' = human race) No. We can only go the the nearest planets.
 >Could we do it in a 100 years? Probably. In a thousand years?
 >I'd say definitely. Of course, by then we might have somethig
 >better than photon rockets.

Using our current rocket technology and traveling at an average
velocity of 25,000 mph, it takes 9.4 hours to reach the moon.
Not bad. We could do that within one day�s work. Going to Mars
at that same speed would take 2.5 months. To reach the outermost
planet in our solar system, Pluto, would take 16 years and 5
months. That would have a serious impact on spacecraft resources
not to mention how astronauts would spend their time. Then they
would have the temerity to want to return to Earth. The whole
round trip would take nearly 33 years. Using that same rocket to
reach one of the closest stars beyond the sun, a distance of 4.2
light-years (a measure of how long it takes light to travel the
distance at light-speed: 186,282 mph), the one-way trip would
take 114, 155.2 years! That poses a serious obstacle to plans to
explore the environment around Alpha Centauri.

If we had a means to travel very close to the velocity of light,
then a very strange thing happens to our travel time to Alpha
Centauri. We would measure that a beam of light would take 4.2
light years to reach that neighborhood star. However, a crew
traveling on a spaceship that traveled at .99c (c is the symbol
for the velocity of light) would reach Alpha Centauri in 7.4
months. This effect is called time dilation and it comes from
Einstein�s equations expressed in the Special Theory of
Relativity. Time dilation makes it a little more feasible that
any inhabited planets (with techno civilizations) in our local
neighborhood could pay us a visit if they have ultra-fast
spaceships.

Then, those clever scientists working on breakthrough propulsion
systems like Dr. Marc Millis who could conceivably come up with
a bright idea on reaching super-luminal speeds and we might
travel to Alpha Centauri in the time it takes us to eat our
breakfast. Hope no one gets any indigestion over that.

 >Point: We can't rule out the possibility that aliens might think
 >i tworthwhile to takewhatever time necessary totravel to earth
 >(and , one presumes, other planets as well).

 >Now, I said ETH involving spaceflight was the simplest...
 >because we understand the physics that will let us do it _now_
 >(or within a 100 years, which is effectively now in terms of
 >galactic ages). Anything else such as time or dimensional travel
 >requires an extrapolation of thinking beyond what we can now do.
 >So far as I know no one has "teleported" a single cell through
 >another dimension... to say nothing of a human.

 >That's not to say we won't be able todo such a thing in a
 >hundred years. I just don't know about that. But I do know about
 >space travel.

 >>>However, there have been more esoteric (IMHO) proposals
 >>>such as dimensional travel (which is getting a boost these
 >>>days from theoretical physics i.e, superstring theory, that
 >>>says there are other dimensions "close" to ours in an
 >>>overall 11 or more dimensional "multiverse.")

 >>My understanding is that the extra dimensions are "wrapped up"
 >>into excessively tiny spaces, and unwrapping them would need as
 >>much energy as was unleashed during the Big Bang. In other
 >>words, more than would be accessible to _any_ technology
 >>without, basically, buggering the Universe as we know it at the
 >>same time. Perhaps theories, or hypotheses, have moved on since
 >>I last nosed around this issue.>

 >Our present concepts of how and "where" other dimensions exist
 >may be wrong... assuming they do exist. Although there is a lot
 >of theorizing, until someone actually does a higher dimension
 >experiment (whatever that would be) we just won't know what the
 >requirements in energy or whatever to get to or travel through
 >other dimensions. (Perhaps it takes a whopping energy to get
 >through from our dimension to another, but you get all that
 >energy back when you return to our dimensions. Perhaps, the
 >"separation" between "sheets" in our dimension are so small that
 >something like quantum tunnelling is possible... requireing
 >little energy.)

New considerations in M-theory propose that there are higher
extended dimensions. Those complex, membranous objects, which
can have many spatial dimensions themselves, have become a
central part of string theory. In some versions of the theory,
the universe itself is a brane with three spatial dimensions�a
3-brane�moving through a higher-dimensional space-time. If our
3-brane universe can move through a higher-dimensional
space-time, then one can ask whether an object from our brane
can move through the higher dimension and re-emerge in our
3-brane universe or another one moving in those higher
dimensions. Let us hope, at least, that there is some separation
so that we do not get a conditon of colliding branes. Crashing
branes? Hmmmm...even theoretical physics can be
hilarious.>>Bottom Line: We just don't know (about higher
dimensions)...>(but we do know about space travel... and will
know more "soon")

So far, that is the bottom line.

 >>>Dimensional travel theories can work in one of two ways:
 >>>transport from a completely different 4-D universe into our
 >>>universe or transport from one point in our 4-D universe to
 >>>another point in our 4-D universe by going through a 5th
 >>>(or higher) dimension (wormhole theory). This latter
 >>>transport could explain "faster then light" travel.>

 >>The notion that wormholes can transport anything bigger than
 >>"Planck's length" (4 x 10^-33cm) doesn't hold up. In theory
 >>wormholes are arrived at by treating time as an imagined
 >>spacelike entity, which it may do in reality only in Big-
 >>Bang-like conditions -- according to the theory -- but you still
 >>have this titchy space into which to cram your would-be
 >>vee-hickle. Not even a virus would make it.

 >>Fair enough: Bruce hints that there are problems with these
 >>exotic notions, but doesn't examine them. He falls back on the
 >>ETH as "the simplest" explanation when that is anything but
 >>simple in fact, if you care to look at it critically and
 >>dispassionately.

 >On the scale of difficulty based on what we now know, IMHO,
 >ETH/space travel is still the simplest... which does not mean
 >that space travel is "simple." (Carrying humans is more
 >difficult that carrying machines.)

How about an ETH and EDH with the EDH standing for
extra-dimensional - in this case outside of our normal
space-time. Perhaps not all UFOs (spacraft types) are ET. Some
may be ED. In other words, could we have a multiple-origin
hypothesis, but how do we test of any these hypotheses? Are UFOs
that are detected entering and leaving our exosphere proof that
their origin is somewhere out in space? We are really racking
our brains here to find the answer (or is it branes?). I think
we need to propose some useful projects that might help
determine the nature and origin of UFOs. I lean toward ETH for
most, but some maybe EDH IMHO.

Bill H.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 21

              Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy'

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:42:48 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 18:14:29 -0500
Subject: Re:  NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy'


 >Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 00:09:41 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Sean Liddle <gortrix@kos.net>
 >Subject: Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy'

 >What I am trying to say is that since the Soviets beat the
 >Americans into space with Sputnik and beat them to the Moon with
 >robotic rovers, one should not be surprised that, at the height
 >of the Cold War, the American Government would be tempted to do
 >something as rash as fake a landing to instill national pride or
 >some other such thing. Its just the question of weather they
 >really did so.

If the Russians were capable of it, why not the country with 1/2
of the industrial potential of the developed world?

At what point do you think that fakery was overcome by reality?
Or do you think that the Space Station, too, is a fake?  Maybe
Russia, itself, was a fake, created by Nazis who really won the
war but covered it up?


Clear and cold 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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 21

              Re: Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy' - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:55:41 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 18:18:09 -0500
Subject: Re: Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy' - Evans


 >From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 21:03:09 EST
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: NASA - Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy' -

 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 11:42:51 -0600
 >>Fwd Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 20:28:55 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: NASA - Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy'

Previously, I had written:

 >>The "fake-moon-landing" proponents (foonies?) ironically take
 >>the opposite stance. They look at the lack of stars as a sign of
 >>fakery when, in fact, a starless sky is _exactly_ what one would
 >>see if on the moon during the "day" just like here on Earth. I
 >>find this amusing because, if NASA really did go to great
 >>lengths to create a "reality" that was technically accurate, the
 >>foonies obviously prefer their own reality that has been skewed
 >>due to watching too many science fiction movies where the stars
 >>are always visible; lighting imbalances be damned. It would seem
 >>that, if the landing was faked by NASA, they would have been
 >>better off trying to please peoples' perceptions of what a moon
 >>landing would look like instead of going for technical accuracy.

David replied:

 >Time for another King Roger science reality check.

 >The reason we see no stars in the daytime here on Earth is
 >because Earth has something called an atmosphere (heard of it
 >Roger?), which the Moon does not. The atmosphere has particulate
 >matter (dust, air droplets, etc.) which scatters the bright
 >sunlight towards our eyes obscuring the dimmer starlight.

 >On the airless moon, one can indeed see stars during daytime,
 >just as someone in the space shuttle can above the Earth's
 >atmosphere on the daylit side of the Earth.

 >If the stars didn't show in NASA moon landing photos, then I
 >suspect it had to do with film dynamic range, f/stop and shutter
 >speed.  Because the surface of the moon is very brightly lit in
 >daytime, the film and camera settings would have to compensate
 >to prevent overexposure.  Otherwise, the surface details would
 >be completely washed out.

 >I do wish Roger would go back to high school and pass those
 >basic science courses he obviously flunked the first time
 >around.

 >No, I don't think NASA faked the moon landings.

Hello, David!

The context of this _entire_ discussion is not about whether
astronauts 'saw' stars from the moon but, rather, why the stars
do not show up in photographs. In fact, I made it clear that the
reason you can't see the stars in photographs is because of
"lighting imbalances" (as opposed to what's seen in sci-fi
films). To that end, your reasoning for why there were no stars
in photographs is mostly nonsense. F-stop and shutter speed
would have no effect on visibility of stars if exposure for the
main, sunlit subject (astronaut, lunar surface etc.) were
correct. In fact, if the earth had no atmosphere, the very same
problems would apply to pictures taken here as they would on the
moon. If in doubt, try taking a picture of the moon on a clear
night. No matter what film you use, no matter what shutter speed
or f-stop combination you try, you will not get the moon and the
stars properly exposed in the same shot. This is due to
"lighting imbalances" between the moon and the stars; the moon
being bright due to proximity and the stars being dim due to
distance.

And what you call "dynamic range" is really called "latitude" by
professional photographers. No film ever made has ever had
enough latitude to correctly expose both stars and lunar subject
matter simultaneously. Video still doesn't have as much latitude
as film. Back then, it was just dreadful; I'm surprised they got
a usable image at all on video.

Considering that the context of this conversation is about
photographic issues, your observations regarding terrestrial
atmosphere don't even begin to apply. With or without
atmosphere, you won't see the stars in a properly exposed photo
of terrestrial or lunar objects taken during the day.

Remedial science classes? I don't think so. On the other hand it
would seem that you need to take either some basic classes in
photography or, perhaps, some remedial classes in reading
comprehension and context.

Sorry to spoil your fun.

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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 21

                         Re: AA Film Redux - Morris

From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 15:10:38 +0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 18:40:12 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Morris


 >From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 23:17:20 EST
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >>Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 21:51:51 +0000
 >>Fwd Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 11:27:32 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Morris

 >In prefacing my response, I would like to point out that I have
 >had a number of very cordial and interesting e-mails with Neil
 >Morris in which we've exchanged information and a lot of give
 >and take. I think of Neil as a genuine good guy. He is an
 >intelligent and honest person and I mean him no disrepect.

 >On the other hand, I fear he has fallen under the sway of the
 >RPIT group and its minister of propaganda, J. Bond Johnson (I'm
 >sure Neil would strenuously disagree). I am writing this
 >response to Neil's post to point out some clearly erroneous
 >information and to clarify other matters.

<snip>

 >Not true Neil. The Newton image appeared in the morning July 9
 >edition of the Philadelphia Inquirer and had a civilian wire
 >service attribution. This is very strong if not conclusive
 >evidence that there was another civilian photographer in Ramey's
 >office.


David, All,

I hold up my arm in shame here and confess that was a blooper on
my part, I put it down to the flu I've been trying to get over,
I've spent most of the time in a paracetamol haze, with a head
full of cotton wool, mind you people say that is quite normal
for me.

Yes, there is that one example of the Newton pic showing up the
next morning and I would be interested David if you know what
exact edition this was, ie the last of the 5 ST daily editions
went to press at 2am and would have had a picture deadline
sometime around midnight. It might help further fill in the
timeline.

The Newton pic is a unknown quandary and I'm actively trying to
pursue a lead on this at the moment, so there may be more to say
about this at a later date.

But even _with_ the Newton pic in the mix I still personally
think there is a very large lack of material in the record that
_should_ have been there if the "press conference" took place as
envisaged. Multiple reporters and photogs would have produced
multiple reports and images in the media and that is what seems
to be very lacking, I think you would agree. If the AP material
was only a part of a larger whole coverage, and it was still
being used a couple of days _after_ Ramey burst the balloon
where was this "other" coverage , it's noticeable by it's very
absence?

I do qualify all this though by saying I do _not_ rule out the
odd photog or reporter turning up somewhere down the timeline
and snapping the Newton pic, but as for a "football scrum" style
press conference at the primary photoshoot with Marcel, Ramey
and DuBose as is the typical idea every one has, no I don't
believe it took place that way.

Which brings us to the mysterious witness. I won't name him, but
will say he was the duty reporter working in the Star Telegram
office throughout the night of July 8th 1947, he didn't handle
the "Roswell" story himself but worked with the person who did,
and it's our ex-reporter who plainly states the story of a
"press conference" out at FWAAF is totally incorrect,

All the coverage done at the ST was handled by phone, coupled
with incoming wireservice reports. (The Star Telegram was a
major AP affiliate and had an AP transmit facility so it could
feed stories _onto_ the AP network - remember the AP Roswell
wires datelined Fort Worth).

If we recall the Dallas Morning New's coverage, they too handled
the story by phone rather than send a reporter over to Fort
Worth. Reporters were thin on the ground in those days, covering
a story by phone sounds ludicrous now but I gather it was quite
a common practice in the 40's, note our ST reporters comments
regarding the Roswell story coverage, it was "all done by phone
and wireservice".

Again, I don't rule out the odd photographer and/or reporter
turning up at FWAAF some time after Newton's shift started,
after all someone had to take that picture, though I wouldn't
even class this type of scenario a "press conference".

And we are talking about two totally separate events, the
primary photo session with Marcel, Ramey and DuBose and then a
further session later that evening(after 6pm) with Newton.

 >>>I recall James Bond Johnson's take on Roswell has been seriously
 >>>challenged by Kevin Randle

 >>There are two points of contention here, the first, regarding
 >>phone interviews done by KR, it's not my place to go into these,
 >>Bond's responses are on record in this forum.

 >Since Kevin Randle sent me a complete set of interview tapes
 >about 2 years ago, it was easy to review the original evidence
 >(the tapes and also some letters of correspondence) and see who
 >was telling the truth about the interviews and who was spinning
 >the story.

 >Bond Johnson has simply lied about those initial interviews and
 >changed his story for reasons only he knows. He has also
 >repeatedly accused Kevin Randle of altering the tapes and
 >issuing inaccurate transcripts. This again is completely false.

 >A detailed refutation of some of his false statements based on
 >the actual tapes can be found in the UFO Updates archives at:

 >http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2000/apr/m29-028.shtml

 >Another rebuttal to Johnson's incessant spin-doctoring, which
 >includes much of the same material below, can be found at:

 >http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2000/apr/m27-001.shtml

I've quite deliberately tried to stay out of this area, I've met
Bond personally and heard his side of things, I've read what the
other side has to say, I believe an admission is on record that
the tapes _have_ been edited, conversely elements of Bond's
story _have_ changed, as with others stories. Also, it has to be
considered that after KR's first interview, Bond himself started
to research his own part in the Roswell story, he has relatives
still in Fort Worth and so has been able to spend time in the ST
archives and FW library. He saw for himself where his memory had
let him down, ie, he still has to this day, little, if any
recollection of Jess Marcel, yet he was there and he _did_ take
his picture.

What I can say while I've known Bond and questioned him
extensively, is that he has been open, honest and consistent
with his answers to me, even when I've known he's _not_ liked
some of the questions I've put. Further, we are now finding that
some of his most disputed information ie the "press conference"
_is_ receiving independent confirmation from an individual who
_was_ there reporting the news in FW at the time.

<snip>

 >>Witness testimony, unlike KR and DS who were I assume basing
 >>their take of events from Jesse Marcel's recollections of his
 >>time in FW,

 >Don't forget Gen. Dubose and Irving Newton, both of whom were
 >_also_ there, and both of whom stated they remembered several
 >reporters being there. This wasn't just the story of Jesse
 >Marcel.

 From conversations with Irving some 12 months ago he has no
recollection of just who took his photograph that day and could
not say wether it was a civilian or military photographer. I
think it's also hard to pin down just what Gen DuBose could or
could not recall, I have Jamie Shandera's interview transcript
where DuBose claims _no_ pictures were ever taken at all, that
is until he is shown the JBJ images of himself. Jesse's story
too is obviously a partial memory, we know firmly JBJ took
pictures of Marcel, Ramey and Dubose in the _one_ session I
think we are all agreed on that. Yet Marcel gives us the quote
that he was only involved in the _one_ photograph, the one he
claims where he is shown holding some of the actual debris from
Roswell and I believe he then goes on to mention some other
"staged" photographs might have been taken later "but he was not
involved with those". The _only_ photograph(s) of Marcel(to
surface) are JBJ's and we know these were taken together with
the Ramey and DuBose shots (it's the same film neg batch), so
what was this later "staged" photo... Newton? Marcel doesn't
know, he wasn't involved, it's just what he heard happened.

The Newton shot _is_ a separate entity, totally different debris
setup, different angle of shot, changed location within Ramey's
office, "sanitised" selection of debris on show, shot framed as
landscape rather than portrait as Bond had framed his shots, and
Newton didn't come on shift until 6pm that evening, I think both
of us agree this was after Bond had left Ramey's office, though
I know we diverge on the specific time of that.

So two photoshoots, at which, either, both or none was the press
conference?

 >The existence of at least one other press photographer is proven
 >by the Newton photo which appeared the next morning. And then
 >there are the Newton quotes which appeared in AP and UP stories.
 >These obviously can't be attributed to Bond Johnson

Is there firm evidence it was a press photog? But we know the ST
was in direct contact (by phone) with FWAAF, as we have those
exclusive quotes _only_ found in the ST that supports this
point. As far as AP coverage is concerned remember the ST
teletype room didn't only receive reports from the AP, it also
submitted them.

 >>and it must also be noted Thos DuBose, Ramey's COS
 >>at the time, totally dismissed _any_ photographs having been
 >>taken until confronted with Bond's pictures, to which he
 >>responded " well yes, that is the stuff they brought from
 >>Roswell".

 >This is very incomplete accounting of Dubose's many interviews
 >on the matter, and obviously comes from the highly suspect
 >Shandera "interviews" with Dubose. Even though Shandera produced
 >lengthy "transcripts", he has also been unable to produce the
 >tape recordings that would have been needed to produce such
 >detailed "transcripts." He is also unable to reproduce even
 >notes of the conversation.

 >On the other hand, there are a number of _recorded_ interviews
 >with Dubose which completely contradict your assertion and RPITs
 >that Dubose wasn't aware of the photographs and claimed the
 >stuff in the photos was from Roswell.

 >E.g., this is Dubose's statement from his sworn affidavit
 >written _before_ the Shandera interviews: "The material shown in
 >the photographs taken in Maj. Gen. Ramey's office was a weather
 >balloon. The weather balloon explanation for the material was a
 >story to divert the attention of the press."

David, Roswell testimony is a little like The Bible, you can
find a bit to prove almost any point<g>, lets not go down that
road.

I agree DuBose said the above and I can live with your assertion
Shandera might be a little shakey in his methods, but there
again there's nothing to say he _didn't_ make that quote to
Shandera.

I think DuBose tended to please everybody.

 >>RPIT now have a witness to all the further events that
 >>night in the offices of The Fort Worth Star-Telegram after Bond
 >>Johnson left some time after 6pm.

 >Neil, I've been hearing about this mystery witness for over a
 >year now, and have never gotten a name or even exactly what this
 >person had to say.

 >I strongly suspect your understanding of what this person has to
 >say comes heavily filtered through RPIT's minister of
 >propaganda, whose constantly changing and edited accounts I
 >don't exactly trust.

It's hoped at some stage we will have this witness's testimony
on the record in his own words.

 >So he was at the S-T, but he wasn't in Ramey's office like
 >Newton, Marcel, and Dubose. So how does this mystery witness
 >know what was happening there?

Because it appears the ST were in phone contact throughout that
evening with FWAAF and if an organised shindig was in the offing
he would have gone to it.

 >Reporters could have shown up there after Bond Johnson left and
 >Ramey could have held an impromptu press conference (meaning
 >that the S-T would not have been notified

Yes, and at that stage Bond wouldn't be there to take Marcel's
picture and he(Marcel) states he was only photographed the
_once_ (by Bond), and Marcel was photographed at the same time
as Ramey and DuBose in that primary photoshoot, and no other
examples of that primary photoshoot are in the record.

 >- they didn't cover
 >Newton's appearance, did they?). Ramey made a big point of
 >calling in a weather officer to make an official identification
 >of the weather balloon and radar target (a story Ramey had been
 >putting out for nearly two hours prior to this).

 >Irving Newton has often told the story of how Ramey called him
 >personally on the phone and ordered him off his post, over
 >Newton's protest (he was the officer in charge of the joint
 >weather post and flight control and had to leave the post
 >unmanned).

 >Ramey wanted the next press release to affirm the official
 >weather balloon identification. He wanted this spread far and
 >wide to help kill the story. What better way than to have a few
 >reporters there when Newton made the identification? The
 >reporters asked Newton some questions about the weather balloons
 >and of course there was that very important photo taken which
 >absolutely proves that at least one other reporter showed up
 >after Bond Johnson.

That AP wire of 6.30pm - FW time - announcing Newton's ID is
headed as originating in Fort Worth. AP didn't have a Fort Worth
office but they did have an affiliate paper in touch with FWAAF
that also had a teletype transmitter on line to the AP network
24hrs a day, it didn't need a newshound walking the corridor
outside Ramey's office.

 >>and _no_ press conference was called.

 >Then how do you explain the Newton photo? How do you explain the
 >Newton quotes?

The same way the ST got those exclusive quotes from Marcel, by
phone from FWAAF, the picture's more tricky, there would be no
use for it by AP by the time it became available Bond's pictures
had already gone out

 >How do you explain three witnesses who were actually there
 >saying there was one?

The same way Marcel recalled a posse of news photogs taking his
picture when the historical record shows we only have Bond
Johnson's 6 pictures only 2 of which are of Marcel.

The human memory.

 >A press conference also doesn't have to be officially "called.,"
 >i.e., the press doesn't have to be notified ahead of time that
 >one is going to be held. It can be totally impromptu. Some press
 >people show up after Johnson leaves, Ramey wants to put the
 >finishing touch on his weather balloon cover story with an
 >official identification. So he calls Newton and tells him to
 >"get his ass over here," then invites the reporters in and tells
 >them that a weather officer will be there any minute to identify
 >the weather balloon. Newton arrives, his photo is taken by
 >_somebody else_ other than J. Bond Johnson, he is asked some
 >more questions, and the official weather balloon ID story goes
 >out over the AP wire soon afterwards.

That's true David, and I will concede that is a possible
scenario for the Newton pic. As I said at the top of this post,
I don't rule out the possibility of the odd photog/reporters
arriving later in the day. The point I was trying to make (badly
I guess) was that of the primary photosession, that with Marcel,
Ramey and DuBose, a session totally diverse from the later
Newton session, but the shoot which Marcel refers to maintaining
he was only present at the _one_ photo session, this was Bond's
solo photo session. You've done sterling research in this area,
have you found any other Marcel images published, other than
those Bond took? Or Ramey images? If the press conference
scenario here was viable, is it not unreasonable to expect
samples of this other coverage to be in the record? You say,
correctly, it was a big story, AP went to the trouble of
shipping in a wirephoto machine. Why then didn't anyone else
_use_ their hard won material if there was any?

The pictures themselves say things were not as we are lead to
believe. The story has it the reporters were held back at
Ramey's door and not allowed into the room. That's not what the
pictures say, Bond's hat is sitting on top of the briefcase on
the chair behind Ramey in the Bettmann image. The briefcase is
still there in the Marcel but the hat's been removed. Bond had
enough access to the room, and time, to take off his hat and
place it on the chair while he set up his shots, when he noticed
it in shot he had the opportunity to move it. Not the sort of
actions you'd expect if there were a pack of newshounds
breathing down your neck and all clamouring for the scoop shot.

 >The existence of other reporters there at some later time is
 >based on the Newton photo,

Yes, Very possible, but some time later.

 >wire service stories quoting Newton,
 >and on the testimony of three people who actually _were_ there,

But the _later_ Newton photosession and the Marcel-Ramey-Dubose
session are two different beasts happening at two different
times.

Newton wasn't in the frame when Bond was taking his pictures, if
he had been we'd have a nice 4x5 of him sitting in the UTA along
with Marcel, Ramey and DuBose.

 >not just the conjecture of Bond Johnson who wasn't, or that of
 >RPIT's mystery witness, whose actual testimony still isn't in
 >the public record.

In all the above I don't think I've mentioned Bond's testimony
at all.

 >>Note, the ST was the
 >>nearest news office to FWAAF and the title was _the_ largest
 >>circulating newspaper in the south of the USA, at that time.

 >Which by no means precludes other newspapers or news agencies
 >showing up there at a later time. Don't forget the Newton photo,
 >or the AP/UP branch offices in nearby Dallas, or even Bond
 >Johnson's story of the AP sending over two wire-photo
 >technicians from Dallas to the Star-Telegram. Also don't forget
 >that the AP dispatched a reporter and photographer from their
 >Albuquerque branch to cover the story directly in Roswell.
 >Albuquerque is a lot further from Roswell than Dallas is from
 >Fort Worth. This was a very big story at the time.

It was _the_ major story for a short time, but the Dallas
Morning News didn't bother to send a reporter? They phoned the
base. The AP had facilities in Fort Worth, the Star Telegram had
AP transmit facilities and a wirephoto machine being hooked up,
and FWAAF on the end of the phone. Maybe there you have the AP
reports datelined Fort Worth?

 >BTW, I don't want to hear the same old saw about how we lack the
 >names of the other reporters, as if this necessarily disproves
 >their existence. Wire service stories and photos rarely carry
 >bylines. E.g., Kellahin and Adair, the two AP people sent to
 >Roswell, didn't receive byline credit for the AP stories and the
 >Brazel photo that came from their efforts in Roswell. We only
 >know of them because the Roswell Daily Record happened to
 >mention them being there for Mack Brazel's press conference. And
 >it seems they were mentioned only because the Brazel photo was
 >the first wire-photo ever sent from Roswell. To the Daily
 >Record, that was a story in itself.

Not names, just _different_, individual reports. In your own
examination of the very many cuttings you've amassed of the
Roswell coverage, I believe I'm correct in saying, you've
noticed that the vast majority are based on the generic
wireservice reports editorialised locally or direct transcripts
of those reports credited to the wire services.

 >(Isn't it interesting that even sheep rancher Mack Brazel had a
 >press conference, but evidence that General Ramey had one as
 >well is written off by RPIT as some sort of fantasy of Randle
 >and Schmitt?)

No, not unexpected, as _the_ focal point of the story combined
with "local hero" media interest. Here I _will_ break in with
some of Bond's information, in that the ST's expectation was
that additional news on the "disc" story would be coming in from
New Mexico or Washington, there was no expectation the story's
focus would shift to FW as it did.

 >>There was no press conference at FWAAF as envisaged by KR and >DS.

 >You can say this all you want as if it were necessarily true,
 >but there is clearly very good evidence to the contrary.

 >Why is it so damn important to you guys that Bond Johnson be the
 >only reporter on the spot? Maybe because that's what he wants to
 >believe and the rest of you are just following along? Why has he
 >completely ignored the Philadelphia Inquirer Newton photo of
 >July 9 that I send him and reminded him of again and again? That
 >photo alone disproves his spin of being the one and only
 >reporter in Ramey's office.

It's not important to me, and I gladly concede that as we know,
the Newton shot wasn't taken by Bond and so must have been taken
later by "somebody". But what troubles me is the loudly
trumpeted theory of a "press conference" being associated with
the JBJ photo-session with Marcel, Ramey and DuBose when the
evidence, in the form of lack of additional supporting material
(other images contemporary with that shoot) seems to be totally
missing from the record. I really don't think it's unreasonable
to expect at least one other image taken by one other
phtotographer to have been left for us to find _if_ this
conference took place as alleged. As I see it _no_ other
contemporary images have been found in the record to support
this premise, and you yourself have studied this subject more
than any other researcher that I know of.

<snip>

 >I've tried to reserve judgment on debris analysis, though I
 >remain very skeptical that it is going to show anything
 >conclusive. To my eye and just about everybody else's except
 >RPIT's, what was displayed on Ramey's floor is the remains of a
 >weather balloon and a broken up radar target. According to
 >Marcel and Dubose, the weather balloon was the cover story and
 >not the real stuff.

 >Now _possibly_ some other debris from Roswell got mixed up with
 >the cover story balloon during all the confusion, so I thought
 >it a worthwhile endeavor to analyze what was there for something
 >clearly unusual or out of place. But I don't buy for a second
 >that the vast majority of material wasn't anything else other
 >than a weather balloon.

David, I am happy that you are willing to look, and I would be
more than happy to forward a samples image cd to you so you
could cross check my findings within your own source images.

 >The real mother lode in the photos, Neil, is the Ramey message,
 >not the debris. There we find clear phrases where Gen. Ramey
 >continues to describe the crash object in an internal memo as a
 >"disc", not a balloon, whereas at the bottom of the message
 >Ramey is talking of a weather balloon press release to the
 >public and adding RAWIN target demonstration crews to firm up
 >the story. How the crash object was to be identified in public
 >and how it was actually described internally were two different
 >things entirely.

 >Furthermore the message speaks of later shipping something "IN
 >the disc" to Fort Worth by B-29 or C-47. There is nothing IN a
 >balloon or radar target that can be shipped. And of course
 >there is that damning phrase "the VICTIMS of the wreck," which
 >again can't be explained by a Mogul balloon crash.

 >There's quite a bit more to the Ramey message (such as it being
 >addressed to Gen. Vandenberg at the Pentagon), but even these
 >snippets absolutely disprove a Mogul balloon crash as the cause
 >of the Roswell events. There were "victims" and Ramey continues
 >to call the crash object a "disc" and how they were later going
 >to ship something "in the disc." What was inside a "Mogul
 >balloon" to be shipped - helium gas?

Though our interpretations on some specific details within the
Ramey message diverge, there is much we do agree on, and I
wholeheartedly agree the message must be seen as Roswell's
"Smoking Gun".

Very best regards,

Neil.




--
*        *         *         *         *         *         *         *
Neil Morris.       /101101101 Virtual Bumper Stickers Inc 10110101010\
Dept of Physics.   1                                                 1
Univ of Manchester 0                                                 0
Schuster Labs.     1  Computer Programmers DO IT with BITS of BYTES  1
Brunswick St.      0                                                 0
Manchester.        1                                                 1
M13.9PL.  UK.      \0101010110010110110010110101101011011110101011010/

                    Radio Callsign G8KOQ
                E-mail: neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk
          Public PGP Key available at www.keyserve.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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 21

                                 Seen This?

From: Bob Shell <bob@bobshell.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:17:56 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 18:43:14 -0500
Subject: Seen This?


I'd like for anyone who knows geology to take a look at this and
let me know if this is a known geological phenomenon. The
"Phoenician" wall in Oklahoma looks man made, but I know there
are geological phenomena which often mimic artificial
constructions.

I'm not concerned with the author's ideas, just what can be
determined from his photos.

http://www.viewzone.com/sender.html

Thanks,

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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 21

              Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy'

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:36:11 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 18:44:59 -0500
Subject: Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy'


 >Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 01:26:02 -0500
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy'

 >I'd like to tack my list onto Joachim's if I may.

<snip>

 >2. Gemini 4, June 3,1964, astronauts McDivitt & White report a
 >sighting of a large cylinder over Hawaii.

Hi, John, Joachim:

I believe this was shown to have probably been their own
Atlas-Agena-B booster. At first it was unidentified because it
didn't show up on a list of other space objects, it was part of
their mission. I think James Oberg reported on this in his UFOs
and Outer Space Mysteries, Donning, about 1970.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 21

                         Re: AA Film Redux - Morris

From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 15:49:57 +0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 18:47:42 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Morris


 >Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:22:08 -0600
 >From: Roger Annette Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >>Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 13:02:38 +0000
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Morris

 >>>Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 09:57:31 -0600
 >>>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Previously, I had written:

 >>>>Never mind
 >>>>the camera original versus print argument; Santilli _thought_ he had
 >>>>camera original footage, therefore he had no reason to _not_ have it
 >>>>tested and looked at by someone like Bob Shell or Kodak.

 >Neil replied:

 >>I believe Bob's position is little changed from Oct 95, Volker
 >>at that time already had possession of all the footage and Ray
 >>was unable to have him relinquish any for further testing, also
 >>by this time Kodak were becoming ultra careful and were
 >>demanding a minimum of 50 frames to test, they also required a
 >>complete reel of film be brought to their offices and the said
 >>50 frames be seen to be part of the stock containing images of
 >>the autopsy body, just to cover their backside and
 >>understandable considering the publicity any dating would
 >>generate. Bob at this time had gone as far as he could with the
 >>information and samples he had access to and had become very
 >>frustrated by Volker's intransigence. The samples he had _were_
 >>genuine pre 1956/7 safety stock and the original negative stock
 >>from which it was made was dated 1947, 3 Kodak offices including
 >>Rochester NY confirmed the symbol dating in writing.

 >Hi, Neil!

 >Well, something is amiss, here. You maintain that testing proved
 >the film to be negative stock. However, note the following post
 >from Bob Shell:

 >>From: Bob Shell <bob@bobshell.com>
 >>Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 10:43:20 -0400 (EDT)
 >>Fwd Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 14:11:47 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: Roswell 'Alien Autopsy' Film Junk

 >>Bull!  This film was REVERSAL processed, and this is far more
 >>likely to produce an overexposed look than an underexposed look.

 >So which is it? Was it reversal film or negative film? Or was it
 >negative film that was reversal processed? And so what if Kodak
 >wanted 50 frames (about 2 seconds worth) of the footage for
 >testing? All Kodak wanted was to see that the alien image
 >existed within the same continuous piece of film. The testing
 >could then be done on the head or tail of that film; no damage
 >to the alien image would even be necessary. If Santilli and
 >company were so dead set on verifying the image, then why _not_
 >agree to Kodak's terms? There really is no logical reason,
 >unless Santilli and Volker already knew the film was suspect.


Roger,

The spectroscopic testing indicated the safty PRINT film base
was just that Kodak Saft Print film base, nothing to do with how
it was processed. The 47 symbol markings were those captured in
the image COPIED onto the safty print film.

Your snip of Bob's post is so severe it does not allow one to
identify just _what_ piece of film he's refering to. Ray
identified his "job lot" as 20 reels safty print, 1 neg and 1
reel of scraps, whatever they were.

Neil.

--
*        *         *         *         *         *         *         *
Neil Morris.       /101101101 Virtual Bumper Stickers Inc 10110101010\
Dept of Physics.   1                                                 1
Univ of Manchester 0                                                 0
Schuster Labs.     1  Computer Programmers DO IT with BITS of BYTES  1
Brunswick St.      0                                                 0
Manchester.        1                                                 1
M13.9PL.  UK.      \0101010110010110110010110101101011011110101011010/

                    Radio Callsign G8KOQ
                E-mail: neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk
          Public PGP Key available at www.keyserve.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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 21

                         Re: AA Film Redux - Morris

From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 16:03:50 +0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 18:50:09 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Morris


 >Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:34:33 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >>Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 13:26:47 +0000
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Morris

 >>>Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 11:15:16 -0600
 >>>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Previously, Neil wrote:

 >>Ray said all along he bought 20 reels of _safety_print_ out of
 >>22 reels total.

 >This is not true. Note the following post from Bob Shell:

 >>From: Bob Shell <bob@bobshell.com>
 >>Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 14:02:52 +0000
 >>Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 16:34:08 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Santilli Knew 'Tent Footage' Was a Fraud?

 >>AFTER we proved to Santilli that it was copy film he asked the
 >>cameraman and he said something like "of course it is copy film,
 >>I made the copies myself on the printer at the base lab."
 >>Whether Ray has tried to get recourse for the deception I do not
 >>know.

 >Santilli has not said "all along" that he had print film. He
 >originally thought he had camera original and only learned that
 >it was print film when Bob proved it to him.

Well Ray _is_ on record in mid/late 1995 (don't have my archive to
hand) as saying 20 reels safty print, 1 reel neg and 1 reel scraps.

The "neg" could have been camera original. But dosn't _safty_print_
shout at you it's a _print_ and _not_ original?.

And what _date_ context is Bob Shell refering back to here?.

<snip>

 >
 >>>Perhaps Santilli
 >>>did not create the AA footage. Who knows? Certainly he knows
 >>>that the footage is not authentic in the "alien" sense of the
 >>>word.

 >Neil replied:

 >>No it's _definitely_ on Kodak stock.

 >I haven't got a clue what that means in regard to this
 >discussion.

Roger it's called humour, British humour though...

Neil.

--
*        *         *         *         *         *         *         *
Neil Morris.       /101101101 Virtual Bumper Stickers Inc 10110101010\
Dept of Physics.   1                                                 1
Univ of Manchester 0                                                 0
Schuster Labs.     1  Computer Programmers DO IT with BITS of BYTES  1
Brunswick St.      0                                                 0
Manchester.        1                                                 1
M13.9PL.  UK.      \0101010110010110110010110101101011011110101011010/

                    Radio Callsign G8KOQ
                E-mail: neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk
          Public PGP Key available at www.keyserve.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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 21

                         Re: AA Film Redux - Morris

From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 16:29:11 +0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 18:51:47 -0500
Subject: Re:  AA Film Redux - Morris


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:46:58 EST
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Evans
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:22:08 -0600
 >>From: Roger Annette Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >>>Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 13:02:38 +0000
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Morris

 >>So which is it? Was it reversal film or negative film? Or was it
 >>negative film that was reversal processed?

 >Which had been copied onto something which was older? Does this
 >suggest that the "original film" ain't?


Bob,

Not quite right...

Identified type of tested stock was _not_ produced after 1956.

The film footage that held the images that were _printed_ on this
defunct stock, held the date symbol marks for 1947.

 >Clear skies,


Not at the moment

Neil.

--
*        *         *         *         *         *         *         *
Neil Morris.       /101101101 Virtual Bumper Stickers Inc 10110101010\
Dept of Physics.   1                                                 1
Univ of Manchester 0                                                 0
Schuster Labs.     1  Computer Programmers DO IT with BITS of BYTES  1
Brunswick St.      0                                                 0
Manchester.        1                                                 1
M13.9PL.  UK.      \0101010110010110110010110101101011011110101011010/

                    Radio Callsign G8KOQ
                E-mail: neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk
          Public PGP Key available at www.keyserve.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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 21

                  Re: Credibility and Credo Mutwa - Sandow

From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 11:37:32 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 22:31:54 -0500
Subject: Re: Credibility and Credo Mutwa - Sandow


 >From: Chris Aubeck <caubeck@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: UFO UpDate: Credibility and Credo Mutwa
 >Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 15:58:03 -0000

 >I have been researching African folklore in connection with
 >CE-IIIs and CE-IVs, and have come upon a wealth of new and old
 >material. However, I have been having some difficulty validating
 >many of South African philosopher/healer/guru Credo Mutwa's
 >claims.

 >I can verify a few of his stories about African belief but many
 >of them seem (seem, but I am not accusing him of anything just
 >yet) of his own invention. What Mack mentions in 'Passport to the
 >Cosmos' is just the tip of an iceberg that stands quite Way Out.

Chris,

Keep up the good work!

When I read John Mack's "Passport to the Cosmos," I also was
curious about these claims. I went on the Web, and searched for
the name Mutwa gives to the gray beings. The only references I
found were to Mutwa himself, and the writing about him. A Web
search, of course, isn't any kind of final test, but still it
seemed as if anthropologists hadn't heard of any of this.

I hope you find more sources, and I'll be very curious to know
what else you uncover. It goes without saying, I hope, that John
should have included a larger anthropological perspective in his
book.

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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 21

                           Re: Lakenheath - Bruni

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 17:12:53 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 22:34:23 -0500
Subject: Re: Lakenheath - Bruni


 >From: Dave Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Lakenheath
 >Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 19:26:39 -0000

 >Well for starters the respectable French journalist Bernard
 >Thounal made a most basic error, which you repeated. Your book
 >(pg 367) provides what you say are the names of the "RAF pilots"
 >involved in the Lakenheath interception. The names are in fact
 >the names of two navigators! They were highly amused when I
 >showed them your book, but no doubt you could get the mistake
 >rectified in the next edition.

Dave

Bernard Thounal is not responsible for the error, he has since
assured me that the names were in fact those of the navigators,
although I cannot find that information in my files. So Bernard
_does_ have the proper information and it is clearly my mistake
and I'm not afraid to say so. It was a very last minute
inclusion in a chapter on "More Strange Encounters". As I have
repeatedly made clear, I have not investigated the Lakenheath
case.

 >You are totally right that the hastily filmed interview with two
 >of the men outside RAF Lakenheath didn't prove anything, but so
 >what? You obviously felt it was worth using as a basis for your
 >innacurate summary of the case!

I didn't use any of that information in the book because Jenny
was not offering anything to support it at the time.

 >I accept you did not investigate the case - just relied on
 >second and third hand evidence, just like everyone else who has
 >launched into print on this one. Which was precisely the point I
 >was making!

I used the report filed by Captain Holt, which is all anybody
had to go on. I admit I used the word pilot instead of navigator
when discussing the RAF.

 >While you're here you might remember a review of a book called
 >"The UFOs that Never Were" where a certain Georgina Bruni
 >picked out a list of factual errors allegedly made by one of the
 >authors in the Rendlesham chapter. Your take was that because
 >some basic errors had been made, this meant that you could
 >safely dipense with taking anything in the other chapters
 >seriously.

I believe I credited you for your research but that I had no
knowledge of the cases you were proving to be non events. I was
however, knowledgeable on the Rendlesham case and therefore was
able to point out the errors in Jenny's chapter on that
particular case.

 >Applying your own argument can we safely dismiss the contents of
 >"You Can't Tell the People" on the basis of the errors above?

You can do whatever you like.

 >So the best you can say for your much-promised and much- hyped
 >tome is that it proves that the objects still remain UFOs? Well,
 >even if I agreed - which I don't - that hardly amounts to very
 >much does it?

 >UFOs can be just about anything.

You know that all this is just being silly. I have proved that
it was not many things, including man made. I have proved that
it was a UFO. Now, if I could prove where it came from, it would
make history because no researcher or witness for that matter
has that proof.

 >I was hoping that one of the serious newspapers might take up the
 >story, and finally put someone in the know on the spot. But the
 >fact that only the News of the World and GMTV seem to have paid
 >it any attention just goes to show that, as I said, it takes the
 >case no further and proves _nothing_.

For a journalist you are not very well informed. My book has had
plenty of publicity. I was happy to go with The News of The
World for serial because they are Britain's biggest selling
Sunday newspaper and as a result of that my book went into
second re-print before publication date. Scotland's best selling
newspaper "The Glasgow Herald" featured a good story and the
East Anglian papers (where the incident took place) are still
running stories relating to the book. On top of that Publishing
Weekly have featured a story, even gave it "star ratings", The
broadsheet "Independent" have covered it _twice_ and I have done
dozens of radio shows in the UK and abroad. The James Whale
popular nightly show repeated in the morning show several times.
I did Big Breakfast TV which put the book into third print one
week after publication. There was a double page spread in an
American tabloid which sold plenty of books in the US. I also
did the Sky TV book show that went around the world and had
repeats as well as Relax With A Book and a NOW TV show that was
shown around the world. The book has been used by two producers
and will be featured in TV documentaries later this year. I
could go on but I think you get the message.

As for not taking the case further, please note that for the
historical records, eleven Questions were put to the House of
Lords by Lord Hill-Norton regarding my book. These are now
logged in the Hansard records. I assure you that my book has
been taken very seriously indeed by Defence Ministers. What the
book has done is bring it to the attention of government figures
who are clearly misinformed on this whole subject. So you are
again wrong.

 >That's just my opinion, and no I haven't investigated the case and
 >I think its gone beyond any kind of objective investigation now, too
 >many egos, lecture tours, belief systems and bank balances stand in
 >the way of clarity.

One is obliged to do lecture tours if ones book is popular, and
who ever told you there is money to made in ufology?

 >Despite the above, I really enjoyed your book, it was very well
 >written unlike hundreds of other tomes with  silvery saucers on
 >the front which grace the bookshelves. But being a good read
 >does not mean to say I have to agree with your conclusions.
 >You promised that when the book was published it would put to
 >bed the "lighthouse" theory after all. It has not done so, in my
 >opinion.

Well, it has! It's just that the lighthouse club have totally
ignored the book and are still working with old material. This,
has I have explained before, is because my book demolishes the
lighthouse theory and rabbit sratchings etc and they just cannot
except it.

 >Neither do I think that Ian Ridpath will be rushing to Chelsea to
 >make that gentlemanly apology either.

Actually, it's Knightsbridge!

 >In fact, the most important piece of evidence in the whole book
 >in my opinion is the letter from Inspector Mike Topliss of the
 >Suffolk Constabulary, who put the whole thing in perspective as
 >only a local copper could.

Well, Mike's information was based on Dave King's evidence for
the most part and Dave has had second thoughts. Mike was obliged
to write that letter as it was written on Suffolk Constabulary
headed paper. Now, did you read his own personal account of his
encounter with an unidentified in Suffolk? Isn't it always the
case, that you guys only ever see the side of the story that
suits you! And here we have a police inspector talking about his
UFO encounter!

 >I was hoping for some conclusive proof, but what do we get?
 >Gordon Williams and Donald Moreland say absolutely nothing that
 >we didn't already know - and just underlines the fact that no
 >one "in the know" took the case seriously in the first place.
 >But you can safely ignore my rantings, as I'm sure you will
 >anyway.

This is absolutely not true!

The fact that I managed to talk to Williams was indeed a
breakthrough because for twenty years nobody had ever done that,
so everything was speculation, such as being accused of
communicating with aliens, which was not the case. Williams was
not involved in the actual encounter so he cannot be a witness
to that. However, I think my chapter on the Wing Commander, the
man who after all, was in charge of the bases at the time,
brings new light to the case. There is also a good deal of
constructive information on Moreland. Not only did my interviews
with him, result in obtaining his covering letter to the MOD,
entitled "Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs)" but also proved
that Halt actually approached him a week earlier than first
known, plus much more valuable information. So you are being
silly to think there was nothing new involved here.


Best wishes
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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 21

                        Re: AA Film Redux - Bourdais

From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 13:27:13 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 22:43:59 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Bourdais


 >Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 18:37:04 -0800 (PST)
 >From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Evans
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 11:15:16 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 ><snip>

 >>Perhaps Santilli did not create the AA footage. Who knows?
 >>Certainly he knows that the footage is not authentic in the
 >>"alien" sense of the word.

 >I don't think Santilli produced the "real" autopsy. He might not
 >even know exactly where it originated. That said, it's almost
 >without doubt a fake. What surprises me is that no one's taken
 >credit for it yet! There's really no more "big money" to be made
 >in AA videotapes, is there?  I had the impression the public
 >fascination with the tape ended in '96 (at the latest).

 >I propose this was done by someone (not necessarily the U.S.
 >government) as a sociological experiment, in which case the
 >footage may very well have been making limited rounds within the
 >military complex for a while as part of a psychological study of
 >some kind.

Your proposition is interesting, but it seems to raise new
problems of its own. The scenario looks even more bizarre than
the one of a direct fabrication by secret services. It's hard to
imagine who this "someone" could be: a research institute of
some kind? If they did it for the military, then we are back to
the previous scenario. If they did not, what was doing their
film in the USAF archives according to Captain McAndrews? And
how did it arrive in the hands of a small British music producer?

Now, again, we must remain aware that there is no final proof,
either that the film is authentic or a fabrication. Although
there are plenty of arguments for the second solution. It also
might be a fabrication very close to the truth. What about
adding a finger or two to a real alien body, and shooting
clumsily on purpose? Just an exemple of what clever hoaxers
might do. This would fit to my suggestion of a military hoax.

All this reminds me that, at the preview in London on May 5th, I
noticed that, after the screening when everybody was still
discussing while leaving the room, a man was looking at us with
great attention, obviously studying closely the reactions of the
people gathered there.

Yes, it looked like a sort of sociological experiment. Who was
behind it?

The debate remains open, it seems to me.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 21

                         Re: Clark vs Evans - Jones

From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 19:53:51 +0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 22:46:34 -0500
Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans - Jones


Being that I am a persistent son of a bartender, I would like to
post this again and ask the not so humble Andy Roberts if he
could take the time to answer my questions.

Regards,
Sean

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

Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 21:49:14 +0000
To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans


 >From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Clark vs Evans
 >Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 20:29:06 -0000

 >Sean, for some bizarre reason, resurrected the following post
 >from me:

Obviously you did not notice my mention of catching up with my
back log of posts.

 >>Andy Roberts said:

 >>All UFOs are IFOs in waiting.

 >>Now at first this really annoyed me.

 >Good.

 >>But then as I followed the
 >>rest of the post's to this thread it amused me.

 >Even better.
 >Two sensations for the price of one.
 >Normally I'd charge extra, but as I'm doing missionary
 >work among the hard of thinking.....

Damn you are just so magnanimous.

 >>It struck me as rather big headed of Andy to say this. I almost
 >>heard echo's of boastfulness, something along the lines of "give
 >>me just one chance and I can explain _every_ UFO sighting in the
 >>world" being uttered from the person who claims to be a skeptic.

 >I'm sure Jerry C would point out that the plural
 >of echo does not have a 's'.

You are right, it should have been echoes. But you didn't deny
the accusation though, did you.

 >>You state All UFOs are IFOs in waiting. If a UFO remains
 >>Unexplained after many years of investigation by different
 >>people using many different investigation techniques, how long
 >>would it have to remain unexplained before you will accept that
 >>it is unexplained? Or put another way. How long does a UFO
 >>have to remain unexplained before you will accept that it will
 >>not become an IFO?

 >Sean, Sean, Sean. I've had a long day at the rock face of
 >homelessnes in Halifax, dealing with issues which actually
 >affect people in reality so you'll forgive me if I find it hard
 >to take your pedantry seriously. But just for you I'll explain
 >again.

By golly, you sound so hard done by, do you not think that we
southerners earn a hard crust either?

 >It doesn't matter how long a case remained 'unidentified' (ie a
 >'UFO') it is _always_ an IFO in waiting. Simply because whatever
 >is seen _must_ be _something_. 'UFOs' are not seen - they are
 >just the name we give to something we cannot (yet) identify.
 >Have you been asleep for the past fifty years Sean or what? The
 >fact that we may not be able to resolve cases this week, last
 >week, or for six hundred years four months and three days
 >doesn't imply anything more or less exotic lies behind the
 >'UFO'. It just means it hasn't been identified yet.

OK since you state, quite clearly in this passage that _all_
UFOs are IFOs in waiting and your reasoning behind it. Could you
accept that a _possible_ answer to the riddle of _some_ UFOs is
that they _might_ be an alien spacecraft?

 >>We have on record several cases that are unexplained after a
 >>full generation have passed. As you folklorist's know a
 >>generation is considered to be fifty years, and we still have
 >>sightings from 1947 unexplained. I'm sorry but the pelican
 >>theory really does not hold water.

 >Yes?

 >&?

 >So?

So my dear chap, I was adding emphasis on the duration of time
that some UFOs have remained UFOs.

 >By some form of strange printed thinking Sean you seem to be
 >saying that if something remains unexplained for a long time it
 >gets automatically elevated to exotic status. The length of time
 >something remains unexplained does not alter anything about the
 >real nature of the object/misperception/ whatever which is the
 >cause of the sighting. And that would apply whether the initial
 >stimulus was Zog from Zorg or the five-fifteen Pelican coming in
 >from the Cascades.

Not knowing Zog personally, or any pelicans, I would have to ask
how can you say that I have "some form of strange printed
thinking"? I mean what is "some form of strange printed
thinking"?

 >>So tell me Andy, how old would a UFO tale have to be before you
 >>considered it to be a _genuine_ UFO? BTW to help you out, I'll
 >>already agree with you that not _all_ UFO's are from Zeta
 >>Reticuli.

 >See above.

 >And how do you know anyway?

Andy, Andy, Andy, You poor, poor soul. I _know_ not all UFOs are
from Zeta Reticuli because I have done just a weeny bit of
research into UFOs - or did you miss my article in the UK's UFO
Magazine called "101 Possible Explanations for UFOs" a few years
back?

--

    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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 21

                    Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Roberts

From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 19:57:21 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 22:49:34 -0500
Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Roberts


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment
 >Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 18:51:51 -0600

Y'all,

As usual, instead of discussing the facts of the case (in this
case Lakenheath, as raised by Jenny and Dave, or of any case -
as usual) Jerry chooses to rant and rave to to end other than to
score points.

Jerry wrote, concerning Rendlesham and what I have written about
it:

 >And, as I've had occasion to note, they are sufficient to raise
 >grave questions about your objectivity, not to mention your
 >maturity.

Now then Jerry. As a test of your honesty tell me what it was I
wrote which you disagreed with.

 >Unlike you, I have no emotional commitment to the case, one way
 >or another.

Jerry, in my observations of you over the years it has become
increasingly apparent that you are emotioannly attached to any
'classic' case which retains its 'UFO' status. A fact borne out
by your constant refusual to actually discuss or challenge any
contrary evidence. The recent posts by Jenny and Dave on
Lakenheath have taken this to a new level I'm afraid.

 >And you can also count on a camel's passing through the eye of a
 >needle before Andy Roberts starts acting like a mature,
 >balanced, unbiased investigator and speaking accordingly.

Thanks for the analysis - on the Myers-Briggs scale I'm a ESTJ,
an excellent type for a UFO investigator. However it hardly
matters who is what as long as they come up with the underlying
facts behind a case.

 >I am
 >relieved, however, that my friend Jenny Randles, whom I trust
 >and respect (and who, needless to say, has not conducted herself
 >as Andy has), is there to provide some adult supervision.

So, which bits of the Lakenheath evidence are you going to
accept Jerry. You appear to be confused. Is it anything Jenny
has solely discovered or maybe Jenny and Dave but not me? Please
be more specific because you've got me baffled. It's the
evidence which counts not the personalities and I see seldom
little evidence for anything emanting from the Canby
Hair-Splitting Boutique (which I suspect will be out of machines
by 2002).


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 21

                       Re: The Halt Questions - Bruni

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 20:00:07 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 22:51:17 -0500
Subject: Re: The Halt Questions - Bruni


 >Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:42:03 +0000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >Subject: The Halt Questions

 >7. In a recent book, 'You Can't Tell the People', by Georgina
 >Bruni, it's claimed those witness statements are 'not authentic'
 >and/or were 'tampered with' by the 'Men In Black'. Apparently
 >the reasoning is that the lighthouse surely wouldn't have fooled
 >anyone. It unquestionably did, so far as BC&P are concerned -
 >Burroughs has recently confirmed that to me.

Actually, it was Cabansag and Penniston who said they did not
type those statements. Nobody said they were tampered with by
Men in Black!

 >It's further alleged by Bruni that you have never released all
 >of the microcassette recording because it was too 'sensitive'
 >and the 'world wasn't ready for it', etc.

I did not write any such thing! Charles Halt did not say why I
would never hear the tapes, so you have exaggerated here too.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 21

                           Re: Lakenheath - Bruni

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 20:00:09 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 22:53:11 -0500
Subject: Re: Lakenheath - Bruni


 >From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >To: <Updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Lakenheath
 >Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:56:37 -0000

Jenny, I wish you every success with your research on the
Lakenheath case, but must correct you on a few points.

 >I got an almost completely negative response
 >from several quarters - such as Georgina Bruni - who claimed
 >that her reading of what the air crew said on TV differed from
 >my own. Even though I had been there and spent hours with the
 >air crew and she saw a brief extract on TV.

I have the BBC tape of your interview with the crew and there is
nothing on it that implies they did not see anything. You then
claimed this was only a fraction of the interview but refused to
supply anybody with the full version. So we were none the wiser.

 >And Georgina's book a year later further suggested that this new
 >version wasn't being listened to properly.

It makes no such suggestion. How could I include your new version
when you failed to offer it?


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 21

                 Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Stacy

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 16:06:41 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 22:56:19 -0500
Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Stacy


 >From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:07:47 -0400

<snip>

 >Secrets can be kept.


 >Stanton Friedman


Sure they can!

Just ask Win Ho Lee, Pollard, Aymes and, most recently, Robert
Hansen, or Los Alamos labs, the CIA and FBI, respectively. (Not
sure about the spelling of individuals' names or the exact
agency Pollard betrayed.)

And don't forget, there were only 15 copies of the Pentagon
Papers. Somehow, one of them made its way to the NY Times.
Curious, no?

Guess what you meant to say was somethinhg along the lines of:

"Some secrets can be held for some length of time. But UFO
secrets are (somehow) held sacrosanct forever."

But then you probably think MJ-12 was a security leak. But not
the Corso book. Or the alien autopsy film.

So, what UFO secrets, exactly, are being withheld?

Do we have bodies on ice somewhere that I don't know about?
Recovered wreckage? Classified radar returns? Pictures? DNA
samples of alien abductors? What?

Secrets are sold out every day of the year, for reasons ranging
from the purely philosophical/ideological to those of simple
crass commercialism.

Just what is it, exactly, that renders so-called UFO secrets
immune to human nature?


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 21

             Re: Feel Like A Bag O'Dirt - Roswell Dirt? - Aubeck

From: Chris Aubeck <caubeck@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 22:18:44 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 22:57:57 -0500
Subject: Re: Feel Like A Bag O'Dirt - Roswell Dirt? - Aubeck


 >From: Bob Young  <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 00:48:33 EST
 >Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:33:39 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Feel Like A Bag O'Dirt - Roswell Dirt? - Young

 >>From: Tom Theofanous <theofa@idirect.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Feel Like A Bag O'Dirt - Roswell Dirt?
 >>Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 20:50:46 -0800

 >>Source: eBay

 >>http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=560070147

 >>1947 ROSWELL NM UFO CRASH SITE SOIL SAMPLE
 >>Item #560070147

 >>Collectibles: Science Fiction: General

 >>This auction has ended but the item has been relisted. Go to item
 >>now.

 >>Currently  $2.00
 >>First bid  $2.00
 >>Quantity 5
 >># of bids 4 bid history
 >>Time left Auction has ended.

 >Dirtbags.

 >Bob Young

Well, quite.

I seem to recall that you can get the same stuff entirely free
of charge from the bull ring near where I live. (Though maybe
it's not all from the bulls.)

Chris Aubeck








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 21

                                     Re:

From: Chris Aubeck <caubeck@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 22:50:31 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 22:59:56 -0500
Subject: Re:


 >From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@juno.com>
 >Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 13:24:23 -0500
 >Fwd Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:03:04 -0500
 >Subject: Argentina: Local Residents Terrified by "Imp"


 >Dear Readers,

 >For some reason, Argentina has been a perpetual source of
 >stories regarding diminutive entities best described as "imps".
 >Last year we featured stories on the police station that had to
 >be vacated after officers reported a small, nonhuman creature
 >walking into the premises. Hoaxes? Children playing pranks? You
 >be the judge.


 >Scott Corrales
 >Institute of Hispanic Ufology

<snip>

Hello Scott,

I have been collecting cases of what you translate as 'imps' for
a long time. What you say about Argentina being prone to
'duende' attacks is interesting for me because of incidents such
as the Las Hurdes case of 1907. Can you tell us of any more?

There is a definite Europe-South America correlation here which
does not cease to surprise me because of the time elapsed
between the last interesting European cases and the modern
Argentinian ones.

I'd be especially grateful if you could tell me whether:

1) many injuries/deaths have been involved

2) unidentified flying globes have accompanied the entities

3) there has been any interest from the Church

4) the cases known to you had a definite starting date (ie, the
    first case of a wave)

5) any of the 'imps' sighted were black or made a sound

6) the locals have popular names to denote such entities and 7)
    anyone has connected the entities with folklore from the
    region.


Thank you.

Chris Aubeck







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 21

                     Re: Religious Experiences - Aubeck

From: Chris Aubeck <caubeck@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 23:01:23 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 23:02:38 -0500
Subject: Re: Religious Experiences - Aubeck


 >From: Joaquim Fernandes <jfernan@esoterica.pt>
 >Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 12:39:55 +0100
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Religious Experiences


 >Dear List Members,

 >I am comparing some physical effects observed during the Fatima
 >apparitions 1917, considering the vast amount of original
 >documents we got here from the sanctuary files.

 >I am very curious to know if anyone have some data of physical
 >and physiological effects - buzzing or humming sounds,
 >temperature changes or images/words inside the head - registered
 >during and after the "contact" with a "vision" or "entity" of
 >any kind of religious culture outside the catholic background,
 >i.e. the 'Marianism' (from the Virgin Mary devotion).

 >We are promoting a scientific preview before design an
 >International Conference to discuss all the objective aspects
 >and dimensions of the so-called "marian apparitions".

 >Thank you for your co-operation.

 >Joaquim Fernandes
 >University Fernando Pessoa
 >Porto
 >Portugal


Hello Joaquim,

I realise this comes rather late, but I have been following the
issue of Fatima very closely for a few years and have read all I
can about this in English, Portuguese and Spanish. I am
interested in the Fatima event and in incidents from the same
period (season, month and year) and incidents where similar
phenomena were experienced.

If you are still interested, please contact me. I live in
Madrid.

Chris Aubeck








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 21

                          Secrecy News -- 02/21/01

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@igc.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 17:16:13 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 23:04:38 -0500
Subject: Secrecy News -- 02/21/01


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
February 21, 2001

**      FBI AFFIDAVIT ON ROBERT P. HANSSEN
**      CORPORATE AND INDUSTRIAL ESPIONAGE
**      IRAN BALLISTIC MISSILE PROGRAMS
**      FAITH-BASED MISSILE DEFENSE


FBI AFFIDAVIT ON ROBERT P. HANSSEN

If the FBI's counterintelligence program is in sad shape, at
least the Bureau's public affairs staff is functioning well.

Following the announcement yesterday of the arrest of FBI
counterintelligence official Robert Philip Hanssen on suspicion
of espionage, the FBI did an outstanding job of providing
information about the case to the press and the general public.

The 100-odd page FBI affidavit outlining the evidence against
Mr. Hanssen is a fascinating account of the case and itself a
valuable addition to the literature of espionage.

The affidavit is widely available, on the FBI web site and
elsewhere, in PDF format.  An HTML version of the document,
which may be easier for some readers to access, is posted here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/ops/ci/hanssen_affidavit.html


CORPORATE AND INDUSTRIAL ESPIONAGE

The transcript of a Congressional hearing on "Corporate and
Industrial Espionage and Their Effects on American
Competitiveness" was published this week.

The rather perfunctory hearing was held on September 13, 2000
before a subcommittee on the House International Relations
Committee.

The transcript is posted here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2000_hr/hr_091300.html


IRAN BALLISTIC MISSILE PROGRAMS

Another, somewhat more substantive hearing transcript was also
published this week on "Iran's Ballistic Missile and Weapons of
Mass Destruction Program."

"Iran has very active missile and weapon of mass destruction
development programs, and is seeking foreign missile, chemical,
biological, and nuclear technologies," according to Robert
Walpole of the National Intelligence Council, who was one of the
witnesses.

This hearing was held on September 21, 2000 before a
subcommittee of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee.  The
transcript is posted here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2000_hr/hr_092100.html


FAITH-BASED MISSILE DEFENSE

"Bush Unveils Faith-Based Missile Defense" is the title of a
humorous article by Gregg Easterbrook that appears in today's
issue of the online magazine Slate.

The article may be found here:

http://slate.msn.com/Features/faith/faith.asp

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

To subscribe to Secrecy News, send email to <majordomo@fas.org>
with this command in the body of the message: subscribe
secrecy_news [your email address]

To unsubscribe, send email to <majordomo@fas.org> with this
command in the body of the message: unsubscribe secrecy_news
[your email address]

Secrecy News is archived at:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/index.html


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







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 21

                  Re: Dec 1950 Crash & Willingham - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 19:04:20 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 23:14:19 -0500
Subject: Re: Dec 1950 Crash & Willingham - Sparks


 >Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 00:54:21 -0500
 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Re: Dec 1950 Crash & Willingham
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>


 >>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 01:17:29 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Dec 1950 Crash & Willingham
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

 >In my MUFON symposium paper on the ImmediateHigh Alert I wrote:

 >"There is a discrepancy in Willinghams 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."

 >There were radars before there were 'air defense radars'. Had
 >there been no previously existing radars there would have been
 >nothing to tie together or 'lash-up' in order to create the
 >'Lashup' system of air defense radars.

 >The real question is how many Air Force or Army Air force bases
 >had search radar sets?

 >Search radars were capable of 150-200 mile range. Perhaps the
 >base history from about 1940 onward would provide information on
 >when the first radar sets were installed at any particular
 >army/air force base.


Hi Bruce,

The LASHUP network was set up as a desperate emergency measure
by the new Air Defense Command in 1950 to provide radar coverage
that did not previously exist. Your effort to suggest that there
were radars there previously just because of the name "Lashup"
ignores the actual history. I have found no evidence there were
any "pre-existing radars" in the relevant regions of the U.S.
suddenly "designated" as air defense radars (I don't want to
waste time looking for such in other areas such as the East
Coast).

Good search radars had a range of about 150 miles (such as the
CPS-6). But not the typical search radars with ranges closer to
about 100 miles (e.g., the early 138-mile TPS-1B). Even the
later DEW Line's FPS-19 search radars only had a range of 185
miles -- and these of course are _design_ ranges not actual
operational ranges which could be much less. You need to get
actual data not speculation. I presented actual data and there
were _no_ radars in 1950 that could have tracked the UFO as
claimed by Willingham from Washington State to Colorado where a
purported 90-degree turn south took it over Texas where it was
tracked by "radar" descending and crashing over the Mexican
border (never mind that an actual "90-degree turn" would take it
over New Mexico, not Texas, so there's another discrepancy in
the Willingham story already shot full of holes, it would have
been more like a 45-degree turn; I've seen another version where
the turn was alleged over Texas, etc.).

Furthermore, a glance at a map would show that the alleged UFO
coming down almost due south over or near Amarillo then Lubbock
before crashing near Del Rio, Tex., would have barely skirted
the westernmost extreme range of any purported radar 140 miles
away in San Antonio (you mention Kelly/Brooks/Randolph AFB's).
It would have been _beyond_ range of the 138-mile TPS-1B. It is
extremely unlikely it would even have been detected at all at
such a glancing course. Because of the earth's curvature and
the problem of aiming radar beams above ground clutter, search
radars generally covered only down to about 1-degree above the
horizon, meaning that a UFO near Del Rio would have been lost
below about 25,000 feet for the brief few seconds it could have
come within range of a hypothetical but apparently nonexistent
search radar in San Antonio.

But of course the search radar was _not_ a _height-finding_
radar so the hypothetical search radar operators in San Antonio
could not possibly have known that the UFO was descending and
crashing over the Mexican border. The TPS-10 height-finder
radar of that era had a "reliable range" of only 70 miles for
large bombers, or only half way to Del Rio from San Antonio.

The first operational air defense radars in west Texas were
apparently at Lackland AFB, San Antonio, in April 1952 as ADC
site P-75. But the problem of Del Rio being way out of range
still applies. There was an ADC site M-89 at Sweetwater AFS not
far from Dyess AFB but it did not become operational until 1956.
The alleged UFO track would have come down about 60-80 miles
west of the future site.

Or how about this solution: Delete Willingham's story of a
90-degree turn. Just have the UFO follow a simple straight-line
path from Washington State, perhaps missing Colorado entirely,
but going almost straight over Roswell's Walker AFB where an air
defense search radar (a CPS-5) _may_ have become operational in
time for the alleged incident (it was sometime in Dec 1950 but
not known if online by the 6th, it was known as site L-46 for
LASHUP-46). But even so the radar would have lost the UFO near
the Texas border still more than 200 miles from Del Rio with no
conceivable radar coverage anywhere in existence to see it
continue on and purportedly fall and crash over into Mexico --
nearly 400 miles from Roswell/Walker AFB thus long out of range
and well below the earth's curvature so it would have to be at
nearly 200,000 feet altitude to be visible on radar at Walker.
But with no height-finder, Walker's radar could not even have
known if the alleged UFO was ascending or descending or
maintaining altitude or what. Walker AFB radar could not
possibly have projected or observed a crash into Mexico.

Another point I didn't make earlier is that ADC did not
establish an _integrated_ network of communications and control
centers until late 1952 when Air Defense Direction Centers
(ADDC's) were established in each Air Defense Region of North
America. This was a predecessor of NORAD (which was established
in Sept 1957 so please don't keep dragging that into the story).
Without such an integrated command and control system long
delays could occur before news of an impending attack or
intrusion into air space could be reported. We've seen such
delays in the Dec 6, 1950, and April 16-17, 1952, unidentified
aircraft incidents.

Until such networks were set up it would have been difficult for
ADC to coordinate radar tracking data in Washington State and
transmit it along to succeeding radar sites alerting them of the
intruding radar target and its projected course, as claimed by
Willingham. Apparently the procedure was not to call up other
radar sites but to call up CONAC/ADC HQ in Mitchel Field, NY,
and tell duty officers there and they in turn would have to
alert the rudiments of what would later be called the National
Command Authority (JCS, SecDef, President, etc.) and then
someone would have to make a decision whether to alert other
radar sites and which ones, orders would have to go out from
CONAC/ADC HQ to the radar sites. (ADC was temporarily abolished
July 1, 1950-Jan 1, 1951, during the time of this alleged Dec
1950 incident.) Knowing how much such communications could be
screwed up and the delays involved, it was not a very
coordinated system, not until the Air Defense Direction Centers
were set up in late 1952.

"Faulty memory" about dates does not adequately explain the
absurdity of Willingham claiming an Arctic or sub-Arctic DEW
Line radar tracked the UFO over a 2,000-mile course from
Washington to Colorado to Texas to Mexico. The DEW Line was not
established in 1953. The DEW Line did not in fact _start_ to
become operational until 1955, was not fully operational till
July 31, 1957, and it never extended down out of the sub-Arctic
regions. If he was stationed in Texas in the 50's how could
Willingham even imagine that Texas or any part of the contiguous
U.S. was an Arctic "Distant Early Warning" region?

The only way I can see that Willingham's story can even be
_partially_ rehabilitated is if it is dated 1956 or later. Jeff
King's info is correct according to the official history on the
Dyess AFB website (http://www.dyess.af.mil/history/history.html)
which states that ground-breaking was on Sept 24, 1953, and the
base was finished on April 15, 1956, as Abilene AFB, renamed
Dyess AFB later that year. It took a $32 million appropriation
from Congress in July 1952 to get the base started. An earlier
Tye Army Air Field had been closed down at the end of WWII, and
a Texas National Guard training facility took over part of the
grounds but there is no indication it was _Air_ National Guard
(if it was then you'll have to put Willingham into the TANG
instead of the USAF and his story starts to resemble Ronald
Brooks' admitted hoax story more and more).

Just so we're clear on Dyess AFB's history of nonexistence in
1950 let me reprint part of the official history from the Dyess
AFB officail website (see below, at the end).

But if you redate Willingham's dubious account to 1956 or later
you'll have to give up the Dec 1950 connection.

Brad

FROM: http://www.dyess.af.mil/history/history.html

"World War II saw the blossoming of "tent camps" throughout the
United States and Abilene was no exception. Camp Barkeley, a few
miles south of Abilene, became an Army infantry training camp
for thousands of recruits. Army inductees were trained for
various duties while there.

"Army Air Corps cadets learned to fly trainers and P-47
Thunderbolt fighters while stationed at Tye Army Air Field, a
Camp Barkeley adjunct. When both installations were closed at
the end of WW II, the deed to Tye Army Air Field was sold to
Abilene for $1. Fifteen hundred acres of the former Army Air
Field were used by the Texas National Guard as a training
facility.

"Following the outbreak of the Korean crisis, Abilenians called
for a military installation. Armed with 1,500 acres and
determination, civic leaders besieged Washington, DC and
Pentagon officials with their request for a military
installation. Proving beyond a shadow of a doubt they meant
business, Abilenians raised $893,000 to purchase an additional
3,500 acres to provide a home for the military base they hoped
would be in Abilene.

"Several prominent men were instrumental in convincing
authorities of the suitability of Abilene. Oliver Howard, the
late W.P. Wright Sr. and others worked in the city to promote
interest in the military facility. Together with Senator Lyndon
B. Johnson and Congressman Omar Burleson, civil leaders
persuaded military and civilian officials to put a military base
in Abilene. After letters and visits had been exchanged, the
Department of Defense announced in July 1952 Congress had
approved the $32,273,000 needed in appropriations for
constructing a base in Abilene.

"The local community was interested in providing for the Air
Force an exemplary relationship between the community and an Air
Force base. After initial ground-breaking ceremonies on Sept.
24, 1953, construction of the base progressed rapidly. The red
brick ranch-style architecture boasts a Texas influence
throughout the base. A unique feature of the base is all
buildings are permanent str uctures.

"Known as Abilene Air Force Base, the Strategic Air Command base
was dedicated by the city fathers at the end of Abilene's
Diamond Jubilee April 15, 1956. On Dec. 6 that same year, the
base was renamed Dyess AFB in honor of Lt. Col. William Edwin
Dyess."







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 21

                 Re: Are Some Skeptics Debunkers in Sheep's

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 00:05:35 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 23:17:52 -0500
Subject: Re: Are Some Skeptics Debunkers in Sheep's


 >Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 17:47:34 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Katharina Wilson <kwilson@alienjigsaw.com>
 >Subject: Re: Are Some Skeptics Debunkers in Sheep's Clothing?

 >It's worth mentioning an official letter from the Air Ministry,
 >addressed to Prime Minister Winston Churchill (August 1952) in
 >response to his request for information regarding flying
 >saucers, it states:

 >'The various reports about unidentified flying objects described
 >by the Press as "Flying Saucers", were the subject of a full
 >Intelligence study in 1951..'

 >Thank you for your email. I (and I'm sure Keith) was unaware of
 >this British study. I will let him know about it. (Perhaps we
 >should update the article.) Can you tell me when this letter was
 >made public?

Dear Katharina

Apologies I am just clearing out my e-mail box and realised I
didn't reply to your question of 18 January.

I can't recall when the letter was made public, I know it must
be in my files someplace. Maybe somebody on the List has that
information handy. If not, I'll try to get it for your. The
letter is in the Public Records Office.


Best wishes

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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 21

              Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Brookesmith

From: Mendoza - Peter Brookesmith <Mendoza@appleonline.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 01 00:25:53 +0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 23:29:52 -0500
Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Brookesmith


The Duke of Mendoza presents his compliments:

 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 16:41:32 -0000
 >Fwd Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 13:31:46 -0500
 >Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Hall

 >...my argument is strictly empirical. Theory be damned.

 >I am overwhelmed by your erudition. Yet, as an erstwhile
 >formal student of philosophy you seem to be arguing from
 >theory (deductively) rather than from data (inferentially).

I haven't seen your new book but I do have the first
version/edition of 'UFO Evidence'. I also wrote a book myself
that despite a misleading title imposed by the publisher did try
to give a chronological picture of the variety of UFO
sightings/phenomena/experiences from approx. the Year Dot to the
early 1990s. I am not particularly fond of this book, but I
think it succeeded in my intention for it. Looking over it today
I can see nothing in the data that supports the ETH. The case
histories boil down in the end to _stories_ that, if accepted as
they stand, perhaps do suggest some ET origin for their
stimulus. But the evidence itself does not. That is because
there is rarely if ever any evidence over & above the stories.

(In turn this is why the whinge that psychosocial critics of
ufologists are literary critics fails to bother me. Yes, I _am_
a literary critic, and sat at the feet of the greatest critic of
the last century to learn my trade. And ufology is a collection
of narratives, which are the province of literary critics.)

I was flattered, oddly enough, to have been taken to be a
philosopher by training: some of the toughest, most fearless &
resourceful characters I've known have turned out to have a PPE
degree up their sleeves. I never studied philosophy formally. I
do read, and even think about, philosophy for pleasure. I was
introduced to its delights by a fellow undergraduate of a long
blonde persuasion, and being able to discuss the Prolegomena to
the Critique of Pure Reason did help to pass the long winter
evenings in England's far, dark northern wastes. Hardly looked
back since, actually.

Back at the true point, I don't look at UFO evidence theory
first, data second. I look at the data and on occasion I wonder
"What could have caused that?". In very perplexing cases the ET
solution strikes me as no better than what are to my mind
equally improbable solutions: the descendants of exiles from
Atlantis, protean airborne amoebae, goblins and djinns, the
armies of Satan on the wing, a squadron of cosmic jokers,
Knights Templar in astral disguise out to wreak havoc & revenge
on the Pope - and so on.

 >As I see it the evidence strongly suggests an ET answer and
 >the "link" you call for is there to see if you study the total
 >picture.

Take the presumptive ETH out of the analysis and what do you
get? (Apart from an indication that you've been thinking
deductively all along.) The evidence just as strongly (actually,
more strongly, given the weaknesses of the ETH) suggests non-ETH
solutions, or no solutions at all as yet. Inexplicable does not
equal ET in any known form of logic outside the ufological
temple. As for the links, where are they in any particular case,
beyond the narrative boundary? Non existent.

If you are arguing, as many have before you, that 'taken as a
whole' the evidence points ETwards I'd still disagree.
Meta-analysis is only as strong as its weakest integer. No one
UFO case can show a decent set of linkages from available data
to ET visit. My standard is Philip Morrison's - "independent and
multiple chains of evidence, each capable of satisfying a
link-by-link test of meaning." I'm sure you know the text.
Morrison notes that neither the ETH nor any other explanation of
UFOs can show multiple chains of evidence or passes a
link-by-link test.

As I noted at the end of 'UFOs & Ufology' (still in print,
folks, step this way to amazon.com) there may indeed be _one_
UFO case (and all you need is one) in the thousands on record
that represents an ET visit. The difficulty is in deciding which
one.

So -- which one's you're money on?

best wishes
Palfreyman D. Montefiore
Very Black Horse

----------------------------------
"Never underestimate the power
of stupid people in large groups."
__________________________________






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 21

                  Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Brookesmith

From: Mendoza - Peter Brookesmith <Mendoza@appleonline.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 01 00:25:59 +0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 23:50:21 -0500
Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Brookesmith


The Duke of Mendoza presents his compliments:

 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 18:51:51 -0600
 >Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:22:39 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Clark

 >>From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment
 >>Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 18:43:18 -0000

In this exchange, we find Jerome giving Andy a bit of lip, as
follows:

 >I'm sorry that, from every indication betrayed by your
 >childish taunting and boasting, it appears you may not
 >possess the temperament that would give any objective
 >observer confidence in your abilities or conclusions. And
 >if you can't see that, if you can imagine a critic only as
 >a foolish or venal character -- a depised enemy -- whom you
 >have to trounce at all costs, you are in some serious
 >trouble.

As so often, one observes that this was written by the man who
is constantly on the qui vive for ad hominems from others, yet
this appears to be little more than ad hominem ranting -
patently derived from the traditional receipt, "Shoot the
messenger!" - calculated to induce jeering at the UFOIN findings
on the 1956 Lakenheath case, regardless of how brimming with
facts that may be.

Jerome warns Andy: "if you can imagine a critic only as a
foolish or venal character -- a depised enemy -- whom you have
to trounce at all costs, you are in some serious trouble."
Jerome should know, having got into trouble by taking such a
line himself. It remains an open question whether he has learned
anything from this experience, or whether he merely thinks he
can get away with similar ploys on the Internet. What am I
talking about? See beneath.

People, among them myself, have often remarked on Jerome�s
inability to read what other people have to say. What follows
has to be a locus classicus of that wild talent. Yet in 1995 or
so, he sent me the IUR editorial mentioned below with no hint
that it verged on libel and was grossly inaccurate; indeed, he
gave every indication of being proud of it. You may make of that
what you will.

best wishes
Parlezvous D. Montelimar
Sweet Lips

--------------------
"Never underestimate the power
of stupid people in large groups"
-------------------------------------------------------

http://members.aol.com/garypos/


 From the Summer 1993 Tampa Bay Skeptics Report

TBS Report editor depicts "believers"
as loathsome, schizophrenic -- or does he?
by Gary P. Posner, Editor

The "International UFO Reporter" is the bimonthly magazine of
the J. Allen Hynek Center for UFO Studies (CUFOS). Although the
other major pro-UFO organization in the country, the Mutual UFO
Network (MUFON), has a larger membership, CUFOS may be the more
highly regarded of the two, especially in light of MUFON's
continued endorsement of Ed Walters' discredited "Gulf Breeze
UFO" photographs.

IUR's editor, Jerome Clark (until recently also long-affiliated
with Fate magazine), is well-known for his harsh criticisms of
the organized skeptics movement and its leaders, most notably
Aviation Week & Space Technology reporter/editor and UFO expert
Philip Klass. But Clark outdid himself in his March/April 1992
IUR editorial about the Committee for the Scientific
Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), which
publishes the Skeptical Inquirer. Entitled "That's the way the
Committee crumbles," Clark's three-page piece included the
following remarks: 'CSICOP ... lacks in scientific seriousness
... (see, for [example], any of Philip J. Klass' books)....
Other CSICOP notables such as James Oberg ... [have] depict[ed]
us [ufologists] as cryptofascists (in UFOs and Outer Space
Mysteries [1981] Oberg compared UFO groups to the "bizarre[,]
irrational ... cults which preceded the fall of democratic
Germany in the 1920s") ... Gary P. Posner, an associate of Klass
[and] Oberg ... and a member of CSICOP's UFO Subcommittee, once
opined (Skeptical Inquirer, Winter 1978, page 79) that believers
in UFOs and other anomalous phenomena may be suffering from
"ambulatory schizophrenia." For CSICOP it is not enough to say
that those with whom it disagrees are wrong. It must also depict
them as loathsome human beings.... [W]e have witnessed the
spectacle of an organization in many ways out of control, so far
gone into self-righteousness ... that it appears convinced those
who reject its rigid scientism are not only mistaken but
irrational, even evil.'

[...]

And now here is, as Paul Harvey would say, "The Rest of the
Story."


In the Spring 1978 Skeptical Inquirer, CSICOP chairman Paul
Kurtz had singled out some paranormalists as candidates for the
"Uri Award" for silliness and naivete in parapsychological
research (see pp. 90-94). One nominee had claimed the ability to
communicate with the dead by employing a venus flytrap as the
medium. Being a medical resident (and S.I. subscriber) at the
time, such bizarre claims aroused in me the suspicion that there
might be more going on than mere silliness or naivete -- perhaps
a medical condition not deserving of ridicule. I was thus
motivated to write a letter to the editor of S.I. which was
published in the Winter 1978 issue and which included the
following speculative hypothesis:

'[I]t is to this label of naivete that I address my remarks....
[While] making light of such persons by nominating them for a
"Uri Award" may seem appropriate, one is obligated to consider
the possibility that some of these people may be not merely
naive but, rather, afflicted with a thought disorder that
manifests in ... a faulty sense of reality. "Ambulatory
schizophrenia" is an entity in which the subject, generally free
of symptoms, develops them only under certain circumstances ...
It is my opinion that much of the irrational behavior of many [I
now wish I had said "some"] paranormalists may be more
compatible with a diagnosis of ambulatory schizophrenia (or a
close cousin thereof) than with mere naivete.... [A]s we
continue to encounter bizarre intellectual behavior ... [this]
possibility ... should be considered before bestowing a "Uri
Award" for silliness or naivete.'

Clark's first published reference to my letter (as far as I am
aware) was in his May/June 1985 IUR editorial, as an
illustration of how organized skepticism is a "Crackpot
Enterprise." Clark implied that my comments had been directed
toward innocent "believers in UFOs and other anomalies" (such as
his typical readers) rather than toward irrational
paranormalists. My best efforts to clarify the context of my
comments for Clark (including informing him of my own prior
belief in UFOs, the result of naivete rather than mental
illness) fell upon stubbornly deaf ears. And when it was made
clear to me that my corrective "Letter to the Editor" of IUR
would be followed by a Clark rejoinder accusing me of
insincerity, "deliberate obfuscation," and of having been
assigned some "function" or "role" as a "debunking party-liner,"
I withdrew the letter from publication.

Clark went a step further in his January 1990 "UFO Reporter"
column in Fate magazine. After again implying that my 1978
letter had pertained to mere "believers in UFOs and other
anomalies," Clark added, "In other words, if you disagree with
CSICOP's pronouncements on UFOs and other anomalies, you must be
nuts."

But his latest effort in IUR was the last straw. To make certain
that Clark did indeed consider me among those CSICOP members who
"must depict [those with whom we disagree] as loathsome human
beings," I reinitiated our correspondence and asked him. Clark
responded: "From all available evidence ... you consider
ufologists to be a loathsome lot ... moral lepers.... I hate to
tell you this, Doc, but the shoe fits. Wear it in style."

James Oberg [...] is a NASA [engineer], writer and scholar
(particularly with regard to the Soviet space program). He has
submitted a "Letter to the Editor" to IUR which reads in part:

'On page 102 of ... UFOs and Outer Space Mysteries ... I
conclude a chapter debunking a collection of crackpot claims
concerning alien life discovered on the moon with a complaint
that the uncritical way publishers promulgated such obviously
loony material indicated poor judgement and disregard for
elementary fact-checking.... [I] drew a parallel with the
wide-scale pseudo-scientific crazes of Germany in the 1920s ...
[when] the decline of public common sense provided fertile
ground for the collapse of democracy. I still cannot believe
that any rational person could so grossly misinterpret that
reasonable passage into an attack on "ufologists" (who are
nowhere mentioned in the chapter) as "cryptofascists" (neither
that term nor any accepted synonym or euphemism is used ... ).

'Mr Clark's vicious accusation is thus totally unsupported....
Since I have never held the loathsome opinions Mr. Clark
unfairly attributes to me ... I might expect a clarification,
retraction, and apology from IUR, but I'm told I'll have to be
satisfied with publication of this statement, no doubt
accompanied by more self-justifying excuses from Mr. Clark.... A
remedial high school class in "Reading for Comprehension" might
be in order for anyone who suspects that there is any validity
at all in Clark's nasty fantasy-prone misinterpretation of my
words.'

But given the defamatory nature of Clark's accusations, I was
not content merely to write another "Letter to the Editor." In
response to a communication from my attorney, which requested a
retraction, apology and clarification, Clark, while citing
references allegedly demonstrating that I consider ufologists to
be loathsome, maintained that the "loathsome human being"
paragraph did not even pertain to me (or to Klass or Oberg), but
rather only to James Randi, with whom the subsequent paragraph
of his editorial dealt.

Yet, Clark offered to "insert a paragraph into our next
editorial stating Dr. Posner's concerns and making it clear that
he does not consider 'pro-paranormal activists,' including
ufologists, to be 'loathsome human beings.'" I accepted, and
submitted (via counsel) a proposed text.

In response, Clark wrote that he "would be delighted to publish
a letter from Dr. Posner.... We would simply change third-person
references to Dr. Posner to first-person references and publish
the statement in the 'Letters' section of the first available
issue of IUR." My attorney, noting the apparent "retraction of
your offer ... which we assumed had been made in good faith, to
'insert a paragraph into [your] next editorial,'" conveyed my
willingness nevertheless to "compromise" on this point of
contention, provided that my "'Letter' ... not be subjected to
an adversarial critique." My "Letter" was then resubmitted as
such, and CUFOS President Mark Rodeghier (who had co-signed
Clark's letters to my attorney) wrote back to inform us that it
would be (and it now has been) published in the March/April 1993
issue of IUR. The text follows:

'Your March/April 1992 editorial highly critical of CSICOP, in
which I was named as a member, contained the following charge:
[I then recounted the "loathsome human being" and "evil"
passages.] I wish to clarify for the record that despite my
fundamental disagreements with many paranormalists, including
your editor, I do not believe that those with whom I disagree
must be loathsome, evil human beings (nor do my colleagues).
Further, as I reminded Mr. Clark in 1985 correspondence, the
1978 "ambulatory schizophrenia" remark ... had in fact been made
in reference to what I termed the "irrational" and "bizarre"
behavior exhibited by a number of paranormalists, not to mere
"belief" in UFOs and other anomalous phenomena.... In fact, I
was a believer in UFOs well into my 20s, and was even a member
of the pro-UFO organization NICAP in my younger "pre-critical
thinking" days.'

But even my agreement to this "compromise" had to be trumped by
CUFOS. Rodeghier's letter had also stipulated that my "Letter"
would be (and it was) accompanied by the following words: "The
editors of IUR cannot respond to this letter from Dr. Posner
because his legal counsel demanded that we provide no
'adversarial critique.'" Jim Oberg's harsher letter has yet to
be published, though Oberg tells me that Clark has promised him
that it will be.

----------------------------------------------ends

----------------------------------
"Never underestimate the power
of stupid people in large groups."
__________________________________






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 21

                Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Friedman

From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 20:31:27 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 23:54:06 -0500
Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Friedman


 >Date: 21 Feb 2001 06:28:54 -0800
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
 >Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact

 >>Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:26:11 -0500
 >>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>>From: Mendoza - Peter Brookesmith <Mendoza@appleonline.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>>Date: Sat, 17 Feb 01 02:23:00 +0000
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>>With the compliments of the Duke of Mendoza:

 >>>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>>>Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 19:44:43 -0000
 >>>>Fwd Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:01:06 -0500
 >>>>Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Hall

 >>>>>From: Mendoza - Peter Brookesmith<Mendoza@appleonline.net>
 >>>>>Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>>>>Date: Tue, 13 Feb 01 03:14:32 +0000
 >>>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>>>Dear Duke,

 >>>Ahem, Mr Hall. The correct form is "Your Grace". ;-)

<snip>

 >Using our current rocket technology and traveling at an average
 >velocity of 25,000 mph, it takes 9.4 hours to reach the moon.


Sorry this is not correct. On our flights to the moon the
propulsion system is on for less than 20 minutes and we coast
most of the way gradually slowing down until the moon pulls us
in. We don't provide all the energy. Mother nature does its
share. The trip time is around 70 hrs. But chemical rockets,
even with cosmic freeloading which we use on all our deep space
probes (Cassini heading for Saturn used free kicks from Earth,
Venus, and Jupiter) are not close to the ultimate . Nuclear
fission rocket engines were ground tested more than 30 years ago
by Westinghouse(it was an exciting program to work on), Aerojet
General and Los Alamos.. The most powerful produced 4400
Megawatts.

Nuclear fusion rockets are much more exciting I worked at
Aerojet Nucleonics in the early 1960s on designing a system
using D and He-3 which woukld produce almost all its energy in
the form of charged particles . These would be emitted with
about 10 million times as much energy per particle as in a
chemical rocket.. On a miles per gallon basis that is certainly
one way to go if one wants to spend the money. Nature helps by
providing a free vaccuum chamber.

 >Not bad. We could do that within one day�s work. Going to Mars
 >at that same speed would take 2.5 months. To reach the outermost
 >planet in our solar system, Pluto, would take 16 years and 5
 >months. That would have a serious impact on spacecraft resources

It is also true that it would be very difficult to build a
pocket calculator using  vaccuum tubes. 45 years ago . The huge
IBM main frames in use back then had 64k storage. Most desk
calculators today have many gigabytes. The point is that
technological progress comes from doing things differently in an
unpredictable way. A laser is NOT just a better light bulb..
different physics. It took one of Magellan's sailing ships about
2 years to go around the globe. The shuttle, using very
different technology, does it in 90 minutes.

 >not to mention how astronauts would spend their time. Then they
 >would have the temerity to want to return to Earth. The whole
 >round trip would take nearly 33 years. Using that same rocket to
 >reach one of the closest stars beyond the sun, a distance of 4.2
 >light-years (a measure of how long it takes light to travel the
 >distance at light-speed: 186,282 mph), the one-way trip would
 >take 114, 155.2 years! That poses a serious obstacle to plans to
 >explore the environment around Alpha Centauri.

But nobody in his right mind would consider using chemical
rocket technology for such a trip any more than complicated
calculations use slide rules.

 >If we had a means to travel very close to the velocity of light,
 >then a very strange thing happens to our travel time to Alpha
 >Centauri. We would measure that a beam of light would take 4.2
 >light years to reach that neighborhood star. However, a crew
 >traveling on a spaceship that traveled at .99c (c is the symbol
 >for the velocity of light) would reach Alpha Centauri in 7.4
 >months. This effect is called time dilation and it comes from
 >Einstein�s equations expressed in the Special Theory of
 >Relativity. Time dilation makes it a little more feasible that
 >any inhabited planets (with techno civilizations) in our local
 >neighborhood could pay us a visit if they have ultra-fast
 >spaceships.

To give a specific example and noting that it takes about one
year at oneG to get close to c, at 99.95%c it would take 20
months pilot time to get to Zeta Reticuli(37 Light Years away).
At 99.99%c it would only take 6months pilot time.

 >Then, those clever scientists working on breakthrough propulsion
 >systems like Dr. Marc Millis who could conceivably come up with
 >a bright idea on reaching super-luminal speeds and we might
 >travel to Alpha Centauri in the time it takes us to eat our
 >breakfast. Hope no one gets any indigestion over that.

 >>Point: We can't rule out the possibility that aliens might think
 >>i tworthwhile to takewhatever time necessary totravel to earth
 >>(and , one presumes, other planets as well).

 >>Now, I said ETH involving spaceflight was the simplest...
 >>because we understand the physics that will let us do it _now_
 >>(or within a 100 years, which is effectively now in terms of
 >>galactic ages). Anything else such as time or dimensional travel
 >>requires an extrapolation of thinking beyond what we can now do.
 >>So far as I know no one has "teleported" a single cell through
 >>another dimension... to say nothing of a human.

 >>That's not to say we won't be able todo such a thing in a
 >>hundred years. I just don't know about that. But I do know about
 >>space travel.

 >>>>However, there have been more esoteric (IMHO) proposals
 >>>>such as dimensional travel (which is getting a boost these
 >>>>days from theoretical physics i.e, superstring theory, that
 >>>>says there are other dimensions "close" to ours in an
 >>>>overall 11 or more dimensional "multiverse.")

 >>>My understanding is that the extra dimensions are "wrapped up"
 >>>into excessively tiny spaces, and unwrapping them would need as
 >>>much energy as was unleashed during the Big Bang. In other
 >>>words, more than would be accessible to _any_ technology
 >>>without, basically, buggering the Universe as we know it at the
 >>>same time. Perhaps theories, or hypotheses, have moved on since
 >>>I last nosed around this issue.>

 >>Our present concepts of how and "where" other dimensions exist
 >>may be wrong... assuming they do exist. Although there is a lot
 >>of theorizing, until someone actually does a higher dimension
 >>experiment (whatever that would be) we just won't know what the
 >>requirements in energy or whatever to get to or travel through
 >>other dimensions. (Perhaps it takes a whopping energy to get
 >>through from our dimension to another, but you get all that
 >>energy back when you return to our dimensions. Perhaps, the
 >>"separation" between "sheets" in our dimension are so small that
 >>something like quantum tunnelling is possible... requireing
 >>little energy.)

 >New considerations in M-theory propose that there are higher
 >extended dimensions. Those complex, membranous objects, which
 >can have many spatial dimensions themselves, have become a
 >central part of string theory. In some versions of the theory,
 >the universe itself is a brane with three spatial dimensions�a
 >3-brane�moving through a higher-dimensional space-time. If our
 >3-brane universe can move through a higher-dimensional
 >space-time, then one can ask whether an object from our brane
 >can move through the higher dimension and re-emerge in our
 >3-brane universe or another one moving in those higher
 >dimensions. Let us hope, at least, that there is some separation
 >so that we do not get a conditon of colliding branes. Crashing
 >branes? Hmmmm...even theoretical physics can be
 >hilarious.>>Bottom Line: We just don't know (about higher
 >dimensions)...>(but we do know about space travel... and will
 >know more "soon")

 >So far, that is the bottom line.

 >>>>Dimensional travel theories can work in one of two ways:
 >>>>transport from a completely different 4-D universe into our
 >>>>universe or transport from one point in our 4-D universe to
 >>>>another point in our 4-D universe by going through a 5th
 >>>>(or higher) dimension (wormhole theory). This latter
 >>>>transport could explain "faster then light" travel.>

 >>>The notion that wormholes can transport anything bigger than
 >>>"Planck's length" (4 x 10^-33cm) doesn't hold up. In theory
 >>>wormholes are arrived at by treating time as an imagined
 >>>spacelike entity, which it may do in reality only in Big-
 >>>Bang-like conditions -- according to the theory -- but you still
 >>>have this titchy space into which to cram your would-be
 >>>vee-hickle. Not even a virus would make it.

 >>>Fair enough: Bruce hints that there are problems with these
 >>>exotic notions, but doesn't examine them. He falls back on the
 >>>ETH as "the simplest" explanation when that is anything but
 >>>simple in fact, if you care to look at it critically and
 >>>dispassionately.

Looking at it critically and disapassionately, the notion of ET
Visitors is the best explanation for some flying saucers.

 >>On the scale of difficulty based on what we now know, IMHO,
 >>ETH/space travel is still the simplest... which does not mean
 >>that space travel is "simple." (Carrying humans is more
 >>difficult that carrying machines.)

 >How about an ETH and EDH with the EDH standing for
 >extra-dimensional - in this case outside of our normal
 >space-time. Perhaps not all UFOs (spacraft types) are ET. Some
 >may be ED. In other words, could we have a multiple-origin
 >hypothesis, but how do we test of any these hypotheses? Are UFOs
 >that are detected entering and leaving our exosphere proof that
 >their origin is somewhere out in space? We are really racking
 >our brains here to find the answer (or is it branes?). I think
 >we need to propose some useful projects that might help
 >determine the nature and origin of UFOs. I lean toward ETH for
 >most, but some maybe EDH IMHO.

 >Bill H.


Considering that Zeta l and Zeta 2 Reticuli are both single, non
variable stars, roughly similar to the sun, but are about one
billion years older than the sun, and less than a light year
apart, it would  not be surprising if they got started sooner on
their technological development than we have, especially with
the planets around the other star being directly observable. I
would expect every advanced civilization to know about nuclear
fusion since it is the primary energy production technique in
almost all stars. No, of course I don't think aliens use fusion
for the interstellar travel by their huge mother ships. I would
expect they use techniques about which we young earthlings know
nothing. Progress comes from doing things differently. Just look
back 100 years  no less a thousand or a million.

Stan Friedman








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 21

              Re: Cosmic Snowball Attack From Space? - Balaskas

From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 20:38:42 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 23:58:41 -0500
Subject: Re: Cosmic Snowball Attack From Space? - Balaskas


Hi everyone.

It has been nearly four years since I first checked into this
story which was posted on UFO UpDates. Now there is new evidence
(see attached University of Iowa release below) in support that
the cosmic snowball attack from space is real.

Tons of dust from space from meteors, most no larger than a
grain of sand, collects on the Earth surface each day. Now we
are presented with new evidence for an even larger bombardment
from space. Are mini snow comets, each the size of a house,
really hitting the Earth once every 3 seconds or so? Could some
of the unexplained UFOs video recorded in space from the Space
Shuttle be these 20-40 ton snowballs? I wonder what Professor
Frank's comments would be regarding these UFO space videos.

Nick Balaskas


-----


The following release was received from The University Of Iowa,
in Iowa City, And is forwarded for your information.
(Forwarding does not imply endorsement by The American
Astronomical Society.) Steve Maran, American Astronomical
Society


Contact:  Gary Galluzzo, University News Services
(319) 384-0009
(319) 338-7727 Home
e-mail: gary-galluzzo@uiowa.edu

Embargoed for Release: 1 a.m. EST, March 1, 2001

UI researcher finds new evidence for small comet theory

IOWA CITY, Iowa -- In a paper published in the March 1, 2001
issue of the American Geophysical Union's Journal of Geophysical
Research, University of Iowa Physics Professor Louis A. Frank,
says that he has found new evidence to support his theory that
the water in Earth's oceans arrived by way of small snow comets.

Frank reports that he obtained pictures of nine small comets
among 1,500 images made between October 1998 and May 1999 using
the Iowa Robotic Observatory (IRO) located near Sonoita, Ariz.
In addition, he says that the possibility of the images being
due to "noise," or electronic interference, on the telescope's
video screens was eliminated by operating the telescope in such
a manner as to ensure that real objects were recorded in the
images. This operation of the telescope utilized two simple
exposure modes for the acquisition of the images.  One scheme
used the telescope's shutter to provide two trails of the same
small comet in a single image, and the second scheme used the
same shutter to yield three trails in an image.

"In the two-trail mode for the telescope's camera, no events
were seen with three trails, and for the three-trail mode, no
events were seen with two trails," he says. "This simple shutter
operation for the telescope's camera provides full assurance
that real extraterrestrial objects are being detected." Frank
notes these images with the IRO confirm earlier reports of small
comet detection using the ground-based Spacewatch Telescope
during November 1987, January 1988 and April 1988.

The small comet theory, developed in 1986 with UI research
scientist John Sigwarth from data gathered using the Dynamics
Explorer 1 satellite, holds that about 20 snow comets weighing
20 to 40 tons each disintegrate in the Earth's atmosphere every
minute. Over the lifetime of our planet, the comets would have
accounted for virtually all of the Earth's water. The small
comet theory has been controversial almost from the beginning,
with some scientists suggesting that images identified as small
snow comets actually result from electronic noise on satellite
sensors and other researchers asserting that the images
represent a real phenomenon. In 1997, Frank revealed a series of
photographs taken by Visible Imaging System (VIS ) cameras
designed by Frank and Sigwarth and carried aboard NASA's Polar
spacecraft as further proof of the existence of the small snow
comets.

Robert A. Hoffman, senior scientist at NASA's Goddard Space
Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. and project scientist for both the
Dynamics Explorer 1 and the Polar spacecraft missions, says that
because satellite-based imagery related to the small comet
theory has been interpreted in different ways, ground-based
imagery is a good alternative.

"Due to the controversy surrounding the interpretation of the
images from space-borne detectors taken primarily in ultraviolet
wavelengths, ground-based visible observations with sufficient
signal-to-noise appear to be the most practical approach to
obtaining clear evidence regarding the existence of these
objects.  I hope more such studies will be performed," Hoffman
says.

Frank, a UI faculty member since 1964, has been an experimenter,
co-investigator, or principal investigator for instruments on
forty-two spacecraft. His instruments include those used to
observe the Earth's auroras, as well as those used to measure
energetic charged particles and thin, electrically charged gases
called plasmas. He is a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union
and the American Physical Society, a member of the American
Astronomical Society, American Association for the Advancement
of Science and the International Academy of Astronautics, and a
recipient of the National Space Act Award.

Further information, including images of two small comet
trails, can be found at the following web site:

http://smallcomets.physics.uiowa.edu/iro/.

(Note to editors and reporters: Frank will be on travel from
February 26 through March 3.)







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 22

                     NJ UFO/ET Congress 2001 - Additions

From: Tom Benson <sparkle@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 20:32:20 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 10:52:17 -0500
Subject: NJ UFO/ET Congress 2001 - Additions



The Great UFO/ET Congress of 2001, Our Space Odyssey,
Bordentown, New Jersey

Additions

Dear List:

Advance Registration discount for the subject UFO Congress must
be received by March 17, 2001 $85 for both days, $90.00
thereafter.


Correction: Don Ecker will be discuss photographs of our Moon
that appear to have anomalies, not " lunar animal " reports
which was a typographical error by the promoter.

We have more details on Bob Durant's presentation and are as
follows:  In July 1947, General Ramey showed reportes what he
claimed was the Roswell "Flying Disc" debris. A press
photographer took a series of pictures of the debris with Ramey
and Major Marcel. Ramey is shown holding a folded piece of
paper. Using state of the art technology, several research teams
tried to read the message on that paper. Bob will decribe the
attempts to read the memo. Only four sequential words are plain
to all eyes - but they are thought to be the true "smoking gun:
of Roswell.

Additional Speaker: Richard Cassaro will present his illustrated
lecture on Uncovering  the Missing History of Ancient Egypt. His
subjects will include: Those who came down from the sky to teach
mankind - The ancient records of the Egyptian God called Osiris
and what he taught them - The similarities of Osiris as compared
to Jesus Christ - The parallels of Osirianism and Christianity -
Is there a more ancient plan designed to impart culture and
spiritual wisdom to mankind? - Did our Founding Fathers know
that an advanced intelligence contacted mankind? - Compare the
U.S. Coat of Arms to the Ancient Egyptian Seal - A government
secret?

Other speakers at press time include Pat J. Marcattilio, MC and
promoter, Dolores Cannon, Jan Alrich, Vicki Ecker, Nancy
Talbott.

For more details on other speakers talks, Congress costs,
directions, either refer to my two previous posts on the subject
or if you email me your address, I will mail you a brochure. My
email address is: sparkle@earthlink.net

Tom Benson








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 22

                           Re: Seen This? - McCoy

From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 19:01:59 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 10:55:42 -0500
Subject: Re: Seen This? - McCoy


 >Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:17:56 -0500
 >Subject: Seen This?
 >From: Bob Shell <bob@bobshell.com>
 >To: Errol <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >I'd like for anyone who knows geology to take a look at this and
 >let me know if this is a known geological phenomenon. The
 >"Phoenician" wall in Oklahoma looks man made, but I know there
 >are geological phenomena which often mimic artificial
 >constructions.

 >I'm not concerned with the author's ideas, just what can be
 >determined from his photos.

 >http://www.viewzone.com/sender.html

Hello Bob, All,

Well, my own experience of being from the rimrock country of
Eastern Oregon,(Colimbia River Basalt) and fully aware that
natural can look man (or whatever) made. Basalt is formed when
Two land masses/plates move apart. The crystalline form is five
sided and can be formed in columns or "post piles" eg. Devils
Tower in Wyoming has such features, a drive along the Coulmbia
River, anywhere south of oh, Central B.C. to the Oregon Coast
will reveal this feature.

All of this can look, well, man made. Off of the southern Oregon
Coast there are synclines and anticlines of Metamorphic Rock,
that look just like walls,but they are not. Ditto the Overthrust
belt of the southwest U.S. Amazing order (in a supposedly
chaotic Universe.)

Rain, erosion, wind can do some pretty amazing things (Mars
Cadets-including myself - take heed.) and it would not be
unusual for those Oklahoma formations to be entirley natural.

However, I do think that Anchient humans were world travellers
and that mixing of humans began a long, long, time ago.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 22

                 Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Stacy

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 21:40:36 -0600
Fwd Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 10:58:29 -0500
Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Stacy


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 22:55:18 -0000

 >A condensed but highly representative version of my argument is
 >freely available to internet users (as compared to the high cost
 >of The UFO Evidence, Volume II) by accessing a commissioned
 >article I wrote for Joe Firmage at:

 >www.isso.org/inbox/science.htm

 >I would be very interested in hearing from non-ETH "believers"
 >(that sort of labelling cuts both ways) about their reaction to
 >what I have to say there.


Dick,

Ah, the published article argument!

Which also cuts both ways.

For example, I've just perused your article. Have you read the
one by Mike Davis that we published in The Anomalist 5,
consisting of some 70 pages and, I don't know, 50, 60, 70 or 100
footnotes? If so, I'd be very interested in hearing your
reaction to same. After having consulted every original source
cited, of course.

But, seriously... if scientists and skeptics are exhorted to
survey the existing UFO literature, doesn't that street run both
ways, too?

In other words, for every UFO lit article scientists are
directed towards, shouldn't there be a commensurate article (or
two or three) in the scientific literature that ufologists are
required to read, ponder, and take into account before
pontificating on the subject?

Seems only fair to me.

Dennis Stacy
http://www.anomalist.com

PS: I've ordered your book. Have you ordered mine?









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 22

                 Re: Alien Autopsies Are "True"! - Deschamps

From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 22:23:05 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:01:05 -0500
Subject: Re: Alien Autopsies Are "True"! - Deschamps


 >From: Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo <ufomiami@prodigy.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Alien Autopsies Are "True"!
 >Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 16:44:05 -0600


 >(Title) "Alien Autopsies is true!"

 >Local news station WSVN, channel 7, Fox, aired an interview with
 >former Army Sergeant-Major Robert Dean, on Sunday February 18 at
 >11 P.M.

 >In the interview, Mr. Dean claimed that in 1964 saw Medical
 >Reports of autopsies of "extraterrestrials". He stated that
 >there were 4 different races, one of them similar to us, 4 to
 >4.5 feet tall. He did not care about personal repercussions, and
 >the government should said the true to the public.

 >Anyone know about this interview?


I'm not sure, but I may have parts of it on video tape...
somewhere.

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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 22

              Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy'

From: Sean Liddle <gortrix@kos.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 22:53:48 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:09:27 -0500
Subject: Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy'


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:42:48 EST
 >Subject: Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy'
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >If the Russians were capable of it, why not the country with 1/2
 >of the industrial potential of the developed world?

 >At what point do you think that fakery was overcome by reality?
 >Or do you think that the Space Station, too, is a fake? Maybe
 >Russia, itself, was a fake, created by Nazis who really won the
 >war but covered it up?


Woah Bob! I did not say I agree with the fakeists(?) just that
_if_ it turned out to be true, I would not be surprised.

To set the record straight, I don't think, with the thousands of
people involved in the space program, that they could have
gotten away with it even if they wanted to.

As to why the Russians landed robotic rovers before the Yanks,
the reason is pretty simple. Americans fund popular programs
with tax money more than unpopular. The Soviets funded what they
deemed best for their country regardless of what the average
Igor on the street thought. To Americans, it is very popular to
see "their own boys" doing a hard job and not getting killed.
That's why Vietnam was unpopular. And that is why the American
space program has always pumped cash into manned missions. The
Mars program _begs_ for cash yet they keep dumping money into
the Shuttle program because it is popular.

Sheesh, no need to bite my head off :) Lemme just crawl back
into my hole now and sulk..


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 23

                       Re: A Minor Diversion - Liddle

From: Sean Liddle <gortrix@kos.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 22:57:17 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 07:53:44 -0500
Subject: Re: A Minor Diversion - Liddle


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:36:20 EST
 >Subject: Re: A Minor Diversion
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >I think on the scale that you're talking about, Rog, relatively
 >shallow caverns near the surface, the temperature is in the low
 >50s. The chilliness you experienced is just getting away from
 >the entrance and the warmer surface air. The 50s temperature
 >was perfect for many of our ancestors during the ice ages, no
 >need for central heating. Fires at the cave entrances assisted
 >the flow of air toward the living areas near the entrance during
 >cold weather, as well as keeping the critters out. Of course,
 >the cave bears had to be dealt with.


I have spelunked in caves no more than 40 feet below ground
surface and have found ice in the middle of summer. I think
you reach a point of stable temperature at a depth of less than
100 feet deep which is maintained for quite a ways before it
starts to rise. Hence why people can have drilled wells
over 200 feet deep that produce water that is cold but above
freezing.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 23

                          Re: AA Film Redux - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 23:12:49 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 07:56:18 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Gates



 >Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 16:03:50 +0000
 >From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux

 >>Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:34:33 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >>>Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 13:26:47 +0000
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Morris

 >>>>Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 11:15:16 -0600
 >>>>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>>>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >>>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Previously, Neil wrote:

 >>>Ray said all along he bought 20 reels of _safety_print_ out of
 >>>22 reels total.

 >>This is not true. Note the following post from Bob Shell:

 >>>From: Bob Shell <bob@bobshell.com>
 >>>Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 14:02:52 +0000
 >>>Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 16:34:08 -0500
 >>>Subject: Re: Santilli Knew 'Tent Footage' Was a Fraud?

 >>>AFTER we proved to Santilli that it was copy film he asked the
 >>>cameraman and he said something like "of course it is copy film,
 >>>I made the copies myself on the printer at the base lab."
 >>>Whether Ray has tried to get recourse for the deception I do not
 >>>know.

 >>Santilli has not said "all along" that he had print film. He
 >>originally thought he had camera original and only learned that
 >>it was print film when Bob proved it to him.

 >Well Ray _is_ on record in mid/late 1995 (don't have my archive to
 >hand) as saying 20 reels safty print, 1 reel neg and 1 reel scraps.


As I recall from previous posting the hoax tent footage was also
part of the 22 reels of film that Ray got from the camerman. So
in essence we have film which is alleged to be "real" AA and
from the same batch of 22 reels we have film which is bogus.  An
interesting lot of film.

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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 23

                           Re: Lakenheath - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 23:28:46 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 07:58:44 -0500
Subject: Re: Lakenheath - Sparks


 >From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >To: <Updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Lakenheath
 >Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:56:37 -0000

<snip>

 >I think that to (hopefully) close on Lakenheath 1956

<snip>

 >in l996) I was lucky - through a BBC contact - to talk
 >to one pilot and two of the navigators from the two venoms.

<snip>

 >I noted the gist of what they said in my book 'Something in the
 >Air' (l997) and tried to make clear the true version of events
<SNIP>

 >In l999 when COMETA published I politely informed them - via a
 >net discussion - that their account of Lakenheath was wrong,

<snip>

Hi,

Some of us researchers have been waiting for up to 5 years now
for full publication of this new data on the Lakenheath case of
1956. Had the data instead of blunt conclusions been fully
shared in 1996 there might have been a more favorable response
and more supporters instead of critics


 >To these comments - plus a promise of a full scale UFOIN report
 >to come - I got continued disbelief. There was simply a string
 >of comments from several people about UFOIN being debunkers out
 >to destroy this case and how there were other venoms up there
 >and what we said didn�t make sense in the light of what was
 >known, etc. And Georgina's book a year later further suggested
 >that this new version wasn't being listened to properly.

There has never been a satisfactory response to my rebuttal
points for the past 3 years that I have been posting them --
only flat denials and now abusive bullying comments about how
I'm going to have to "eat my words" and suffer shame and
humiliation for not reading their minds and/or not spending many
thousands of dollars to fly out to the UK to find out what is
being withheld by these verbal bullies.

Can you explain why my points could not be given a courteous and
full answer even in private? Had I been given a courteous and
full explanation years ago I might have been convinced of the
merits of this skeptical refutation of the case. I'm sure the
same would have applied to other serious researchers around the
world who as I were not local in the UK and had no way to afford
travel to England to investigate the case.

Just as you like to point out Jenny that you have been very
receptive to a pro-UFO position on this case I have been very
receptive to an anti-UFO position as my position has long been
that this is a mediocre case that would barely make it onto a
top 100 best UFO cases and then only because of the
radar-visuals at Bentwaters -- not because of the Lakenheath
events which I pointed out lacked even a timeline. It is a
matter of record that I had a number of heated postings with
Fran Ridge over this very issue as he insisted it was a strong
case and I kept pointing out numerous weaknesses in it.


 >it
 >is deeply worrying about the true nature of Ufology that anyone
 >would consider a straightforward quest for the facts as anything
 >other than an absolute neccesity. [...]

 >As for this being in any way an attempt by debunkers to destroy
 >a case - that is pure fantasy. [...]

 >How anyone can consider that to be anything other than good
 >Ufology is beyond me.

When the majority of the "investigators" spew out continuing
streams of abuse and heated invective on UpDates and/or other
forums it becomes strange that anyone would consider it a
"straightforward quest for the facts."

Best wishes,

Brad









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 23

                 Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 22:25:16 -0600
Fwd Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:00:24 -0500
Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Evans


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 16:06:41 -0600
 >Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Stacy
 >o: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:07:47 -0400

Previously, Dennis wrote:

 >Secrets are sold out every day of the year, for reasons ranging
 >from the purely philosophical/ideological to those of simple
 >crass commercialism.

 >Just what is it, exactly, that renders so-called UFO secrets
 >immune to human nature?

Hi, Dennis!

You make a very interesting point. Despite my belief in ETs and
the such, I am at a loss to address the issue you raise. You are
quite correct. Secrets seem to be sold like stock. As much as I
hate to agree, I think the fact we haven't heard about "the big
one" is much an indicator as anything that there may be less to
the idea of a UFO cover-up than is popular within UFO circles.

On the other hand, they say that the best place to hide a tree
is in the forest. It's an old analogy, but Jesus could walk into
a revival tent and I seriously doubt that anyone would believe
he was genuine. Likewise we, as a society, have grown so cynical
that, perhaps, we simply don't recognize the tell-tale signs of
ET presence that surround us. That is to say that we are waiting
for the government to spill the beans when, in reality, they
have less control than we give them credit for. Maybe there is
less of a cover-up and more of an effort to catch-up on the
situation at hand. It would seem that the government is better
at keeping secrets about something that they are developing than
they can once it's been achieved.

Your point is well taken, though. It does make one take pause.

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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 23

                          Re: AA Film Redux - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 22:46:30 -0600
Fwd Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:16:41 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Evans


 >From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 15:49:57 +0000
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Morris
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:22:08 -0600
 >>From: Roger Annette Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, I had written:

 >>Well, something is amiss, here. You maintain that testing proved
 >>the film to be negative stock. However, note the following post
 >>from Bob Shell:

 >>>From: Bob Shell <bob@bobshell.com>
 >>>Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 10:43:20 -0400 (EDT)
 >>>Fwd Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 14:11:47 -0400
 >>>Subject: Re: Roswell 'Alien Autopsy' Film Junk

 >>>Bull! This film was REVERSAL processed, and this is far more
 >>>likely to produce an overexposed look than an underexposed look.

 >>So which is it? Was it reversal film or negative film? Or was it
 >>negative film that was reversal processed? And so what if Kodak
 >>wanted 50 frames (about 2 seconds worth) of the footage for
 >>testing? All Kodak wanted was to see that the alien image
 >>existed within the same continuous piece of film. The testing
 >>could then be done on the head or tail of that film; no damage
 >>to the alien image would even be necessary. If Santilli and
 >>company were so dead set on verifying the image, then why _not_
 >>agree to Kodak's terms? There really is no logical reason,
 >>unless Santilli and Volker already knew the film was suspect.

Neil replied:

 >The spectroscopic testing indicated the safty PRINT film base
 >was just that Kodak Saft Print film base, nothing to do with how
 >it was processed. The 47 symbol markings were those captured in
 >the image COPIED onto the safty print film.

 >Your snip of Bob's post is so severe it does not allow one to
 >identify just _what_ piece of film he's refering to. Ray
 >identified his "job lot" as 20 reels safty print, 1 neg and 1
 >reel of scraps, whatever they were.

Hi, Neil!

I would repost the entire, lengthy exchange between Bob and
myself, but it would not change the context of what we are
discussing. Bob was talking about the AA footage seen by
millions of people across my country and yours. It was his
opinion that the original film was reversal processed, if it was
on film at all. No one is denying that the snip tested was
safety print. What is at issue is whether or not Santilli
_thought_ he had original film when he made the deal with the
cameraman. The fact is that Santilli thought he had original,
which would have had all the information needed to validate the
entire story.

Didn't happen.

More to the point, since he thought he had original film, one
would think that having a snip tested _before_ spending big
bucks on a purchase would only be logical. In that sense, AA
proponents either give Santilli and company too much credit or
not enough. On the one hand, they are simply shrewd business
people that are protecting their investment by locking it away.
On the other hand, they are willing to blindly pay mega-bucks
for a piece of mystery film that they knew nothing about and
don't even bother to have tested.

Then, again, maybe they _did_ and that's why it's locked away.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 23

                        Re: A Minor Diversion - Hart

From: Gary hart <geehart@frontiernet.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 23:07:43 -0600
Fwd Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:19:46 -0500
Subject: Re: A Minor Diversion - Hart


 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: A Minor Diversion
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>From: Gary Hart <geehart@frontiernet.net>
 >>Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 11:36:42 -0600
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: A Minor Diversion

 >>Hey Larry,

 >>I can't answer your question but can pose one even better: what
 >>is hotter - the surface of the sun or a place on the surface of
 >>the earth?

 >Hello Gary:

 >I suppose one could argue that the center of an exploding
 >volcano might qualify. But! Anything that hot, implies and even
 >hotter source, since the magma will cool somewhat on expansion
 >and in traveling thru cooler materials near to the Earth's
 >surface.


 >Larry,

Molten magma would be 2,000 degrees or less, the surface of the
Sun is 10,000 or several tens of thousands of degrees at most
though the suns corona is millions of degrees... but if you use a
non-imaging optical concentrator you can achieve 108% of the
Sun's surface temperature here on Earth!


Gary










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 23

                          Re: AA Film Redux - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 23:24:37 -0600
Fwd Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:21:56 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Evans


 >From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 16:03:50 +0000
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Morris
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:34:33 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, Neil wrote:

 >>>Ray said all along he bought 20 reels of _safety_print_ out of
 >>>22 reels total.

I replied:

 >>This is not true. Note the following post from Bob Shell:

 >>>From: Bob Shell <bob@bobshell.com>
 >>>Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 14:02:52 +0000
 >>>Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 16:34:08 -0500
 >>>Subject: Re: Santilli Knew 'Tent Footage' Was a Fraud?

 >>>AFTER we proved to Santilli that it was copy film he asked the
 >>>cameraman and he said something like "of course it is copy film,
 >>>I made the copies myself on the printer at the base lab."
 >>>Whether Ray has tried to get recourse for the deception I do not
 >>>know.

 >>Santilli has not said "all along" that he had print film. He
 >>originally thought he had camera original and only learned that
 >>it was print film when Bob proved it to him.

Neil now writes:

 >Well Ray _is_ on record in mid/late 1995 (don't have my archive to
 >hand) as saying 20 reels safty print, 1 reel neg and 1 reel scraps.

 >The "neg" could have been camera original. But dosn't _safty_print_
 >shout at you it's a _print_ and _not_ original?.

 >And what _date_ context is Bob Shell refering back to here?.

Hi, Neil!

I do not know the exact date that Bob is referring to. However,
it doesn't really matter. What matters is that _before_ Bob
informed Santilli that all he had was print film, Santilli
thought he had camera original. As such, he should have had it
tested.

As to whether or not the camera original film was negative or
positive film; I tried to get Bob to remember which side the
emulsion appeared on the print. The reason this is important is
that the alleged cameraman says he made the print, himself. Now,
this is kind of hard to follow if some readers are not
experienced in film tech, but consider this:

As I understand it, the Santilli print was also a reversal
stock. Therefore, the cameraman could not make a print off of
camera negative; only off of a positive print. Since this print
would have the emulsion on the opposite side than the camera
original, any second generation prints off of the first print
would end up with the emulsion _back_ on the same side as camera
original! This would be a print of a print of the original
camera negative.

On the other hand, if the camera original was _reversal_, and
not negative, then the print produced by the cameraman and sold
to Santilli would have the emulsion on the _opposite_ side than
the camera original. This would, instead, be only a print of the
original camera positive.

Therefore, if the cameraman claims to have shot negative, then
the Santilli safety print would have the emulsion on one side.
If the cameraman claims to have shot reversal positive, then the
Santilli safety print would have the emulsion would be on the
opposite.

This is why it is important to validate the film, even if it is
only safety print material. Because if the cameraman claims to
have shot reversal and the Santilli film ends up with the
emulsion on the side calculated for a negative origin, then that
means that he did not make the print off of camera original.
Instead, he would have made the print off of another print. Such
a revelation would mean that it is unlikely that he actually
shot the film since it would prove he did not have access to the
original.

On the other hand, if he claims to have shot negative, then he
has to explain why the emulsion ends up where it does knowing
that he could not print from negative; only from a positive
print.

More to the point, the cameraman told Santilli that he was
buying camera original then changed his story to include
printing.

I'd certainly be interested in looking at which side the
emulsion is on.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 23

              Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy'

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 02:22:26 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:26:46 -0500
Subject: Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy'


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:36:11 EST
 >Subject: Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy'
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 01:26:02 -0500
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy'

 >>I'd like to tack my list onto Joachim's if I may.

 ><snip>

 >>2. Gemini 4, June 3,1964, astronauts McDivitt & White report a
 >>sighting of a large cylinder over Hawaii.

 >Hi, John, Joachim:

 >I believe this was shown to have probably been their own
 >Atlas-Agena-B booster. At first it was unidentified because it
 >didn't show up on a list of other space objects, it was part of
 >their mission. I think James Oberg reported on this in his UFOs
 >and Outer Space Mysteries, Donning, about 1970.


Hola Young Bob, hi All,

Bob, have you ever heard of, or know anything about, these
alleged "snatches of conversations in an unknown language" that
the men reported? I'm intrigued because if this is true, there
-must be- some kind of record of it 'somewhere.'

And just to keep it 'topical' to the thread, the only thing I
found of any interest in the broadcast was the 'hash marks' that
should have appeared in front of objects that appeared _behind_
them instead, (signs of 'tampering'- but by 'who' is the real
question) and the "identical terrain" shots. Those were
pretty compelling. Although as Don Ledger says, if they were
taken on two different missions, it's probably just more; FOX
Put Dem Asses In Da Seats Media Magic. :)

And for Roger:

I agree with the camera sensitivity explanation Roger. I've had
it happen with my own camera. If you have high contrast lighting
conditions (ex: early morning sunlight) where you are confronted
with bright light and deep shadows, the camera is just incapable
of resolving the scene properly because of the extreme in the
_range_ of lighting. The brightness 'blows out' (over-exposes)
everything and washes out all fine detail on both ends of the
lighting spectrum. You don't need an atmosphere to make stars
disappear. Just a primitive videocam with crappy range
(sensitivity) and even crappier light metering/compensating
capabilities.

Regards,

John Velez, Taken-beterian

                                      *************
                              "Nothing is at last sacred but
                             the integrity of your own mind."
                                 www.spacelab.net/~jvif/
                                      *************










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 23

                        Re: A Minor Diversion - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 01:14:08 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:29:32 -0500
Subject: Re: A Minor Diversion - Hatch


 >Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 07:27:42 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: A Minor Diversion
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 12:09:18 -0800
 >>Subject: Re: A Minor Diversion - Hatch
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>>From: John Tenney <jelt2000@email.msn.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: A Minor Diversion
 >>>Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 18:26:57 -0500

 >Previously, Larry wrote:

 >>>>To wit: What is hotter... the surface of the Sun, or the center
 >>>>of the Earth? I don't have the answer, but a quick browse
 >>>>indicates that I'm not the only one who doesn't know. Our
 >>>>deepest drill holes are something on the order of 10-20 miles, a
 >>>>small fraction of one percent of the radius of the Earth, or the
 >>>>distance to the center.

 ><snip>

 >>My point is that it just gets hotter and hotter as you descend.
 >>It does not get hotter, and then cool back down as you pass some
 >>core boundary, it is pressure alone forcing the solid state.

 >I know absolutely nothing about this subject, but I have been in
 >quite a few underground caves. If, as you say, it gets hotter
 >and hotter as you descend, then how come it gets cooler and
 >cooler the further one descends into a cavern? Every tour of a
 >cavern that I've ever gone on, the guide always suggests taking
 >a sweater or something because it stays so cool. In fact, every
 >guide makes a point of how nice it is underground, even though
 >no air-conditioning or air supply is ever employed. What gives?


Hello Roger:

Most caverns or natural caves just don't go down far enough. If
they go below the water table, perhaps a few hundred feet give
or take, they will be flooded and you will need more than a
sweater.

The ones I have been in were generally cool, but not
uncomfortably so.

Its when you go down miles that the thermal gradient ( upward in
temp as you descend ) really kicks in.

Ask any miner in South Africa where gold mines go literally
miles deep. They screen out the wannabes in a hellish heat
chamber or so I hear. Those volcanos aren't spewing ice!


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 23

                          Re: Lakenheath - Randles

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 10:36:18 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:32:43 -0500
Subject: Re: Lakenheath - Randles


 >From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Lakenheath
 >Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 20:00:09 -0000

 >>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >>To: <Updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Lakenheath
 >>Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:56:37 -0000

 >Jenny, I wish you every success with your research on the
 >Lakenheath case, but must correct you on a few points.

Hi,

Appreciated, but your 'corrections' are rather misleading to
this list.

 >I have the BBC tape of your interview with the crew and there is
 >nothing on it that implies they did not see anything.

Like I have explained already (and I am sure most on this list
don't need it repeating ad nauseum) the short extracts of
interview that were used on BBC TV were 'not' used there to
discuss the specifics of the case and that's why this part of the
interviews - where the crew talk about not seeing a UFO - was
not transmitted. I have made that fact repeatedly clear,
explaining the aim of the BBC documentary (to discuss PRO
documents). You know I have. So why do keep on raising this as
if I haven't?

 >You then
 >claimed this was only a fraction of the interview but refused to
 >supply anybody with the full version. So we were none the wiser.

I did no such thing. I advised that the transcripts would be
included in a full UFOIN report on the case. That way what the
air crew had said could be seen in proper context. I felt this
was a necessary precaution because extracts from any interview
can so easily be taken out of context to fit with what someone
would like them to mean .

So if promising a full report and transcript (and as David told
this list the other day one that will not be in some book but
free on the net) constitutes your definition of a refusal to
help then someone needs a new dictionary.

What I also did was describe what the air crew had said - that
is that they saw nothing, only had a radar image, and also how
the misconception about the 'cat and mouse' game between UFO and
aircraft that was reported by numerous writers on Lakenheath for
years had come about. The object was stationary. The plane flew
past it. So the target moved from the front to the rear of the
aircraft on radar but did so because of the aircraft motion -
not that of the unidentified target (as this had no motion).

Now these were the basic facts as categorically pointed out by
the air crew in l996 and I have made them perfectly clear ever
since. You chose not to accept them. That was your prerogative
but it was also your mistake. Because that was - and is - what
the air crew still maintain.

 >>And Georgina's book a year later further suggested that this new
 >>version wasn't being listened to properly.

 >It makes no such suggestion. How could I include your new version
 >when you failed to offer it?

In conflict with the above claim is the easily established
discovery that what the air crew told me was reported in some
detail (see pages 61 - 3) of my l997 book 'Something in the
Air'. That is some years before the internet exchange to which
you refer above took place - rather making an absurdity of the
suggestion that I 'failed to offer' Ufologists anything about
their testimony . Or maybe I was trying to cover up my own book?
(I prefer to leave that job to a publishers press officer) :)

What you presumably mean here is (a) you didn't bother to go
read what I had said about the air crew testimony, or, (b)
didn't believe what the book claims they had said if you did.

Which is up to you - but then so would be the responsibility for
the fact that as a consequence you wouldn't have the correct
story.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 23

                Re: Link Between UFOs, Helicopters & Mutes? -

From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:47:13 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:45:20 -0500
Subject: Re: Link Between UFOs, Helicopters & Mutes? -


 >Date: 14 Feb 2001 19:39:13 -0000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Colm Kelleher - NIDS <nids@earthlink.net>
 >Subject: Association Between UFOs, Helicopters & Mutes?

 >National Institute for Discovery Science

 >http://www.nidsci.org

 >Statistical Association between UFO/helicopters and Animal
 >Mutilations? Analysis of a Wave of Anomalous Activity in
 >Montana.

 >1975-1977 was a period of frequent reports of UFO sightings
 >around the United States. 1975-1977 also coincided with peak
 >reports of a phenomenon known as animal mutilation.

 >For more details on animal mutilation see:

 >http://www.nidsci.org/articles/articles2.html

 >The community around Great Falls, Montana was no exception to
 >this nationwide trend. However, two features about Great Falls
 >are of interest with respect to this NIDS report.

 >The first is that Great Falls was (and is) home to Malmstrom Air
 >Force Base (MAFB). MAFB and its surrounding area was an integral
 >part of the nation's missile launching capability during the
 >cold war with 221 Minuteman III missile silos, and functioned as
 >an important section of the entire 'Northern Tier' early warning
 >system for incoming Soviet missiles.

 >The second atypical feature about Great Falls was an unusually
 >open-minded and energetic sheriff's captain. Captain Keith
 >Wolverton was prepared to go the extra mile in investigating
 >UFOs, animal mutilations and bizarre happenings in the area.

 >Wolverton's energy and dedication were instrumental in alerting
 >the people of Cascade County, and even in nearby Teton County,
 >that if they reported UFOs, animal mutilations or unidentified
 >flying lights, they would not be ridiculed and their reports
 >would not be trivialized.

 >Captain Wolverton allowed NIDS full access to his original
 >papers and files detailing the investigations that he carried
 >out on behalf of the Cascade County sheriff's department in
 >1975-1977. NIDS was able to analyze the data in these files and
 >they comprise an interesting picture of a wave of anomalous
 >activity within a 40-mile radius of Great Falls and MAFB.

 >Captain Wolverton's files comprised the original police
 >blotters, original memoranda and original photo negatives
 >detailing the department's investigations into 192 UFO and
 >unknown helicopter sightings, and 67 reports of animal
 >mutilations, the vast majority happening within a forty miles
 >radius of MAFB.

 >The timing of the UFO wave around MAFB is almost exactly
 >contemporaneous with similar anomalous incidents that happened
 >in October 1975 at Loring AFB Maine, Wurdsmith AFB Michigan,
 >Minot AFB North Dakota and at the Canadian Air Force base at
 >Falconbridge Ontario.

 >The purpose of this paper is to examine two separate and
 >unrelated questions:

 >(a) Was there a linkage between the animal mutilations (temporal
 >and geographical) and the unidentified aircraft flying in the
 >area around Cascade County Montana 1975 through 1977 and

 >(b) did the repeated unauthorized incursions of these flying
 >objects over MAFB and missile silo airspace, when examined in
 >the context of simultaneous incursions at other AFBs across the
 >Northern Tier, constitute a national security issue for the
 >United States?

 >NIDS reports the first statistically significant correlation
 >between mutilations and UFO/helicopter activity in the full
 >report (25 pages) in the What's New section of the NIDS web site
 >at:

 >http://www.nidsci.org.

 >Further, we propose that the UFO wave in Montana had National
 >Security implications.


Hello Colm Kelleher and all fellow Listerions,

My thanks to NIDS for the above investigation. It is very well
done.

The UFO sighting and encounter reports at Air Force bases in the
northern tier that I read in the late fall of 1975 caused me to
jump from curious UFO book reader to: What the Hell is going on?
To me, those cases of 1975 - 1977 still stand as pillars to my
question.

Listfolk, for a fine reference on these cases please read
Fawcett and Greenwood's book 'Clear Intent'. Barry Greenwood and
Larry Fawcett have for many years been two of my ufological
mentors in my trying to find answers. The incidents of this time
period are vital in the study of Ufology and in UFO history.

Early cattle mutilation/helicopter/UFO reports from that period,
especially from Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico intrigued me, as
do more recent reports from almost all over.

I wondered if alien craft, the USAF, other covert agencies, or a
cult were involved. Maybe the cattle were being covertly sampled
due to the escape of some lethal biological warfare organism
from the Dugway Proving Grounds in Utah?

Once again, what the Hell is going on?

The above NIDS report contains a puzzling statement. It is at
the top of page 14 under the heading:


Discussion

A National Security Issue?

"NIDS has independently obtained information indicating that for
the purposes of special operations (deception), helicopters were
disguised as UFOS and operated in the 1975 - 1983 period by at
least one United States intelligence agency. These helicopters
had highly unusual lights and and were designed to fly with the
minimum of noise. It is outside the scope of this report to
discuss the purpose of these operations. But if this information
is placed in the context of UFO activity around Malmstrom Air
Force Base (MAFB), an initial imterpretation of this covert
activity would be to test Air Force base security responses.
However, the logic behind mounting a nightly assault on MAFB,
documented 192 (129 UFO plus 63 helicopter cases) times in a
three year period, and sometimes involving multiple craft for
several hours at a time, it is difficult to justify. Moreover,
it has been verified that even the commander of security at MAFB
was not briefed on any special operations. Hence, it is the
preliminary conclusion of this report that the near than thirty
recorded violations of restricted airspace in a three year
period constituted a national security issue and should have
been of great concern to the USAF."


So, once again I ask questions:

Now that we are outside the scope of this report, where did NIDS
obtain information regarding the above covert intelligence
activities of a helicopter disguised as a UFO?

What is the quality of the evidence this is based upon?

What were their actual purposes?

Please inform me further about those activities.

Has anyone else heard of these covert deception activities?


I've also sent a copy of this post directly to NIDS.

I also would love to see more discussion of the above report and
the other USAF UFO incidents in that time period on this List in
addition to dragging out such "important" emotional issues as
the AA autopsy (no new evidence, totally lacking in old
evidence) or the absurd idea (lacking any real evidence) that
never seems to totally disappear, that 'we never went to the
moon'.

Personally gut speaking, in the 1970s I worked for the
Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum (NASM) restoring
historic air and space craft.

In 1976 I was preparing the space capsule of our first moon
landing for prominent exhibit next to a piece of moon rock (an
icon touched by most of the millions of annual visitors) in the
new museum that would soon open.

The director of NASM, my boss, was former astronaut Michael
Collins, who went to the moon with astronauts Armstrong and
Aldrin on that mission.

Mr. Collins, face to face, briefed me on the capsule, the
mission, the landing, and his impressions.

I distinctly remember being side by side with him at that
capsule, with him looking directly in my eyes and saying, "Josh,
even sometimes when I go out in the yard and look at the moon I
have to remind myself that I have actually been all the way up
there. I've done it, it is so wondrous".

I fully believed he was telling me the truth. Even a fool cannot
miss the vibes of the ring of truth. You would have had to be
there.

For a passionate and well written account of the mission
experience, please read Mr. Collins' book 'Carrying the Fire'.

I received passes and witnessed mammoth Saturn V Apollo moon
launches from the VIP area. I met a lot of Apollo astronauts and
Werner von Braun.

I believed them.


Time for blastoff,

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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 23

                Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Friedman

From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 08:56:56 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:49:51 -0500
Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Friedman


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 16:06:41 -0600

 >>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:07:47 -0400

 ><snip>

 >>Secrets can be kept.

 >>Stanton Friedman


 >Sure they can!

 >Just ask Win Ho Lee, Pollard, Aymes and, most recently, Robert
 >Hansen, or Los Alamos labs, the CIA and FBI, respectively. (Not
 >sure about the spelling of individuals' names or the exact
 >agency Pollard betrayed.)

 >And don't forget, there were only 15 copies of the Pentagon
 >Papers. Somehow, one of them made its way to the NY Times.
 >Curious, no?

 >Guess what you meant to say was somethinhg along the lines of:

 >"Some secrets can be held for some length of time. But UFO
 >secrets are (somehow) held sacrosanct forever."

 >But then you probably think MJ-12 was a security leak. But not
 >the Corso book. Or the alien autopsy film.

 >So, what UFO secrets, exactly, are being withheld?

 >Do we have bodies on ice somewhere that I don't know about?
 >Recovered wreckage? Classified radar returns? Pictures? DNA
 >samples of alien abductors? What?

 >Secrets are sold out every day of the year, for reasons ranging
 >from the purely philosophical/ideological to those of simple
 >crass commercialism.

 >Just what is it, exactly, that renders so-called UFO secrets
 >immune to human nature?

 >Dennis Stacy


Clearly some secrets have become known eventually, mostly
because a very extensive effort was made by people with need to
know and considerable resources who have managed to dig them
out. To suggest that therefore all secrets come out is totally
baseless. If I knew which ones have yet to be released in
detail, they wouldn't be secrets. Hansen only was a double agent
for 15 years. How long were Philby, Burgess and MacLean double
agents though working in the midst of the intelligence
community? Surely you don't believe that now all US double-agents
have been found?

Yes, the Naval Research Lab finally admitted 35 years after the
fact that they had launched the first ELINT sattellite.

Despite 12,000 people being involved at Bletchley Park there was
no mention of their work on the breaking of the German codes for
25 years by which time technology had improved..

If I were to hazard a guess: Yes, there are documents describing
the analysis of the Roswell wreckage, of the bodies recovered,
of the flight capabilities of flying saucers as observed by
sophisticated technological gear;of the activities of the
Majestic 12 group. Based on the reports I have heard (without
classified documents to back them up) there have been many cases
in which aircraft sent up to monitor flying saucers have not
returned.

Don't forget that all the ADC data about uncorrelated targets is
born classified. It should also be noted that the vaunted
American Press has spent next to nothing ferreting out the facts
about flying saucers. I have stated that if the NY Times and
Wash. Post would spend a fraction of what they spent on Monica
Lewinsky and Elian Gonzales, or Watergate, they could blow the
lid off the Cosmic Watergate in 6 months... as was done for My
Lai, for example.

Since the DCI had admitted to an annual black budget, 5 years
ago, of more than 26Billion $, it hardly seems plausible that
all the secrets have been released.

The few that leak out, or are dragged out, tell us nothing about
the secrets that remain behind closed doors.

For those who might have blindly accepted the initial article in
the January, 2001, MUFON Journal about MJ-12, my detailed
rebuttal will appear in the March issue. I hope to post it on my
web site soon at:

www.v-j-enterprises.com/sfpage.html

I have also posted there my comments about Corso (there was no
leakage of classified materials) and have an entire chapter on
the "Autopsy" footage in TOP SECRET/MAJIC.

Stan Friedman









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 23

                       BUFORA's Billy Buchanan Lecture

From: Philip Mantle <pmquest@dial.pipex.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:31:45 +0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 09:07:11 -0500
Subject: BUFORA's Billy Buchanan Lecture


From: Malcolm Robinson <spi_spi@hotmail.com>
To: <pmquest@dial.pipex.com
Subject: Billy Buchanan BUFORA Lecture
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 09:48:21 -0000


Dear All,

Please find my attachement regarding Councillor Billy Buchanan's
lecture to BUFORA on Monday March 5th. I do hope you can make
it.

Do let others know about it.

Sincerely,

Malcolm Robinson,

BUFORA Lecture Organiser


_______________________________________________________________


The British UFO Research Association

Presents

Guest Speaker

Councillor Billy Buchanan.

on

The Bonnybridge UFO Phenomenon


Date:  Monday March  5th  2001.

Venue: The Quaker International Centre,
        The Margaret Fell Room - 1st Floor
        1 Byng Place, London,
        WC1E 7JH.

Entrance: Adults �4:00
BUFORA Members   �2:00

TIME:  7:15pm. Till 10:00pm.

Nearest Tube Station: Goodge Street (Northern Line)


Are UFOs 'Alien' Craft?
Or are they something more down to 'Earth'!
Find out at this important event

Bonnybridge Councillor Billy Buchanan will discuss the
incredible number UFOs that have been reported over his small
town of Bonnybridge, in Central Scotland.

The world's media have descended on Bonnybridge over the years
to try and get to the bottom of what has been going on. There
have been so many UFO reports over Bonnybridge that it will soon
be twinned with the town of Roswell in New Mexico - itself
another UFO incident area. Come along and find out what's been
going on.


Next BUFORA lecture - Monday April 2nd

Lee Heather will lecture on 'Remote Viewing'


For further info call 07949 178 835









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 23

                  Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:10:08 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 09:11:12 -0500
Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Hall


 >From: Mendoza - Peter Brookesmith <Mendoza@appleonline.net>
 >Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >Date: Thu, 22 Feb 01 00:25:53 +0000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >The Duke of Mendoza presents his compliments:

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 16:41:32 -0000
 >>Fwd Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 13:31:46 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Hall

 >Looking over it today
 >I can see nothing in the data that supports the ETH. The case
 >histories boil down in the end to _stories_ that, if accepted as
 >they stand, perhaps do suggest some ET origin for their
 >stimulus. But the evidence itself does not. That is because
 >there is rarely if ever any evidence over & above the stories.

 >In very perplexing cases the ET
 >solution strikes me as no better than what are to my mind
 >equally improbable solutions: the descendants of exiles from
 >Atlantis, protean airborne amoebae, goblins and djinns, the
 >armies of Satan on the wing, a squadron of cosmic jokers,
 >Knights Templar in astral disguise out to wreak havoc & revenge
 >on the Pope - and so on.

 >As for the links, where are they in any particular case,
 >beyond the narrative boundary? Non existent.

 >My standard is Philip Morrison's - "independent and
 >multiple chains of evidence, each capable of satisfying a
 >link-by-link test of meaning." I'm sure you know the text.
 >Morrison notes that neither the ETH nor any other explanation of
 >UFOs can show multiple chains of evidence or passes a
 >link-by-link test.

Esteemed Duke of Mendoza:

Actually Philip Morrison is a perfect example of a scientist who
deduces from theory that UFOs can't be real without ever, to my
knowledge, investigating or studying a single case. I have never
seen him attempt to explain a single puzzling case.

For some clue to the link-by-link you seek, see my article on
the ISSO site mentioned previously. There is lots of evidence
beyond narratives.

Also, "cosmic jokers" are on my list of hypotheses. Like Bruce
Maccabee (and James McDonald before us), the ET appears to be
the simplest and most straightforward of the hypotheses
available to us at present.

The position you take seems to be more of a denial of the need
for an hypothesis than an hypothesis per se; i.e., all we have
is a bunch of stories that (each of which) could be anything.

Try looking at the obvious consistencies and patterns in those
"stories," which contradict the notion that UFOs are simply a
ragtag collection of misperceptions.

In my philosophical studies, symbolic logic class, we read and
discussed the Principia Mathematica by Whitehead and Russell. I
think I understand logical links and illogical reasoning.


Dick Hall

B.A., Philosophy,
Tulane University,
1958







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 23

                Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Hamilton

From: skywatcher22@space.com
Date: 22 Feb 2001 06:03:53 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 10:17:11 -0500
Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Hamilton


 >From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 20:31:27 -0400

 >>Date: 21 Feb 2001 06:28:54 -0800
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
 >>Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact

 >>>Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:26:11 -0500
 >>>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>>Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>>>From: Mendoza - Peter Brookesmith <Mendoza@appleonline.net>
 >>>>Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>>>Date: Sat, 17 Feb 01 02:23:00 +0000
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>>>With the compliments of the Duke of Mendoza:

 >>>>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>>>>Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 19:44:43 -0000
 >>>>>Fwd Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:01:06 -0500
 >>>>>Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Hall

 >>>>>>From: Mendoza - Peter Brookesmith<Mendoza@appleonline.net>
 >>>>>>Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>>>>>Date: Tue, 13 Feb 01 03:14:32 +0000
 >>>>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>>>>Dear Duke,

 >>>>Ahem, Mr Hall. The correct form is "Your Grace". ;-)

 ><snip>

 >>Using our current rocket technology and traveling at an average
 >>velocity of 25,000 mph, it takes 9.4 hours to reach the moon.

 >Sorry this is not correct. On our flights to the moon the
 >propulsion system is on for less than 20 minutes and we coast
 >most of the way gradually slowing down until the moon pulls us
 >in. We don't provide all the energy. Mother nature does its
 >share. The trip time is around 70 hrs. But chemical rockets,
 >even with cosmic freeloading which we use on all our deep space
 >probes (Cassini heading for Saturn used free kicks from Earth,
 >Venus, and Jupiter) are not close to the ultimate . Nuclear
 >fission rocket engines were ground tested more than 30 years ago
 >by Westinghouse(it was an exciting program to work on), Aerojet
 >General and Los Alamos.. The most powerful produced 4400
 >Megawatts.


Stan,

You are of course, correct as far as what is done in practice. I
think that the 9.4 hour travel time was used just to indicate
that a rocket going that distance at that velocity would get
there in x amount of time. The illustrations given were not so
much as "how it is done" in practice, but just to give a feel
for travel times.

Bill







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 23

                   Re: Naud, Bouchmann & Le Paige - Aubeck

From: Chris Aubeck <caubeck@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:45:42 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 10:21:28 -0500
Subject: Re: Naud, Bouchmann & Le Paige - Aubeck


 >From: Bruno Mancusi <swissufo@swissufo.ch>
 >Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 20:38:42 +0100
 >Fwd Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 09:16:12 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Naud, Bouchmann & Le Paige - Mancusi


 >>Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 00:49:10 -0800 (PST)
 >>From: Chris Aubeck <caubeck@yahoo.com>
 >>Subject: UFO UpDate: Naud, Bouchmann & Le Paige
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>I am looking for information about three items. Can anyone help?

 >>Firstly, I have been reading a book called 'U.F.O.s and
 >>Extraterrestrials in History'. The author is Yves Naud and the
 >>book was originally published in French. I have an English
 >>translation published by 'Ferni', printed in Spain and
 >>distributed by 'Friends of History'. In my edition there are no
 >>bibliographical references, which is unfortunate as the book is
 >>full of early UFO cases (some highly dubious). Does anyone have
 >>a different edition with a bibliography or notes? Who is Yves
 >>Naud?

 >The original edition was published in Switzerland: 'Les O.V.N.I
 >et les extra-terrestres dans l'histoire', 4 vol., Famot, Geneva
 >1977. There are some references (scarce!) at bottom of the
 >pages, but they are French books, so it's possible that they
 >disappeared in the English translation.

 >I don't know Yves Naud and if it's his real name.

 >>Secondly, I have come across a reference to a very unusual
 >>'folkloric abduction' dated November 15th 1792. Apparently,
 >>one Hans Bouchmann, a 50 year old Swiss peasant, disappeared
 >>suddenly in the village of Romerswill-Sempach. He reappeared
 >>two weeks later in Milan. Bouchmann said that he had been taken
 >>up into the air and transported to Fairyland. When he returned
 >>he found he had been thoroughly shaved and had not one hair left
 >>on his body! Does anyone recognise this tale?

 >Yes, I can confirm the tale. This Hans Buchmann, or Buochmann,
 >lived at Romerswill and allegedly disappeared at Sempach (Luzern
 >canton). He reappeared two weeks later in Milan. When he went
 >back home the next year, his head was swelled, he had no hair,
 >no beard and no eyebrows.


 >Regards,

 >Bruno


Hello Bruno,

Thanks for the reply. I thought I had sent you a response
to the above already but I must have been dreaming.

Two questions:

1) Does Naud mention his source for the 1796 Russian case? In my
edition there is no bibliographic reference, though I think I
know where he got it (or who invented it, perhaps).

2) Where have you read about Hans Buchmann? I haven't been able
to get at the original source. If it's from a book in a language
other than English, could you post a translation of the relevant
passage? Can you confirm the date? How?

Thanks for your help!

Chris Aubeck


P.S. I also posted the following query:

 >>Thirdly, according to articles published in specialist
 >>magazines in 1975, a Belgian priest, Gustavo le Paige, was
 >>convinced that alien beings had been living on earth in the
 >>remote past. Le Paige was a missionary in Chile whose
 >>archaeological research had led him to the discovery of hundreds
 >>of tombs. He told a Chilean reporter at one point that the tombs
 >>were used to bury both extraterrestrials and humans, and that
 >>some of the mummies and other remains he found bore highly
 >>unusual features that are not found naturally on earth. Father
 >>le Paige created a museum in San  Pedro de Atacama, a village at
 >>the foot of the Andes,which contained a great wealth of
 >>skeletons which he had personally excavated in the region, along
 >>with countless other artefacts.

 >>It is not known what allegedly extraterrestrial skeletons were
 >>found by le Paige - if any, of course - because, unfortunately,
 >>he fell ill and died in 1980, shortly before his findings could
 >>be made public, and the ultimate resting place of the collection
 >>is unknown. As far as I know, the last person to have attempted
 >>to shed light on le Paige's sensational claims was Swiss author
 >>Erich von Daniken, who had been trying to arrange a televised
 >>interview with the priest just before he became terminally ill.
 >>Von Daniken wrote about Le Paige in his book Pathways of the
 >>Gods. Does anyone know anything else? I am unable to find any
 >>other mention of Le Paige's claims, if indeed he ever actually
 >>claimed any of this.


Well, although I have received many letters asking whether I
have found anything, no-one has offered any new information at
all. This may mean there is nothing to discover, but I would be
surprised if that were the case.

Anyone planning a weekend break to San Pedro de Atacama?

Chris Aubeck









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 23

                             UFOs in 1882 & 1394

From: Chris Aubeck  <caubeck@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:19:41 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 10:25:04 -0500
Subject: UFOs in 1882 & 1394


Hello again,

Can anyone answer these questions?

1) An enormous UFO was seen by numerous European witnesses on
November 17th 1882. It travelled westwards at an approximate
altitude of 130 miles and was spotted by several eminent
scientists. These included Dr. E. Walter Maunder, an astronomer
at Greenwich, the English spectroscopist J. Rand Capron, and
Dutch astronomers Audemans and Zeeman. Greenwich published an
official report which stated that the object had a well-defined
body and was "disc-like in appearance." Unlike an ordinary
meteor, it said, the behaviour of the disc had seemed "orderly
and controlled."

Does anyone know the location of an on-line article reproducing
a whole translation of the original report? Whether the object
was a natural or an artificial body is not what interests me,
but rather the fact that it was apparently disc-shaped.

2) Jerome Clark, in The UFO Book: Encyclopedia of the
Extraterrestrial Farmington Hills, MI: Visible Ink Press, 1997,
quotes an ancient source that tells that in the winter of 1394
a wheel- or barrel-shaped object appeared in several areas of
England:

A certain thing appeared in the likeness of fire in many parts
of... England... every night. This fiery apparition, oftentimes
when anybody went alone, it would go with him, and would stand
still when he stood still... To some it appeared in the likeness
of a turning wheel burning; to othersome round in the likeness
of a barrel, flashing out flames of fire at the head; to others
in the likeness of a long burning lance.

What was the original source of this report? Is it available
on line? Unfortunately I do not have Clark's book, though I
have been told it doesn't give a source anyway. (If it's from
some other popular UFO book, I'd still like to be told the
ORIGINAL source if possible.)


Chris Aubeck









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 23

                          Re: Lakenheath - Auchettl

From: John W. Auchettl <Praufo@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 10:29:13 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 10:28:42 -0500
Subject: Re: Lakenheath - Auchettl


 >Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 18:12:48 -0000
 >From: Dave Clarke<cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Lakenheath - Clarke

 >>Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 14:45:12 EST
 >>From: Brad Sparks<RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Lakenheath


 >>That is not correct. Wimbledon's version was
 >>included at the time.



Hi Dave, Brad, ebk & list,

Dave, in your argument you mention (in your post at three
locations) that the Venom NF-3 did not, at that time, have a
"gunlock" facility.

[1].
 >Thayer's 1980 account conveniently omits the alleged phrases
 >used by the RAF pilots ("Roger... I've got my guns locked on
 >him... the damnest thing I ever saw"),...

<snip>

[2].
 >Perhaps Thayer chose not to mention this, because
 >by 1980 he had become aware of the fact that the aircraft
 >involved in the interception, the Venom NF-3 did not, at
 >that time, have a "gunlock" facility!

<snip>

[3].
 >As we have seen with the "gunlock"
 >claim, the USAF's man version is fatally flawed. That is
 >independently verifiable fact. Venoms had no gunlock facility in
 >1956. How, then, can we accept anything else he says- especially
 >timings, heights, distances, etc recalled 12 years after the
 >events?

<snip>

Dave, the above data is NOT correct.

The De Havilland, D.H.112 Venom N.F.3 in question was fitted out
as a Night Fighter (N.F.3). Two crew.

This model also had some other advanced specs, that made it a
very nice aircraft to fly such as - powered aileron controls a
restructed tailfins and clear view canopy. And so on!

So where is the so-called "gunlock"?

It's in the radar set up.

This aircraft had a Western Electric AN/APS-57 X-Band Search &
Intercept Radar fitted (nose cone), so it could do its Night
Fighter task.

When activated by the crew, the AN/APS-57 would hunt a target
and when it got something (a sig return) it then activated a
visual report to the crew that it had located a target ad was
"lock on" for guns or rockets.

Thus you get the RAF pilot[s] saying:
- "Roger... I've got my guns locked on...

It is _not_ a physical lock, attached to the guns, its a radar
return that informs the crew his guns (four 20mm cannon in nose)
and radar are on a target, etc ....

                         ***

As a side issue, the same units were tested in Australia on some
of our old Gloster Meteor F8 (A-77 RAAF series 2) before an
upgrade. Never used.


Regards to all,


John W. Auchettl
Director PRA Research


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 23

              Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy'

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:18:21 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:21:38 -0500
Subject: Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy'


 >Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 22:53:48 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Sean Liddle <gortrix@kos.net>
 >Subject: Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy'

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:42:48 EST
 >>Subject: Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy'
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >If the Russians were capable of it, why not the country with 1/2
 >of the industrial potential of the developed world?

 >At what point do you think that fakery was overcome by reality?
 >Or do you think that the Space Station, too, is a fake? Maybe
 >Russia, itself, was a fake, created by Nazis who really won the
 >war but covered it up?

 >Woah Bob! I did not say I agree with the fakeists(?) just that
 >_if_ it turned out to be true, I would not be surprised.

 >To set the record straight, I don't think, with the thousands of
 >people involved in the space program, that they could have
 >gotten away with it even if they wanted to.


Sean:

Sorry, then, I misunderstood.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 23

                         Re: AA Film Redux - KRandle

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:21:51 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:28:37 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - KRandle


 >Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 15:10:38 +0000
 >From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux


 >>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 23:17:20 EST
 >>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >>>Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 21:51:51 +0000
 >>>Fwd Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 11:27:32 -0500
 >>>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Morris

<snip>

 >>>>I recall James Bond Johnson's take on Roswell has been seriously
 >>>>challenged by Kevin Randle

 >>>There are two points of contention here, the first, regarding
 >>>phone interviews done by KR, it's not my place to go into these,
 >>>Bond's responses are on record in this forum.

 >>Since Kevin Randle sent me a complete set of interview tapes
 >>about 2 years ago, it was easy to review the original evidence
 >>(the tapes and also some letters of correspondence) and see who
 >>was telling the truth about the interviews and who was spinning
 >>the story.

 >>Bond Johnson has simply lied about those initial interviews and
 >>changed his story for reasons only he knows. He has also
 >>repeatedly accused Kevin Randle of altering the tapes and
 >>issuing inaccurate transcripts. This again is completely false.

 >>A detailed refutation of some of his false statements based on
 >>the actual tapes can be found in the UFO Updates archives at:

 >>http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2000/apr/m29-028.shtml

 >>Another rebuttal to Johnson's incessant spin-doctoring, which
 >>includes much of the same material below, can be found at:

 >>http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2000/apr/m27-001.shtml

 >I've quite deliberately tried to stay out of this area, I've met
 >Bond personally and heard his side of things, I've read what the
 >other side has to say, I believe an admission is on record that
 >the tapes _have_ been edited,

Neil, all -

This is an example of spin. After I interviewed Dr. Johnson in
1989, and after I had published an article in the INTERNATIONAL
UFO REPORTER, Dr. Johnson spoke to Jerry Clark, saying that many
of the quotes were wrong. I called Dr. Johnson to ask him which
specific quotes he believed to be wrong. As we discussed the
article, he would tell me that some quote was wrong and I would
suggest that I was using his own words. He would say that he
would like to hear it because he just didn't think he would say
those things. So, rather than make him wade through several
hours of tape, I made copies of only those sections in which the
disputed quotes appeared. In other words, I edited the tapes for
time but I DID NOT alter them, which is Dr. Johnson's
implication. I have since sent him full copies of the tapes and
explained this "editing" to him. He fails to understand it.

 >conversely elements of Bond's
 >story _have_ changed, as with others stories.

Such changes in stories are often small, irrelevant details. In
Dr. Johnson's case, the alterations are large scale and of
significant importance.

 >Also, it has to be
 >considered that after KR's first interview, Bond himself started
 >to research his own part in the Roswell story, he has relatives
 >still in Fort Worth and so has been able to spend time in the ST
 >archives and FW library. He saw for himself where his memory had
 >let him down, ie, he still has to this day, little, if any
 >recollection of Jess Marcel, yet he was there and he _did_ take
 >his picture.

This too, is more spin. I learned of Dr. Johnson because he had
_already_ been to Fort Worth, had gone to the archives to
recover copies of his pictures, and had photocopied the story
that he claimed he wrote on the night of July 8. He sent me
copies of the story and told me about taking his two pictures
that night. (Yes, I know that we can attribute six to him). I
have letters and other documents that prove this to be the
correct order of things.

 >What I can say while I've known Bond and questioned him
 >extensively, is that he has been open, honest and consistent
 >with his answers to me, even when I've known he's _not_ liked
 >some of the questions I've put.

On the other hand, he has accused me of "editing the tapes",
putting "words in his mouth", and failing to correct the
mistakes I made. He has radically altered his tale and refused
to respond to my requests for clarification. I have sent him
letters, talked to him on the telephone, and explained the
situation to him. His response is to ignore the truth and
continue to spin. I have the tapes, I have the letters, and I
have the correspondence to prove all that I say. Since you,
Neil, are siding with him, I will make you the one time good
offer of copying all this material for you so that you can hear
him say the things he denies he said, listen to him claim credit
for writing the July 9 article, and see how I have tried to get
to the bottom of the situation. You'll learn that I did not call
him cold, but that he called me the _first_ time because I
didn't know who he was or have his telephone number. Betsy Hudon
in Texas was kind enough to send a letter to him from me to
allow him to initiate the contact. This proves, of course, that
he had already been to Fort Worth and that his interest in the
case predates my first communications with him.

In other words, the story, as he now tells it does not agree
with the history of this event and I have the documentation to
prove it. I don't have new spin just because I don't like what I
said the first time around.

 >Further, we are now finding that
 >some of his most disputed information ie the "press conference"
 >_is_ receiving independent confirmation from an individual who
 >_was_ there reporting the news in FW at the time.

If you have reporters in General Ramey's office, and they are
asking him questions, then you have a press conference whether
it is officially called or not. We are in an argument over
semantics here that has little real importance in understanding
what happened that night.

<snip>

 >>>Witness testimony, unlike KR and DS who were I assume basing
 >>>their take of events from Jesse Marcel's recollections of his
 >>>time in FW,

 >>Don't forget Gen. Dubose and Irving Newton, both of whom were
 >>_also_ there, and both of whom stated they remembered several
 >>reporters being there. This wasn't just the story of Jesse
 >>Marcel.

 >From conversations with Irving some 12 months ago he has no
 >recollection of just who took his photograph that day and could
 >not say wether it was a civilian or military photographer.

Which is what he told me some ten or eleven years ago. But the
point is that another photograph was taken, it was published the
next day, and suggests that some sort of press conference was
held. It matters not if it was published in one newspaper or 100
because it was published and underscores that others were in
General Ramey's office.

 >I think it's also hard to pin down just what Gen DuBose could or
 >could not recall, I have Jamie Shandera's interview transcript
 >where DuBose claims _no_ pictures were ever taken at all, that
 >is until he is shown the JBJ images of himself. Jesse's story
 >too is obviously a partial memory, we know firmly JBJ took
 >pictures of Marcel, Ramey and Dubose in the _one_ session I
 >think we are all agreed on that. Yet Marcel gives us the quote
 >that he was only involved in the _one_ photograph, the one he
 >claims where he is shown holding some of the actual debris from
 >Roswell and I believe he then goes on to mention some other
 >"staged" photographs might have been taken later "but he was not
 >involved with those".

But, as I have tried to point out, Bill Moore has provided us
with three versions of that quote. The first is from his book
which you quote here. Second, Moore sent a letter around, again
using the Marcel quote, but this time it said, "...Ramey allowed
the press to take two pictures of this stuff. I was in one and
he and Col. DuBose were in the other."

Then in the article, "Three Hours that Shook the Press," the
quote is again altered to say, according to Moore and Shandera,
"In his interview with Moore, Maj. Marcel maintained that the
debris in the two photos of him..."

Then, finally, in "Enough is Too Much," Moore returns to the
original quote that mentions but a single photograph of Marcel,
and none of Ramey and DuBose.

This, I think, would negate the quote attributed to Marcel
because the man who conducted the interview has altered it to
suit him and the situation as it developed... which means as
more pictures were discovered, Moore altered the quote to cover
each new discovery.

 >>The _only_ photograph(s) of Marcel(to
 >>surface) are JBJ's and we know these were taken together with
 >>the Ramey and DuBose shots (it's the same film neg batch), so
 >>what was this later "staged" photo... Newton? Marcel doesn't
 >>know, he wasn't involved, it's just what he heard happened.

 >Or the staged photographs were the ones taken in General Ramey's
 >office of the weather balloon and rawin target and not of the
 >actual debris.

Which would mean that Dr. Johnson's original statements to me
were accurate and he saw nothing but a balloon, as he told me on
two separate occasions.

And, we do have additional information that comes from TV
reporter Johnny Mann, who interviewed Marcel in Roswell in the
early 1980s. He showed Marcel the photographs in Moore's book
and said, "Jesse, I got to tell you. That looks like a balloon."
According to Mann, when Marcel saw the pictures, he said, "No.
No. That picture was staged. That's not the stuff I brought from
Roswell."

So here is information that has been printed in both the IUR and
the CUFOS Roswell special, and has been corroborated by Johnny
Mann when asked by others, but which has been ignored. We have a
witness who tells us that Marcel said the pictures in General
Ramey's office were staged. We have Dr. Johnson telling us, in
his original interviews, said that the setting had been staged.
He didn't believe, in those original interviews, that he had
seen anything special. Now, of course, he has changed his story.

<snip>

 >This is very incomplete accounting of Dubose's many interviews
 >on the matter, and obviously comes from the highly suspect
 >Shandera "interviews" with Dubose. Even though Shandera produced
 >lengthy "transcripts", he has also been unable to produce the
 >tape recordings that would have been needed to produce such
 >detailed "transcripts." He is also unable to reproduce even
 >notes of the conversation.

 >On the other hand, there are a number of _recorded_ interviews
 >with Dubose which completely contradict your assertion and RPITs
 >that Dubose wasn't aware of the photographs and claimed the
 >stuff in the photos was from Roswell.

Copies of those interviews, and corroboration by others is also
available. The video taped interview was conducted in August
1990 and is in the FUFOR archives. I also have copies of it.

 >>E.g., this is Dubose's statement from his sworn affidavit
 >>written _before_ the Shandera interviews: "The material shown in
 >>the photographs taken in Maj. Gen. Ramey's office was a weather
 >>balloon. The weather balloon explanation for the material was a
 >>story to divert the attention of the press."

 >David, Roswell testimony is a little like The Bible, you can
 >find a bit to prove almost any point<g>, lets not go down that
 >road.

This is just a major cop out to deal with data that are
difficult to reconcile with the information we all have on the
subject. What I hear here is that we should reject the DuBose
statement, though it is a signed affidavit, reject the audio and
video taped testimony by DuBose, but accept the unsupported
"transcripts" by Shandera because they reinforce the position
you want to hold. In a court, the affidavit takes precedent
because it is a signed affidavit, and the Shandera "transcript"
unless supported by a tape, would be considered heresay.

In other words, because some of the statements attributed to
DuBose contradict the statements made by Dr. Johnson, we are
going to reject the DuBose statements. The contradiction arises,
not because DuBose is changing his story but because Shandera,
who has his own agenda, is attributing to DuBose, statements
DuBose might not have made. Shandera provides no evidence that
these quotes are accurate.

 >I agree DuBose said the above and I can live with your assertion
 >Shandera might be a little shakey in his methods, but there
 >again there's nothing to say he _didn't_ make that quote to
 >Shandera.

More importantly, there is nothing to say that he did.

 >I think DuBose tended to please everybody.

No, he attempted to tell the truth, as best he could remember
it when not being pushed by someone with an agenda. Billy
Cox, of FLORIDA TODAY reported on these facts a number
of years ago, as did Don Ecker of UFO Magazine (USA).

<snip>

 >Because it appears the ST were in phone contact throughout that
 >evening with FWAAF and if an organised shindig was in the offing
 >he would have gone to it.

Semantics, semantics. Clearly it wasn't "organized" but it was
certainly held, according to the men who were there. A press
conference, by definition, is a meeting with the press and not
necessarily an "organized" affair. If you don't like the term
press conference, then call it something else, but that doesn't
alter the fact that reporters, plural, were in General Ramey's
office after Dr. Johnson was there.

 >>Reporters could have shown up there after Bond Johnson left and
 >>Ramey could have held an impromptu press conference (meaning
 >>that the S-T would not have been notified

 >Yes, and at that stage Bond wouldn't be there to take Marcel's
 >picture and he(Marcel) states he was only photographed the
 >_once_ (by Bond), and Marcel was photographed at the same time
 >as Ramey and DuBose in that primary photoshoot, and no other
 >examples of that primary photoshoot are in the record.

And how many radio reporters would take a photographer with
them? Maybe that's the problem with the single, additional
photograph.

<snip>

 >The same way Marcel recalled a posse of news photogs taking his
 >picture when the historical record shows we only have Bond
 >Johnson's 6 pictures only 2 of which are of Marcel.

 >The human memory.

Or human interpretation. I see nothing in Marcel's statements to
suggest a "posse of news photogs." Maybe it was just radio
reporters. This posse of photogs is your invention, of Dr.
Johnson's invention and not supported by the facts as they have
been established.

We have a great deal of information that has been spun here. We
have evidence to support my claims including the audio tapes and
letters. If Dr. Johnson wants to believe today that he was the
only reporter there, ever, that he saw the real debris, and
Ramey didn't know what it was when he was there, I don't care.
When you begin to suggest that I have altered the information,
that I have inaccurately reported information that is backed up
by audio tape and other evidence, then I take a stand. Like it
or not, Dr. Johnson told me one thing and told others something
else. His spin is not going to change the facts, on tape. Listen
to them if you want, but don't suggest, even as carefully as you
have here that I might have altered things because I edited a
tape for time to assist Dr. Johnson in understanding that he
actually said the things he denies saying.

KRandle






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 23

                  New Evidence Of Sagan's Martian Macrobes?

From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:12:32 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
Fwd Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:31:35 -0500
Subject: New Evidence Of Sagan's Martian Macrobes?


Hi everyone,

Here is another picture of a baffling Martian find that was made
by pre-teen school children. I wonder what else could have been
found if Dr. Michael Malin gave equal time on the Mars Global
Surveyor to people such as Richard Hoagland or our Mac Tonnies.

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0102/22boulders/

 From what I can determine visually, the sunlit side of some of
the bigger black "boulders" seems to be as bright as the ridges
of the much lighter surrounding terrain. Is this because they
were wind swept over many years and are partially buried (I can
see no evidence of tracks from boulders rolling down hill either
on my computer monitor)? If the expression "rolling rocks gather
no moss" is correct, then could the tops of these boulders be
covered by darker biolgical matter catching rays from the Sun?

Since I cannot make out any shadows for these "boulders", they
may turn out to be Carl Sagan's "macrobes" which he felt would
easily be identified as Martian lifeforms by orbiting
spacecraft. One such macrobe that Sagan proposed may exist on
Mars was a tree or bush with "...long taproots descending to a
remote water table or permafrost, with perhaps just a flat
segment at ground level, like a manhole, which could absorb
energy from the Sun." ('The Search for Life on Mars', page 66).
Have we not already detected these macrobes? Check the URL below
for examples of such dark spots (or bushes?) on Mars. I wonder
if these bushes on Mars will be re-imaged sometime soon so we
can determine if they are geological/weather related phenomena
or actual Sagan macrobes.

http://www.geocities.com/macbot/imperative10.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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 23

                     Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:24:03 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:50:34 -0500
Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Hall


 >From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >To: "02 - UFO UpDates Subscribers":;
 >Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Stacy
 >Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 10:58:29 -0500

 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 21:40:36 -0600

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 22:55:18 -0000

 >>A condensed but highly representative version of my argument is
 >>freely available to internet users (as compared to the high cost
 >>of The UFO Evidence, Volume II) by accessing a commissioned
 >>article I wrote for Joe Firmage at:

 >>www.isso.org/inbox/science.htm

 >>I would be very interested in hearing from non-ETH "believers"
 >>(that sort of labelling cuts both ways) about their reaction to
 >>what I have to say there.

 >Dick,

 >Ah, the published article argument!

 >Which also cuts both ways.
 >>For example, I've just perused your article. Have you read the
 >one by Mike Davis that we published in The Anomalist 5,
 >consisting of some 70 pages and, I don't know, 50, 60, 70 or 100
 >footnotes? If so, I'd be very interested in hearing your
 >reaction to same. After having consulted every original source
 >cited, of course.

 >But, seriously... if scientists and skeptics are exhorted to
 >survey the existing UFO literature, doesn't that street run both
 >ways, too?

 >In other words, for every UFO lit article scientists are
 >directed towards, shouldn't there be a commensurate article (or
 >two or three) in the scientific literature that ufologists are
 >required to read, ponder, and take into account before
 >pontificating on the subject?

 >Seems only fair to me.

 >Dennis Stacy
 >http://www.anomalist.com

 >PS: I've ordered your book. Have you ordered mine?


Dennis,

I steered people to a free online article containing the essence
of my argument. Is there some UFO article on your web site that
you would like me to comment on? I would be glad to do so. Is
the article you cite available online?

Not sure what book (of yours) you are talking about.

Am I pontificating? I have read plenty of the skeptical
literature (Menzel, Klass, Oberg, CSICOP... you name it) so am
not sure what your point is here.

What do you mean "scientific literature?" I have read a lot of
that too, and do so regularly in the course of my professional
work.

Incidentally, and apparently typically, you did not comment on
what my ISSO article had to say. Instead you throw out a
pseudo-argument about "equal time" for "scientific literature"
as if people like me (Bruce, Dick Haines, and others) are
ignorant of that literature. Seems more like an evasion than a
reply to my posting.


Respectfully,

Dick









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 23

                         X-Zone Radio Show Cancelled

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:02:06 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:02:06 -0500
Subject: X-Zone Radio Show Cancelled

X-Zone Radio Show Cancelled - Rob McConnell Out The Door
By Don Fraser - The Standard

http://www.scstandard.com/

Rob McConnell wonders why the psychics didn't see it coming.

The seers appeared on recent episodes of the X-Zone but
apparently failed to foresee the demise of the cult-hit
paranormal radio show on St. Catharines' CKTB-AM.

But on Monday, McConnell was told his show was being cancelled
and he was out the door.

"It has me totally shocked and caught me completely off-guard,"
he said. "You work so damned hard for this station and this
happens to you.

"It's especially tough with all the publicity the X-Zone was
generating."

The show -- with its discussions of UFOs, aliens and other weird
phenomena -- had attracted listeners acasts, said McConnell.

He said he was told Monday "the X-Zone didn't fit into the
present plans of CKTB and (owner) Telemedia."

"The format was basically going talk all day, then
(satellite-broadcast) sports all night, I believe 6 p.m. and on.
They asked me for my station pass and cancelled my e-mail
account."

McConnell, a St. Catharines resident, said there had been no
indication from management his show was in peril. He said
ratings had nearly doubled since it debuted in Niagara 2 1/2
years ago.

The cancellation also sidelined next week's scheduled filming
for a Fox TV episode. A crew was coming to St. Catharines to
shoot footage for the forthcoming TV series World's Scariest
Places. It was to report on CKTB as "Canada's most haunted radio
station" and highlight McConnell's show.


McConnell isn't the only one losing his job in a shakeup at
CKTB.

On Friday, open-line host John Hardy was released from his
duties fronting the station's 3 to 6 p.m. show. Programming in
that time slot was changed to resemble the station's
magazine-style, information-based morning program.

Program director Madelyn Hamilton was unavailable to comment on
the changes Monday.

Changes and layoffs have been a continuing story for CKTB as
well as CHTZ-FM (HTZ-FM 97.7) and CHRE-FM (Light 105.7), which
are all housed at 12 Yates St. in downtown St. Catharines.

Telemedia Radio Inc. of Montreal bought the stations from
Hamilton-based Affinity Radio Group in 2000. Affinity acquired
CHRE in 1998 and the other two stations in 1999.

In May 2000, 17 people, including on-air hosts Doug Hobbs and
Randy Taylor, were laid off at the three stations. Hobbs, a
sports journalist and former CKTB broadcaster, said he couldn't
understand the direction the station was going.

"It seems funny there are now all these Niagara people with a
radio background who aren't working," said Hobbs. "And here's a
Niagara station with a bunch of people who are not, nor have
ever been, part of the scene here."

Meanwhile, McConnell was considering reviving his newsletter
version of the X-Zone called the X-Chronicles and planned to
shop the show around elsewhere. There's a chance he may still do
fill-in work for Niagara's Telemedia stations.

"Who knows, this could be a blessing in disguise," said
McConnell. "But right now, I feel so empty inside."










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 23

                     Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 10:51:44 -0600
Fwd Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:08:44 -0500
Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Clark


 >From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment
 >Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 19:57:21 -0000

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment
 >>Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 18:51:51 -0600

 >Y'all,

 >As usual, instead of discussing the facts of the case (in this
 >case Lakenheath, as raised by Jenny and Dave, or of any case -
 >as usual) Jerry chooses to rant and rave to to end other than to
 >score points.

What facts of the case? What in the world are you talking about?
Your rant was not about the "facts of the case" but about
Robertsian ridicule of perceived enemies as well as the usual
chest-thumping.

I made the mistake of urging you to conduct yourself more
professionally, in the interests of keeping your case --
whenever you condescend to let the rest of us hear it -- from
being prejudged, as the product of a wildly biased, even
immature partisan. In other words, someone so emotionally
attached to his beliefs that his investigations are intended not
to uncover truth but to humiliate perceived enemies. I was
trying to _help_ you. My mistake, and one I will not make
again..

Go ahead and keep acting, as you have done here again, true to
form, Andy. Pound the chest. Taunt. Ridicule. Boast. And the
rest of us will judge your forthcoming report accordingly.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 23

                       UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 6 Number 8

From: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:13:23 +0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:20:05 -0500
Subject: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 6 Number 8


Posted on behalf of Joseph Trainor.

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

UFO ROUNDUP
Volume 6, Number 8
February 22, 2001
Editor: Joseph Trainor


TWO JETLINERS SPOT GIANT SILVER SAUCER IN CHILE

Two airborne jetliners spotted a giant silver UFO hovering at
an altitude of 18,000 meters (60,000 feet) near the city of
Antofagasta in northern Chile.

"A feeling of disquiet and consternation spread over much of
Chile's Second Region , including large cities such as Calama
and Antofagasta, due to the sighting of an unidentified flying
object around 11 a.m. yesterday," i.e. Friday, February 16,
2001.

"The phenomenon was even observed by commercial aircraft when
air-space trajectories (flight paths--J.T.) brought them close
to it."

""Witnesses identified it as a small silver dot towards the
west of El Loa's provincial capital," Antofagasta, "which
remained initially still and with a swinging motion"

"Many tried to see but were themselves thwarted in the pursuit
of this goal as the object was some distance from the city.
Nonetheless, others were able to see it both unaided and with
binoculars."

"While the phenomenon took place, the air traffic control
personnel from the Cerro Moreno Airport were on the lookout and
followed the UFO's movements 6through accounts from airline
pilots who flew at a certain distance from the object."

"Reports from Cerro Moreno indicated that two of the three
airliners crossing the city while the phenomenon was taking
place" witnessed the object. These were LAN-Chile Flight 560
and Avant Airlines Flight 471.

"The event, which took place at around 11 a.m., had a total
duration of between 20 and 30 minutes, being first noticed by
LAN-Chile Flight 560 after establishing visual contact with a
shiny, oval object of incredible size. This was immediately
relayed to the Air Traffic Control Center in Santiago de Chile,
(the national capital--J.T.) The service personnel" in Santiago
"picked up the observed phenomenon on their radar screens, which
have nationwide coverage."

"The phenomenon was also seen in Calama, having been picked up
by the local airport's control tower since 10:45 a.m. The
description given was that of an oval, shiny object, which does
not stray very far from the description given by the Cerro
Moreno airport's officials."

"According to the official statement produced by the Cerro
Moreno Airport officials, the object was seen 64 kilometers (30
miles) north of Mejillones, a town northeast of Antofagasta,
and was 18,000 meters (60,000 feet) high."

Avant Airlines Flight 471, "Flying between Calama and
Antofagasta, reported the object to the regional capital's air
facility."

"According to the air facility's functionaries, the UFO was
'flattened and elongated, like two plates facing each other,'
and was seen 120 kilometers (72 miles) north-northwest of
Antofagasta at Vector 350."

"Airport personnel explained that 'Radar systems filter
information, otherwise even cars could show up onscreen as well
as (air) traffic moving slower than the stipulated speed.'"

"Nelson Lope, Cerro Moreno's airport manager, confirmed the
object's presence and noted that two (commercial) flights flying
over the (Pacific) ocean picked up the apparition without being
able to determine its identify. He added that the airspace
occupied by the UFO contained heavy clouds, which did not allow
for a more objective interpretation. However, he discarded the
weather balloon theory given that the object 'was very high u,
some calculations put it at 18,000 meters (60,000 feet).
Perhaps a large balloon could reach this altitude, but no agency
claimed credit for any such balloon launching. Both ESO
(European Southern Observatory at Cerro Paranal--S.C.) and as
well as a mining company near Calama near Calama always notify
us before a balloon probe is launched.'"

"Despite the fact that the object was seen by a number of
locals, the agency's radar system did not pick it up due to the
fact that" the airport's radar system was undergoing
"maintenance at the time when the phenomenon was taking place,
an event which hampered the system's 'viewing capacity,'
according to Lope."

""Although he claimed not to know the exact time that the
object was in the sky, he noted that the sighting lasted up to
30 minutes" and the object was a good distance away, "'some 64
kilometers (40 miles) from Mejillones, more or less.'"

"The UFO was tracked by radar operators of the Fifth Air
Brigade of the Fuerzas Aereas de Chile (FACh or Chilean Air
Force--J.T.) based at Cerro Moreno, which is right outside of
Antofagasta." (See the newspapers La Estrella del Loa for
February 17, 2001, "UFO seen from Calama and Antofagasta," and
El Mercurio of Calama for February 17, 2001, "Pilots see UFO
over Antofagasta." Muchas gracias a Scott Corrales, autor de los
libros Chupacabras and Other Mysteries y Forbidden Mexico, y
tambien Gloria Coluchi para esos articulous de diario.)

MORE UFOs REPORTED IN SAENZ PENA, ARGENTINA

As of this week, more residents of Saenz Pena," a city in
northern Argentina, "will turn their attention heavenwards at
night, due to the phenomenon witnessed by residents of the Oro
Blanco sector, who claim having seen a strange light in the sky
since Tuesday last," i.e. February 6, 2001.

"In an effort to identify the alleged UFO, residents of
Resistencia," a barrio adjacent to Oro Blanco, "have added
themselves to the effort visiting the city's air traffic
control tower to identify the object from that location."

"It has become a tradition in Oro Blanco to wait for the flying
object's passing--resembling a large luminous ball flying at low
altitude and speed, making movements which are not typical of
aircraft or other known vehicles. These characteristics arise
from the testimony of locals who have been frequent witnesses to
the passage of the UFOs and whose stories have appeared in our
Norte de Chaco newspaper."

"At midnight on Saturday," February 10, 2001, "a group of
residents of Oro Blanco, a neighborhood located behind the
city's sports complex, gathered to view the luminous object but
the heavy overcast hampered their viewing. In spite of this,
they watched the sky and will meet again today and in the coming
days to scan the skies once more."

"These UFO sightings were allegedly confirmed by one employee
of the airport control tower, who also lives in Oro Blanco. He
reportedly told his neighbors that the city's air facility has
been receiving phone calls since last Tuesday from persons
asking if the strange lights are those of an airplane." (See
the newspaper Norte de Chaco for February 12, 2001, "New UFO
account from Saenz Pena." Otra vez, muchas gracias a Scott
Corrales y Gloria Coluchi para eso articulo de diario.)

DARK ROUND UFO HOVERS OVER RAWANG, MALAYSIA

Malaysia's UFO flap entered its fourth week with the sighting
of a dark round UFO over a street in Rawang.

On Friday, February 16, 2001, at 6:51 a.m., student Owen K. was
walking from his apartment to the college campus in Rawang,
Sealngor, Gombak province, Malaysia when he spotted the silent
hovering UFO. He reported, "I don't really believe in UFOs but
now I have seen it with a pair of my own eyes, and I believe
now"

"This morning I woke up and traveled to college. Going up a
dark road, I saw that an object was trying to land. It was lit
up with a lot of lights. A moment later, the object had just
disappeared into void and it was gone in a second. When I looked
again, it was gone."

"It was a dark object, round in shape, with many lights. For
sure, it was not an aircraft or an airplane" because "a plane is
always moving and it cannot stay in the air without moving."
(Email Form Report)

WOMAN VIDEOTAPES A UFO IN NORTH DEVON, UK

"Evidence of extraterrestrial life may have been caught on
camera in Lynton," North Devon, UK.

"The sighting of strange lights spinning through the night sky
was caught on video camera by an amateur photographer."

"Jo Sherlock has described her close encounter with the UFO,
which happened on Thursday, January 23, 2001, as a strange
experience that left her 'feeling weird' and her camera
batteries low."

(Editor's Comment: Perhaps Jo Sherlock is a distant relative of
a certain Georgie who lived at 22B Baker Street, London a
century ago.)

"She said, 'My son was outside having a cigarette when he
called me, saying there were some lights in the sky. So I went
out with my cameras because I never go out without them.'"

"'There were lots of very bright green and blue in the dark
sky. I had my still camera around my neck, and the flash went
off three times, without me touching it.'"

(Editor's Comment: The objects' electromagnetic field must have
interacted with the camera's electronics.)

"'I felt really weird, and I thought, Where am I? even though I
was standing in my garden. The object got closer and it started
to spin like a catherine wheel (a top--J.T.) standing up
vertically, and spinning around flat (horizontally) like in the
movies. It then went away from me, stopped spinning, and got
really small.'"

"Jo claimed that when she went back outside after briefly going
into the house, the wind was blowing heavily when previously the
sky had been quite calm."

"The feeling she received from seeing the lights, which she
filmed all the while, disturbed her most of all. She said, 'I
just did not feel myself, I thought it was getting to me. They
say some people have out-of-body experiences when they see these
lights but it was not like that. I can't really explain it
all.'"

Afterwards, Ms. Sherlock noticed that her "camera batteries
were flat (low), a level they should not have reached so
quickly." The power drain was unexplainable. (See the North
Devon Journal for February 15, 2001, "Lights in the sky leave Jo
feeling 'weird.'" Many thanks to Gerry Lovell for forwarding
this newspaper article.)

MORE UFOs REPORTED IN DERBYSHIRE DALES, UK

"Last week, a (UFO) sighting videotaped in Bonsall was reported
by the Daily Mail, Channel Five and the BBC News. A German TV
firm would like to film a documentary. Now the Mercury has
received another close encounter, the 20th sighting since the
first back in September (2000)."

"Paul Hannan, 37, of Yeld Close, Bakewell, saw a dome-shaped
object at around 8 p.m. on Saturday," February 3, 2001.

"'It was between Youlgrave and Over-Haddon,' he said, 'More or
less on the Manchester flight path. I shouted to my wife, 'Look
at this bright light out here!' She went to get my
binoculars.'"

"Mr. Hannan, who saw a similar object in Bakewell during the
1990s, said the craft was a brilliant white light in the sky."

"Through the binoculars, he could see the light gradually fade
and the object get progressively smaller.."

"'After that, you could still see something with the naked
eye,' he remarked."

"'Through the binoculars, you could see a light around it, as
though it were illuminated from within and only faintly, but
enough to distinguish the shape of it.'"

"'When I saw the light, it wasn't moving. But after the light
faded, it seemed to be dancing in the sky. I didn't see any
color but I could definitely make out a shape. Then it moved to
the left and just completely disappeared.'"

"Mr. Hannan says he believes the UFOs are manned by alien
visitors but is unsure why they are here."

"'It could be something to do with water,' he mused, 'That is a
valuable asset within the universe. I think the Government has
been working with them for years, Area 51 and all that. Jets
were sent up to intercept them but they just disappeared. I
don't think there's anything we can do.'"

"The 21st sighting surrounds a Wirksworth couple who saw a
large blue light with an orange tail which shot across the sky."

"The man, who refused to be identified, was going for a walk
with his girlfriend on Summer Lane at about 7:15 p.m. last
Thursday," February 8, 2001, "when they saw the bright light."

"He said, "At first I thought it was a plane crashing. It is
the funniest (strangest--J.T.) thing I have ever seen. It had an
orange glowing tail out the back of it. But it was far too fast
for a plane.'"

"'My friend also saw it. He going from Alfreton to Tansley and
stopped his car to look,'" the witness added. (See the Matlock
Mercury for February 15, 2001, "Close encounters continue in
Dales." Many thanks to Gerry Lovell for this newspaper article.)

MYSTERIOUS FIREBALL CAUSES A STIR IN NORTHERN IRELAND

"A full-scale emergency to search for a crashed plane was
launched" on Tuesday night, February 13, 2001, off the coast of
Northern Ireland.

"Troops and RUC (Royal Ulster Constabulary--J.T.) joined
ambulance crews and RAF helicopters after two people were
reported dead in a light aircraft accident."

"They rushed to the scene at a remote mountain near Kinawley,"
Northern Ireland, "on the Fermanagh border."

"Hospital staff at Enniskillen were at emergency standby."

"The emergency was called off late (Tuesday) night after four
hours."

"A schoolboy is believed to have reported seeing fire and heavy
smoke after he said a plane hit the mountain."

"St. Angelo Airport at Enniskillen said all its planes had been
accounted for."

"The ambulance spokesman said, 'A light aircraft was seen
falling from the sky. We immediately sent two ambulances and the
other emergency services were also there. We were led to
believe there were two people aboard the aircraft.'"

"Later the spokesman said they had used heat-heat-seeking
equipment to scan the area but had found nothing. He added,
'Well, at the moment, it would be fair to say it looks like a
hoax,'"

"The (supposed) crash site was just a few miles from where
rally champion Bertie Fisher's helicopter went down last month,"
i.e. in January 2001. (See the Daily Mirror for February 15,
2001, "Plane crash emergency 'hoax.'" Many thanks to Gerry
Lovell for this newspaper article.)

GREEN FIREBALL DODGES A POLICE HELICOPTER IN UK

On Thursday, February 8, 2001, a woman in Gloucester, UK
reported, "My extremely sensible son was watching a police
helicopter between 7 p.m. and 7:30 p.m. when 'a large green
ball' suddenly flew low across the sky and directly under the
helicopter that was hovering over Fainswick Road roundabout
(rotary in the USA--J.T.) It seemed to have appeared from
(behind) a flock of pigeons. Its passage appeared to have
disturbed their roost, as they do not fly in the dark."

The green UFO approached from the north-northwest. (Many thanks
to Cosmic Conspiracies for this report.)

FOUR AMBER UFOs SIGHTED IN ROCKFORD, ILLINOIS

"The odd lights continue to baffle many, but a new theory has
begun to gel in response to the latest report of bright lights
in the night sky" above Rockford, Illinois.

""Several sources speculated Tuesday that orange and gold
gleaming orbs spotted Saturday," February 10, 2001, "were helium
balloons carrying flares or candles, likely launched from
someone's backyard as a novelty or prank."

"More than 40 people, some from as far away as Byron and
Caledonia, contacted the Register-Star to relate accounts of a
phenomenon that started New Year's Eve 1999" and has returned
several times since.

"Lee Carlson said four amber-colored lights floated past his
Hillcrest Road house on a flight path from Gregory Elementary
School across Newbury Road and past A.C. Thompson Elementary
School."

"'I heard them pop as they went by and saw them slowly burn
out,' said Carlson, who suspects the balloons landed near the
U.S. Post Office or Harrison Sunstrand headquarters on Harrison
Avenue."

"Kathy Webb, wife of RVC theatre director Mike Webb, said she
watched from campus Saturday as a dozen lights slowly proceeded
to form the letters J, A, X and U."

"''I think they're aliens,' she said, 'But I don't think
they're coming to hurt us. I think they're just observing, to
see what our lives are like compared to theirs.'"

One who disagreed with the alien theory was "Duane Ingram, a
physics and astronomy professor at Rocky Valley College (RVC)"
who "said he doubts from descriptions he's heard that people
were watching stars, constellations or planets."

"Ingram said juvenile hijinks seem a more plausible
explanation. Such tricks could include lasers shot against low
clouds on dry nights or items attached to helium balloons, such
as flashlights or flares."

"'Let's see...on Saturday night? Come on!' he said."

"Federal Aviation Agency spokeswoman Liz Isham Cory confirmed
Tuesday that nothing unusual showed up on radar Saturday ,
including at the Greater Rockford Airport."

"But she said that operators at the Quad Cities control tower
saw bright lights that coincided with the January 11 (2001) rash
of reports in Rockford."

(Editor's Note: The "Quad Cities" include Rock Island,
Illinois; Moline, Illinois,; Bettendorf, Iowa and Davenport,
Iowa.)

"'These lights seem to have a seasonal pattern,' she said,
'They appear on cold, clear nights they have done so at the
beginning of the year.'"

"Peter B. Davenport, director of the UFO Reporting Center in
Washington (state), a non-profit organization that posts
sightings from persons across the country including Rockford,
said local reports 'don't appear to be consistent with
extraterrestrial craft,' mostly because of their slow travel
speed."

"'I suspect some human being is behind this,' he said." (See
the Rockford, Ill. Register-Star for February 14, 2001,
"Probably balloonist behind night lights." Many thanks to Kenny
Young of Cincinnati UFO Research for sending this newspaper
article.)

FOUR TRIANGULAR UFOs SPOTTED IN TYLER, TEXAS

On Sunday, February 11, 2001, at 6 p.m., M.C. was driving on
Loop Highway 323 in Tyler, Texas (population 17,000) when he and
his friend spotted some unusual objects approaching from the
west.

"I was with a friend, and she spotted the lights first," he
reported, "There were two triangular/rounded dark objects in the
sky moving very slowly. There was another one just a little
further ahead, and it was a little to the west of the other
two."

"The objects moved slowly easterly and then made an almost
90-degree turn northward. Then another object was sighted
approaching, following the same flight path as the others. It
appeared to be lower than the other three. As it approached, we
thought we'd be able to get a better view. But before it was
close enough for us to see better, it began rising and falling
slowly in the same path as those others in a northerly
direction. But as it got closer to the others, it also slowed."

"We were able to watch the objects for almost 20 minutes until
they were out of sight."

"They were dark or black, shaped like a triangle but with
rounded edges. They appeared to be very high in the night sky."
(Email Form Report)

RED UFO SEEN BY FAMILY IN ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO

On Wednesday, February 14, 2001, Cristy C. and her mother were
driving near Central Avenue and the Petroglyphs National
Monument on the west side of Albuquerque, New Mexico when they
unexpectedly encountered a UFO.

"We were coming from" a local mall "at about 6:05 p.m.. I saw
this red thing shoot up and spin really fast. I tried to tell my
mom, and she freaked" when she saw it. "It then turned
orange-yellow and then went high and disappeared. Now this
happened near Petroglyphs National Monument." (Many thanks to
Australian ufologist/researcher Barry Taylor for this email
report.)

BROWN GOOP FALLS FROM THE SKY IN LAKELAND, FLORIDA

Remember that weird brown coop that fell from the sky in
Pennsylvania a couple of years ago? Well, it's back!

"A foul-smelling brown substance has been raining down on a
Polk County neighborhood and neither residents nor county health
officials know what it is."

"The theories range from bird droppings to to airplane litter
to pollen or even emissions from nearby industries. All the
residents along a four-block area of Cimarron Drive in south
Lakeland know is the stuff is coating cars, driveways and picnic
tables."

"'I don't see any birds or planes,' said neighbor Demetra
Kaitsos, 'I don't get where it's coming from. It doesn't wash
out good. It's ruining my clothes and everything.'"

"Polk County officials are investigating. Samples were sent to
a laboratory on Thursday," February 15, 2001, "but results are
not expected for several days, said Gene Jeffers, an
environmental engineering administrator for the Polk County
Health Department."

"Jeffers said the stuff could be coming from nearby orange
groves or be airborne muck from wildfires burning south of
Mulberry, Florida."

"In the meantime, neighbors are trying to stay clean and safe."

"''I can't even go into my backyard because the stuff is
falling from the sky everywhere, and it's disgusting,' Kaitsos
said, 'I don't know if it's going to be hazardous to my kids.'"
(See the Miami Herald for February 16, 2001, "Mysterious brown
smelly stuff raining on Lakeland neighborhood." Many thanks to
Steve Wilson and Gerry Lovell for this newspaper article.(

HAM OPERATORS LISTEN IN ON SECRET HAARP TEST

A California radio enthusiast claims to have picked up a secret
test of the top-secret HAARP system on Saturday, February 17,
2001.

Marshall Smith stated that he was tuning in to frequency 3.390
megaherz (MHz) when "HAARP began testing with greatly increased
full power."

The USA Defense Department has stated that the HAARP array,
almost a forest of radio masts located in Gakona, Alaska, is a
facility for high-energy physics experiments. However, some
people in the UFO community believe that HAARP is the "jewel in
the crown" of a NATO "Star Wars" anti-UFO defense system.

"Very early this morning (Saturday, February 17), about 2 a.m.,
HAARP could be heard at its old usual signal strength," Smith
reported, "At 3 a.m., the signal changed both its pulse timing
and inter-pulse spacing. At 4:30 a.m., the signal strength
suddenly increased tremendously."

Unlike on previous occasions, he added, "There was no F-layer
fade out when the sun rose here in California at 6:45 a.m. I
have never heard the HAARP signal during the daytime before."

Because the signal remained strong during daylight, Smith
theorized that "this is an extremely powerful groundwave signal
and I was receiving the 'leakage' off the lobes of the
antenna."

HAARP's power strength is said to be 350 megawatts, but Smith's
guesstimate was that Saturday's signal was powered by an
electrical output that could be measured in gigawatts. )Many
thanks to Rev. Billy Dee and Steve Wilson for this report.)

(Editor's Comment: Next question: Could the HAARP test have
anything to do with the sudden sharp upsurge in UFO sightings
last week?)

HIGH WINDS DELAY THE LANDING OF ATLANTIS

NASA announced a change of plans Tuesday afternoon, February
20, 2001, changing the landing site of the space shuttle
Atlantis from Florida to California.

High winds and continuing bad weather at the Kennedy Space
Center landing strip in Cape Canaveral, Florida delayed the
original landing, which had been planned for Sunday, February
18, and also on Monday, February 19. The crew of Atlantis is in
no danger as the shuttle has enough food, water and breathable
air to remain in orbit until Wednesday.

The delay has been the only glitch in an otherwise
picture-perfect Atlantis mission.

On Monday, February 12, 2001, astronauts Thomas Jones and
Robert Curbeam "ventured out on another spacewalk and spruced up
the sparkling new Destiny science laboratory on the
International Space Station."

Jones and Curbeam "installed the electronic base for a large
robot arm that will be added to the space station in April
(2001). They strung a slide wire along the length of the
28-foot (7-meter) lab for use by future construction workers,
and they wired up a shuttle docking port on the end of the
lab."

On Tuesday, February 13, 2001, Jones and Curbeam "floated
outside space shuttle Atlantis, performing chores on the
International Space Station." This was the 100th spacewalk by
astronauts of the USA.

Curbeam and Jones "continued the string of space romps that
started in 1965 with Edward White's 21-minute spacewalk during
the Gemini 4 mission."

(Editor's Note: Younger readers, in those days spacewalks were
known as extra-vehicular activities or EVAs.)

On Thursday, February 15, 2001, "space shuttle Atlantis
astronauts gave one final orbit-raising lift to the
International Space Station and hauled over the last batch of
supplies."

"All that remained for the two crews were goodbyes and the
shuttle's morning departure."

"The space station commander, Bill Shepherd, said he regrets
not having had more time to socialize with the astronauts of the
space shuttle."

"'The toughest thing is to see folks kind of coming and going
for a week and not really having any down time to sit there and
relax,' Shepherd said, ''We did a little bit of yakking last
night. It was very good.'"

"He said he planned to inaugurate the space station's new DVD
player Thursday night in his first spare time since the
Atlantis's arrival last Friday," February 9, 2001, "with the
$1.4 billion science laboratory."

"The shuttle crew delivered the DVD player along with about 20
movies and 3,000 pounds of supplies."

(Editor's Comment: It just struck me that history is being made
aboard Station Alpha. Whoever's face first appears in the first
movie played on the station's new DVD machine has the
distinction of becoming the first actor or actress to perform in
a drama or comedy shown outside the bounds of Earth's
atmosphere. In addition, Bill Shepherd, Yuri Gidzenko and
Sergei Krikalyov are the first audience of humans to watch a
movie away from Earth.)

Atlantis also "left the space station in a much higher orbit."

"Atlantis's thrusters repeatedly were fired this week to raise
the shuttle/station complex. The end result was an average
altitude of 237 miles (379 kilometers), 16 miles (25
kilometers) higher than before." (See USA Today for February 13,
2001, "Astronauts get Destiny ready to go," page 7A; February
15, 2001, "Astronauts complete 100th spacewalk," page 3A; and
February 20, 2001, "Atlantis homecoming delayed again, reset for
today," page 3A. Also the Minneapolis, Minn. Star-Tribune for
February 17, 2001, "Atlantis leaves space station in a higher
orbit," page 3A.


 From the UFO Files...

1954: ALIENS LAND IN SOUTHERN BRAZIL

During the 1950s and early 1960s, there were many cases in
which the UFO occupants were human beings, amazingly like the
people here on Earth. One of the most interesting cases
involving these "Space Brothers" or "Off-World Humans" (OWH)
took place in the town of Santa Maria, in Rio Grande do Sul, the
southernmost state in Brazil.

"In March 1954, a Brazilian named Rubem Hellwig, of German
origin, encountered a small craft, not of this world, and spoke
with its occupants."

"The machine (UFO) shaped like a melon or rugby football, was
of about the size of a Volkswagen car, was standing not far from
the road on which Hellwig was driving at 5 p.m. He stopped and
walked over. The crew were two men of slim build, about a metre,
60 centimetres (6 feet) in height, their faces brownish and they
were not wearing helmets. One was inside the machine, and the
other was collecting specimens of grass."

"They spoke to Hellwig in a strange language and yet somehow he
says he understood what they asked, which was where they could
get some ammonia. He directed them to a nearby town. With blue
and yellow flames and great luminosity, the craft vanished
silently and instantly."

"The next day, early, he met what seemed to be the same machine
again, but this time with a different crew, a tall,
fair-complexioned man and two women with light brown skin, long
silky black hair and large dark slant eyes. All three were clad
alike in one-piece brown garments (coveralls) resembling suede,
with zippers. This party said they were scientists, spoke
enthusiastically of the natural riches of Brazil and were
enthralled that, unlike the other folk whom they had seen,
Hellwig did not flee from them in fear."

"Hellwig stated, in his account to the newspaper, that these
people could all easily pass here as Earth natives." (See the
book The Humanoids, Henry Regnery Co., Chicago, Ill. 1969,
pages 91 and 92.)

This wraps up one of the busiest UFO weeks we've had in a
while. Not only are the Argentina and Malaysia flaps still going
strong, we have an upsurge in UFO activity in UK and Chile.
It'll be interesting to see what the coming week brings. In
addition, there was an earthquake in El Salvador last week
measuring 6.6 on the Richter scale. Maybe that Hindu astrologer
in Ahmedabad was right about it being "earthquake season."
Anyway, 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 2001 by Masinaigan Productions, all
rights reserved. Readers may post 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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 23

                     Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 12:06:51 -0600
Fwd Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:23:08 -0500
Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Clark


 >From: Mendoza - Peter Brookesmith <Mendoza@appleonline.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Date: Thu, 22 Feb 01 00:25:59 +0000
 >Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment

 >The Duke of Mendoza presents his compliments:

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 18:51:51 -0600
 >>Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:22:39 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Clark

 >>>From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment
 >>>Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 18:43:18 -0000


With all due apologies to patient and gentle listfolk:

 >In this exchange, we find Jerome giving Andy a bit of lip, as
 >follows:

 >>I'm sorry that, from every indication betrayed by your
 >>childish taunting and boasting, it appears you may not
 >>possess the temperament that would give any objective
 >>observer confidence in your abilities or conclusions. And
 >>if you can't see that, if you can imagine a critic only as
 >>a foolish or venal character - a depised enemy - whom you
 >>have to trounce at all costs, you are in some serious
 >>trouble.

 >Jerome warns Andy: "if you can imagine a critic only as a
 >foolish or venal character - a depised enemy - whom you have
 >to trounce at all costs, you are in some serious trouble."
 >Jerome should know, having got into trouble by taking such a
 >line himself. It remains an open question whether he has learned
 >anything from this experience, or whether he merely thinks he
 >can get away with similar ploys on the Internet. What am I
 >talking about? See beneath.

Yes, see beneath, by all means. PB reprints a self-serving
screed from militant debunker Gary P. Posner, who once
threatened to sue CUFOS because of an editorial I wrote critical
of debunking excesses. (By the way, amusingly, PB has shown, by
a whole lot of tactful silence on the subject, not to mention
his own, er, distinctively colorful outburst, that he believes
"debunking excesses" to be logically and rhetorically
impossible.).

Make no mistake about it: I am proud of the IUR piece - one of
the best short articles I have ever written - and stand by its
accuracy, which till now no unpaid outside observer ever
challenged (Posner did so, ofcourse, only because he was one of
those criticized therein and, like all debunkers, can dish it
out but can't take it in return). I note that in 1992, in an
interesting Journal of the American Society for Psychical
Research paper on CSICOP's history of excesses, George P.Hansen
-- who is no more a friend of mine than Posner is - also
mentioned the "ambulatory schizophrenia" assertion Posner made
in a letter published in a 1978 issue of CSICOP's magazine.

Posner's curious claim was widely remarked on at the time among
observers of the newly organized CSICOP. I recall conversations
in which even skeptics laughingly or concernedly cited it as
evidence of extremism in CSICOP's ranks and as evidence there
might be problems down the road (as there were). If memory
serves, it was no less than CSICOP co-founder (and early
defector) Marcello Truzzi who first drew the letter to my
attention. No wonder, in retrospect, Posner found it so
embarrassing and sought to silence anyone who reminded the world
of what he had written, one hopes (charitably) in the enthusiasm
of the moment.

In any event, CUFOS' attorney told us that we would win if we
went to trial, but urged us not to fight it because, even if we
"won," we'd lose in effect because of the enormous legal
expenses. The usual story, in other words.

IUR, with the attorney's vetting, drafted a
nonretraction/retraction, essentially stating that because of
legal threats we could not publish a defense or rejoinder to
Posner's letter. Even Phil Klass and CSICOP refused to back
Posner and encouraged him to drop the matter. No one besides
Posner (and now, I gather, PB) ever professed to believed I'd
said anything libelous.

All that's interesting in PB's verbiage, by the way, is
its gross hypocrisy. The posting implicitly defends Posner
as an innocent victim while putting forth the allegation that I am
guilty of holding one's intellectual adversaries to be, in my
words, "foolish or venal characters - a despised
enemy - whom you have to trounce at all costs." In fact,
it was precisely people who think like that whom I was
criticizing in the editorial that gave PB and his pal Posner
such a severe case of the vapors.

Let us now consider the case of Gary P. Posner, who considers
ufologists and other anomalists to be an unsavory lot indeed.
The following is a memorandum for the record I wrote in 1992. I
found it, appropriately enough, in a folder titled "Posner
Threats." The opening references are to the IUR editorial in
question:

***

"Posner is quoted in the lead paragraph (#1) on page 22. The
editorial mentions his remarks regarding ambulatory
schizophrenia in the context of a criticism of debunkers'
rhetorical excess - as one example of "strange charges against
ufologists." The following paragraph (#2) nowhere mentions
Posner and in fact sets up the paragraph after (#3); note the
opening "Thus" in #3, linking it directly with the sentiments in
#2. #3 concerns James Randi's attack on Uri Geller for
"appalling moral lapses, such as a role in what Randi alleges
was an American scientist's suicide."

In fact, on August 14, 1992, Jerome Clark wrote Posner as
follows: "In my IUR editorial, your ambulatory-schizophrenia
accusation was cited as an example of debunkers' 'strange
charges against ufologists.' Any other reading is
inconceivable." In fact, CSICOP, which was the subject of the
sentence to which Posner objects but in which he nowhere
figures, indicated in an unsolicited letter (from executive
director Barry Karr, September 3) to Clark that it found nothing
in his editorial (reprinted in the July 5 issue of Saucer Smear)
to merit legal action.

The following has no bearing on the published IUR remarks but is
concerned with subsequent personal correspondence between Posner
and Clark [and Ron Westrum] in which the former's views of
ufologists' character were discussed and debated:

It is Clark's view that other statements of Posner's displayed a
contempt for ufologists and their motives and suggested a belief
that they are dishonest and unsavory. In a June 29, 1979, letter
to Ron Westrum, Posner asked rhetorically, "Is [Allen Hynek]
dishonest?... I do not know the answers to these questions." In
other words, he deemed ufology's most prominent proponent's
dishonesty at least an open question. On September 9 of the same
year he referred, again in a letter to Westrum, to Philip J.
Klass's "repeated demands for some semblance of honesty and
professional morality among ufologists," implying that such are
in short supply in ufologists' ranks. On September 20 Posner
wrote Westrum, "UFO proponents seem invariably to assume an
evasive and/or deceptive posture." In a January 26, 1978, letter
to Hynek, he said, "If you continue your present course, your
personal finances may remain sound, and you may even eventually
get your own TV show, but I assure you that your credibility
among the 'logical' segment of the population (no matter how few
of us there may be left) will erode to zero, if it has not
already done so." The implication, of course, is that Hynek's
UFO interests were motivated by profits and publicity rather
than scientific curiosity.

In a September 19, 1979, letter to Clark, Posner went beyond
innuendo to state bluntly his belief in the unsavory character
of UFO proponents: "In a field in which the purported evidence
is so flimsy and subjectivre, one would be very foolish to trust
the opinions and judgement of anyone with an established pattern
of deceptive and evasive behavior - hence my present mistrust
of virtually all of the prominent UFO proponents."

Writing to Clark on August 17, 1992, Posner stated he still held
that view of UFO proponents. He said, "I now do appreciate and
freely acknowledge that the concluding paragraph of my 1/26/78
letter alluded to only one of several possible explanations for
[Hynek's] unscientific behavior (i.e., there may be more fame
and fortune in pro-UFO advocacy than in scientific pursuit of
the truth).... When even Allen Hynek ... began to exhibit
behavior that appeared evasive at best and deceptive at worst, I
found myself in an admitted state of 'mistrust of virtually all
the prominent UFO proponents.' Unfortunately, things do not
appear to have changed one iota for the better in the nearly 15
intervening years."

Posner expressed a comparable sentiment to Tom Zucco, a reporter
for a Florida newspaper, Naples Daily News. In its May 31, 1992,
issue Posner is quoted as indicating that ufologists researching
UFO abductions have questionable motives. They have created a
manufactured mystery because of their "interest in promoting UFO
stories or selling books." In other words, ufologists are not
interested in truth-seeking but in creating a sensation and
making money from it.

In an October 11, 1985, letter Clark asked Posner to cite five
"points of disagreement" he might have with fellow debunker
Klass. Posner said on October 16 that "I cannot think of any"
such disagreements - a pointed repeated in a November 5
communication. On August 26, 1992, Posner reaffirmed his entire
agreement with Klass's pronouncements and on September 2 wrote,
"I cannot think of any substantive UFO issues with which I
disagree significantly with Phil." A third affirmation appears
in a September 10 letter. In short, Posner indicates that, among
other things, he has no problem with anything Klass says about
the character of peresons with a sympathetic interest in UFOs.

In his many writings Klass has accused ufologists of a variety
of social crimes, not the least of them habitual deceit of the
public. One, made repeatedly, is that ufologists cover up
prosaic explanations of UFO cases to keep money coming into
their organizations. Thus he has used the phrase "UFO promoters"
rather than "UFO proponents" to describe their true, unsavory
motives. He has also compared meetings of UFO enthusiasts with
meetings of the Ku Klux Klan and the American Nazi Party. He
has, moreover, called ufologists "kooks and cultists" who abuse
"honorable men ... for daring to speak well of this country and
its institutions and leaders" (December 12, 1983, letter to
Clark). He has accused ufologists of working for the same ends
as the Soviet Union (while stopping short of calling them
conscious agents of international Communism). In early 1984
Klass circulated the transcript of a phone conversation he had
with University of Nebraska administrator Robert Mortenson. In
it Klass says, referring to ufologists who believe the U.S.
government is concealing significant UFO secrets:

"[A]s a patriotic American, I very much resent the charges of
'coverup,' of lying, of falsehoods, charged against not one
Administration, not two, but teight Administrations going back
to a man from Missouri named Truman, a man named Dwight
Eisenhower. Because if this charge is true - Cosmic Watergate
-- then all of these Presidents were implicated, and all of
their Administrations.... [In making this charge, ufologists]
seek what the Soviet Union does - to convey to the public that
our Government can not be trusted, that it lies, that it
falsifies.... I know this charge is completely false. And I
resent it as an American citizen."

In this instance Posner's endorsement of a Klass charge - in
this case that reckless and irresponsible ufologists are doing
such damage to their country that a "patriotic American" feels
compelled to protest - was not just implicit but explicit. In
the April 25, 1984, issue of Saucer Smear, Posner discussed the
matter and praised Klass aas a "highly respected journalist and
editor with a well- earned reputation for scrupulous honesty and
factual accuracy (among all but the 'pro-Weirdness' crowd)."
Referring to Klass's statements to Mortenson, Posner declared
that if he were Mortenson, he "would have appreciated Phil's
efforts to educate" him and other university officials
responsible for sponsoring a conference organized by ufologists.

***

A final note: In its early days (especially the late 1970s)
CSICOP defined its mission as no less than defense of democracy,
allegedly imperiled by irrational cults such as ufology. The
historical analogy most often cited was Weimar Germany, in which
occult groups (some of which included Nazis in their membership)
proliferated. That is where James Oberg's reference - in a 1981
book - obliquely linking ufologists and fascistically inclined
occultists came from. The analogy was so brazenly bogus that
CSICOP, after criticism from within its own ranks, dropped it.
After my IUR editorial appeared, Oberg sent me some
near-hysterical letters alleging that I had misrepresented his
views, which I hadn't. Like Posner, rather than admit that he'd
been wrong or that he had since changed his mind (which actually
would have made both men look good, since everybody makes
mistakes), he tried to silence the critic who'd pointed to the
unfortunate claim. As PB would put it, rather than accept an
embarrassing truth, Oberg, like Posner, sought to kill the
messenger.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 23

                   Re: Alien Autopsies Are "True"! - Evans

From: Roger Annette Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 12:42:45 -0600
Fwd Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:52:28 -0500
Subject: Re: Alien Autopsies Are "True"! - Evans


 >From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
 >Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 22:23:05 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Alien Autopsies Are "True"! - Deschamps
 >To: UFO UpDates <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>From: Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo <ufomiami@prodigy.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Alien Autopsies Are "True"!
 >>Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 16:44:05 -0600

Previously, Dr. Sanchez-Ocejo wrote:

 >>Local news station WSVN, channel 7, Fox, aired an interview with
 >>former Army Sergeant-Major Robert Dean, on Sunday February 18 at
 >>11 P.M.

 >>In the interview, Mr. Dean claimed that in 1964 saw Medical
 >>Reports of autopsies of "extraterrestrials". He stated that
 >>there were 4 different races, one of them similar to us, 4 to
 >>4.5 feet tall. He did not care about personal repercussions, and
 >>the government should said the true to the public.

 >>Anyone know about this interview?

Michel replied:

 >I'm not sure, but I may have parts of it on video tape...
 >somewhere.


Hi, Michel!

Perhaps it is lost in the abundance of flying saucer tapes you
claim to have. I refer to the following post:

 >>From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 18:22:10 -0500
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Deschamps

 >>Frankly, I don't care that much since I've had so many
 >>sightings; I am kind of casual about it because I know Flying
 >>saucers are real.

 >>If you've never seen anything, you can't know for sure. But
 >>believe me, if you ever do see something, you won't be able to
 >>deny it to yourself... eventually.

 >>It took me a long while to accept what I had seen, and each
 >>time, I had a hard time believing what my eyes saw or what my
 >>camcorder captured on tape.

In response, I asked:

 >So let me get this straight; you know flying saucers are real
 >because you have video tape of them?

 >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...

Come on, Michel. It's been several months. How long does it take
to find the video of _the_ flying saucer shot that makes you
_know_ they are real. If the interview tape that Dr.
Sanchez-Ocejo is seeking is stored with your other tapes, then I
hold out little hope of it ever seeing the light of day.

You _do_ have video of flying saucer, right?

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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 23

                     Mystery Bang Rocks Yorkshire Coast

From: Dave Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:24:52 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:56:54 -0500
Subject: Mystery Bang Rocks Yorkshire Coast


Greetings List

This is copied from today's Yorkshire Post (Leeds, 22 February
2001):



'Earthquake' was no great shakes...
Mark Branagan.

If you failed to notice the "earthquake" which rattled the
Yorkshire coast yesterday, don't worry...neither did the British
Geological Survey.

Not, that is, until the panic calls began flooding in to the BGS
headquarters in Edinburgh from Boulby, Whitby, Scarborough,
Bridlington, Filey and Hornsea.

BGS equipment is capable of picking up earth tremors on the
other side of the world, but the event on the Yorkshire coast
did not even register at their local seismic station in
Pickering.

The reason was that the rumble which shook houses for 50 miles
at 11.40am was no freak of nature. More probably, it was a
sonic boom from RAF jets on exercise over the North Sea.

Scientists say the vibrations were definitely not caused by an
earthquake, although those whose homes were affected could have
been forgiven for fearing the worst.

Seismologist Glenn Ford, of the BGS, said the shaking sensation
produced by jets going supersonic and those of minor
earthquakes were very similar.

"We get about six of these incidents a year when people report
earthquakes after hearing sonic booms," he said although such
reports were now less common than in the heyday of Concorde.

Yesterday's two-second rumble was still one of the biggest since
1997, when a boom from 16 Tornado jets over the North Sea shook
Cleveland, Co Durham and Hartlepool power station.

Sounds picked up by a BGS microphone at Leeds University
suggested Yorkshire had suffered a similar fluke yesterday and
the Ministry of Defence confirmed aircraft were in the area at
the time.

Mr Ford said that although pilots were not allowed to break the
sound barrier over land, they could do while training over the
sea, and the resulting sonicboom had been known to drift for
miles.

Yesterday's bang led to many panicked householders fleeing into
the street.

Police and Scarborough Council were bombarded with calls for
much of the day about the "earthquake".

Health and safety officers were stirred, but not shaken. The
walls of the town hall may have been rattled, but the only
report of any damage was a broken window at Whitby.

For retired policeman John Melville, 51, now living on a croft
near Robin Hood's Bay, however, the tremor conjured up some
uncomfortable memories.

He said: "I remember when I was in Glasgow and a small boy was
killed in a big tremor. Before that I was in Belgium when there
was an earthquake and people were killed.I'm out in the country
having a nice retired life, then today our life was interrupted
with the almightiest of shakes.

"We phoned the council about 20 miles away and they said they
were feeling a bit shaken as well."








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 23

               Re: Cosmic Snowball Attack From Space? - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:36:06 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 13:00:15 -0500
Subject: Re: Cosmic Snowball Attack From Space? - Velez


 >Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 20:38:42 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
 >From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Cosmic Snowball Attack From Space?

 >Hi everyone.
 >
 >It has been nearly four years since I first checked into this
 >story which was posted on UFO UpDates. Now there is new evidence
 >(see attached University of Iowa release below) in support that
 >the cosmic snowball attack from space is real.

 >Tons of dust from space from meteors, most no larger than a
 >grain of sand, collects on the Earth surface each day. Now we
 >are presented with new evidence for an even larger bombardment
 >from space. Are mini snow comets, each the size of a house,
 >really hitting the Earth once every 3 seconds or so? Could some
 >of the unexplained UFOs video recorded in space from the Space
 >Shuttle be these 20-40 ton snowballs? I wonder what Professor
 >Frank's comments would be regarding these UFO space videos?

 >Nick Balaskas

 >-----

 >The following release was received from The University Of Iowa,
 >in Iowa City, And is forwarded for your information.
 >(Forwarding does not imply endorsement by The American
 >Astronomical Society.) Steve Maran, American Astronomical
 >Society

 >Contact:  Gary Galluzzo, University News Services
 >(319) 384-0009
 >(319) 338-7727 Home
 >e-mail: gary-galluzzo@uiowa.edu

 >Embargoed for Release: 1 a.m. EST, March 1, 2001

 >UI researcher finds new evidence for small comet theory

 >IOWA CITY, Iowa -- In a paper published in the March 1, 2001
 >issue of the American Geophysical Union's Journal of Geophysical
 >Research, University of Iowa Physics Professor Louis A. Frank,
 >says that he has found new evidence to support his theory that
 >the water in Earth's oceans arrived by way of small snow comets.

 >Frank reports that he obtained pictures of nine small comets
 >among 1,500 images made between October 1998 and May 1999 using
 >the Iowa Robotic Observatory (IRO) located near Sonoita, Ariz.
 >In addition, he says that the possibility of the images being
 >due to "noise," or electronic interference, on the telescope's
 >video screens was eliminated by operating the telescope in such
 >a manner as to ensure that real objects were recorded in the
 >images. This operation of the telescope utilized two simple
 >exposure modes for the acquisition of the images.  One scheme
 >used the telescope's shutter to provide two trails of the same
 >small comet in a single image, and the second scheme used the
 >same shutter to yield three trails in an image.

 >"In the two-trail mode for the telescope's camera, no events
 >were seen with three trails, and for the three-trail mode, no
 >events were seen with two trails," he says. "This simple shutter
 >operation for the telescope's camera provides full assurance
 >that real extraterrestrial objects are being detected." Frank
 >notes these images with the IRO confirm earlier reports of small
 >comet detection using the ground-based Spacewatch Telescope
 >during November 1987, January 1988 and April 1988.

 >The small comet theory, developed in 1986 with UI research
 >scientist John Sigwarth from data gathered using the Dynamics
 >Explorer 1 satellite, holds that about 20 snow comets weighing
 >20 to 40 tons each disintegrate in the Earth's atmosphere every
 >minute. Over the lifetime of our planet, the comets would have
 >accounted for virtually all of the Earth's water. The small
 >comet theory has been controversial almost from the beginning,
 >with some scientists suggesting that images identified as small
 >snow comets actually result from electronic noise on satellite
 >sensors and other researchers asserting that the images
 >represent a real phenomenon. In 1997, Frank revealed a series of
 >photographs taken by Visible Imaging System (VIS ) cameras
 >designed by Frank and Sigwarth and carried aboard NASA's Polar
 >spacecraft as further proof of the existence of the small snow
 >comets.

 >Robert A. Hoffman, senior scientist at NASA's Goddard Space
 >Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. and project scientist for both the
 >Dynamics Explorer 1 and the Polar spacecraft missions, says that
 >because satellite-based imagery related to the small comet
 >theory has been interpreted in different ways, ground-based
 >imagery is a good alternative.

 >"Due to the controversy surrounding the interpretation of the
 >images from space-borne detectors taken primarily in ultraviolet
 >wavelengths, ground-based visible observations with sufficient
 >signal-to-noise appear to be the most practical approach to
 >obtaining clear evidence regarding the existence of these
 >objects.  I hope more such studies will be performed," Hoffman
 >says.

 >Frank, a UI faculty member since 1964, has been an experimenter,
 >co-investigator, or principal investigator for instruments on
 >forty-two spacecraft. His instruments include those used to
 >observe the Earth's auroras, as well as those used to measure
 >energetic charged particles and thin, electrically charged gases
 >called plasmas. He is a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union
 >and the American Physical Society, a member of the American
 >Astronomical Society, American Association for the Advancement
 >of Science and the International Academy of Astronautics, and a
 >recipient of the National Space Act Award.

 >Further information, including images of two small comet
 >trails, can be found at the following web site:

 >http://smallcomets.physics.uiowa.edu/iro/.

 >(Note to editors and reporters: Frank will be on travel from
 >February 26 through March 3.)

Hiya Nick, hi All,

Nick this is absurd. Are _serious_ astronomers really giving
this 'theory' consideration? With just cursory consideration it
doesn't make sense.

If the earth is being pelted every three seconds or so by
"house-sized" chunks of ice, then so is the moon. The moon has
no atmosphere to melt, or slow down, or to diminish in size and
impact these rather large ice bullets. Even my 8 inch Celestron
would be able to detect the little dust clouds that would be
thrown up with each and every impact.

(IF) what Franks suggests is true, and the moon is also being
pelted at the rate of three impacts per second by house-sized
chunks of ice traveling at 40,000mph or so, observing the
surface of the moon would be like watching corn pop in the
kettle with the cover off.

An argument:

Oh but if they are coming from deep in the solar system they
would strike the far side of the moon and we'd never see them.

BS there are times when the precession of the moon allows a peek
beyond the limb and if not then, they would have certainly been
detected by our craft and astronauts as they circumvented the
moon. Clementine was up there doing detailed imaging and nothing
is ever mentioned about this 'three event per second' rain of
ice chunks hauling ass at 40 to 50 thousand mph.

You're an astronomer yourself. You've probably spent more time
at the eyepiece than I have studying minutia on the surface of
the moon. Have -you- ever witnessed an impact of any kind?

Neither have I. And I hunt (intentionally) for any kind of
anomalies on the lunar surface whenever I turn my scope on it.

Three impacts per second? That's tantamount to a space blizzard!
And it's never been detected until now? I don't buy it.

Regards,

John Velez, amateur astronomer 30 years, never seen a snowball
in Heaven or Hell.



                                         *************
                              "Nothing is at last sacred but
                             the integrity of your own mind."
                                 www.spacelab.net/~jvif/
                                         *************







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 23

                           Re: Lakenheath - Clarke

From: Dave Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 20:40:51 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 13:05:23 -0500
Subject: Re: Lakenheath - Clarke


 >From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 17:12:53 -0000
 >Subject: Re: Lakenheath

 >>I was hoping that one of the serious newspapers might take up the
 >>story, and finally put someone in the know on the spot. But the
 >>fact that only the News of the World and GMTV seem to have paid
 >>it any attention just goes to show that, as I said, it takes the
 >>case no further and proves _nothing_.

 >For a journalist you are not very well informed. My book has had
 >plenty of publicity. I was happy to go with The News of The
 >World for serial because they are Britain's biggest selling
 >Sunday newspaper and as a result of that my book went into
 >second re-print before publication date.

Hi Georgina,

I'm as well informed as the next journalist....

My experience tells me is that whatever the selling power of the
News of the World, no one would take any "UFO story" published
in that rag with anything other than a huge pinch of salt! Come
on, if you had a *serious* story to tell would you take it to
the News of the World?

The NOTW is only slightly down the food chain than the
Sunday Sport in terms of credibility when it comes to
UFO stories. For a story such as this to appear in its
pages is the surest way to kill off any interest from
the serious media - as Jenny found back in 1983.

The fact remains that if the revelations in your Rendlesham book
were as earth shattering and had worried people in high places
as much as you claim, then the story should have been on BBC
news or at least rated lead story status in one of the *quality*
nationals (it did get a mention in the Ariadne column in the
Independent, but that does not count in this context).

Don't give me the 'D-Notice' and cover-up theory for
this one, the simple fact is that the media are not interested
in the story because there is no proof, no solid evidence
of anything. Its a confusing mass of confusing testimony,
claim and counterclaim. Reading your book just brought it home to
me how disparate, contradictory and confusing the
eyewitness testimony is. Larry Warren's multitude of
claims and counter-claims even put Alex Birch to shame.

But I will say this - you deserve credit for making the effort
to get out there, collecting and recording direct eyewitness
testimony. This is something most armchair UFOlogists never
achieve - it's far easier to speculate and recycle second, third
and fourth hand accounts.

Recording is one thing - interpretation of that evidence
is another. That's where things start getting tricky!

 >One is obliged to do lecture tours if ones book is popular, and
 >who ever told you there is money to made in ufology?

What a revealing statement! At least you're honest.

 >Well, it has! It's just that the lighthouse club have totally
 >ignored the book and are still working with old material. This,
 >has I have explained before, is because my book demolishes the
 >lighthouse theory and rabbit sratchings etc and they just cannot
 >except it.

I can't see how you can claim you have demolished the lighthouse
theory when you make the point in your book that you can't be
bothered to even debate the theory. You say (pg 272) that "...I
am not even going to discuss suggestions that UFOs were the
lights from an NSA building etc....far too much time has already
been spent debating these theories, which I believe are of no
significance whatsoever..."

You are right to be sceptical of scoffers because they follow a
tradition of disbelief equal to the believers - but to dismiss
very valid arguments concerning witness perception and
confabulation is not going to endear your book to scientists,
investigative journalists or anyone else who might consider
taking up this case with the Establishment.

For the record, I don't find the lighthouse arguments totally
satiisfying for all aspects of the reported phenomena - but the
optical effects have to be considered in the context of the
other events - such as the bright bolide, the lightship, the
space debris re-entry. Plus the undoubted influence of rumour
and exaggeration in the re-telling of the story as it spread
through the base complex.

You do your creditable investigation a disservice by taking what
witnesses tell you at face value!

 >>In fact, the most important piece of evidence in the whole book
 >>in my opinion is the letter from Inspector Mike Topliss of the
 >>Suffolk Constabulary, who put the whole thing in perspective as
 >>only a local copper could.

 >Well, Mike's information was based on Dave King's evidence for
 >the most part and Dave has had second thoughts. Mike was obliged
 >to write that letter as it was written on Suffolk Constabulary
 >headed paper. Now, did you read his own personal account of his
 >encounter with an unidentified in Suffolk? Isn't it always the
 >case, that you guys only ever see the side of the story that
 >suits you! And here we have a police inspector talking about his
 >UFO encounter!

Yes but Mike Topliss's personal UFO encounter has got absolutely
zero connection with the Rendlesham incident we are discussing,
ie the events between 26-30 December 1980 and the role played by
the Orfordness lighthouse!

This is a classic error made by UFO apologists - making
connections between events which have no connection!

 >The fact that I managed to talk to Williams was indeed a
 >breakthrough because for twenty years nobody had ever done that,
 >so everything was speculation, such as being accused of
 >communicating with aliens, which was not the case. Williams was
 >not involved in the actual encounter so he cannot be a witness
 >to that. However, I think my chapter on the Wing Commander, the
 >man who after all, was in charge of the bases at the time,
 >brings new light to the case. There is also a good deal of
 >constructive information on Moreland. Not only did my interviews
 >with him, result in obtaining his covering letter to the MOD,
 >entitled "Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs)" but also proved
 >that Halt actually approached him a week earlier than first
 >known, plus much more valuable information. So you are being
 >silly to think there was nothing new involved here.


You deserve credit for getting Williams to speak, well done. But
other than giving you a baseball cap with "The Truth is Out
There" on it, I don't think what he told you takes us any
further than his original bland statement printed in the News of
the World back in 1983.

As for Moreland and his cover-letter marked "UFOs" - again well
done. But there are literally thousands of cover- notes in the
Public Record Office files marked "UFOs" and "Flying Saucers" -
the phrase means nothing other than "Unidentified Flying
Objects", which was what Halt and his men claimed to have seen.

What else did you expect Moreland to entitle his cover letter
"Report of Time Travellers from the planet Zog" ?

So your point is?


All best wishes

Dave Clarke








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 23

                 Students Uncover Baffling Martian Boulders

From: Kelly <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 17:35:02 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 13:07:03 -0500
Subject: Students Uncover Baffling Martian Boulders

[Interesting photos on site - Kelly]

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0102/22boulders/

Students uncover baffling Martian boulders
NASA/JPL NEWS RELEASE
Posted: February 22, 2001

In a case of beginner's luck, a group of international students,
who won the chance to image Mars with a NASA spacecraft camera,
have stumbled upon a surprising cluster of dark-colored boulders
situated in the middle of light-colored terrain.

Mars Global Surveyor image. Photo: NASA/JPL/Malin Space Science
Systems

The students' discovery has so far baffled veteran Mars
scientists. The mystery boulders, found in images captured by
NASA's Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft, managed by NASA's Jet
Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., cover one of three
Martian sites targeted by the young scientists. How the boulders
got there and what geological history they represent on Mars are
questions scientists still need to answer.

"It's puzzling," said Michael Carr of the U.S. Geological
Survey. "I looked at a few pictures around [the area] and
couldn't find anything to explain it. Very puzzling! These are
huge boulders. There are no indications of any outcrops that
could shed such boulders."

"The location and nature of these boulders is unusual, but their
shape and distribution -- in respect to the slope upon which
they sit -- is consistent with a boulder shattered by
weathering. The fall to their present location could also have
broken the boulders apart. The mystery is why so much of the
rest of the slope is smooth and devoid of blocks," said Dr.
Michael Malin, of Malin Space Science Systems, which operates
the Mars Orbiter Camera aboard the Global Surveyor spacecraft.

Images of the two other sites chosen by the students revealed an
equatorial Martian region with layers of sediment, possibly
deposited by flowing water, and layered terrain of a Martian
polar cap.

The students, all members of the Planetary Society's week-long
Red Rover Goes to Mars Training Mission, range in age from 10 to
16. Under the supervision of scientists at Malin Space Science
Systems in San Diego, Calif., they studied imaging data from
Global Surveyor and selected interesting areas that coincided
with the spacecraft's current orbital position around the red
planet. They also selected a candidate landing site for a
possible sample return mission, to be imaged sometime in the
next five months when Global Surveyor's orbit takes it past the
target area.

"This kind of opportunity makes me wish I were a student again,"
said Michelle Viotti, lead for the Mars Public Engagement
Program at JPL. "For those who are still in school, we hope to
open up many more opportunities in the near future for students
to participate personally in the exploration of Mars."

The fledgling scientists were chosen through an essay contest
from more than 10,000 entrants worldwide. The four girls and
five boys represent Brazil, Hungary, India, Poland, Taiwan and
the United States.

The Planetary Society's Red Rover Goes to Mars project is
conducted in cooperation with NASA and JPL. JPL manages NASA's
Mars Global Surveyor mission for NASA's Office of Space Science,
Washington, D.C., and Malin Space Science Systems built and
operates the Mars Orbiter Camera. JPL is a division of the
California Institute of Technology in Pasadena.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 23

                       Niburu Visible With 'Scopes...

From: Wendy Christensen <christensen@catlas.mv.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:17:09 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 13:09:32 -0500
Subject: Niburu Visible With 'Scopes...


This was forwarded to me. I have no opinion or knowledge about
it. So don't shoot the messenger!

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


Posted By: LAKE ZURICH
Date: Thursday, 22 February 2001, 4:09 a.m.
Thursday, February 22, 2001
All day...

These are the coordinates at which the so-called Planet X, 10th
Planet, 12th Planet, Nemisis, Nibiru or whatever you want to
call it, is going to be visible, with a telescope!

   RA 5.16659 Dec 16.57897
   February 22nd, 2001

   RA 5.16653 Dec 16.56912
   March 1st, 2003

   RA 4.29741 Dec 9.96621
   March 3rd, 2003

Get this out to all the astronomers you know. They will
appreciate it!


------








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 23

                   Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Bourdais

From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:19:41 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 13:12:16 -0500
Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Bourdais


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment
 >Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 12:11:52 -0600

 >>From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 14:34:10 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment
 >>>Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 20:02:56 -0000

 >Gildas,

 >>>All this finger-pointing both ways is silly until the UFOIN
 >>>report is published and peer reviewed. I for one look forward to
 >>>it with great interest. Such detailed case investigations are
 >>>essential to serious ufology.

 >>Agreed!

 >>But, let's hope that Jenny Randles et al will be better than on
 >>Rendlesham.

 >>And that the pilot's testimonies "who have seen nothing" will be
 >>loud and clear.

 >>The "Cometa boys" are waiting and getting older).

 >I, too, look forward to seeing whatever Randles/Roberts/Clarke
 >have come up with and determining whether it's more compelling
 >than the failed (though much-hyped) attempt to debunk the
 >Rendlesham case. The jeering, boasting posting by Andy Roberts
 >does not, however, exactly inspire confidence about the
 >objectivity of the investigation. I guess we'll find out one way
 >or another at some point.

 >Jerry Clark

Yes, and I do not think that a mere transcript of the pilot's
testimonies will suffice. Video or at least audio recording will
have to be produced before independant parties. I suggest for
instance, among British ufologists, Timothy Good, Nicholas
Redfern and Omar Fowler.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 23

                        Re: AA Film Redux - Bourdais

From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:19:39 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 13:15:59 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Bourdais


 >Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 15:10:38 +0000
 >From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux

 >>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 23:17:20 EST
 >>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >>>Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 21:51:51 +0000
 >>>Fwd Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 11:27:32 -0500
 >>>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Morris

 >>In prefacing my response, I would like to point out that I have
 >>had a number of very cordial and interesting e-mails with Neil
 >>Morris in which we've exchanged information and a lot of give
 >>and take. I think of Neil as a genuine good guy. He is an
 >>intelligent and honest person and I mean him no disrepect.

 >>On the other hand, I fear he has fallen under the sway of the
 >>RPIT group and its minister of propaganda, J. Bond Johnson (I'm
 >>sure Neil would strenuously disagree). I am writing this
 >>response to Neil's post to point out some clearly erroneous
 >>information and to clarify other matters.


To David, Neil and the List

First, thanks again to David Rudiak for his patient and
excellent contribution in this very long discusion, which is
becoming irritating. I have read just a bit of it, but this last
message contains truly debunking stuff which could be signed by
either Philip Klass, Kal Korff or Karl Pflock ("our best
debunker", said Cavitt). Neil says for instance:

 >David, Roswell testimony is a little like The Bible, you can
 >find a bit to prove almost any point<g>, lets not go down that
 >road.

This Neil's comment on the quotation of General DuBose's
affidavit by David: a part of the "Roswel Bible"!

What do you mean? Than anything can be drawn from it?

And the phrasing suggests, if I understand well, that the same
may said of other Roswell testimonies.

Strong smell of debunking here!

Then, Neil further puts in doubt General DuBose:

 >I think DuBose tended to please everybody.

I don't think that at all.

I also read the long interview of DuBose by Shandera, as
published in the Mufon UFO Journal of January 1991.

There is, yes, a difficult point, when DuBose claims that the
debris was not changed in Ramey's office. But he did not
say it was the real debris from the Roswell crash! He just said
that it was a "bunch of trash" which was delivered in a canvas
pouch (Marcel was not in that plane):


"I took this pouch to Ramey's office. In it was a bunch of
trash. We unbuckled it and laid it out on the floor. It was cold
potatoes as far as I was concerned".


As for the real debris from the Roswell crash, he always said
that he never saw it.

What else do we need?

We have the affidavit, and we have the pictures which show quite
obviously debris of balloon and radar target, as identified at
once by Irving newton.

I have looked carefully at the pictures (on Stan Friedman's CD,
and the details given by Neil), but there is nothing
extraordinary! Just plain ballon debris, like DuBose and Newton
said.

So, why all this endless arguing and fighting?

All it does is add further confusion to the Roswell case,
and bring water to the skeptic mill (you see, the real debris
was just balloon debris, says Pflock).

I am almost beginning to wonder if this could be the real
objective of Mr Bond Johnson, "RPIT minister of propaganda".


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 23

                            ufowatchdog.com Site

From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:31:47 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 13:17:30 -0500
Subject: ufowatchdog.com Site


Dear List Members,

I just wanted to express my thanks to all of those here who have
sent me e-mails and comments about the website. Thanks for your
words and support, they are greatly appreciated and I hope you
have enjoyed the website. Take care.


Regards,

Royce J. Myers III

UFOWATCHDOG.COM
"Don't Trip On Your Open Mind"







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 23

                      The Watchdog E-Update - 02-22-01

From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:40:05 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 13:23:36 -0500
Subject: The Watchdog E-Update - 02-22-01


UFOWATCHDOG.COM "Don't Trip On Your Open Mind"
http://www.ufowatchdog.com

***Exclusive!***

UFOWATCHDOG.COM will be talking with Gary Lowery about his case
in an exclusive interview. Find out about more physical evidence
and current events taking place in this unusual case straight
from the source! UFO X Files http://www.ufoxfiles.com CEO Chris
Wyatt also comments! Story to be posted soon.

***Thank You***

A gracious thank you to all who have visited the site and have
subscribed to THE WATCHDOG. Also, thank you for the massive
amount of e-mail. An effort has been made to personally respond
to each message and my hands have never been more sore in all of
my life. Thanks for your comments, kind words, not so kind
words, new information, and everything else you've sent. Feel
free to contact UFOWATCHDOG.COM with any comments, news items,
UFO evidence or other information you may have. I look forward
to hearing from you all soon.

Regards,

Royce J. Myers III UFOWATCHDOG.COM ufowatchdog@earthlink.net

***E-Rant***

"I'm sure your government handlers are proud. Keep up the good
disinformation work."

(E-mail from a person who was not happy about Billie Meier and
Jim Dilettoso being listed in the UFO Hall of Frauds, Dirtbags,
Dupes, Morons. I'll be sure to tell the MJ-12 guys howdy for
you...)


***In The News*** http://www.ufowatchdog.com/news.html

~ Wanna' Buy Some UFO Dirt? ~ DNA Evidence In Abduction Case
Analyzed ~ Chile Government Gives UFO Files to U.S.

***UFO Hall of Frauds, Dirtbags, Dupes, Morons Updated! Still
accepting nominations!*** http://www.ufowatchdog.com/shame.html

***UFO Dirtbag of the Month***
http://www.ufowatchdog.com/dirtbag.html

The Shameless Psychic and His Prophecy of Lies: Sean David
Morton exposed. New links added.

***Advertise with UFOWATCHDOG.COM***
http://www.ufowatchdog.com/advertise.html

Find out more by clicking above. Great prices on advertising and
you can help out those in need!


NOTICE: If you would like to receive this e-update, send an
e-mail to ufowatchdog@earthlink.net with "subscribe" in the
subject box. To be removed from this mailing list, send an
e-mail to ufowatchdog@earthlink.net with "unsubscribe" in the
subject box and you will be immediately removed from the list.
All information is held in strict confidence and at no time now
or in the future will UFOWATCHDOG.COM sell or distribute
subscriber information to anyone for any reason.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 23

              Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy'

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:46:44 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 13:28:37 -0500
Subject: Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy'


 >Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 02:22:26 -0500
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy'

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:36:11 EST
 >>Subject: Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy'
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Bob, have you ever heard of, or know anything about, these
 >alleged "snatches of conversations in an unknown language" that
 >the men reported? I'm intrigued because if this is true, there
 >-must be- some kind of record of it 'somewhere.'

Hi John:

Haven't heard of that one.

 >And just to keep it 'topical' to the thread, the only thing I
 >found of any interest in the broadcast was the 'hash marks' that
 >should have appeared in front of objects that appeared _behind_
 >them instead, (signs of 'tampering'- but by 'who' is the real
 >question)

The bright portions of the image bled over the thin dark lines
on the negative, making it look like they were behind. If NASA
had faked this, why not simply take the picture with a camera
with crosshairs, or one without crosshairs, or just not release
the pictures. Why bother faking 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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 23

                Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Lehmberg

From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:13:46 -0600
Fwd Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 13:30:26 -0500
Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Lehmberg


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 00:34:23 -0600

 >>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 20:31:27 -0400

<snip>

 >Just give us a few years and we'll be zipping all over the
 >universe, just like them dang aliens out there already.

 >Right?

 >Dennis Stacy


Right, not to put too fine a point on it. I don't know how you
can argue the antithesis given the vertical acceleration of
aggregate potentiality observed in the last few decades. That
potentiality encompasses all eventualities right up to the our
complete destruction, is completely open ended, and the proof of
any curmudgeon's demise. You hang on too desperately to mere
social contrivance of a recent past. The past is a lens that
distorts the future if it is used to justify that something
cannot be done because it hasn't BEEN done. You line up with an
early 20th Century patent office that was going to shut down
because everything that COULD be invented HAD been invented.
...glad we're not waiting around for YOU to invent the next
level processor...

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, scourged by
the scurrilous skepti-feebroids.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 23

                Re: Seen This? - A Geologist Responds - Shell

From: Bob Shell <bob@bobshell.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 09:29:12 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 13:36:35 -0500
Subject: Re: Seen This? - A Geologist Responds - Shell


 >Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:17:56 -0500
 >Subject: Seen This?
 >From: Bob Shell <bob@bobshell.com>
 >To: Errol <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >I'd like for anyone who knows geology to take a look at this and
 >let me know if this is a known geological phenomenon. The
 >"Phoenician" wall in Oklahoma looks man made, but I know there
 >are geological phenomena which often mimic artificial
 >constructions.

 >I'm not concerned with the author's ideas, just what can be
 >determined from his photos.

 >http://www.viewzone.com/sender.html

Errol,

For the attention of those interested:

 >Sorry to dissapoint you; but theres no unknown civilizations
 >behind this construction. It is almost certainly (about 99,99%)
 >stromatolites. Stromatolites are algal mats groving in
 >concentric layers that trap sediments. They are among the oldest
 >life known on Earth (3,5 billion years) and still exist today.
 >Heres a link where you can see them both recent and fossil:

 >http://imiloa.wcc.hawaii.edu/krupp/BIOL101/present/lcture13/sld021.htm

 >They usually are round in shape but as can be seen from the
 >picture, when they grow together they tend to be more square.
 >The rocks in question are probably also modified by later
 >deformation making them look almost manufactured.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 23

               Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Strickland

From: Sue Strickland <strick@H2Net.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 07:38:14 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 13:39:23 -0500
Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Strickland


 >Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 22:25:16 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 16:06:41 -0600
 >>Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Stacy
 >>to: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>>Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:07:47 -0400


Dear Dennis, Stan, Roger and Peter,

Dennis, you asked Stan some valid questions:

1. What UFO secrets, exactly, are being withheld?

2. Do we have bodies on ice somewhere that I don't know about?
Recovered wreckage? Classified radar returns? Pictures? DNA
samples of alien abductors? What?

3. Just what is it, exactly, that renders so-called UFO secrets
immune to human nature?

The last question is most important. From whom, besides Stan,
are you expecting answers, Dennis? Just curious. I would not
bother to participate on this list nor any list, if it were not
in my experience to know why I am there (or here); to have at
least a few pieces of this huge jig-saw puzzle in mind. If
curiosity drives your personal need to learn the truth, whatever
that may be, why are you so reluctant to see viewpoints outside
the parameters of your personal experience, Dennis?

For example, I have not seen nor experienced the making of a
crop circle (hoaxed or otherwise); therefore, it is
understandably difficult for me to link the making of same with
the ETs. However, since I have had numerous experiences over
many years with ETs (and Peter, you are perfectly within your
right to call them "the descendants of exiles from Atlantis,
protean airborne amoebae, goblins and djinns, the armies of
Satan on the wing, a squadron of cosmic jokers, Knights Templar
in astral disguise out to wreak havoc & revenge on the Pope -
and so on."), it seems quite within the parameters of reality
that the creation of some crop circles by ETs (or whatever) is
possible, if not probable.

And, I don't have any proof that ETs have done any of the crop
circles, but if they haven't, I'd surely like to meet the
creator(s) and at least learn how the task was accomplished,
wouldn't you? If you were the creator/designer of such intricate
and beautiful artwork, and your ego demanded that you show the
world your talent in the fields of grain across the world, what
would you deduct about that individual's ability to keep his
identity a secret for years and years? Depends on the
punishment, right? Since the wheat in "real" crop circles is
apparently not damaged in the creation of the crop circles, what
would be the appropriate punishment? Capture? Death? No. Our
government would create a martyr in doing so. Secrecy and/or
avoidance of the subject matter all together, and if necessary,
diversion to idiocy and moronic explanation (like swamp gas),
would be more in keeping with the standards previously set by
our power-keepers.

In short, what is keeping our government and the governments
around the world from divulging the answers to the questions you
asked? A lack of curiosity? Stan, if you know the answers to
Dennis' questions, please fill us all in on what's going on.
Since many have in their experience a few pieces of this puzzle,
and more children are being "educated" in the ways of the
abductors on a nightly basis, it seems stupid to withhold the
*rest* of the story, doesn't it? Unless you don't have any
answers and no solutions and the punishment for divulging that
information is far greater than the need to teach the truth.
Somehow, that doesn't fit the "design" of your personality,
Stan. You've always been a risk-taker, and a truth-seeker, and a
truth-teacher.

I will apologize now for the arrogant distain in the tone of
voice I bring to this email. It is unavoidable when discussing
this topic with educated, intelligent and seemingly responsible
non-experiencers, who refuse (but are capable) to look at their
own questions and discover the truths inherent in them.

Perhaps Peter Brookesmith's closing statement on his sign-off
says more than enough about our government's state of mind:
"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large
crowds." Stan, please divorce yourself from that group, and "do
the right thing." Answer Dennis' questions.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 23

                 Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Randle

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:04:28 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 14:20:51 -0500
Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Randle


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 16:06:41 -0600

 >>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:07:47 -0400

 ><snip>

 >>Secrets can be kept.

 >>Stanton Friedman


 >Sure they can!

 >Just ask Win Ho Lee, Pollard, Aymes and, most recently, Robert
 >Hansen, or Los Alamos labs, the CIA and FBI, respectively. (Not
 >sure about the spelling of individuals' names or the exact
 >agency Pollard betrayed.)

 >And don't forget, there were only 15 copies of the Pentagon
 >Papers. Somehow, one of them made its way to the NY Times.
 >Curious, no?

 >Guess what you meant to say was somethinhg along the lines of:

 >"Some secrets can be held for some length of time. But UFO
 >secrets are (somehow) held sacrosanct forever."

 >But then you probably think MJ-12 was a security leak. But not
 >the Corso book. Or the alien autopsy film.

 >So, what UFO secrets, exactly, are being withheld?

 >Do we have bodies on ice somewhere that I don't know about?
 >Recovered wreckage? Classified radar returns? Pictures? DNA
 >samples of alien abductors? What?

 >Secrets are sold out every day of the year, for reasons ranging
 >from the purely philosophical/ideological to those of simple
 >crass commercialism.

 >Just what is it, exactly, that renders so-called UFO secrets
 >immune to human nature?

 >Dennis Stacy

Dennis, List, all -

When the secrets are important, they can be kept. Sometimes we
learn of them only after the reason for them to remain secret
has ended. Such is the case of Operation Solo. This was a covert
operation, run by the FBI from Chicago and New York. Solo
referred to Morris Childs, an American who had once been a
member of the American Communist Party.

Childs apparently joined the Communist Party in the 1930s but as
he learned what Stalin and the communists had done in Russia
became disillusioned. The communists did not view everyone as
equal and they were not creating a utopian society in the Soviet
Union. They were exchanging one group of despotic leaders for
another. The Czar cared little for the people and the communists
viewed them as the property of the state. Childs broke away from
the communists and eventually came to the attention of the FBI.

Beginning in the late 1950s, Childs made many trips into the
Soviet Union, into other communist countries in Europe and Asia,
and met with the highest leaders in those countries. Yes, he met
with, conferred with, and advised Khrushchev and Brezhnev and
Kosygin and Castro and Mao. He traveled at the highest levels of
the communist party, listened to what they had to say, what they
believed to be in store in the future, and what they feared
about the United States. He consulted with the KGB and other
arms of Soviet intelligence. They accepted, without reservation,
his advice and his expertise, never once realizing that he was,
in fact, working for the FBI.

The whole of the FBI operation was run out of the FBI offices in
Chicago and New York. It was a closely held secret, so secret
that those in the FBI in Chicago and New York, who were not
directly involved, knew nothing about it. The State Department
knew nothing about. The Defense Department knew nothing about
it. Even the CIA knew nothing about it. Certainly, there were
intelligence reports created and circulated among the leaders.
When the President was going to meet the Soviet leadership, when
there was a policy question about Soviet nuclear intentions, or
arms reduction, or even the war in Vietnam, the President knew
what the Soviets were thinking, what the bottom line was, and
how far the Soviets could be pushed. Everything that our side
had to know for the meetings and negotiations, had been given to
them.

When John Kennedy pushed the Soviets to the brink of nuclear war
during the Cuban Missile Crisis, he knew the Soviet philosophy.
He knew that the Soviets feared the American nuclear arsenal and
that they feared being forced back into an agrarian society. In
other words, the gamble Kennedy ran to force the missiles out of
Cuba wasn't nearly as risky as it could have been. He knew that
the Soviets would back down.

Here's how this applies to the issue of secrecy. Neither the
President or the Secretary of Defense knew about Operation Solo.
Neither was briefed on the fact that the FBI had a source on the
inside. Had either asked, he would have been told that no such
operation existed. The secret was so closely held that they
would not reveal it to anyone. The information that Childs was
gathering was just too important to endanger in a world of
partisan politics.

The exception came in 1974 when Nixon resigned from the White
House. Newly sworn-in President Ford had to deal with the Soviet
Union and it was decided that he needed confidence in the
intelligence he was given. He was told about the Operation Solo.

The point here, however, is that it was a highly classified
operation that provided priceless information to Americans who
had to negotiate with the Soviets. And, the President was
unaware that the operation existed. If he had asked, he would
have been told that it did not. He would have been told that the
information was pieced together from a variety of sources.

And, as mentioned, this information was kept secret from the
beginning of the operation in the 1950s until Morris Childs
retired and then died. Only after that was the whole story told.
It proves that secrets can be kept. For those who wish to read
more, might I suggest John Barron's book, 'Operation Solo',
available at Amazon and bookstores.


KRandle









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 23

                          An Italian 'Sputnik/UFO'?

From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:06:34 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
Fwd Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 18:25:57 -0500
Subject: An Italian 'Sputnik/UFO'?


Hi everyone.

My colleagues at York University are baffled with this bizarre
1600 painting which appears to depict a "Sputnik". Through my
own twenty-first century eyes it looks very much like some radio
operated eye-in-the sky satellite. From the lengths of the two
antennae looking protrutions and the diameter of the aperture of
what seems to be a space camera (we can use the dove and other
objects of known size to get the correct scale) we have hints on
what radio frequencies God may be listening to or even if He can
see us on the Earth with this device.

What are your comments regarding this "Sputnik" found in the URL
below?

http://www.montalcino-tuscany.it/montalcino_ufo.htm

Check out Matthew Hurley's web site for other old artwork which
also have what look like spacecraft or UFOs (including domed
saucer shaped craft too). Are there any other such artwork that
anyone knows about which Hurley can include in his web site?

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/m.hurley/index.html


Nick Balaskas








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 23

                Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Friedman

From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:28:15 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 18:37:30 -0500
Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Friedman


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 00:34:23 -0600

 >>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 20:31:27 -0400

 ><snip>

 >>Considering that Zeta l and Zeta 2 Reticuli are both single, non
 >>variable stars, roughly similar to the sun, but are about one
 >>billion years older than the sun, and less than a light year
 >>apart, it would not be surprising if they got started sooner on
 >>their technological development than we have, especially with
 >>the planets around the other star being directly observable. I
 >>would expect every advanced civilization to know about nuclear
 >>fusion since it is the primary energy production technique in
 >>almost all stars. No, of course I don't think aliens use fusion
 >>for the interstellar travel by their huge mother ships. I would
 >>expect they use techniques about which we young earthlings know
 >>nothing. Progress comes from doing things differently. Just look
 >>back 100 years no less a thousand or a million.

 >Stan,

 >So you accept, ipso facto, the notion of "huge mother ships"?
 >(Would you care to cite us a few convincing cases of same?)


Who said anything about ipso facto acceptance of anything?

Might I refer you to the December 1996 Yukon case so ably
investigated by professional Engineer Martin Jasek who dealt
with more than 30 witnesses (groups of 2 or 3) which enabled
triangulation 3 times, establishing a length of 0.6-1.2 miles
long. I was up there. One witness said it was the full width of
the big dipper or more than 1 foot at arms length.

How about the JAL case: twice the size of an aircraft carrier?
How about the Canadian Airlines international case 5 or 6 times
the size of a 747? to name just a few.Sound like mother ships to
me.

 >Not to otherwise rain on your parade, but space travel isn't
 >simply a matter of time and distance.

Of course not. It also isn't easy or cheap for us latecomers to
the world of advanced technology.

 >Technologically, we can now send humans to Mars. Whether they
 >would be able to stand up once they got there is another
 >question entirely. And what about them nasty Cosmic Rays? I
 >know, just put some Nasty Cosmic Ray Shielding (NCRS) on your
 >spaceship, no matter how long you might be exposed to same.

 >Just give us a few years and we'll be zipping all over the
 >universe, just like them dang aliens out there already.

 >Right?


Several decades should do it for our local cosmic neighborhood.
I don't worry about the universe. We might also try cosmic
hitchhiking with our visitors

You might want to check out all the silly objections to manned
space travel set forth by earlier noisey negativists... cosmic
rays, meteorites ,radio transmitter would be too heavy, couldn't
handle zero gravity (one might plan on accelerating rather than
coasting).

You might look at my 1999 MUFON paper "Star Travel? YES!". Dr,
Campbell in 1941 scientifically calculated that the required
initial launch weight of a chemical rocket able to get a man to
the moon and back would be a million million tons. The Saturn 5
at liftoff weighed 3000 tons. He was only off by a factor of
300,000,000.

What it takes is vision and money.

Stan Friedman









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 23

                       Re: UFOs in 1882 & 1394 - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 10:26:46 -0600
Fwd Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 18:39:30 -0500
Subject: Re: UFOs in 1882 & 1394 - Clark


 >From: Chris Aubeck <caubeck@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: UFOs in 1882 & 1394
 >Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:19:41 -0000


Mr. Aubeck,

 >2) Jerome Clark, in The UFO Book: Encyclopedia of the
 >Extraterrestrial Farmington Hills, MI: Visible Ink Press, 1997,
 >quotes an ancient source that tells that in the winter of 1394
 >a wheel- or barrel-shaped object appeared in several areas of
 >England:

 >A certain thing appeared in the likeness of fire in many parts
 >of... England... every night. This fiery apparition, oftentimes
 >when anybody went alone, it would go with him, and would stand
 >still when he stood still... To some it appeared in the likeness
 >of a turning wheel burning; to othersome round in the likeness
 >of a barrel, flashing out flames of fire at the head; to others
 >in the likeness of a long burning lance.

 >What was the original source of this report? Is it available
 >on line? Unfortunately I do not have Clark's book, though I
 >have been told it doesn't give a source anyway. (If it's from
 >some other popular UFO book, I'd still like to be told the
 >ORIGINAL source if possible.)

I would encourage you to work with the original, not the
abridged, version of my book. The original is The UFO
Encyclopedia, 2nd Ed., of which The UFO Book is a considerably
shortened version intended for a popular mark. If you had
consulted the original, you would have that (1) I didn't write
about the 1394 incident; Eddie Bullard did (in his entry
"Anomalous Phenomena Before 1800") and (2) he cites his source
as the following:

Raphael Holinshed, Holinshed's Chronicles of England, Scotland,
and Ireland. Six volumes. London: Printed for J. Johnson, 1808.
The account appears in the second volume, page 829.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 23

                         Re: AA Film Redux - Morris

From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 16:25:06 +0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 18:41:40 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Morris


 >Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 23:24:37 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >>From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >>Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 16:03:50 +0000
 >>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Morris
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:34:33 -0600
 >>>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Previously, Neil wrote:

 >>>>Ray said all along he bought 20 reels of _safety_print_ out of
 >>>>22 reels total.

 >I replied:

 >>>This is not true. Note the following post from Bob Shell:

 >>>>From: Bob Shell <bob@bobshell.com>
 >>>>Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 14:02:52 +0000
 >>>>Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 16:34:08 -0500
 >>>>Subject: Re: Santilli Knew 'Tent Footage' Was a Fraud?

 >>>>AFTER we proved to Santilli that it was copy film he asked the
 >>>>cameraman and he said something like "of course it is copy film,
 >>>>I made the copies myself on the printer at the base lab."
 >>>>Whether Ray has tried to get recourse for the deception I do not
 >>>>know.

 >>>Santilli has not said "all along" that he had print film. He
 >>>originally thought he had camera original and only learned that
 >>>it was print film when Bob proved it to him.

 >Neil now writes:

 >>Well Ray _is_ on record in mid/late 1995 (don't have my archive to
 >>hand) as saying 20 reels safty print, 1 reel neg and 1 reel scraps.

 >>The "neg" could have been camera original. But dosn't _safty_print_
 >>shout at you it's a _print_ and _not_ original?.

 >>And what _date_ context is Bob Shell refering back to here?.

 >Hi, Neil!

 >I do not know the exact date that Bob is referring to. However,
 >it doesn't really matter. What matters is that _before_ Bob
 >informed Santilli that all he had was print film, Santilli
 >thought he had camera original. As such, he should have had it
 >tested.

 >As to whether or not the camera original film was negative or
 >positive film; I tried to get Bob to remember which side the
 >emulsion appeared on the print. The reason this is important is
 >that the alleged cameraman says he made the print, himself. Now,
 >this is kind of hard to follow if some readers are not
 >experienced in film tech, but consider this:

 >As I understand it, the Santilli print was also a reversal
 >stock. Therefore, the cameraman could not make a print off of
 >camera negative; only off of a positive print. Since this print
 >would have the emulsion on the opposite side than the camera
 >original, any second generation prints off of the first print
 >would end up with the emulsion _back_ on the same side as camera

<snip>

Roger,

It's a good technical point, but unlikly to be answered without
access to the film stock and I see little chance of that.

As I understand it Bob has only had access to a couple of film
fragments at the most, and we only have what Ray has stated was
the actual mix of the film stock he bought.

You could also throw into this mix that we also have no idea as
to whether the cameraman had contact or optical printing
equipment, though if the 1947 edge markings turned up on the
"safty prints" as well as the neg reel he says he had, this
would suggest the old B+H contact style printer was used not an
optical.

As I've said though, without cooperation these points are likly
to remain unanswered.

Neil.

--
*        *         *         *         *         *         *         *
Neil Morris.       /101101101 Virtual Bumper Stickers Inc 10110101010\
Dept of Physics.   1                                                 1
Univ of Manchester 0                                                 0
Schuster Labs.     1  Computer Programmers DO IT with BITS of BYTES  1
Brunswick St.      0                                                 0
Manchester.        1                                                 1
M13.9PL.  UK.      \0101010110010110110010110101101011011110101011010/

                    Radio Callsign G8KOQ
                E-mail: neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk
          Public PGP Key available at www.keyserve.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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 23

               Re: New Evidence Of Sagan's Martian Macrobes? -

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 09:15:16 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 18:44:50 -0500
Subject: Re: New Evidence Of Sagan's Martian Macrobes? -


 >Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:12:32 -0500 (Eastern >Standard Time)
 >From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: New Evidence Of Sagan's Martian Macrobes?

 >Hi everyone,

 >Here is another picture of a baffling Martian find that was
 >made by pre-teen school children. I wonder what else could
have been found if Dr. Michael Malin gave equal time on the
 >Mars Global Surveyor to people such as Richard Hoagland or our
 >Mac Tonnies.

 >http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0102/22boulders/

<snip>

NASA seems schizophrenic when it comes to Martian life -
microbial or otherwise. They justify unmanned missions as "the
search for life," yet seem to completely ignore photos that
might show examples of what they're after.

We have it in our collective head that, if Mars has life, then
it's necessarily microbial. With what we know about Mars now
(running water, etc.), this mentality is antiquated. There is
every reason to suspect macroscopic life.

NASA's tight-lipped stance on the matter of life is really
disheartening. Fortunately Arthur C. Clarke has broached the
subject; hopefully someone at NASA will venture an explanation.



=====
Mac Tonnies (macbot@yahoo.com) 816-561-0190
105 Ward Parkway #900, Kansas City, MO 64112
Me: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/mtvi.html
Cydonia: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/cydonia.html
Books: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/bookreviews.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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 23

                         Re: AA Film Redux - Tonnies

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 09:30:21 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 22:16:33 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Tonnies


 >From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:21:51 EST
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

 >So here is information that has been printed in both
 >the IUR and the CUFOS Roswell special, and has been
 >corroborated by Johnny Mann when asked by others,
 >but which has been ignored. We have a witness who
 >tells us that Marcel said the pictures in General
 >Ramey's office were staged. We have Dr. Johnson
 >telling us, in his original interviews, said that
 >the setting had been staged.

 >He didn't believe, in those original interviews,
 >that he had seen anything special. Now, of course,
 >he has changed his story.

I can vouch for the accuracy of what Randle reports here. I
e-mailed Dr. Johnson in 1994/95 when he first became "known" and
asked him about what he saw. He was quite clear that it was
"stinking garbage" from a balloon and nothing at all special or
even noteworthy.

When the RPIT came online I was rather surprised. I wish I
still had the e-mailed testimony from Johnson, as there is a
_huge_ discrepancy.

That said, Johnson was nothing but helpful and honest in my own
dealings with him.


=====
Mac Tonnies (macbot@yahoo.com) 816-561-0190
105 Ward Parkway #900, Kansas City, MO 64112
Me: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/mtvi.html
Cydonia: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/cydonia.html
Books: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/bookreviews.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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 23

                          Secrecy News -- 02/23/01

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@igc.org>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:32:39 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 22:19:13 -0500
Subject: Secrecy News -- 02/23/01


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
February 23, 2001

**AFTERMATH OF THE HANSSEN ARREST
**PANAMA DECLASSIFICATION SOUGHT


AFTERMATH OF THE HANSSEN ARREST

As officials sort through the wreckage of U.S.
counterintelligence following the arrest of Robert Philip
Hanssen on charges of espionage, one of their reference points
will be an earlier critique of the FBI's ability to detect
foreign spies within the ranks of U.S. intelligence agencies.

That study was performed in 1997 by the Justice Department
Office of Inspector General, then led by Michael R. Bromwich, to
evaluate the FBI's performance in the Aldrich Ames case.

"Our review revealed that throughout nearly the entire nine-year
period of Ames' espionage, FBI management devoted inadequate
attention to determining the cause of the sudden, unprecedented,
and catastrophic losses suffered by both the FBI and the CIA in
their Soviet intelligence programs," Mr. Bromwich wrote.

Since Ames' nine-year tenure as a foreign spy coincided with the
early part of Hanssen's 15 year career as a Soviet and Russian
spy, the Inspector General's conclusions as of 1997 are equally
pertinent to the latter case.

FBI spokesman John Collingwood said yesterday that the
recommendations of Mr. Bromwich's 1997 report had been adopted
and helped lead to the apprehension of Mr. Hanssen.  "The
post-Ames focus on the possibility of additional compromises led
directly to the charges against Hanssen."

Most of the nearly 400 page Inspector General Report -- "A
Review of the FBI's Performance in Uncovering the Espionage
Activities of Aldrich Hazen Ames" (April 1997) -- remains highly
classified.  However, the unclassified executive summary is
posted here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/oig/amesxsm1.htm

The Senate Intelligence Committee announced plans to hold
hearings next week on the Hanssen case and its implications.

"This could be a very, very, very serious case of espionage,"
Committee chairman Sen. Richard Shelby said on Tuesday.  In a
possible homage to President Bush's notoriously fractured
English, Senator Shelby issued a statement noting that "Director
Freeh has been keeping the Vice Chairmen [sic] and I [sic]
appraised [sic] of the case as it developed over the past few
months."

See the Committee statement on the Hanssen case here:

http://intelligence.senate.gov/010221.htm

As others have now pointed out, Mr. Hanssen could not possibly
have been correct when he allegedly told his Russian handlers
that "I decided on this course when I was 14 years old.  I'd
read Philby's book."

When Hanssen, who was born in 1944, was 14 years old, British
intelligence officer Kim Philby had not yet been exposed as a
Soviet spy.  He defected to the USSR in 1963.  Philby's book, My
Silent War, was published in 1968.


PANAMA DECLASSIFICATION SOUGHT

If secrecy impedes official accountability, declassification by
the same token can help to advance justice and reconciliation.

A "truth commission" established in Panama to investigate
atrocities committed by that country's military dictatorship
between 1968 and 1989 is asking the U.S. government to
declassify U.S. records concerning human rights violations in
Panama.

Commissioner Fernando Berguido said the commission, which was
appointed by Panama's president, had written to U.S. Secretary
of State Colin Powell urging that relevant records be
declassified as quickly as possible.  See:

http://www.elpanamaamerica.com.pa/archive/02212001/nation01.html

A New York Times editorial on February 20 noted that "Such
secret files have been invaluable for understanding the
dictatorships in Chile, Guatemala and El Salvador and
Washington's role in backing them. The Bush administration
should expedite a full declassification of material on abuses in
Panama."

******************************
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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 23

                           Re: Lakenheath - Clarke

From: Dave Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 18:08:20 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 22:22:10 -0500
Subject: Re: Lakenheath - Clarke


 >From: John W. Auchettl <Praufo@aol.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 10:29:13 EST
 >Subject: Re: Lakenheath

 >>Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 18:12:48 -0000
 >>From: Dave Clarke<cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Lakenheath - Clarke

 >Dave, in your argument you mention (in your post at three
 >locations) that the Venom NF-3 did not, at that time, have a
 >"gunlock" facility.

 >Dave, the above data is NOT correct.


Hi John

Many thanks for the background information regarding the Venom
NF-3 and its radar lock capabilities. This will be useful for
our study.

However, your cotention that my argument regarding the "gunlock"
is incorrect is based upon a misconception.

What you say about Venoms having a radar lock on capability in
1956 is correct - but only in the case of certain versions
fitted with the particular brand of the Western Electric
AN/APS-57 X-Band equipment you describe.

Your argument fails quite simply because the Venoms which took
part in the Lakenheath incident, operating out of RAF Coltishall
and Waterbeach, were _not_ fitted with this (then) advanced
American radar system. As a result the two aircraft involved
were not capable of either radar or physical gun-lock and the
target had to be tracked manually by the navigators - quite a
remarkable achievement in itself.

This information - which was no doubt classified at the time -
came directly from the pilots and navigators who flew these
aircraft at the time and date in question.

I have interviewed five who served with this Venom night-fighter
squadron and all independently volunteered the same information.

One of the radar operators/navigators describes the problems
caused by the lack of a radar lock on device in the following
way: "...one difficulty at low altitude was that ground clutter
on the radar tube (AI Mk 21 American Westinghouse kit) reduced
the radar range... we had no 'lock on' facility, it was all done
manually moving the scanner by means of a tiny joystick...it was
a one armed paper hanger situation."

Describing the radar kit further, he says: "...AI 21 was
American. It did have a lock on facility, but we didn't have it
fitted to our aircraft, although I did use it somewhere when I
went on an air firing course.."

Therefore, no 'lock on' - and certainly no physical gunlock,
which is the important phrase I was disputing.

The fact remains that the pilots and navigators would not have
said "Roger...I've got my guns locked on him" given the
circumstances described above. All the crews were unanimous in
describing the phraseology recalled by the USAF controller as
"nonsense."

RAF pilots and navigators were trained to use a very limited
number of code-words during an intercept so as not to reveal
tactics to any potential enemy.

Phrases such as "Contact", "Lost Contact, More help", "Judy" and
"Bingo" _may_have_been_ used ("Contact" most certainly was), but
nothing as melodramatic as that reported by the USAF Controller
in this case.

Perhaps now you can appreciate the level of technical detail
collected by this re-investigation, you may be able to
understand why it  has not been possible to publish our report
with the haste some of the more impatient UFOlogists would have
preferred.


All best wishes

Dave Clarke










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 23

                         Re: Lakenheath - Salvaille

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 13:14:19 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 22:23:52 -0500
Subject: Re: Lakenheath - Salvaille


 >From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Lakenheath
 >Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 10:36:18 -0000

 >>From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Lakenheath
 >>Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 20:00:09 -0000

 >>>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >>>To: <Updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Lakenheath
 >>>Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:56:37 -0000

 >>Jenny, I wish you every success with your research on the
 >>Lakenheath case, but must correct you on a few points.

<snip>

 >>You then
 >>claimed this was only a fraction of the interview but refused to
 >>supply anybody with the full version. So we were none the wiser.

 >I did no such thing. I advised that the transcripts would be
 >included in a full UFOIN report on the case. That way what the
 >air crew had said could be seen in proper context. I felt this
 >was a necessary precaution because extracts from any interview
 >can so easily be taken out of context to fit with what someone
 >would like them to mean .

 >So if promising a full report and transcript (and as David told
 >this list the other day one that will not be in some book but
 >free on the net) constitutes your definition of a refusal to
 >help then someone needs a new dictionary.

<snip>

Hello Jenny, Georgina and List,

Let me to point out Jenny that you've been providing the List
with tidbits of the UFOIN report for more than a week now. You
have also been presenting some of the conclusions of the same
report.

On February 18th, you wrote to Richard Hall:

 >>All this finger-pointing both ways is silly until the UFOIN
 >>report is published and peer reviewed. I for one look forward to
 >>it with great interest. Such detailed case investigations are
 >>essential to serious ufology.

 >I agree.

 >This comment is appreciated and it is all we are asking of
 >anyone I should add.

 >Thanks for such a responsible reaction.

And went on with a supplementary 40 lines on Lakenheath.

On February 21, you came back with a 125-line addendum on
Lakenheath, just to clarify _your_ position which evidently had
not been clarified in your previous post.

And it's always the same story: on one hand you say "I can't
tell you more about the facts, as facts can never be partially
exposed"; on the other hand you allow yourself to show previews
of the conclusions _and_ advertise the idea that this report
will be a definitive piece of evidence... never refusing to put
forward partial facts to advocate partial conclusions of a yet
to be released free report on the Internet.

Can you blame people from being a little annoyed by this?


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 23

                    Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Clarke

From: Dave Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 18:52:53 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 22:26:25 -0500
Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Clarke


 >From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:19:41 EST
 >Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment
 >>Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 12:11:52 -0600

 >>I, too, look forward to seeing whatever Randles/Roberts/Clarke
 >>have come up with and determining whether it's more compelling
 >>than the failed (though much-hyped) attempt to debunk the
 >>Rendlesham case. The jeering, boasting posting by Andy Roberts
 >>does not, however, exactly inspire confidence about the
 >>objectivity of the investigation. I guess we'll find out one way
 >>or another at some point.

 >Yes, and I do not think that a mere transcript of the pilot's
 >testimonies will suffice. Video or at least audio recording will
 >have to be produced before independant parties. I suggest for
 >instance, among British ufologists, Timothy Good, Nicholas
 >Redfern and Omar Fowler.


Gildas,

So you feel that Tim Good and Omar Fowler are "independent
parties"?! That says a lot about where you are coming from.

It's obvious that nothing will satisfy your entrenched belief
system, whatever the facts demonstrate.

You might be interested to learn that Nick Redfern has already
been appraised of the substance of our findings and rather than
sticking his head in the sand has accepted the inevitable
historical revisions they entail.

Nick (are you listening mate?) has the intellectual honesty to accept
the fact that there are many different interpretations of witness
testimony, and many other explanations of UFO sightings other than
ETH which he personally favours.

That is quite something in the heavily polarised subject which
ufology has inevitably become, and brings respect.

Not that we care whether you accept our findings or not, you can
be assured that Nick Redfern will have full access to all our
recordings and transcripts in due course.

As for the other two - do they actually communicate with mere
mortals anymore, or have they risen above having to answer
awkward questions about cases they have made claims about?


All best wishes

Dave Clarke









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 23

                     Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Stacy

From: "Dennis Stacy" <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 14:01:00 -0600
Fwd Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 22:28:45 -0500
Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Stacy


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:24:03 -0000

<snip>

 >Dennis,

 >I steered people to a free online article containing the essence
 >of my argument. Is there some UFO article on your web site that
 >you would like me to comment on? I would be glad to do so. Is
 >the article you cite available online?


The article I referred to, "Cosmic Dancers on History's Stage? The
Permanent Revolution in the Earth Sciences" by Mike Davis, is not
online (that I'm aware of). We published it in The Anomalist 5,
which I'd be happy to send you a copy of.

 >Not sure what book (of yours) you are talking about.

The Field Guide to UFOs: A Classification of Various
Unidentified Aerial Phenomena by Dennis Stacy and Patrick
Huyghe.

 >Am I pontificating? I have read plenty of the skeptical
 >literature (Menzel, Klass, Oberg, CSICOP... you name it) so am
 >not sure what your point is here.

You shouldn't take things so personal. I wasn't suggesting that
you were pontificating, but referring to ufologists and ufology
in general, in the context, see below, of Required Reading (or
study) lists.

 >What do you mean "scientific literature?" I have read a lot of
 >that too, and do so regularly in the course of my professional
 >work.

I mean the literature referring to any number of scientific
disciplines with which the UFO subject deals. In other words, to
cite but two examples, ufologists who want to inform themselves
as to whether or not the ETH is a viable hypothesis should be
familiar with the existing mainstream literature regarding same,
outside the UFO literature, that is. Similarly, ufologists who
wish to inform themselves about the nature of hypnosis, should
familiarize themselves with the available, non-UFO literature on
same.

 >Incidentally, and apparently typically, you did not comment on
 >what my ISSO article had to say. Instead you throw out a
 >pseudo-argument about "equal time" for "scientific literature"
 >as if people like me (Bruce, Dick Haines, and others) are
 >ignorant of that literature. Seems more like an evasion than a
 >reply to my posting.

 >Respectfully,

 >Dick

Why do you say "typically"? I didn't know I was required to
comment on or critique your article. But, for the record, I find
it an excellent summary of ufology's best position (from the ETH
perspective). You could call it required reading for scientists,
and that was the aspect of the article I was addressing.

My point was a simple one. Anyone directing skeptics and
scientists to the best evidence ufology has to offer, would
surely (but perhaps not?) agree with the flip side of that coin.
Sauce for the gander, that sort of thing, or don't you agree?

It's not a pseudo-argument, but a simple statement of principle:
both sides of any argument, ideally, should be well versed in
the opposition's evidence and arguments.

Again, you add a personal tone where none was intended. I'm
quite aware that you and a number of other prominent (and not so
prominent) ufologists are well read outside the UFO literature.
That doesn't mean that most are, or that the field as a whole
is.

Apart from the ideal position, there are the practical problems
both scientists and ufologists face, beginning with the simple
one of time. That's why I mentioned the Davis article. To begin
with, it's something like 55 pages long and contains 155
footnotes.

Rhetorically, I could ask you to comment on it. After your
response, I could then say, "yes, but what about all the
original sources cited in the 155 footnotes? Have you attended
to every one of them, too?" But that would be rather unfair of
me, wouldn't it?

You asked for reactions to your article, and I gave you one. The
fact that you apparently (and typically?) didn't like it,
doesn't make it evasive.

If you really want me to address it (and the ETH) in greater
detail, I will (when I have the time). My first response to the
ETH component, however, is the Davis article cited above, which
struck me as an epiphany. (Others' mileage may vary).

In a nutshell, it suggests that the presence of ETI in the
universe is hardly a given, that is, a logical extrapolation or
outcome of existing physical laws, including the biological one
of evolution, because contingency plays a pivotal role in the
possibility of same. To see but the latest example, look no
further than page 13 of today's NY Times and the article about
the extinction event (some 250 million years ago) that wiped out
90 per cent of the species then alive.

More later, as time permits. And after we solve the UFO issue,
maybe we can tackle global warming.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 23

                Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Friedman

From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 15:48:05 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 22:34:26 -0500
Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Friedman


 >From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:04:28 EST
 >Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 16:06:41 -0600

 >>>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>>Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:07:47 -0400

 >><snip>

 >>>Secrets can be kept.

 >>>Stanton Friedman

 >>Sure they can!

 >>Just ask Win Ho Lee, Pollard, Aymes and, most recently, Robert
 >>Hansen, or Los Alamos labs, the CIA and FBI, respectively. (Not
 >>sure about the spelling of individuals' names or the exact
 >>agency Pollard betrayed.)

 >>And don't forget, there were only 15 copies of the Pentagon
 >>Papers. Somehow, one of them made its way to the NY Times.
 >>Curious, no?

 >>Guess what you meant to say was somethinhg along the lines of:

 >>"Some secrets can be held for some length of time. But UFO
 >>secrets are (somehow) held sacrosanct forever."

 >>But then you probably think MJ-12 was a security leak. But not
 >>the Corso book. Or the alien autopsy film.

 >>So, what UFO secrets, exactly, are being withheld?

 >>Do we have bodies on ice somewhere that I don't know about?
 >>Recovered wreckage? Classified radar returns? Pictures? DNA
 >>samples of alien abductors? What?

<snip>

 >Dennis, List, all -

<snip>

 >Here's how this applies to the issue of secrecy. Neither the
 >President or the Secretary of Defense knew about Operation Solo.
 >Neither was briefed on the fact that the FBI had a source on the
 >inside. Had either asked, he would have been told that no such
 >operation existed. The secret was so closely held that they
 >would not reveal it to anyone. The information that Childs was
 >gathering was just too important to endanger in a world of
 >partisan politics.

 >The exception came in 1974 when Nixon resigned from the White
 >House. Newly sworn-in President Ford had to deal with the Soviet
 >Union and it was decided that he needed confidence in the
 >intelligence he was given. He was told about the Operation Solo.

 >The point here, however, is that it was a highly classified
 >operation that provided priceless information to Americans who
 >had to negotiate with the Soviets. And, the President was
 >unaware that the operation existed. If he had asked, he would
 >have been told that it did not. He would have been told that the
 >information was pieced together from a variety of sources.

 >And, as mentioned, this information was kept secret from the
 >beginning of the operation in the 1950s until Morris Childs
 >retired and then died. Only after that was the whole story told.
 >It proves that secrets can be kept. For those who wish to read
 >more, might I suggest John Barron's book, 'Operation Solo',
 >available at Amazon and bookstores.

 >KRandle


List:

It may surprise a few people that I am in full agreement with
Kevin on the excellent post above, (i.e.not all secrets have
been revealed) and also on his post about J.Bond Johnson. One
reason is that many years ago Bond wrote me that General Exon no
longer considered the bodies and wreckage from Roswell, which he
had seen, as classified material.

I called the General, read him the comments, and was told that
they did not represent at all what he had said. Nor what he had
seen either. Furthermore J.Bond had been totally unaware of the
comments and drawings made by Dr. Jesse Marcel of the wreckage
he had seen, so was making claims that had no basis about what
was seen.

Operation Solo sounds very much worth reading.


Stan Friedman








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 23

                     Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 14:54:27 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 22:38:13 -0500
Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Young


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:24:03 -0000

 >I steered people to a free online article containing the essence
 >of my argument.

<snip>

 >Am I pontificating? I have read plenty of the skeptical
 >literature (Menzel, Klass, Oberg, CSICOP... you name it) so am
 >not sure what your point is here.


Hello Richard, Dennis, et al.:

None of which you included in the bibliography of your piece,
other than the Condon Report and the 1969 UFO Symposium book,
edited by Sagan and Page, and Condon. Presumably this was
because it included papers by some of the pro-UFO participants.
You didn't even list Hendry, surely one of the most useful books
ever written for UFO investigators. Of course, it isn't a book
of ET proof.

I've read your interesting position paper and it brings to mind
the following questions:

1) Since you think that true UFOs are pre-1980 style traditional
disks (i.e., 'saucers'), what do you think of the large number
of 'triangles' now being reported? Do you rule these out by
their nature, and should these elicit skepticism from
investigators?

2) What percentage of UFO sighting reports do you think are
representative of the first three categories of skeptics'
explanations which you reject? Are there any UFO reports which
you think can be explained by these factors?

3) I noticed that you offered no references on meteorological
optics, such as Menzel or Minneart, or references which might
shed light on psychological factors. What sources do you suggest
investigators might consult for this aspect of their work?

4) You did not mention abductions. Do you consider these claims
a part of the UFO phenomena, or is there some other explanation?

Just some thoughts which come to mind after reading your paper.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 23

                     Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 15:00:12 -0600
Fwd Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 23:10:01 -0500
Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact


 >From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:04:28 EST
 >Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

 >The exception came in 1974 when Nixon resigned from the White
 >House. Newly sworn-in President Ford had to deal with the Soviet
 >Union and it was decided that he needed confidence in the
 >intelligence he was given. He was told about the Operation Solo.

 >The point here, however, is that it was a highly classified
 >operation that provided priceless information to Americans who
 >had to negotiate with the Soviets. And, the President was
 >unaware that the operation existed. If he had asked, he would
 >have been told that it did not. He would have been told that the
 >information was pieced together from a variety of sources.


Kevin,

What do you mean by "exception" here? Your second paragraph
contradicts your first, as obviously Ford was told. The fact
that there was subsequently an enite book written about
Operation Solo is further evidence that when it comes to keeping
secrets, we're basically talking differences in shelf life, not
some infallible procedure(s).

Of course secrets can be kept -- until they're not.

My point is that there is no 'mechanism' that guarantees that
secrets are kept secret in perpetuity, because humans in charge
of keeping secrets betray them whenever it suits their own
purposes. Even the Manhattan Project was compromised fairly
early on.

There is no compelling reason that I'm aware of as to why UFO
secrets would be any more immune to human nature than military
or intelligence secrets.

Just yesterday they had a program on National Public Radio in
the wake of the latest FBI security breach. Some expert on same
said that there were four reasons for divulging secrets,
ideology, money, and thrill-seeking. Unfortunately, I can't
remember the fourth right now -- or maybe it's a secret!

For all I know, Operation Solo could have remained secret as
long as it did because only two people were involved. Who knows?
There were only 15 copies of the Pentagon Papers, though, and
one of those wound up at the NY Times, courtesy, if memory
serves, of Daniel Ellsberg.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 23

                     Re: Niburu Visible With 'Scopes...

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 15:26:02 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 23:14:23 -0500
Subject: Re: Niburu Visible With 'Scopes...


 >Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:17:09 -0500
 >From: Wendy Christensen <christensen@catlas.mv.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Niburu Visible With 'Scopes...

 >This was forwarded to me. I have no opinion or knowledge about
 >it. So don't shoot the messenger!

Hi, Wendy:

When did you first receive this? Before or after Feb 22?


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 24

                               Secret Keeping

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 21:27:38 -0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 07:39:01 -0500
Subject: Secret Keeping


In response to various recent posts on this subject, it can be
documented by records obtained under the FOIA that UFO-related
radar scope photographs and film/photo data (among other things)
are being withheld by the CIA. I have written about this in the
past citing references, but if I suggest reading material Dennis
will demand equal time for Pelican literature. (Just kidding,
Dennis.)

I have lived most of my adult life in and around Washington,
D.C., and although I have never worked directly for the
Government, I have worked for some Government contractors.

Also (and this will get me in trouble with the
conspiratorialists) I have had friends, acquaintances, and even
neighbors that worked for CIA and NSA, and was personally
interrogated by the CIA about my UFO activities.

Two of my brothers held high-level security clearances, one on
active Army duty in counterintelligence and the other as an
employee of a military subcontractor (civilian tech rep). Hell
yes, secrets can be kept.

In addition, the argument that UFO secrets should have leaked
out if they are there rings hollow. They have partially leaked
out on many occasions, but have been obscured and/or discredited
by some combination (choose your level of paranoia) of
tabloid-style reporting and disinformation. By the way, I don't
include MJ-12 in this statement and certainly not Corso; I am
skeptical about those. I am referring partially to UFO crashes,
cases such as Rendlesham Forest, and numerous other examples of
highly significant military sightings that were leaked to NICAP.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 24

                   Re: Dec 1950 Crash & Willingham - King

From: Jeff King <Boroimhe@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 16:56:18 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 07:41:41 -0500
Subject: Re: Dec 1950 Crash & Willingham - King


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 19:04:20 EST
 >Subject: Re: Dec 1950 Crash & Willingham
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca


Damn! I was just getting ready to send the same Dyess site cut
and paste as Brad. Oh well.

To add a few more details, I originally obtained the Dyess
history from phone conversations with the PIO and the 7th bomb
group's historian back in the dark ages before the internet's
ubiquity. Anticipating that someone would claim Tye Field as
Willingham's base of operations, I asked and the PIO confirmed
that the Guard used it for infantry training. Even during
W.W.II, Tye only had dirt runways, so it would not have been
suitable for aircraft like the F-94.

I would also point out that Dennis Stacy and Tom Deuley did an
extensive on site investigation of the alleged crash to see if
anyone on either side of the border knew anything about it. They
first published their results in Omni lo these many years ago,
and the answer was nada.

Face it Bruce, either Willingham is a very bad liar, or so
hopelessly confused as to be useless as a witness.


Jeff King









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 24

                    Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 22:18:14 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 07:49:33 -0500
Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Rimmer


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment
 >Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 10:51:44 -0600

 >>From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment
 >>Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 19:57:21 -0000

 >>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment
 >>>Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 18:51:51 -0600

 >>Y'all,

 >>As usual, instead of discussing the facts of the case (in this
 >>case Lakenheath, as raised by Jenny and Dave, or of any case -
 >>as usual) Jerry chooses to rant and rave to to end other than to
 >>score points.

 >What facts of the case? What in the world are you talking about?
 >Your rant was not about the "facts of the case" but about
 >Robertsian ridicule of perceived enemies as well as the usual
 >chest-thumping.

 >I made the mistake of urging you to conduct yourself more
 >professionally, in the interests of keeping your case --
 >whenever you condescend to let the rest of us hear it -- from
 >being prejudged, as the product of a wildly biased, even
 >immature partisan. In other words, someone so emotionally
 >attached to his beliefs that his investigations are intended not
 >to uncover truth but to humiliate perceived enemies. I was
 >trying to _help_ you. My mistake, and one I will not make
 >again..

 >Go ahead and keep acting, as you have done here again, true to
 >form, Andy. Pound the chest. Taunt. Ridicule. Boast. And the
 >rest of us will judge your forthcoming report accordingly.


Wouldn't it be best to judge the report by what's actually in
it?

--
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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 24

                          Re: Lakenheath - Randles

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 17:49:30 -0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 08:01:54 -0500
Subject: Re: Lakenheath - Randles


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 23:28:46 EST
 >Subject: Re: Lakenheath
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >>To: <Updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Lakenheath
 >>Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:56:37 -0000

 ><snip>


 >Hi,

 >Some of us researchers have been waiting for up to 5 years now
 >for full publication of this new data on the Lakenheath case of
 >1956. Had the data instead of blunt conclusions been fully
 >shared in 1996 there might have been a more favorable response
 >and more supporters instead of critics.

Firstly, there are no 'blunt conclusions' in my book. There's a
discussion of what the air crew said and its meaning for the
case. You seem here to be ascribing to me comments presumably
made by others and just as I wouldn't dream of attacking you over
what other researchers have said about any case you are
interested in, then please don't do this either.

Have you read 'Something in the Air' ?  If so, why do you find
it 'blunt'?

Secondly, as I also explained when this was first raised, the
BBC documentary that I wrote and presented in l996 was co-funded
by the BBC and Sci Fi channel and I had to wait until they had
screened it several times to be free to use its material. I also
had to obtain from the BBC the original interviews that I filmed
(which was extremely extensive and fills many tapes recorded
over a nine month period). I was not free to start any appraisal
of this material until late l999 and that's when the work began
to create the UFOIN report and include the full transcripts of
the interviews.

So - yes, its been about 15 months since this work started, but
the case has spiralled as new leads have been followed and we
decided not to publish piecemeal but as a comprehensive report
when we had it all completed.

Therefore I trust you can see that the above suggestion of
people waiting since l996 is silly. The interviews I did with
the air crew that year are merely a small part of the new data
on this case - most of which wasn't even underway until the year
2000. And like I said, I have hardly hidden what the air crew
told me in l996 as its reported in that book four years ago.  I
couldn't quote directly from it then as I didn't have the original
interview tapes yet to do so.

 >There has never been a satisfactory response to my rebuttal
 >points for the past 3 years that I have been posting them --
 >only flat denials and now abusive bullying comments about how
 >I'm going to have to "eat my words" and suffer shame and
 >humiliation for not reading their minds and/or not spending many
 >thousands of dollars to fly out to the UK to find out what is
 >being withheld by these verbal bullies.

If you are in any way suggesting that I have been 'abusing' or
'bullying' you as you here seem to imply I think I am entitled
to see some kind of proof of that, because as far as I can see
that's a total fantasy.

Whatever problems you have with other researchers are not down
to me. And why do you expect me to answer for other people?

I haven't even been on the internet for three years (in fact it
is actually less than two!) so this comment about not replying
to your rebuttals for that greater length of time certainly
cannot by any standards apply to me. And I don't intend to
respond to any debate about pros and cons of the case and what
may or may not have happened as I haven't formulated my personal
conclusions yet.

I am happy to debate the evidence I have seen first hand, but
have politely asked to do that _after_ the report appears so
that we are all singing from the same hymn sheet as it were. I
don't think that is bullying. I don't even think it is being
unreasonable.

 >Can you explain why my points could not be given a courteous and
 >full answer even in private? Had I been given a courteous and
 >full explanation years ago I might have been convinced of the
 >merits of this skeptical refutation of the case.

Who is arguing a 'skeptical refutation of the case'? Not me. If
you want to debate this you'll have to do so with someone who is
seeking to demolish the case. All I am doing is reporting
witness testimony obtained and that contradicts the traditional
interpretation of that part of the story.

I don't have the desire to go from there into some kind of open
battle over where the case now stands as that depends upon a
collective view of various disparate strands of evidence that
are coming together via various researchers right now and will
feature in the UFOIN report. And when I see them all together
and can properly think them through I will form my opinion on
this case. But asking me to do so prematurely is much more like
bullying than anything I am practising I fear.

All I reported was that the witness testimony from the air crew
means that the case (or that part of it anyhow) is not what we
thought it was. Given that there was no visual sighting of a UFO
and no cat and mouse chase between UFO and plane (as legend has
it), I doubt that is even a controversial statement.  But I don't
see me saying anywhere that this constitutes a 'skeptical
refutation of the case' which I thus should defend in depth with
you.  It is simply a reporting of new data.

 >I'm sure the
 >same would have applied to other serious researchers around the
 >world who as I were not local in the UK and had no way to afford
 >travel to England to investigate the case.

And they wont have to when they see the report - as they all
will soon have chance to do. But I completely agree with the
others that this report should appear when we have dotted all
the i's and crossed all the t's - and not prematurely just
because you want to see this now. I would expect every
researcher to publish their work when they are ready to do so -
not before. That's the best way to get it right.  What is so
peculiar about this way of doing things?

 >When the majority of the "investigators" spew out continuing
 >streams of abuse and heated invective on UpDates and/or other
 >forums it becomes strange that anyone would consider it a
 >"straightforward quest for the facts."

Please indicate where I have ever been 'spewing out' these
'streams of abuse and heated invective'?

Nowhere.

Right?

So what is so odd about my reporting this as a 'straightforward
quest for facts' - because, so far as I am concerned, that's
exactly what it is - nothing more and nothing less. And I'd be
interested in one example you can cite here where that's not
consistent with what I have said or done?

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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 24

                 Re: Niburu Visible With 'Scopes... - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 18:53:49 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 08:03:37 -0500
Subject: Re: Niburu Visible With 'Scopes... - Sparks


 >Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:17:09 -0500
 >From: Wendy Christensen <christensen@catlas.mv.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Niburu Visible With 'Scopes...


 >This was forwarded to me. I have no opinion or knowledge about
 >it. So don't shoot the messenger!

 >-------------


 >Posted By: LAKE ZURICH
 >Date: Thursday, 22 February 2001, 4:09 a.m.
 >Thursday, February 22, 2001
 >All day...

 >These are the coordinates at which the so-called Planet X, 10th
 >Planet, 12th Planet, Nemisis, Nibiru or whatever you want to
 >call it, is going to be visible, with a telescope!

 >  RA 5.16659 Dec 16.57897
 >  February 22nd, 2001

 >  RA 5.16653 Dec 16.56912
 >  March 1st, 2003

 >  RA 4.29741 Dec 9.96621
 >  March 3rd, 2003

 >Get this out to all the astronomers you know. They will
 >appreciate it!

 >------

Hi,

These "coordinates" are nonsense. Is the Declination North (+)
or South (-)? Without knowing that one doesn't know whether to
point a telescope to the Northern or the Southern skies. Is the
Right Ascension in hours or degrees? (I'll assume hours.) What
times on these dates do these absurdly exact figures apply? Are
the 2003 dates typos and meant to be 2001? Otherwise we've
missed the Feb 22 date already and would have to wait two years.

If the dates are all meant to be in 2001 then it represents an
extraordinary "planetary" orbit. For 8 days this alleged Planet
X will have been almost motionless with respect to the earth
(moving less than 0.01 deg), then suddenly from March 1-3 it
moves almost 7 degrees in Declination and almost one hour in RA
(about 13 degrees).










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 24

                    Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Randles

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 00:20:52 -0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 08:17:35 -0500
Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Randles


 >From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:19:41 EST
 >Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment
 >>Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 12:11:52 -0600


 >Yes, and I do not think that a mere transcript of the pilot's
 >testimonies will suffice. Video or at least audio recording will
 >have to be produced before independant parties. I suggest for
 >instance, among British ufologists, Timothy Good, Nicholas
 >Redfern and Omar Fowler.

 >Gildas Bourdais


Hi,

Thanks Gildas for this amusing post. Made my weekend. I assume
this was not meant to be serious and that you do not really
suggest that in future all Ufologists must demonstrate that they
are not faking interview transcripts by presenting proof in
front of a panel of hand picked experts of your choosing?

Such an idea would reduce the average time required to
investigate a light in the sky to, oh, maybe six years. As for a
complex abduction, we might publish by the next millennium.

Perhaps you could also name who will form the Spanish
Inquisition in front of whom we should parade our data. And do
you want the declaration in blood typed Oh, Negative, or Be
Positive?

My tone here is deliberately light hearted, of course, for which
I apologise, hopefully so that it is in keeping with your
intent. Because surely you would not actually be suggesting that
my word as a fellow Ufologist isn't to be trusted? Such a
suggestion would be hard to understand (not to say a slur) and I
would have to ask you to enlarge upon it if it is your
intention. Since I don't recall doing anything to engage
distrust.

If anyone prefers not to believe the full transcript of what the
air crew say when we present it and insists - as here - upon
independent corroboration then this action would prove the point
that I have made all week. We had to take our time in putting
this case report together and couldn't simply discuss this
research piecemeal fashion as some have requested. Otherwise the
honest commentary on what the air crew have said to me - which I
have given - would simply be challenged and disbelieved each
step of the way and would thus become a pointless exercise.

Of course, any one of you is perfectly entitled to dismiss the
testimony as if it were made up rubbish. It isn't and you'll be
the one heading off for the clouds rather than a clearer insight
into this case if you chose that path. But it is everybody's
privilege here to believe that if you prefer.

I just hope that some of you have the sense to wait, read and
judge the full report on its merits and to ask then any
questions that you have and which we have said repeatedly we
will then be happy to debate respectfully with you.

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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 24

                 Re: Alien Autopsies Are "True"! - Deschamps

From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 19:29:55 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 08:20:30 -0500
Subject: Re: Alien Autopsies Are "True"! - Deschamps


 >Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 12:42:45 -0600
 >From: Roger Annette Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: Alien Autopsies Are "True"!
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 22:23:05 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Alien Autopsies Are "True"! - Deschamps
 >>To: UFO UpDates <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>>From: Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo <ufomiami@prodigy.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Alien Autopsies Are "True"!
 >>>Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 16:44:05 -0600

 >Previously, Dr. Sanchez-Ocejo wrote:

 >>>Local news station WSVN, channel 7, Fox, aired an interview with
 >>>former Army Sergeant-Major Robert Dean, on Sunday February 18 at
 >>>11 P.M.

 >>>In the interview, Mr. Dean claimed that in 1964 saw Medical
 >>>Reports of autopsies of "extraterrestrials". He stated that
 >>>there were 4 different races, one of them similar to us, 4 to
 >>>4.5 feet tall. He did not care about personal repercussions, and
 >>>the government should said the true to the public.

 >>>Anyone know about this interview?

 >Michel replied:

 >>I'm not sure, but I may have parts of it on video tape...
 >>somewhere.


 >Hi, Michel!

 >Perhaps it is lost in the abundance of flying saucer tapes you
 >claim to have. I refer to the following post:

 >>>From: Michel M. Deschamps <ufoman@ican.net>
 >>>Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 18:22:10 -0500
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Re: Debunker-Skeptic-Believer-Zealot? - Deschamps

 >>>Frankly, I don't care that much since I've had so many
 >>>sightings; I am kind of casual about it because I know Flying
 >>>saucers are real.

 >>>If you've never seen anything, you can't know for sure. But
 >>>believe me, if you ever do see something, you won't be able to
 >>>deny it to yourself... eventually.

 >>>It took me a long while to accept what I had seen, and each
 >>>time, I had a hard time believing what my eyes saw or what my
 >>>camcorder captured on tape.

 >In response, I asked:

 >>So let me get this straight; you know flying saucers are real
 >>because you have video tape of them?

 >>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...

 >Come on, Michel. It's been several months. How long does it take
 >to find the video of _the_ flying saucer shot that makes you
 >_know_ they are real. If the interview tape that Dr.
 >Sanchez-Ocejo is seeking is stored with your other tapes, then I
 >hold out little hope of it ever seeing the light of day.

 >You _do_ have video of flying saucer, right?


Roger,

I believe it's an excerpt from "Sightings" or "Encounters" that
I have where Bob Dean is being interviewed about this. It is
also mentioned in a newsclipping in an issue of the UFO
Newsclipping Service put out by Lucius Farish.

As for my own two recordings of UFOs... yes, I do have them and
I know where they are.

Michel









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 24

                          Filer's Files #8 -- 2001

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 09:52:47 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 09:52:47 -0500
Subject: Filer's Files #8 -- 2001

Filer's Files #8 -- 2001, MUFON Skywatch Investigations
George A. Filer, Director, Mutual UFO Network Eastern
February 19, 2001


FILER'S SHORT HISTORY OF MARS AND THE WORLD - As an
intelligence analyst I have experience in taking the findings
of others and putting them together to develop a possible
scenario. Recent scientific discoveries are starting to make
the history of our world and our relationship to our
neighboring Red planet more clear. I feel we may have more in
common than is generally realized. In the history of Earth,
much of the great scientific and historical knowledge was
collected in the religious scriptures that repeatedly tells of
extraterrestrial visitors.

My own photo analysis of Mars images of Cydonia and other areas
suggest to me that Mars was once inhabited and defended. The
layered terrain on Mars show a striking resemblance to
sedimentary deposits that form underneath the water on Earth.
NASA is slowly revealing what has been known for a decade that
there was and still is water on Mars. These apparent lakes on
indicate that Mars likely harbored life in the distant past.
Where there is water, microbial life is likely to have thrived.
Fossils giving proof of life likely exist in the sediments.
Rocks that blasted off Mars from some type of explosions were
eventually found on Earth. NASA scientists claim microbial
evidence essentially proves life once existed on Mars. I
hypothesize that intelligent life either visited or developed
on Mars. One area on Mars where there are strong indications of
intelligent life is the area known as Cydonia. The famous face
on Mars is in the Cydonia area and can possibly be explained
away as a trick of nature, but new images show an eye socket,
and a well formed eye pupil, an eye brow, and even lips. The
Cydonia area also has structures that appear as a fort, a
possible city mound, a dozen outpost mounds, a pathway and
pyramid like structures. These do not appear as natural
formations.

My hypothesis is we are looking at artifacts of an ancient
civilization probably defended against attacks. Excellent
researchers such as Dr. Horace W. Crater of the University of
Tennessee Space Institute and Dr. Stanley V. McDaniel, Dr. Mark
Carlotto, both of Scientists for Planetary SETI Research
(SPSR)--Erol Torun, Vincent DiPietro and Gregory Molenaar and
many others have accomplished brilliant research pointing out
the mathematical and geometrical anomalies indicating
artificial origin of the area. Dr. Stanley V. McDaniel asks,
"Does the mound geometry conform to some understandable grid?
Is the mound geometry unique? Is there any recognizable
cultural or symbolic quality in the patterns that might provide
a clue to possible meaning or utility?" See
http://www.mcdanielreport.com/geometry.htm.

FORTIFICATIONS ON MARS - My answers to his questions are yes.
While in Vietnam as the 7th Air Force Intelligence, III Corps
analyst, I spent a great deal of time examining photographs
looking for North Vietnamese and Viet Cong rocket sites that
were used for attacking Saigon nightly. The enemy would launch
the rockets from mounds leaving small burned marks showing the
rockets had been fired from that position. I felt the Communist
122 mm rockets were personally aimed at me providing incentive
to discover the enemy operations. Eventually we were able to
figure out the North Vietnamese movements and construction
patterns of the mounds. They brought the rockets to about ten
miles from Saigon using small boats on the various streams.
They set up and fired the rockets killing my neighbors nightly.
The Communist movements, their construction of small mounds or
hills could be observed in our daily photographic footage.
Eventually we were able to attack the most likely rocket
movements and sites.

My analysis of Mars images picked up similar mounds arranged in
a geometric pattern indicating alien artifacts and possible
intelligent life. The mounds on Mars are not unlike
fortifications used by the military on Earth for centuries.
They have built similar numbers, with precision, location and
geometry to establish over lapping fields of fire. Nature tends
to do things by chance, and these structures appear to be
designed as either offensive or defensive positions. The
general arrangement is in variations of triangles. In one of my
favorite military books, "The Tools of War" written by James R.
Newman, he provides the reader with a series of drawings of
fortifications that were used by Europeans preparing defensive
bastions throughout the sixteenth to nineteenth centuries, I
have visited some of these fortifications with angled walls in
Germany and France. The structures on Mars remind me of these
diagrams. Many of these fortifications are designed using
various triangles geometric variations, because they provide
strong defensive positions and fields for cross fire. Often the
infantry and ammunition were hidden underground. Only the
cannon would be above ground and these were often covered in
various ways. I suggest we are looking at ancient Martian
fortifications placed in a triangular pattern with key points
about two miles apart. In Europe, many similar fortifications
were still in use during World War II. The French Maginot line
comes to mind with some ninety percent of its fortifications
underground. On Mars, there are what appears to be openings to
underground facilities. It seems too much of a chance for
nature to have built twelve mound like fortifications in a
roughly geometric and isosceles triangular configuration at
Cydonia.

What appears has a fort, pyramid, city mound, various
fortifications all suggest that intelligence at one time
existed on Mars. I admit this is not easy to see unless you
make the assumption that intelligent life once existed on Mars.
Then the signs of their presence are suddenly apparent. The
structures appear to represent architecture designed to protect
its occupants from weapons fire, bombs or possibly meteorites.
Many appear pyramidal in shape with deliberately shaped sloping
walls. These structures are similar to Bastions designed for
warfare where the slanted angles cause artillery fire to glance
off. In any case they seem deliberately shaped as opposed to a
natural formation and designed to deflect flying objects. In
Vietnam, I analyzed the effectiveness of our air strikes. I see
evidence of similar attacks and bombardment. This bombardment
is likely from meteorites, but they might be huge bomb craters
from a war in the distant past. I count at least a dozen bomb
craters or meteorite strikes in the fortifications. Mars has
always been known throughout history as the planet of war,
perhaps mankind was provided this information by visitors.
These images suggest that life once existed on Mars, but this
is not our only evidence.

SOVIET INFRARED PHOTOGRAPHY FROM PHOBOS 2 - In 1989, the Soviet
Phobos 2 took infrared photos of a possible underground city on
Mars. Photos shown on Canadian TV, show an infrared scan
radiometer image of the Martian surface depicting clearly
defined rectangular areas. The film showed chess board like
straight channels resembling city blocks. The infrared film
measures the heat radiated from a two hundred fifty square
miles of checker board square like parallel lines and
rectangles. The corresponding surface features taken by regular
cameras provided no indication of intelligent life. Dr. John
Becklake of the London Science Museum stated, "The city-like
pattern is 60 kilometers wide and could be easily be mistaken
for an aerial view of Los Angeles." It is my opinion that the
data is too geometrically regular to be formed naturally and
that much of the Martian civilization moved underground. The
Soviets were then shocked when almost immediately after the
infrared images were taken by Phobos 2 that satellite stopped
functioning. Embarrassed the Soviets released most of the last
taped television transmission sent back to Earth by Phobos 2
before it fell silent forever. On March 25, 1989, Phobus
photographed a dark shape described as a "thin ellipse" showing
what appears to be a gigantic cylindrical spaceship or huge
cigar-shaped 'mothership'.

In his careful words to 'Aviation Week and Space Technology',
the chairman of the Soviet equivalent of NASA, referred to the
last frame, saying, "One image appears to include an odd-shaped
object between the spacecraft and Mars." This "highly secret"
photo was later given to the Western press by Colonel Dr.
Marina Popovich, a Russian astronaut and pilot who has long
been interested in UFO's. At a UFO conference in 1991, Popovich
confirmed that their satellite had been destroyed by the alien
vehicle. These photos can be seen at www.filersfiles.com

I might remind my readers that at this time our world was
locked in the Cold War. Soviet and American forces were
prepared to destroy one another but now Russia and Americans
are together in space building a new space station. At the time
President Reagan understood the situation when he spoke at the
42nd General Assembly of the United Nations. Sept. 21, 1987,
and stated: "In our obsession with antagonisms of the moment, we
often forget how much unites all the members of humanity.
Perhaps we need some outside, universal threat to make us
realize this common bond. I occasionally think how quickly our
differences would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from
outside this world. And yet, I ask you, IS NOT AN ALIEN FORCE
ALREADY AMONG US?"

DNA REVEALS INTERVENTION BY OUTSIDE FORCE IN HUMANS

Red Setter writes that, "Already biologists have figured out
that we were formed suddenly by hybridization, rather than
gradually by Darwinian means." See American J. Human Genetics
2000, authors Royce and Baird from Leicester, where they say
that man came about "through hybridization of two widely
separated primate lines, which had not interbred previously for
1.9 million years." How then could those two primate lines be
naturally interfertile? This result argues to some extent for
Sitchin's hypothesis, of hybridization between tall blond
aliens (the "Anu" people) and a local primate, homo erectus.
Indeed, one of the two sequences is clearly African in origin.
However, we have not yet measured the DNA sequence (near
telomeres) for a blond alien, hence such a hypothesis cannot be
formally proved. Also, the new Human Genome sequence shows that
almost half of our DNA comes from invading elements; while over
200 of the 30,000 genes come from bacterial-like sources by
unknown means. Further scrutiny of these complex data may show
that our species was gene-engineered in the past. Some of those
CG-rich genes, e.g. HIC-1 as a tumor suppressor, reduce the
risk of cancer and thereby increase lifespan greatly. I expect
that fewer and fewer people will believe in Darwin as time
proceeds. Best, Red Setter

Editor's Note: Darwinian Theory essentially explains that you
and I are here by chance. That once we were ape like creatures
and before that worms or cells in a primordial soup. But recent
DNA discoveries indicate that Homo Sapiens have had the same
DNA for 200,000 years. Suddenly, a couple hundred thousand
years ago the brain size of primitive hominids jumped one-third
in size and our ancestors became relatively intelligent. I
suggest this happened by design, due to an outside force. The
scriptures state it was angels sent by God. Strangely that face
on Mars looks human and more like my ancestor than the apes. I
think our view of history needs some rewriting.

PENNSYLVANIA TWO OVAL/EGG SHAPED OBJECTS SPOTTED OVERHEAD

STATE COLLEGE - The witness reports my grandfather and I were
walking home from church around dusk on February 3, 2001, when
two bright oval objects caught our attention above the tree
line. We thought at first it was an aircraft from the local
airport. But, because of the tremendous acceleration of the
objects, we knew that it could not be an airplane. As the
objects passed almost directly above us, we heard no sound at
all, even though they were traveling at a high rate of speed.
As they sped away, they seemed to change direction very
abruptly. The weather was overcast, so we could not maintain
visual contact for very long. Thanks to Peter Davenport
Director NUFORC www.ufocenter.com

GEORGIA UFO SIGHTING

BUFORD -- Brant Connolly says, " I am reporting on a sighting
that occurred on February 12, 2001 at 5:20 PM about 45 miles
Northeast of Atlanta near the tip of Lake Sydney Lanier." As I
was leaving work that evening to go to the gym, I noticed an
aircraft coming from the East, traveling in a Westerly
direction. I was facing to the South at the time. The aircraft
was putting out a very thick double vapor trail which looked
kind of odd, so I stood and watched it. The aircraft was about
maybe an eighth of an inch long at arm's length, without much
detail other than wings. But what caught my attention next was
NOT normal. Something else moving caught my eye and I saw two
dark "disk" shaped objects moving towards the southwest, at a
very slow, controlled speed. The disks were about the size of a
pencil eraser at arm's length and about 2" apart, one slightly
above the other. There was NO sound, no lights, no wings or
other protuberances. The objects were in sight for about 1-1/2
minutes until they were lost to view. Weather conditions were
mostly clear with a nice blue sky, and the sun was starting
down. The damn things flew practically right over my head and I
didn't see them until I noticed the movement against the sky.
"The sun clearly reflected off of the airplane, but these
things were DARK-NO REFLECTION at all!" Thanks to Brant
Connolly

FLORIDA FLYING TRIANGLE

FT. LAUDERDALE - The witness was driving on I-595 when he saw a
strange flying triangle shaped object with 3-4 lights on it
February 5, 2001, at 7:30 PM. I would guess that it was 75-100
feet in altitude, I thought it might be a light pole top but as
I got closer I could see that it was just hovering. I slowed
down and it stayed there even as I passed it. Then I saw
another closer to the airport in the distance and thought maybe
they were planes but neither was moving. I thought maybe they
were helicopters hovering but they usually have blinking lights
and make a little noise but I didn't hear anything.

KENTUCKY - FLYING TRIANGLES

ADAIRVILLE -- I saw a total of three triangular shaped craft
over open farm fields on February 5, 2001. Two remained at a
distance of about a half a mile away from the roadway. One was
about 300 yards from my vehicle and was triangular in shape. It
had a dome top with a yellow light on in the dome. It was
perfectly still hovering 50 feet above the ground. It did not
have any engine noise and was perfectly quite. On the tips of
the triangular ends was a red light on one side and a blue
light on the other. It appeared to be as large as a medium
sized aircraft but not the shape of any aircraft that I have
ever seen including the Stealth. The lights began dimming and
the craft began crossing the road and headed west silently and
then flew away very fast. I have seen these several nights
while driving home from work.

BOWLING GREEN - Another witness reports, I was outside looking
at the moon February 7, 2001, when my kids asked if they could
stay out and watch the stars. I looked to the right of the Moon
and saw a cigar shaped object in the sky moving east. It turned
left towards the Moon and flew in front and just above it. It
turned to the west, and changed from a cigar shape to a
triangle shape craft. The lights were red and yellow, and then
changed to blue and back again. As it flew just above the Moon
it looked a little bit silver as the light may have reflected
off it. The craft stopped for two seconds and the moved again.
It seem to jump forward for a foot and in just a flash it was
gone. The craft made no sound, I know it was not a plane since
they fly over all the time. The object was 4 inches long with
my arm fully extended. Peter Davenport spoke via telephone with
this witness, and found him to be quite precise in his
description of the object observed by him and his children. He
was quite convincing. Thanks to Peter Davenport Director
National UFO Reporting Center www.ufocenter.com

OHIO UFO SIGHTING

CHILLICOTHE -- "Philip E. Diehl" wrote to Dave Vetterick
stating, I was in my backyard in Chillicothe Ohio at 6:41 PM on
Dec. 24, 2000, looking at the stars when I heard a faint 60
cycle hum overhead." I looked over in time to see a triangular
shaped craft move quickly from due north to due south. I have
seen many aircraft in my 53 years, but none that could move so
fast or that low that quietly. It was triangular shape with
rounded points. It had three large, but very dim lights on the
underside that could have been exhaust ports. One in the nose
and one on each (for lack of better word) wing. This could have
been some secret government craft? I don't know, but I only
know what I saw Thanks to Dave Vetterick

ILLINOIS REPORTS OF LIGHTS IN THE NIGHT SKY SHOW INCREASE

ROCKFORD --Lightfate reports scores more residents contacted
the Rockford Register Star Tuesday with personal accounts of
having seen strange lights in skies on February 10, 2001.
Photographs in Tuesday's paper by the Register Star's Gary
Carlson showed orange-gold lights making curious patterns in
the Northeast sky. On February 14, Mark Bonne wrote in the
Rockford Register Star that. " The odd visions continue to
baffle many, but a new theory has begun to gel in response to
the latest reports of bright lights in the night sky. Several
sources speculated that orange and gold glowing orbs spotted
Saturday night were helium balloons carrying flares or candles,
likely launched from someone's back yard as a novelty or prank.
More than 40 people some from as far as Byron and Caledonia
contacted the Rockford Register Star to relate accounts of a
phenomenon that started New Year's Eve 1999 and returned twice
in as many months. Lee Carlson said four amber-colored lights
floated past his Hillcrest Road home. I heard them pop as they
went by and saw them slowly burn out," said Carlson, who
suspects the balloons landed on Harrison Avenue. Duane Ingram,
a physics and astronomy professor at Rock Valley College, said
he doubts from descriptions he's heard that people are
mistaking stars, constellations or planets as the phantom
lights. Ingram said juvenile hijinks seems a more plausible
explanation.

CALIFORNIA CREATES VAPOR TRAIL INVISIBLE AIRCRAFT

Kevin McClellan writes, "I was shocked to read about your
report about invisible aircraft." It parallels my experience so
closely, I could have written that account. I've never seen an
invisible aircraft before (ha ha). Last week, I saw a
northbound vapor trail being formed. I've had a lifetime
fascination (obsession) with aircraft, so I stopped to notice
it. Like your experience, the aircraft was invisible, yet the
vapor trail still formed. When I first saw the trail forming in
the distance, I got my wife's camera and 500 mm telephoto lens.
Looking through, I still saw no plane, just the vapor trail. I
then called my wife, who came outside just in time to see the
plane appear right in front of our eyes. I took a couple of
pictures. The plane had four engines, and was a white, standard
jetliner/tanker/commercial aircraft. When I thought about why I
didn't see the plane, I wondered if the atmosphere could've
somehow naturally masked the plane from my sight. I considered
it doubtful, since it remained invisible from the horizon until
it was straight over my head, and because of the immediate
transition from invisible to visible. So active camouflage is a
possibility. I first read about that several years ago, in a
cover story of 'Popular Mechanics' magazine. But why would
(presumably) the military want to conceal an aircraft over a
big city?

Someone with access to lots of white tanker aircraft has been
systematically spraying over densely populated areas, for the
past few years. I didn't believe it at first, until one year
ago, when I looked up to find an "X" in the sky that turned
into a grid of white lines. Unlike other contrails, this grid
of vapor trails increased in size, until they spread into a
wispy cloud cover, with a nice 'rainbow ring' around the sun.
For 28 years, I have lived near three international airports
(OAK, SFO, San Jose), and Moffet Field (Navy Aviation, NASA
Ames). With my lifelong fascination for aircraft, I think I'm
qualified to say that these vapor trails were not created along
the usual flight routes. After about a month, they stopped
spraying in the San Francisco Bay area. Then last November,
they began again, usually 2 or 3 days a week. I've taken
several photos of them as they turn the spray on and off. After
a while, it became like sport, trying to catch them 'in the
act'. That's why I grabbed the camera for this latest plane.
Normal vapor contrails don't "turn on or off." By the way, the
day of my "invisible plane sighting" was yet another "spray
day." A couple of hours afterward, the sky was again covered
with a grid of vapor trails. After reading and observing, I've
come up with a theory. I think it's merely a secret SDI program
to place a catalyst in the air, to enhance the effectiveness of
an electromagnetic 'boundary layer' in the upper atmosphere.
China and Russia would be upset if they knew we had an
operational Star Wars system. Solution? Keep it secret, even
from American citizens. And that, my friend, explains the
invisible aircraft. Thanks to Kevin McClellan
http://www.rense.com/general3/anex.htm

UNITED KINGDOM SIGHTINGS CONTINUE

NORTH DEVON, ENGLAND -- Farshores reports, The sighting of
strange lights spinning through the night sky was caught on
video camera by an amateur photographer. Jo Sherlock has
described her close encounter with the UFO, which happened on
Tuesday, January 23, as a strange experience that left her
feeling "really weird" and her camera batteries low. There were
lots of very bright green and blue lights in the dark sky. I
had my camera around my neck and the flash went off three
times, without me touching it. "I felt really weird and I
thought, 'where am I?', even though I was standing in my
garden. "The object came closer and it started to spin like a
Catherine wheel, standing up vertically, not spinning around
flat like you see in movies. It then went away from me, stopped
spinning, and went really small." Jo claimed that when she went
back outside after briefly going into her house, the wind was
blowing heavily when previously it had been quite calm. The
feeling she received from seeing the lights, which she filmed
all the while, disturbed her most of all. She said: "I just did
not feel myself, I thought it was getting at me." Thanks to
Farshores.

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 over an
hour long tape of UFOs shot in space. Jeff spends hundreds of
hours watching the shuttle broadcasts from space and is now an
expert on NASA missions and even those onboard the shuttle are
unlikely to see what Jeff does. Using Jeff's directions you
will be able to learn the difference between space junk, ice
crystals and real UFOs. 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 Is, 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 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 2001 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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 24

                    Re: An Italian 'Sputnik/UFO'? - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 19:39:22 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 14:10:47 -0500
Subject: Re: An Italian 'Sputnik/UFO'? - Young


 >Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:06:34 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
 >From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: An Italian 'Sputnik/UFO'?

 >My colleagues at York University are baffled with this bizarre
 >1600 painting which appears to depict a "Sputnik". Through my
 >own twenty-first century eyes it looks very much like some radio
 >operated eye-in-the sky satellite. From the lengths of the two
 >antennae looking protrutions and the diameter of the aperture of
 >what seems to be a space camera (we can use the dove and other
 >objects of known size to get the correct scale) we have hints on
 >what radio frequencies God may be listening to or even if He can
 >see us on the Earth with this device.

 >What are your comments regarding this "Sputnik" found in the URL
 > below?

 >http://www.montalcino-tuscany.it/montalcino_ufo.htm

Nick, Everybody:

The "protruding space camera" is the Moon; the yellow spot at
the upper part of the "sputnik" is the Sun. The thing is
actually not a sphere, but has a lip around in, upon which the
Moon seems to ride. Also seen are clouds and blue sky in the
center, and greenery (trees?) around the outside of the inner
part of the sphere. The "antennae" may be rods with which the
Earth, surrounded (of course: it was doctrine) by the Sun and
Moon, was suspended in heaven.


Clear skies (and low JPG compression),

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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 24

                          Re: AA Film Redux - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 18:47:09 -0600
Fwd Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 14:13:43 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Evans


 >From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 16:25:06 +0000
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Morris

 >>Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 23:24:37 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, I wrote:

 >>I do not know the exact date that Bob is referring to. However,
 >>it doesn't really matter. What matters is that _before_ Bob
 >>informed Santilli that all he had was print film, Santilli
 >>thought he had camera original. As such, he should have had it
 >>tested.
 >
 >>As to whether or not the camera original film was negative or
 >>positive film; I tried to get Bob to remember which side the
 >>emulsion appeared on the print. The reason this is important is
 >>that the alleged cameraman says he made the print, himself. Now,
 >>this is kind of hard to follow if some readers are not
 >>experienced in film tech, but consider this:

 >>As I understand it, the Santilli print was also a reversal
 >>stock. Therefore, the cameraman could not make a print off of
 >>camera negative; only off of a positive print. Since this print
 >>would have the emulsion on the opposite side than the camera
 >>original, any second generation prints off of the first print
 >>would end up with the emulsion _back_ on the same side as camera

 ><snip>

Neil replied:

 >It's a good technical point, but unlikly to be answered without
 >access to the film stock and I see little chance of that.

 >As I understand it Bob has only had access to a couple of film
 >fragments at the most, and we only have what Ray has stated was
 >the actual mix of the film stock he bought.

 >You could also throw into this mix that we also have no idea as
 >to whether the cameraman had contact or optical printing
 >equipment, though if the 1947 edge markings turned up on the
 >"safty prints" as well as the neg reel he says he had, this
 >would suggest the old B+H contact style printer was used not an
 >optical.

 >As I've said though, without cooperation these points are likly
 >to remain unanswered.

Hi, Neil!

Isn't that the point of this whole discussion? You're looking
for needles of truth in a haystack layered with suspicion and
doubt. Wouldn't it be better to get one simple question answered
by the man that will benefit the most than to try and solve
hundreds of other secondary questions that won't prove anything?
More to the point; doesn't it piss you off that Santilli and
company won't bother to help you exonerate them?

I think we've taken this as far as we can. I received the CD's
from Ed and they won't open on either of my computers. I know
the problem is not on my end as I play MPEGS and AVI files all
the time in my work.

Regarding the emulsion question, I think that it should be
followed up on. If Ed has any connections with the man he so
zealously defends, then perhaps we can get a statement from the
alleged cameraman about the following:

1) Did he shoot negative or positive?

2) Which side does the emulsion appear on the sample clips Bob
looked at?

The value of this information is that we don't even need to see
the alien on the footage. If the results match, it does not
necessarily validate the cameraman's story or AA. However, if we
accept that the sample clip is _supposed_ to be from the AA
footage and the calculated result for the placement of the
emulsion does not match the origin given by the cameraman, then
the guy is simply lying (not 'mistaken') and that would be
definitive.

At this point, I am not going to reveal which side the emulsion
would be on for each scenario. Instead, I'll wait to see what
the cameraman says and see if it matches the results from the
sample clip.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 24

                 Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 19:51:01 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 14:17:26 -0500
Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Young


 >From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:28:15 -0400

 >>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 00:34:23 -0600

<snip>

 >Might I refer you to the December 1996 Yukon case so ably
 >investigated by professional Engineer Martin Jasek who dealt
 >with more than 30 witnesses (groups of 2 or 3) which enabled
 >triangulation 3 times, establishing a length of 0.6-1.2 miles
 >long. I was up there. One witness said it was the full width of
 >the big dipper or more than 1 foot at arms length.

Hi Stan, Dennis:

Man, that measurement must have been made by bigfoot. The Big
Dipper is 25 degrees from tip of cup to end of handle. This is
about 7.5 inches, or so, at my arm's length. Of course, little
people (not greys) have shorter arms and bigger people have
their rulers a little further away. But, this was most likely
done in daylight, and by memory.

This is probably a pretty good example of how this kind of
"data" of eyewitness accounts of surprising events later become
giant motherships, or whatever.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 24

                  Re: An Italian 'Sputnik/UFO'? - Occhetta

From: Emiliano Occhetta - CUN Novara <novaracun@freemail.it>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 02:41:25 +0100
Fwd Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 14:31:14 -0500
Subject: Re: An Italian 'Sputnik/UFO'? - Occhetta


 >Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:06:34 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
 >From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: An Italian 'Sputnik/UFO'?

 >My colleagues at York University are baffled with this bizarre
 >1600 painting which appears to depict a "Sputnik". Through my
 >own twenty-first century eyes it looks very much like some radio
 >operated eye-in-the sky satellite. From the lengths of the two
 >antennae looking protrutions and the diameter of the aperture of
 >what seems to be a space camera (we can use the dove and other
 >objects of known size to get the correct scale) we have hints on
 >what radio frequencies God may be listening to or even if He can
 >see us on the Earth with this device.

 >What are your comments regarding this "Sputnik" found in the URL
 > below?

 >http://www.montalcino-tuscany.it/montalcino_ufo.htm

 >Nick Balaskas

Hi,

In the Church Of San Pietro in Montalcino (near Siena) there is
a painting by Bonaventura Salimbeni that is very strange, in
fact there is represented a "metallic sphere" very similar to a
Sputnik or Vanguard II.

Italy's National UFO Center made inquires about this painting
and deduced that the "Sputnik" is in reality a planisphere,
there are visible some lines of meridians and parallel.

Similar raffigurations are frequent in orthodox art.


Emiliano Occhetta

Italy's National UFO Center


PS Sorry for my English :-)







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 24

                  Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Brookesmith

From: Mendoza - Peter Brookesmith <Mendoza@appleonline.net>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 01 02:07:04 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 15:30:38 -0500
Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Brookesmith



With the compliments of the Duke of Mendoza:

 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 12:06:51 -0600
 >Fwd Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:23:08 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Clark

 >>From: Mendoza - Peter Brookesmith <Mendoza@appleonline.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Date: Thu, 22 Feb 01 00:25:59 +0000
 >>Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment


Jerome's post contained some interesting background information
to the shall-we-call-it tiff between Dr Posner and himself as
leader writer for IUR.

There are a couple of things that bother me about Jerome's
account, however. One is this:

 >[...] it was no less than CSICOP co-founder (and early
 >defector) Marcello Truzzi who first drew the letter to my
 >attention. No wonder, in retrospect, Posner found it so
 >embarrassing and sought to silence anyone who reminded the world
 >of what he had written, one hopes (charitably) in the enthusiasm
 >of the moment.

If the letter was so embarrassing to Posner, why does he have it on
his website for all to read? Follow the links from:

http://members.aol.com/garypos/critics.html

-- and why does he quote from it extensively in the piece that I
posted, I wonder? And what are all the other items written by
his many critics doing there? Should Jerry tell him, Quick, get
them out of sight?

Having read Posner's original 1978 letter in the original
publication, it seems to me pretty clear that Posner is chiding
CSICOP for making fun of people who may be more ill than stupid.
That seems a fairly humane position.

Then we have:

 >In fact, on August 14, 1992, Jerome Clark wrote Posner as
 >follows: "In my IUR editorial, your ambulatory-schizophrenia
 >accusation was cited as an example of debunkers' 'strange
 >charges against ufologists.' Any other reading is
 >inconceivable."

Yet what a strange reading it is. The word "ufologist" does not
appear in Posner's 1978 letter anywhere, least of all attached
to the "ambulatory-schizophrenia accusation" (which is not an
accusation at all, by the way: it is an admittedly speculative
diagnosis). In short I fail to see any connection between what
Posner wrote in 1978 and ufologists in general, unless Jerome
considers ufologists to be a subsection of "paranormalists" --
an association at which I should have expected him to baulk.

James Oberg and I agree that Jerome appears to be in need of
remedial reading lessons, and it's because of his very strange
distortion of Posner's position that I would tend to believe
Oberg's version of what he wrote over Jerome's. I would be
prepared to substitute terms such as "misreading" or
"misapprehension" in this sentence, but the net effect is a
distortion. Unfortunately I don't have Oberg's book to make an
independent check of his account. Which, from the way Jerome
carries on, anyone would think was not there for all to see in
Posner's article as posted by me. Odd!

I think Posner's characterizations of ufologists, as quoted by
Jerome, are overly harsh, although we cannot see their context
from these snippets. That isn't to say that ufologists are
incapable of dishonesty, deception and evasiveness, even about
UFOs. Check the List archives!

Posner's general agreement with P. Klass is hardly surprising.
Presumably Jerome's point is that anyone who agrees with Ole
Unca Phil is ipso facto horned, hooved and tailed. The ritual
cant about Phil equating ufologists with communists is bullshit,
as any intelligent reading of the record shows; and as was
discussed long ago in this forum.

I don't expect Jerome to change his mind about his self-
righteousness in this matter, stunned tho' I am to find he is
*proud* of his inaccurate and unctuous editorial. (That was a
bit of literary criticism: not personal, just business.) Others
may have found the peek into his reading and comprehension
skills useful in rounding out their knowledge of ufology's
second easiest person to wind up.

best wishes
Pokemon D. Monopoly
Licensed Poltergeist



----------------------------------
"Never underestimate the power
of stupid people in large groups."
__________________________________








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 24

              Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy'

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 19:29:42 -0600
Fwd Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 15:57:43 -0500
Subject: Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy'


 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 02:22:26 -0500
 >Subject: Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy'
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:36:11 EST
 >>Subject: Re: NASA - Response To FOX-TV's 'Moon Conspiracy'
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, John wrote:

 >I agree with the camera sensitivity explanation Roger. I've had
 >it happen with my own camera. If you have high contrast lighting
 >conditions (ex: early morning sunlight) where you are confronted
 >with bright light and deep shadows, the camera is just incapable
 >of resolving the scene properly because of the extreme in the
 >_range_ of lighting. The brightness 'blows out' (over-exposes)
 >everything and washes out all fine detail on both ends of the
 >lighting spectrum. You don't need an atmosphere to make stars
 >disappear. Just a primitive videocam with crappy range
 >(sensitivity) and even crappier light metering/compensating
 >capabilities.

Hi, John!

We have to be careful. We seem to be agreeing too much, lately.
People will talk.

Anyway, about the camera sensitivity thing and not seeing stars.
Previously, David Rudiak repeated the tired old tale about the
Earth's atmosphere not letting us photograph or see any stars
during the day because it scattered and diffused the sun's rays,
blah, blah, blah.

What makes this obviously incorrect?

Well, for starters, the sun _is_ a star! Therefore, we do see at
least _one_ star during the day, don't we? What makes it
different than the others? It's closer, that's all. If the other
stars were as close and, therefore, as bright we would not only
be able to see them during the day, we could photograph them, as
well. Therefore, while the atmosphere does do what David says it
does, it is not the reason for lack of visible stars by eye or
in photos. Instead, it is only a symptom created by a lighting
imbalance that results from a difference in proximity between
the sun and all the _other_ stars.

Again, we can see any star that is close enough, like the sun,
even _with_ atmosphere. But, if you got rid of the atmosphere,
your photos would not come out any different. You could see the
sun in them as well as anything lit by the sun, but you would
still see no stars other than the sun in your photos if your
exposure is set for terrestrial subjects even though you _could_
see the stars with your eyes (depending on which way one
looked). If anything, a lack of atmosphere would make things
worse for photography since you'd have direct, harsh light
illuminating your terrestrial subject with no atmospheric
diffusion to help control contrast.

Proximity is the culprit, not atmosphere. In fact, the
atmosphere is merely part of the terrestrial subject that would
be photographed. Notice that pictures of the Earth taken from
space do _not_ show any stars, either. Down here or up there,
the lighting imbalance created by proximity will prevent you
from photographing the stars along with anything else properly
exposed. Atmosphere got nothin' to so with it.

Regarding David's advice on remedial schooling; this is not only
basic photography, it's basic science.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 24

                    Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Easton

From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 02:49:10 -0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 17:32:50 -0500
Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Easton


Regarding:

 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment
 >Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 17:56:51 -0000

Richard Hall wrote:

 >There are so many false statements or distortions in this
 >incredibly long and repetitious posting that I hardly know where
 >to begin.

Richard,

I would suggest that you actually cite some supporting evidence.

 >Rendlesham Forest is not one of my "favorite cases," though I do
 >think it is a highly significant one and I think Georgina Bruni
 >has pretty much made that clear with truly significant new
 >evidence.

What "truly significant new evidence" is that?

 >Halt said that Cabansag did not enter the forest, not me, and I
 >was only reporting what he said.

Why didn't you realise this was contrary to such critical,
documented evidence - those unpublished witness statements in
your files?

Again, I wrote:

"'If nothing else, can we please confirm where CAUS obtained
copies of the witness statements and how long the startling
revelations about the lighthouse has been known about?'"

Is that question ever going to be answered, and if not, why not"

Will you please comment on this?


 >He apparently did make a few minor errors, but they are pretty
 >insignificant overall.

We can now highlight and document these 'minor' errors:

1. The dates of both incidents in Halt's memo to the Ministry of
Defence [MoD] are consummately proven to be wrong - Halt has
acknowledged he wrote this 'from memory'.

Presumably if, as the MoD claim, the Ministry investigated
Halt's report, their enquiries would have been focused on two,
inconsequential dates. What an unbelievable mistake on Halt's
part.


2. In that official report, he also stated, re the first night's
event's, "The individuals reported seeing a strange glowing
object in the forest. The object was described as being metallic
in appearance and triangular in shape, approximately two to
three meters across the base and approximately two meters high".

In truth, one of those 'individuals', John Burroughs, still
maintains they didn't see a structured object at all.

Another, Ed Cabansag, provided Halt with an affidavit which
confirmed, "...we ran and walked a good 2 miles past our
vehicle, until we got to a vantage point where we could
determine that what we were chasing was only a beacon light off
in the distance. Our route through the forest and field was a
direct one, straight towards the light".

The other participant, Jim Penniston, is in fact the only one
who claimed he observed a 'structured object', however, he also
provided a statement to Halt which explained that he was never
closer than "50 meters" to a perceived source, which it's
acknowledged he could never confirm.

Halt also had two further affidavits which verified that was an
accurate synopsis of events.


3. Halt advised the Ministry how, "As the patrolmen approached
the object, it maneuvered through the trees and disappeared".

That never happened. The three 'patrolemen' testified how their
investigation of some unfamiliar lights resulted in those same
lights being lost from sight, before again being observed near a
farmhouse. Subsequently, they again lost sight of the lights
before pursuing a source which was ultimately realised to
originate from a coastal lighthouse.


4. Halt also told the MoD, "The object was briefly sighted
approximately an hour later near the back gate".

That never happened. It originates from a reported, brief
sighting of "a blue light" - never an 'object' - when our three-
man patrol were returning to base.


5. Subsequent to his own involvement in the 'UFO' hysteria, Halt
further advised the MoD that, "Later in the night a red sun-like
light was seen through the trees. It moved about and pulsed. At
one point it appeared to throw off glowing particles and then
broke into five separate white objects and then disappeared".

That never happened either, as obviously evident from Halt's
microcassette recording of those events.

Halt is once again, alarmingly, grossly mistaken.


And so on... all of the above is of course factual.


To recap; Halt informs the MoD about a purported 'UFO' incursion
and...

- gets the dates of both incidents wrong

- describes a three-man patrol's detailed 'sighting' of a
structured 'UFO', when in truth only one participant perceived
that and couldn't confirm it

- erroneously tells the Ministry those three patrolmen watched
an object 'manoeuvre' through the trees

- omits to inform the MoD that those same lights were in truth
again seen, apparently near a farmhouse

- fails to tell the MoD that the patrol then followed a flashing
light for a stated TWO MILES, before realising it came from a
coastal lighthouse

- misinforms the Ministry that the 'object' was observed
"approximately an hour later"

- tells the MoD that he personally witnessed an unfamiliar light
which "broke into five separate white objects and then
disappeared", when it should have been obvious to Halt how that
never happened if he had listened to his own tape-recorded
documentation

- blindingly forgets to tell the MoD that the 'light' which had
supposedly 'exploded' was in fact seen again and documented by
Halt personally as now visible, "clear off to the coast".


You stated, "Halt's TESTIMONY is full, complete, on the record,
and highly credible. His information anchors the entire case".

"My forthcoming account of the case in 'THE UFO EVIDENCE: II' is
based on direct communications with Colonel Halt, who has been
very helpful and cooperative...".

Before addressing anything else, can we be clear that you do
consider all of the above, in the context of an obviously
important 'UFO EVIDENCE II' case, has trivial consequence and
Halt has merely contributed, as you say...

"a few minor errors, but they are pretty insignificant overall".


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 24

                 Re: Niburu Visible With 'Scopes... - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 23:12:07 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 17:35:31 -0500
Subject: Re: Niburu Visible With 'Scopes... - Young


 >Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:17:09 -0500
 >From: Wendy Christensen <christensen@catlas.mv.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Niburu Visible With 'Scopes...

 >This was forwarded to me. I have no opinion or knowledge about
 >it. So don't shoot the messenger!

Wendy, List:

I checked this with a search engine on the Minor Planet Center
website, producing a list of known asteroids brighter than 18
magnitude within 5 degrees of the first site and found nothing
near this location which did not already have a known orbit.

I also could not find anything listed for Near Earth Objects, or
recent objects in need of confirmations near the position. The
two additional position suggest that the object, if real, has
orbital elements which have been determined to allow predictions
of its position two years into the future.

I also searched under the names Niburu and Nemesis, and found
nothing.

The weird thing about this information is that only a date was
given, not a decimal date or anything more. Yet the positions
were given to 5 decimals. In other words, the thing could move a
lot in the course of a day, giving these detailed location was
absurd without a more accurate time.

The fact that the object is supposed to be in about the same
area of the sky (within 15 degrees or so) about two years later
suggests that the object has an orbit slightly outside that of
Mars, which might put it among the Amor Group of asteroids with
perihelions (positions closest to the Sun) inside the orbit of
Mars. The positions given also indicated that it would have a
fairly high (30 degree) inclination to the ecliptic, the path of
the planets and most asteroids.

Something near Mars but dimmer than 18th magnitude would be
tiny. As a comparison, the two moons of Mars, Phobos and Diemos
have diameters of about 21 and 12 Kms, respectively, and visual
brightness' of magnitude 11.6 and 12.7, respectively. Their
albedos, or brightnesses, are very dark. Anyone calling
something on this scale "planet X, Y or Z" is feeding us a line.

Incidentally, for some very interesting and informative
websites about asteroids, see;

http://astrosun.tn.cornell.edu/staff/bottke/asteroid.html


Clear and dark 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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 24

               Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - McGonagle

From: Joe McGonagle <joem_cgonagle@yahoo.com>
Date: 24 Feb 2001 04:55:27 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 17:37:44 -0500
Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - McGonagle


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 15:00:12 -0600

 >>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >>Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:04:28 EST
 >>Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca


<snip>

 >Just yesterday they had a program on National Public Radio in
 >the wake of the latest FBI security breach. Some expert on same
 >said that there were four reasons for divulging secrets,
 >ideology, money, and thrill-seeking. Unfortunately, I can't
 >remember the fourth right now -- or maybe it's a secret!

Could it have been retribution/revenge?


Joe








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 24

                             Richard Brunswick?

From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 04:57:39 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 17:39:48 -0500
Subject: Richard Brunswick?


Hi All,

Does anyone have any contact details for Richard Brunswick who
wrote the book 'UFO'?

Contact me at the above please.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 24

                             'The Big Pay Off'?

From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 05:05:28 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 17:41:45 -0500
Subject: 'The Big Pay Off'?


Hi All,

I am not sure if this book is in print, but I would not mind
getting a copy (if it exists).

Has anyone heard of the book 'The Big Pay Off - Nineties Ufology'

I don't have an authors name, any help would be appreciated.


Regards,

Roy..









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 24

                          Bruni Lecture - A Review

From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 05:06:59 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 17:45:20 -0500
Subject: Bruni Lecture - A Review


Hi All,

I would just like to say what a great lecture Georgina Bruni
gave at the London UFO Studies monthly meeting place Unity Hall
Walthamstow East London.

With a fully packed hall, Georgina delivered a very good and
neatly outlined over-view of her excellent research and new
findings into the Rendlesham Forest incident.

It was also good to note, that many of the people who attended
the meeting, did have some knowledge of the case, and when
Georgina was questioned near the end of the lecture, people (the
general public) asked, quite puzzled, why leading UK UFO
researchers had not welcomed her new findings, and also why
these researchers continued to drool on about a much now dropped
lighthouse theory.

In her cool and witty style, Georgina gave an all around good
lecture, which was very well received by the public who
attended. A rapturous round of applause finished off this very
interesting and revealing lecture.


Roy Hale

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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 24

               Re: New Evidence Of Sagan's Martian Macrobes? -

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 01:10:55 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 17:48:49 -0500
Subject: Re: New Evidence Of Sagan's Martian Macrobes? -


 >Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 09:15:16 -0800 (PST)
 >From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >Subject: Re: New Evidence Of Sagan's Martian Macrobes?
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:12:32 -0500 (Eastern >Standard Time)
 >>From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: New Evidence Of Sagan's Martian Macrobes?


 >>Here is another picture of a baffling Martian find that was
 >>made by pre-teen school children. I wonder what else could
 >have been found if Dr. Michael Malin gave equal time on the
 >>Mars Global Surveyor to people such as Richard Hoagland or our
 >>Mac Tonnies.

 >>http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0102/22boulders/

 ><snip>

 >NASA seems schizophrenic when it comes to Martian life -
 >microbial or otherwise. They justify unmanned missions as "the
 >search for life," yet seem to completely ignore photos that
 >might show examples of what they're after.

 >We have it in our collective head that, if Mars has life, then
 >it's necessarily microbial. With what we know about Mars now
 >(running water, etc.), this mentality is antiquated. There is
 >every reason to suspect macroscopic life.

 >NASA's tight-lipped stance on the matter of life is really
 >disheartening. Fortunately Arthur C. Clarke has broached the
 >subject; hopefully someone at NASA will venture an explanation.


Hiya Mac,

Yep, it's great that AC Clarke has chimed in about those weird
tunnel/tubular shaped features on Mars. Maybe the weight of his
celebrity will elicit a response from NASA. I hope so anyway. I
have attached two .gifs of this odd feature. More importantly I
want to ask everyone on the list what they make of the 'silvery-
metallic' looking sphere inside of the tubular structure. I have
included two close-ups that were taken from the larger version
that is available over at the Enterprise Mission website.

The "sphere" appears to have some kind of an 'appendage' that
extends from the back (front?) of the thing. Looks kinds like a
"Heavy Metal Sperm!" <VBG>All kidding aside, does anyone have
any idea as to what this thing (or the tubular structures for
that matter) could possibly be? I'm drawing blanks. I've never
seen or heard of anything quite like this.

see: http://enterprisemission.com/images/arthur.jpg

I think that features like this deserve much more attention (and
camera time) than something like the Face. Maybe we are all
mesmerized by the anthropomorphic qualities of the Face, because
it "looks like us" when instead we could be focusing on
something that genuinely strange and anomalous like these
tubular structures and that very odd metallic looking sphere
within it. I have attached two small .gifs for you guys to study
on your own. Please, let me know what you think of this feature.
The face "could be" just a propitious combination of
shapes/shadows and a "perceived" resemblance to "Man." But these
tubes and that sphere are something else altogether. I'm
completely stumped. I have no idea what these features could be
or represent.

Truly "Alien" in the traditional sense of the word.

Look forward to getting your feedback.


Regards,

John Velez


                                      *************
                              "Nothing is at last sacred but
                             the integrity of your own mind."
                                 www.spacelab.net/~jvif/
                                      *************








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 24

                         Re: AA Film Redux - Johnson

From: James Bond Johnson <JBONJO@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 01:13:11 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 17:52:42 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Johnson


 >Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 09:30:21 -0800 (PST)
 >From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: AA Film Redux - KRandle
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>


 >When the RPIT came online I was rather surprised. I wish I
 >still had the e-mailed testimony from Johnson, as there is a
 >_huge_ discrepancy.

 >That said, Johnson was nothing but helpful and honest in my own
 >dealings with him.


There is posted online at Roswell Crash Photographer a series of
email exchanges between Joshua Shapiro and myself during the
period 6 October 1996 and 4 November 1996. These continue to be
my recollections of my small part in the Roswell Event on July
8, 1947.

There is an error contained in my 25 October 1996 email, as
stated below in part, which should be corrected. The error is
that at that time of making that statement I was under the
misimpression that only a shot of General Ramey alone -- which
ran on the afternoon of July 9 and morning of July 10, 1947 --
ever ran in the Star-Telegram. Only later did I learn that
photos that I had taken of General Ramey and Colonel Dubose and
a head shot of Major Marcel ran on the front page in the morning
editions on July 9, 1947, beginning with the four star edition
at midnight. I did not and do not recall ever having seen those
editions.


"The Rawin kite/weather balloon "cover story" probably was
issued by General Ramey live on radio on orders of General
McMullen within two hours after I took the pictures and returned
to the Star-Telegram to develop and print them. The story was
still very live when I returned to the S-T city room but was
superseded by the cover story within the couple of hours it
probably would have taken to recall to work the air brush artist
who would have been needed to retouch the photo for engraving
and publication in the a.m. paper (this happened rather
routinely). The photo did not run then until the next p.m.
editions on 7-9-47. All of the stuff I saw appears in the
photos. One of the larger, flat I-beams -- I did not notice any
strange markings at the time -- does appear in one of the
photos. This was cropped out of the picture published in the
paper.

Some people also may identify the several "balsa wood kite
sticks" (as they later have been described) in the photos as
I-beams. Kent Jeffrey told me last week that they are blowing up
the negatives now with some new technology to see if any
markings appear on the "I-beams." The debris did smell like a
burned building (which I experienced frequently as a police
reporter). I do not recall any feelings as to its origin or
caused to sense anything "out-of-this world." I recall wondering
at the time why this stinking stuff was displayed in the
Commanding General's office on his nice carpet rather than in a
hanger where airplane crashes usually were and are laid out for
investigation. I already had gone home and was out of the loop
when the "cover story" was issued so I had no reason to question
anything announced by Gen Ramey on the radio. There is no record
of any formal "press conference." I know that in 1947 as a
recently discharged AAF pilot cadet I would not likely have
challenged a West Point grad Air Force commanding general's
explanation."










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 24

                  Re: Naud, Bouchmann & Le Paige - Mancusi

From: Bruno Mancusi <swissufo@swissufo.ch>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 09:32:17 +0100
Fwd Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 17:55:28 -0500
Subject: Re: Naud, Bouchmann & Le Paige - Mancusi


 >From: Chris Aubeck <caubeck@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Naud, Bouchmann & Le Paige
 >Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:45:42 -0000

 >>From: Bruno Mancusi <swissufo@swissufo.ch>
 >>Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 20:38:42 +0100
 >>Fwd Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 09:16:12 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Naud, Bouchmann & Le Paige - Mancusi

 >>>Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 00:49:10 -0800 (PST)
 >>>From: Chris Aubeck <caubeck@yahoo.com>
 >>>Subject: UFO UpDate: Naud, Bouchmann & Le Paige
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>>I am looking for information about three items. Can anyone help?

 >>>Firstly, I have been reading a book called 'U.F.O.s and
 >>>Extraterrestrials in History'. The author is Yves Naud and the
 >>>book was originally published in French. I have an English
 >>>translation published by 'Ferni', printed in Spain and
 >>>distributed by 'Friends of History'. In my edition there are no
 >>>bibliographical references, which is unfortunate as the book is
 >>>full of early UFO cases (some highly dubious). Does anyone have
 >>>a different edition with a bibliography or notes? Who is Yves
 >>>Naud?

 >>The original edition was published in Switzerland: 'Les O.V.N.I
 >>et les extra-terrestres dans l'histoire', 4 vol., Famot, Geneva
 >>1977. There are some references (scarce!) at bottom of the
 >>pages, but they are French books, so it's possible that they
 >>disappeared in the English translation.

 >>I don't know Yves Naud and if it's his real name.

 >>>Secondly, I have come across a reference to a very unusual
 >>>'folkloric abduction' dated November 15th 1792. Apparently,
 >>>one Hans Bouchmann, a 50 year old Swiss peasant, disappeared
 >>>suddenly in the village of Romerswill-Sempach. He reappeared
 >>>two weeks later in Milan. Bouchmann said that he had been taken
 >>>up into the air and transported to Fairyland. When he returned
 >>>he found he had been thoroughly shaved and had not one hair left
 >>>on his body! Does anyone recognise this tale?

 >>Yes, I can confirm the tale. This Hans Buchmann, or Buochmann,
 >>lived at Romerswill and allegedly disappeared at Sempach (Luzern
 >>canton). He reappeared two weeks later in Milan. When he went
 >>back home the next year, his head was swelled, he had no hair,
 >>no beard and no eyebrows.

 >Hello Bruno,

 >Thanks for the reply. I thought I had sent you a response
 >to the above already but I must have been dreaming.

 >Two questions:

 >1) Does Naud mention his source for the 1796 Russian case? In my
 >edition there is no bibliographic reference, though I think I
 >know where he got it (or who invented it, perhaps).

No, there is no source. In view of the fact that it is described
just after the famous Alenon case (1790, France) I have checked
its source (not given by Naud): Alberto Fenoglio, "Antichi
visitatori dal cielo", 'Clypeus' #10, 1966, pp. 13-14, but it's
not here (it's better because Fenoglio has invented many stories
like the German Sonderbro and the Alenon landing...). I will
forward a copy of this mail to Boris Shurinov, perhaps he know
something.

 >2) Where have you read about Hans Buchmann? I haven't been able
 >to get at the original source. If it's from a book in a language
 >other than English, could you post a translation of the relevant
 >passage? Can you confirm the date? How?

My references:

- 'Vaterland' (Luzern newspaper) 29 February 1980,

- 'UFO-Nachrichten' #263, May-June 1980, pp. 5-6 ('Vaterland'
   paper),

- Ulrich Magin, 'Kontakte mit "Ausserirdischen" im deutschen
   Sprachraum', GEP, Ldenscheid (Germany) 1991, p. 39,

- Michel Meurger, "Alien abduction", 'Scientifictions' #1,
   vol. 1, 1995, pp. 24-30 (in French),

- Gisela Ermel, "Die "Luftfahrt mit dem Wilden Jger"", 'Ancient
   Skies' #6, 1996, p. 4.

Sorry, I don't know an English source and can't post a
translation. There is no dispute about the date. The story come
from a manuscript of the well-known chronicler Renward Cysat
(1515-1614), 'Collectanea chronica und denkwrdige sachen pro
chronica Lucernensi et Helvetiae'.


Regards,

Bruno








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 24

                   Watch On For Doomsday Asteroids, Comets

From: Steve Wilson Senior <Ndunlks@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 22:52:58 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 17:58:29 -0500
Subject: Watch On For Doomsday Asteroids, Comets


Watch is on for doomsday asteroids, comets

By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Correspondent


WASHINGTON, Feb 23 (Reuters) - One got the dinosaurs. Another
wiped out the trilobites and just about everything else on
Earth. And an asteroid or comet might get us, too, scientists
say.

That is why dozens of centers are searching the sky for
moderate-sized asteroids or comets that might one day collide
with the Earth.

It appears that every 100 million years or so, something big
enough to wipe out nearly all life hits the planet, Chris Chyba
of Stanford University in California says.

Such impacts bracketed the dinosaur age, scientists now think.
This week's issue of the journal Science carries a report
suggesting that an asteroid or comet was responsible for the
"mother of all extinctions" -- the Permian event 250 million
years ago that wiped out 90 percent of all marine species and 70
percent of animals and plants on land.

It would have been about the size of the asteroid believed to
have hit what is now the Yucatan peninsula in Mexico, sending up
clouds of dust and sparking volcanic activity that wiped out the
dinosaurs 65 million years ago.

The first impact would have ended the Paleozoic age 250 million
years ago, starting the Mesozoic, during which dinosaurs evolved
and thrived. The impact 65 million years ago ended the party for
the dinosaurs, allowing mammals and eventually humans to evolve
during the present age.

"Statistically, there is something like 100 million years
between impacts of 10-kilometer (6-mile-wide) objects and the
Earth," Chyba told a news conference sponsored by the space
agency NASA on Thursday.

That scenario would allow for a theoretical 35-million-year
buffer. But of course asteroids and comets do not operate on
schedule. And something smaller could make quite a mess, too.

SMALLER IMPACT COULD KILL A LOT OF US

"Smaller impacts ... even a kilometer (half a mile) in size
could also cause not mass extinctions but could strongly affect
human existence," Chyba said.

It could kick up enough dust to cause a "nuclear winter" that
would wipe out crops and might cause tsunamis to swamp coastal
areas.

It did not take the recent release of asteroid disaster films to
make scientists aware of this threat.

In 1998 NASA started what is called the Spaceguard Survey, which
aims to find 90 percent of near-Earth objects larger than a
kilometer (half a mile) in diameter by 2008.

Teams of astronomers around the world are surveying the sky with
electronic cameras to find objects, and amateur sky-watchers
help in the effort.

"We think we know all of the 10-kilometer (6-mile-wide)
objects," Chyba said. "There aren't very many of them that are
crisscrossing Earth's orbit. We don't have to worry about them."

He said researchers are about halfway through a catalog of
one-kilometer (half-mile) objects.

If one is found to be on a collision course with Earth, Chyba
and other experts say there will be plenty of time to think
about what to do -- whether to launch a spacecraft to try and
deflect it, or make the best of a bad situation and move people
away from coastal areas and stockpile food.

If one has been missed, NASA says the first warning will be the
explosion when it strikes.

"Statistically, the greatest danger is from a NEO (near-Earth
object) with about 1 million megatons energy," NASA says in its
Web site devoted to the threat at http:/impact.arc.nasa.gov/.

This object would be 2 kilometers (1.2 miles) in diameter.

"On average, one of these collides with the Earth once or twice
per million years, producing a global catastrophe that would
kill a substantial (but unknown) fraction of the Earth's human
population. Reduced to personal terms, this means that you have
about one chance in 20,000 of dying as a result of a collision,"
NASA says.

Of course such impacts give as well as receive. Some scientists
believe that meteors, comets and asteroids smashing into the
Earth may have carried the very seeds of life. Evidence of amino
acids and even tiny bacteria have been found in meteorites.

Just weeks ago a team at the University of California Santa Cruz
said they created an artificial cell wall in space-like
conditions and said it showed living cells could have survived a
trip through space.

14:01 02-23-01

Copyright 2001 Reuters Limited.  All rights reserved.
Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by
framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the
prior written consent of Reuters.  Reuters shall not be liable
for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions
taken in reliance thereon.  All active hyperlinks have been
inserted by AOL.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 24

                           Re: Lakenheath - Clarke

From: Dave Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 10:16:39 -0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 18:02:58 -0500
Subject: Re: Lakenheath - Clarke


 >From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 13:14:19 -0800
 >Subject: Re: Lakenheath

 >>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Lakenheath
 >>Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 10:36:18 -0000


Hi Serge -

<snip>

 >Let me to point out Jenny that you've been providing the List
 >with tidbits of the UFOIN report for more than a week now. You
 >have also been presenting some of the conclusions of the same
 >report.

 >And it's always the same story: on one hand you say "I can't
 >tell you more about the facts, as facts can never be partially
 >exposed"; on the other hand you allow yourself to show previews
 >of the conclusions _and_ advertise the idea that this report
 >will be a definitive piece of evidence... never refusing to put
 >forward partial facts to advocate partial conclusions of a yet
 >to be released free report on the Internet.

 >Can you blame people from being a little annoyed by this?


Serge, if people are a little annoyed by this that's their
problem.

My view is that we can't do right for doing wrong.

The reason I've ventured out of my bunker and posted what I have
on UpDates is because Brad Sparks and others were implying - on
this List - that we were "sitting" on this material, i.e.
deliberately covering up facts, and not answering his questions.

I've resisted giving into this sort of insinuation, but I
thought 'what the heck' with all the money the Government is
giving me as a double agent, I might as well take a deep breath,
fire up the computer and press that dreaded "Send tio UFO
Updates" button.

I thought - and no doubt Jenny did too - that by providing some
information about what we had found the List might be overjoyed
that someone had taken the time and trouble to do some _real_
work on a _classic_ case, rather than just sitting on our butts.

So we keep this to ourselves and we get stick for doing so. We
respond to uninformed nonsense posted on this list, and try to
_inform_ people of the facts, and what do we get - more stick.

It is the same old story.

Believe me I have far better things to do than spend hard earned
cash travelling around the country gathering information for a
bunch of ingrates to sit and pick holes in.

So while you think we might have been giving things away on this
List you might be surprised to find that what we have said is
but a _tiny_ proportion of the findings which will be making
their way into ufology over the next few years.

I can guarantee to you that the Lakenheath report will be book
length; it will contain reams of information; it will be
available _free_ to download via the UFOIN website. Hopefully it
will be available by the end of the year - and we won't be
making a single English penny out of it.

Now excuse me, I'm off to have a check up from the neck up.


Best regards,

Dave Clarke








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 24

                 Re: Niburu Visible With 'Scopes... - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 02:14:46 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 18:05:19 -0500
Subject: Re: Niburu Visible With 'Scopes... - Hatch


 >Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:17:09 -0500
 >From: Wendy Christensen <christensen@catlas.mv.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Niburu Visible With 'Scopes...

 >This was forwarded to me. I have no opinion or knowledge about
 >it. So don't shoot the messenger!

 >-------------

 >Posted By: LAKE ZURICH
 >Date: Thursday, 22 February 2001, 4:09 a.m.
 >Thursday, February 22, 2001
 >All day...

 >These are the coordinates at which the so-called Planet X, 10th
 >Planet, 12th Planet, Nemisis, Nibiru or whatever you want to
 >call it, is going to be visible, with a telescope!

 >   RA 5.16659 Dec 16.57897
 >   February 22nd, 2001
 >
 >   RA 5.16653 Dec 16.56912
 >   March 1st, 2003
 >
 >   RA 4.29741 Dec 9.96621
 >   March 3rd, 2003

 >Get this out to all the astronomers you know. They will
 >appreciate it!


Hello Wendy!

No shots for the messenger of course.

Any chance of tracing the story back to its origin?

If not, I understand. Like so many chain missives, this was
probably forwarded over and over until the actual source is
lost.

Not that its worth much trouble, Nibiru-Anunaki-flakes are a
dime a dozen, even the ones that can spell properly [as in
Nemesis.]

I'd like to be a fly on the wall when somebody presents this to
a professional astronomer.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 24

                 Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 04:14:32 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 18:09:27 -0500
Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Hatch


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 15:00:12 -0600

 >>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >>Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:04:28 EST
 >>Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 ><snip>

 >>The exception came in 1974 when Nixon resigned from the White
 >>House. Newly sworn-in President Ford had to deal with the Soviet
 >>Union and it was decided that he needed confidence in the
 >>intelligence he was given. He was told about the Operation Solo.

<snip>

 >Kevin,

 >What do you mean by "exception" here? Your second paragraph
 >contradicts your first, as obviously Ford was told.

<snip>

 >Of course secrets can be kept -- until they're not.

 >... Even the Manhattan Project was compromised fairly
 >early on.


Hello Dennis:

I never heard of any major compromise of the Manhattan Project,
but I'm no historian. My best recollection however, having read
up on the matter, is that %99.999 of the American public had no
inkling whatsoever that an atomic bomb was in the works, until
the bombshell when Harry Truman announced that two were dropped
on Japanese cities.

Oh yes, I read how some blabbermouth let fly that the Hanford
works had something to do with Uranium or some such and was
immediately canned of course.

There were similar indiscretions, inevitable with the many many
thousands of plant workers; the best scientists from home and
abroad; the military .. etc. etc. but _no_ important
"compromise" of the Manhattan Project comes to mind. The
Japanese were taken completely by surprise, and even doubted the
Truman broadcast if I recall. {burp!}

Come to drink of it, The M-project makes hiding crashed ET
saucers, with or without zork-aliens, and especially out in some
desert, seem like a walk in the park.

Suppose the Japanese surrendered _before_ the bomb was to be
dropped, so it could remain secret, a sort of ace-in-the-hole.
Would we have learned of the existence of atomic weapons in the
first decades after the war?

Eventually, yes. But we can probably argue endlessly how long it
might have taken. Non?


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 24

                 Re: Re: An Italian 'Sputnik/UFO'? - Lissoni

From: Alfredo Lissoni <retecun@tiscalinet.it>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 13:15:57 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 18:13:13 -0500
Subject: Re: Re: An Italian 'Sputnik/UFO'? - Lissoni


Best wishes, from Italy;

The Italian "Sputnik" - in the St. Peter Church of Montalcino,
near Siena - is a painting of Bonaventura Salimbeni, 1595.

In 1995 members of the Italy's National UFO Center (CUN)
photographed it in detail; sorry, it was not a Spuntik (as said
Yusuke Matsumura, many years ago) or an UFO, but a planisphere.

I found similar objects in the Mechitaristic pictures (painted
by etyopic orthodoxes)and in the "Dolcinian" (Friar Doclcino was
an Italian heretic during Middle Age) Church of Orta St.Giulio,
near Novara.

See:

http://members.tripod.com/~ufocun/index4e.html


Best wishes

Alfredo Lissoni
(UFO-researcher pro ETH)

Italy's National UFO Centre
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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 24

                     The Great Moon Hoax - NASA Responds

From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 09:23:42 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 18:30:13 -0500
Subject: The Great Moon Hoax - NASA Responds

---

From: NASA Science News <snglist@lyris.msfc.nasa.gov>
To: NASA Science News <snglist@snglist.msfc.nasa.gov>
Date: Friday, February 23, 2001 5:58 PM
Subject: The Great Moon Hoax


NASA Science News for February 23, 2001 12:00:00 PM

Yes, there really is a Moon hoax, but the prankster isn't NASA.
Moon rocks and common sense prove Apollo astronauts really did
visit the Moon.

Full story at:

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23feb_2.htm?list58791



�Habla espaol? If you do, check out our new Spanish-language
web site at http://ciencia.msfc.nasa.gov.

If you need to get in touch with us directly, please go to:

http://science.nasa.gov/comments

Home page: http://science.nasa.gov










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 24

                 Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Randle

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 08:52:43 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 18:33:04 -0500
Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Randle


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 15:00:12 -0600


 >>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >>Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:04:28 EST
 >>Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

<snip>

 >>The exception came in 1974 when Nixon resigned from the White
 >>House. Newly sworn-in President Ford had to deal with the Soviet
 >>Union and it was decided that he needed confidence in the
 >>intelligence he was given. He was told about the Operation Solo.

 >>The point here, however, is that it was a highly classified
 >>operation that provided priceless information to Americans who
 >>had to negotiate with the Soviets. And, the President was
 >>unaware that the operation existed. If he had asked, he would
 >>have been told that it did not. He would have been told that the
 >information was pieced together from a variety of sources.


 >What do you mean by "exception" here? Your second paragraph
 >contradicts your first, as obviously Ford was told. The fact
 >that there was subsequently an enite book written about
 >Operation Solo is further evidence that when it comes to keeping
 >secrets, we're basically talking differences in shelf life, not
 >some infallible procedure(s).

Nope, the second doesn't contradict the first. It means that no
president, from Eisenhower through Bush, with the exception of
Gerald Ford was told about Morris Childs or the extraordinary
information he was supplying. The exception was made because
Ford had just taken over for Nixon and Ford was about to meet
with the Soviets. It was decided by those in charge, as an
effort to bolster Ford's confidence in the intelligence, that he
would be told the source of it.

So those in charge of "running" Childs made a decision to share
the nature of the intelligence with a singe president, who, BTW,
didn't reveal anything about it. This widened the circle of
those who knew but didn't compromise the intergrity of the
operation at that time. In other words, everyone still kept the
secret.

Your point about shelf-life is valid but the point is, this
secret was not compromised until after Childs had died and the
Soviet Union was gone. Then Childs was recognized for his
extraordinary contribution to the security of the United States.
The secret was kept until there was no reason to keep it.

 >Of course secrets can be kept -- until they're not.

 >My point is that there is no 'mechanism' that guarantees that
 >secrets are kept secret in perpetuity, because humans in charge
 >of keeping secrets betray them whenever it suits their own
 >purposes. Even the Manhattan Project was compromised fairly
 >early on.

And my point is that some secrets are kept and kept well for
decades without a hint of what is going on. No one is suggesting
that secrets will be kept forever, only that some secrets can be
kept while it is necessary for them to be kept.

And, so what if the Manhattan Project was compromised, Operation
Solo was not. The Soviets, who had an interest in learning of
the operation never suspected that it existed.

Further, during WWII, the Japanese Balloon Bomb attacks were
kept secret from the Japanese. This means that although Japanese
spies were attempting to learn if their balloon bombs were
reaching the US, and even though thousands were in on the
secret, that the only thing the government did to keep the
secret was ask those who had observed balloon bombs, seen them
fall, or found parts of them, was ask the witnesses not to talk.
Japanese spies, who were actively working to find any indication
that the balloon bombs had reached the US failed to do so. This
was a big secret, meaning that thousands were involved. So, some
secrets are kept by large numbers for short periods.

 >There is no compelling reason that I'm aware of as to why UFO
 >secrets would be any more immune to human nature than military
 >or intelligence secrets.

Except that some secrets are simply kept because the people
involved have been asked to keep them (though there are criminal
penalties for revelation). I only suggest here that some secrets
are kept and others are not. To suggest that nothing can be kept
secret isn't quite right.

 >Just yesterday they had a program on National Public Radio in
 >the wake of the latest FBI security breach. Some expert on
 >same said that there were four reasons for divulging secrets,
 >ideology, money, and thrill-seeking. Unfortunately, I can't>
remember the fourth right now -- or maybe it's a secret!

Of course, all true. Some secrets are leaked, some are sold,
some are so imcompetently kept that they leak into the public.
And some are not revealed until that revelation will do no
damage.

 >For all I know, Operation Solo could have remained secret as
 >long as it did because only two people were involved. Who knows?
 >There were only 15 copies of the Pentagon Papers, though, and
 >one of those wound up at the NY Times, courtesy, if memory
 >serves, of Daniel Ellsberg.

So, even if there were only two people involved, the point is
that it was kept secret. Actually, when you read the book, you
find that many people knew about it because it was their jobs to
assistant in the gathering of the information and the
transmission of that data to those who needed it. The point is
that here is a secret that was kept.


KRandle








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 24

                               Tell The People

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 14:02:56 -0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 18:35:11 -0500
Subject: Tell The People


Georgina Bruni's book "You Can't Tell the People" contains some
excellent investigative journalism and a lot of important new
information on the case (or series of cases).

However, having now reached the final chapters I see that it
takes a sudden plunge downwards in credibility by speculating
about wild-eyed stories of secret communications with aliens and
pseudoscientific "studies" rather than resting on the strong
case presented to that point.

For example, there is a huge difference between alleged Reichian
"cloud-busting" (pseudoscience)and seeding of clouds to produce
precipitation (real science).

Also, I just received a telepathic message from aliens who told
me that Dan Sherman is a fraud. ;-)









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 24

                 Re: Niburu Visible With 'Scopes... - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 09:31:29 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 18:37:04 -0500
Subject: Re: Niburu Visible With 'Scopes... - Young


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 18:53:49 EST
 >Subject: Re: Niburu Visible With 'Scopes...
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:17:09 -0500
 >>From: Wendy Christensen <christensen@catlas.mv.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Niburu Visible With 'Scopes...

 >These "coordinates" are nonsense. Is the Declination North (+)
 >or South (-)? Without knowing that one doesn't know whether to
 >point a telescope to the Northern or the Southern skies.

In general, you're right about this being nonsense. But, when I
assumed (you know the old story here) that these were North, it
does sort of work out for an object with about a two year orbit.
But, you are right, the fact that no + or - was included points
to the fact that whoever put this out didn't know the
difference.

<snip>

 >What times on these dates do these absurdly exact figures apply? Are
 >the 2003 dates typos and meant to be 2001? Otherwise we've
 >missed the Feb 22 date already and would have to wait two years.

Yes, it would make a big difference.

 >If the dates are all meant to be in 2001 then it represents an
 >extraordinary "planetary" orbit. For 8 days this alleged Planet
 >X will have been almost motionless with respect to the earth
 >(moving less than 0.01 deg), then suddenly from March 1-3 it
 >moves almost 7 degrees in Declination and almost one hour in RA
 >(about 13 degrees).

It could work out to be an asteroid (see my other post) near
opposition (it's moving in retrograde motion, "backwards" to
that of most objects in the Solar System, as the Earth "passes"
it).

This is obviously B.S. Unless, of course, the secret "planet" is
only a couple kms across, in which case it airn't one!


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 24

                Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Friedman

From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 09:44:26 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 18:39:40 -0500
Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Friedman


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 15:00:12 -0600

 >>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >>Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:04:28 EST
 >>Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 ><snip>

 >>The exception came in 1974 when Nixon resigned from the White
 >>House. Newly sworn-in President Ford had to deal with the Soviet
 >>Union and it was decided that he needed confidence in the
 >>intelligence he was given. He was told about the Operation Solo.

 >>The point here, however, is that it was a highly classified
 >>operation that provided priceless information to Americans who
 >>had to negotiate with the Soviets. And, the President was
 >>unaware that the operation existed. If he had asked, he would
 >>have been told that it did not. He would have been told that the
 >>information was pieced together from a variety of sources.

 >Kevin,

 >What do you mean by "exception" here? Your second paragraph
 >contradicts your first, as obviously Ford was told. The fact
 >that there was subsequently an enite book written about
 >Operation Solo is further evidence that when it comes to keeping
 >secrets, we're basically talking differences in shelf life, not
 >some infallible procedure(s).

 >Of course secrets can be kept -- until they're not.

 >My point is that there is no 'mechanism' that guarantees that
 >secrets are kept secret in perpetuity, because humans in charge
 >of keeping secrets betray them whenever it suits their own
 >purposes. Even the Manhattan Project was compromised fairly
 >early on.

 >There is no compelling reason that I'm aware of as to why UFO
 >secrets would be any more immune to human nature than military
 >or intelligence secrets.

 >Just yesterday they had a program on National Public Radio in
 >the wake of the latest FBI security breach. Some expert on same
 >said that there were four reasons for divulging secrets,
 >ideology, money, and thrill-seeking. Unfortunately, I can't
 >remember the fourth right now -- or maybe it's a secret!
 >
 >For all I know, Operation Solo could have remained secret as
 >long as it did because only two people were involved. Who knows?
 >There were only 15 copies of the Pentagon Papers, though, and
 >one of those wound up at the NY Times, courtesy, if memory
 >serves, of Daniel Ellsberg.

 >Dennis Stacy


Dennis:

There are literally billions of pages of classified documents
out there with tens of thousands of people with access to some
of them.

There has been one Daniel Ellsberg releasing highly classified
documents. Old historical ones at that. That suggests to me that
the great majority of people with access do _not_ compromise
security.

Over 180,000,000 pages (almost all more than 25 years old) were
declassified in 1996 alone because of Executive Order 12958.

There is a very long way to go.

In visits to 19 archives I have never seen declassified Special
Compartmentalized Intelligence documents..i.e. TOP SECRET Code
Word. Every old timer I spoke with indicated that there were
secrets that would never come out.


Stan Friedman








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 24

                           Re: Lakenheath - Bruni

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 15:30:31 -0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 18:42:49 -0500
Subject: Re: Lakenheath - Bruni


 >From: Dave Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Lakenheath
 >Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 20:40:51 -0000

 >I'm as well informed as the next journalist....

I don't think so David. In fact I know you aren't.

 >Come on, if you had a *serious* story to tell would you take
 >it to the News of the World?

Yes, this was serial and the NOTW has a massive readership which
means more people will be made aware of the incident.

 >For a story such as this to appear in its pages is the surest way
 >to kill off any interest from the serious media - as Jenny found
 >back in 1983.

On the contrary, that story was picked up by the media worldwide.

 >The fact remains that if the revelations in your Rendlesham book
 >were as earth shattering and had worried people in high places
 >as much as you claim, then the story should have been on BBC
 >news or at least rated lead story status in one of the *quality*
 >nationals (it did get a mention in the Ariadne column in the
 >Independent, but that does not count in this context).

Actually, it was the lead story in that column _twice_ and the
biggest piece ever written. It did worry people in high places
but I'm not about to disclose that information at this time. The
NOTW piece was serial, but what actually happened with regard to
the others was that I was holding back because there was a
review and interview scheduled to appear in the MOD journal
FOCUS and for reasons I won't mention, it was better to play it
down with the media so as not to jeopardise these items
appearing. However, this was pulled when word of the book
reached the 6th floor. Not only that but the journalists from
the Times, Guardian and other press were not allowed into the
launch at the MOD. In fact all press were refused, the only
press who made it were those who had already RSVPd, and you know
that journalists are always the last to accept invitations.

 >I can't see how you can claim you have demolished the lighthouse
 >theory when you make the point in your book that you can't be
 >bothered to even debate the theory. You say (pg 272) that "...I
 >am not even going to discuss suggestions that UFOs were the
 >lights from an NSA building etc....far too much time has already
 >been spent debating these theories, which I believe are of no
s>ignificance whatsoever..."

Wrong, I did cover the lighthouse theory good and proper. It was
the NSA lights, lightship lights and lights from a police car
that I wasn't going to waste space on because these are nonsense
theories in the light of the new information gathered for the
book which prove that these are of no significance whatsoever.
So your quoting is incorrect.

 >You are right to be sceptical of scoffers because they follow a
 >tradition of disbelief equal to the believers - but to dismiss
 >very valid arguments concerning witness perception and
 >confabulation is not going to endear your book to scientists,
 >investigative journalists or anyone else who might consider
 >taking up this case with the Establishment.

On the contrary, in fact even I am amazed at the amount of
interest coming from scientists who have read the book and taken
it very seriously indeed. I have also learnt a great deal more
about this subject as a result of that. With regard to
investigative journalists, I am also amazed at the amount of
interest received from my colleagues who have been very helpful
in pointing me in other directions which is helping with further
research in this field. With regard to the Establishment, in
case you hadn't noticed Lord Hill Norton used the book to ask
Questions in the House of Lords and although the Answers
recorded in the Hansard records were disappointing, they have
led to new information which I hope will prompt more Questions.
So all of your assumptions are so far erroneous..

 >For the record, I don't find the lighthouse arguments totally
 >satiisfying for all aspects of the reported phenomena - but the
 >optical effects have to be considered in the context of the
 >other events - such as the bright bolide, the lightship, the
 >space debris re-entry. Plus the undoubted influence of rumour
 >and exaggeration in the re-telling of the story as it spread
 >through the base complex.

You obviously have not read my book properly or you would not be
making these suggestions because these were covered in detail in
the book, which also exposed the rumours and myths.

 >You do your creditable investigation a disservice by taking what
 >witnesses tell you at face value!

I certainly did _not_ take their testimonies at face value! I
listened to what they told me (several times) and then
investigated it further, so you are wrong again!

 >You deserve credit for getting Williams to speak, well done. But
 >other than giving you a baseball cap with "The Truth is Out
 >There" on it, I don't think what he told you takes us any
 >further than his original bland statement printed in the News of
 >the World back in 1983.

If you had read the book you would realise that Williams _never_
talked to the NOTW and that this was the first time he had gone
public. There was a great deal to be learnt from Gordon
Williams, not only did it put to bed the false belief that he
was out in the forest communicating with aliens, but that the
Wing was not involved in the incident and many other interesting
things, such as the names he supplied. Not only that but if it
were not for Williams I might not have managed to get the better
copy of the Halt tape. These are just a few points to consider.
So you might make light of this but Williams made a valuable
contribution to the case.

 >As for Moreland and his cover-letter marked "UFOs" - again well
 >done. But there are literally thousands of cover- notes in the
 >Public Record Office files marked "UFOs" and "Flying Saucers" -
 >the phrase means nothing other than "Unidentified Flying
 >Objects", which was what Halt and his men claimed to have seen.

There was a great deal more to be learned from Moreland too, as
I already pointed out in a previous post. You are so wrong about
so many things Dave and I suggest you stop making all these
comments until you have digested the book properly.

 >So your point is?

Well, I shall answer with a quote from a Dale Carnegie book:

'Unjust criticism is often a disguised compliment. It often
means that you have aroused jealousy and envy. Remember that no
one ever kicks a dead dog.'

Is that what all this bickering is about, I wonder!


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 24

                           Re: Lakenheath - Bruni

From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 16:03:30 -0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 18:45:26 -0500
Subject: Re: Lakenheath - Bruni


 >From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Lakenheath
 >Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 13:14:19 -0800

 >Hello Jenny, Georgina and List,

 >Let me to point out Jenny that you've been providing the List
 >with tidbits of the UFOIN report for more than a week now. You
 >have also been presenting some of the conclusions of the same
 >report.


Hi Serge,

I don't really want to get caught up in this debate because I
have no information other than that which is in the public
domain, and I have not investigated it. The reason I came in is
because my name was mentioned and then Dave Clarke began
attacking my research on the Rendlesham case.

If Jenny and the others have the information that they claim and
can prove without doubt that the Lakenheath case was a non
event, then I take my hat off to them for solving the case. What
I hope though, is that they really do take all the information
into consideration and not just that which suits the situation,
as has been the case in Rendlesham.

Incidentally, worth mentioning is that there was another
interesting event taking place during the month of August 1956.
(I wrote about it in my book "You Can't Tell The People".) There
was for instance, a test taking place at Orfordness, just a few
miles away, when a large live object, that was part of an atomic
device, was launched and aimed at Australia. The test failed and
one might wonder whether this had any part to play in the
Lakenheath case.

That's all!


Best wishes

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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 24

                     Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 16:21:13 -0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 18:49:30 -0500
Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Hall


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 14:01:00 -0600

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:24:03 -0000

 >The article I referred to, "Cosmic Dancers on History's Stage? The
 >Permanent Revolution in the Earth Sciences" by Mike Davis, is not
 >online (that I'm aware of). We published it in The Anomalist 5,
 >which I'd be happy to send you a copy of.

Please do and I will comment on it.

 >You shouldn't take things so personal. I wasn't suggesting that
 >you were pontificating, but referring to ufologists and ufology
 >in general, in the context, see below, of Required Reading (or
 >study) lists.

I'm not taking your remarks personally, just seeking
clarification, or explanation when I don't understand or
disagree with what you said. You used the word "pontificating"
directed at UFOlogists. I'm a Ufologist. As you well know, I
hold no brief for "ufology in general" which is largely a joke,
and have said so repeatedly in print.

 >Why do you say "typically"? I didn't know I was required to
 >comment on or critique your article. But, for the record, I find
 >it an excellent summary of ufology's best position (from the ETH
 >perspective). You could call it required reading for scientists,
 >and that was the aspect of the article I was addressing.

No requirement, just a request. I failed to see anything that
appeared to be a response from you to that request. I now do and
thank you for your comments. "Typically" because I rarely if
ever see you respond to questions that ask you, for example,
what your hypotheses are and how you would explain hardcore
cases like those in my article.

 >My point was a simple one. Anyone directing skeptics and
 >scientists to the best evidence ufology has to offer, would
 >surely (but perhaps not?) agree with the flip side of that coin.
 >Sauce for the gander, that sort of thing, or don't you agree?

 From my perspective, we have been deluged with skeptical
arguments over the years (not to mention crackpot ravings) and
the case for UFOs being a significant new phenomenon has been
obscured, whether ET in origin or not. I am trying to redress
the balance a bit. Certainly I agree that self-styled
"ufologists" should be conversant with scientific and skeptical
data and arguments.

 >Again, you add a personal tone where none was intended. I'm
 >quite aware that you and a number of other prominent (and not so
 >prominent) ufologists are well read outside the UFO literature.
 >That doesn't mean that most are, or that the field as a whole
 >is.

Again, I hold no brief for most people who style themselves as
ufologists. Just don't paint me with that brush or I will take
it personally. How many self-styled Forteans are well-versed in
science and skepticism? Your generalizations, when not specified
otherwise, certainly can appear to be directed at me as a member
of the group loosely labelled "ufologists." The serious people
and serious facts need to be the focus of attention, not what
Boobus Americanus says or thinks.

 >Apart from the ideal position, there are the practical problems
 >both scientists and ufologists face, beginning with the simple
 >one of time. That's why I mentioned the Davis article. To begin
 >with, it's something like 55 pages long and contains 155
 >footnotes.

Wait until you see the footnotes in The UFO Evidence, Volume II!
I share that problem of time, and have a backlog of 10-12 unread
UFO books and twice that of other books.

 >Rhetorically, I could ask you to comment on it. After your
 >response, I could then say, "yes, but what about all the
 >original sources cited in the 155 footnotes? Have you attended
 >to every one of them, too?" But that would be rather unfair of
 >me, wouldn't it?

 >You asked for reactions to your article, and I gave you one. The
 >fact that you apparently (and typically?) didn't like it,
 >doesn't make it evasive.

I didn't see anything that I would call a response to the
content of my article in previous messages. Now you have
responded.

 >If you really want me to address it (and the ETH) in greater
 >detail, I will (when I have the time). My first response to the
 >ETH component, however, is the Davis article cited above, which
 >struck me as an epiphany. (Others' mileage may vary).

I would like to see you address UFO sightings and whether or not
they can all be explained as human misperceptions of one sort or
another. The ETH is secondary to that.

 >In a nutshell, it suggests that the presence of ETI in the
 >universe is hardly a given, that is, a logical extrapolation or
 >outcome of existing physical laws, including the biological one
 >of evolution, because contingency plays a pivotal role in the
 >possibility of same. To see but the latest example, look no
 >further than page 13 of today's NY Times and the article about
 >the extinction event (some 250 million years ago) that wiped out
 >90 per cent of the species then alive.

If the evidence suggests "they" are here, then theory be damned.

 >More later, as time permits. And after we solve the UFO issue,
 >maybe we can tackle global warming.

Okay. That's an easy one! Wipe out the big oil companies'
monopolies and their powerful political influences and go to
clean energy sources, the U.S. being the worst offenders. Of
course, that's a lot easier said then done. But we do have an
oil expert in the White House now. Just ask Molly Ivins.


Dick









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 24

                     Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 16:48:21 -0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 18:52:29 -0500
Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Hall


 >From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >To: "02 - UFO UpDates Subscribers":;
 >Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Young
 >Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 22:38:13 -0500

 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 14:54:27 EST
 >Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:24:03 -0000

 >>Am I pontificating? I have read plenty of the skeptical
 >>literature (Menzel, Klass, Oberg, CSICOP... you name it) so am
 >>not sure what your point is here.


 >Hello Richard, Dennis, et al.:

 >None of which you included in the bibliography of your piece,
 >other than the Condon Report and the 1969 UFO Symposium book,
 >edited by Sagan and Page, and Condon. Presumably this was
 >because it included papers by some of the pro-UFO participants.
 >You didn't even list Hendry, surely one of the most useful books
 >ever written for UFO investigators. Of course, it isn't a book
 >of ET proof.

Why should I? The skeptics have been over-exposed as it is, and
I was not making a case for their position or writing an
investigators' handbook. The Condon Report isn't a book of ET
proof either, nor is the bulk of the Sagan & Page book. You make
unjustified assumptions about my motivation and scholarship. The
Hendry book was not an appropriate citation for this article.
You will see practically every skeptic on earth cited in The UFO
Evidence, Volume II.

 >I've read your interesting position paper and it brings to mind
 >the following questions:

These are intelligent and appropriate questions and I will try
to answer them at least briefly here.

 >1) Since you think that true UFOs are pre-1980 style traditional
 >disks (i.e., 'saucers'), what do you think of the large number
 >of 'triangles' now being reported? Do you rule these out by
 >their nature, and should these elicit skepticism from
 >investigators?

It's not a matter of what I think. I can and do cite
well-documented data proving beyond the shadow of a doubt the
shapes and other patterns of UFOs. Of course I don't rule out
triangles (which, by the way, were cited as a recognized type of
UFO in The UFO Evidence, 1964). Also, my next column in the
MUFON Journal happens to be about the triangle reports. They
should elicit carfeul investigation to rule out revolutionary
aircraft.

 >2) What percentage of UFO sighting reports do you think are
 >representative of the first three categories of skeptics'
 >explanations which you reject? Are there any UFO reports which
 >you think can be explained by these factors?

I'm not sure what skeptical factors you are talking about, but
let's assume you mean human misperceptions. The percentage game
I consider to be totally meaningless. Of things initially
reported by the public as UFOs probably something on the order
of 75 percent usually prove to be identifiable (depends on your
screening system and what you decide is important enough to
investigate in the first place). I don't think the skeptical
factors can explain many if any of the hardcore cases like those
I have identified, although I am always open to discovery of
unusual or unexpected answers that slipped through the screen.

 >3) I noticed that you offered no references on meteorological
 >optics, such as Menzel or Minneart, or references which might
 >shed light on psychological factors. What sources do you suggest
 >investigators might consult for this aspect of their work?

Again, I was not presenting either an argument for the skeptical
position or an investigators handbook, and this sort of citation
was not relevant. For meteorological optics, see James McDonald
as well as Minnaert. See Hendry. See Richard Hall's writings
about UFO investigation methods. See the MUFON Investigators
Manual.

 >4) You did not mention abductions. Do you consider these claims
 >a part of the UFO phenomena, or is there some other explanation?

No, and I specifically stated in the article that the
human-alien contact reports were beyond the scope of the
article. Yes, I do consider abduction reports as part of the UFO
mystery and associated with it in some way, I have no idea
exactly what or how. The topic is dealt with at length in The
UFO Evidence, Volume II. The skeptical arguments about abduction
reports are totally unconvincing. Abductions are a very
perplexing issue that I wish would go away, but apparently they
won't.

 >Just some thoughts which come to mind after reading your paper.


Good thoughts and I appreciate the opportunity to respond.


Clear thinking,


Dick








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 25

                     Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 12:01:59 -0600
Fwd Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 11:37:40 -0500
Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Clark


 >Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 22:18:14 +0000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment


 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment
 >>Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 10:51:44 -0600

 >>>From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment
 >>>Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 19:57:21 -0000

 >>>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment
 >>>>Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 18:51:51 -0600

John,

 >>I made the mistake of urging you to conduct yourself more
 >>professionally, in the interests of keeping your case --
 >>whenever you condescend to let the rest of us hear it -- from
 >>being prejudged, as the product of a wildly biased, even
 >>immature partisan. In other words, someone so emotionally
 >>attached to his beliefs that his investigations are intended not
 >>to uncover truth but to humiliate perceived enemies. I was
 >>trying to _help_ you. My mistake, and one I will not make
 >>again..

 >>Go ahead and keep acting, as you have done here again, true to
 >>form, Andy. Pound the chest. Taunt. Ridicule. Boast. And the
 >>rest of us will judge your forthcoming report accordingly.


 >Wouldn't it be best to judge the report by what's actually in
 >it?

Andy's behavior, of course, raises the interesting question: Is
his case sufficiently weak that, before it is even laid out in
print, he has to ridicule and taunt potential critics into
silence? At the very least, John, we are seeing in Andy's
behavior a disturbing absence of professionalism. And if it did
not violate the pelicanist code, which forbids criticism of
another pelicanist's excesses however egregious, I'm sure even
pelicanists would agree that Andy is doing himself no good.

I do, however, have confidence in Jenny Randles's good senses,
and a private exchange with Dave Clarke offers me hope that the
report will prove a much more serious contribution than we would
infer from Andy's adolescent hijinks.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 25

                    Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Rimmer

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 13:15:34 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 11:40:17 -0500
Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Rimmer


 >Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 22:18:14 +0000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment
 >>Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 10:51:44 -0600

 >>>From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment
 >>>Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 19:57:21 -0000

 >>>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment
 >>>>Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 18:51:51 -0600

 >>>Y'all,

 >>>As usual, instead of discussing the facts of the case (in this
 >>>case Lakenheath, as raised by Jenny and Dave, or of any case -
 >>>as usual) Jerry chooses to rant and rave to to end other than to
 >>>score points.

 >>What facts of the case? What in the world are you talking about?
 >>Your rant was not about the "facts of the case" but about
 >>Robertsian ridicule of perceived enemies as well as the usual
 >>chest-thumping.

 >>I made the mistake of urging you to conduct yourself more
 >>professionally, in the interests of keeping your case --
 >>whenever you condescend to let the rest of us hear it -- from
 >>being prejudged, as the product of a wildly biased, even
 >>immature partisan. In other words, someone so emotionally
 >>attached to his beliefs that his investigations are intended not
 >>to uncover truth but to humiliate perceived enemies. I was
 >>trying to _help_ you. My mistake, and one I will not make
 >>again..

 >>Go ahead and keep acting, as you have done here again, true to
 >>form, Andy. Pound the chest. Taunt. Ridicule. Boast. And the
 >>rest of us will judge your forthcoming report accordingly.

 >Wouldn't it be best to judge the report by what's actually in
 >it?

 From what Andy has said, it doesn't take much to conclude what
the alleged master piece of investigation will tell us. Being a
skeptic is easy, you just add the following words to the
executive summary, conclusion or whatever:

Hoax, pelicans, lighthouses, birds, venus, stars, moon,
misidentification of natural phenomona, witness were either
mistaken, lying, hoax or trying to pull a big one over on us and
lastly how everything in time can and will be identified to one
of the above.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 25

                 Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Jones

From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 18:56:11 +0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 11:42:07 -0500
Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Jones


Morning Listers

This has got to have been one of the most interesting threads
that I have read for a long time. To boot, there has been no
bitchiness, or personal insults flying back an forth either.

I wish I could add some valuable comments to what Sue
Strickland, Kevin Randle, Stan Friedman, Dennis Stacey and the
others have written but my flu ridden mind ain't ticking over too
well at the moment.

Here's hoping to more threads where this kind of intelligent
discussion takes place.

--

    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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 25

                   Re: Renaissance Sputnik? - Christensen

From: Wendy Christensen <christensen@catlas.mv.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 14:42:38 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 11:44:56 -0500
Subject: Re: Renaissance Sputnik? - Christensen


 >Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:06:34 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
 >From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: An Italian 'Sputnik/UFO'?

 >My colleagues at York University are baffled with this bizarre
 >1600 painting which appears to depict a "Sputnik". Through my
 >own twenty-first century eyes it looks very much like some radio
 >operated eye-in-the sky satellite. From the lengths of the two
 >antennae looking protrutions and the diameter of the aperture of
 >what seems to be a space camera (we can use the dove and other
 >objects of known size to get the correct scale) we have hints on
 >what radio frequencies God may be listening to or even if He can
 >see us on the Earth with this device.

 >What are your comments regarding this "Sputnik" found in the URL
 > below?

 >http://www.montalcino-tuscany.it/montalcino_ufo.htm

 >Nick, Everybody:

 >The "protruding space camera" is the Moon; the yellow spot at
 >the upper part of the "sputnik" is the Sun. The thing is
 >actually not a sphere, but has a lip around in, upon which the
 >Moon seems to ride. Also seen are clouds and blue sky in the
 >center, and greenery (trees?) around the outside of the inner
 >part of the sphere. The "antennae" may be rods with which the
 >Earth, surrounded (of course: it was doctrine) by the Sun and
 >Moon, was suspended in heaven.

 >Clear skies (and low JPG compression),
 >Bob Young

In the enlarged view of the painting in question, it's clear
that the "antennae" are held by God the Father and God the Son
in much the same way one might hold a pen, pencil or other
writing implement. (This is especially clear in God the Son.)
The "sphere" is, as Mr. Young points out, a graphic depiction of
the cosmos, including landscape, clouds, sun and moon. The
Trinity is engaged in guiding the course of the cosmos in a
"graphic" (in all senses of the word) manner, with the two
anthropomorphic members of the Trinity actually "writing" its
ongoing path and destiny.

Someone more familiar with Bible texts than I might be able to
find a scriptural quote that describes this "writing" of the
course of the cosmos by the Trinity. The painter may well have
been illustrating such a verse.

It is also interesting that the human figure (the Pope?) gazing
from below at the Trinity is holding a book himself (and
possibly a writing instrument -- the resolution isn't good
enough for me to tell for sure) as a possible counterpoint or
comparison to the heavenly "writing" going on above. I would be
interested in seeing the entire painting, to see what the other
figures are doing.


Purrrrs...

Wendy Christensen
(another "mere illustrator")










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 25

                          Re: Lakenheath - Randles

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 20:38:04 -0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 11:49:51 -0500
Subject: Re: Lakenheath - Randles


 >From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Lakenheath
 >Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 13:14:19 -0800

 >>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Lakenheath
 >>Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 10:36:18 -0000

 >>>From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Lakenheath
 >>>Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 20:00:09 -0000

 >>>>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >>>>To: <Updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Lakenheath
 >>>>Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:56:37 -0000

 >Hello Jenny, Georgina and List,

 >Let me to point out Jenny that you've been providing the List
 >with tidbits of the UFOIN report for more than a week now. You
 >have also been presenting some of the conclusions of the same
 >report.


Hi,

Sorry, but I have not. I have reported the gist of what the air
crew told me in l996  - that's all - and that their data, in my
opinion, effects one's judgement of the case because it rules out
several fundamental aspects of the story that were formerly
believed to be true.

I have provided no conclusions of the full report nor indeed any
discussion of its primary content because it isn't written yet
and I haven't reached any specific conclusions on it myself. And,
again as we have noted, the research going into this report
comprises much, much more than what the air crew told me five
years ago. That was just the starting point of a detailed
exploration. Work done by three other people, all of whom I
named and two of whom have commented separately to this list.

 >And it's always the same story: on one hand you say "I can't
 >tell you more about the facts, as facts can never be partially
 >exposed"; on the other hand you allow yourself to show previews
 >of the conclusions _and_ advertise the idea that this report
 >will be a definitive piece of evidence...

I have done no such thing and offered no previews of the
conclusions to the report largely because there are no
conclusions written for me to preview! Nor have I stated that
this report is definitive research.

I have told you what the air crew said to me, because this was
already in the public domain and has been since l997 when I
wrote 'Something in the Air' - and this point was the subject of
a specific debate on this list - hence my response to it. To not
refer to this would therefore have been silly.

But I have not previewed the many other things in the report  -
which will be a comprehensive review of the case and we are
trying to make sure it pre-empts the inevitable questions folk
like you will ask by covering all obvious angles before release.
That's all.

 >Can you blame people from being a little annoyed by this?

Who is 'annoyed' apart from you? I expect others appreciate any
illumination we can bring and answers to questions we can
provide.


But, fine, if not and you are annoyed I will shut up and say no
more in an effort to try to help.

I actually went to considerable trouble to answer these messages
to this list this week as I have a major domestic crisis
restricting me to an hour a day on the computer.

Now I wish I had not wasted my time trying to stop the silly
bickering over a not even released report and the extraordinary
display of impatience we see.

All I have tried to do was to explain the situation in an
amicable way. I might have known it would be a waste of time
with some people who only seem interested in spoiling for a
fight.

Well I am only interested in doing UFO research, so do forgive
me if I opt out from such a thing.

This rather silly discussion merely distracts from the work
going on to speed that day when the research and report are
ready.


Damned if you do, damned if you don't rather springs to mind
here.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 25

                        Re: Filer's Files #8 -- 2001

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 15:43:17 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 11:52:45 -0500
Subject: Re: Filer's Files #8 -- 2001


on 2/24/01 9:52 AM, UFO UpDates - Toronto at
updates@sympatico.ca wrote:

 >Source: http://www.filersfiles.com/

 >Filer's Files #8 -- 2001, MUFON Skywatch Investigations
 >George A. Filer, Director, Mutual UFO Network Eastern
 >February 19, 2001


Hiya George, hi All,

Senior Filer wrote:

 >FILER'S SHORT HISTORY OF MARS AND THE WORLD - As an
 >intelligence analyst I have experience in taking the findings
 >of others and putting them together to develop a possible
 >scenario. Recent scientific discoveries are starting to make
 >the history of our world and our relationship to our
 >neighboring Red planet more clear. I feel we may have more in
 >common than is generally realized. In the history of Earth,
 >much of the great scientific and historical knowledge was
 >collected in the religious scriptures that repeatedly tells of
 >extraterrestrial visitors.

I brought that up recently on the List in hopes of engaging in a
lively discussion of the topic. I think it's time we give all
that material (biblical and historical accounts that are
virtually identical to modern day UFO sighting/contact and
abduction reports) a "group perusal." The problem is, anytime
you bring up politics or religion, somebody's toes are going to
get stepped on. It's just too 'loaded' a subject for an open,
public List like this. It's a shame really. We have all grown up
with a partial history of mankind that is sketchy, at best, and
has many _huge_ gaps. We have been "historically lobotomized"
since those animals burned the Great Library at Alexandria. Much
of what we have left in terms of ancient human history is
contained in books like the Qoran, the Bhagavad Gita, the Bible,
etc. We need to go back over it armed with our 20/20 hindsight.


 >My own photo analysis of Mars images of Cydonia and other areas
 >suggest to me that Mars was once inhabited and defended. The
 >layered terrain on Mars show a striking resemblance to
 >sedimentary deposits that form underneath the water on Earth.
 >NASA is slowly revealing what has been known for a decade that
 >there was and still is water on Mars. These apparent lakes on
 >indicate that Mars likely harbored life in the distant past.
 >Where there is water, microbial life is likely to have thrived.
 >Fossils giving proof of life likely exist in the sediments.
 >Rocks that blasted off Mars from some type of explosions were
 >eventually found on Earth. NASA scientists claim microbial
 >evidence essentially proves life once existed on Mars. I
 >hypothesize that intelligent life either visited or developed
 >on Mars.

The opposite is also true George. The microbial migration from
Mars to Earth could have been more like "cross pollination" than
a one way trip. Whatever happened on Mars to expel material into
space, most surely happened here on old Mother Earth as well. I
wonder how many 'earth-chunk' meteors are sitting on the surface
of Mars.  ;)

I just wanted to point out that the "Life" on Mars "could have"
originated here. Including the possible intelligent Life! The
earth is nearly four -billion- years old. Who's to say that an
ancient and technologically advanced, space faring civilization
didn't flourish/exist right here at home. Maybe what we are
finding are the remnants of our own past explorations/
colonizations.

The earth is so geologically active on the surface that traces
of any civilization that might have existed say 4 million years
ago would be completely wiped out of the environment. That
doesn't mean that they didn't exist. Only that it's just as
possible that "We" are the ancient astronauts, as it is that we
were visited -by- them. This is why I don't like to engage in
speculation. Anybody can 'speculate' (or imagine) just about
anything. None of it means anything unless it can be
substantiated.

 >One area on Mars where there are strong indications of
 >intelligent life is the area known as Cydonia. The famous face
 >on Mars is in the Cydonia area and can possibly be explained
 >away as a trick of nature,

I don't think it's as much a "trickery of Nature" as it is of
the Human Mind. I think the tubular structures that appear to
contain a large 'metallic looking' sphere, (that Arthur C. Clarke
has recently raised public questions about,) are much more
compelling scientifically than the so called Face. Which I
think is more a 'trick of Mind' than Nature.

Warm regards from a long time fan of "Filer's Files," (Thanx
for all the hard work George. It is much appreciated always. :)

* George, you're a MUFON director, have you heard _anything_
at all about the headquarters investigation into the John
Carpenter (sale of abductee files) business? I'm both curious
and trying to do a follow up. It's been awhile since we've
heard anything new about their "internal investigation."


"Love All,"..... trust _few!_

John Velez  ;)

                                         *************
                              "Nothing is at last sacred but
                             the integrity of your own mind."
                                 www.spacelab.net/~jvif/
                                         *************








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 25

                Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Lehmberg

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 15:22:45 -0600
Fwd Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 11:55:21 -0500
Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Lehmberg


 >From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:13:46 -0600

 >>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 00:34:23 -0600

 >>Just give us a few years and we'll be zipping all over the
 >>universe, just like them dang aliens out there already.

 >>Right?

 >>Dennis Stacy


 >Right, not to put too fine a point on it. I don't know how you
 >can argue the antithesis given the vertical acceleration of
 >aggregate potentiality observed in the last few decades. That
 >potentiality encompasses all eventualities right up to the our
 >complete destruction, is completely open ended, and the proof of
 >any curmudgeon's demise. You hang on too desperately to mere
 >social contrivance of a recent past. The past is a lens that
 >distorts the future if it is used to justify that something
 >cannot be done because it hasn't BEEN done. You line up with an
 >early 20th Century patent office that was going to shut down
 >because everything that COULD be invented HAD been invented.
 >...glad we're not waiting around for YOU to invent the next
 >level processor...

Alfred,

Actually, it took me about five minutes in front of an old
Kaypro II lo these many years ago to realize that computers were
the wave of the future. I even played a role in getting the
first computer inside MUFON HQ, which wasn't as easy as you
might think, so there!

My objections to ET Is Everywhere in Great Numbers and Now They
Are Here, Too! are personal and based solely on my own take and
experience of the present. They are way too complicated to get
into now, and would probably bore half the people on this List
to death in any event.

But I can summarize them. The computer, for example, has greatly
affected my life. Whether it be for better or worse may be
arguable, but the fact of the computer and its day to day impact
or influence is not.

I can see that it's here, in front of me. If I want, I can even
try to sell other people on its usefulness. If I want to add a
hard drive, I can, if I want to learn how to program the thing,
I can. I can learn everything about its history, including the
inventions that eventually led up to it, along with the names of
every individual involved. I can take it apart and handle and
identify every component part. In theory, there is no question I
can put to the computer as such, the answer to which can't be
provided.

This is not the case with the UFO=ET hypothesis, for any number
of reasons which it doesn't take a curmudgeon to point out. Au
contraire, the case is exactly the opposite: I can't get a good,
definitive answer to *any* single question I put to UFOs as
such. Q: What do they look like? A: You name it! Q: How do they
behave? A: You name it! Q: Where are they from and how? A: You
name it! And, unfortunately, so on.

In the same vein, the presence of intelligent lifeforms on this
planet from another world would arguably be the profoundest
thing that could happen during my lifetime. Yet when I look
around for examples or experience of that potential profundity
in my own life and the world around me I get, in the main,
vapor. Books, pictures, *some* evidence, yes, but no keyboard or
hard drive, if you know what I mean.

I apologize for not having been abducted. But as Gurdjieff said,
there are two ends to the world, Greater and Lesser. The latter
is when someone else dies, the Greater End to the World is when
you yourself die.

In the same vein, I don't see any behavioral evidence on a large
scale that we are being visited. Governments and air forces
behave pretty much like they "always" have, near as I can tell.
The sun still comes up in the east and sets in the west, the
paper is in the driveway, and my kid still needs a ride to
school.

Sorry to be such a stiff, but my disillusionment didn't occur
overnight. I've been a ufologist as long, if not longer, as most
posters on this board. I've simply come to the observation that
what should be the most profound thing in my life has the least
impact in terms of my experience of life. I find that somewhat
strange and upsidedown.

It could be argued -- as Jim Deardorff does -- that aliens are
visiting us yet not causing any planetary impacts precisely
because that is their intention.

Hard to argue with that, except to say that it seems another
example of where the cart might have gotten ahead of the horse.

Mind, I don't even require that extraordinary evidence accompany
extraordinary claims -- I'd settle simply for good, convincing
evidence of an incontrovertible (or demonstrable) nature.

And of course my apologies if I've disappointed anyone. Still
don't know what those saucers are, but the upside is that they
don't seem to give a fig what I think.

FWIW, my next computer purchase is going to be an Apple G4
PowerBook encased in titanium -- the same stuff they make jet
fighters out of. Cool! Not as cool as the Roswell stuff, mind,
but cool nonetheless.

Dennis Stacy
http://www.anomalist.com









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 25

                        Re: An Italian 'Sputnik/UFO'?

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 15:14:43 -0600
Fwd Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 11:56:59 -0500
Subject: Re: An Italian 'Sputnik/UFO'?


 >From: Emiliano Occhetta - CUN Novara <novaracun@freemail.it>
 >Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 02:41:25 +0100
 >Subject: Re: An Italian 'Sputnik/UFO'? - Occhetta
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:06:34 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
 >>From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: An Italian 'Sputnik/UFO'?

Previously, Emiliano posted:

 >>My colleagues at York University are baffled with this bizarre
 >>1600 painting which appears to depict a "Sputnik". Through my
 >>own twenty-first century eyes it looks very much like some radio
 >>operated eye-in-the sky satellite. From the lengths of the two
 >>antennae looking protrutions and the diameter of the aperture of
 >>what seems to be a space camera (we can use the dove and other
 >>objects of known size to get the correct scale) we have hints on
 >>what radio frequencies God may be listening to or even if He can
 >>see us on the Earth with this device.

 >>What are your comments regarding this "Sputnik" found in the URL
 >>below?

 >>http://www.montalcino-tuscany.it/montalcino_ufo.htm

 >>Nick Balaskas

 >Hi,

 >In the Church Of San Pietro in Montalcino (near Siena) there is
 >a painting by Bonaventura Salimbeni that is very strange, in
 >fact there is represented a "metallic sphere" very similar to a
 >Sputnik or Vanguard II.

 >Italy's National UFO Center made inquires about this painting
 >and deduced that the "Sputnik" is in reality a planisphere,
 >there are visible some lines of meridians and parallel.

 >Similar raffigurations are frequent in orthodox art.

Sure looks like Sputnik to me! Cool!


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 25

                     Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 16:22:42 -0600
Fwd Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 12:04:31 -0500
Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Clark


 >From: Mendoza - Peter Brookesmith <Mendoza@appleonline.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment
 >Date: Sat, 24 Feb 01 02:07:04 +0000

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 12:06:51 -0600
 >>Fwd Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:23:08 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Clark

 >>>From: Mendoza - Peter Brookesmith <Mendoza@appleonline.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Date: Thu, 22 Feb 01 00:25:59 +0000
 >>>Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment


Patient, gentle, and bored-stiff listfolk:

 >If the letter was so embarrassing to Posner, why does he have it on
 >his website for all to read?

For the simple reason, I imagine, that he has been forced to
stand by it, after I drew attention to it and he rushed to
threaten me about it. Under the circumstances he has chosen for
himself, how can he act otherwise than as if he still believed
his own self-pitying assessment that he was hideously
victimized?

Gary P. Posner would have been better off simply to admit that
he was wrong and that he no longer holds the view I cited. But
being a pelicanist, as we all know, means never having to say
you're mistaken. Not being a pelicanist, I have no problems in
that department. I've even disowned an entire book of mine (the
dismally wrong-headed and often just plain goofy The
Unidentified, published in 1975). Too bad Posner couldn't
distance himself from something so relatively inconsequential as
a simple (and long-ago) letter to the editor.

Incidentally, is it your view that it's a good idea to try to
silence dissenting views with legal threats? Your own silence on
the subject is certainly interesting. One has no trouble imagining
the degree of outrage that would follow, of course, if a
ufologist threatened to sue a pelicanist over a claimed misquote
or misreading.

 >Having read Posner's original 1978 letter in the original
 >publication, it seems to me pretty clear that Posner is chiding
 >CSICOP for making fun of people who may be more ill than stupid.
 >That seems a fairly humane position.

What an extraordinarily condescending view, I must say. Imagine,
without any evidence to the effect, arguing that those who hold
views you consider eccentric or otherwise heterodox may be
actively mentally ill, then pretend to feel sorry for them. A
considerable body of psychological/psychiatric literature by
now, of course, indicates that there is no correlation between
belief in or sympathic views of anomalies and the paranormal on
one side and mental disorder on the other. Moreover, there is
not even a meaningful correlation between mental illness and
those who say they have _experienced_ the anomalous or the
paranormal.

PB may correct me if I'm wrong, and I will be happy to
acknowledge error if that proves to be the case, but to my
knowledge Posner has never conceded that the above- mentioned
studies have effectively falsified his claim about "ambulatory
schizophrenia" as a cause of paranormal (including, in
CSICOPian, ufological) belief or experience.

 >>In fact, on August 14, 1992, Jerome Clark wrote Posner as
 >>follows: "In my IUR editorial, your ambulatory-schizophrenia
 >>accusation was cited as an example of debunkers' 'strange
 >>charges against ufologists.' Any other reading is
 >>inconceivable."

 >Yet what a strange reading it is. The word "ufologist" does not
 >appear in Posner's 1978 letter anywhere, least of all attached
 >to the "ambulatory-schizophrenia accusation" (which is not an
 >accusation at all, by the way: it is an admittedly speculative
 >diagnosis).

I love this delicate phrase "admittedly speculative diagnosis."
Let's be blunt about it: it's pure self-serving bullshit. It
does not rise even to the level of "speculative diagnosis." It
amounts to little more than a form of name-calling.

 >In short I fail to see any connection between what
 >Posner wrote in 1978 and ufologists in general, unless Jerome
 >considers ufologists to be a subsection of "paranormalists" --
 >an association at which I should have expected him to baulk.

Wow. This is really stretching it. As the rest of you know and
as PB also knows, though here pretends not to, every jeremiad
erupting from Mount CSICOP or other "skeptical" Olympias citing
threats to reason and virtue posed by irrationalists includes,
near always explicitly, ufologists on the list of miscreants.
Routinely. And characterizes them as "paranormalists."
Routinely. If Posner thought ufologists were exempted from this
supposed dishonor roll, he should have said so. Unlike PB, I
don't claim the power to know what's going on inside somebody
else's mind.

As I documented, from every independent indication gleaned from
prose and polemic, Posner considers ufologists among the hordes
of irrationalists. Maybe I should have written, every time I
referred to Posner's speculations about the possible mental
states of those who hold beliefs he detests, that he was
referring to "ufologists and other anomalists and
paranormalists," but since I was addressing grown-ups, I didn't
think I had to.

 >Posner's general agreement with P. Klass is hardly surprising.
 >Presumably Jerome's point is that anyone who agrees with Ole
 >Unca Phil is ipso facto horned, hooved and tailed. The ritual
 >cant about Phil equating ufologists with communists is bullshit,
 >as any intelligent reading of the record shows; and as was
 >discussed long ago in this forum.

The question, as PB wants you not to understand, was not
"Posner's general agreement with P. Klass," as my last posting
on the subject went to some effort to point out (and PB
complains about _my_ alleged incomprehension of the printed
word!), but Posner's _exact_ agreement with Klass.

That exact agreement extended even to approval of Klass's weird
equation (in a now-legendary phone call to the University of
Nebraska) of ufologists' charges about official secrecy with
Soviet plots to discredit American government. PB touchingly
professes to believe that somehow Klass's words can be parsed to
be read otherwise by the "intelligent." Klass himself couldn't
manage that in the extensive correspondence we had on the
subject, leading me to wonder if we haven't learned something
about PB's private assessment of Klass's IQ shortage. More
likely, though, it only underscores the lengths to which
pelicanists will go. Their hypocratic oath calls for them never,
ever, under any circunmstances, to criticize a fellow true
disbeliever's excesses, however funny.

Posner's (and, arguably, PB's) lock-step march with every Klass
action, even the really over-the-top ones, calls to mind an old
saying: Whenever two persons agree absolutely, one of them is
unnecessary.

 >I don't expect Jerome to change his mind about his self-
 >righteousness in this matter, stunned tho' I am to find he is
 >*proud* of his inaccurate and unctuous editorial. (That was a
 >bit of literary criticism: not personal, just business.) Others
 >may have found the peek into his reading and comprehension
 >skills useful in rounding out their knowledge of ufology's
 >second easiest person to wind up.

Of course no inaccuracy has ever been demonstrated. What we have
here is an expression of the peculiar pelicanist theological
doctrine that to wish is to make so.

PB's final utterance is especially peculiar coming from a guy so
obsessed with my heresies that he can be counted on to post
something almost daily on the subject. I, happily, would barely
afford PB a passing thought -- and then only when hearing a
recording of the obscure blues- harpist Forrest City Joe, of
whom both PB and I are admirers and once, in happier days,
discussed -- if he didn't persist in hurling odd and phony
charges against me with such numbing, obsessive frequency.

If he is not, in fact, ufology's or pelicanism's easiest person
to drive into advanced fits of hissy, all he has to do is to
cease his screeds on the ever more tiresome subject of the
undersigned's purported high crimes and misdemeanors. Who wants
to bet that PB will find it within himself so to restrain
himself? What? No takers?


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 25

                 Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Stacy

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 18:02:55 -0600
Fwd Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 12:07:21 -0500
Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Stacy


 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 04:14:32 -0800
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact

 >>... Even the Manhattan Project was compromised fairly
 >>early on.

 >Hello Dennis:

 >I never heard of any major compromise of the Manhattan Project,
 >but I'm no historian. My best recollection however, having read
 >up on the matter, is that %99.999 of the American public had no
 >inkling whatsoever that an atomic bomb was in the works, until
 >the bombshell when Harry Truman announced that two were dropped
 >on Japanese cities.

Larry,

Does the name Rosenberg ring a bell?

I believe husband and wife were both executed.

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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 25

                         Re: AA Film Redux - Morris

From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 23:19:17 +0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 12:12:43 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Morris


 >From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:21:51 EST
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >>Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 15:10:38 +0000
 >>From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux

<snip>

 >>I've quite deliberately tried to stay out of this area, I've met
 >>Bond personally and heard his side of things, I've read what the
 >>other side has to say, I believe an admission is on record that
 >>the tapes _have_ been edited,

 >Neil, all -

 >This is an example of spin. After I interviewed Dr. Johnson in
 >1989, and after I had published an article in the INTERNATIONAL
 >UFO REPORTER, Dr. Johnson spoke to Jerry Clark, saying that many

Kevin,

The above comment _was_ uncalled for on my part and as such I
apologise.

But I repeat again, I don't want to become "piggy in the middle"
here, I strive to keep a neutral stand, but I regret the above
was not.

I have also deliberately tried to approach this research with an
open mind, in fact when I first looked at the images (from your
book) I thought to myself "what is this guy on about?....No
Way", but I was still curious to see if _I_ could identify just
what Bond was on about.

The results from the work so far have not come through details
within Bond's testimony but details within the pictures he took
and which he's had no control over together with the media
coverage which survives.

Even _without_ any direct contact with Bond, I believe I would
still have arrived at the opinions I hold today.

 >Since you,
 >Neil, are siding with him, I will make you the one time good
 >offer of copying all this material for you so that you can hear
 >him say the things he denies he said, listen to him claim credit
 >for writing the July 9 article, and see how I have tried to get

Siding?, that gives the wrong impression, I _have_ tried to stay
impartial, and it's not my place to wade into differences that I
have had no personal involvement with.

But should you choose to completely set aside Bond's testimony
_altogether_, which is an exercise I've gone through, what does
it actually alter in the scheme of things, not a lot really.

It doesn't change the fact the photo's were taken, and what's
more it doesn't alter their _content_.

<snip>


 >>Further, we are now finding that
 >>some of his most disputed information ie the "press conference"
 >>_is_ receiving independent confirmation from an individual who
 >>_was_ there reporting the news in FW at the time.

 >If you have reporters in General Ramey's office, and they are
 >asking him questions, then you have a press conference whether
 >it is officially called or not.

 >We are in an argument over
 >semantics here that has little real importance in understanding
 >what happened that night.

I guess this boils down really to an argument over scale, I
wouldn't say a possible couple of reporters arriving unannounced
out at FWAAF would constitute "press conference".

As I mentioned to David, his own research into the news
reporting of the time suggests a far lower "on the ground"
profile of news gathering, ie Ramey quotes coming out of
Washington sources and we have some interesting Kirton/Ramey
quotes an RPIT colleague has turned up from Reuters, again date
lined Washington.

FWAAF Maj Kirton seems to have been busy on the phone that
evening, it's he The Dallas Morning News _phoned_ to get their
story, and the same Kirton who phoned up the FBI to tell them
what was going on. It's this same Kirton Reuters Washington
quote with this fascinating line that seems at odds with what he
told the Dallas Morning News at 5.30pm (later) that evening.

After referencing Ramey's radio broadcast it continues:

Before Brigadier General Rameys broadcast, Major Edwin Kirtan,
duty officer at Eighth Air Force headquarters at Fort Worth,
quoted him as saying "it looks like a hexagonal object covered
with tinfoil or other shining material suspended from a balloon
of about twenty feet in diameter. It is possibly a weather
balloon flown at the highest altitude but none of the army men
at this base recognize it as an army type balloon.

Note the last sentence.

It seems here we have a direct admission from FWAAF that (a)
they could not identify "tin foil" from an Army Signal Corp
ML307 and (b) they could not identify a std neoprene meteo
balloon. And also the description matches the stuff seen on the
floor of Ramey's office in both the JBJ _and_ Newton pics.

Regrettably the Kirton piece does not contain times and though
compiled by Reuters on July 9th, it must have been sourced prior
to 5.30pm July 8th due to it's content as the cover "Balloon
Story" had already kicked in by that time and was reported to
the Dallas Morning News by this same Maj Kirton, the Morning
News quoting the time of their call to FWAAF at 5.30pm July 8th.

I think further evidence of a low press profile on the ground
appears to be the Marcel quotes (?who was told _not_ to speak to
the press?) in the late edition Star Telegram, quotes unique to
that paper (according to DR), yet we know from the only ST
reporter on duty that no ST reporter went out to FWAAF that
night, _but_  that the ST _was_ in contact by phone. Why was the
ST the _only_ paper to carry what reads like a full PIO press
release yet they _didn't_ have a reporter on the ground out at
FWAAF?.

 ><snip>

 >>>>Witness testimony, unlike KR and DS who were I assume basing
 >>>>their take of events from Jesse Marcel's recollections of his
 >>>>time in FW,

 >>>Don't forget Gen. Dubose and Irving Newton, both of whom were
 >>>_also_ there, and both of whom stated they remembered several
 >>>reporters being there. This wasn't just the story of Jesse
 >>>Marcel.

 >>From conversations with Irving some 12 months ago he has no
 >>recollection of just who took his photograph that day and could
 >>not say wether it was a civilian or military photographer.

 >Which is what he told me some ten or eleven years ago. But the
 >point is that another photograph was taken, it was published the
 >next day, and suggests that some sort of press conference was
 >held. It matters not if it was published in one newspaper or 100
 >because it was published and underscores that others were in
 >General Ramey's office.

Yes, agreed, the Newton photo was taken later in what seems to
have been a supporting role to his balloon ID, but just who took
the photo, military or civilian, is still an unknown.

 >>I think it's also hard to pin down just what Gen DuBose could or
 >>could not recall, I have Jamie Shandera's interview transcript
 >>where DuBose claims _no_ pictures were ever taken at all, that
 >>is until he is shown the JBJ images of himself. Jesse's story
 >>too is obviously a partial memory, we know firmly JBJ took
 >>pictures of Marcel, Ramey and Dubose in the _one_ session I
 >>think we are all agreed on that. Yet Marcel gives us the quote
 >>that he was only involved in the _one_ photograph, the one he
 >>claims where he is shown holding some of the actual debris from
 >>Roswell and I believe he then goes on to mention some other
 >>"staged" photographs might have been taken later "but he was not
 >>involved with those".

 >But, as I have tried to point out, Bill Moore has provided us
 >with three versions of that quote. The first is from his book
 >which you quote here. Second, Moore sent a letter around, again
 >using the Marcel quote, but this time it said, "...Ramey allowed
 >the press to take two pictures of this stuff. I was in one and
 >he and Col. DuBose were in the other.

 >Then in the article, "Three Hours that Shook the Press," the
 >quote is again altered to say, according to Moore and Shandera,
 >"In his interview with Moore, Maj. Marcel maintained that the
 >debris in the two photos of him..."

 >Then, finally, in "Enough is Too Much," Moore returns to the
 >original quote that mentions but a single photograph of Marcel,
 >and none of Ramey and DuBose.

 >This, I think, would negate the quote attributed to Marcel
 >because the man who conducted the interview has altered it to
 >suit him and the situation as it developed... which means as
 >more pictures were discovered, Moore altered the quote to cover
 >each new discovery.

Kevin, I think we must accept peoples recollections of event
from such a long time ago will be coloured by both the passage
of time _and_ what they themselves discover of the events in the
present. Marcel's story changed it seems the more interviews he
gave, it's hard not to believe that in between these interviews
more and more of the story he was involved in would be
"refreshed?" and we possibly end up with a feedback loop of
acquired information augmenting the original memory.

I put it forward that this is what has happened in Bond's case,
together with many of the other Roswell witnesses, I don't think
it's deliberate, it's just the way we seem to work as humans.

 >>>The _only_ photograph(s) of Marcel(to
 >>>surface) are JBJ's and we know these were taken together with
 >>>the Ramey and DuBose shots (it's the same film neg batch), so
 >>>what was this later "staged" photo... Newton? Marcel doesn't
 >>>know, he wasn't involved, it's just what he heard happened.

 >>Or the staged photographs were the ones taken in General Ramey's
 >>office of the weather balloon and rawin target and not of the
 >>actual debris.

 >Which would mean that Dr. Johnson's original statements to me
 >were accurate and he saw nothing but a balloon, as he told me on
 >two separate occasions.

 >And, we do have additional information that comes from TV
 >reporter Johnny Mann, who interviewed Marcel in Roswell in the
 >early 1980s. He showed Marcel the photographs in Moore's book
 >and said, "Jesse, I got to tell you. That looks like a balloon."
 >According to Mann, when Marcel saw the pictures, he said, "No.
 >No. That picture was staged. That's not the stuff I brought from
 >Roswell."

 >So here is information that has been printed in both the IUR and
 >the CUFOS Roswell special, and has been corroborated by Johnny
 >Mann when asked by others, but which has been ignored. We have a
 >witness who tells us that Marcel said the pictures in General
 >Ramey's office were staged. We have Dr. Johnson telling us, in
 >his original interviews, said that the setting had been staged.
 >He didn't believe, in those original interviews, that he had
 >seen anything special. Now, of course, he has changed his story.

 ><snip>

Yet we have the direct counter to that from Shandera's DuBose
interview where DuBose say's "yes that's the stuff they brought
from Roswell" when shown quite likely the very same photo's, and
he additionally states that _no_ substitution of debris ever
took place.

Like I said before, you _can_ select testimony from Roswell to
support _any_ stance, pro or anty, and believe me, I hold a very
pro position.


 >>This is very incomplete accounting of Dubose's many interviews
 >>on the matter, and obviously comes from the highly suspect
 >>Shandera "interviews" with Dubose. Even though Shandera produced
 >>lengthy "transcripts", he has also been unable to produce the
 >>tape recordings that would have been needed to produce such
 >>detailed "transcripts." He is also unable to reproduce even
 >>notes of the conversation.

 >>On the other hand, there are a number of _recorded_ interviews
 >>with Dubose which completely contradict your assertion and RPITs
 >>that Dubose wasn't aware of the photographs and claimed the
 >>stuff in the photos was from Roswell.

 >Copies of those interviews, and corroboration by others is also
 >available. The video taped interview was conducted in August
 >1990 and is in the FUFOR archives. I also have copies of it.

<snip>

 >>I agree DuBose said the above and I can live with your assertion
 >>Shandera might be a little shakey in his methods, but there
 >>again there's nothing to say he _didn't_ make that quote to
 >>Shandera.

 >More importantly, there is nothing to say that he did.

 >>I think DuBose tended to please everybody.

 >No, he attempted to tell the truth, as best he could remember
 >it when not being pushed by someone with an agenda. Billy
 >Cox, of FLORIDA TODAY reported on these facts a number
 >of years ago, as did Don Ecker of UFO Magazine (USA).


In the end DuBose either said it or he didn't, and I can accept
he actually said _both_ statements, and therefore contradicted
himself in the process. Does it nullify _all_ his testimony?, or
just indicate he had _very_ poor recall of the events. Being
shown the photograph's by Shandara doesn't mean to say he
_positively_ ID'd the debris either, but merely it might
have_looked_ like what he could recall after 40 odd years.

 ><snip>

 >>Because it appears the ST were in phone contact throughout that
 >>evening with FWAAF and if an organised shindig was in the offing
 >>he would have gone to it.

 >Semantics, semantics. Clearly it wasn't "organized" but it was
 >certainly held, according to the men who were there. A press
 >conference, by definition, is a meeting with the press and not
 >necessarily an "organized" affair. If you don't like the term
 >press conference, then call it something else, but that doesn't
 >alter the fact that reporters, plural, were in General Ramey's
 >office after Dr. Johnson was there.

 >>>Reporters could have shown up there after Bond Johnson left and
 >>>Ramey could have held an impromptu press conference (meaning
 >>>that the S-T would not have been notified

 >>Yes, and at that stage Bond wouldn't be there to take Marcel's
 >>picture and he(Marcel) states he was only photographed the
 >>_once_ (by Bond), and Marcel was photographed at the same time
 >>as Ramey and DuBose in that primary photoshoot, and no other
 >>examples of that primary photoshoot are in the record.

 >And how many radio reporters would take a photographer with
 >them? Maybe that's the problem with the single, additional
 >photograph.

 ><snip>

 >>The same way Marcel recalled a posse of news photogs taking his
 >>picture when the historical record shows we only have Bond
 >>Johnson's 6 pictures only 2 of which are of Marcel.

 >>The human memory.

 >Or human interpretation. I see nothing in Marcel's statements to
 >suggest a "posse of news photogs." Maybe it was just radio
 >reporters. This posse of photogs is your invention, of Dr.
 >Johnson's invention and not supported by the facts as they have
 >been established.

Not my invention Kevin, but I believe the public perception of
the event. Granted in your books you relate it just as reporters
arriving later. But I've seen presentations by notable
researchers where this _has_ been "spun" into the realm of a
media feeding frenzy.

 >We have a great deal of information that has been spun here. We
 >have evidence to support my claims including the audio tapes
 >andletters. If Dr. Johnson wants to believe today that he was
 >theonly reporter there, ever,

The fact Bond's story _has_ changed over time I accept and don't
have a problem with, it hasn't had an impact on the research
I've personally been engaged in. As I've said, set aside Bond's
testimony totally and what difference does it make to what we
_know_ of events that night?. Most of the information we have to
work with comes from sources _other_ than Bond.

Bond Johnson's _unique_ contribution to the Roswell story is not
his verbal testimony interesting though it is, but the legacy of
the photographs he took that afternoon.

 >that he saw the real debris, and
 >Ramey didn't know what it was when he was there, I don't care.


I could "selectively" quote DuBose at this point, but I won't, I
could selectively quote Marcel but I won't, what I will do
though is repeat that quote from Maj Kirton who _is_  giving a
statement from Gen Ramey to Reuters, this, some time before
5.30pm that afternoon.

"it looks like a hexagonal object covered with tinfoil or other
shining material"

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
??Couldn't they ID tinfoil??


"It is possibly a weather balloon flown at the highest altitude
but none of the army men at this base recognize it as an army type balloon."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

At this point can I also mention here that the above line seems to give
some support to my current interpretation of the Ramey Message, at lines

#6) -----------------MIDDAy 509# ToLd newspaPeR sEgMEnt Of STORY Adv *****
#7) ----------[initia]lly Thry EVEN PUT for AF WEATATN BALLOONS raDar WERE

and reading in part these lines as:

"...advise..." "... initially theory put for air force weather
station balloon's radar were..."

Kirton was _still_ in essence, saying this in his phone call to
the FBI as recorded in their 6.12pm teletype, this even _after_,
according to that teletype, FWAAF had consulted Wright Field,
the home of AMC, _they_ should have been able to identify a
Signal Corp ML307 and a Neoprene weather balloon if any one
could. It's also coincidental that who should Ramey get to ID to
the world just what the debris was but the FWAAF "weather
station" man, Irving Newton, coincidence?.

At a stage of the timeline prior to 5.30pm, Ramey via Kirton
publicly admits to Reuters they don't know what the debris is.



 >When you begin to suggest that I have altered the information,
 >that I have inaccurately reported information that is backed up
 >by audio tape and other evidence, then I take a stand. Like it
 >or not, Dr. Johnson told me one thing and told others something
 >else. His spin is not going to change the facts, on tape. Listen
 >to them if you want, but don't suggest, even as carefully as you
 >have here that I might have altered things because I edited a
 >tape for time to assist Dr. Johnson in understanding that he
 >actually said the things he denies saying.
 >

I agree the comment was uncalled for, again accept my apology.

And I would be happy to review your material, the Uni address
below will find me.

Best regards
Neil.


Neil Morris.
Dept of Physics and Astronomy.
Univ of Manchester.
Oxford Road.
Manchester.
M13.9PL.
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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 25

                         Re: AA Film Redux - Gehrman

From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 15:43:11 -0800
Fwd Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 13:17:03 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Gehrman


 >From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:19:39 EST
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >First, thanks again to David Rudiak for his patient and
 >excellent contribution in this very long discusion, which is
 >becoming irritating.


Gildas,

I too find the AA discussion "irritating" but it has nothing to
do with its duration. What I find irritating is the denial by
otherwise intelligent and well meaning researchers of the
possibility that the AA is an authentic historical document and
refuse to even look at the new evidence we've gathered. I
realize it might take a little effort. You'll have to mail $35
to me for the CDs. You'll have to email Neil and ask him to send
you the FW photos. Then you'll have to down load the CDs onto
your hard drive. But you'll see; it will be worth the effort.

The refusal to even investigate our research is a symptom of
what Reich calls the "emotional plague".

My advice to everyone on this List: inoculate yourself as soon
as possible with a high dose of AA reality.

Ed













   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 25

                         Re: Tell The People - Stacy

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 18:26:18 -0600
Fwd Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 13:18:44 -0500
Subject: Re: Tell The People - Stacy


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Tell The People
 >Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 14:02:56 -0000


 >Georgina Bruni's book "You Can't Tell the People" contains some
 >excellent investigative journalism and a lot of important new
 >information on the case (or series of cases).

 >However, having now reached the final chapters I see that it
 >takes a sudden plunge downwards in credibility by speculating
 >about wild-eyed stories of secret communications with aliens and
 >pseudoscientific "studies" rather than resting on the strong
 >case presented to that point.

 >For example, there is a huge difference between alleged Reichian
 >"cloud-busting" (pseudoscience)and seeding of clouds to produce
 >precipitation (real science).

 >Also, I just received a telepathic message from aliens who told
 >me that Dan Sherman is a fraud. ;-)


Dick,

Hey, welcome to the club!

Looks like you're beginning to get the hang of this e-mail
stuff, after all!

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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 25

                        Re: Tell The Peopl - Gehrman

From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 16:09:47 -0800
Fwd Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 13:20:50 -0500
Subject: Re: Tell The Peopl - Gehrman


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Tell The People
 >Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 14:02:56 -0000

 >For example, there is a huge difference between alleged Reichian
 >"cloud-busting" (pseudoscience)and seeding of clouds to produce
 >precipitation (real science).


Richard,

Have you read or do you understand Reich's ideas and writings?
Cloud-busting is not a pseudo-science. I realize cloud-busting
sounds crazy, but most modern science was considered flotsam and
jetsam at one time or another.


Ed









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 25

                     Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 00:14:52 -0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 13:34:48 -0500
Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Hall


 >From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >To: "02 - UFO UpDates Subscribers":;
 >Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Easton
 >Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 17:32:50 -0500

 >From: James Easton <voyager@ufoworld.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment
 >Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 02:49:10 -0000

James,

Repetition does not equal truth. The main investigators and
followers of the case have answered your questions many times.

 >Again, I wrote:

 >"'If nothing else, can we please confirm where CAUS obtained
 >copies of the witness statements and how long the startling
 >revelations about the lighthouse has been known about?'"

 >Is that question ever going to be answered, and if not, why not"

 >Will you please comment on this?

Sure! Why ask me? Ask CAUS. I have no idea. Except I think your
"startling revelations about the lighthouse" exist somewhere
exclusively in your mind and are not a fair or accurate reading
of the complete testimony.

 >>He apparently did make a few minor errors, but they are pretty
 >>insignificant overall.

 >We can now highlight and document these 'minor' errors:

Who cares what the exact dates were? It is the obvious "craft"
that was described that counts.

 >And so on... all of the above is of course factual.

Oh, really? Your "facts" have been seriously disputed in many
cases, and if you ever showed a sincere interest in establishing
what the real facts are and stopped repeating questions that
have already been answered, you probably would receive more
friendly cooperation.

 >You stated, "Halt's TESTIMONY is full, complete, on the record,
 >and highly credible. His information anchors the entire case".

 >Before addressing anything else, can we be clear that you do
 >consider all of the above, in the context of an obviously
 >important 'UFO EVIDENCE II' case, has trivial consequence and
 >Halt has merely contributed, as you say...

 >"a few minor errors, but they are pretty insignificant overall".

Yes, I will stand by that statement, but will acknowledge that
on the basis of new evidence I no longer think Halt's testimony
has been "full" and "complete." I think he knows a lot more than
he has let on, and I hope he will publish his own full account
of it. And, until you hear his full story, don't pre-judge it!
As I have told Jenny Randles privately, the UFOE-II account is
the case "according to Halt" as best I was able to draw it out,
and I spent some effort in trying to get him to open up, but he
had been badly burnt by some so-called ufologists in the past
and I can understand his reluctance to talk to us. As my mother
used to say, "Be nice to people and they will be nice to you."
Although you still seem to insist that you and only you have the
facts straight, I nevertheless thank you for your comparatively
civil remarks this time. That could pave the way for some
rational communication, such as Jenny and I seem to be able to
accomplish.


Dick Hall









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 25

               Re: New Evidence Of Sagan's Martian Macrobes? -

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 16:39:11 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 13:37:02 -0500
Subject: Re: New Evidence Of Sagan's Martian Macrobes? -


 >Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 01:10:55 -0500
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: New Evidence Of Sagan's Martian Macrobes?

<snip>

 >The "sphere" appears to have some kind of an 'appendage' that
 >extends from the back (front?) of the thing. Looks kinds like a
 >"Heavy Metal Sperm!" <VBG>All kidding aside, does anyone have
 >any idea as to what this thing (or the tubular structures for
 >that matter) could possibly be? I'm drawing blanks.

 >I've never seen or heard of anything quite like this.

 >see: http://enterprisemission.com/images/arthur.jpg

John, List,

If I had to venture a guess, this is either the remains of some
exotic macroscopic lifeform (a literal "worm") or else a
technological artifact of unknown purpose.  Richard Hoagland has
proposed these things are "pipes" for channeling water: not a
bad guess, in my opinion.

 >I think that features like this deserve much more attention (and
 >camera time) than something like the Face. Maybe we are all
 >mesmerized by the anthropomorphic qualities of the Face, because
 >it "looks like us" when instead we could be focusing on
 >something that genuinely strange and anomalous like these
 >tubular structures and that very odd metallic looking sphere
 >within it.

<snip>

I think we owe it to ourselves to see the Face inquiry through,
first.  But there's no convincing reason we can't investigate
_all_ of this weird Martian stuff. Studying one anomaly doesn't
necessarily exclude studying additional anomalies.

And let's face it: Mars is one big anomaly.

Check out the new image of the "Cliff" in Cydonia: there are
features very much like the "worm" to its immediate right.  A
most interesting coincidence.

=====
Mac Tonnies (macbot@yahoo.com) 816-561-0190
105 Ward Parkway #900, Kansas City, MO 64112
Me: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/mtvi.html
Cydonia: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/cydonia.html
Books: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/bookreviews.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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 25

                 Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Rudiak

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 19:52:17 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 13:38:30 -0500
Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Rudiak


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 19:51:01 EST
 >Fwd Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 14:17:26 -0500
 >Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Young

 >>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:28:15 -0400

<snip>

 >>Might I refer you to the December 1996 Yukon case so ably
 >>investigated by professional Engineer Martin Jasek who dealt
 >>with more than 30 witnesses (groups of 2 or 3) which enabled
 >>triangulation 3 times, establishing a length of 0.6-1.2 miles
 >>long. I was up there. One witness said it was the full width of
 >>the big dipper or more than 1 foot at arms length.

 >Man, that measurement must have been made by bigfoot. The Big
 >Dipper is 25 degrees from tip of cup to end of handle.

Minor point -- closer to 28 degrees from tip to tip according to my sky
charts.

 >This is
 >about 7.5 inches, or so, at my arm's length. Of course, little
 >people (not greys) have shorter arms and bigger people have
 >their rulers a little further away. But, this was most likely
 >done in daylight, and by memory.

Let's at least get the math right. I don't know about bigfoot,
but "arm's length" for humans is typically around 60 cm or 2
feet. 1 foot at 2 feet distance subtends an angle of -- 28
degrees, or exactly the same size as the Big Dipper.

If the witnesses arms were a little longer than this, however,
28 degrees would be be a little more than 1 foot at arm's
length.

On the other hand, 7.5 inches at 2 feet subtends an angle of
only about 18 degrees.  For 7.5 inches to be 28 degrees, your
arm's length would be only 15 inches.

Are you secretly a grey Bob?

 >This is probably a pretty good example of how this kind of
 >"data" of eyewitness accounts of surprising events later become
 >giant motherships, or whatever.

Looks to me like like a better example of the witness getting it
right on the money whereas your "math" supposedly discrediting
the witness' reliability is way off in left field somewhere.

Back to high school Bob, along with King Roger and his statement
that the moon's sky is "starless" in daylight just like here on
Earth.

 >Clear skies,

 >Bob Young

Clear thinking,


David Rudiak









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 25

             Re: NASA - Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy' -

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 20:01:09 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 13:40:36 -0500
Subject: Re: NASA - Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy' -


 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:55:41 -0600
 >Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 18:18:09 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy' - Evans


 >>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >>Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 21:03:09 EST
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject:

 >>>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>>Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 11:42:51 -0600
 >>>Fwd Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 20:28:55 -0500
 >>>Subject: Re: NASA - Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy'

 >Previously, I had written:

 >>>The "fake-moon-landing" proponents (foonies?) ironically take
 >>>the opposite stance. They look at the lack of stars as a sign of
 >>fakery when, in fact, a starless sky is _exactly_ what one would
 >>>see if on the moon during the "day" just like here on Earth. I
 >>>find this amusing because, if NASA really did go to great
 >>>lengths to create a "reality" that was technically accurate, the
 >>>foonies obviously prefer their own reality that has been skewed
 >>>due to watching too many science fiction movies where the stars
 >>>are always visible; lighting imbalances be damned. It would seem
 >>>that, if the landing was faked by NASA, they would have been
 >>>better off trying to please peoples' perceptions of what a moon
 >>>landing would look like instead of going for technical accuracy.

 >David replied:

 >>Time for another King Roger science reality check.

 >>The reason we see no stars in the daytime here on Earth is
 >>because Earth has something called an atmosphere (heard of it
 >>Roger?), which the Moon does not. The atmosphere has particulate
 >>matter (dust, air droplets, etc.) which scatters the bright
 >>sunlight towards our eyes obscuring the dimmer starlight.

 >>On the airless moon, one can indeed see stars during daytime,
 >>just as someone in the space shuttle can above the Earth's
 >>atmosphere on the daylit side of the Earth.

 >>If the stars didn't show in NASA moon landing photos, then I
 >>suspect it had to do with film dynamic range, f/stop and shutter
 >>speed. Because the surface of the moon is very brightly lit in
 >>daytime, the film and camera settings would have to compensate
 >>to prevent overexposure. Otherwise, the surface details would
 >>be completely washed out.

 >>I do wish Roger would go back to high school and pass those
 >>basic science courses he obviously flunked the first time
 >>around.

 >The context of this _entire_ discussion is not about whether
 >astronauts 'saw' stars from the moon but, rather, why the stars
 >do not show up in photographs.

OK, and you said the reason is the same here on Earth when you
try to take pictures in daylight, which is complete garbage. In
fact you even referred to the moon's sky as "starless" during
daylight. You _can_ take pictures of stars on the moon in
daylight with the proper exposure. But you can't on Earth no
matter what you do.

 >In fact, I made it clear that the
 >reason you can't see the stars in photographs is because of
 >"lighting imbalances" (as opposed to what's seen in sci-films).

Yes, you mentioned "lighting imbalances" without being clear
about what you meant.  But let's look at what you first wrote,
which is what I was responding to:

 >>The "fake-moon-landing" proponents (foonies?) ironically take
 >>the opposite stance. They look at the lack of stars as a sign of
 >>fakery when, in fact, a starless sky is _exactly_ what one would
 >>see if on the moon during the "day" just like here on Earth.

Please note that Roger uses the word "see" here, not
"photograph," though he now claims the "context" was not about
"seeing" but photographing. Notice he also refers to the sky as
"starless" both on the moon and Earth in daylight.

The reason one can't "see" or photograph stars here on Earth in
daylight is because of light scatter off the atmosphere. You
can't photograph stars here on Earth during daytime no matter
what exposure you use.

On the moon, the sky is never "starless" because there is no
air. One can "see" stars there at all times. To photograph the
stars, just point the camera up away from the surface, select a
longer exposure, and the stars will photograph just fine. It's a
completely different situation.

 >To that end, your reasoning for why there were no stars
 >in photographs is mostly nonsense. F-stop and shutter speed
 >would have no effect on visibility of stars if exposure for the
 >main, sunlit subject (astronaut, lunar surface etc.) were
 >correct.

Which is exactly what I said. f-stop (or essentially effective
lens aperature) and shutter speed both effect how much light
enters the camera. You can adjust either or both to control the
film exposure.

If the exposure is adjusted to prevent details on the brightly
lit lunar surface from washing out, the exposure won't be great
enough to capture the dimly lit stars.

 >In fact, if the earth had no atmosphere, the very same problems would
 >apply to pictures taken here as they would on the moon.

Oh really? You think? This is just King Roger again trying to
bluster his way out of another tight spot by pretending he knew
what he was talking about all along.

Does Roger really believe anybody thinks he was comparing an
airless daylit Earth to the daylit Moon? You can't "see" or
photograph stars on Earth during daytime for completely
different reasons than those on the Moon. The Earth has an
atmosphere that scatters light. The moon doesn't.

 >If in doubt, try taking a picture of the moon on a clear night.

Wasn't your point that you couldn't take pictures of stars in
daytime on the moon for the _same_ reason you couldn't take
pictures of stars on Earth in daytime? Both were "starless."

 >No matter what film you use, no matter what shutter speed
 >or f-stop combination you try, you will not get the moon and the
 >stars properly exposed in the same shot.

Uh-huh, but you're changing the subject again to distract from
your faux pas.

 >This is due to
 >"lighting imbalances" between the moon and the stars; the moon
 >being bright due to proximity and the stars being dim due to
 >distance.

If you read my post I _was_ clearly talking about what you call
"lighting imbalances" as the reason the stars didn't appear in
photographs taken on the lunar surface.

 >And what you call "dynamic range" is really called "latitude" by
 >professional photographers.

This is just different terminology. In engineering and
bioengineering the same property is called dynamic range. The
human eye, e.g., has a far greater dynamic range than any film
or video camera, which is why an astronaut can "see" both stars
and lunar surface details simultaneously, whereas a camera can't
capture both simultaneously.

The moon's sky is not "starless" in daylight.

 >No film ever made has ever had
 >enough latitude to correctly expose both stars and lunar subject
 >matter simultaneously. Video still doesn't have as much latitude
 >as film. Back then, it was just dreadful; I'm surprised they got
 >a usable image at all on video.

But this isn't the real reason you can't photograph stars in daytime from
Earth, is it Roger?

 >Considering that the context of this conversation is about
 >photographic issues, your observations regarding terrestrial
 >atmosphere don't even begin to apply. With or without
 >atmosphere, you won't see the stars in a properly exposed photo
 >of terrestrial or lunar objects taken during the day.

You tried to cover up your ignorance as best you could, but in
the end you just had to open your big mouth again and blow your
cover. The Earth's atmosphere has _everything_ to do with why
you can't "see" or photograph stars on Earth in daylight.

Of course, now you're trying to cover your tracks by talking
about a "properly exposed" photo, whereas your original
statement was about how you couldn't "see" stars on the moon in
daylight because, well gee, the sky is "starless" during the
day, isn't it, just like back on good old Earth. Roger was
brilliant; the "phoonies" were idiots.

 >Remedial science classes? I don't think so. On the other hand it
 >would seem that you need to take either some basic classes in
 >photography or, perhaps, some remedial classes in reading
 >comprehension and context.

 >Sorry to spoil your fun.

King Roger the blusterer to the end.

BTW, Roger, how are those Trent photo reproductions coming? How
long has it been, about 6 months, to "easily" reproduce those
photos? If it's taken clever Roger this long and still no
results, the much less clever Paul Trent must have spent years
practicing his hoax until he got it just right.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 25

                Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Friedman

From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 22:04:21 -0400
Fwd Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 13:50:47 -0500
Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Friedman


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 19:51:01 EST
 >Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:28:15 -0400

 >>>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>>Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 00:34:23 -0600

 ><snip>

 >>Might I refer you to the December 1996 Yukon case so ably
 >>investigated by professional Engineer Martin Jasek who dealt
 >>with more than 30 witnesses (groups of 2 or 3) which enabled
 >>triangulation 3 times, establishing a length of 0.6-1.2 miles
 >>long. I was up there. One witness said it was the full width of
 >>the big dipper or more than 1 foot at arms length.

 >Hi Stan, Dennis:

 >Man, that measurement must have been made by bigfoot. The Big
 >Dipper is 25 degrees from tip of cup to end of handle. This is
 >about 7.5 inches, or so, at my arm's length. Of course, little
 >people (not greys) have shorter arms and bigger people have
 >their rulers a little further away. But, this was most likely
 >done in daylight, and by memory.

 >This is probably a pretty good example of how this kind of
 >"data" of eyewitness accounts of surprising events later become
 >giant motherships, or whatever.


You must be quite short Bob. I just went out in the cold up here
in New Brunswick. The Big Dipper is 11" between my hands at
arm's length. I am only 5'9.5". The comments were made by the
witness as he observed both the craft and the big dipper late at
night. How could you possibly suggest this was most likely done
in daylight by memory? Psychic powers?

Martin, a Civil Engineer at that, while travelling the route up
the Klondike Highway at about the same time at Night in December
as the sighting occured, was able to do 3 triangulations. based
on witness testimony as to landmarks where the front and back
end of this huge craft were and how far away it was. There was a
lake and many hills as well along the road. May I suggest you
read the report before putting computer in gear?.

My estimate of a foot was based on my being up there and holding
my arms out and looking at the Big Dipper lying horizontal in
October... My hand span is almost 9". The big Dipper was wider.
By the way, even if it had only been 7.5", which it wasn't,
would you not say that was huge considering the minimal distance
it was, based on all the testimony? Armchair theorizing is not
the same as field investigation. Read the report. Much of it has
been published in shorter form as well.

Did you go out and measure the width?


Stanton Friedman








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 25

                 Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Rudiak

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 22:00:09 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 13:53:00 -0500
Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Rudiak


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 15:00:12 -0600
 >Fwd Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 23:10:01 -0500
 >Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact


 >What do you mean by "exception" here? Your second paragraph
 >contradicts your first, as obviously Ford was told. The fact
 >that there was subsequently an enite book written about
 >Operation Solo is further evidence that when it comes to
 >keeping secrets, we're basically talking differences in
 >shelf life, not some infallible procedure(s).

There have also been a few erudite books written about UFOs as
well (e.g. Richard Hall's "The UFO Evidence), including
information from military and government leakers. If there
hadn't been leakers, there wouldn't be people like you to
denounce them all as liars or deluded, would there?

 >Of course secrets can be kept -- until they're not.

This is a UFO discussion group, is it not? The subject hasn't
been secret for some time. The contention, however, is that the
_best_ evidence, the type of evidence that might convince even
you (then again, maybe not) is still in government/military
hands and that is what remains secret. This would include
bodies, crash debris, unequivocal film footage, incriminating
documents, etc., etc.

What remains firmly in place is not the secret, but the denial
of the secret, or, if you will, the official stamp of approval
that the secret is true.

 >My point is that there is no 'mechanism' that guarantees
 >that secrets are kept secret in perpetuity,

But there are certainly many security mechanisms in place that
strongly discourage or directly prevent the leaking of secrets.
See below.

 >because humans in charge
 >of keeping secrets betray them whenever it suits their own
 >purposes. Even the Manhattan Project was compromised fairly
 >early on.

Right, and there _have_ been hundreds of leakers who have come
forth, every one of them condemned as liars, sociopaths, senile,
deluded, confused, uncorroborated, etc.

By denying that there are any true leakers, you can continue to write posts
to UFO groups and claim that since there are no leakers as you would expect,
UFOs can't be real. It's a wonderful closed logic system.

 >There is no compelling reason that I'm aware of as to why
 >UFO secrets would be any more immune to human nature than
 >military or intelligence secrets.

According to Las Vegas TV journalist George Knapp, who has
covered both organized crime and UFOs, Mafia insiders are far
more willing to talk about organized crime than
government/military insiders are about what they know about
UFOs. The UFO insiders he has described as often being terrified
and extremely reluctant to divulge any information.

Now assuming Knapp isn't another of those liars, this is rather remarkable.
The Mafia code of silence includes the penalty of death for violating it.
But according to Knapp, the UFO insiders were generally more frightened than
the Mafia insiders.

An insidious security system to keep the biggest of the big
secrets would probably deter most potential leakers.

 >Just yesterday they had a program on National Public Radio
 >in the wake of the latest FBI security breach. Some expert
 >on same said that there were four reasons for divulging
 >secrets,ideology, money, and thrill-seeking. Unfortunately,
 >I can't remember the fourth right now -- or maybe it's a secret!

Maybe it's conscience in some cases?

 >For all I know, Operation Solo could have remained secret as
 >long as it did because only two people were involved. Who
 >knows? There were only 15 copies of the Pentagon Papers,
 >though, and one of those wound up at the NY Times, courtesy,
 >if memory serves, of Daniel Ellsberg.

Since you bring up the topic of Ellsberg, I also remember
Nixon's "plumbers" breaking into the office of Ellsberg's
psychiatrist hoping to find material to either discredit
Ellsberg or blackmail him. That's one example of how an
insidious security system can operate. There are many ways to
frighten people into silence.

As for Ellsberg's motivation in leaking the Pentagon Papers, it
seems to have been one almost entirely one of conscience. Money,
glory, ideology, etc. don't seem to have entered into it at all.
In fact he knew full well that by becoming a whistleblower and
leaking top secret information he was risking jail and forever
destroying his high-level career in government.

Ellsberg also testified before Congress in 1973 about numerous
security clearances (some of which he had) that went beyond mere
top secret (in another interview I read he referred to the
material as "above top secret"). He spoke of the extreme
compartmentalization of these secrets. Greg Sandow posted some
of this very interesting testimony to Updates Dec. 18, 1996.
See:

http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1996/dec/m18-002.shtml

Amongst Ellsberg's statements were descriptions of numerous
secured reading rooms in the Pentagon housing our nations
deepest and darkest secrets. Only a handful of people might know
of the existence of any given room much less be granted access
to it. As a high-level defense analyst serving the President,
the Secretary of Defense, and the National Security Advisor,
Ellsberg was one of these selected few.

In general, Ellsberg had the following to say about the matter
of keeping secrets:


"But I am saying, as many as 100,000 or 400,000, nevertheless
keep secrets very well because of this apparatus of conspiracy,
special channels, special couriers for each clearance. The
couriers for one clearance do not know the existence of the
other ones. Special briefings, special access lists, special
libraries, each separate, the apparatus of an espionage ring; a
Government that consists of cells but with the President at the
top. Certainly when I say there are clearances that the
President may not know of, I say that only to make a point. The
more important point is, the President does know virtually all
of this...."


Although Ellsberg was speaking specifically about topics like
electronic intelligence, Vietnam, the Cuban missile crisis, etc.
and not UFOs, the same sort of intelligence and security
apparatus could obviously be maintained to keep the biggest of
the big secrets. It could also involve thousands if not tens of
thousands of people, all of them isolated into "cells" of
compartmentalized information, not knowing of the existence of
others involved or what they might know. Few people would know
the big picture. One can easily imagine another of those
Pentagon reading rooms devoted exclusively to the subject and
with very few having the clearance to gain access. When somebody
does leak, they are usually acting alone and lack the
corroboration of others. The information they do have is limited
because of the compartmentalization.  Few of them have access to
evidence as incriminating as the Pentagon Papers or the
opportunity to smuggle it out of secured areas. They can
therefore be dismissed as kooks or liars.

To this we could add that the whole subject of UFOs has been
bathed in ridicule for a very long time. There is natural human
incredulously over some of the mindboggling inplications to UFO
reality, not to mention fear and psychological denial. If Daniel
Ellsberg had gone to the NY Times and instead said he had seen
Top Secret documents about crashed saucers and alien autopsies,
I seriously doubt the Times would have paid him any attention.

And that's how big secrets can be kept.

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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 25

                 Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Hatch

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 23:55:53 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 18:11:36 -0500
Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Hatch


 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 04:14:32 -0800
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact

<snip>

 >Suppose the Japanese surrendered _before_ the bomb was to be
 >dropped, so it could remain secret, a sort of ace-in-the-hole.
 >Would we have learned of the existence of atomic weapons in the
 >first decades after the war?

 >Eventually, yes. But we can probably argue endlessly how long it
 >might have taken. Non?

'Till the first Hydrogen bomb test, probably.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 25

                     Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Stacy

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 00:20:35 -0600
Fwd Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 18:16:33 -0500
Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Stacy


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 16:21:13 -0000

<snip>

 >If the evidence suggests "they" are here, then theory be damned.


The odd thing (at least to me) about the evidence is that it
could just as easily be so much different than it is. Just
imagine, for example, that an ET craft had crashed in downtown
Cincinatti in 1964 rather than, say, outside Roswell in 1947.

That would be pretty hard to cover up, I think we both would
agree. And in which case this List would be moot.

Or let's suppose that only one recovered "implant" had been
convincingly demonstrated as extraterrestrial in nature, never
mind those alleged  "missing" fetuses. That would be pretty hard
to dismiss, too, no?

So why is it that the UFO as ET evidence is so, what shall I
say, marginal? That is, suggestive, but never quite landing in
the realm of conclusive, when it's so easy to imagine
alternative outcomes, in which case we wouldn't be having this
discussion?

Theories -- damned or otherwise -- welcomed.

And just because I don't accept the ETH as a given shouldn't be
interpreted to mean that I know what's going on. Those are two
different things.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 25

                 Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 00:42:27 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 18:18:49 -0500
Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Young


 >From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 08:52:43 EST
 >Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 15:00:12 -0600

<snip>

 >Further, during WWII, the Japanese Balloon Bomb attacks were
 >kept secret from the Japanese. This means that although Japanese
 >spies were attempting to learn if their balloon bombs were
 >reaching the US, and even though thousands were in on the
 >secret, that the only thing the government did to keep the
 >secret was ask those who had observed balloon bombs, seen them
 >fall, or found parts of them, was ask the witnesses not to talk.
 >Japanese spies, who were actively working to find any indication
 >that the balloon bombs had reached the US failed to do so. This
 >was a big secret, meaning that thousands were involved. So, some
 >secrets are kept by large numbers for short periods.

Hi, Kevin:

The government asked newspaper editors (I've seen a copy of the
letter in an article), and probably radio news executives not to
report any of the balloon attacks.

I do have, though, someplace in my files a clipping from March
1945 from the Philadelphia American with an article about the
balloon attack which killed several people on the West Coast. I
doubt that the paper had a correspondent on the West Coast,
although I don't known this for sure. I assume they got the
story from a wire service. I wonder if there were others.

So, while the effort was apparently successful, word eventually
did leak out. Whether the Japanese ever found out or not I don't
know.


Clear skies,

Bob Young









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 25

                   Re: Naud, Bouchmann & Le Paige - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 21:44:15 -0800
Fwd Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 18:23:24 -0500
Subject: Re: Naud, Bouchmann & Le Paige - Hatch


 >From: Bruno Mancusi <swissufo@swissufo.ch>
 >Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 09:32:17 +0100
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Naud, Bouchmann & Le Paige

 >>From: Chris Aubeck <caubeck@hotmail.com>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Naud, Bouchmann & Le Paige
 >>Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:45:42 -0000

 >>>From: Bruno Mancusi <swissufo@swissufo.ch>
 >>>Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 20:38:42 +0100
 >>>Fwd Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 09:16:12 -0500
 >>>Subject: Re: Naud, Bouchmann & Le Paige - Mancusi

 >>>>Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 00:49:10 -0800 (PST)
 >>>>From: Chris Aubeck <caubeck@yahoo.com>
 >>>>Subject: UFO UpDate: Naud, Bouchmann & Le Paige
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>>>I am looking for information about three items. Can anyone help?

 >>>>Firstly, I have been reading a book called 'U.F.O.s and
 >>>>Extraterrestrials in History'. The author is Yves Naud

<snip>

 >>Hello Bruno,

 >>Thanks for the reply. I thought I had sent you a response
 >>to the above already but I must have been dreaming.

<snip>

 >No, there is no source. In view of the fact that it is described
 >just after the famous Alenon case (1790, France) I have checked
 >its source (not given by Naud): Alberto Fenoglio, "Antichi
 >visitatori dal cielo", 'Clypeus' #10, 1966, pp. 13-14, but it's
 >not here (it's better because Fenoglio has invented many stories
 >like the German Sonderbro and the Alenon landing...). I will
 >forward a copy of this mail to Boris Shurinov, perhaps he know
 >something.

 >>2) Where have you read about Hans Buchmann? I haven't been able
 >>to get at the original source. If it's from a book in a language
 >>other than English, could you post a translation of the relevant
 >>passage? Can you confirm the date? How?

 >My references:

 >- 'Vaterland' (Luzern newspaper) 29 February 1980,

 >- 'UFO-Nachrichten' #263, May-June 1980, pp. 5-6 ('Vaterland'
 >paper),

 >- Ulrich Magin, 'Kontakte mit "Ausserirdischen" im deutschen
 >Sprachraum', GEP, Ldenscheid (Germany) 1991, p. 39,

 >- Michel Meurger, "Alien abduction", 'Scientifictions' #1,
 >vol. 1, 1995, pp. 24-30 (in French),

 >- Gisela Ermel, "Die "Luftfahrt mit dem Wilden Jger"", 'Ancient
 >Skies' #6, 1996, p. 4.

 >Sorry, I don't know an English source and can't post a
 >translation. There is no dispute about the date. The story come
 >from a manuscript of the well-known chronicler Renward Cysat
 >(1515-1614), 'Collectanea chronica und denkwrdige sachen pro
 >chronica Lucernensi et Helvetiae'.


Hello Bruno!

Regarding Alencon (France 1790):

Is it established that this is the complete invention of one
Alberto Fenoglio? I had already derated that case based on some
earlier posts, and would like to know if it more properly
belongs in my "Poubelle List" of thoroughly discredited UFO
stories:

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

My two sources for this tale are:

SOBEPS: Inforespace Journal, bimonthly, #28 (Belgium) _and_ John
Keel: Operation Trojan Horse; NY, Putnams Sons 1970 page 66.

The merits of these two sources vary greatly. ( chuckle! )

This is of course the tale of " many people " who saw a big
sphere land. Some man-like entity got out, and walked into the
woods. The sphere then turned completely to dust.

If the entire story turns to dust, I would rather be done with
it.


Very best wishes

- Larry Hatch









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 25

               Re: Mystery Bang Rocks Yorkshire Coast - Bolton

From: David Bolton <David@Bolton.SOL.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 11:21:32 -0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 18:25:31 -0500
Subject: Re: Mystery Bang Rocks Yorkshire Coast - Bolton


 >From: Dave Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
 >Subject: Mystery Bang Rocks Yorkshire Coast
 >Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:24:52 -0000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>


 >This is copied from today's Yorkshire Post
 >(Leeds, 22 February 2001):

 >BGS equipment is capable of picking up earth tremors
 >on the other side of the world, but the event on the
 >Yorkshire coast did not even register at their local
 >seismic station in Pickering.

I seem to recall that on past occasions where sonic booms have
occurred there have been claims that the BGS can also pick up
thier effects - and hence differentiate between them and true
earth tremours. Are they now claiming that they can't?

 >Sounds picked up by a BGS microphone at Leeds University
 >suggested Yorkshire had suffered a similar fluke yesterday
 >and the Ministry of Defence confirmed aircraft were in the
 >area at the time.

Is there also a remote seismograph at Leeds Uni? What did that
pick up? Is anyone on this list (DC?) digging a bit further?


Cheers,

Dave B

--
David G Bolton
<David@Bolton.SOL.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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 25

                 Re: Still looking for Niburu? - Christensen

From: Wendy Christensen <christensen@catlas.mv.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 22:43:19 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 18:31:30 -0500
Subject: Re: Still looking for Niburu? - Christensen


Look here:

http://www.rumormillnews.net/cgi-bin/config.pl?read=7043

(
and again, please don't shoot the messenger!)

Purrrrs....

Wendy Christensen
(I'm a catwriter, not an astronomer!)









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 26

                   Re: Naud, Bouchmann & Le Paige - Aubeck

From: Chris Aubeck <caubeck@hotmail.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 16:36:02 -0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 17:52:42 -0500
Subject: Re: Naud, Bouchmann & Le Paige - Aubeck


 >From: Chris Aubeck <caubeck@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Naud, Bouchmann & Le Paige
 >Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:45:42 -0000

 >>From: Bruno Mancusi <swissufo@swissufo.ch>
 >>Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 20:38:42 +0100
 >>Fwd Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 09:16:12 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Naud, Bouchmann & Le Paige - Mancusi

 >snip<

 >>2) Where have you read about Hans Buchmann? I haven't been able
 >>to get at the original source. If it's from a book in a language
 >>other than English, could you post a translation of the relevant
 >>passage? Can you confirm the date? How?

<snip>

 >Sorry, I don't know an English source and can't post a
 >translation. There is no dispute about the date. The story come
 >from a manuscript of the well-known chronicler Renward Cysat
 >(1515-1614), 'Collectanea chronica und denkwrdige sachen pro
 >chronica Lucernensi et Helvetiae'.



Hello again Bruno,

Thanks for the information regarding Naud! You have reached the
same conclusion as I have about the Russian case - it was
invented by Fenoglio along with the Alenon report. Glad to see
we're all aware of how much garbage can be attributed to
Fenoglio's interference.

I still find the Buchmann case confusing, I'm afraid. You say
the date is undisputed. I keep coming across the date of
November 1792. But you write that the original story was from
Renward Cysat, who died in 1614. I think one of us is missing
something here, and the sources you so kindly mention are quite
obscure so I can't check this out myself.


Chris Aubeck








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 26

                    Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 16:53:19 +0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 17:54:18 -0500
Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Rimmer


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Clark
 >Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 12:01:59 -0600

 >>Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 22:18:14 +0000
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment

 >>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >John,

 >>>I made the mistake of urging you to conduct yourself more
 >>>professionally, in the interests of keeping your case --
 >>>whenever you condescend to let the rest of us hear it -- from
 >>>being prejudged, as the product of a wildly biased, even
 >>>immature partisan. In other words, someone so emotionally
 >>>attached to his beliefs that his investigations are intended not
 >>>to uncover truth but to humiliate perceived enemies. I was
 >>>trying to _help_ you. My mistake, and one I will not make
 >>>again..

 >>>Go ahead and keep acting, as you have done here again, true to
 >>>form, Andy. Pound the chest. Taunt. Ridicule. Boast. And the
 >>>rest of us will judge your forthcoming report accordingly.

 >>Wouldn't it be best to judge the report by what's actually in
 >>it?

 >Andy's behavior, of course, raises the interesting question: Is
 >his case sufficiently weak that, before it is even laid out in
 >print, he has to ridicule and taunt potential critics into
 >silence? At the very least, John, we are seeing in Andy's
 >behavior a disturbing absence of professionalism. And if it did
 >not violate the pelicanist code, which forbids criticism of
 >another pelicanist's excesses however egregious, I'm sure even
 >pelicanists would agree that Andy is doing himself no good.


I'm reminded of the chest-beating comments that were posted on
UpDates before the Sturrock Report was published, about how
psychosocial ufologists were going to "take in in the chops",
how it would finish off the sceptics, and so on and so forth, by
a certain, er, Jerome Clark

--
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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 26

                           Re: Lakenheath - Clarke

From: Dave Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 17:10:00 -0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 17:58:08 -0500
Subject: Re: Lakenheath - Clarke


 >From: Georgina Bruni <georgina@easynet.co.uk>
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Lakenheath
 >Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 15:30:31 -0000

 >>From: Dave Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Lakenheath
 >>Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 20:40:51 -0000

Greetings Georgina,

 >>I'm as well informed as the next journalist....
 >
 >I don't think so David. In fact I know you aren't.

Oh you do, do you? Well let's hope your sources for UFO stories
are better than your journalistic ones.

Being an 'uninformed journalist' has obviously done wonders for
my career over this past decade. Perhaps if Georgina would like
to come along to the Hilton Hotel in central London on March 13
she might get to see how this 'uninformed journalist' managed to
get his PR team shortlisted for the "Communications Team of the
Year Award" - one of the most prestigious Public Relations
Awards in this country!

Being 'uninformed' didn't stop me getting my expose of a multi-
million pound scam which put condemned pet food onto dinner
tables across Britain onto TV screens across the world (ITN,
BBC, Channel 4, NBC news), and lead story in virtually every
national broadsheet (Guardian, Times, Telegraph, Mail and
Express) just before Christmas.

Press Awards (Feature Writer of the Year, Yorkshire Press Awards
1993) aren't usually given out to 'uninformed' journalists,
neither does the Daily Mail give pg 1 splash ('Nuclear waste
shipped by air scandal' 1995) status to stories from such
uninformed sources.

I could go on but don't want to be accused of bragging, a vice
which one could never accuse Georgina of being guilty of - not!

 >>The fact remains that if the revelations in your Rendlesham book
 >>were as earth shattering and had worried people in high places
 >>as much as you claim, then the story should have been on BBC
 >>news or at least rated lead story status in one of the _quality_
 >>nationals (it did get a mention in the Ariadne column in the
 >>Independent, but that does not count in this context).

 >Actually, it was the lead story in that column _twice_ and the
 >biggest piece ever written. It did worry people in high places
 >but I'm not about to disclose that information at this time.

No doubt the information will be disclosed when it comes to
writing up your next book? You really gave the game away in your
last posting when you said "who ever told you there is no money
to be made from UFOs".

It should be obvious to everyone that you are not interested in
whether the Rendlesham story is credible or not. In fact it
serves your purposes to perpetuate the mystery, not to solve it.
If you solve it it takes away the prospect of more books,
lecture tours and TV appearances. That's why you chose the News
of the World, because all that matters is how many books you
sell, not whether anyone takes what you're saying seriously!

 >NOTW piece was serial, but what actually happened with regard to
 >the others was that I was holding back because there was a
 >review and interview scheduled to appear in the MOD journal
 >FOCUS and for reasons I won't mention, it was better to play it
 >down with the media so as not to jeopardise these items
 >appearing. However, this was pulled when word of the book
 >reached the 6th floor. Not only that but the journalists from
 >the Times, Guardian and other press were not allowed into the
 >launch at the MOD. In fact all press were refused, the only
 >press who made it were those who had already RSVPd, and you know
 >that journalists are always the last to accept invitations.

If journalists were as interested and impressed by your stories
as you claim - then how come so few of them could be bothered to
put pen to paper?

The facts are that _not one_ serious national broadsheet felt
the revelations in your book were worthy of a single news item,
even in a lighthearted fashion. The same can be said of the TV
coverage.

As for the News of the World "investigation" - the use of that
word in this context is an insult to investigative journalism.
The story they printed last November didn't display one iota of
basic investigation - it was clearly directly re-written from a
Press Release sent to the paper by your publisher. I very much
doubt that the paper had even bothered to pick up a phone to ask
a single question of a single source.

It's the sort of piece my news editor used to call "easy copy."

You may think I'm attacking you, but actually I'm disappointed.
The best way to get to the truth is by allowing a _credible_
national newspaper to take the story on. But you chose the News
of the World because it might sell you more copies of your book.

I rest my valise.

 >On the contrary, in fact even I am amazed at the amount of
 >interest coming from scientists who have read the book and taken
 >it very seriously indeed. I have also learnt a great deal more
 >about this subject as a result of that. With regard to
 >investigative journalists, I am also amazed at the amount of
 >interest received from my colleagues who have been very helpful
 >in pointing me in other directions which is helping with further
 >research in this field.

But of course, I wager not _one_ of these scientists and
investigative journalists would stand up and allow their names
to be associated with your claims about time-travellers, would
they? Anyone can quote 'unamed sources' who have made polite
noises during cocktail parties to make themselves sound
important. It doesn't impress me.

 >With regard to the Establishment, in
 >case you hadn't noticed Lord Hill Norton used the book to ask
 >Questions in the House of Lords and although the Answers
 >recorded in the Hansard records were disappointing, they have
 >led to new information which I hope will prompt more Questions.
 >So all of your assumptions are so far erroneous..

My assumption is far from erroneous. As John Rimmer pointed out
in an earlier posting, your 'spin' on the House of Lords
questions simply distorted what was _actually_ said - which was
precisely nothing! The MOD simply said what they have always
said, that nothing of defence significance occurred. Making such
a meal of the fact that the MOD told the US Air Force about your
book is just typical of your attitude - even the most innocent
and routine developments are 'interpreted' in the most
sensational of ways.

And as for Lord Hill Norton - is this the same former Chief of
Defence Staff who likes to write forwards to popular UFO books
supporting the idea of a "cover-up" of UFO secrets and yet when
put on the spot by the BBC in 1982 and asked that surely in his
position he would have been aware of a cover-up, replied:

"I think I ought to have known, but I certainly didn't, and, had
I known, I would not of course be allowed on an interview like
this to say so."

Must be a pretty good cover-up if even the Chief of Defence
Staff didn't know about it! If he didn't know then who did?
Perhaps it was a secret that went as high up as the Queen
herself? No doubt with such an informed seeker after the truth
on your case your investigation will go far!

While I'm here, and to put in context Lord Hill Norton's rather
confused views on UFOs, I'll tell you what one of _my_
Establishment contacts told me privately about UFOs.

Air Marshall Sir Timothy Garden KCB is the former assistant
Chief of Defence Staff and Director of the Royal Institute of
International Affairs. He is now visiting Professor at the
Centre of Defence Studies, King's College, London, and has
extensive knowledge of European Defence and Security Policy.

His views on UFOs and the alleged cover-up? Well to be polite,
like most defence chiefs, he treats the whole thing as a joke.

"Nobody in MOD seemed greatly interested in them as far as I
recall. In my flying career I can only remember one pilot
submitting one of these reports, and he caused much amusement
amongst his colleagues as a result. I can certainly think of no
connections between such reports and the development of European
defence policy."

I suggest Georgina that you get out more and collect a more
representative sample of official viewpoints with regards UFOs.
Like most pro-UFO writers, you are very selective in your use of
quotes - using pro-UFO viewpoints but ignoring those which do
not support what you are claiming.

And beware what people tell you at cocktail parties - especially
after they have had one or two and have a dry sense of humour!

 >If you had read the book you would realise that Williams _never_
 >talked to the NOTW and that this was the first time he had gone
 >public.

So you are now saying that the News of the World was such a
credible media source that they were capable of "inventing" a
quote from Gordon Williams back in 1983.

That doesn't say much for their standards or credibility
does it?

But of course, the journalistic standards of that newspaper
had changed dramatically by the time they ran your
story last November.

 >>So your point is?

 >Well, I shall answer with a quote from a Dale Carnegie book:

 >'Unjust criticism is often a disguised compliment. It often
 >means that you have aroused jealousy and envy. Remember that no
 >one ever kicks a dead dog.'

Jealousy and envy might be appropriate if there was anything to
be jealous or envious of.

As I have demonstrated, your book contains nothing new and takes
the Rendlesham farce no further in terms of human understanding.

Perhaps when you have produced a few more books and learned how
to accept contructive criticism in a more gracious way (your
reaction to Jenny's Fortean Times piece - the only informed
review your book has had so far - did not do you any favours),
you might demonstrate a more mature approach to the debate.

In the meantime, I shall answer you with one of my favourite
quotes which sums up my attitude to your book. It comes from
Bertrand Russell who once wrote:

"Man is a credulous animal and must believe in _something_; in
the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisified
with bad ones."


Ta-ta for now,

Dave Clarke










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 26

                        [SO] Photo of Stars on Moon!

From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
Date: 25 Feb 2001 09:18:12 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 19:06:56 -0500
Subject: [SO] Photo of Stars on Moon!




------- Start of forwarded message -------

Subject: [Fwd: [SO] Photo of Stars on Moon!]
To: skywatcher22@space.com
From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 08:36:05 -0800

Billy Baty wrote:

Hello all,

I have found a photo of an astronaut on the moon which includes
stars in the background. Curiously, I found a photo only a few
frames away from the first which has the stars blackened out.
The antenna on the astronaut's backpack has also been blackened
out, as well as portions of the horizon.

The photo came from a NASA Website and I guess it will render
useless the argument that stars did not photograph well in the
brightness, which is the official explanation.

Please have a look: http://wwpg.net/moona.html . There are zooms
where one can see the stars in the astronaut's visor.

All the best,

Billy Baty

P.S. In my archive (from NASA) I also have photos that clearly
show what may be ice and snow around and close to the moon's
polar regions. There are indications in some of the photos that
there was once a great flood on the moon similar to that on Mars
(and Earth?!) Bookmark the site and I will post these NASA
photographs as soon as I can get around to it.

http://wwpg.net/moona.html



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

"What could be stranger than the truth?"

Skywatch International Inc. and this list service are not
responsible for content or authenticity of posts.

Please read our LIST POSTING RULES located at this URL:
http://www.skywatch-international.org/skyopenfaq.htm

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank message to:
SkyOpen-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Visit the Skywatch International Inc. website!
http://www.skywatch-international.org

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

--
Bill
Hamilton
Executive Director
Skywatch International, Inc.
Website: home.earthlink.net/~skywatcher22









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 26

                  Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 17:21:08 -0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 21:39:37 -0500
Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Hall


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Lehmberg
 >Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 15:22:45 -0600

 >My objections to ET Is Everywhere in Great Numbers and Now They
 >Are Here, Too! are personal and based solely on my own take and
 >experience of the present. They are way too complicated to get
 >into now, and would probably bore half the people on this List
 >to death in any event.

 >But I can summarize them. The computer, for example, has greatly
 >affected my life. Whether it be for better or worse may be
 >arguable, but the fact of the computer and its day to day impact
 >or influence is not.

 >I can see that it's here, in front of me. If I want, I can even
 >try to sell other people on its usefulness. If I want to add a
 >hard drive, I can, if I want to learn how to program the thing,
 >I can. I can learn everything about its history, including the
 >inventions that eventually led up to it, along with the names of
 >every individual involved. I can take it apart and handle and
 >identify every component part. In theory, there is no question I
 >can put to the computer as such, the answer to which can't be
 >provided.

 >This is not the case with the UFO=ET hypothesis, for any number
 >of reasons which it doesn't take a curmudgeon to point out. Au
 >contraire, the case is exactly the opposite: I can't get a good,
 >definitive answer to *any* single question I put to UFOs as
 >such. Q: What do they look like? A: You name it! Q: How do they
 >behave? A: You name it! Q: Where are they from and how? A: You
 >name it! And, unfortunately, so on.

 >In the same vein, the presence of intelligent lifeforms on this
 >planet from another world would arguably be the profoundest
 >thing that could happen during my lifetime. Yet when I look
 >around for examples or experience of that potential profundity
 >in my own life and the world around me I get, in the main,
 >vapor. Books, pictures, *some* evidence, yes, but no keyboard or
 >hard drive, if you know what I mean.

 >In the same vein, I don't see any behavioral evidence on a large
 >scale that we are being visited. Governments and air forces
 >behave pretty much like they "always" have, near as I can tell.
 >The sun still comes up in the east and sets in the west, the
 >paper is in the driveway, and my kid still needs a ride to
 >school.

 >Sorry to be such a stiff, but my disillusionment didn't occur
 >overnight. I've been a ufologist as long, if not longer, as most
 >posters on this board. I've simply come to the observation that
 >what should be the most profound thing in my life has the least
 >impact in terms of my experience of life. I find that somewhat
 >strange and upsidedown.

Dennis,

I may have missed something in the past, but anyway I am glad to
see this statement of your position. Over my 45 years in the
field I have seen others reach a state of "disillusionment,"
burnout, whatever, and I can understand that emotionally and
psychologically having been through a short period of it myself.
It is an interesting statement and provides the grounds for
future discussion as time permits.


Dick








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 26

                          Re: AA Film Redux - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 12:47:34 -0600
Fwd Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 21:46:36 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Evans


 >From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 14:24:37 -0800
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Gehrman
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 18:47:09 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, I has written:

 >>Isn't that the point of this whole discussion? You're looking
 >>for needles of truth in a haystack layered with suspicion and
 >>doubt. Wouldn't it be better to get one simple question answered
 >>by the man that will benefit the most than to try and solve
 >>hundreds of other secondary questions that won't prove anything?
 >>More to the point; doesn't it piss you off that Santilli and
 >>company won't bother to help you exonerate them?

Ed replied:

 >First of all, we're not trying to exonerate Ray. We're trying to
 >establish the legitimacy of the AA footage. Whether Ray and
 >company benefit is secondary. I don't think you understand. Ray
 >is not pushing our efforts in any way. He has made it clear that
 >he does not want to be bothered with our investigations.

Ed,

First off you _are_ the biggest defender of Ray, despite his
track record of deception and avoidance of responsibility
regarding AA. I think 'exonerate' is a pretty good description.
Second off I don't think _you_ understand: Ray is not pushing
your efforts in any way. He has made it clear that he does not
want to be bothered with your investigations.

Doesn't that, in itself, tell you something?

Continuing, Ed wrote:

 >I agree that it would be extremely helpful if he simply gave us
 >a section of the footage so it could be checked by experts for
 >authenticity but that isn't going to happen. He must have his
 >own reasons for not cooperating, but has not shared these with
 >me.

Again, doesn't that, in itself, tell you something?

 >I speculate that he was frightened by his visit with US
 >authorities but it could well be Volker's idiosyncrasy, or some
 >other factors we haven't considered. We just don't know why
 >they're being so uncooperative concerning the testing. Knowing
 >Ray, I feel he would help us out if he could.

But you really don't know Ray, Ed. Yes perhaps you've
communicated with him about something that he would like to
forget about, but how can you say that you know the man and what
his thought process are? Action speak louder than words.
In-action speaks even more. In that sense, Santilli has said
plenty.

Finally, regarding the emulsion-side question, I wrote:

 >>The value of this information is that we don't even need to see
 >>the alien on the footage. If the results match, it does not
 >>necessarily validate the cameraman's story or AA. However, if we
 >>accept that the sample clip is _supposed_ to be from the AA
 >>footage and the calculated result for the placement of the
 >>emulsion does not match the origin given by the cameraman, then
 >>the guy is simply lying (not 'mistaken') and that would be
 >>definitive.

Ed replied:

 >This brings up a problem that the AA skeptics have failed to
 >elaborate on in any detail. If the cameraman is lying about the
 >history of the footage and his involvement with it, then he must
 >have created the hoaxed footage and Ray and Volker were conned.
 >But why would he create something like this, and then sell it
 >for 100 grand when it probably would have cost him at least that
 >much to produce.

This is simply not true and repeating it over and over does not
make it so, Ed. Again, I produced a very silly feature film
called 'Forever Evil' with over 30 actors that ran 120 minutes
back in 1987. It was shot on 16mm film, played on USA twice that
I know of and is still available on VHS from VCI Home Video.

120 minutes, Ed. That's two hours. And the total budget was only
$120,000. I am not saying that this film was any good; more to
the point it was not. But it had mucho special make-up effects
that were on par with anything seen in AA. To keep up the notion
that AA would cost so much money to produce is a lie that you
promote to make it seem out of reach of any hoaxer. It goes hand
in hand with the false idea that Santilli would not have any
reason to believe he could make money off of AA in face of the
fact that it was a featured special on the FOX network. You
think that Santilli let Fox use it for free?

Now, you claim you want to get to the bottom of AA. Okay, ask
Santilli for the film clip that Bob looked at or, perhaps,
another from the film. Also ask him if the cameraman shot
positive or negative film. Within these two simple questions we
can tell if the cameraman is lying.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 26

              Re: Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy' - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 14:03:30 -0600
Fwd Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 21:50:46 -0500
Subject: Re: Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy' - Evans


 >From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 20:01:09 EST
 >Subject: Re: NASA - Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy' -
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously I had written:

 >>>The "fake-moon-landing" proponents (foonies?) ironically take
 >>>the opposite stance. They look at the lack of stars as a sign of
 >>>fakery when, in fact, a starless sky is _exactly_ what one would
 >>>see if on the moon during the "day" just like here on Earth.

David replied:

 >Please note that Roger uses the word "see" here, not
 >"photograph," though he now claims the "context" was not about
 >"seeing" but photographing. Notice he also refers to the sky as
 >"starless" both on the moon and Earth in daylight.

 >The reason one can't "see" or photograph stars here on Earth in
 >daylight is because of light scatter off the atmosphere. You
 >can't photograph stars here on Earth during daytime no matter
 >what exposure you use.

 >>In fact, if the earth had no atmosphere, the very same problems would
 >>apply to pictures taken here as they would on the moon.

 >Oh really? You think? This is just King Roger again trying to
 >bluster his way out of another tight spot by pretending he knew
 >what he was talking about all along.


 >Does Roger really believe anybody thinks he was comparing an
 >airless daylit Earth to the daylit Moon? You can't "see" or
 >photograph stars on Earth during daytime for completely
 >different reasons than those on the Moon. The Earth has an
 >atmosphere that scatters light. The moon doesn't.

<snip of more Rudiak nonsense>

 >You tried to cover up your ignorance as best you could, but in
 >the end you just had to open your big mouth again and blow your
 >cover. The Earth's atmosphere has _everything_ to do with why
 >you can't "see" or photograph stars on Earth in daylight.

David, David, David.

Why do you do this to yourself?

Even with the above snip, we can count no less than 3 times that
David says we can not see any stars during the day because of
the atmosphere.

Hoo, boy....

The sun _is_ a star, big guy. We see it just fine, during the
day, even with the naked eye. We don't see the other stars
because they are too far away and, therefore, too dim to compete
with the intensity of the sun. If the other stars were closer
and, therefore, just as bright we'd see them during the day, as
well. The atmosphere does do what you say it does, just like the
sun bouncing off the white hood of a car. But it is not the
reason that we can't see the other stars. The reason lies with
the stars, themselves, and their proximity to the earth.

Even at night, without the symptom you describe, the atmosphere
still exists. The only thing that changes is the balance of the
lighting. Even so, we can't see _every_ star that's out there.
The reason is the same. Some stars are too far away and,
therefore, too dim to register in our eyes, much less
photographs. Likewise, at the end of the day, some of the
brighter stars begin to penetrate the atmosphere, even though it
is still "daylight" outside. Of course, I guess we can't see
those other "suns", either, using David's logic.

Again, repeat after me David, the sun is a star. The sun
penetrates the atmosphere just fine. We can see the star we call
the "sun" just fine. Therefore, we can see any star that is
close enough and bright enough to penetrate the atmosphere.
Therefore, your assertions about not being able to see any stars
during the day is wrong.

Despite all this blustering, David writes:

 >Of course, now you're trying to cover your tracks by talking
 >about a "properly exposed" photo, whereas your original
 >statement was about how you couldn't "see" stars on the moon in
 >daylight because, well gee, the sky is "starless" during the
 >day, isn't it, just like back on good old Earth. Roger was
 >brilliant; the "phoonies" were idiots.

Again, the context was why photos and video don't show any stars
in them. If my saying "see" confused you, I'm not surprised.
After all you are, without a doubt, the only person I've known
that apparently believes that the sun is not a star and is
something different. According to you, we can't see stars... but
we can see the sun! Typical Rudiak reasoning. Again, in case you
missed the news, the sun _is_ a star.

And finally this gem:

 >BTW, Roger, how are those Trent photo reproductions coming? How
 >long has it been, about 6 months, to "easily" reproduce those
 >photos? If it's taken clever Roger this long and still no
 >results, the much less clever Paul Trent must have spent years
 >practicing his hoax until he got it just right.

Two issues, here, David.

One is that Trent already had the mirror in his possession and
didn't have to please anybody with his choice. We're still
looking for a mirror that we feel Bruce would accept as a match.
Technique is not an issue for delay.

Second, not that it's any business of yours, David, but I've got
a business to run, a child that's had surgery and a father
that's deathly ill. As far as I'm concerned, you need to get a
life and stop hovering over your computer email, looking for
every opportunity to try and "gig" me. Your constant display of
illogic combined with your obsessive need to play king of the
hill is, frankly, pathetic.

Careful that you don't get "star-burned" this summer, smart guy. ;)

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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 26

                 Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Stacy

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 15:09:44 -0600
Fwd Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 21:57:37 -0500
Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Stacy


 >From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 22:00:09 EST
 >Subject: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >There have also been a few erudite books written about UFOs as
 >well (e.g. Richard Hall's "The UFO Evidence), including
 >information from military and government leakers. If there
 >hadn't been leakers, there wouldn't be people like you to
 >denounce them all as liars or deluded, would there?


Ah, the ever hospitable David Rudiak!

Perhaps you could tell me the names of a few government and
military leakers I've denounced as liars or deluded? I do
remember having some rather unpleasant things to say about Corso
and his Ultimate Leak. But while we're at it, maybe you could
enlighten this List as to whether you think Bob Lazar, William
Cooper, or Robert Dean might fall into either (or both) of those
categories?

 >This is a UFO discussion group, is it not? The subject hasn't
 >been secret for some time. The contention, however, is that the
 >_best_ evidence, the type of evidence that might convince even
 >you (then again, maybe not) is still in government/military
 >hands and that is what remains secret. This would include
 >bodies, crash debris, unequivocal film footage, incriminating
 >documents, etc., etc.

I would think, after all that, that there wouldn't be much etc.,
etc. left!

 >Right, and there _have_ been hundreds of leakers who have come
 >forth, every one of them condemned as liars, sociopaths, senile,
 >deluded, confused, uncorroborated, etc.

This is hyperbole, right? If not, maybe you could list just a
hundred leakers who fall into these categories, along with proof
that each and every one was so labeled by someone somewhere
sometime.

 >By denying that there are any true leakers, you can continue to write posts
 >to UFO groups and claim that since there are no leakers as you would expect,
 >UFOs can't be real. It's a wonderful closed logic system.

Yes, but that doesn't necessarily make it my logic system. UFOs
could still be real, and that wouldn't necessarily imply that we
must have alien bodies on ice somewhere. My point was, simply,
that if we indeed have all this stuff under tight wraps, then
it's possible to imagine the release of something that would be
so incontrovertible as to render moot what anyone thought of the
leaker. To my knowledge that hasn't happened yet -- for any
number of reasons that might apply. Your argument is one, and
the possibility that we don't actually have any bodies or crash
debris to divulge is another.

Moreover, your basic assumptions apply only to the theoretical
stuff in our vaults. Who or what is there to gurantee that other
countries/leaders wouldn't behave differently? Might not a
cash-strapped Montenegro, to think of but one example, auction
off a recovered crashed disk and bodies to the highest bidder?

The single most glaring weakness that the UFO secret keepers are
always overlooking is the fact that the US Air Force doesn't
rule the world, and neither does a mythical (or real) MJ-12.
It's plausible to imagine any number of potential UFO events
that could never have been kept secret in the first place --
such as the crash of a UFO in downtown Manhattan yesterday. Yet,
somehow, all UFO crashes have been so "convenient" that all
Project Moondust, or whoever, had to do was rush in, seal off
the site, and haul everything away to the Pentagon's secret UFO
vault, or vaults as the case now may be, there having been more
UFO crashes than I can conscientiously keep track of. Strange,
innit?

 >According to Las Vegas TV journalist George Knapp, who has
 >covered both organized crime and UFOs, Mafia insiders are far
 >more willing to talk about organized crime than
 >government/military insiders are about what they know about
 >UFOs. The UFO insiders he has described as often being terrified
 >and extremely reluctant to divulge any information.

Makes for good TV, doesn't it? Also makes you wonder why they
would risk talking to Knapp in the first place, if this were
indeed the case. And isn't this the same Knapp who went to
Moscow and simply bought official UFO documents. Guess the
Soviets couldn't quite put the fear into their leakers that we
can. Now that I think about it, I don't remember seeing Bob
Lazar shaking in his boots when he was being interviewed by
Knapp, either.

 >Now assuming Knapp isn't another of those liars, this is rather
 >remarkable. The Mafia code of silence includes the penalty of
 >death for violating it. But according to Knapp, the UFO
 >insiders were generally more frightened than the Mafia
.insiders.

 >An insidious security system to keep the biggest of the big
 >secrets would probably deter most potential leakers.

Knapp should know, I guess. And before you accuse me of calling
Knapp a liar, that's not what I said. If he said somebody said
something, then I believe him. I might quibble with his source,
however, and his definition of "UFO insiders."

 >>Just yesterday they had a program on National Public Radio
 >>in the wake of the latest FBI security breach. Some expert
 >>on same said that there were four reasons for divulging
 >>secrets,ideology, money, and thrill-seeking. Unfortunately,
 >>I can't remember the fourth right now -- or maybe it's a secret!

 >Maybe it's conscience in some cases?

Actually, I think you're right.

 >Since you bring up the topic of Ellsberg, I also remember
 >Nixon's "plumbers" breaking into the office of Ellsberg's
 >psychiatrist hoping to find material to either discredit
 >Ellsberg or blackmail him. That's one example of how an
 >insidious security system can operate. There are many ways to
 >frighten people into silence.

Yes, and my point was that Ellsberg _wasn't_ silenced. He knew
exactly the risks he was running, as you admit below.

 >As for Ellsberg's motivation in leaking the Pentagon Papers, it
 >seems to have been one almost entirely one of conscience. Money,
 >glory, ideology, etc. don't seem to have entered into it at all.
 >In fact he knew full well that by becoming a whistleblower and
 >leaking top secret information he was risking jail and forever
 >destroying his high-level career in government.

Absolutely agreed.

 >Ellsberg also testified before Congress in 1973 about numerous
 >security clearances (some of which he had) that went beyond mere
 >top secret (in another interview I read he referred to the
 >material as "above top secret"). He spoke of the extreme
 >compartmentalization of these secrets. Greg Sandow posted some
 >of this very interesting testimony to Updates Dec. 18, 1996.
 >See:

 >http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1996/dec/m18-002.shtml

 >Amongst Ellsberg's statements were descriptions of numerous
 >secured reading rooms in the Pentagon housing our nations
 >deepest and darkest secrets. Only a handful of people might know
 >of the existence of any given room much less be granted access
 >to it. As a high-level defense analyst serving the President,
 >the Secretary of Defense, and the National Security Advisor,
 >Ellsberg was one of these selected few.

 From the FWIW department, I recently read the second volume of
Ian Kershaw's 2-volume biography of Hitler, "Hitler: 1936-1945
Nemesis." In it, Kershaw attributes the original
compartmentalization of intelligence to Hitler himself. I assume
that to be the case, but I wasn't aware of it.

<Another snip; there have been several already.>

 >To this we could add that the whole subject of UFOs has been
 >bathed in ridicule for a very long time. There is natural human
 >incredulously over some of the mindboggling inplications to UFO
 >reality, not to mention fear and psychological denial. If Daniel
 >Ellsberg had gone to the NY Times and instead said he had seen
 >Top Secret documents about crashed saucers and alien autopsies,
 >I seriously doubt the Times would have paid him any attention.

 >And that's how big secrets can be kept.

 >David

Yes, but he didn't go to the NY Times and tell them he had seen
the Pentagon Papers: he gave them his copy. Very big difference.

You can seriously doubt what the Times might have done all you
want. Few people in this field tend to recall that the Times
actually did a very large (continued over two pages), evenhanded
treatment of the MJ-12 document when it first surfaced. If
memory serves, it ran in the Tuesday Science Times section.
Stanton Friedman probably has a copy in his files. Actually,
I've got a copy in my files -- or would have if I had files, as
opposed to a mountain of miscellaneous clippings and papers.
Which is my secret to keeping secrets: hide 'em from yourself.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 26

                         Re: Tell The People - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 21:06:20 -0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 21:59:46 -0500
Subject: Re: Tell The People - Hall


 >From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >To: "02 - UFO UpDates Subscribers":;
 >Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Tell The People - Gehrman
 >Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 13:20:50 -0500

 >From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Tell The People
 >Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 16:09:47 -0800

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Tell The People
 >>Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 14:02:56 -0000

 >>For example, there is a huge difference between alleged Reichian
 >>"cloud-busting" (pseudoscience)and seeding of clouds to produce
 >>precipitation (real science).

 >Richard,

 >Have you read or do you understand Reich's ideas and writings?
 >Cloud-busting is not a pseudo-science. I realize cloud-busting
 >sounds crazy, but most modern science was considered flotsam and
 >jetsam at one time or another.


Ed,

Yes, I have read Reich and clashed with his lunatic disciples.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this. Orgone energy to you!


Dick








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 26

                         Re: Lakenheath - Salvaille

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 16:29:55 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 22:02:31 -0500
Subject: Re: Lakenheath - Salvaille


 >From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Lakenheath
 >Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 20:38:04 -0000

 >>From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Lakenheath
 >>Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 13:14:19 -0800

Hello Jenny,

Interesting prospects...

<snip>

 >>Let me to point out Jenny that you've been providing the List
 >>with tidbits of the UFOIN report for more than a week now. You
 >>have also been presenting some of the conclusions of the same
 >>report.

 >Hi,

 >Sorry, but I have not. I have reported the gist of what the air
 >crew told me in l996  - that's all - and that their data, in my
 >opinion, effects one's judgement of the case because it rules out
 >several fundamental aspects of the story that were formerly
 >believed to be true.

 >I have provided no conclusions of the full report nor indeed any
 >discussion of its primary content because it isn't written yet
 >and I haven't reached any specific conclusions on it myself.

<snip>

 >I have done no such thing and offered no previews of the
 >conclusions to the report largely because there are no
 >conclusions written for me to preview! Nor have I stated that
 >this report is definitive research.

<snip>

 >But I have not previewed the many other things in the report  -
 >which will be a comprehensive review of the case and we are
 >trying to make sure it pre-empts the inevitable questions folk
 >like you will ask by covering all obvious angles before release.
 >That's all.

<snip>

You will find in addendum extracts of some of your previous
posts on Lakenheath. They definitely prove that:

1. I'm full of it: your never hinted conclusions of the UFOIN
report;

2. I'm doubly full of it: you have not yet made up you mind yet
on the Lakenheath case.

<snip>

 >>Can you blame people from being a little annoyed by this?

 >Who is 'annoyed' apart from you? I expect others appreciate any
 >illumination we can bring and answers to questions we can
 >provide.

<snip>

No, I'm not annoyed anymore.

And don't think I'm pissed off. Why should I be?

I am just humbled by such awesome display of honesty and your
clear intellect.

Honest.

Just read the addendum.

<snip>

 >But, fine, if not and you are annoyed I will shut up and say no
 >more in an effort to try to help.

<snip>

Nonononono!

Please don't abandon your crusade against lies, distortion and
arrogance. Holy shit, you've just saved me from same.

Ufology needs you.

Best wishes,

Serge Salvaille

______________________
Addendum

http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2001/feb/m16-003.shtml
(To Andy Roberts)

 >Indeed - by delicious irony - I have been the only one of the
 >four involved in this case to have retained a view that
 >something unexplained might have occurred that night. In fact so
 >much so that right up until this week I was arguing against one
 >explanation with my co-researchers - as they will all attest.

 >I was doing so - it transpired - from a faulty premise. I now
 >accept that they were probably right and I was probably wrong.

<snip>

 >And for the record I am certainly not a debunker. I still think
 >that there are unsolved cases and novel phenomena behind some
 >events.  But you have to view the evidence for each case as it
 >stands individually and say so when any case clearly fails.

 >Lakenheath 1956 is far from the case we all once thought it was.

 >But clinging to it as a definitive moment in UFO history (as I
 >once thought it was) is simply not going to be credible any
 >more. Nobody is more sorry to have to accept that than I am.

http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2001/feb/m18-014.shtml
(To Richard Hall)

 >I have long argued (see several of my earlier books) that
 >Lakenheath was a highly impressive case. I'd be delighted to say
 >that were still true after this investigation and don't have any
 >vested interest in making my own prior comments about it look
 >inappropriate. But that's the way the cookie crumbled and what
 >do you expect me to do but honestly tell you that?

 >Facts here decree what they do and after my conversations with
 >several direct eye witnesses (who all tell a consistent story)
 >it would be foolish of me to say other than that this case is
 >not what we thought it was. That's a fair summation of the data.

http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2001/feb/m19-012.shtml
(To Georgina Bruni)

 >This is not a
 >threat or shady tactic - its merely a statement of the situation
 >offered by me in friendship to you all to stop anyone making
 >themselves look foolish as they will do if they try to insist
 >the air crew offer even a shred of suspicion that they saw
 >something.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 26

               Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 16:29:27 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 22:07:02 -0500
Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Mortellaro



 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 15:22:45 -0600

 >>From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:13:46 -0600

 >>Snip

 >My objections to ET Is Everywhere in Great Numbers and Now They
 >Are Here, Too! are personal and based solely on my own take and
 >experience of the present. They are way too complicated to get
 >into now, and would probably bore half the people on this List
 >to death in any event.

 >Snip

Dennis argues the point of touchy-feely computers and adds...

 >This is not the case with the UFO=ET hypothesis, for any number
 >of reasons which it doesn't take a curmudgeon to point out. Au
 >contraire, the case is exactly the opposite: I can't get a good,
 >definitive answer to *any* single question I put to UFOs as
 >such. Q: What do they look like? A: You name it! Q: How do they
 >behave? A: You name it! Q: Where are they from and how? A: You
 >name it! And, unfortunately, so on.

 >In the same vein, the presence of intelligent lifeforms on this
 >planet from another world would arguably be the profoundest
 >thing that could happen during my lifetime. Yet when I look
 >around for examples or experience of that potential profundity
 >in my own life and the world around me I get, in the main,
 >vapor. Books, pictures, *some* evidence, yes, but no keyboard or
 >hard drive, if you know what I mean.

 >I apologize for not having been abducted. But as Gurdjieff said,
 >there are two ends to the world, Greater and Lesser. The latter
 >is when someone else dies, the Greater End to the World is when
 >you yourself die.

 >In the same vein, I don't see any behavioral evidence on a large
 >scale that we are being visited. Governments and air forces
 >behave pretty much like they "always" have, near as I can tell.
 >The sun still comes up in the east and sets in the west, the
 >paper is in the driveway, and my kid still needs a ride to
 >school.

 >Sorry to be such a stiff, but my disillusionment didn't occur
 >overnight. I've been a ufologist as long, if not longer, as most
 >posters on this board. I've simply come to the observation that
 >what should be the most profound thing in my life has the least
 >impact in terms of my experience of life. I find that somewhat
 >strange and upsidedown.

 >It could be argued -- as Jim Deardorff does -- that aliens are
 >visiting us yet not causing any planetary impacts precisely
 >because that is their intention.

 >Hard to argue with that, except to say that it seems another
 >example of where the cart might have gotten ahead of the horse.

 >Mind, I don't even require that extraordinary evidence accompany
 >extraordinary claims -- I'd settle simply for good, convincing
 >evidence of an incontrovertible (or demonstrable) nature.

 >Snip

Dear Dennis, Al, Listers and Errol,

Perhaps the purpose of ET is not to present the same reality as
we attempt to present to ourselves as entertainment. In the
forties and fifties, radio was the medium. You had to sit there
and listen to the sounds, and from the sounds, create your own
reality of what was happening to Sam Spade, Private Eye. Or
Lum's closet. Or folks marching around Don MacNeil's Breakfast
Table. It was imagination which precluded the enjoyment of
radio. Made you think. _YOU_ created your own reality. Designed
the sets. Produced the stars, imagined what they looked like.

Perhaps there is a similar purpose with ET. Assume, please, that
ET is here, just for the sake of argument. I would argue that
those perceptions which presented to me during my own life,
validate a damned good argument for ET's presence. And even in
your own book, Dennis, you present case histories from 1945
through the present, many of which just cannot be explained.
Just think of the plethora of cases which are not reported, and
the wealth of data extant within the minds of literally millions
of us who perceive to be abductees, have had sightings or just
plain believe.

On the assumption that ET is here, then to what end or purpose
is ET here? Why the mystery? And is the government(s) hiding
what they know to be contact between our races? I believe in the
strong _possibility_ of affirmative answers to the above. Yes to
all.

Then why the manner in which ET wishes to be perceived? Could it
be that we are being led, much like a vector has magnitude, it
needs a direction to be one. Maybe as a race of entities, we are
headed in the wrong direction. Maybe we need some guidance and
control. Just enough to provide a push here, a thrust there. To
avoid a collision with the asteroid of our destruction, but on a
spiritual level.

Maybe.

Too New Age and spiritual for your taste? You quoted Deardorff
above ... let me repeat it here, because it is my point...

 >It could be argued -- as Jim Deardorff does -- that aliens are
 >visiting us yet not causing any planetary impacts precisely
 >because that is their intention.

In Strieber's book, The Key, whatever your opinion about the
man, he does present an argument for ET's intervention on a
level which has not (to the best of my Gripple-addled memory)
been presented and discussed here. As Velez opined in another
post about religion, that the subject is just too personal and
deeply rooted to become a dialog here, the same appears to be
true about the more spiritual possibilities of ET and the
abduction phenom, only more so. In this case we can add the
words, "New Age." Cripes, that ought'a do it.

Anyway, it's just another way of looking at it.

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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 26

                Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Lehmberg

From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 17:57:49 -0600
Fwd Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 22:47:13 -0500
Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Lehmberg


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Lehmberg
 >Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 15:22:45 -0600

 >>From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:13:46 -0600

 >>>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>>Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 00:34:23 -0600

 >>>Just give us a few years and we'll be zipping all over the
 >>>universe, just like them dang aliens out there already.

 >>>Right?

 >>>Dennis Stacy

 >>Right, not to put too fine a point on it. I don't know how you
 >>can argue the antithesis given the vertical acceleration of
 >>aggregate potentiality observed in the last few decades. That
 >>potentiality encompasses all eventualities right up to the our
 >>complete destruction, is completely open ended, and the proof of
 >>any curmudgeon's demise. You hang on too desperately to mere
 >>social contrivance of a recent past. The past is a lens that
 >>distorts the future if it is used to justify that something
 >>cannot be done because it hasn't BEEN done. You line up with an
 >>early 20th Century patent office that was going to shut down
 >>because everything that COULD be invented HAD been invented.
 >>...glad we're not waiting around for YOU to invent the next
 >>level processor...

 >Alfred,

 >Actually, it took me about five minutes in front of an old
 >Kaypro II lo these many years ago to realize that computers were
 >the wave of the future. I even played a role in getting the
 >first computer inside MUFON HQ, which wasn't as easy as you
 >might think, so there!

I'm for just pushing the generally insincere civility to the
side for a moment in pursuit of what would should truly
fascinate and consume even the rational. As a member of this
List who is too easily affronted by those with a propensity to
be too quick with a self assured sneer (and lacking Bob Todd to
unload on <g>), I took too hasty issue with what I imagined to
be an appalling lack of vision, imagination, and efficacious
hubris, and further, an opportunity to chide an additional
component of deconstructing, self-limiting, and self-defeating
hubris. Truly, all of your disappointments and frustrations are
self generated. There is plenty to keep the ufological spark
more than just merely alive. What keeps Stanton Friedman going?
What keeps Errol Bruce-Knapp going?

 >My objections to ET Is Everywhere in Great Numbers and Now They
 >Are Here, Too! are personal and based solely on my own take and
 >experience of the present. They are way too complicated to get
 >into now, and would probably bore half the people on this List
 >to death in any event.

I think you would be surprised, sir. I think it would be an
opportunity for a self examination that is always instructive
and valuable. I think it would be a treasure without regard to
which side a reader falls from the ufological _fence_. I would
enjoy the amplification.

 >But I can summarize them. The computer, for example, has greatly
 >affected my life. Whether it be for better or worse may be
 >arguable, but the fact of the computer and its day to day impact
 >or influence is not.

I don't think we have an apt analogy here in the following
paragraph. You're not so much comparing apples and oranges here
as you are comparing gods and the preachers who front for them.
Computers and preachers are something humankind has worked out
for itself. Gods and UFOs have their own timetable, priority,
imperative, and motivation. Apples and cosmic oranges.

 >I can see that it's here, in front of me.

But unless you're a computer scientist it's still a _magic_ box.
The reality of it is something you have made up individually out
of thin air. It has only the meaning that you give it. As your
invention, it is predictable, can be measured, and allows itself
in the box of your perception. Apples and oranges.

 >If I want, I can even
 >try to sell other people on its usefulness. If I want to add a
 >hard drive, I can, if I want to learn how to program the thing,
 >I can. I can learn everything about its history, including the
 >inventions that eventually led up to it, along with the names of
 >every individual involved. I can take it apart and handle and
 >identify every component part. In theory, there is no question I
 >can put to the computer as such, the answer to which can't be
 >provided.

Having accepted the false analogy you continue with its well
worded defense. You express that because your pet will do tricks
for you and follow your commands that it is proof of the
existence of one thing and disproof of the existence of another.
How can that be when these two things actually have no
relationship?

 >This is not the case with the UFO=ET hypothesis, for any number
 >of reasons which it doesn't take a curmudgeon to point out.

You'll have to admit it helps. One with real bad gout... and
hemorrhoids.

 >Au
 >contraire, the case is exactly the opposite: I can't get a good,
 >definitive answer to _any_ single question I put to UFOs as
 >such. Q: What do they look like? A: You name it! Q: How do they
 >behave? A: You name it! Q: Where are they from and how? A: You
 >name it! And, unfortunately, so on.

You aren't answering the questions that you ask fairly, and you
aren't asking the right questions. What do they look like? Well,
they look like the things that I've seen in about eight minutes
of video tape I have boiled down from about eighty hours of
assorted UFO footage. They look like the things artistically
depicted throughout history in ink, paint and stone. They look
like the things described to me by people I trust. They look
like the things flying over my house! Where are they from and
how? How can you expect an answer to that? Does a cat ask where
the Cessna is from and how? Does it have a frame and reference
and an experiential foundation to ask that question? I don't
think it at all likely that we are the crown of even this
'corner' of creation. I think it's a cross purposed fallacy to
presume that we are. Just a cursory glance at the history that
the rank and file are _allowed_ provides abundant demonstration
that we are most, assuredly, not. There is ample evidence that
is physical, photographic, historical, anecdotal, and personal.

The question that goes unasked is why do we allow our government
to be less than forthcoming with us about _anything_...
forgetting UFOs for a moment. The answer to that question begins
to answer to all the rest.

 >In the same vein, the presence of intelligent lifeforms on this
 >planet from another world would arguably be the profoundest
 >thing that could happen during my lifetime.

Profoundly unsettling for homo sap. But there's the problem...
there's the rub. There is the taproot of our denial, our
pretended arrogance, and our obstinate and _assumed_ ignorance.

 >Yet when I look
 >around for examples or experience of that potential profundity
 >in my own life and the world around me I get, in the main,
 >vapor. Books, pictures, _some_ evidence, yes, but no keyboard or
 >hard drive, if you know what I mean.

I think you'll have to admit that there are some thoughts,
concepts, and ideas presently beyond the capability of _some_
UFO researchers.<g> You only admit here that there is a
demonstrable phenomena that won't perform for you like your
K-Pro, so you're going to pull the blankets of your credulity
over your head in a traditionally unsuccessful manner to avoid
the uncomfortable. I mean no disrespect.

 >I apologize for not having been abducted.

My understanding of that conundrum is that you should more
thankful than apologetic... moreover, that flippant apology
could be taken for a sneer, sir. I don't think that's, at all,
justified.

 >But as Gurdjieff said,
 >there are two ends to the world, Greater and Lesser. The latter
 >is when someone else dies, the Greater End to the World is when
 >you yourself die.

Cool quote. I don't get its relevance here, though.

 >In the same vein, I don't see any behavioral evidence on a large
 >scale that we are being visited. Governments and air forces
 >behave pretty much like they "always" have, near as I can tell.

Not at all, they get a lot more attention now, must aspire to
more convolution and cleverness because of that attention, and
at least give lip service to a demonstrated ethical behavior
they never had to even worry about before. The word gets out
quicker and travels faster now than at any time in known
history. We are as Gods to the men and women of just a few
centuries ago, live in virtual Utopia, and have more potential
for satisfaction than _they_ ever did scraping for the manor
lord... Can't you feel this acceleration to propensity that we
are all caught up in? God, but it's exhilarating!

 >The sun still comes up in the east and sets in the west, the
 >paper is in the driveway, and my kid still needs a ride to
 >school.

...and then the asteroid hits. <g>. Reality is a little more
varied than kids and driveway's and even selected suns.

 >Sorry to be such a stiff, but my disillusionment didn't occur
 >overnight.

I understand. Still, while I'll agree that much of 'it is
fake... some of it is not. I would suggest that that fuel your
ongoing ufological epiphany, as it does me.

 >I've been a ufologist as long, if not longer, as most
 >posters on this List.

An appeal to authority that means nothing here, you know that.
C'mon.

 >I've simply come to the observation that
 >what should be the most profound thing in my life has the least
 >impact in terms of my experience of life.

That's the way it's been built for you, for sure. But that's
just part of the game to keep you comfortable in a now tattered
cloak of plausible deniability.

 >I find that somewhat strange and upsidedown.

I find it as predictable as your K-Pro. Forthcomingness _is_ in
opposition to the status-quo. That just slipped out. Sorry. <g>.

 >It could be argued -- as Jim Deardorff does -- that aliens are
 >visiting us yet not causing any planetary impacts precisely
 >because that is their intention.

Hey -- If _we_ can invent the "prime directive" -- anybody can.
And there's good reason for a Prime Directive. Read "Dark Rivers
of the Heart." Forget the author, but it inspired "Apocalypse
Now"

 >Hard to argue with that, except to say that it seems another
 >example of where the cart might have gotten ahead of the horse.

...Just trying to make sense of the aggregate craziness, hoss.
And it matters not the position of the horse, the cart is
without its wheels.

 >Mind, I don't even require that extraordinary evidence accompany
 >extraordinary claims --

Which Jean Van Gemert rationally dismissed as a too "convenient
think cloak", and an excuse for a constantly receding
evidentiary horizon -- a permanent buffer for woundable hubris.

 >I'd settle simply for good, convincing
 >evidence of an incontrovertible (or demonstrable) nature.

It would go a long way to dispel the general uneasiness, sure.
But with your sensibility jerked so ferociously back and forth
across rational credulity how are we ever to have that
incontrovertible proof presented to us, and then have it be
believed, when it is?

 >And of course my apologies if I've disappointed anyone. Still
 >don't know what those saucers are, but the upside is that they
 >don't seem to give a fig what I think.

Or what _anybody_ thinks... that's just part of the discomfort.

 >FWIW, my next computer purchase is going to be an Apple G4
 >PowerBook encased in titanium -- the same stuff they make jet
 >fighters out of. Cool! Not as cool as the Roswell stuff, mind,
 >but cool nonetheless.

Show-off! Give me a good desk-top PC! More bang for the abused
buck, and a lot less presumptuous and more open ended about how
it is to be used. Man should not presume to know the mind of the
windows operating system. <g>.


Lehmberg@snowhill.com
~~~~
EXPLORE Alfred Lehmberg's Alien View" at his HostPros 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, scourged by the scurrilous
skepti-feebroids.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 26

               Re: Mystery Bang Rocks Yorkshire Coast - Lemire

From: Todd Lemire <tlemire@home.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 20:22:33 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 22:50:07 -0500
Subject: Re: Mystery Bang Rocks Yorkshire Coast - Lemire


 >From: David Bolton <David@Bolton.SOL.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 11:21:32 -0000
 >Subject: Re: Mystery Bang Rocks Yorkshire Coast

 >>From: Dave Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
 >>Subject: Mystery Bang Rocks Yorkshire Coast
 >>Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:24:52 -0000
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>This is copied from today's Yorkshire Post
 >>(Leeds, 22 February 2001):

 >>BGS equipment is capable of picking up earth tremors
 >>on the other side of the world, but the event on the
 >>Yorkshire coast did not even register at their local
 >>seismic station in Pickering.

 >I seem to recall that on past occasions where sonic booms have
 >occurred there have been claims that the BGS can also pick up
 >thier effects - and hence differentiate between them and true
 >earth tremours. Are they now claiming that they can't?

 >>Sounds picked up by a BGS microphone at Leeds University
 >>suggested Yorkshire had suffered a similar fluke yesterday
 >>and the Ministry of Defence confirmed aircraft were in the
 >>area at the time.

 >Is there also a remote seismograph at Leeds Uni? What did that
 >pick up? Is anyone on this list (DC?) digging a bit further?

 >Cheers,

 >Dave B

 >--
 >David G Bolton
 ><David@Bolton.SOL.co.uk>


David,

I picked this up from the Leeds site, so there is the capability
for the sonic booms to have been detected.

"Additionally, a very low magnification seismometer (to provide
non-overloaded record of large local events), an accelerometer,
and a low frequency microphone (to identify sonic events such as
aircraft sonic booms) are sited here on the Campus."

http://earth.leeds.ac.uk/~bows/seismic.htm

There's nothing on the BGS site, with the latest news release
being on the 15th of February.

I just finished writing Dr. Roger Clark, the Departmental
Seismologist at Leeds, so hopefully something fruitful will
emerge.

Sincerely,
Todd Lemire
Michigan UFO CENTRAL

For some related research please visit
http://members.home.net/tlemire/zoo.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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 26

                 Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 12:49:38 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 22:55:10 -0500
Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Hatch


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 18:02:55 -0600

 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 04:14:32 -0800
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact

 >>>... Even the Manhattan Project was compromised fairly
 >>>early on.

 >>Hello Dennis:

 >>I never heard of any major compromise of the Manhattan Project,
 >>but I'm no historian. My best recollection however, having read
 >>up on the matter, is that %99.999 of the American public had no
 >>inkling whatsoever that an atomic bomb was in the works, until
 >>the bombshell when Harry Truman announced that two were dropped
 >>on Japanese cities.

 >Larry,

 >Does the name Rosenberg ring a bell?

 >I believe husband and wife were both executed.

 >Dennis


Hello Dennis!


Yes indeed the Rosenbergs!

As I recall, they were executed in the early 1950s, well after
the 1945 announcement by HST. I remember hearing of that in
early grades of elementary school, which dates me.

Yes, they "compromised" nuclear secrets to the Soviets, who kept
equally silent if not more so!

It is the public at large that I thought was the issue, as in
the Pentagon Papers, or any other secret matters that were
publicly blown in the Washington Post or elsewhere. I'm sure the
Rosenbergs never blabbed to the press ( some last words maybe.)

If the US Government knows something we don't ( hardly a
surprise ) and another government spies it out but keeps equally
silent ( as one would expect ) then we are right where we
started... a big big secret is kept... from the public at large.



Best wishes

- Larry Hatch


PS: Sister Aloytius (sp?) at the parochial school here even
told the kids that they had to zap one of the Rosenbergs 2 or 3
times. I didn't need to know that.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 27

                 Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 13:39:40 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 11:09:03 -0500
Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Hatch


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 23:55:53 EST
 >Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 04:14:32 -0800
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact

 ><snip>

 >>Suppose the Japanese surrendered _before_ the bomb was to be
 >>dropped, so it could remain secret, a sort of ace-in-the-hole.
 >>Would we have learned of the existence of atomic weapons in the
 >>first decades after the war?

 >>Eventually, yes. But we can probably argue endlessly how long it
 >>might have taken. Non?

 >'Till the first Hydrogen bomb test, probably.


Hello Bob: Good point!

I should have said years instead of decades [burp!] and not very
many at that.

They had to evacuate entire islands in the Pacific, the natives
had little choice in the matter.

Some things are hard if not impossible to conceal from the
press, science, the public at large. An H-Bomb test is pretty
hard to hide.

Jim McCampbell was present for one of those tests. I forget
which, there was a series of them, but this one was much more
powerful than anticipated!


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 27

                       Atomic Bombs and Fugo Balloons

From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 21:30:24 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 11:10:10 -0500
Subject: Atomic Bombs and Fugo Balloons


After the first Japanese balloon bomb was discovered in Montana,
censorship was requested in the press.  This was most
successful.  The censorship was lifted after the incident in
Oregon in which a number of women and childred were either
killed or injured by a Fugo balloon found by the children.

The Western Defense Command files at the National Archives has
an intercepted letter written to the Japanese--thru a neutral
country--by a woman who urged the Japanese to send balloons with
chemical agents and explosive to the US.  There is no evidence
that she knew of the attack in progress at that time.

On the atomic bomb, this type of weapon was talked about in the
press, especially during the Dec 1944-Jan 1945 secret weapon
press feeding frenzy. The Germans threatened to use atomic bombs
against American troops.  The idea of atomic bombs was not
secret, but the American program was.  Certain outsiders did
figure out what was going on.  However, the program was
compromised by spies like Claus Fuchs and others.

Stalin had information on the American test.  When Turman
mentioned he had something special up his sleeve, Stalin would
not take the bait, but suggested that the Americans hurry and
use it, as he has his own special program--which was the
Manchuran campaign.

Tokyo Rose welcomed the 509th to the Pacific theater with a
mocking announcement that they had something special to do.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 27

                 Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Randle

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol>
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 21:15:49 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 11:13:34 -0500
Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Randle


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 00:42:27 EST
 >Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 08:52:43 EST
 >>Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>>Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 15:00:12 -0600

  <snip>

 >>Further, during WWII, the Japanese Balloon Bomb attacks were
 >>kept secret from the Japanese. This means that although Japanese
 >>spies were attempting to learn if their balloon bombs were
 >>reaching the US, and even though thousands were in on the
 >>secret, that the only thing the government did to keep the
 >>secret was ask those who had observed balloon bombs, seen them
 >>fall, or found parts of them, was ask the witnesses not to talk.
 >>Japanese spies, who were actively working to find any indication
 >>that the balloon bombs had reached the US failed to do so. This
 >>was a big secret, meaning that thousands were involved. So, some
 >>secrets are kept by large numbers for short periods.

 >The government asked newspaper editors (I've seen a copy of the
 >letter in an article), and probably radio news executives not to
 >report any of the balloon attacks.

Yes, I have a story from an Iowa newspaper, dated the date after
the war ended, and another from about twenty years ago, talking
about the attack on Iowa. The reporter was visited by the FBI
who requested that she not publish a thing until the war ended.
She agreed.

 >I do have, though, someplace in my files a clipping from March
 >1945 from the Philadelphia American with an article about the
 >balloon attack which killed several people on the West Coast. I
 >doubt that the paper had a correspondent on the West Coast,
 >although I don't known this for sure. I assume they got the
 >story from a wire service. I wonder if there were others.

 >So, while the effort was apparently successful, word eventually
 >did leak out. Whether the Japanese ever found out or not I don't
 >know.

This isn't quite right. After the six people (five children and
one adult) were killed in Oregon (the only war deaths as a
result of enemy action in the continental United States) , the
policy shifted to warn people about the balloon bombs. There is
even a "Cap't Jack" comic in which the balloon bombs are
discussed. So, the information didn't leak, but it was part of a
carefully orchestrated "whispering" campaign to teach people to
stay away from the ground balloons. And, no, the Japanese
believed that all the balloons fell harmlessly into the ocean.

My point here was that secrets, held by thousands, can be well
kept, at least for short periods.


KRandle










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 27

                          UFOBC Updates - 02-25-01

From: David Pengilly <david_pengilly@dccnet.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 21:48:32 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 11:15:39 -0500
Subject: UFOBC Updates - 02-25-01


UFOBC has moved! We have a new domain name now - ufobc.ca
We are also hosted by a new company - NetNations Communications
of Vancouver, British Columbia - very fast!


1) "UFOBC Homepage"
  - Our new webmaster, Ray Skibo, has given us a modern new look!
  - Browse around and send us your comments.
  - The local "Search" won't be fully functional until all the
    search engines find our new site.
  - www.ufobc.ca

2) New UFOBC "Guestbook"
  - Please sign our Guestbook
  - http://bridge.netnation.com/~ufobc/cgi-bin/ugb.cgi

3) "Online Chat Forums"
  - Sign up on one of our new chat forums. They are not too busy
    right now but we are hoping they will be soon.
  - http://bridge.netnation.com/~ufobc/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi

4) "What's New"
  - Links to our most recent postings. This is the page that
    return visitors might want to bookmark.
  - http://www.ufobc.ca/New/index.html

5) "UFO Yukon Research Society"
  - "The Yukon Report" keeps the old style but gets a face-lift.
  - Martin Jasek and associates have formed a non-profit society!
  - Martin's excellent reports are recognized world-wide!
  - http://www.ufobc.ca/yukon/index.htm

6) "Recent Sightings"
  - We plan to update weekly. Come back soon!
  - http://www.ufobc.ca/Sightings/recent.htm

7) "Radio Archives"
  - UFOBC is Broadcast LIVE on the JEFF RENSE SHOW on the 4th
    Tuesday of Each Month, from 7:00 - 10:00 PM
  - play back your favourite radio show any time.
  - http://www.ufobc.ca/Radio/index.html



Dave Pengilly
dave@ufobc.ca







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 27

                            Re: Lakenheath - Hale

From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 02:42:38 +0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 11:17:55 -0500
Subject: Re: Lakenheath - Hale


 >From: Dave Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Lakenheath
 >Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 10:16:39 -0000

<snip>

 >Believe me I have far better things to do than spend hard earned
 >cash travelling around the country gathering information for a
 >bunch of ingrates to sit and pick holes in.


Hi All,

Sorry are you refering to Errol Knapp's excellent UpDates service?


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 27

                 Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 22:13:30 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 11:21:06 -0500
Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Young


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 18:02:55 -0600

 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 04:14:32 -0800
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact

 >>I never heard of any major compromise of the Manhattan Project,

 >Does the name Rosenberg ring a bell?

 >I believe husband and wife were both executed.

Hi Larry, Dennis;

And there were others. Some friends of mine had a place in Santa
Fe and about two blocks away the street ran on a little bridge
over the Sante Fe River, which is just a little, nearly dry
creekbed.

Under the bridge there some famous exchanges of Manhatten bomb
secrets passed inside a newspaper, between a British member of
the Project and a Soviet spy. Forget their names and the rest of
the story but my friend and I posed in like fashion with a
newspaper under the bridge.

Then we went for margaritas.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 27

                 Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 23:51:13 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 11:46:25 -0500
Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Young


 >From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 19:52:17 EST
 >Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 19:51:01 EST
 >>Fwd Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 14:17:26 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Young

 >>Man, that measurement must have been made by bigfoot. The Big
 >>Dipper is 25 degrees from tip of cup to end of handle.

 >Minor point -- closer to 28 degrees from tip to tip according to my sky
 >charts.

Hi, Dave:

Well, The Skalnate Pleso Atlas of the Heavens by Antonin Becvar,
actually gives a bout 25 degrees from Alpha to Eta Ursa Majorae,
and the AAVSO Variable Star Atlas gives about 25 degrees. But,
there is sometimes some distortion in charts in the East-West
direction at high latitudes, particularly if the chart scale is
small.

We can split the difference - Let's just say it's close enough
for Guvm'nt work (Oops).

 >>This is about 7.5 inches, or so, at my arm's length. Of course,
 >>little people (not greys) have shorter arms and bigger people
 >>have their rulers a little further away. But, this was most likely
 >>done in daylight, and by memory.

 >Let's at least get the math right.

OK

 > I don't know about bigfoot, but "arm's length" for humans is
 >typically around 60 cm or 2 feet.

Yiikes. I must be one of the bigfoot types that Walt Andrus used
to show in his Investigators Handbook - you know, the one that
looked like a Wookie. I'm 2 foot 7 inches from shoulder socket
to end of claw (and it's been recently trimmed, er, sharpened).

None of the witnesses were greys, were they? Wonder how long
their arms were? What if they bite their nails?

 >1 foot at 2 feet distance subtends an angle of -- 28
 >degrees, or exactly the same size as the Big Dipper.

 >If the witnesses arms were a little longer than this, however,
 >28 degrees would be be a little more than 1 foot at arm's
 >length.

Uh, huh.

 >On the other hand, 7.5 inches at 2 feet subtends an angle of
 >only about 18 degrees. For 7.5 inches to be 28 degrees, your
 >arm's length would be only 15 inches.

But my arm's length is 31 inches. This is how something can
become twice its size in UFOlogical logic.

Well, I guess this must prove that when the witnesses said that
this fantastic apparition they saw was a 1.2 miles in length, it
must have been so. Did anybody else notice this mothership?

 >Are you secretly a grey Bob?

No, but I've just experienced some missing time, here.

 >Looks to me like like a better example of the witness getting it
 >right on the money whereas your "math" supposedly discrediting
 >the witness' reliability is way off in left field somewhere.

Yup, right on the money. Hey, they are UFO witnesses, right?
Must be perfect. Not like the rest of us. After all, there have got
to be loads of 1 mile long starships lumbering around, hell people
are seeing them all the time.

 >Back to high school Bob, along with King Roger and his statement
 >that the moon's sky is "starless" in daylight just like here on
 >Earth.

Questrion for your David. How many stars can be videotaped with
a cheap hand-held camera pointed at a white wall in full
daylight on Earth?

How many do you think could be imaged with the camera pointed to
a bright white object, in full daylight, on the surface of the
Moon?

Please explain any expected differences.

Now I'm going to check in with my handlers. Need some Gork.


Thinking of clear skies,


Bob Young

Prince of the Wookies









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 27

                 Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 00:50:13 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 11:48:27 -0500
Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Young


 >From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 22:04:21 -0400

 >You must be quite short Bob. I just went out in the cold up here
 >in New Brunswick. The Big Dipper is 11" between my hands at
 >arm's length. I am only 5'9.5". The comments were made by the
 >witness as he observed both the craft and the big dipper late at
 >night. How could you possibly suggest this was most likely done
 >in daylight by memory? Psychic powers?

Hi, Stan:

No, it was a guess.

 >Martin, a Civil Engineer at that, while travelling the route up
 >the Klondike Highway at about the same time at Night in December
 >as the sighting occured, was able to do 3 triangulations. based
 >on witness testimony as to landmarks where the front and back
 >end of this huge craft were and how far away it was. There was a
 >lake and many hills as well along the road.

Well, this could give one something to measure against.

 >May I suggest you read the report before putting computer in
 >gear?.

Actually, in rereading your original post, I see that the
estimate of size was .6 to 1.2 miles long, so there is a lot of
fudge there which could account for any reasonable arm size.

If the measurements are so exact, what accounts for a 100%
margin of error?

 >Did you go out and measure the width?

I'm familiar with the size of the Dipper.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 27

                    Re: Still looking for Niburu? - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 01:05:32 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 11:49:54 -0500
Subject: Re: Still looking for Niburu? - Young


 >Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 22:43:19 -0500
 >From: Wendy Christensen <christensen@catlas.mv.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates list <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Still looking for Niburu?

 >Look here:

 >http://www.rumormillnews.net/cgi-bin/config.pl?read=7043

Hi, Wendy, All:

Yeah, this doesn't change things much. In a few days the object
moves, but is at each location "all day". Now it has an
inclination to the ecliptic of nearly 90 degrees. But, two years
later it is nearly at the same place, so would be somewhat
beyond Mars.

Probably the important thing is that after they urge all the
astronomers to be told they say that "they'l appreciate it".
Sounds like a joke.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 27

                      Re: UFOs in 1882 & 1394 - Borraz

From: Manuel Borraz <maboay@teleline.es>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 00:10:01 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 11:51:13 -0500
Subject: Re: UFOs in 1882 & 1394 - Borraz


 >Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:19:41 -0000
 >From: Chris Aubeck  <caubeck@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: UFOs in 1882 & 1394

 >Hello again,

 >Can anyone answer these questions?

 >1) An enormous UFO was seen by numerous European witnesses on
 >November 17th 1882. It travelled westwards at an approximate
 >altitude of 130 miles and was spotted by several eminent
 >scientists. These included Dr. E. Walter Maunder, an astronomer
 >at Greenwich, the English spectroscopist J. Rand Capron, and
 >Dutch astronomers Audemans and Zeeman. Greenwich published an
 >official report which stated that the object had a well-defined
 >body and was "disc-like in appearance." Unlike an ordinary
 >meteor, it said, the behaviour of the disc had seemed "orderly
 >and controlled."

 >Does anyone know the location of an on-line article reproducing
 >a whole translation of the original report? Whether the object
 >was a natural or an artificial body is not what interests me,
 >but rather the fact that it was apparently disc-shaped.

<snip>

Hi Chris,

I found a few lines about it in the books of W. R. Corliss
("Handbook of Unusual Natural Phenomena", "Lightning, Auroras,
Nocturnal Lights, and related Luminous Phenomena").


Note that:

- It probably was a rare auroral phenomenon (in fact, it took
place "while the aurora was fitfully blazing in the north,
north-east, and north-western sky"; hence the somewhat
misleading term "auroral meteor" that was used by many
scientists at the time).

- It was mainly described as a torpedo-shaped cloud of whitish
light.


Manuel









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 27

               Re: New Evidence Of Sagan's Martian Macrobes? -

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 02:13:04 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 11:53:17 -0500
Subject: Re: New Evidence Of Sagan's Martian Macrobes? -


 >Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 16:39:11 -0800 (PST)
 >From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >Subject: Re: New Evidence Of Sagan's Martian Macrobes?
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 01:10:55 -0500
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: New Evidence Of Sagan's Martian Macrobes?

 ><snip>

 >>The "sphere" appears to have some kind of an 'appendage' that
 >>extends from the back (front?) of the thing. Looks kinda like a
 >>"Heavy Metal Sperm!" <VBG>All kidding aside, does anyone have
 >>any idea as to what this thing (or the tubular structures for
 >>that matter) could possibly be? I'm drawing blanks.

 >>I've never seen or heard of anything quite like this.

 >>see: http://enterprisemission.com/images/arthur.jpg

Hiya Mac, hi All,

Mac wrote:

 >John, List,

 >If I had to venture a guess, this is either the remains of some
 >exotic macroscopic lifeform (a literal "worm") or else a
 >technological artifact of unknown purpose.  Richard Hoagland has
 >proposed these things are "pipes" for channeling water: not a
 >bad guess, in my opinion.

Did you catch "Strange Days,...Indeed" on Saturday night? We
discussed our impressions of these "glass worm" images for
almost an hour. My 'take' is, that the structure looks "organic"
(of 'Natural' origin) as opposed to "manufactured." (Artificial)
One of the ways I described it for the radio listeners who may
not have ready access to the Internet to peruse the pix for
themselves was, that it 'looked like' the hollow (shed) skin of
some impossibly large snake or worm. To me, what's even more
intriguing than the transparent tubular structures is the fact
that there "appears to be" an enormous (metallic looking) sphere
lodged inside of one of the segments.

One of the things that NASA has _not_ been providing the public
are color images. So, we have to "guess" at the true colors of
features on the surface. I use the word "silver" or "metallic"
in my description only because that is the 'appearance' of the
object inside the tubular structures depicted in the -supplied-
B&W images. _Not_ because I am intentionally trying to make a
case for artificiality. The photos are weird enough all by them
selves and they don't need any help from me! ;)

If you study the pix carefully you'll notice that:

1. The (photographic) North end of the 'tube' is _distended_ as
if the sphere, (which appears to be _wider_ than the tubular
structure it is encased in) stretched it out as it passed
through it.

2. Just below the sphere the tubular structure is uniformly
narrower. It looks like the 'sphere' has been somehow wending
its way along the tube stretching it out to accommodate its
girth as it moves along.

3. The details on the tubular structure itself look "organic" (a
remnant or some living thing, or natural process) and not like
an 'artificial' or 'manufactured' artifact. I detect nothing
that resembles mechanical or 'manufactured' parts anywhere in
the structure. As I have said, it 'looks like' some impossible
worm left behind its outer skin layer on the Martian surface.
(That's what it -looks like- not what I think it is.)

Maybe Frank Herbert wasn't too far off the mark with his "giant
desert worm" creations in Dune! :O

And I'm sorry Mac, I know you have a lot of respect and
admiration for the guy, but Richard Hoagland lost me when he
started making absolutely wild "predictions" in public as if he
was the "Psychic Hotline" for anything ET related. The guy has
almost systematically destroyed any credibility he may have once
enjoyed. Or, that his credentials may have afforded him.
"Credentials" can only carry you but so far. As far as I'm
concerned his "pipe" theories are just as valid or invalid as
anybody else's. Because it's "Hoagland" putting the theory
forward carries no weight with me what- soever.

 >>I think that features like this deserve much more attention (and
 >>camera time) than something like the Face. Maybe we are all
 >>mesmerized by the anthropomorphic qualities of the Face, because
 >>it "looks like us" when instead we could be focusing on
 >>something that genuinely strange and anomalous like these
 >>tubular structures and that very odd metallic looking sphere
 >>within it.

 ><snip>

 >I think we owe it to ourselves to see the Face inquiry through,
 >first.  But there's no convincing reason we can't investigate
 >_all_ of this weird Martian stuff. Studying one anomaly doesn't
 >necessarily exclude studying additional anomalies.

We'll agree to disagree on this one Mac. I think these tubular
structures with their attendant 'sphere' are much more
intriguing as a structured phenomena than what "may be" a
fortuitous placement of shapes and shadows on the top of that
Cydonian Plateau.

I have always thought that the "Face" existed more in our
'perceptions' (the observers mind) of it than in actuality on
the surface of Mars. Those tubes and that sphere are like
_nothing_ we've ever seen before anywhere in the solar system
(so far.) I hope that NASA responds to A.C. Clarke publicly
regarding his question about the tubes. I'm curious to hear what
NASA thinks these things are. (or what they are not.)

 >And let's face it: Mars is one big anomaly.

So are we! But that's another thread!  <LOL>

 >Check out the new image of the "Cliff" in Cydonia: there are
 >features very much like the "worm" to its immediate right.  A
 >most interesting coincidence.

I discussed those features with EBK on the program. The
"worm-like" terrain feature appears to run along a gully at the
base of those rocky hills/ridges which tips the scale to the
feature being a local/naturally occurring one. Whenever the
'Hairy One' gets a copy of the show posted to the program
archive, go and check it out.

This is a new one. Let's see what develops as more and more
people begin to study the pix and chime in on it. I'm exited
about this find and I look forward to learning more about it.

Truly "alien" stuff!

Regards,
John Velez
                                         *************
                              "Nothing is at last sacred but
                             the integrity of your own mind."
                                 www.spacelab.net/~jvif/
                                         *************









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 27

                         Re: Tell The People - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 02:19:57 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 11:55:57 -0500
Subject: Re: Tell The People - Velez


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Tell The People
 >Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 18:26:18 -0600

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Tell The People
 >>Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 14:02:56 -0000

 >>Georgina Bruni's book "You Can't Tell the People" contains some
 >>excellent investigative journalism and a lot of important new
 >>information on the case (or series of cases).

 >>However, having now reached the final chapters I see that it
 >>takes a sudden plunge downwards in credibility by speculating
 >>about wild-eyed stories of secret communications with aliens and
 >>pseudoscientific "studies" rather than resting on the strong
 >>case presented to that point.

 >>For example, there is a huge difference between alleged Reichian
 >>"cloud-busting" (pseudoscience)and seeding of clouds to produce
 >>precipitation (real science).

 >>Also, I just received a telepathic message from aliens who told
 >>me that Dan Sherman is a fraud. ;-)

 >Dick,

 >Hey, welcome to the club!

 >Looks like you're beginning to get the hang of this e-mail
 >stuff, after all!

 >Dennis

Hello Dick,

I waited to extend this 'welcome' because I wasn't quite sure if
you were only 'dropping in' temporarily in response to Dennis's
original posting.

As a regular reader/participant on the List I would like to you
to know that I am enjoying reading your contributions, and also
how good it is to have an individual as knowledgeable and
experienced as yourself participating on the List.

Proof of the respect that you command even from folks on the
'other side of the fence' is evident in your dialog with the
Texas Sasquatch. (Dennis) Who, can often times be as ornery as a
polecat with people he has less respect for intellectually.

I was hoping you'd poke your head over the fence one day. The
"day" has come! Nice to have you with us "on the front lines."
Hope you stick around for a bit. ;)


Warmest regards, and a hearty, 'Ahoy mate, welcome aboard!'

John Velez
                                         *************
                              "Nothing is at last sacred but
                             the integrity of your own mind."
                                 www.spacelab.net/~jvif/
                                         *************









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 27

                    Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Roberts

From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 10:21:29 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 12:25:58 -0500
Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Roberts


 >From: Jerome Clark
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto
 >Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Clark
 >Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 12:01:59 -0600

Excuse the lateness of my reply to the following, but a
karmically induced and extremely virulent bout of adult
chicken-pox has been somewhat distracting.....


In response to Jerry's latest John Rimmer suggested that
perhaps:

 >>Wouldn't it be best to judge the report by what's actually in
 >>it?

Irrespective of who was involved in a case this would be a good
idea but Jerry responded:

 >Andy's behavior, of course, raises the interesting question: Is
 >his case sufficiently weak that, before it is even laid out in
 >print, he has to ridicule and taunt potential critics into
 >silence?

As I noted in several previous emails about both the current
case under discussion (Lakenheath 56), and others, Jerry will,
under no circumstances discuss the facts of the matter. In this
particular case both Jenny and Dave have freely given new
evidence which is pertinent and which radically alters the
perceived nature of the Lakenheath 56 case. Neither of its two
main propononents, ie Jerry and Brad, have commented on these
facts.

Instead Jerry in particular uses the same, techiniques to
detratct from the work which has been done.

But at least I am also prepared to get out there and dig at
the roots of a case rather than to sit at home.

 >At the very least, John, we are seeing in Andy's
 >behavior a disturbing absence of professionalism.

Well then I should jolly well be ejected from the club then!

 >I do, however, have confidence in Jenny Randles's good
 >senses, and a private exchange with Dave Clarke offers me
 >hope that the report will prove a much more serious contribution
 >than we would infer from Andy's adolescent hijinks.

Which again raises the spectre of yet another question offered
to (and initially begged by) Jerry, and yet another which he
chose not to answer.

How on earth is the man going to be able to decide which parts
of this new evidence I have had my hands on and have therefore
in some way presumably distorted? Obviously Jerry is now happy
with the esteemed Dr Clarke - simply because Dave has favourably
reviewed Jerry's UFO Encycopedia for the 2001 issue of
'Folklore'. And it is always politicly correct for Jerry to have
'confidence' in Jenny otherwise IUR looks even weaker on the UK
representation front.

No doubt when all the new stuff I've unearthed on foo-fighters
and the UK government's role in the 'ghost rocket' events
comes out this year people will ignore that too. It's fantastically
interesting, but I'm afraid you just won't be able to take it
seriously.

Can't have it both ways.

In between rashes of spots this one also appeared......

 >From: Gildas Bourdais <>
 >Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:19:41 EST
 >Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment

Gildas wrote:

 >Yes, and I do not think that a mere transcript of the pilot's
 >testimonies will suffice. Video or at least audio recording will
 >have to be produced before independant parties. I suggest for
 >instance, among British ufologists, Timothy Good, Nicholas
 >Redfern and Omar Fowler.

I know Jenny and Dave have already responded to this but.....

Omar Fowler? Old Ma Riley would be more appropriate!

Tim Good is a story teller.

Nick Redfern, however, is welcome to scrutinise every click, pop
and overdub on the interview tapes I've been involved in. Nick
and I are good pals who discuss ufology regularly and he has
been kept up to date on what's happening with Lakenheath as he
was with other cases he has written about such as the Berwyn
Mountains 'crash'.

Lawdy - he even likes the Ramones and the Sex Pistols.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 27

                    Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Randles

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 11:02:18 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 12:28:45 -0500
Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Randles


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 00:20:35 -0600

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 16:21:13 -0000

 ><snip>

 >>If the evidence suggests "they" are here, then theory be damned.

 >The odd thing (at least to me) about the evidence is that it
 >could just as easily be so much different than it is. Just
 >imagine, for example, that an ET craft had crashed in downtown
 >Cincinnati in 1964 rather than, say, outside Roswell in 1947.

 >So why is it that the UFO as ET evidence is so, what shall I
 >say, marginal? That is, suggestive, but never quite landing in
 >the realm of conclusive, when it's so easy to imagine
 >alternative outcomes, in which case we wouldn't be having this
 >discussion?

 >Theories -- damned or otherwise -- welcomed.
 >
Hi,

I agree with this, Dennis. My problem with the ETH is not that
it is implausible (it is easily the most likely theoretical
solution to fit all the facts if it were supported by
sufficiently strong evidence). Rather it is that the theory
fails to match the level of support that it receives from the
phenomenon that it is supposed to explain.

It is virtually impossible to conceive that in so many years of
apparently extensive alien contact these beings who are not even
able to effectively block memory (meaning any tinpot hypnotist
can 'retrieve' the truth without hassle) are yet so expert that
they dont seem to ever accidentally leave behind anything
conclusively extraterrestrial. A DNA sample, a bit falling off
the back of their spaceship - anything of the order that fate
simply has to decree would happen sooner or later. And it
couldn't be 'covered up' because these things would surely happen
without the knowledge of the ETs - just as a silencer (muffler)
might fall off your car, be found on the roadside and you'd
never know you had lost it until you got home.

To me there is a suspicious lack of congruence between the way
the phenomenon often seeks to assert that it is ET in origin and
the virtual absence of any real proof to that effect.

As such, if there is an intelligence at work here the data
better matches one that is seeking to fulfill our expectations
of an alien visitation whilst at the same time unable of proving
that it is, because in reality it isn't. One logical reason for
that is that the intelligence prefers us to think of it as an ET
visitation so we dont dwell too long on what else it might be.

So the real question might be - who or what else might wish to
pretend to be extraterrestrial in origin as a way to observe our
cultural reaction? Maybe this is a gigantic sociological
experiment on the part of someone or something closer to home.

And - no - I dont mean some government agency. The intelligence
involved seems more human than alien, but also advanced
technologically - assuming we accept that there is an
intelligence, of course. And that's by no means a given.

Ponder 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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 27

                     Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 13:13:03 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 12:34:47 -0500
Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Hall


 >From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >To: "02 - UFO UpDates Subscribers":;
 >Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Stacy
 >Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 18:16:33 -0500

 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 00:20:35 -0600


 >So why is it that the UFO as ET evidence is so, what shall I
 >say, marginal? That is, suggestive, but never quite landing in
 >the realm of conclusive, when it's so easy to imagine
 >alternative outcomes, in which case we wouldn't be having this
 >discussion?

 >Theories -- damned or otherwise -- welcomed.

 >And just because I don't accept the ETH as a given shouldn't be
 >interpreted to mean that I know what's going on. Those are two
 >different things.


Dennis,

Let me respectfully suggest that perhaps you haven't yet
digested the full panoply of evidence when it is laid out on a
"spread sheet," as it were, and perhaps are somewhat overly
negatively influenced by the exaggerated claims and weird
behavior of some self-styled ufologists whose shenanigans really
are irrelevant to the central question: Do we or don't we have a
unique, unexplained phenomenon that requires a new hypothesis?

(Is that a world record for sentence length?)

I recognize that you are a genuine skeptic (i.e., doubter), and
the field is richer for that. Always a pleasure to clash swords
with you. It's the outright cocksure debunkers who force-fit the
facts to their preconceived conclusons that bug me.


Dick









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 27

                        MGS Imaged _Entire_ Mars Face

From: Lan Fleming <apollo18@swbell.net>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 08:35:06 -0600
Fwd Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 13:04:46 -0500
Subject: MGS Imaged _Entire_ Mars Face


June 3, 2000: MGS Imaged The _Entire_ Mars Face


But Dr. Malin, in his infinite wisdom, just didnt see fit to
download the entire image to Earth. The ancillary data for
M1600184, the "partial" Face image, shows this. The ancillary
data can be accessed at:

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/msss/camera/images/01_31_01_releases/cydonia/ancill
ary_f.tab

The "edit_mode" for this image is 1536. This means that the
values in the camera's 2040-element CCD array were not
transferred to memory for pixels numbered from 0 to 1535. The
pixel numbers start with zero for the left-most CCD element and
increase to the right.

At first I assumed that this edit mode was chosen because the
MGS was so far to the west of the Face that only the western
half of the Face was within the camera's field of view. In that
situation, the plains to the west of the Face would have taken
up most of the image. Since there is little interest in that
area, it would make sense to limit the section of the returned
image to the part that included the Face. This was, in fact, the
case with the previous imaging attempt in February, 2000 that
failed due to a transmission error. The western side of the Face
was at the extreme left edge of that image. For it, an edit_mode
of 0 was selected and image width was limited to 500 or so
pixels. The spacecraft was moving south to north  so the left
edge of the image was to the east of the right edge and the top
of the image was to the south of the image bottom.  Almost
everything beyond the first 500 pixels was just the western
plains.

But for this latest Face image, the spacecraft was also moving
south to north, which means that the image as published by Malin
was rotated 180 degrees to put north on the top and south on the
bottom. That means that what appears to be the left edge of the
image is really the extreme right edge of the camera's physical
field of view and the missing eastern side of the Face was
covered by the elements of the CCD array for which data was
(presumably) not transferred to memory. The aerographic
coordinates below for the four image corners confirm this
interpretation. TL means top left, TR means top right, BL bottom
left and BR bottom right:

TL: (9.74W 40.99N) TR: (9.75W 40.99N)
BL: (9.78W 41.23N) BR: (9.79W 41.23N)

The latitudes of the top corner coordinates are to the south of
the bottom corner coordinates, so South is toward the top.

I suppose that the explanation for this that Malin would give is
that there was too much of the buffer already filled with more
"important" data than the Face image, so they only had room for
what they got. And I think that would be a completely lame
excuse. The MGS has made thousands of orbits and planetary
science as we know it wouldn't have been set back for decades by
reserving the data buffer for one decent image of the entire
Face landform.

It might even be suspected that Malin did in fact dowload the
full image but he didn't like what he saw on the eastern side
and just decided not to release it, altering the edit_mode in
the ancillary data to make it appear that the full image was not
received. But I don't know why he would do that, since the
eastern side of the Face is the part that appears to be the most
"ruined" in the second Viking image. I would think that Malin
would be eager to get a photograph of the eastern side because
it would be more likely to undermine the artificiality
hypothesis than these repeated images of the western side, the
latest of which shows the "eye" feature in close conformity to
what would be expected according to the artificiality
hypothesis. But then, Dr. Malin may know more about what's
really there than the rest of us do.

It's been observed by other people that it's almost as if Malin
has an aversion to photographing the eastern side of the Face.
This latest image does nothing to dispell that impression; he
clearly had an opportunity he chose not to take.










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 27

                         PRA - Almost History A Book

From: John W. Auchettl <Praufo@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 12:08:56 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 13:06:59 -0500
Subject: PRA - Almost History A Book



Oz & ASIA DATA RESEARCH
Phenomena Research Australia


EBK & Researchers,


I think (?) most on this List will like this book. In the end it
is a fascinating look at US history and how people control what
we are told. It has no direct line to the UFO business, but has
many guidelines on information, on how we can be fooled.

I trust you will enjoy it, however, this book would be a good
research reference for many serious students of history.

                          ***

"Almost History"
  By Roger Bruns

224 pages
1st edition
October 4, 2000
ISBN: 0786866632

COVER:

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0786866632.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Roger Bruns is the Deputy Executive Director for the National
Publications and Records Commission at the National Archives. He
and his family live in Reston, Virginia.

ABSTRACT:

It is a great research tool and sometimes amusing collection of
"Cancelled Speeches", "Close Calls", "Plan B's" "What Ifs?",
"Lost opportunities" and "Twists of Fate" from the history of
America and the world - taken from genuine archive documents.

                           ***

EDITORIAL REVIEWS:

"Almost History is not based on supposition. This collection,
illustrated with numerous photographs of actual documents,
offers a focus and insight into alternative history that is
truly unique. Here are more than eighty selections, each
introduced with the story of how they came to be and where they
fit in the timeline of history. These events were so close to
reality that those involved had committed their positions,
policies, words, and feelings to paper in a variety of forms.
Yet timing, twists of fate, and sudden changes stopped them from
becoming our destiny."

                           ***

FOR EXAMPLE:

* Einstein's letter to the President suggesting we
   build an atomic bomb?
* The telegram that warned of Pearl Harbor a year
   before it happened.
* Secret war plan commissioned by Winston Churchill
   to study the feasibility of invading the USSR at
   the conclusion of WWII.
* Robert McNamara's meeting with Kennedy on the
   pre-invasion bombing of Cuba.
* Nixon's cancelled speech on the Apollo 11 mission
   astronauts if they never returned from the moon?
* Eisenhower's unneeded apology for the failure of
   the D-Day invasion.

                            ***

PRA SITE OF THE WEEK

OLD AUSTRALIAN UFO MAGAZINE COVER
Copy of the front cover of one of Australia's oldest UFO
magazines. Feb 1955. In PDF file. Zoom in to read.

http://members.nbci.com/praufo/prapeople/oldmag1955.htm


Regards to all,


John W. Auchettl
Director PRA Research


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
1961-2001 - 40 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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 27

               Chilean AF Welcomes UFO Researchers - Corrales

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@juno.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 11:46:47 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 13:11:51 -0500
Subject: Chilean AF Welcomes UFO Researchers - Corrales


SOURCE: TERRA.com
DATE: February 26, 2001

CHILEAN AIRFORCE COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR WELCOMES UFO RESEARCHERS

** On account of the news items suggesting the alleged links
between this service branch and the UFO research conducte in
Chile by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency **

February 26, 2001 (TERRA).- De to all of the news items which
have emerged in regard to the declassification of documents held
by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) in which Chilean
UFO sightings are mentioned, the Director of Communitcations of
the Chilean Air Force invited Cristian Riffo, Director of
Ovnivision-Chile to hold a meeting to analyze the content of the
documents which were made known and in which FACH personnel is
mentioned.

During the meeting, researchers shall deliver a letter addressed
to Patricio Rios, the FACH's Commander in Chief, in which they
request an answer to the questions raised by the subject.
Attached to the letter is a list of cases in which Chilean Air
Force pilots are involved. Foremost among them is a case
involving Hernan Gabrielli, the current Chief of Staff.

########
Translation (C) 2001. S. Corrales, Institute of Hispanic Ufology.
Special Thanks to Gloria R. Coluchi









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 27

                   Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Bourdais

From: GBourdais@aol.com
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 14:29:22 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 13:15:50 -0500
Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Bourdais

 >From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment
 >Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 00:20:52 -0000

 >>From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
 >>Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:19:41 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment
 >>>Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 12:11:52 -0600

 >>Yes, and I do not think that a mere transcript of the pilot's
 >>testimonies will suffice. Video or at least audio recording will
 >>have to be produced before independant parties. I suggest for
 >>instance, among British ufologists, Timothy Good, Nicholas
 >>Redfern and Omar Fowler.

 >Hi,

 >Thanks Gildas for this amusing post. Made my weekend. I assume
 >this was not meant to be serious and that you do not really
 >suggest that in future all Ufologists must demonstrate that they
 >are not faking interview transcripts by presenting proof in
 >front of a panel of hand picked experts of your choosing?


Hello

I am not joking at all.

I repeat my question: will you present the full recordings to
independant parties, yes or not ?

If you don't, a doubt will remain.

If you do and they accept your proofs, be assured that I will
accept them too, as will most probably everyone.

Including the Cometa members whom you put in doubt a week after
the publication of their report because they did not know your
new testimonies.

When you act that way, don't be surprised if people ask for
solid proof.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 27

               Alencon France 1790 [was: Naud, Bouchmann & Le

From: Bruno Mancusi <swissufo@swissufo.ch>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 20:31:54 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 13:18:52 -0500
Subject: Alencon France 1790 [was: Naud, Bouchmann & Le


 >Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 21:44:15 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Naud, Bouchmann & Le Paige

 >>From: Bruno Mancusi <swissufo@swissufo.ch>
 >>Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 09:32:17 +0100
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Naud, Bouchmann & Le Paige

<snip>

 >>No, there is no source. In view of the fact that it is described
 >>just after the famous Alenon case (1790, France) I have checked
 >>its source (not given by Naud): Alberto Fenoglio, "Antichi
 >>visitatori dal cielo", 'Clypeus' #10, 1966, pp. 13-14, but it's
 >>not here (it's better because Fenoglio has invented many stories
 >>like the German Sonderbro and the Alenon landing...). I will
 >>forward a copy of this mail to Boris Shurinov, perhaps he know
 >>something.

 >Hello Bruno!

 >Regarding Alencon (France 1790):

 >Is it established that this is the complete invention of one
 >Alberto Fenoglio? I had already derated that case based on some
 >earlier posts, and would like to know if it more properly
 >belongs in my "Poubelle List" of thoroughly discredited UFO
 >stories:

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

 >My two sources for this tale are:

 >SOBEPS: Inforespace Journal, bimonthly, #28 (Belgium) _and_ John
 >Keel: Operation Trojan Horse; NY, Putnams Sons 1970 page 66.

No, it's not established.

Belgian ufologist Christiane Piens ('Les OVNI du pass',
Nouvelles Editions Marabout, Verviers [Belgium] 1977, pp. 81-82)
checked the French archives and found no trace of this case, but
we can't prove (at present) that Fenoglio has invented it.

Perhaps Edoardo Russo would have new info?

Is Fenoglio still alive? A Google search reveals that he
published a book on Ancient Egypt in 1995.


Regards,

Bruno









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 27

                     Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 17:00:50 -0600
Fwd Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 13:22:11 -0500
Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Clark


 >Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 16:53:19 +0000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Clark
 >>Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 12:01:59 -0600

 >>>Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 22:18:14 +0000
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>>Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment

John,

 >>Andy's behavior, of course, raises the interesting question: Is
 >>his case sufficiently weak that, before it is even laid out in
 >>print, he has to ridicule and taunt potential critics into
 >>silence? At the very least, John, we are seeing in Andy's
 >>behavior a disturbing absence of professionalism. And if it did
 >>not violate the pelicanist code, which forbids criticism of
 >>another pelicanist's excesses however egregious, I'm sure even
 >>pelicanists would agree that Andy is doing himself no good.

 >I'm reminded of the chest-beating comments that were posted on
 >UpDates before the Sturrock Report was published, about how
 >psychosocial ufologists were going to "take in in the chops",
 >how it would finish off the sceptics, and so on and so forth, by
 >a certain, er, Jerome Clark

I apologize for the redundancy. You guys have taken it in the
chops so often that I can't imagine why I bothered. I plead
passing irritation and promise not to do it again.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 27

                     Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 17:55:32 -0600
Fwd Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 13:24:15 -0500
Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Clark


 >Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 16:53:19 +0000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Clark
 >>Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 12:01:59 -0600

 >>>Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 22:18:14 +0000
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>>Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment

John,


  >>Andy's behavior, of course, raises the interesting question: Is
 >>>his case sufficiently weak that, before it is even laid out in
 >>>print, he has to ridicule and taunt potential critics into
 >>>silence? At the very least, John, we are seeing in Andy's
 >>>behavior a disturbing absence of professionalism. And if it did
 >>>not violate the pelicanist code, which forbids criticism of
 >>>another pelicanist's excesses however egregious, I'm sure even
 >>>pelicanists would agree that Andy is doing himself no good.

 >>I'm reminded of the chest-beating comments that were posted on
 >>UpDates before the Sturrock Report was published, about how
 >>psychosocial ufologists were going to "take in in the chops",
 >>how it would finish off the sceptics, and so on and so forth, by
 >>a certain, er, Jerome Clark

 >I apologize for the redundancy. You guys have taken it in
 >the chops so often that I can't imagine why I bothered. I
 >plead passing irritation and promise not to do it again.

Please allow me to have another crack at this. As I reflect on
what John is saying, I realize that I have no reason to
apologize. He's comparing apples and oranges and shrugging off a
genuine concern all of us ought to be sharing.

I never claimed to have participated in the Sturrock report or
to be one of the investigators involved in the project. If I had
and were caught out boasting about how I was going to nail all
perceived enemies before the report was published, I'd merit a
reprimand and accusations of not practicing what I preached. I
was, in fact, doing nothing like what Andy has been doing.

My original point remains valid: Andy is an investigator deeply
involved in an ongoing, possibly very important, study of the
Lakenheath case and a forthcoming report on it. Why _wouldn't_
an outsider be concerned about the tub-thumping attitude Andy is
betraying on this list? To whom, except an avid partisan,
wouldn't it raise real questions about Andy's objectivity?

Frankly, I'm disappointed that John doesn't share these
concerns, instead choosing -- without much serious reflection,
it appears -- to shoot the messenger for delivering the bad
news.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 27

                  Re: [SO] Photo of Stars on Moon! - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 18:45:49 -0600
Fwd Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 13:32:57 -0500
Subject: Re: [SO] Photo of Stars on Moon! - Evans


 >From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
 >Date: 25 Feb 2001 09:18:12 -0800
 >Subject: [SO] Photo of Stars on Moon!
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Subject: [Fwd: [SO] Photo of Stars on Moon!]
 >To: skywatcher22@space.com
 >From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@earthlink.net>
 >Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 08:36:05 -0800

Previously, Bill posted the following from Bill Baty:

 >I have found a photo of an astronaut on the moon which includes
 >stars in the background. Curiously, I found a photo only a few
 >frames away from the first which has the stars blackened out.
 >The antenna on the astronaut's backpack has also been blackened
 >out, as well as portions of the horizon.

 >The photo came from a NASA Website and I guess it will render
 >useless the argument that stars did not photograph well in the
 >brightness, which is the official explanation.>

 >Please have a look: http://wwpg.net/moona.html . There are zooms
 >where one can see the stars in the astronaut's visor.

Hi, Bill and Bill!

They sure look like stars, don't they? Interesting. Looks like
the exposure might have hit just right. On the other hand, I
also notice quite a few "stars" from that shot that look about
an inch long on my monitor. In all, I wonder if these stars are
just noise in the black areas. Still, could be stars.

What I do find odd about a lot of the moon photos is the "hot
spot" in the center of the frame and how the lighting seems to
fall off drastically in the distance and sides. It almost looks
as if there were a spot light on the astronaut. Weird.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 27

                        Cydonian Imperative: 2-26-01

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 17:11:17 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 13:35:10 -0500
Subject: Cydonian Imperative: 2-26-01



THE CYDONIAN IMPERATIVE
Water Flows and Martian Life

by Mac Tonnies

Mars anomalist Efrain Palermo has catalogued dozens of enigmatic
"leaks" or "stains" on the surface of Mars that can be
reasonably attributed to the presence of flowing water. NASA has
endorsed similar stains as evidence of liquid water (in the
Valles Marineris region, where the air pressure is estimated to
be suitable for short-lived water flows) but suggests,
less-than-convincingly, that stains elsewhere on Mars are dust
flows.

[image]


Typical Martian "stain." Liquid or dust?

Palermo notes, accurately, that Martian winds quickly scatter
particles on the planet's surface, and that it's unlikely that
the alleged "dust flows" could persist for any length of time
before they were scattered and blurred. In the graphic below,
Palermo shows a known dust streak next to one of the many
anomalous "stains." The latter feature shows no signs of
streaking, as does the former. The bottom-most picture is a
computer simulation of what the "stain" in question would look
like if it is, indeed, composed of nothing more than dark dust.

[image]

Last but not least, the stains' dark color could very well be
due to the presence of photosynthetic pigments or the product of
unknown biological processes. A biological tenet here on Earth
seems to be "Where there is water, there is life." If Palermo's
stains indeed show water, then it's not unreasonable to expect
them to be seething with primitive life, eking out an existence
on Martian sunlight (thus the anomalously low albedo, such as
that seen in algal growths).

NASA's pending announcement of confirming evidence of past life
on Mars also raises the possibility that these stains are
composed, partially, of magnetite (the substance found in
Martian rock specimens and generally attributed to
extraterrestrial bacteria).


=====
Mac Tonnies (macbot@yahoo.com) 816-561-0190
105 Ward Parkway #900, Kansas City, MO 64112
Me: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/mtvi.html
Cydonia: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/cydonia.html
Books: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/bookreviews.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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 27

                    Re: Australian State Director's Page

From: Diane Harrison  Director AUFORN <tkbnetw@powerup.com.au>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 12:28:21 +1100
Fwd Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 13:36:39 -0500
Subject: Re: Australian State Director's Page


Hi Folks, Errol


Its always nice to know who your talking to. Get know what some
of our OZ Directors look like.

http://www.powerup.com.au/~tkbnetw/Directors.html

By the way I don't get paid for hit's on my page.

Bye for now
--

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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 27

                        Re: AA Film Redux - Bourdais

From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 14:29:25 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 14:01:10 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Bourdais


 >From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 15:43:11 -0800

 >>From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
 >>Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:19:39 EST
 >>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>First, thanks again to David Rudiak for his patient and
 >>excellent contribution in this very long discusion, which is
 >>becoming irritating.

 >Gildas,

 >I too find the AA discussion "irritating" but it has nothing to
 >do with its duration. What I find irritating is the denial by
 >otherwise intelligent and well meaning researchers of the
 >possibility that the AA is an authentic historical document and
 >refuse to even look at the new evidence we've gathered. I
 >realize it might take a little effort. You'll have to mail $35
 >to me for the CDs. You'll have to email Neil and ask him to send
 >you the FW photos. Then you'll have to down load the CDs onto
 >your hard drive. But you'll see; it will be worth the effort.

 >The refusal to even investigate our research is a symptom of
 >what Reich calls the "emotional plague".

 >My advice to everyone on this List: inoculate yourself as soon
 >as possible with a high dose of AA reality.


Thank you for you offer, but frankly I have seen enough
documents about the Fort Worth photos.

As for the AA film, Bob Shell said he had not seen one frame of
the alleged original film. So, I don't understand why this
endless discussion about the film being negative or reversal,
etc. I don't see the point.

On the other hand, I remain quite interested by the testimonies
of Bob Shell and Colin Andrews, which do not seem to attract
much attention on this list.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 27

              Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Christensen

From: Wendy Christensen <christensen@catlas.mv.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 22:37:40 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 14:03:11 -0500
Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Christensen


 >From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 16:29:27 EST
 >Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >It was imagination which precluded the enjoyment of radio.

You don't mean "precluded." You mean something like "enabled" or
"facilitated" or even "enhanced." "Precluded" is the opposite of
what you mean.


Purrrrrs...

wac









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 27

                      The Watchdog E-Update - 02-27-01

From: Royce J. Myers III <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 10:21:40 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 14:07:44 -0500
Subject: The Watchdog E-Update - 02-27-01


*****Your ad here*****
Contact UFOWATCHDOG.COM at ufowatchdog@earthlink.net

UFOWATCHDOG.COM
"Don't Trip On Your Open Mind."
http://www.ufowatchdog.com


***UFO NEWS***

~ Radar Operator Tracks 12 UFOs Near DC in 1952
~ The Boy Who Cried UFO
~ The Science of UFOs: Fact vs. Skepticism

*****Your ad here*****
Contact UFOWATCHDOG.COM at ufowatchdog@earthlink.net

***KEEP YOUR EYES OPEN***

~ Gary Lowery Interview: UFOWATCHDOG.COM speaks with Lowery
about his unusual case. Interview to be posted Wednesday.

~ Sean David Morton is scheduled to appear on the Art Bell show
Friday, 02-FEB-01. Will late night radio show continue to
showcase frauds? SEE: The Boy Who Cried UFO in the NEWS.

~ 10th Annual International UFO Congress Convention:
UFOWATCHDOG.COM is scheduled to travel incognito to report on
one of the biggest UFO gatherings in the United States. The
IUFOC will be held March 4th through the 10th in Laughlin,
Nevada. Check out www.ufocongress.com for more information. UFO
conferences - you never know who will show up...

~ UFO Investigation: UFOWATCHDOG.COM will be reporting on an
interesting case that is apparently yielding some volume of UFO
video and sightings. Stay tuned...

***UFO HALL OF FRAUDS, DIRTBAGS, DUPES, MORONS***
Accepting nominations! SEE: http://www.ufowatchdog.com/shame.html


*****Your ad here*****
Contact UFOWATCHDOG.COM at ufowatchdog@earthlink.net
For details on advertising go to: http://www.ufowatchdog.com/advertise.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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 27

                 Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Stacy

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 23:15:43 -0600
Fwd Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 14:10:13 -0500
Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Stacy


 >Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 12:49:38 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact


<snip>

 >If the US Government knows something we don't ( hardly a
 >surprise ) and another government spies it out but keeps equally
 >silent ( as one would expect ) then we are right where we
 >started... a big big secret is kept... from the public at large.


Coincidentally, PBS is airing a special about the making of the
H-bomb even as I type. For the record, I think it was Klaus
Fuchs who gave up the goodies on the A-bomb. The Rosenbergs seem
to have done the same for the H-bomb.

Once the technologies of both were bandied about (in general
terms) in the press and scientific papers, it became relatively
easy for any body of scientists to get the gist of the matter.
The secret was out, in other words, regardless of whether you or
I could cook one up in our kitchen sink.

Watch the PBS special. Operation Bravo became publicly known
when a Japanese fishing boat got doused with so much radiation
that one of the sailors died.

And don't be silly. I'm not saying that this meant that Japanese
fishermen could therefore manufacture an H-bomb. But the cat was
definitely out of the bag.

And, mind, I'm mainly referencing UFO "secrets" that couldn't be
covered up by anyone -- unless you think MJ-12 is running the
world.


Happy hops!

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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 27

                          Re: AA Film Redux - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 00:42:12 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 14:14:28 -0500
Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Gates


 >Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 12:47:34 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman@psln.com>
 >>Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 14:24:37 -0800
 >>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux - Gehrman
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 18:47:09 -0600
 >>>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: AA Film Redux
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >Previously, I has written:

 >>>Isn't that the point of this whole discussion? You're looking
 >>>for needles of truth in a haystack layered with suspicion and
 >>>doubt. Wouldn't it be better to get one simple question answered
 >>>by the man that will benefit the most than to try and solve
 >>>hundreds of other secondary questions that won't prove anything?
 >>>More to the point; doesn't it piss you off that Santilli and
 >>>company won't bother to help you exonerate them?

 >Ed replied:

 >>First of all, we're not trying to exonerate Ray. We're trying to
 >>establish the legitimacy of the AA footage. Whether Ray and
 >>company benefit is secondary. I don't think you understand. Ray
 >>is not pushing our efforts in any way. He has made it clear that
 >>he does not want to be bothered with our investigations.

 >Ed,

 >First off you _are_ the biggest defender of Ray, despite his
 >track record of deception and avoidance of responsibility
 >regarding AA. I think 'exonerate' is a pretty good description.
 >Second off I don't think _you_ understand: Ray is not pushing
 >your efforts in any way. He has made it clear that he does not
 >want to be bothered with your investigations.

 >Doesn't that, in itself, tell you something?

 >Continuing, Ed wrote:

 >>I agree that it would be extremely helpful if he simply gave us
 >>a section of the footage so it could be checked by experts for
 >>authenticity but that isn't going to happen. He must have his
 >>own reasons for not cooperating, but has not shared these with
 >>me.

 >Again, doesn't that, in itself, tell you something?

Bottom line is when supporters ask Ray for a piece of the film,
they will get nothing, nada, zip, zero.

This was something that many people noticed. When Ray was
getting squeezed into a corner, suddenly Volker was trotted out.

 >>I speculate that he was frightened by his visit with US
 >>authorities but it could well be Volker's idiosyncrasy, or some
 >>other factors we haven't considered. We just don't know why
 >>they're being so uncooperative concerning the testing. Knowing
 >>Ray, I feel he would help us out if he could.

 >But you really don't know Ray, Ed. Yes perhaps you've
 >communicated with him about something that he would like to
 >forget about, but how can you say that you know the man and what
 >his thought process are? Action speak louder than words.
 >In-action speaks even more. In that sense, Santilli has said
 >plenty.

Probably went along the lines of:

Ed: Well Ray, what about the film clip you have been endlessly
promising and haven't delivered yet?

Ray: Ed you know I really want to give it to you, and
I really wanted to help you but you know Volker....."

And thus we have Ray really wanting to help everybody, but when
he gets squeezed, he floats the V word.

 >Finally, regarding the emulsion-side question, I wrote:

 >>>The value of this information is that we don't even need to see
 >>>the alien on the footage. If the results match, it does not
 >>>necessarily validate the cameraman's story or AA. However, if we
 >>>accept that the sample clip is _supposed_ to be from the AA
 >>>footage and the calculated result for the placement of the
 >>>emulsion does not match the origin given by the cameraman, then
 >>>the guy is simply lying (not 'mistaken') and that would be
 >>>definitive.

 >Ed replied:

 >>This brings up a problem that the AA skeptics have failed to
 >>elaborate on in any detail. If the cameraman is lying about the
 >>history of the footage and his involvement with it, then he must
 >>have created the hoaxed footage and Ray and Volker were conned.
 >>But why would he create something like this, and then sell it
 >>for 100 grand when it probably would have cost him at least that
 >>much to produce.

 >This is simply not true and repeating it over and over does not
 >make it so, Ed. Again, I produced a very silly feature film
 >called 'Forever Evil' with over 30 actors that ran 120 minutes
 >back in 1987. It was shot on 16mm film, played on USA twice that
 >I know of and is still available on VHS from VCI Home Video.

 >120 minutes, Ed. That's two hours. And the total budget was only
 >$120,000. I am not saying that this film was any good; more to
 >the point it was not. But it had mucho special make-up effects
 >that were on par with anything seen in AA. To keep up the notion
 >that AA would cost so much money to produce is a lie that you
 >promote to make it seem out of reach of any hoaxer. It goes hand
 >in hand with the false idea that Santilli would not have any
 >reason to believe he could make money off of AA in face of the
 >fact that it was a featured special on the FOX network. You
 >think that Santilli let Fox use it for free?

As I recall Ray allegedly sold between 400,000 to 600,000 copies
of the AA tape world wide, not to mention whatever FOX paid.
When you run the numbers of just the video sales alone that
equates out to 4-7 million dollars or there abouts. Thats not a
bad chunk of change for say a $100 K investment. We are also
told by AA supporters that the hoaxed tent footage also came
from the camerman as part of the 22 rolls of film.

I suspect the bottom line is that all the money that can be made
off of AA has already been made, so hence no interest in
authenticating the footage or doing anything further. None of
the AA supporters have actually, with their eyes, in their
hands, so to speak seen a copy of the "original" AA film, nor
has any of the supporters "actually" seen the so called and
alleged cameraman. The only proof they have is "Well Ray
said..." and "...I believe Ray..."

 >Now, you claim you want to get to the bottom of AA. Okay, ask
 >Santilli for the film clip that Bob looked at or, perhaps,
 >another from the film. Also ask him if the cameraman shot
 >positive or negative film. Within these two simple questions we
 >can tell if the cameraman is lying.

I predict a couple of things. Five years from now Ray will still
not have provided any original film to the AA supporters In the
mean time if the pressure gets great enough to trot out the
camerman, we will hear a "sad story" about how he died; how he
really wanted to step forward, etc etc.


Cheers,

Robert









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 27

                 Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 01:42:43_0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 14:22:19 -0500
Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Velez


 >From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 16:29:27 EST
 >Subject: Re: P-47_ ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates_ Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: P-47_ ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 15:22:45_0600

 >>>From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates_ Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: P-47_ ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>>Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:13:46_0600

 >>My objections to ET Is Everywhere in Great Numbers and Now They
 >>Are Here, Too! are personal and based solely on my own take and
 >>experience of the present. They are way too complicated to get
 >>into now, and would probably bore half the people on this List
 >>to death in any event.

 >Dennis argues the point of touchy-feely computers and adds...

<snip>

 >In Strieber's book, The Key, whatever your opinion about the
 >man, he does present an argument for ET's intervention on a
 >level which has not (to the best of my Gripple-addled memory)
 >been presented and discussed here. As Velez opined in another
 >post about religion, that the subject is just too personal and
 >deeply rooted to become a dialog here, the same appears to be
 >true about the more spiritual possibilities of ET and the
 >abduction phenom, only more so. In this case we can add the
 >words, "New Age." Cripes, that ought'a do it.

 >Anyway, it's just another way of looking at it.


Hello Jim,

As Mr. Stacy said to Mr. Hall, "I think you're gettin' the hang
of this e-mail thing."  ;)

In response to your remark above:

If you can find a "spiritually" saving grace in the act of one
person being kidnapping by another_against_ their will, and
the _forced_ violation of the body and mind of that person, then
I tip my hat to you. I suppose it's possible to entertain some
"higher" purpose for what these 'things' are doing to us.
Although 'what' that "higher purpose" is, is once again (like
religion and politics) a matter left up to individual
interpretation.

Personally I find the whole abduction business a GROSS violation
of my most basic human rights. A complete emasculation, (I am
helpless to defend or protect myself or my family) and I
consider it the worst form of enslavement imaginable. What has
been done to me is rape and assault. Period. I cannot make a
single connection between what I have experienced and
"spiritual" enlightenment.

As for my own 'spiritual' growth and evolution, that is solely
_my_ domain and not that of another. The implications in your
statements are; that we are all so incredibly un-evolved and
spiritually bankrupt that as a race, we need an "intervention"
from ET in order to make any meaningful progress spiritually.
BS. As a race (mankind) we already have_everything_ we need to
attain enlightenment. (And I don't mean that 'blissed out' kind
of 'hippie panacea' enlightenment either.

I'm talking about our innate capability to connect with
Cosmos/the universe directly, without the aid or intercession of
priests or aliens. Nothing stands between you and your "Source"
but whatever limitations, garbage, and obstacles, you have
placed there yourself.

I consider that those who sublimate the grosser aspects
of the abduction experience as "something spiritually beneficial"
are in a deep state of denial. They_need_the 'band-aid' that
the belief that "all this is for my own good" affords them.
It frees them (artificially) from fear instead of facing it
square on and dealing with it. Overcoming it. THAT, is where
the real human spirit shines and comes through loud and clear.
Not in denial and self delusion/pacification.

What I resent about 'some' New-Agers is, they condescendingly
refer to other abductees (who are more in touch with the
_reality_ of what is happening) as being "un-evolved"
spiritually because they hold a "negative" belief system
concerning their own repeated kidnappings. The ones they refer
to as "spiritually un-evolved" are the ones who have squarely
faced and integrated the reality of the abductions in a way that
doesn't sugarcoat them or twist them into something other than
what they are.

Kidnaping and a rape. Over and over and over again.

Hey, maybe they're right! Speaking strictly as an un-evolved
human ape all I can say is, if this is for our own good, they
have a hell of a way of going about winning us over to their way
of perceiving the Universe. If they really care so very much
about our spiritual progress and our enlightenment you would
think that they'd meet us openly, seek our willing cooperation.
Maybe even demonstrate their caring and concern for us as a
species and do 'something' about all the war and genocide and
pure misery that exists in the world. (As opposed to screwing
with ordinary family people like myself who make no connection
between what they are doing to me and to my family, and
"spiritual" anything.) I don't give a rats ass if this "good for
me or not." I want it to stop.

If they want to "enlighten" me they can damn well _ask_ me if
_I_ wish to be "enlightened!"

It's fine by me if folks want to think that kidnap and rape is
somehow good for their souls. I suppose everybody involved has
to find 'some way' to deal with this monster. I don't blame them
one bit for taking the 'easy way out.' This is the hardest thing
I've ever had to confront or deal with. I know first hand that
it ain't "easy."

"Whatever gets you through the night is alright." ;) John Lennon

Good post.


John, I'll take care of "Enlightening" myself thank you, Velez



                                         *************
                              "Nothing is at last sacred but
                             the integrity of your own mind."
                                 www.spacelab.net/~jvif/
                                         *************










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 27

             New Evidence Strengthens Claims of Ancient Life on

From: Kurt Jonach <ewarrior@electricwarrior.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 22:56:53 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 14:24:12 -0500
Subject: New Evidence Strengthens Claims of Ancient Life on



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

New Evidence Strengthens Claims of Ancient Life on Mars -
Study of Martian Meteorite Reveals Magentic Fossils


PRESS RELEASE
February 26, 2001
Johnson Space Center

Researchers have found magnetic material in a 4.5
billion-year-old Martian meteorite that could only have been
produced by bacteria. This new data strongly supports the
primitive life on Mars hypothesis of David McKay and co-authors
in 1996.

"There are no known reports of any organic process that could
produce such magnetites," said Kathie Thomas-Keprta, an
astrobiologist at NASA's Johnson Space Center and the lead
researcher on the study. The Martian magnetites are identical to
those found in a bacteria strain on Earth called MV-1. "This
group of magnetite deeply embedded in the Mars meteorite is so
similar to the ones produced by the Earth bacteria that they
cannot be told apart by any known measurement," said David
McKay, a geologist at JSC and a co-author on the paper. "We
considered that perhaps earth bacteria or earth magnetite had
gotten into the Mars meteorite," McKay continued, "but extensive
examination and testing by both our team and many other
investigators eliminated that possibility."

Scientists generally agree that ALH84001 is a member of the
group of 16 meteorites found on Earth that originated on Mars.
The potato-sized igneous rock is the oldest of them -- about 4.5
billion years. It lay in Antarctic ice for more than 13,000
years. But the biogenic-type magnetite crystals are embedded in
3.9-billion-year-old carbonates within ALH84001. Previous work
by co-author Chris Romanek, of the Savannah River Ecology
Laboratory has shown that these carbonates formed on Mars; thus
the magnetite crystals must also have formed on Mars.

Using electron microscopy, team members examined the Martian
magnetites still embedded in the carbonate and also removed
about 600 crystals and examined the individual particles to
determine their chemical composition and crystal geometry.
"These crystals are so tiny, ranging from 10 to 200 nanometers,
that nearly a billion of them would fit on the head of a pin,"
said Thomas-Keprta.

The authors found that about a quarter of the Martian magnetites
from ALH84001 are identical to magnetites produced on Earth by
the magnetotactic bacteria strain MV-1, which has been
extensively studied by co-author Dennis Bazylinski, a
geobiologist and microbiologist at Iowa State University who has
developed many ways of culturing these difficult to grow
microorganisms. No one has found terrestrial inorganic
magnetites, produced either naturally or in the laboratory, that
mimic all the properties displayed by biogenic magnetites.
"There is currently no known inorganic chemical means of
producing these magnetite crystals with their unique
morphologies," he said.

Magnetite (Fe3O4) is produced inorganically on Earth. But the
magnetite crystals produced by magnetotactic bacteria are
different -- they are chemically pure and defect-free. Their
size and shape is distinct. Magnetotactic bacteria arrange these
magnetite crystals in chains within their cells. These
characteristics make the magnetite crystals very efficient
compasses, which are essential to the survival behavior of the
bacteria by helping them locate sources of food and energy.
"Mars is smaller than Earth and it developed faster," co-author
Simon Clemett of Lockheed-Martin at JSC noted. "Consequently,
bacteria able to produce tiny magnets could have evolved much
earlier on Mars."

"The process of evolution has driven these bacteria to make
perfect little bar magnets, which differ strikingly from
anything found outside of biology," added, Joe Kirschvink, a
geobiologist at Caltech and a co-author of the paper. "In fact,
an entire industry devoted to making small magnetic particles
for magnetic tapes and computer disk drives has tried and failed
for the past 50 years to find a way to make similar particles. A
good fossil is something that is difficult to make
inorganically, and these magnetosomes are very good fossils."

Mars has long been understood to provide sources of light energy
and chemical energy sufficient to support life. Early Mars, the
authors note, may have had even more chemical energy produced by
active volcanism and hydrothermal activity. Also, when the team
asserted in 1996 that Martian meteorite ALH84001 showed signs of
life existing on Mars, that planet was not known to have ever
had a strong magnetic field. But since then, the Mars Global
Surveyor has observed magnetized stripes in the crust of Mars
that show a strong magnetic field existed early in the planets
history, about the same time as the carbonate containing the
unique magnetites was formed. Surface features also suggest that
early Mars had large oceans and lakes. These attributes, coupled
with a CO2-rich atmosphere, provided the necessary environment
for the evolution of microbes similar to the fossils found in
ALH84001.

A team of 10 researchers collaborated on the four-year study,
which was published Feb. 27 in a special Astrobiology issue of
the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. The team,
led by Thomas-Keprta of Lockheed Martin at Johnson Space Center,
was funded by the NASA Astrobiology Institute. Co- authors of
the study are Simon Clemett and Susan Wentworth of Lockheed
Martin at the JSC; Dennis Bazylinski of Iowa State University
(funded by the National Science Foundation); Joseph Kirschvink
of the California Institute of Technology; David McKay, Everett
Gibson and Mary Fae McKay of JSC; and Christopher Romanek of the
Savannah River Ecology Laboratory.

------------------------------------------------------------
RELATED RESOURCES

For a more technical discussion of this paper please see the
following Web site:

JSC Astrobiology Institute for the Study of Biomarkers
http://ares.jsc.nasa.gov/astrobiology/biomarkers/recentnews.html

------------------------------------------------------------
Web developers, the URL address for this content is:
http://www.electricwarrior.com/news/ewNews0010.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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 27

             Re: Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy' - Rudiak

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 02:57:53 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 14:27:08 -0500
Subject: Re: Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy' - Rudiak


 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 14:03:30 -0600
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy'


 >>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 20:01:09 EST
 >>Subject: Re: NASA - Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy'
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >David, David, David.

 >Why do you do this to yourself?

I don't know Roger. I guess I'm just a wild and crazy guy and can't help
myself.

 >Even with the above snip, we can count no less than 3 times that
 >David says we can not see any stars during the day because of
 >the atmosphere.

 >Hoo, boy....

Just because you can see stars in space with the sun out but not
here on Earth, this wild scientific theory cropped up that maybe
the Earth's atmosphere had something to do with it -- junk like
sunlight scattering off the atmosphere.

E.g. check out this bozo who said the exact same things I did.
The guy even claims to have a PhD and be a professional
astronomer.

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

Hoo boy, were we wrong. Fortunately Roger Who-Knows-All is here
to clear up this misconception that our atmosphere keeps us from
seeing stars during the day..

 >The sun _is_ a star, big guy. We see it just fine, during the
 >day, even with the naked eye. We don't see the other stars
 >because they are too far away and, therefore, too dim to compete
 >with the intensity of the sun.

So here on Earth the stars have to "compete" with with the sun
because they are far away and dim and the sun is close and
bright.

But the stars are much better at "competing" on the moon because
they can be seen from the moon with the same sun in the sky. I
guess that means the stars are a lot closer to the moon than
they are to the Earth, making them much brighter, so they can
"compete" better. Have I got that right?

 >If the other stars were closer,
 >therefore, just as bright we'd see them during the day, as
 >well. The atmosphere does do what you say it does, just like the
 >sun bouncing off the white hood of a car. But it is not the
 >reason that we can't see the other stars. The reason lies with
 >the stars, themselves, and their proximity to the earth.

So you're saying the stars are a lot closer to the moon, making
them brighter, they "compete" better, and that's why you can see
them in the same sky with the sun? Perhaps you've stumbled onto
the solution for interstellar travel.

 >Even at night, without the symptom you describe, the atmosphere
 >still exists.

True, the atmosphere still exists at night without the "symptom"
I described.

 >The only thing that changes is the balance of the
 >lighting. Even so, we can't see _every_ star that's out there.
 >The reason is the same. Some stars are too far away and,
 >therefore, too dim to register in our eyes, much less
 >photographs.

These must be the very shy stars. They don't like to get close.

 >Likewise, at the end of the day, some of the
 >brighter stars begin to penetrate the atmosphere, even though it
 >is still "daylight" outside. Of course, I guess we can't see
 >those other "suns", either, using David's logic.

So you're saying that the sun erects some sort of shield during
the day that the stars can't "penetrate." When the sun goes down
to go to sleep, the sun's shield also disappears. Now the stars
can "penetrate." Also the stars don't like to "compete" with the
sun because it's so bright. When the sun isn't there to frighten
the stars; they creep closer, and get much brighter so we can
see them. The boldest stars creep closer first so we can see
them even before the sun goes completely away. The shy stars
keep their distance and we can't see them ever. I think I'm
beginning to see where you're going with this.

 >Again, repeat after me David, the sun is a star.

OK, Roger, I'll play along. The sun is a star. I can live with
that.

 >The sun penetrates the atmosphere just fine.

The sun penetrates the atmosphere just fine. That's because it
has to get real close so we can see it.

 >We can see the star we call the "sun" just fine.

I'm still with you Roger. We can see the star we call the sun
just fine because it's so close and penetrates the atmosphere.

 >Therefore, we can see any star that is
 >close enough and bright enough to penetrate the atmosphere.

So for us to see the other stars besides our sun, they have to
get real close and penetrate our atmosphere. Interstellar travel
will be a snap with this theory.

 >Therefore, your assertions about not being able to see any stars
 >during the day is wrong.

I really don't know what I was thinking Roger! It never occurred
to me that the sun was also a star and visible during the
daytime. It also never occurred to me that the sun and its
fellow stars had to get real close and penetrate our atmosphere
to be seen.

What I don't understand is how the sun is able to frighten away
the other stars here on Earth so they can't be seen in daylight
but the same isn't true on the moon. The stars seem to be a lot
bolder up there and creep a lot closer, because they can be seen
with the sun out. For some reason the sun isn't as good at
"competing" up there even though it's just as close and just as
bright.

Perhaps it's because the Earth is a lot bigger than the moon, so
the Earth and the sun together are more frightening to the stars
than the sun and the moon. But when the sun goes away at night,
the Earth by itself isn't frightening enough. The stars get a
lot closer and penetrate our atmosphere. Then we can see them.
Fortunately the Earth is just frightening enough that the stars
don't penetrate our atmosphere too much and burn us all up.

<snip>

 >Again, the context was why photos and video don't show any stars
 >in them. If my saying "see" confused you, I'm not surprised.
 >After all you are, without a doubt, the only person I've known
 >that apparently believes that the sun is not a star and is
 >something different. According to you, we can't see stars... but
 >we can see the sun! Typical Rudiak reasoning. Again, in case you
 >missed the news, the sun _is_ a star.

Hoo boy... I'm so embarrassed. Thank you for dumbing down your
explanations so that even I can understand them.  i didnt git a
gud eddication lik u.


"David, David, 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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 27

                          Re: Lakenheath - Randles

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 10:53:25 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 14:50:26 -0500
Subject: Re: Lakenheath - Randles


 >From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Lakenheath - Salvaille
 >Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 16:29:55 -0800

 >>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Lakenheath
 >>Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 20:38:04 -0000

 >>>From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Lakenheath
 >>>Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 13:14:19 -0800

 >Hello Jenny,

 >Interesting prospects...

 >You will find in addendum extracts of some of your previous
 >posts on Lakenheath. They definitely prove that:

 >1. I'm full of it: your never hinted conclusions of the UFOIN
 >report;

 >2. I'm doubly full of it: you have not yet made up you mind yet
 >on the Lakenheath case.

Hi,

I don't want to perpetuate a silly row that isn't necessary
anyway. I 'dont have the opportunity to do so given my domestic
circumstances. And I dont think the List in general would want
me to.

Your quotes simply show:

1: That, like I said, I have only discussed details of the air
crew testimony in my posts, not any other of the detailed
findings that are still coming in - except in general to, of
course, admit that they exist. Which would be absurd not to do
so.

2:  Indicated that my colleagues (notably David Clarke and Andy
Roberts) involved in the eventual writing of this report are
deeply skeptical of the case, and of UFOs as a novel phenomena
as whole, which is what they themselves have made clear via
their own posts to this list so would be foolish to pretend
otherwise. And that I am rather less skeptical, as I think my
own posts make clear, but that I am, hopefully, forming my
opinion on this case  - as I would with any  case - from an
assessment of all the incoming data and facts not my overall
opinion about Ufology per se. I would have hoped that is not
something I should apologise for doing. It seems good practice
to me.

3:  Suggested that I - too - was persuaded that the case was not
what it was. Like I said in earlier messages, that is proven by
what the air crew say. The visual sighting and aerial cat and
mouse chase of UFO legend just did not happen. So what else
would be an honest thing to say about the case based on that?

4:   I am still evaluating the evidence, adapting as new facts
come in, debating it with my colleagues - amicably I should add
- and being swayed by the developing arguments pro and con.
Which is exactly what I told you I was doing. I assume Andy and
Dave will do the same, even though as is clear from their
posts they are probably starting from a more skeptical
position as regards UFOs .  But, ultimately IMO you decide on a
case based on the sum total of the facts - not from some of the
facts - and whilst this case research is well progressed - there
is still more to do.

5:  Yes, the case as a seminal episode in UFO history is on
present evidence in trouble. It would be pointless trying to
hide that fact given what Andy and Dave have said to you all.
But whether that trouble is terminal and / or all embracing to
the many strands that this case possesses - well -  as I noted -
I'm not yet sure. The air crew story definitely is much less
credible in terms of it reflecting any kind of inexplicable UFO
event . Although the air crew story is simply one part of this
case you should remember.

As and when we write the final report - then I'll make my mind
up where the full case stands and we will all offer our position
statements - with reasoning - into that report. Until then any
debate about conclusions is premature .

I will decide what I think when all the data is in and the time
is right for me to decide.

And I think it would be a good idea if you did the same. That's
all I am politely  trying to suggest.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 27

                    Filer's Files #9 -- 2001 [Truncated]

From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 05:53:49 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 14:54:47 -0500
Subject: Filer's Files #9 -- 2001 [Truncated]


Filer's Files #9 -- 2001, MUFON Skywatch Investigations
George A. Filer, Director, Mutual UFO Network Eastern
February 26, 2001, Sponsored by Electronic Arts; Majorstar@aol.com.
Webmaster Chuck Warren http://www.filersfiles.com,

UFO REPORTS INCREASE IN SPACE, FROM AIRCRAFT AND ON THE GROUND
The new year brings spectacular Disc shaped UFO reports in
Chile, Michigan, Arizona, Oregon and England. Flying Triangle
reports come in from New Jersey, Alabama, and Georgia,
maneuvering lights are reported in Florida, Indiana, Texas, and
United Kingdom.

DISC SHAPED UFOs REPORTED IN UFOs SPY ON STS-98 SHUTTLE FLIGHT

Jeff Challender writes, "I've been looking through the raw
material gathered so far from the STS-98 mission. There have
been some anomalies, and no thanks to NASA very limited live
television. The pattern on this flight has been a dearth of live
downlink TV. There are two kinds of coverage: One is called
KU-Band, which is full motion television just as we are used to
it. The other is called S-Band, and is a herky jerky slide show
type of TV, changing images every 20 to 30 seconds. I have noted
that it is getting more common, as time passes, that the S-Band
slide show is used during most of the "action" parts of the
mission. That is: during dockings, undocking, space walks, and
any other time when it is likely that large numbers of viewers
are tuned in. This was particularly obvious during the
installation of the new Destiny module, and during space walks,
as well as this morning's undocking. During the Destiny
sequence, the S-Band slides went in sequence for a while, but
there was a very large, distinct gap just before Destiny was
locked to Alpha.

One wonders why? This morning, the KU Band downlink was in use
right up to the last seconds before separation. Then, at
separation, the S-Band was kicked in, and stayed in use until
the operation was complete. KU-Band was restored after all was
over. Hmmmm. It didn't stop me from detecting an object in space
which has appeared three times this week. I have jokingly named
this object the "Twinkie," due to it's shape. A couple days ago,
an orange orb was seen hovering off the Shuttle. It bore some
cursory resemblance to the Moon, but a check of the ephemeris
showed the Moon to be nearly 180 degrees away from the camera
angle. Also, the Moon never has an orange color when seen from
space. There's more, but unfortunately, there is no time or room
here to describe them all. I plan to release a new video
containing all the anomalies garnered from the flights of STS-92
(Oct. 2000), STS-97 (Dec. 2000) and STS-98 (Feb. 2001). The
video, like my previous release, "What Do 'They' Know," should
raise some eyebrows in the coming months. Kindest regards, as
always, Jeff  Jefchall@worldnet.att.net

NEW JERSEY FLYING TRIANGLE

WANAQUE RESERVOIR -- On February 16, 2000, a Flying Triangle was
observed floating over Ringwood and the reservoir at 1:30 AM for
ten minutes. A 37 year old male reported the sighting of the
Flying Triangle at treetop level around 50 feet in altitude. The
object had a dark surface, and was the size of a baseball at
arm's length. The object hovered and appeared unsteady has it
wobbled changing direction in flight. The Flying Triangle caused
a strange tingling sensation in the ears of the witness. The
object had blue_white lights that did not conform to FAA
regulations.

DEAL -- On a winter Sunday morning in 1984, my friend and I were
going to try to catch the sunrise at the beach. We were on a
street in Loch Arbor when I noticed to my right, low to the
ground and very close to the base of a house, a luminous golden
pink cloud shaped object. It was moving very quickly following
the outline of the side of the house. It moved across the yard
and crossed directly in front of our vehicle. The car's
headlights made the object very visible and gave the impression
of a cloud rather then being a defined circle. It was about 42
feet high and 4 feet wide. It moved in front of our vehicle and
continued across the street and disappeared behind a house. It
seemed to be an entity rather than a mechanical device. It
reminded me of a hound dog tracking a subject the way it was low
to the ground and followed the contour of the house. It moved at
about the same speed a tracking dog would. My friend, who was
driving said that a dark area in the cloud looked like an eye
shape to her. The object was a beautiful pink color with a
golden hue with no sharp borders or definitive edges. We were
both awestruck. Thanks to Martha Nuzio JNuz@aol.com

ALABAMA ARMY DISCS

HUNTSVILLE -- David Ring writes, "With all the news you have
been including about scientific discoveries I haven't noticed
anything about the disc developed in Labs in Huntsville that can
generate it's own gravity field as either a ''push" or a "pull."
See article in October Popular Mechanics. When activated this
disc has the ability to nullify the effects of gravity. The
inventor theorizes that she may be able to design a disc that
will be powerful enough to extend the field of the disc up out
of the earth's atmosphere. A novel mode of space launch to be
sure. I've seen no other news on this no headlines. She uses the
Bose-Einstein effect and extremely low temperatures as the route
to her gravity field. Conversely, Hutchison has rediscovered the
means to achieve his gravity defying effects using a very
different less theoretically sophisticated approach. Thanks to
David Ring

GEORGIA AND ALABAMA SIGHTINGS OF FLYING TRIANGLE

Renowned investigator John Thompson received a call from a
former Navy mine countermeasures software specialist who
reported that unusual military helicopter activity has been
ongoing in Randolph County, Alabama. To him the helicopters
seemed to be searching for something and flew so low as to cause
cattle and horses to scatter in fear. Above average helicopter
activity has also been confirmed in neighboring Troup and Heard
counties in Western Georgia. On Monday January 29, 2001, just
after dawn, the Randolph witness said he saw a large Flying
Triangle moving towards Heard County. The slab-like triangle was
of "weathered gray" color on its sides, with its back being of a
darker color and possibly concave. Its thickness or height was
approximately a quarter of its total length. The software
specialist said that the best way to picture what the Flying
Triangle craft looked like is to imagine taking the pyramid on
the back of a dollar bill and slicing a thick lateral wedge from
that pyramid. It had non-blinking red, yellow and blue lights on
its back.

WEDOWEE -- Initially the Flying Triangle was seen near Randolph
County High School on Highway 48. Because of the craft's low
altitude--less than a 1000 feet--and close proximity to the high
school the witness was able to estimate the sides of the craft
of being 150 feet long and its thickness, or height about 35
feet. The Flying Triangle was seen for five minutes and moved at
a speed of only 50-60 miles-per-hour. It was last seen traveling
slowly eastward over Omaha towards the Heard County line. There
was no noise from the craft. No wings, protruding structures or
engines were seen on the triangle UFO. The witness's description
seems to match the craft seen on 1/5/00 in St. Clair County,
Illinois by many law-enforcement officers. It is thought by many
that the Illinois UFO was a stealth blimp of some kind. Calls
were made to 911 centers in Randolph and Heard counties, but
there were no other reports. There was a low ceiling that
morning with a temperature in the 30s. A woman in northwest
Troup County, said a military helicopter buzzed her car. After
flashing the headlights of her car on three extremely low-flying
helicopters who were flying in front of her, one of the choppers
circled back and dove at her car twice. Thanks to John C.
Thompson

FLORIDA BRIGHT WHITE OBJECT DARTING CLOUD

SARASOTA - A couple was driving on Highway I-75 between
Bradenton and Sarasota just after noon on February 16, 2001. The
witness indicates his fianc was driving, when he looked out the
passenger window at the clouds and saw an object dart across the
sky very fast west of his position over the Gulf of Mexico. The
object looked far away, yet he saw it clearly. It was round and
bright white in color and flew into a small puff of cloud. The
cloud was only a few miles off the Gulf coast. The object stayed
in the cloud for about 5 seconds, reversed trajectory and flew
up at around a 45 degree angle to another small cloud, stayed
there for another ten seconds. It then shot off at a right angle
to another cloud EXTREMELY fast. The object then remained in the
cloud and did not come out. It just did not look normal.  Thanks
to Peter Davenport, National UFO Reporting Center <A
HREF="http://www.ufocenter.com/">NUFORC</A> www.nuforc.com

MICHIGAN DISC RETURNS THREE NIGHTS IN A ROW

ESCANABA -- Three adults at home on Friday, February 9, 2001,
(the first night) noticed a bright light in the sky. After
watching for twenty minutes they looked through binoculars and
saw a large round shape, with white lights in the center and red
and green around it. It stayed there for over one hour, then
slowly descended and turned red before going below the trees.
This object has returned for three nights now, and many people
are watching it. The witness reports, "I took a very good video
of this object and am wondering what it is? Escanaba is located
in Northern Michigan on Lake Michigan. Thanks to MUFON Worldwide
Data Base http://ohiomufon.services4all.com/.

INDIANA 75 MINUTE FILM CLOSE UP OF UFO

TELL CITY -- Saturday evening, February 10, 2001, at 9:00 PM, my
husband was getting ready to go to bed when he yelled at me to
look at all of the airplanes flying by. I glanced through the
window that faces west and saw an odd shaped bright light. When
it started bobbing around, I got my video camera and started
taking pictures. It danced around, disappeared, came back, and
came so close the first time that I got a stunning look at it.
It was round, except at the very bottom, and looked flat. It had
two lines through the middle, a round circle in the center of
the parallel lines, and an emblem in the middle of the circle.
There were designs on the top and bottom parts. I viewed this
for about 5 seconds, then it gradually moved away and across the
trees, then into a bright ball again. It had a dark side and a
bright side. When it was bright, there would be a jagged streak
of light moving upward, dimming the bottom part as it went.
After it dimmed, it would then get smaller. It bobbed around,
disappeared, and maneuvered for several minutes. Then the dark
side got very close and was very large. It had the same markings
on that side as the bright side. There were red, yellow, and
orange lights. It came very close 3 times before it finally
disappeared. I have great movies of this. Thanks to Peter
Davenport NUFORC who spoke by telephone with this witness, and
found her to be a good witness. www.nuforc.com

TEXAS STROBE LIGHT FLIES ERRATICALLY

AUSTIN -- David K. Pevehouse writes, I witnessed a plane laying
a contrail at 5:00 AM in that was horizon to horizon in length.
I should really call it a chemtrail due to the fact it stayed in
place for over 20 minutes keeping its thin shape. I looked down
a little ways from where the plane was and to the left and
noticed a sparkling strobe light. It seemed to sparkle and
strobe at the same time. The colors were blue greenish, purple
and moved funny, back and forth very fast. It was darting north
then south, again north and south. I looked at different areas
of the sky to see if it was my vision but I did not see the same
thing in other areas of the sky. Only way I can describe it is
that it was very strange and seemed to move like a bug, very
erratically. Thanks to David K. Pevehouse dkp34@juno.com

ARIZONA FOUR DOMED CIRCULAR DISK CRAFT SHAPE

PHOENIX -- It was 7:30 PM on February 6, 2001, when the witness
left his driveway and turned north when a brightly illuminated
sight in the evening sky caught his attention. "My gosh! Look at
that! He said to himself. He pulled the car to the curb and got
out for a better look. The witness stated, "I saw four very
brightly lit domed circular craft! Each was illuminated totally
in brilliant white light. They were each four to five inches in
size from where I stood." The domed top was clear on all the
craft. They were moving from south to north in a diamond
formation. Each swayed back and forth and traded places, still
maintaining the diamond formation as they collectively traveled
forward to the north. "I watched them as they grew smaller, and
smaller until they disappeared in the distance," the witness
stated. Thanks to Peter Davenport Director NUFORC
http://www.ufocenter.com

OREGON DISC WITH LIGHTS SEEN BY CREW CHIEF

ROGUE RIVER -- In one of the best reports I've received recently
an SR-71 Air Force Crew Chief phoned to tell me he and his
family of four had a witnessed a disc shaped UFO outside their
home around 8:30 PM on both February 21st, and 22nd, 2001. It
started when he noticed a bright light at the top of the
mountain behind his home. Since the nearest airport is 35 miles
south in Medford, he thought it was strange to see a plane with
its landing lights on. The home is located in a rural area with
two mountains behind the house, one 2000 feet and the other 3500
feet high. Twenty minutes later he looked out again and saw the
lights were still there. Grabbing his binoculars he was able to
get an excellent view of the craft that was flying lower toward
his home. At first, he noticed a bright diamond shaped light
that at first didn't move. Then it started getting lighter and
brighter and smaller and bigger. It started moving down a hill.
Then it stopped. Then it got lighter, brighter, smaller and
bigger. Then it went back up the hill and seemed to stop. It
kept on doing it over and over. The disc shaped UFO flew down
the side of the mountain and moved at its closest about 400
yards away. The disc was almost as large as his fist at arm's
length. It had four triangular shaped panels or windows in a X
pattern. Two panels were above the rim and two were below
emitting light. The disc was made of a grayish metallic
material. The Crew Chief assured me he had never seen a craft in
the Air Force or any where remotely similar. The craft slowly
climbed in altitude up the side of the mountain sweeping its
bright lights appearing to be searching for something. The red
glowing lights appeared to emit flares as it slowly flew up the
side of mountain very close to the trees. Radio towers are on
the top of the mountain.

The following night there was a similar bright diamond shaped
light in the northwest sky just above the ridge line in the back
of their home. They watched the light pull apart from the sides
and pull back together several times. The light divided and a
separate bright red light came from the north and pulled up next
to the bright light. The second hovered for almost ten seconds
and zigzagged off to the south very quickly. The bright light
hovered and then maneuvered and suddenly disappeared. The object
followed the ground to the top of the ridge and went over the
top and stopped just on the other side. It stayed there for
about 5 minutes and was gone. My son yelled, "Look to the
right." The UFO was moving left, right up and down with terrific
speed. It was not a helicopter or plane and there was no sound
what so ever. Insects, frogs, and other animals started to make
sounds only after the UFO left. They saw the object for 15- 20
minutes. The Crew Chief's eleven year old son said, "The UFO was
cool and awesome!"

Editor's Note: Several elk herds live in the mountains and the
UFO crew may have been searching for food. In Oregon there have
been reports of U






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 27

                       UFOs in Adams County, Illinois?

From: Chris Aubeck <caubeck@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 15:28:31 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 14:58:12 -0500
Subject: UFOs in Adams County, Illinois?


Hello to One and All,

Can anyone give me any information about UFO phenomena seen in
Adams County, Illinois? I'm mainly interested in the 1900-1935
period but anything would be handy.


Thank you

Chris Aubeck









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 27

                Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Friedman

From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 13:08:44 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 15:01:12 -0500
Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Friedman


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 00:50:13 EST
 >Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 22:04:21 -0400

 >>You must be quite short Bob. I just went out in the cold up here
 >>in New Brunswick. The Big Dipper is 11" between my hands at
 >>arm's length. I am only 5'9.5". The comments were made by the
 >>witness as he observed both the craft and the big dipper late at
 >>night. How could you possibly suggest this was most likely done
 >>in daylight by memory? Psychic powers?

 >Hi, Stan:

 >No, it was a guess.

 >>Martin, a Civil Engineer at that, while travelling the route up
 >>the Klondike Highway at about the same time at Night in December
 >>as the sighting occured, was able to do 3 triangulations. based
 >>on witness testimony as to landmarks where the front and back
 >>end of this huge craft were and how far away it was. There was a
 >>lake and many hills as well along the road.

 >Well, this could give one something to measure against.

 >>May I suggest you read the report before putting computer in
 >>gear?.

 >Actually, in rereading your original post, I see that the
 >estimate of size was .6 to 1.2 miles long, so there is a lot of
 >fudge there which could account for any reasonable arm size.

 >If the measurements are so exact, what accounts for a 100%
 >margin of error?

Nobody said the measurements were exact. Three different
triangulations indicating the object was 0.6-1.2 miles.allowing
margins of error. Surely even 0.6 miles is big enough for a
mothership, isn't it?.

 >>Did you go out and measure the width?

 >I'm familiar with the size of the Dipper.

So theory triumphs over measurements? New science! Read the
report. It is an outstanding objective and carefully done piece
of work by a professional.

The number of witnesses interviewed is now more than 31.


Scoffing was the right word  .. scepticism is not.

Stan Friedman (off to Weber State University. Back on March 5)









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 27

                       Re: UFOs in 1882 & 1394 - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 11:09:06 -0600
Fwd Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 15:03:01 -0500
Subject: Re: UFOs in 1882 & 1394 - Clark


 >From: Manuel Borraz <maboay@teleline.es>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: UFOs in 1882 & 1394
 >Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 00:10:01 +0100

 >>Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:19:41 -0000
 >>From: Chris Aubeck  <caubeck@hotmail.com>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: UFOs in 1882 & 1394


 >>1) An enormous UFO was seen by numerous European witnesses on
 >>November 17th 1882. It travelled westwards at an approximate
 >>altitude of 130 miles and was spotted by several eminent
 >>scientists. These included Dr. E. Walter Maunder, an astronomer
 >>at Greenwich, the English spectroscopist J. Rand Capron, and
 >>Dutch astronomers Audemans and Zeeman. Greenwich published an
 >>official report which stated that the object had a well-defined
 >>body and was "disc-like in appearance." Unlike an ordinary
 >>meteor, it said, the behaviour of the disc had seemed "orderly
 >>and controlled."

 >>Does anyone know the location of an on-line article reproducing
 >>a whole translation of the original report? Whether the object
 >>was a natural or an artificial body is not what interests me,
 >>but rather the fact that it was apparently disc-shaped.
 >I found a few lines about it in the books of W. R. Corliss
 >("Handbook of Unusual Natural Phenomena", "Lightning, Auroras,
 >Nocturnal Lights, and related Luminous Phenomena").
 >Note that:

 >- It probably was a rare auroral phenomenon (in fact, it took
 >place "while the aurora was fitfully blazing in the north,
 >north-east, and north-western sky"; hence the somewhat
 >misleading term "auroral meteor" that was used by many
 >scientists at the time).

 >- It was mainly described as a torpedo-shaped cloud of whitish
 >light.

I think Manuel is right. Even Eddie Bullard, who wrote about
the incident in an entry in my encyclopedia, did not consider
it a real UFO.

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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 27

                 Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 11:07:16 -0600
Fwd Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 15:05:31 -0500
Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Evans


 >From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol>
 >Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 21:15:49 EST
 >Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Randle
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 00:42:27 EST
 >>Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, Bob wrote:

 >>So, while the effort was apparently successful, word eventually
 >>did leak out. Whether the Japanese ever found out or not I don't
 >>know.

Kevin replied:

 >This isn't quite right. After the six people (five children and
 >one adult) were killed in Oregon (the only war deaths as a
 >result of enemy action in the continental United States) , the
 >policy shifted to warn people about the balloon bombs. There is
 >even a "Cap't Jack" comic in which the balloon bombs are
 >discussed. So, the information didn't leak, but it was part of a
 >carefully orchestrated "whispering" campaign to teach people to
 >stay away from the ground balloons. And, no, the Japanese
 >believed that all the balloons fell harmlessly into the ocean.

 >My point here was that secrets, held by thousands, can be well
 >kept, at least for short periods.

Hi, Kevin, Bob, all...

There seems to be a general disagreement about what constitutes
a "secret". This is much like the on-again, off-again debate
about what constitutes a "conspiracy". In my mind, any agreement
between two or more people to do harm to other(s) is a
conspiracy, plain and simple. Others feel that such a deed has
to encompass a larger, organized group of people to be called a
conspiracy. Still others feel even _that_ doesn't really apply
because, eventually, the evil doers get caught which, for some
reason I don't understand, is supposed to negate the previous
existence of the conspiracy.

Likewise, in my mind, one person can keep something to
themselves and _that_ is a secret. To others, a secret is
something that is, ironically, shared between two or more
people. Again to others, it is not the degree of secrecy that
defines it as such, but the duration; how long it is kept a
secret.

In the end, we have the problem of defining just what _is_ a
secret. More to the point, the duration of the secret-keeping
seems to affect our perception of whether or not something was,
indeed, a "secret", just information "little known by the
general public" or, in the end, information that quickly became
"common knowledge". In other words, just how long does something
have to be known by only a few (or the one) before it is
classified as a "secret"? How quickly does it have to spread to
become "common knowledge"? How many people have to know about it
before the term "secret" no longer applies? Does damage have to
be done before repetition of the secret is considered a "breach
of security"? Or is something still considered a secret if
nothing happens? How long have papers sat in the archives after
declassification before someone with an agenda finds the one
piece of paper that makes a difference in their research about a
particular topic?

After all, the computer which was used as a reference during
this discussion was, at one time, a secret within the company
that developed it, was it not? Certainly we can say that they
are common place now, and that they are a ubiquitous part of our
everyday lives, but that was not always the case. During the
design stage, all companies keep close tabs on their product
development information. I've done plenty of work for BMC
software, here in Houston, and I can tell you that there are
areas of that building that are off limits to most everyone
except certain personnel with their own company.

I'm not sure we can compare the existence of items we take for
granted with information that we have no access to and claim,
"All the secrets are out about everything or we'd be hearing
about them." After all, if it's secret, how would we know?

Just what _is_ a secret these days?


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 27

               Re: New Evidence Of Sagan's Martian Macrobes? -

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 09:58:48 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 15:16:42 -0500
Subject: Re: New Evidence Of Sagan's Martian Macrobes? -


 >Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 02:13:04 -0500
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: New Evidence Of Sagan's Martian
 >Macrobes?

<snip>

 >3. The details on the tubular structure itself look "organic" (a
 >remnant or some living thing, or natural process) and not like
 >an 'artificial' or 'manufactured' artifact. I detect nothing
 >that resembles mechanical or 'manufactured' parts anywhere in
 >the structure. As I have said, it 'looks like' some impossible
 >worm left behind its outer skin layer on the Martian surface.
 >(That's what it -looks like- not what I think it is.)

 >Maybe Frank Herbert wasn't too far off the mark with
 >his "giant desert worm" creations in Dune! :O

Hi John, List,

I agree: it looks organic. Then again, so do some technological
constructions. I'm quite open to this being a "sandworm"
carcass, frankly. I wonder if we can start importing some of
that "spice"...

 >And I'm sorry Mac, I know you have a lot of respect and
 >admiration for the guy, but Richard Hoagland lost me when he
 >started making absolutely wild "predictions" in public as if he
 >was the "Psychic Hotline" for anything ET related.

Again, I agree. Hoagland and I have a very different take on
Mars and its significance, as you can tell by perusing our
respective websites. Hoagland is very eager to look for "grand
unified theories" that dscribe _everything_ in a Martian context
(a commendable endeavor, but one I don't think is warranted by
the evidence).

I do, however, applaud his willingness to entertain
possibilities. Does he go over the edge cometimes? Certainly.
But chances are none of us would even know about the "worm" if
not for his scouring Malin's releases.

As for the Face's status as a possible artifact, the a priori
predictions of secondary features, such as the "nostrils" and
"eye" (plus extra ones, such as apparent "lips" and
ornamentation) would tend to favor intelligent origin. _One good
overhead shot_ could tell us so much.

I think the potential scientific payback represented by the Face
(and other Cydonian features) makes it worth the trouble--and
Malin's demonstrated ability to aim the MOC camera accuractely,
contrary to previous public statements, indicates that the
"trouble" is actually pretty minimal.

Last night, SPSR's Lan Fleming dropped the bombshell that the
_entire Face_ was imaged in June of 2000. For some reason, the
eastern half has not been released.

Keep an eye on my site. It's possible we _already have_ a
complete overhead view!

=====
Mac Tonnies (macbot@yahoo.com) 816-561-0190
105 Ward Parkway #900, Kansas City, MO 64112
Me: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/mtvi.html
Cydonia: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/cydonia.html
Books: http://www.geocities.com/macbot/bookreviews.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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 27

                     Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 12:16:08 -0600
Fwd Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 15:19:54 -0500
Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Clark


 >From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment
 >Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 10:21:29 -0000

 >>From: Jerome Clark
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto
 >>Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Clark
 >>Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 12:01:59 -0600


Andy,

 >Excuse the lateness of my reply to the following, but a
 >karmically induced and extremely virulent bout of adult
 >chicken-pox has been somewhat distracting.....

Sorry to hear about your chicken pox -- no fun having when
you're a kid (as I did), and much worse in one's adult years. I
hope you're well recovered and back in action shortly.

Beyond that, to the less important issue of the Lakenheath case,
you have in no way addressed my concerns about your repeatedly
demonstrated lack of (even lip-service) objectivity. Instead,
you've just dug yourself in deeper. You have tried to change the
focus to my alleged refusal to address the "facts of the
matter," even knowing fully well that since the report and its
attendant evidence are unavailable to us except in the most
(conveniently) piecemeal fashion, no meaningful discussion is
currently possible. I am told that you and your colleagues are
actively refusing to share information with other Lakenheath
experts.

This, let me repeat, is what concerns me, and indeed ought to
concern all who desire a non-ideologically driven investigation
of UFO cases: You seem to have a far deeper emotional attachment
to a particular set of beliefs regarding the incident than I,
personally, could ever muster. You also appear to have a
deep-seated need to make enemies and, failing that, to imagine
them. Do you want to be known less as an investigator than as a
martyr? I am sorry to disappoint you, but whether Lakenheath
stands or falls is of no concern to me, except to the degree
that whichever finally happens is the option that most coheres
with facts and logic.

You also keep coming back to the slander that, for reasons
evidently known to you but certainly not to me, I refuse to
accept prosaic causes of classic UFO cases. Well, it's true I
refuse to accept them when they make no sense (.e.g., Arnold's
pelicans) or otherwise fail to measure up (Klass and Menzel on
Socorro), but when good skeptical explanations are available, I
am glad to embrace them, as I've accepted many over the course
of time (as my writings document). I even once personally
debunked a once classic CE3, in the process proving,
incidentally and amusingly, that pelicanists reject "anecdotal
testimony" only when it is pro-UFO; anti-UFO anecdotal testimony
is quite another matter.

Perhaps, while we're at it, you can list some proposed prosaic
explanations for classic UFO cases that you reject -- or is the
phrase "prosaic explanation" sufficient to identify it as both
correct and beyond reproach?

In any event, I pretend to no expertise on Lakenheath. All I
have is curiosity both about what you allegedly have found --
should you ever deign to share it with us lesser mortals -- and
about what your peers who do know the case well have to say
about your methods and conclusions, favorable or unfavorable,
when we finally learn, if we ever do, what you're talking about.

In the meantime, to all appearances you are implying that your
ideas amount to sacred text and all who (inevitably) will
question them (just as you have questioned previous pro-UFO
readings of the incident, as is your right) are in some sense
heretics, true believers, or other undesirables. If so, you're
doing ufology no good.

Indeed, if that's your view (and it certainly seems to be your
view, though I would like to be wrong), one can only conclude,
sadly, that you don't understand how the scientific process
works.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 27

             Re: Velez Question On John Carpenter [was: Filer's

From: Gary Hart <geehart@frontiernet.net>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 13:05:11 -0600
Fwd Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 15:27:28 -0500
Subject: Re: Velez Question On John Carpenter [was: Filer's


 >Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 15:43:17 -0500
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: Re: Filer's Files #8 -- 2001

 >George (Filer), you're a MUFON director, have you heard _anything_
 >at all about the headquarters investigation into the John
 >Carpenter (sale of abductee files) business? I'm both curious
 >and trying to do a follow up. It's been awhile since we've
 >heard anything new about their "internal investigation."

 >"Love All,"..... trust _few!_

 >John Velez  ;)


John Velez,

It may interest you to know that my own investigation of John
Carpenter's activities has continued since last July when John
Schuessler messaged other board members and said an ethics
committee would look at the evidence I had presented and make a
decision in two weeks... Since I made it clear that any MUFON
decision should be communicated to me using a certified letter -
if the so-called ethics committee had reached a decision, I
would know of it.

My evidence package has grown from 231 pages to well over
four hundred pages as I have followed every lead to it's logical
end and contacted every person on John's case file list that
could be reasonably contacted. Every person contacted was
appreciative of my effort to contact them and supply printed
materials to prove what had happened to their case files.

In addition to other materials, I provided each person with a
message John wrote to the UpDates mail list where he didn't
contest: his selling of files, the number of files sold or the
resulting need to contact the abductees. John expressed his
(supposed) willingness to make these contacts, difficult as they
are. The people _I_ have been able to contact are, of course,
the easiest to contact considering name changes, etc. To a
person, no one had been contacted by Carpenter for any reason.

Based on my own investigative efforts I can now draw these
several conclusions: no investigation by MUFON's ethics
committee ever took place. They would _have_ to contact me as
chief investigator. They would _have_ to contact the available
witnesses. They would _have_ to corroborate my evidence sources
just as I have done and there has been _no_ word back to me of
any effort to do this.

When these facts became clear a few days ago, I called MUFON
Midwest Region Director John Kasher and asked several questions
about his knowledge of the Carpenter case. His responses told me
he knew essentially nothing about the substance of the case. He
_had_ been contacted by Carpenter and assured the charges Kasher
might have hear about were false, so no proper investigation has
taken place unless you call talking to a defendant an
investigation - I don't.

My attention is focused solely on MUFON's board of directors and
not on MUFON's general membership as they have been kept in the
dark like the rest of us and cannot be held accountable for the
actions of a few. My conversation with Kasher confirmed that
most of the board directors were also purposefully kept in the
dark about this exceptionally important case.

I immediately messaged the board with a copy of my July 2000
Formal Complaint and a detailed case time line to show there was
indeed a series of events, a complete and detailed story of
misconduct that could impact MUFON and the reputations of all
members of MUFON's Board because it could now be seen that the
MUFON Board had failed to act on a situation that may include
criminal conduct.

I received back several messages from Board members stating they
were unaware of my specific allegations of misconduct. By the
way, I do recognize, respect, appreciate and encourage the
efforts of some Board members to communicate with me. This is an
essential step to start repairing a situation that now has
inevitable consequences.

Attention focuses on the three people who are paid for their
services by MUFON: John Schuessler, Thomas Whitmore and Tom
Dueley, International Director, Treasurer And Secretary
respectively. Chief investigator Dan Wright apparently was aware
of case details and quit MUFON in December. Two other Directors
have quit in recent months, also.

I hereby call for the resignation of these three persons, their
ouster by MUFON's Board or an immediate public statement
regarding MUFON's position on the Carpenter case. Take your
pick.

MUFON's effort last year to vote in new by-laws failed by a wide
margin through lack of interest. Only 15% of all the membership
voted, well short of the 25% voting level needed to make the
vote valid. Did any of you MUFON members know this? Anyone
bother to tell you?


Gary Hart









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 27

                           Re: Lakenheath - Clarke

From: Dave Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 19:02:44 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 15:29:41 -0500
Subject: Re: Lakenheath - Clarke


 >From: Roy J Hale <royjhale@netscapeonline.co.uk>
 >Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 02:42:38 +0000
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Lakenheath

 >>From: Dave Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Lakenheath
 >>Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 10:16:39 -0000

 ><snip>

 >>Believe me I have far better things to do than spend hard earned
 >>cash travelling around the country gathering information for a
 >>bunch of ingrates to sit and pick holes in.

 >Hi All,

 >Sorry are you refering to Errol Knapp's excellent UpDates service?


Hi Roy,

No problems experienced with the excellent service, just a small
minority of the 'users'!

But hey, there's room for everyone at the inn..and are you
telling me these little disagreements don't make life more
interesting?

After all, if everyone agreed with each other, it would be a
pretty boring 'service'... what do you think, ebk?


Cheers,

Dave Clarke

"The Skeptick doth neither affirm, neither denie any position;
but doubteth of it."  --Sir Walter Raleigh










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 27

                  Re: Naud, Bouchmann & Le Paige - Mancusi

From: Bruno Mancusi <swissufo@swissufo.ch>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 20:05:49 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 18:34:38 -0500
Subject: Re: Naud, Bouchmann & Le Paige - Mancusi


 >From: Chris Aubeck <caubeck@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Naud, Bouchmann & Le Paige
 >Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 16:36:02 -0000

 >>From: Chris Aubeck <caubeck@hotmail.com>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Naud, Bouchmann & Le Paige
 >>Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:45:42 -0000

 >>>From: Bruno Mancusi <swissufo@swissufo.ch>
 >>>Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 20:38:42 +0100
 >>>Fwd Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 09:16:12 -0500
 >>>Subject: Re: Naud, Bouchmann & Le Paige - Mancusi


 >>>2) Where have you read about Hans Buchmann? I haven't been able
 >>>to get at the original source. If it's from a book in a language
 >>>other than English, could you post a translation of the relevant
 >>>passage? Can you confirm the date? How?

 ><snip>

 >>Sorry, I don't know an English source and can't post a
 >>translation. There is no dispute about the date. The story come
 >>from a manuscript of the well-known chronicler Renward Cysat
 >>(1515-1614), 'Collectanea chronica und denkwrdige sachen pro
 >>chronica Lucernensi et Helvetiae'.

 >Thanks for the information regarding Naud! You have reached the
 >same conclusion as I have about the Russian case - it was
 >invented by Fenoglio along with the Alenon report. Glad to see
 >we're all aware of how much garbage can be attributed to
 >Fenoglio's interference.

No, no, no! I wrote the contrary: I didn't find the Russian
case in 'Clypeus' article. Perhaps it is described in another
Fenoglio's article but I don't know...

 >I still find the Buchmann case confusing, I'm afraid. You say
 >the date is undisputed. I keep coming across the date of
 >November 1792. But you write that the original story was from
 >Renward Cysat, who died in 1614. I think one of us is missing
 >something here, and the sources you so kindly mention are quite
 >obscure so I can't check this out myself.

Excuse me, I didn't check your date. The correct one is 15
November 1572. Cysat manuscript is archived at the Zentral- &
Hochschulbibliothek Luzern:

http://www.zhbluzern.ch/zhbhandschriften/zhbhand.htm


Regards,

Bruno





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 27

                          Mystifying Shuttle Shadow

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 18:39:46 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 18:39:46 -0500
Subject: Mystifying Shuttle Shadow


Source: The Boston Globe

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/058/science/Mystifying_shuttle_shadow+.shtml


Mystifying Shuttle Shadow

By Globe Staff, 2/27/2001

The launch of the space shuttle Atlantis on Feb. 8, on a mission
to the International Space Station, was one of the most
spectacularly beautiful ever. Lifting off at 20 minutes after
sunset and eight hours before a full moon created spectacular
visual effects, best captured in this photo by Pat McCracken of
NASA headquarters.

But many people were mystified by the long, dark cone extending
from the shuttle's bright exhaust plume to the full moon near
the horizon. Some news accounts described it as rainbow-like,
and some observers wondered how a dark shadow could possibly
extend from one very bright object (the shuttle plume) to
another (the full moon).

Robert Greenler, a leading expert on unusual optical phenomena
in the sky, believes the explanation lies in the shadow cast by
the rocket's own plume, whose base was still in darkness but
whose tall spire extended up into sunlight, progressing through
the colors of sunset along the way.

The phenomenon is closely related to the dark rays that are
often seen extending upward from the sun around sunset, called
crepuscular rays. These are the shadows of clouds or mountains
near the horizon. In some cases, these rays can be seen
converging on the opposite side of the sky, where they are
called "anticrepuscular rays."

"My guess is that we are looking at an anticrepuscular ray,
which in this case is the shadow cast across the sky by the
rocket plume," said Greenler, a physicist and author of
"Rainbows, Halos and Glories" and "Chasing the Rainbow."

"The lower part of the plume is dark and the top is bright,
which suggests that the sun had just set for an observer on the
ground, but still illuminates the plume higher in the sky. A
shadow cast by the obscuring plume would be in the form of a fan
converging to the antisolar point," the point in the sky
exactly opposite to the sun's position.

Based on the time of the shuttle launch, Greenler estimated that
the antisolar point would be just above the horizon in the east,
creating a shadow extending through the moon and disappearing in
the murk close to the horizon. The fact that the shadow passes
through the moon is just a coincidence, he said, because when
full, it is very near the antisolar point.

The confusing fact that the shadow fan converges, instead of
diverging, toward the moon is a result of perspective, Greenler
explained - the same effect that causes parallel train tracks to
appear to converge toward the horizon.

DAVID L. CHANDLER

This story ran on page 3 of the Boston Globe on 2/27/2001.
� Copyright 2001 Globe Newspaper Company.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 27

                  Re: Cydonian Imperative: 2-26-01 - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 14:16:27 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 19:41:47 -0500
Subject: Re: Cydonian Imperative: 2-26-01 - Velez


 >Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 17:11:17 -0800 (PST)
 >From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >Subject: Cydonian Imperative: 2-26-01
 >To: UFO UpDates <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >THE CYDONIAN IMPERATIVE
 >Water Flows and Martian Life

 >by Mac Tonnies

 >Mars anomalist Efrain Palermo has catalogued dozens of enigmatic
 >"leaks" or "stains" on the surface of Mars that can be
 >reasonably attributed to the presence of flowing water. NASA has
 >endorsed similar stains as evidence of liquid water (in the
 >Valles Marineris region, where the air pressure is estimated to
 >be suitable for short-lived water flows) but suggests,
 >less-than-convincingly, that stains elsewhere on Mars are dust
 >flows.

<snip>

 >Last but not least, the stains' dark color could very well be
 >due to the presence of photosynthetic pigments or the product of
 >unknown biological processes. A biological tenet here on Earth
 >seems to be "Where there is water, there is life." If Palermo's
 >stains indeed show water, then it's not unreasonable to expect
 >them to be seething with primitive life, eking out an existence
 >on Martian sunlight (thus the anomalously low albedo, such as
 >that seen in algal growths).

 >NASA's pending announcement of confirming evidence of past life
 >on Mars also raises the possibility that these stains are
 >composed, partially, of magnetite (the substance found in
 >Martian rock specimens and generally attributed to
 >extraterrestrial bacteria).


Hiya Mac, hi All,

I mentioned in my last post that NASA has been very circumspect
about providing B&W images _only_ to the public. After seeing
the breathtaking color images of Jupiter and its moons, as well
as Saturn and all the outer planets, I cannot believe that they
spent millions to send a craft to Mars stocked with a camera
that can only capture black & white images.

If we could see the _colors_ of what we are looking at, many
questions would get answered immediately. Plant/algae, and
organic substances can many times be identified by 'color'. ie;
green for algaes or other types of vegetation, and browns and
other colors for organic substances. For reasons I cannot fathom
NASA is not permitting us to see Mars as it is.

Once a year a vast strip/portion of the Martian surface
_changes_color_ with the Martian seasons. Every professional and
amateur astronomer is familiar with the cyclical phenomenon. The
part of the Martian surface that 'changes' turns _green_. One of
the things I had hoped to see during this particular mission was
tight resolution shots of these changing surface areas. I wanted
to see the "green" on Mars as close-up as the technology would
allow.

Wouldn't ya know it, NASA is only putting out B&W images that
make Mars (a dynamic and active planet) look like the moon.
Dull, grey, and lifeless. Any reasonable person would be hard
put to believe that it is anything other than intentional on the
part of NASA.

Those "glass worms" could be blue with bright yellow streaks for
all we can tell. Vast portions of the surface turn Green in
Martian spring and summer, it all looks likes barren desert in
B&W, the streaking that is being discussed could be bright green
for all we know.

Damn shame. Has anybody else questioned this particular detail
of this mission. Why B&W only? If any, "who' is in possession of
the _color_ images?

NASA makes me feel like I'm trapped in a bad B&W 'cine noir'
50's flick. What's up with that! This 2001 not 1951. Tell me
that those dolts don't have any working 'color' imaging cameras
on that craft because I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I'd like
to sell you.  ;)


Regards,

John Velez,

'I gotz color vision but all I sees is B&W!'  :)



                                         *************
                              "Nothing is at last sacred but
                             the integrity of your own mind."
                                 www.spacelab.net/~jvif/
                                         *************









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 27

                    Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 14:41:50 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 19:43:27 -0500
Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Sparks


 >From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment
 >Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 10:21:29 -0000


 >>From: Jerome Clark
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto
 >>Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Clark
 >>Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 12:01:59 -0600

<snip>

 >In this
 >particular case both Jenny and Dave have freely given new
 >evidence which is pertinent and which radically alters the
 >perceived nature of the Lakenheath 56 case. Neither of its two
 >main propononents, ie Jerry and Brad, have commented on these
 >facts.

I was waiting for the dust to settle -- has it yet? I was also
expecting some announcement of the imminent release of the UFOIN
report but instead we are told it isn't "soon" but "end of the
year."

As for these alleged "facts" or "new evidence" Jenny says hers
is not new at all. Anyway I have seen enough that I am satisfied
now about the UFOIN investigation.

I do hope that the RAF document on the Lakenheath case would be
published without having to wait for UFOIN. With all the
FOIA-type activity one would have expected this to have been
published right away.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 27

                     Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Stacy

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 14:19:09 -0600
Fwd Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 19:46:10 -0500
Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Stacy


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 13:13:03 -0000

 >Let me respectfully suggest that perhaps you haven't yet
 >digested the full panoply of evidence when it is laid out on a
 >"spread sheet," as it were, and perhaps are somewhat overly
 >negatively influenced by the exaggerated claims and weird
 >behavior of some self-styled ufologists whose shenanigans really
 >are irrelevant to the central question: Do we or don't we have a

 >(Is that a world record for sentence length?)

 >I recognize that you are a genuine skeptic (i.e., doubter), and
 >the field is richer for that. Always a pleasure to clash swords
 >with you. It's the outright cocksure debunkers who force-fit the
 >facts to their preconceived conclusons that bug me.

 >Dick

Dick,

In the copy of The Anomalist 5 that I've almost mailed you is
another article that I think you may find of interest. This is
Karl Pflock's "UFOs: For RAND Use Only." It's about what might
as well be described as a classic UFO case investigated by
George Kocher of RAND in the mid- 1960s. It's also an excellent
guide as to how a UFO field investigation should be conducted.
(Newton, Ilinois, October 10, 1966.)

As with the best such cases, the UFO described therein is truly
per- plexing. I have no idea what it may have been, although it
is highly suggestive of an advanced aerial platform not known to
be in anyone's arsenal at the time.

In other words, it falls well within the "embarrassment of
riches" of which Hynek spoke, or was it warned? Hope you enjoy
it if you're not already well aware of it. I'm not sure if it's
made it into the general UFO literature or not.

But if you search your spreadsheet data for another case exactly
like it, you won't find one -- just as you won't exactly find
another Trans-en-Provence object. Close, maybe, but no Cuban
cigar.

The sheer number of sightings is one of the philosophical
aspects of the ET hypothesis that rarely gets addressed. The
question of why UFOs have external lights at all is another one,
along with wondering why some show up on radar and others
apparently don't. (And, I might add, so on.)

Some ufologists, Jim Deardorff springs immediately to mind,
explain the nagging questions above by reference to alien
intentions, which is a classic case of circular reasoning, if
ever there was one. (You can't use some speculative
interpretation of the hypothesis you're proposing as "proof" of
the original hypothesis.) I'm referring to Deardorff here, btw,
not you.

Even the best ET scenario would still need to have several
pluses following it to account for the vast plethora of
different shapes and behaviors reported, never mind such a
category as "shape-shifter," when the UFO stimulus is reported
as actually changing shape during observation.
Thus, ETH + _____, or ETH + _____ + ______,
or ETH + _____ + _____ + _____.

In other words, there is nothing about the ETH itself that
necessarily (or should I say adequately) addresses the sheer
number of sightings. It's one thing to suggest we've been
visited once, a handful, or even hundreds of times in historical
memory, quite another to argue for thousands, or perhaps
hundreds of thousands of visitations in the last half-century
alone, never mind those pesky abductions. With the actual,
hardcore evidence of all those visitations being so conveniently
amenable to cover-up by military/intelligence agencies. Choose
your villains here: NSA, FBI, CIA, NASA, or all of the above and
more.

These numbers cannot be supported by even a rudimentary
knowledge of what mainstream science tells us about the universe
we live in (nor is there any way that a mythical MJ-12 or other
agency could conceivably cover up such a UFO "invasion" of such
massive proportions).

Ironically, whatever it is that "explains" the UFO phenomenon,
the ETH in and of itself would seem not to be it. In that
regard, then, yes it is time for another, "newer," theory.

And I bet I'm driving ebk mad with all these overlong line breaks!

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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 27

                     Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 20:09:05 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 19:48:16 -0500
Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Hall


 >From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >To: "02 - UFO UpDates Subscribers":;
 >Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Randles
 >Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 12:28:45 -0500

 >From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 11:02:18 -0000

 >>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 00:20:35 -0600

 >>So why is it that the UFO as ET evidence is so, what shall I
 >>say, marginal? That is, suggestive, but never quite landing in
 >>the realm of conclusive, when it's so easy to imagine
 >>alternative outcomes, in which case we wouldn't be having this
 >>discussion?

 >Hi,

 >I agree with this, Dennis. My problem with the ETH is not that
 >it is implausible (it is easily the most likely theoretical
 >solution to fit all the facts if it were supported by
 >sufficiently strong evidence). Rather it is that the theory
 >fails to match the level of support that it receives from the
 >phenomenon that it is supposed to explain.

What is "sufficiently strong evidence?"

 >It is virtually impossible to conceive that in so many years of
 >apparently extensive alien contact these beings who are not even
 >able to effectively block memory (meaning any tinpot hypnotist
 >can 'retrieve' the truth without hassle) are yet so expert that
 >they dont seem to ever accidentally leave behind anything
 >conclusively extraterrestrial. A DNA sample, a bit falling off
 >the back of their spaceship - anything of the order that fate
 >simply has to decree would happen sooner or later. And it
 >couldn't be 'covered up' because these things would surely happen
 >without the knowledge of the ETs - just as a silencer (muffler)
 >might fall off your car, be found on the roadside and you'd
 >never know you had lost it until you got home.

There are lots of artifacts that are very hard to prove anything
with one way or the other. Re: the "alien'" supposed inability
to block memory, how do we know that what the hypnotists manage
to bring out is the "truth?" I doubt that it is entirely (with
the usual proviso, if it is really happening). The salient
feature of abductions is memory manipulations, if the reports
are taken at face value.

 >To me there is a suspicious lack of congruence between the way
 >the phenomenon often seeks to assert that it is ET in origin and
 >the virtual absence of any real proof to that effect.

 >So the real question might be - who or what else might wish to
 >pretend to be extraterrestrial in origin as a way to observe our
 >cultural reaction? Maybe this is a gigantic sociological
 >experiment on the part of someone or something closer to home.

 >And - no - I dont mean some government agency. The intelligence
 >involved seems more human than alien, but also advanced
 >technologically - assuming we accept that there is an
 >intelligence, of course. And that's by no means a given.

Yes, the problem with all this hypothesis swapping is that more
often than not we don't agree on what is "real evidence" that an
hypothesis must take into account. This alternative intelligence
notion is also on my list (cosmic jokers, cosmic manipulators,
whatever) but obviously it would be even harder to adduce strong
evidence for it, much less obtain proof. I accept that an
intelligence is involved (or intelligences).

 >Ponder that.

I have and I will. Anyway, the UFO Evidence II will have lots of
data for you to ponder as well, and you may be surprised at the
strength of the case for ETH. You are right that the same data
might be "explainable" by the alternative intelligence
hypothesis. That would be even more extraordinary than ET
visitation, and perhaps have relevance to religion and
spirituality.

As with Dennis, I recognize that you are a true skeptic and
scientific in spirit (as am I) so I always welcome your ideas
and insights.


Dick









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 27

                         Wife Sees Husband 'Vanish'

From: Kelly Peterborough <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 15:57:10 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 19:50:47 -0500
Subject: Wife Sees Husband 'Vanish'



http://www.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2001/2/27/nation/2714pkal&sec=nat
ion

The Star [Malaysia] | 27 Feb. 2001

Wife sees husband 'vanish'
By Muguntan Vanar

TAMBUNAN: A police report has been lodged about an incident that
could have come right of an X-Files episode.

A woman told police that her husband became "invisible" right
before her eyes, and has not been seen since the incident last
week.

Keningau district police chief Deputy Supt Abdul Hadi Baharudin
confirmed that a report was lodged by a housewife who said her
husband, hospital assistant Yabi Gintukod, 45, had gone missing.

"Like all missing persons cases, we have flashed the information
to all OCPDs and are seeking the help of the village committee
to help trace Yabi," he said.

Mainis Gampat, a mother of eight, claimed that Yabi suddenly
became invisible and vanished into thin air before her eyes just
after dinner on Feb 20.

"We have not been able to locate him since then," she told
reporters at her house in Kampung Kepayan Baru here.

She claimed it was the second time that her husband had
disappeared.

In the last incident which occurred two days before his second
disappearance, Mainis said Yabi was found sitting in a bush in a
stupor. They sent him for a medical check-up and he was found to
be in good health.

Yabi's brother-in-law Mahat Kulimpang claimed that Yabi had
spoken to him of an encounter with a man whom he claimed to be
an "alien" with a square body.

"Yabi told me that the alien wanted him to go a strange place,"
Mahat said.

He claimed that Yabi had always wanted to go to that place.

"The night before Yabi disappeared, he was wearing white and his
feet were not touching the ground.

"When I touched his shirt, it slowly turned black and he soon
passed out," claimed Mahat, who seemed puzzled by the
phenomenon.

Police, however, are not ready to comment on the family members'
stories saying only that they were searching for Yabi.

In the meantime, Yabi's wife has also sought the assistance of
bomohs to trace the whereabouts of her husband.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 27

                          Secrecy News -- 02/27/01

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@igc.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 13:20:03 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 19:52:30 -0500
Subject: Secrecy News -- 02/27/01


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
February 27, 2001

**ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE REPORTED
**ACQUISITION OF WMD TECHNOLOGIES REPORTED
**CUBAN DOCUMENTS ON BAY OF PIGS

ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE REPORTED

"The risks to sensitive business information and advanced
technologies have dramatically increased in the post-Cold War
era as foreign governments -- both former adversaries and allies
-- have shifted their espionage resources away from military and
political targets to commerce."

That is one finding of the latest unclassified Annual Report to
Congress on Foreign Economic Collection and Industrial
Espionage, prepared by the National Counterintelligence Center
(NACIC) and published on Friday.

Previous editions of the Report refrained from naming the
countries that conduct economic espionage against the U.S.
"Because of the ramifications to US foreign policy as well as
the sensitivity of source information, the specific identities
of countries are included in the classified report only," the
first unclassified Annual Report said in 1995.

But the new Report, citing the results of an industry survey,
drops the pretense and for the first time officially names the
worst offenders:  China, Japan, Israel, France, Korea, Taiwan,
and India.

A copy of the Report is posted here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/ops/ci/docs/fy00.htm

Trade secrets and military technologies obviously deserve
appropriate protection, but it seems equally obvious that the
consequences of espionage have been dramatically overstated.

So many officials have cried "wolf" (or "crown jewels" or "vital
secrets" or "extremely grave") over the years that a more
skeptical public understanding of the threat from espionage is
gradually developing in response.

James Surowiecki, writing in The New Yorker (February 19 & 26,
2001) observed that "A spate of hysterical books and articles in
the early nineteen-nineties depicted an innocent America being
sapped of its secrets by wily corporate pirates in Europe and
Asia.  Of course, now that the economies of Europe and Japan are
languishing, that story line doesn't hold up as well."

Fundamentally, the role of "secrets" has been overestimated,
both in commercial enterprise and national security.

"A successful business rarely depends on some equation locked
away in a vault," Surowiecki wrote.  "In the popular
imagination, Kentucky Fried Chicken and Coke rule the world
because of their coveted secret formulas, but without their
distribution networks and branding powers they wouldn't be much
bigger than Old Country Buffet.  If Popeye's knew the Colonel's
'original recipe,' would it really be able to sell that much
more fried chicken?"

Likewise, one might add, the national security of the United
States depends infinitely more on our constitutionally-based
political system, our economy, and our military infrastructure
than it does on any "secret" that could be written down on a
piece of paper and handed over to an adversary.


ACQUISITION OF WMD TECHNOLOGIES REPORTED
The CIA last week published its semi-annual "Unclassified Report
to Congress on the Acquisition of Technology Relating to Weapons
of Mass Destruction and Advanced Conventional Munitions, 1
January Through 30 June 2000."

The Report largely reiterates the findings of past unclassified
editions, such as this: "We assess that North Korea has produced
enough plutonium for at least one, and possibly two, nuclear
weapons."

A copy is posted here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/bian_feb_2001.htm


CUBAN DOCUMENTS ON BAY OF PIGS

The Cuban government announced that next month it will
declassify "new information on the Bay of Pigs, known in Cuba as
Playa Girn."

"The declassification of documents on the US-led mercenary
invasion in 1961 will coincide with an international conference
entitled 'Girn, 40 years later', set for 20 March to 25 March
here in Havana," according to a February 24/25 announcement on
Radio Havana.

"Cuban Council of State official Jos Ramn Fernandez told
journalists in Havana that the aim of the conference is to
clarify all aspects of the Bay of Pigs invasion, including the
events leading up to the invasion, as well as its effect on the
U.S.-Cuba relations."

"The conference in the Cuban capital will be the first time that
actual participants on both sides will meet together to discuss
the issue," the Radio Havana report said.

See the Radio Habana Cuba web site here:

http://www.radiohc.org/

******************************
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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 27

               Re: Atomic Bombs and Fugo Balloons - Goldstein

From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 21:56:15 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 19:54:14 -0500
Subject: Re: Atomic Bombs and Fugo Balloons - Goldstein


 >From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Atomic Bombs and Fugo Balloons
 >Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 21:30:24 -0500

 >After the first Japanese balloon bomb was discovered in Montana,
 >censorship was requested in the press.  This was most
 >successful.  The censorship was lifted after the incident in
 >Oregon in which a number of women and childred were either
 >killed or injured by a Fugo balloon found by the children.

 >The Western Defense Command files at the National Archives has
 >an intercepted letter written to the Japanese--thru a neutral
 >country--by a woman who urged the Japanese to send balloons with
 >chemical agents and explosive to the US.  There is no evidence
 >that she knew of the attack in progress at that time.

 >On the atomic bomb, this type of weapon was talked about in the
 >press, especially during the Dec 1944-Jan 1945 secret weapon
 >press feeding frenzy. The Germans threatened to use atomic bombs
 >against American troops.  The idea of atomic bombs was not
 >secret, but the American program was.  Certain outsiders did
 >figure out what was going on.  However, the program was
 >compromised by spies like Claus Fuchs and others.

 >Stalin had information on the American test.  When Turman
 >mentioned he had something special up his sleeve, Stalin would
 >not take the bait, but suggested that the Americans hurry and
 >use it, as he has his own special program--which was the
 >Manchuran campaign.

 >Tokyo Rose welcomed the 509th to the Pacific theater with a
 >mocking announcement that they had something special to do.

 >Jan Aldrich


Hello Jan,

The Japanese attempts to attack the US were pretty meager and
somewhat pitiful, especially considering who they were up
against. The attack on Pearl Harbor jump started us into the war
and we certainly had the industrial power to overcome those
losses and build an unprecedented armada to defeat Japan. A
Japanese sub surfaced near Santa Barbara and fired a shell at a
little oil drilling building. The Fugo balloons had no real
psychological or material affect to make a difference in the
war.

Near the end of the war Japan started to build a few special
sobmarines. These were designed with a hangar on the deck that
would hold two planes. The special planes were single engined
and named Aichi. The plan was for the sub to go to the west
coast of the USA, surface, assemble the plane in 7 minutes and
launch it to drop a bomb somewhere. They tried it once but the
sub was sunk in the western Pacific ocean. The Americans shipped
back an Aichi to the US. It was recently restored at the
National Air and Space Museum of the Smithsonian. They also
published an excellent book covering the Fugo program. School
age girls were enlisted to sew the balloons. To me, a great
mystery is wondering what the heck that UFO was that caused the
LA Air defense to start shooting at it.

We had the Manhattan project and the 509th to deliver a huge
wallop. When I worked at the National Air and Space Museum we
had the Enola Gay in storage along with hundreds of other
historic aircraft. This was back in the 1970s when I restored
aircraft by day and made music at night. When I and a fellow
technician used to take breaks we would often unlock a storage
hangar, go inside, pick a historic plane and sit in it sharing a
joint. We would get high and try to feel the vibes of the
airplane, imagining we were the pilots on historical flights.
One of those planes was the Enola Gay. This is dark humor, but I
remember how weird it was to sit in the bombardier's position
with my hand on the bombing button and getting a creepy feeling.

The Germans were never anywhere near a bomb. We had gotten a
reactor to go critical and warm up the stadiun bleacher seats
above it. We then started moving towards a bomb. The Germans
never got a reactor to go critical. If you'll remember, the
allies had a special mission to destroy the Nazi heavy water
facility, as portrayed in a couple of films. That pretty much
knocked out any hope of an atomic bomb before the end of the
war.

The Soviets had Claus Fuchs and the Rosenbergs to thank for
their early ability. Man, I remember during the anti-war
demonstrations in the 1960s there were some misguided communists
parading around holding signs that the Rosenbergs were innocent
- yeah, right. The Russians took a B29 bomber that had crash
landed in the USSR and copied it rivet to rivet to make their
first prop superbomber.


Take care,

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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 27

                      Joe Firmage Aiming For The Stars?

From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@yorku.ca>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 17:42:54 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
Fwd Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 19:58:09 -0500
Subject: Joe Firmage Aiming For The Stars?


Hi everyone.

No, that very bright light in the sky is not a UFO, it is Joe's
spaceship!

Several international groups, including one from Canada which
included students with the Canadian Space Society, had plans at
one time to send up their own solar sail spacecrafts to the Moon
or Mars. It seems that our dream of sailing to other worlds will
soon be a reality - and it will be cheap too! I wonder if Joe
has plans to re-image the Face or look for "macrobes" which Carl
Sagan's suspected may be found on Mars (much like the dark spots
we have already found)?

Nick Balaskas

----------

For Immediate Release: February 26, 2001

Contact:Susan Lendroth
626-793-5100 ext 237
Warren Betts
626-836-2080

THE PLANETARY SOCIETY AND COSMOS STUDIOS ANNOUNCE COSMOS 1 THE
FIRST SOLAR SAIL SPACE MISSION

TEST FLIGHT WILL LAUNCH IN APRIL WITH ORBITAL MISSION TO LAUNCH
LATER THIS YEAR

Cosmos 1: The First Solar Sail is a project of The Planetary
Society and is solely sponsored by Cosmos Studios

THIS MISSION IS ONE GIANT LEAP FOR HUMANKIND - THE FIRST FLIGHT
OF A TECHNOLOGY DESTINED TO TAKE HUMANKIND THROUGHOUT THE SOLAR
SYSTEM AND TO THE STARS

For News and Updates on this mission, visit

http://planetary.org/

Pasadena, CA. - February 26, 2001: The Planetary Society's
Cosmos 1: The First Solar Sail mission, sponsored by Cosmos
Studios, is set to test in April with the prime mission
scheduled to launch between October - December this year.

The deployment test flight will launch from a Russian submarine
in the Barents Sea and will be lifted into a thirty-minute
sub-orbital flight from a Russian Volna rocket, a converted
ICBM. The main mission, with the goal of first solar sail
flight, will launch into Earth orbit later this year, also from
a Volna rocket.

Once in orbit, the solar sail spacecraft will be as bright as
the full moon (although only a point in the sky) and will be
visible from places on Earth with the naked eye. Images of the
sail in flight will be sent to Earth from two different cameras
on-board the spacecraft.

The mission represents the first private mission of space
exploration technology and the first mission by a private space
interest organization. It will explore and develop technology
that could open the door to future flights throughout the solar
system and beyond. The mission will be carried out by a unique,
privately funded Russian-American space venture.

"This could be a pivotal moment for space exploration, said
Louis Friedman, Executive Director of The Planetary Society and
Project Director of Cosmos 1. "Solar Sailing is a grand
adventure as well as an important leap in technological
innovation."

Space sailing is done not with wind, but with reflected light
pressure - pushing on giant sails, changing the orbital energy
and spacecraft velocity continuously. The sunlight pressure is
powerful enough to push spacecraft between the planets from
Mercury out to Jupiter. Beyond Jupiter, and out to the stars,
space sailing can be done using powerful lasers focused over
long distances in space.

"The lasers themselves will be powered by solar energy - keeping
the spirit of solar sailing alive to other stars," added
Friedman.

"The many special aspects of this first attempted solar sail
flight - Russian-American collaboration; use of weapons of war
for launching peaceful technologies for humankind's future;
attempting a very low cost, privately funded space initiative in
a one-year time schedule; realizing one of Carl Sagan's dreams;
working with Ann Druyan, Sagan's wife and long-time
collaborator, who, together with Joe Firmage, had the courage to
fund this project - make us extremely proud of what we have
accomplished before we've even launched," said Friedman.

"We have lingered long enough on the shores of the cosmic ocean.
We are ready at last to set sail for the stars," wrote Sagan and
Druyan in their television series, Cosmos.

"This is a Kitty Hawk moment to us. We feel as if we've been
given the chance to outfit the Wright Brothers' Bicycle Shop,"
said Ann Druyan, CEO of Cosmos Studios, Inc. "We at Cosmos
Studios are honored to work with the brilliant scientists and
engineers of many countries brought together by The Planetary
Society for one great purpose.  We are proud to be part of this
historic mission, which is a critical baby step to the stars.
It's also emblematic of Cosmos Studios' philosophy: to support
good science, clean high technology and bold exploration, and to
engage the widest possible audience in the romance of the
adventure."

The low cost of this mission is made possible due to the
Russians ability to "piggy-back" on a successful program in
developing an inflatable re-entry vehicle. Once injected into
Earth's orbit, the sail will be deployed by inflatable tubes,
pulling out the sail material and then rigidizing the structure.
The sail is constructed into eight "blades" or "petals" -
roughly triangular in shape. They can be turned (pitched) like
helicopter blades, and depending on how they are turned, the
sunlight will reflect in different directions. This is how the
attitude of the spacecraft is controlled and how the sail can
"tack."

Low cost is also made possible by use of the Volna rocket,
manufactured by the Makeev Rocket Bureau in Russia. The Babakin
Space Center is the prime contractor for the project - the
company is a spin-off organization of NPO Lavochkin, the largest
manufacturer of robotic spacecraft in the world.

The April launch will be a sub-orbital flight test of the
deployment of two solar sail blades. An inflatable re-entry
shield is planned to bring the pictures of the deployment back
to a landing and recovery site in Kamchatka. The actual solar
sail flight will commence from an 850 km circular orbit, with a
launch being planned in a window between October - December of
this year. The sail will be 600 square meters of aluminized
mylar, constructed into 8 blades.

Solar sailing enables space travel without fuel. Applications
from space weather satellites that can hold position against the
force of gravity, to interplanetary shuttles carrying cargo
between the planets and the asteroids and comets are all part of
the solar sailing future. By diving in close to the Sun, future
solar sails will achieve enormous velocities enabling rendezvous
with any solar system object, or, as mentioned above, a flight
to the stars.

Cosmos 1 is staffed by a world team of Americans and Russians.
The Planetary Society website has a dedicated section to this
mission, which includes an animation of the mission, spacecraft
details, updates and news releases. It will allow the world
public to follow and participate in this mission. This site is
open to the public and is located at

http://planetary.org

This will be the first space mission that will utilize a website
to continuously interface the sequence of the mission with the
general public, allowing continued and uninterrupted public
participation. Additional information will also be available at
the Cosmos Studios website located at

http://carlsagan.com

The Planetary Society is headquartered in Pasadena, California,
U.S.A. The organization was co-founded by Carl Sagan, Bruce
Murray and Louis Friedman in 1980 to advance the exploration of
the solar system, and to continue the search for
extraterrestrial life. With 100,000 members in over 140
countries, the Society is the largest space interest group in
the world.

Cosmos Studios creates science-based entertainment that seeks to
thrill and engage the broadest possible audience through the
convergence of television, cinema and the Internet. The company
creates programming that makes news, entertains, uplifts and
inspires humankind's quest for knowledge, our understanding of
cosmic evolution, and our place in its great story. Cosmos
Studios is based in Los Angeles, California and is managed from
Ithaca, New York.

                      #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 28

                Re: Velez Question On John Carpenter - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 17:59:50 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 09:43:11 -0500
Subject: Re: Velez Question On John Carpenter - Velez



 >Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 13:05:11 -0600
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >From: Gary Hart <geehart@frontiernet.net>
 >Subject: Velez Question On John Carpenter

 >>Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 15:43:17 -0500
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #8 -- 2001

 >>George (Filer), you're a MUFON director, have you heard _anything_
 >>at all about the headquarters investigation into the John
 >>Carpenter (sale of abductee files) business? I'm both curious
 >>and trying to do a follow up. It's been awhile since we've
 >>heard anything new about their "internal investigation."

 >>"Love All,"..... trust _few!_

 >>John Velez  ;)


 >John Velez,

 >It may interest you to know that my own investigation of John
 >Carpenter's activities has continued since last July when John
 >Schuessler messaged other board members and said an ethics
 >committee would look at the evidence I had presented and make a
 >decision in two weeks... Since I made it clear that any MUFON
 >decision should be communicated to me using a certified letter -
 >if the so-called ethics committee had reached a decision, I
 >would know of it.

Hi Gary, hi All,

Gary, you wrote me a long and detailed response, thank you for
taking the time to do so. I don't want to 'stir the pot' (I've
had a belly-full already thank you) so I'm only going to comment
on the following. I do want you to know that I appreciate your
timely response. ;)

You wrote:

 >My attention is focused solely on MUFON's board of directors and
 >not on MUFON's general membership as they have been kept in the
 >dark like the rest of us and cannot be held accountable for the
 >actions of a few. My conversation with Kasher confirmed that
 >most of the board directors were also purposefully kept in the
 >dark about this exceptionally important case.

 >I immediately messaged the board with a copy of my July 2000
 >Formal Complaint and a detailed case time line to show there was
 >indeed a series of events, a complete and detailed story of
 >misconduct that could impact MUFON and the reputations of all
 >members of MUFON's Board because it could now be seen that the
 >MUFON Board had failed to act on a situation that may include
 >criminal conduct.

MUFON is a joke. There is every bit as much 'ass covering' going
on inside MUFON over this affair as JC himself has engaged in.
The fact(s) remains that:

1. At the time of the sale of the abductee files to Bigelow, JC
was also/simultaneously the head of the MUFON abduction databank
project.

2. Unless MUFON performs a case by case inventory, comparing the
case files in the database with those sold to Bigelow (by
Carpenter that,....

3. MUFON _cannot_ know whether the database and the privacy, and
anonymity (of those whose reports are included in it) have been
compromised in any way. They cannot give anyone any assurances
unless _they_do_ the work. (conduct an investigation into the
matter.) You'd think it would be important to them to do so and
to do it in a timely way.

4. Those files were _donated_ to MUFON from the researchers that
gathered the data initially. They have an obligation to those
researchers and to their clients (in turn) to assure them that a
proper investigation into the matter has been conducted. And
then to publish those results in a manner that will permit any
and all interested parties to read it.

Carpenter did more than demure, he admitted in writing here on
this List in response to one of my posts that; he was "wrong"
for having done it, and that the sale of the files itself was
"wrong." He went even further and he agreed with me that the
clients should be informed/told of the transaction.

And that, three years after the fact! As if he couldn't have
figured it out on his own before that. He never followed through
on that either. As far as I'm concerned Mr. Carpenter has shown
himself to be a $ motivated individual with the ethics of an
Orangutan.

MUFON on the other hand _should_ be held accountable for the
security of the database. If it has been compromised they need
to know it, and inform all parties most directly affected by it.
Before they can provide any assurances they need to conduct a
formal internal investigation. If they don't, (which they
haven't so far) then my stated opinion that MUFON is a joke
stands. If they actually conduct an investigation into this I'll
apologize in public. (Profusely if it will help to expedite it!)

Nuff said, I think (hope) we've all learned a valuable lesson
from this. It's the last time I put my balls on the line like
that. The end results have been every bit as disappointing as
the original revelation about JC selling abductee files to
private citizen Bigelow. Bummer from start to finish. America,
you can buy or sell -anything- here.

Thanx again for your response. I want no more to do with any of
it.


Best of luck in your pursuit of this issue.

John Velez, I got Carpenter Fatigue!



                                         *************
                              "Nothing is at last sacred but
                             the integrity of your own mind."
                                 www.spacelab.net/~jvif/
                                         *************







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 28

               Re: New Evidence Of Sagan's Martian Macrobes? -

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 18:02:40 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 09:48:02 -0500
Subject: Re: New Evidence Of Sagan's Martian Macrobes? -


 >Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 09:58:48 -0800 (PST)
 >From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >Subject: Re: New Evidence Of Sagan's Martian Macrobes?
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 02:13:04 -0500
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Subject: Re: New Evidence Of Sagan's Martian
 >>Macrobes?

 ><snip>

 >>3. The details on the tubular structure itself look "organic" (a
 >>remnant or some living thing, or natural process) and not like
 >>an 'artificial' or 'manufactured' artifact. I detect nothing
 >>that resembles mechanical or 'manufactured' parts anywhere in
 >>the structure. As I have said, it 'looks like' some impossible
 >>worm left behind its outer skin layer on the Martian surface.
 >>(That's what it -looks like- not what I think it is.)

 >>Maybe Frank Herbert wasn't too far off the mark with
 >>his "giant desert worm" creations in Dune! :O

Hiya Mac, hi All,

Mac writes:

 >Hi John, List,

 >I agree: it looks organic. Then again, so do some technological
 >constructions. I'm quite open to this being a "sandworm"
 >carcass, frankly. I wonder if we can start importing some of
 >that "spice"...

We already have. Where do you think Viagra comes from! It turns
people's eyes blue doesn't it? <LOL>

Hey I'm not kidding Mac, I use that "worm" analogy half jokingly
because it really does look organic. It is a thing of wonder to
look at. Never, anywhere, anything quite like it. For my $ the
first really and truly "signs of Life" on Mars. Whatever it is,
I'm willing to bet the farm it isn't naturally occurring geology
that's responsible for those amazing structures. More like,
naturally occurring -biology!-

 >>And I'm sorry Mac, I know you have a lot of respect and
 >>admiration for the guy, but Richard Hoagland lost me when he
 >>started making absolutely wild "predictions" in public as if he
 >>was the "Psychic Hotline" for anything ET related.

 >Again, I agree. Hoagland and I have a very different take on
 >Mars and its significance, as you can tell by perusing our
 >respective websites. Hoagland is very eager to look for "grand
 >unified theories" that dscribe _everything_ in a Martian context
 >(a commendable endeavor, but one I don't think is warranted by
 >the evidence).

Yeah well send him an e-mail for me and tell him that Zephod
Beeblebrox says that the Universal Supercomputer "Deep Thought"
figured out all that 'Grand Scheme' macro stuff years ago. The
answer to Life, The Universe and Everything is 42. Tell Mr.
Hoagland not to waste his time duplicating work that has already
been done.

 >I do, however, applaud his willingness to entertain
 >possibilities. Does he go over the edge cometimes? Certainly.
 >But chances are none of us would even know about the "worm" if
 >not for his scouring Malin's releases.

Was it Hoagland himself who discovered the feature? Or is he
taking credit for it?

 >As for the Face's status as a possible artifact, the a priori
 >predictions of secondary features, such as the "nostrils" and
 >"eye" (plus extra ones, such as apparent "lips" and
 >ornamentation) would tend to favor intelligent origin. _One good
 >overhead shot_ could tell us so much.

If there's an "eye" feature in the Eastern half of the face I'll
eat my words and jump on the artificial origin bandwagon. I
seriously doubt that I'll have to though. Let's see what
develops.

 >I think the potential scientific payback represented by the Face
 >(and other Cydonian features) makes it worth the trouble--and
 >Malin's demonstrated ability to aim the MOC camera accuractely,
 >contrary to previous public statements, indicates that the
 >"trouble" is actually pretty minimal.

We want _color_ shots!

 >Last night, SPSR's Lan Fleming dropped the bombshell that the
 >_entire Face_ was imaged in June of 2000. For some reason, the
 >eastern half has not been released.

One of those things that makes you go hmmmm!  ;)

 >Keep an eye on my site. It's possible we _already have_ a
 >complete overhead view!

Keep us all posted Mac. And thank you. You do a great job with
the website and as a lifetime lover of astronomy and science I
find all this stuff stompdown fascinating. It's just plain Fun
to explore. Like a kid in a candy store.  ;)


Regards, "May the Face be with you,"

John Velez

Old 'white eyes!"  <LMAO>


                                         *************
                              "Nothing is at last sacred but
                             the integrity of your own mind."
                                 www.spacelab.net/~jvif/
                                         *************










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 28

                         Alien Biology Sparks Class

From: Kelly <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 18:39:56 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 10:09:32 -0500
Subject: Alien Biology Sparks Class


Alien biology sparks class

A pilot course considers far-away possibilities

By Sandy Coleman, Globe Staff, 2/27/2001

LEICESTER - Is there life on other planets?

If so, does it look like the monstrous thing Sigourney Weaver
battled in the 'Alien' movie blockbusters? Could you kiss it
the way Captain Kirk was so fond of doing on 'Star Trek'? Or,
could it be related to your house plant?

Students are grappling with such lively questions in
'Astrobiology: The Search for Life in the Universe', a course
being piloted at Leicester, West Springfield, and 23 other high
schools and middle schools nationwide.

If pondering the possibility of alien life can send minds racing
and launch thousands of science fiction movies, educators say,
maybe it can lure students into a closer encounter with science.

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/058/nation/Alien_biology_sparks_class+.shtml

TERC Web site URL:

http://www.terc.edu/









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 28

                         Writing, Symbols & Emblems?

From: Gary Anthony <garyant@mithrand.karoo.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 00:19:39 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 10:12:09 -0500
Subject: Writing, Symbols & Emblems?


Dear Colleagues

I am currently continuing to collect samples of alleged alien
writing, symbols and emblems with a view to compiling a
comprehensive database on alien languages; and in this endeavour
I have managed so far to acquire a number of different and
interesting examples and references from around the world.

If anyone knows of any cases where alleged alien symbols,
writings, emblems or language are reported, please mail details
to garyant@mithrand.karoo.co.uk any questions, suggestions or
comments are always welcome.

Submissions of samples of alien writings, symbols and emblems
should be accompanied by brief background details, outlining
when and where the symbols were seen etc... Further reference
details are also gratefully accepted. Confidentiality will be
adhered to in respect of any case details that are submitted and
investigators/researchers will be fully credited for their
contributions.

It is hoped this database will be made available to the
'ufological' community at some future date.

Would you please keep my interest in mind during your future
researches should you find anything which you may feel relevant
to my project?  I am interested in cases with alien symbols that
have been proven or suspected as hoaxes as well as unknowns.

No 'Star Trek' or other fictional stuff please.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 28

                   Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 19:26:48 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 10:15:28 -0500
Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Maccabee


 >From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 11:02:18 -0000


 >>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 00:20:35 -0600


 >>So why is it that the UFO as ET evidence is so, what shall I
 >>say, marginal? That is, suggestive, but never quite landing in
 >>the realm of conclusive, when it's so easy to imagine
 >>alternative outcomes, in which case we wouldn't be having this
 >>discussion?

 >>Theories -- damned or otherwise -- welcomed.

 >Hi,

 >I agree with this, Dennis. My problem with the ETH is not that
 >it is implausible (it is easily the most likely theoretical
 >solution to fit all the facts if it were supported by
 >sufficiently strong evidence).

That is what I have said so long ago (last week?) and got either
disparaging comments or ignored.

ET via space travel is the simplest to explain truly
unexplainable sightings which inlude observations of structured
objects.

OF course, if there are no such reports (all misidentifications,
hoaxes or delusions), then there is no point in making any ET
argument. (I note that Dennis still hasn't responded to my query
as to whether or not he accepts ANY sighting as unexplained and
truly unexplainable.)

 >Rather it is that the theory
 >fails to match the level of support that it receives from the
 >phenomenon that it is supposed to explain.>

 >It is virtually impossible to conceive that in so many years of
 >apparently extensive alien contact these beings who are not even
 >able to effectively block memory (meaning any tinpot hypnotist
 >can 'retrieve' the truth without hassle) are yet so expert that
 >they dont seem to ever accidentally leave behind anything
 >conclusively extraterrestrial. A DNA sample, a bit falling off
 >the back of their spaceship - anything of the order that fate
 >simply has to decree would happen sooner or later. And it
 >couldn't be 'covered up' because these things would surely happen
 >without the knowledge of the ETs - just as a silencer (muffler)
 >might fall off your car, be found on the roadside and you'd
 >never know you had lost it until you got home.

 >To me there is a suspicious lack of congruence between the way
 >the phenomenon often seeks to assert that it is ET in origin and
 >the virtual absence of any real proof to that effect.

 >As such, if there is an intelligence at work here the data
 >better matches one that is seeking to fulfill our expectations
 >of an alien visitation whilst at the same time unable of proving
 >that it is, because in reality it isn't. One logical reason for
 >that is that the intelligence prefers us to think of it as an ET
 >visitation so we dont dwell too long on what else it might be.>

Of course, there have been reports of "samples" of whatever is
being observed, as well as landing traces, etc. Somehow all said
cases seem to get messed up of covered up or whatever. I am
reminded of the metal particles supposedly found in the Zamorra
case. Or the chemical changes in soil in the DElphos Kansas
ring, or reports of "angel hair," Trans-en-Provence changes in
chlorophyll (suggesting some weird radiation), and, of course,
optical (photos) and radar data.

There hasn't been "absolute proof" because what has been
available as been"argued away" or, perhaps,grabbed by "official
agencies."

However, I can understand your inferred pleading: why hasn't a
saucer had an "Ubatuba problem" (explosion) over a city?


 >So the real question might be - who or what else might wish to
 >pretend to be extraterrestrial in origin as a way to observe our
 >cultural reaction? Maybe this is a gigantic sociological
 >experiment on the part of someone or something closer to home.

The way I see it, the real problem is, is there any evidence of
Other Intelligences (OI) or Non-Human Intelligence (NHI)
involved, regardless of where it came from.

If thereare no unexplained or unexplainable cases, the answer is
simple: no evidence.

 >And - no - I dont mean some government agency. The intelligence
 >involved seems more human than alien, but also advanced
 >technologically - assuming we accept that there is an
 >intelligence, of course. And that's by no means a given.

 >Ponder that.

Ponder this: is there _any_ case which _anyone_here_ dares to
claim is unexplainable, period. If so, then we can argue over
whether or not it represents OI/NHI.

This, of course, gets us back to ground zero... but what so many
"newbies" don't understand is that after all these years
_we_are_still_at_ground_zero_ at least as far as the scientific
community, and to a large extent the public at large, is
concerned.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 28

                 Re: [SO] Photo of Stars on Moon! - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 19:26:59 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 10:18:08 -0500
Subject: Re: [SO] Photo of Stars on Moon! - Maccabee


 >Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 18:45:49 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: [SO] Photo of Stars on Moon!
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca


 >What I do find odd about a lot of the moon photos is the "hot
 >spot" in the center of the frame and how the lighting seems to
 >fall off drastically in the distance and sides. It almost looks
 >as if there were a spot light on the astronaut. Weird.


This may be a common effect in photography known as "vignetting"
(if I recall correctly). The exposure level of an area of film
depends upon the area of the lens (aperture). For light coming
straight down the axis of the lens... the center of a photo...
thearea of the lens is pi r squared or (pi/4)D^2 with D being
the diameter an since the f# is focal length/diameter, the area
of the lens is proportional to (1/f#^2).

However, for light coming at an angle to the axis the lens area
is smaller: the lens effectively becomes an ellipse with an area
that is (pi/4)D^2 times the cosine of the angle off axis.

The extreme example of this "shrinkage" of the aperture is for
light coming in at a grazing angle to the lens... nearly
perpendicular to the axis... when the fixture holding the lens
actually blocks the light so the effective aperture is zero...
but this light doesn't get to any film in ordinary cameras.

There are other csine factor that can come into play also (up to
cosine raised to the fourth power) depending upon the situation.
Hence darkening at the extremeties of the picture are not
unusual and do notrequire a "spotlight" on the astronaut.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 28

                    Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 19:29:28 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 10:20:12 -0500
Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Sparks


 >From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 11:02:18 -0000


 >>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 00:20:35 -0600

 >>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>>Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 16:21:13 -0000

<snip>


 >To me there is a suspicious lack of congruence between the way
 >the phenomenon often seeks to assert that it is ET in origin and
 >the virtual absence of any real proof to that effect.


Hi List,

I have seen endless lines of verbiage on this topic for the past
weeks now and one point I never see addressed only mentioned as
if everyone already knows the answer, and that is: What is
_proof_ of ET origin?

I think most answers really amount to Proof of Reality of an
extraordinary phenomenon rather than Proof of ET Origin. And
they do not even _prove_ the location of the origin at all, only
possibly allow inferences to the origin. Which gets us right
back to one of the main bones of contention on this List that
ETH advocates _infer_ an ET origin by excluding terrestrial
origins. This inference seems to be a reasonable one if all
terrestrial origins can be reliably eliminated, but it remains
only an inference and a very weak one because other
non-terrestrial / non-ET possibilities may exist, which Jenny
alluded to in the very interesting part of her post I snipped.

Then there is the issue of how specific the origin must be to
qualify. Skeptics seem to want an exact origin such as "Zeta
Reticuli 1" or "Zog from Zorg." ETHers seem to accept "Anywhere
But Earth" as reasonable for an "ET Origin" even though that
would seem to include the entire universe exclusive of earth and
maybe that's sufficient. (If it isn't sufficient, why not? Maybe
it is.)

The typical answers to the "What is proof of ET origin" question
in the past have been:

1. UFO lands on White House lawn. (This proves Reality, not
Origin, not where the UFO came from.)

2. Alien addresses the UN. (This proves Reality, not Origin.
Phil Klass' favorite example. This proves Reality of the alien
but not where the alien comes from; could be a billion-dollar
fraud staged by some government with a lot of money to play with
and an agenda of some type.)

3. Alien lands somewhere and tells us where he/she/it comes from.
(Abductees claim this all the time, does this really prove _where_ the
entities came from or only that they are very strange?)

4. UFO's destroy large areas of the earth's surface. (Proof of
Reality, not Origin. All sorts of half-baked theories could be
devised to explain this away -- antimatter collision, a cloud of
tiny black holes, etc etc.)

5. UFO crashes and leaves intelligible chunks of machinery.
(Proof of Reality but what of Origin? Are we supposed to find
"Made on Zeta Reticuli" stamped on the wrech=kage? How does a
working antimatter propulsion system prove _where_ it came from?
Again it's only an inference it had to come from Elsewhere, not
proof that it did.)

6. And many other similar suggestions.

Maybe a space war with aliens would be sufficient Proof of
Reality that it rises to the level of excluding so many other
non-ET possibilities that it might prove ET Origin. A space war
is a kind of larger-scale version of a single UFO crash with
alleged alien machinery. I'm not sure but simply open it up for
discussion.

What this all seems to boil down to is this: Proof of ET Origin
seems to require direct observation of that ET Origin.

In other words, Proof of ET Origin seems to require something
like earth-based sensor observations of an alien spaceship
taking off from a distant star system and following its flight
and landing on earth (an absolute impossibility with present-day
technology). Or a group of human news reporters are taken to
said star system and observe the civilization there and return
to earth to file stories about their interstellar junket. Isn't
that what you skeptics and debunkers demand for proof of ET
origin?


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 28

                     Re: T Hypothesis & ET Fact - Stacy

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 20:48:45 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 10:22:15 -0500
Subject: Re: T Hypothesis & ET Fact - Stacy


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 20:09:05 -0000

 >>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 11:02:18 -0000

 >>>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>>Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 00:20:35 -0600

 >As with Dennis, I recognize that you are a true skeptic and
 >scientific in spirit (as am I) so I always welcome your ideas
 >and insights.

 >Dick

Dick,

Let's not get too touchy, feely here, or, as David Rudiak might
opine: let's not fraternize with the enemy.

Seriously, your civility is well appreciated.

Now, I must attend to Bush's address to the joint houses of
Congress. The man seems determined to make a millionaire out of
me despite the fact that I didn't vote for him.


Will wonders never cease!

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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 28

                 Re: Cydonian Imperative: 2-26-01 - Fleming

From: Lan Fleming <apollo18@swbell.net>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 19:54:46 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 10:24:21 -0500
Subject: Re: Cydonian Imperative: 2-26-01 - Fleming


 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 14:16:27 -0500
 >Fwd Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 19:41:47 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Cydonian Imperative: 2-26-01 - Velez

 >NASA makes me feel like I'm trapped in a bad B&W 'cine noir'
 >50's flick. What's up with that! This 2001 not 1951. Tell me
 >that those dolts don't have any working 'color' imaging cameras
 >on that craft because I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I'd like
 >to sell you.  ;)

The MGS low-resolution (approx. 200 meter) camera does have
color capability - sort of. It has a red filter and a blue
filter, so red and blue images can be combined into a color
image.

The problem with this is, aside from the low resolution,
that nothing like the true color of a scene can be reproduced to
any degree of certainty with only red and blue.

The same two red and blue images can be combined to get purple
or magenta as well as green or brown, depending on what you
prefer.

You need the green component to get anything like true color.
Without it, JPL can only combine the images in a way that shows
what they think Mars is _supposed_ to look like in color.

 From their point of view, I guess that's not a problem at all;
they probably see it as a big plus.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 28

                   Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Deardorff

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 19:11:56 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 10:28:13 -0500
Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Deardorff


 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 14:19:09 -0600

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 13:13:03 -0000

 >...
 >The sheer number of sightings is one of the philosophical
 >aspects of the ET hypothesis that rarely gets addressed. The
 >question of why UFOs have external lights at all is another one,
 >along with wondering why some show up on radar and others
 >apparently don't. (And, I might add, so on.)

 >Some ufologists, Jim Deardorff springs immediately to mind,
 >explain the nagging questions above by reference to alien
 >intentions, which is a classic case of circular reasoning, if
 >ever there was one. (You can't use some speculative
 >interpretation of the hypothesis you're proposing as "proof" of
 >the original hypothesis.) I'm referring to Deardorff here, BTW,
 >not you.

Hello Dennis, Hello Listees,

You want to drag me into this, Dennis? I don't see the alleged
circular reasoning here. ETs or aliens could either be dumber
than us, or smarter, or some of each. It's rather plausible that
the ones that can get here from there must be quite a few
centuries, if not millennia, ahead of us in their development.
So it's better than 50-50 odds that those ones are smarter than
us, and are capable of having intentions. Is this OK so far?

It follows that those intentions could be rather difficult for
ufologists to figure out. But we do the best with the evidence
at hand. It's obvious to most that those intentions have
included, over the past 53 years, presenting themselves to us in
a semi-covert manner.

One could call it semi-covert because it's obvious they're here,
doing their thing, to those who study it seriously without being
in a total state of denial. "They" being the intelligences
behind the operation of the UFOs and within the heads of
reported aliens who've been sighted. But their presence is not
obvious to those who don't want ETs to be around and aware of
us, however much they may say they hope that ETs do exist
(provided they're many light years away.)

The odds seem exceedingly small that the UFOI or ETI could have
achieved this state of affairs, maintaining a roughly 50%
awareness within our populace that UFOs are real for several
decades, by chance, after hundreds of thousands of sightings.
Thus alien intentions is the first thing that ought to come to
mind. Go for what seems the most obvious first.

What reason is there to avoid this simple reasoning? The one
that first comes to mind is that too many ufologists are afraid
to discuss the consequences of the UFO aliens being smarter than
we are. So I look upon that as the last vestiges of
anthropocentrism. We've come to accept that we're not at the
center of the universe, etc., and even that aliens likely exist,
but they'd better not be millions of years ahead of us (or
hundreds of thousands) and right here, and smarter than us,
because that's hard on our egos! It means that not only is the
universe not up for us to try to dominate in our very distant
future, but not the galaxy either or our corner of it outside
the solar system. So greed -- lust for power and dominance --
may also be a factor.

So it seems to me that the aliens intend for those of us who can
accept the idea of their presence to be able to figure at least
this much out. And I should think that they expect us to be
bright enough to realize that in the past 53 years, as well as
in previous millennia, they haven't wiped us out, or enslaved
us, or even interfered noticeably with the development of our
civilizations in the last few millennia. Instead, they've been
gradually getting us used to their presence, subliminally if not
consciously, and educating those who are interested. This
strongly suggests an alien ethic a bit ahead of ours, even if
their mode of educating us involves some fraction of people
being abductees who can let us know about telepathic messages
and much other stuff that won't seem so much like magic after
we've gotten used to its being in alien use. (Dick: I think I
can almost keep up with you in sentence length.)

 >Even the best ET scenario would still need to have several
 >pluses following it to account for the vast plethora of
 >different shapes and behaviors reported, never mind such a
 >category as "shape-shifter," when the UFO stimulus is reported
 >as actually changing shape during observation.

The number of different alien types reported so far, different
in detail including number of fingers, etc., is what: 50?
Perhaps each alien type has 20 different kinds of vehicles or
UFOs, or perhaps more than we have on Earth; plug in 200 if you
wish rather than 20. But if each of these UFO vehicles can split
into two or more, as often observed, and change shape, we could
multiply by another 2 or 10. And if up to half the sightings
could be images placed by aliens in "witnesses"' minds, the
variety of shapes could multiply by two again. So that could be
100,000 different shapes of UFOs?? Almost enough to explain why
scarcely any two different sightings are of a craft of the very
same appearance.

 >Thus, ETH + _____, or ETH + _____ + ______,
 >or ETH + _____ + _____ + _____.
 >
 >In other words, there is nothing about the ETH itself that
 >necessarily (or should I say adequately) addresses the sheer
 >number of sightings.

That would seem to involve aliens being able to communicate
amongst themselves over vast distances via superluminal speeds.
My own guess here is that the aliens "in charge" of us, back
around WWII or even earlier this century put out a call for all
who are interested to come observe us and help out in preparing
us for eventual contact. Those who want to abduct some of us for
their own reasons seem to have accepted the call too, but it's
interesting that they're abiding by the same rules of not
violating the coverup, and returning the abductees (as far as we
know).

All this is not to say, of course, that the ETs involved haven't
had access to other dimensions for aeons, such that they could
be called extra-dimensional as well.

So, is this circular?:

Observations:

A. UFOs are real, and they are under intelligent control.

B. The controlling aliens are either dumber or smarter than we.

   1) Hypothesis: They are smarter (evidence points this way).

   2) They are smart enough of having intentions of how to deal
      with us (evidence also points this way).

How does one complete a circle? How about this:

   3) Therefore they are smart enough to have been able to
      construct UFO vehicles in the first place.


Jim D.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 28

                  Re: [SO] Photo of Stars on Moon! - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 23:36:50 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 10:42:24 -0500
Subject: Re: [SO] Photo of Stars on Moon! - Young


 >Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 18:45:49 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: [SO] Photo of Stars on Moon!
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
 >>Date: 25 Feb 2001 09:18:12 -0800
 >>Subject: [SO] Photo of Stars on Moon!
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Please have a look: http://wwpg.net/moona.html . There are zooms
 >>where one can see the stars in the astronaut's visor.

 >They sure look like stars, don't they? Interesting. Looks like
 >the exposure might have hit just right. On the other hand, I
 >also notice quite a few "stars" from that shot that look about
 >an inch long on my monitor. In all, I wonder if these stars are
 >just noise in the black areas. Still, could be stars.


Hi, Roger, Bill:

Notice how the shadows on the helmet in the upper pix are almost
black, compared to the shadow in the lower picture (with the
"stars"). The differences are clearly due to different exposures
or printing times.

 >What I do find odd about a lot of the moon photos is the "hot
 >spot" in the center of the frame and how the lighting seems to
 >fall off drastically in the distance and sides. It almost looks
 >as if there were a spot light on the astronaut. Weird.

Most likely due to the angle of incidence of the low Sun. Close
at the feet of the photographer the ground is much darker.

The one thing that is curious is the "antenna". I wonder if this
is the same astronaut as in the other picture. Can anyone point
us to other pictures with antennas? Are they extended at all
times?


Clear, star-studded 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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 28

                 Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 23:56:50 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 10:44:14 -0500
Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Young


 >Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 11:07:16 -0600
 >From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol>
 >>Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 21:15:49 EST
 >>Subject: Re: P-47 - ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Randle
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >There seems to be a general disagreement about what constitutes
 >a "secret". This is much like the on-again, off-again debate
 >about what constitutes a "conspiracy". In my mind, any agreement
 >between two or more people to do harm to other(s) is a
 >conspiracy, plain and simple. Others feel that such a deed has
 >to encompass a larger, organized group of people to be called a
 >conspiracy. Still others feel even _that_ doesn't really apply
 >because, eventually, the evil doers get caught which, for some
 >reason I don't understand, is supposed to negate the previous
 >existence of the conspiracy.

Well, I'm willing to go with a legal definition of "conspiracy".
Any legal beagels listening?

 >Likewise, in my mind, one person can keep something to
 >themselves and _that_ is a secret.

I agree. However, there is also the matter of an officially
defined "secret". If we had a definition, it migh help.

 >Just what _is_ a secret these days?

I'm sure there are some, but if we knew what they were, they
wouldn't count anymore, if only personal secrets. This starts to
go round and round after a while.

It would help to be able to define something as a
_government_secret_.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 28

                 Re: Wife Sees Husband 'Vanish' - Deardorff

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 21:54:50 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 10:46:44 -0500
Subject: Re: Wife Sees Husband 'Vanish' - Deardorff


 >From: Kelly Peterborough <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
 >Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 15:57:10 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Wife sees husband 'vanish'


 >The Star [Malaysia] | 27 Feb. 2001

 >Wife sees husband 'vanish'
 >By Muguntan Vanar

 >TAMBUNAN: A police report has been lodged about an incident that
 >could have come right of an X-Files episode.

 >A woman told police that her husband became "invisible" right
 >before her eyes, and has not been seen since the incident last
 >week. ...

There have been other reports like this. One that comes to mind
is the Veronezh incident, where a boy disappeared for a while
after the alienoid pointed something at him. He was later
returned.

In the Meier case there were a few witnesses who saw Billy Meier
vanish suddenly, on occasions when he would return a couple
hours later from a contact. Frau Meier was one of these
witnesses, her testimony being taken on video tape in 1979,
perhaps still available from Genesis III. On a few other
occasions witnesses saw Meier suddenly appear in front of them
when they were waiting out in the hills for him to return to
their car after a contact. Some of these are among the written
statements they made for Wendelle Stevens, which are in my
website at:

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

as taken from Stevens' 1982 book. A later version remembered by
one of the witnesses in 1998 was recorded by Hesemann, and is
among those available at:

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

The fellow Yabi in the Malasian news story seems to have been a
sort of abductee, and one that may not be returned.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 28

                 Re: FOs in Adams County, Illinois? - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 00:56:58 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 10:48:34 -0500
Subject: Re: FOs in Adams County, Illinois? - Hatch


 >From: Chris Aubeck <caubeck@hotmail.com>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: UFOs in Adams County, Illinois?
 >Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 15:28:31 -0000

 >Hello to One and All,

 >Can anyone give me any information about UFO phenomena seen in
 >Adams County, Illinois? I'm mainly interested in the 1900-1935
 >period but anything would be handy.

 >Thank you

 >Chris Aubeck


Hello Chris:

I thought I would find more, but I have only two cases listed
here for Adams County, IL proper:

#8844: 1969/11/30  1930h  91:17W  39:49N  NAM USA ILN
SR 96 15mi SE/QUINCY,IL : ROUNDED TRIANGLE LIFTS CAR
10 feet! : MOTOR+LITES STAY ON
/rf# 79 RODEGHIER,Mark:UFO RPTS/VEHICLE INTF Pg.48

#9022: 1970/10/04  1830h  91:25W  39:56N  NAM USA ILN
QUINCY,IL: 3/CAR:2 RED ORBS HVR 10min in the West:
3rd DISTANT ORB >>N : Then 1st 2 >>N: /APRO  -and-
/rf# 114 HAINES,Richard: PROJECT DELTA  Pg.113

[Edited for line lengths and legibility etc.]

These two are less than a year apart, and perhaps 15 miles
apart.

"Orbs" ( probably described as spheres, I say orbs to save space
in my short synopses ) may be troublesome. Some people take any
light in the sky as a ball or sphere. The rounded triangle in
the first case sounds a lot more interesting.


Sorry

- Larry Hatch










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 28

                   Re: Wife Sees Husband 'Vanish' - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 01:29:43 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 10:51:48 -0500
Subject: Re: Wife Sees Husband 'Vanish' - Hatch


 >From: Kelly Peterborough <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
 >Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 15:57:10 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Wife sees husband 'vanish'

 >The Star [Malaysia] | 27 Feb. 2001

 >Wife sees husband 'vanish'
 >By Muguntan Vanar

 >TAMBUNAN: A police report has been lodged about an incident that
 >could have come right of an X-Files episode.

 >A woman told police that her husband became "invisible" right
 >before her eyes, and has not been seen since the incident last
 >week.

<snip>

 >Police, however, are not ready to comment on the family members'
 >stories saying only that they were searching for Yabi.

 >In the meantime, Yabi's wife has also sought the assistance of
 >bomohs to trace the whereabouts of her husband.

Hello Kelly:

A very entertaining story! One might ask if the Star (Malaysia)
is considered mainstream/straight news, or tabloid/sensational.

They give no clue what a "bomoh" is. Might that be some sort of
witch doctor or spiritual advisor? A bomoh could be a bloodhound
for all they tell you.



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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 28

                    Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Randles

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 11:31:25 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 10:56:57 -0500
Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Randles


 >From: GBourdais@aol.com
 >Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 14:29:22 EST
 >Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment
 >>Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 00:20:52 -0000

 >>>From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
 >>>Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:19:41 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>>Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment
 >>>>Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 12:11:52 -0600

 >>>Yes, and I do not think that a mere transcript of the pilot's
 >>>testimonies will suffice. Video or at least audio recording will
 >>>have to be produced before independent parties. I suggest for
 >>>instance, among British ufologists, Timothy Good, Nicholas
 >>>Redfern and Omar Fowler.


 >Hello

 >I am not joking at all.

 >I repeat my question: will you present the full recordings to
 >independent parties, yes or not ?

 >If you don't, a doubt will remain.

 >If you do and they accept your proofs, be assured that I will
 >accept them too, as will most probably everyone.

 >Including the COMETA members whom you put in doubt a week after
 >the publication of their report because they did not know your
 >new testimonies.

 >When you act that way, don't be surprised if people ask for
 >solid proof.

Hi,

Act what way?

All I did was point out that the COMETA team needed to
reconsider their stance on Lakenheath - as mentioned by their
report - because they depended upon the older version claiming
that the air crew visually saw a UFO that played cat and mouse
with their plane. This is what UFO history says happened in this
case - but its not what the air crew themselves report.

So what was wrong with suggesting that COMETA update their
information on this case to take account of what the witnesses
themselves say happened? Only you are turning it into some kind
of anti COMETA witch hunt. I'm not.


Although you may have a grievance against my colleagues for
their straight talking style - from my long experience of them
that's just their way (Its typical of Yorkshire men - war of the
roses and all that - which I can add as I originate from
Lancashire BTW!) (And, I should add, that's British irony -
rather than strictly serious - although Yorkshire men are indeed
renowned for their bluntness) .

Having known Andy and Dave for over 20 years I appreciate the
quality of the work they do on case investigations. I have no
hesitation in saying that it's amongst the best in the world and
that's what matters to me.

But I hope I have always tried to be civilised with this list,
telling you what I could to help and explaining why we prefer to
complete the report before openly debating it, but offering to
debate it as much as you like when we do publish. I don't see
anything unprofessional in that.

And I really don't see why this is subject to various messages
to this list (not just from you, of course,Gildas) arguing that
we are 'hiding' things, refusing to discuss the matter with
other researchers and inferring this report might never appear.

Of course it will. We have all spent a lot of time on this
investigation. And we haven't done that so as not to publish
what we find.

I am deeply impressed with the amount of work put in by Andy,
Dave and Paul into this case. And I myself am happy to wait to
see it all drawn together (with the bits that I have done) into
what will be a huge case report. Until this happens not even
those of us working on the report can 'pre-judge' our verdicts
because we wont see the big picture until we slot all the pieces
together. Doesn't that make sense?

So I don't think any reasonable minded person should object to
this method and I doubt they will be disappointed by the
thoroughness exhibited. But thoroughness doesn't happen
overnight and you simply cannot rush this kind of work. After
all the case did happen 45 years ago. What is the big problem
with waiting a few more months?

And given the level of criticism on this list of a not even
completed investigation I totally support the decision we took
to wait until we have finished the work before discussing its
results, because it is obvious that otherwise we would waste
more weeks arguing over things still being resolved or being
told we have ignored aspects of the research that we inevitably
just could never mention in an e-mail exchange given the large
extent of the data involved here.

This is a very complicated case and a lot of strands are being
tied together. It makes total sense to let you see all that in
context and 'then' debate it when you have digested it all. Why
on earth is that not simply a logical plan?

We will publish everything that we consider appropriate to the
report . The criteria for this will be to create a useful and
informative report, hopefully to scientific standards. But it
will definitely not be to react to hectoring demands.

To parade in front of some cooked up panel of your pet experts
degrades the material and the UFO subject. It also creates a
completely spurious impression that we have something that we
must prove. Something that can be used in future to regard the
data as 'tainted' and so not to take it seriously.

It is wise to judge evidence on its merits and its internal
consistency as well as its consistency within the phenomenon.
Not whether any of us like it or its originator.

If you ultimately agree with the conclusions, then fine, if you
don't then equally fine. Its a free world.

If we all went around demanding each other to appear in front of
'juries' to vet our evidence we would quickly stuff Ufology up
its own backside into the realms of total absurdity. The real
debunkers would have huge fun at our expense.

Our interest in doing this case work is because we had an
opportunity after my fortune in talking to the original air crew
and as a team we decided to take it forward from there. It is
purely being carried out so as to add useful new data to
illuminate this under explored case. You can happily take that
data or leave it once it is published. I wont lose any sleep if
some of you do not.

We have every confidence that anybody with common sense, an
objective head on their shoulders and who cares about
unravelling the truth will accept sincerely reported and
properly qualified data. Really that's all that matters here.

But I have long since learnt that it is a waste of time trying
to persuade the un-persuadable.

In any case there is no way UFO research is ever going to happen
without some degree of trust. It is after all a subject based
largely on witness testimony - every one of whom could be lying
through their teeth to us. I am perfectly sure that the majority
of them are not. But by your standards we would have to ask them
all to 'prove' this fact by appearing in front of some grand
jury of peers armed with lie detectors and sodium pentothal
since the fact that they told investigator 'A' (whom someone
doesn't like) would not be considered good enough.

The problems in Ufology tend to come when you believe people who
say what you want to hear but challenge those whose evidence
disputes your own conclusions. The need instead is to recognise
that nobody knows the ultimate truth with certainty and you must
accept all the evidence - like it or not - and use it all as a
basis for a synthesis of the most rational conclusion.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 28

                       Re: Alencon France 1790 - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 04:09:17 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 10:59:34 -0500
Subject: Re: Alencon France 1790 - Hatch


 >Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 20:31:54 +0100
 >From: Bruno Mancusi <swissufo@swissufo.ch>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Alencon France 1790 [was: Naud, Bouchmann & Le Paige]

 >>Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 21:44:15 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Naud, Bouchmann & Le Paige

<snip>

 >No, it's not established.

 >Belgian ufologist Christiane Piens ('Les OVNI du pass',
 >Nouvelles Editions Marabout, Verviers [Belgium] 1977, pp. 81-82)
 >checked the French archives and found no trace of this case, but
 >we can't prove (at present) that Fenoglio has invented it.

 >Perhaps Edoardo Russo would have new info?

 >Is Fenoglio still alive? A Google search reveals that he
 >published a book on Ancient Egypt in 1995.


Thanks again Bruno!

Most important to me is whether the 1790 Alencon matter
is trashed or not. Whether it was Fenoglio who invented
it or not would be secondary in that case, interesting
though that might be.

I certainly welcome input from Edoardo and anyone else who
might know even more than Bruno on this particular story.


Best wishes

- Larry Hatch

PS: My emails seem to come in on time, but they are going out
with a delay for some reason. ISP troubles again I suppose.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 28

                    Re: Tribal Beliefs and UFOs - Aubeck

From: Chris Aubeck <caubeck@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 13:16:10 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 11:04:11 -0500
Subject: Re: Tribal Beliefs and UFOs - Aubeck


Hello to All,

Since I began my research in these matters I have tried to
collect information on Native American traditions regarding
UFOs. This seems like an easy task at first sight, as a search
for material on the internet produces amazing numbers of
documents and links. However, a percentage of what is available
is evidently utter nonsense invented to fool unwary UFO
believers.

Would it be fair to say that some modern Native American Indians
are exploiting the UFO craze either to update their vanishing
tribal traditions in a bid to preserve them, or just to earn a
fast buck, or both? The recent denouncements of Robert Ghost
Wolf�s claims are just one example that comes to mind.

I know from the Native American folklore published long before
the advent of ufology that �little people� traditions existed
throughout the continent, and I have gathered as many myths and
stories about them as I can find. I feel there is a case to be
made for a UFO presence in early Native American culture. Yet I
have witnessed the emergence of a strange new grey area of
knowledge composed of ancient folklore and modern fiction in
equal parts. What has apparently happened to African tradition
through the intervention of Credo Mutwa has also happened to
North American Indian belief through the dubious teachings of
some of its �Elders.�

In a sense, therefore, we can compare the Zulu UFO vision with
that of, say, the Hopis. In fact Credo Mutwa does this himself
in interviews.

I have also observed that �100% pure-blooded Indian� writers or
teachers are thought to be more reliable sources of information
than writers of only semi-Native American ancestry. I�m not sure
that this is the best rule to go by.

I would like to receive comments from anyone with a greater
knowledge of this subject than I have (and my understanding of
all this is severely limited, as anyone can see). Basic
questions in need of a definitive answer include the following:

-How long have Indian tribes been publicly aware of the UFO
enigma?

-Are non-ufologist anthropologists aware of the extent to which
Native Americans seem to fuse the UFO enigma with tribal
traditions?

-With no written sources to go by in the majority of cases, how
can anyone distinguish genuinely old beliefs from what has been
added in recent years?

-Tribal elders often give the impression that most Native
Americans with any knowledge of the beliefs of their forefathers
automatically accept and sympathise with the abduction enigma.
To what extent is this true?

It would be interesting to know whether the situation in
Australia is similar. I suspect it may be, judging by Bill
Chalker�s fascinating report on Australian Aboriginal Culture
and Possible UFO Connections (NSW Australia, 1996). Lorraine
Mafi-Williams, a spokeswoman for the Bundjalung tribe, told
Chalker that:

"We believe in UFO, but here... we have the aboriginal
concept and belief, and we know about abductions and why."

These words remind me of Vladimir Azhazha�s surprising
statement in Vallee�s UFO Chronicles of the Soviet Union
(1992):

"UFO abductions have become especially common during 1989; so
common that we believe we have now identified the mechanism of
these events."

In neither case do I come away any wiser about the possible
howness or whyness of the abduction phenomenon. Perhaps Mr.
Chalker could  provide a synopsis of the Bundjalung view of
abductions as it stands. It could make very interesting reading.


Chris Aubeck








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 28

                      Re: Alencon France 1790 - Aubeck

From: Chris Aubeck <caubeck@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 14:11:16 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 11:09:01 -0500
Subject: Re: Alencon France 1790 - Aubeck


 >Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 20:31:54 +0100
 >From: Bruno Mancusi <swissufo@swissufo.ch>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Alencon France 1790


 >>Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 21:44:15 -0800
 >>From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Naud, Bouchmann & Le Paige

 >>>From: Bruno Mancusi <swissufo@swissufo.ch>
 >>>Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 09:32:17 +0100
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Naud, Bouchmann & Le Paige

 ><snip>

 >>>No, there is no source. In view of the fact that it is
 >>>described just after the famous Alenon case (1790, France)
 >>>I have checked its source (not givenbyNaud):Alberto
 >>> Fenoglio, "Antichi visitatori dal cielo", 'Clypeus' #10, 1966,
 >>>pp. 13-14, but it's not here (it's better because Fenoglio
 >>>has invented many stories like the German Sonderbro and
 >>>the Alenon landing...). I willforward a copy of this mail
 >>>to Boris Shurinov, perhaps he know something.

 >>Hello Bruno!

 >>Regarding Alencon (France 1790):

 >>Is it established that this is the complete invention of one
 >>Alberto Fenoglio? I had already derated that case based on some
 >>earlier posts, and would like to know if it more properly
 >>belongs in my "Poubelle List" of thoroughly discredited UFO
 >>stories:

<snip>

 >No, it's not established.

 >Belgian ufologist Christiane Piens ('Les OVNI du pass',
 >Nouvelles Editions Marabout, Verviers [Belgium] 1977, pp. 81-82)
 >checked the French archives and found no trace of this case, but
 >we can't prove (at present) that Fenoglio has invented it.>

 >Perhaps Edoardo Russo would have new info?

 >Is Fenoglio still alive? A Google search reveals that he
 >published a book on Ancient Egypt in 1995.


 >Regards,

 >Bruno

Hello Bruno, Larry, everyone,

Since I posted a request for information regarding this old case
a few months ago I have received many letters from readers and
researchers interested in getting to the bottom of it. Others
were only vaguely aware that the case existed, although dozens
of UFO catalogues mention the incident as if it were an
established fact in ufological history.

The time has come to lay inspector Liabeuf to rest. The Alenon
myth can be buried for good.

For the benefit of those who do not remember the details of the
story, here is a summary:

It is said that on June 17th 1790, near Alenon, France, at 5:00
in the morning, several farmers saw a huge globe in the sky,
surrounded by flames. They first took it to be a balloon which
had caught fire, but its speed and the strange whistling sound
coming from it led them to think otherwise. The globe descended
slowly, touching the top of a hill, where it tore up the plants
along the slope. The flames from the object set fire to the
small trees and the grass. Fortunately, the locals managed to
stop the fire from spreading.

In his report on the incident, police inspector Liabeuf wrote
that the sphere was still hot in the evening. It showed no signs
of damage despite the heat. "It stirred up so much curiosity
that people came from all directions to see it."

After some time, a very unexpected thing happened. A door burst
open in the sphere and a person came out! "But this person was
dressed in a very strange fashion. He wore a suit which clung to
his body, and when he saw all this crowd he said a few words
which could not be understood, and ran to take flight in the
woods." The peasants drew back from the sphere instinctively -
which was fortunate for them, because at that moment the object
exploded, hurling pieces everywhere. A search was undertaken to
find the mysterious visitor but he was never found.

As the Alenon incident has been included in so many anthologies
of UFO reports and hundreds of books, it has become one of the
best-known �folkloric� cases in the field. I felt a little
disappointed, therefore, though perhaps not very surprised to
discover that the event never really occurred. The earliest
reference to this case comes from an article published in 1966
by the late Italian ufologist Alberto Fenoglio. A writer known
to have made up many UFO reports in his time, Fenoglio invented
the story about Inspector Liabeuf for a purportedly serious
article about UFOs in ancient history, published in the Italian
magazine Clypeus. This article, Antichi visitatori dal Cielo
(Ancient Sky Visitors)was widely distributed and translated into
several languages. The truth of the matter came to light way
back in 1975 when the brilliant Italian ufologist Edoardo Russo
carried out an in-depth investigation into Fenoglio�s claims my
only reference is my personal correspondence with Mr. Russo) and
discovered them to be false. In spite of this, books and
magazine articles presenting the story of the Alenon �crash� as
a genuine case are published every year in many countries.

Similar circumstances surround another tale of the same kind but
set in Russia. According to author Yves Naud, the inhabitants of
a Russian village in the region of Don were surprised to find a
large metal ball in one of their fields. This was in March 1796,
making it just six years after the alleged Alenon event. It was
ten feet in diameter. People from everywhere flocked to see it,
and they wondered where it had come from. Clearly it had not
been delivered by road, as there were no wheel tracks to be seen
anywhere in the vicinity.

It could have fallen from the sky, they thought, but there was
no crater. Except for a regular pattern of circles etched into
it the surface of the ball was as smooth as marbleThe village
folk tried to move the object but their effort was useless, it
would not budge an inch. Then Pushkin arrived. Pushkin was a
drunkard and a gambler, even a heretic, and everyone looked down
on his ways. But despite his faults, he was known to be very
courageous. He was led to the spot. "He drew his sabre, spurred
his horse toward it, he cursed it and defied it, whether it came
from heaven or hell he challenged it to fight back."

The man struck the object with his sword again and again.
Suddenly the crowd around him began to howl with terror: one of
the circles on the ball had opened up, revealing a single
inhuman eye! Pushkin sneered and carried on with his blows
against the object. He struck it so hard, in fact, that blade of
his sabre snapped off.

The peasants fled in fear. Behind them they saw the drunkard and
his steed were both becoming transparent "then finally disappear
into the air." They could still faintly hear his voice, however,
as his angry cussing faded away. "The villagers were not unduly
perturbed by this; they murmured that the devil had gotten his
own back with the brawling Cossack."

Two days passed and nothing was seen or heard of Pushkin. Then
to everyone's surprise both he and his trusty horse staggered
back into the village as if drunk. He seemed calm enough, but he
soon "flew into a great rage and began to howl" that he was
going to put end to the unholy globe and set fire to it and the
woods and everything around it. "Everybody trailed along after
him to enjoy the spectacle. But all that was there to be seen
was his sorry mortification. The ball was no longer there".

Unlike in the case of the supposed crash at Alenon, I have so
far been unable to ascertain whether this tale is truly old or a
modern hoax. If it is of recent origin it would be interesting
to know what prompted the author to write it, as it tallies with
many other incidents and it would not be the only interesting
case dating to 1796. There exists a strong probability, however,
that the tale was another of Fenoglio�s inventions, as its
general literary style and setting resemble the Alenon incident
considerably. I can also state that not one of the many Russian
researchers with whom I have corresponded have ever heard of the
tale.

Considering the time that has elapsed since the actual unmasking
of Fenoglio, it would be obviously be a good idea if Edoardo
Russo and other ufologists possessing a complete list of
Fenoglio�s fraudulent claims could post them on the internet,
thus preventing similar problems for future generations of
ufologists. The problem is that when cases are proven to be
hoaxes people tend to forget about them rather than distributing
their findings. As I have saidbefore in my posts on this site,
we must make an effort to make negative findings known, as they
are no less important than positive ones.

Alenon is only one example. The Vidal case is another. Most
people know that the Vidal abduction never happened, but how
many outside the Spanish-speaking world know that the story was
concocted by film director Anibal Uset?

A lot of information becomes available in the French, German and
Spanish press but does not get mentioned in English books or
even on the internet. There�s not much point arguing about
whether English speakers should learn foreign languages to
further their research in these matters as, at least today,
English is the lingua franca of ufology. We cannot expect every
new UFO case that appears in the Spanish or German press to get
coverage in English journals and news servers, but when
important hoaxes and confusions are found out they must be made
public through English -language channels.


Chris Aubeck








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 28

                   Follow Up On Chupacabra Skull Analysis

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@juno.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 07:56:59 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 14:23:23 -0500
Subject: Follow Up On Chupacabra Skull Analysis



Dear Friends,

Very often, we get chastised--perhaps rightly so--for not
following up on "sensational" items in the press. Unfortunately,
such follow ups on high strangeness cases are not often
possible, given the fact that the newspaper itself may have lost
interest in the subject and no longer considers it newsworthy,
etc.

It is by sheer chance that we are able to offer you the results
of the clinical analysis of the so-called "Chupacabras Skull"
found in Chile (not to be confused with the incredible shrinking
goatsucker of Nicaragua).

In a letter received by IHU from Chilean researcher Liliana
Torres mentions that Universidad Austral in Santiago de Chile
had offered an expert opinion on the structure, which belonged
to a predator shot in Arique, Valdivia, in Chile's 10th Region,
on January 3, 2000. A peasant shot one of two specimens, saved
its head, and delivered it to the Diario Austral newspaper,
which subsequently turned it over to the University. A team of
five doctors--zoologists, veterinarians and clnicians of the
Servicio Agrcola  y Ganadero (SAG)--conducted the study and was
unable to deliver a definite answer as to its origin. Doctors
Roberto Schlater and  Rosario Ulbrich compared it to the skull
of a Chilla Fox, but quickly noticed the differences between the
molars and an upper bone located between the eyesockets that is
lacking from any known species of fox.

Drs. Milton Gallardo and Freddy Mondaca concurred, noting that
the only foxes in Chile are the Chilla, Culpeo and Chiloe
varieties, whose skulls do not remotely coincide with the one
found in Arique. "This could even be a fourth species of fox
that is unknown to us," Dr. Gallardo is quoted as saying.

Universidad Austral's four month study, which included DNA
sampling (NOTE: this answers a question posed by a member of the
INEXPLICATA list), has left scientists startled and surprised,
writes Ms. Torres in her letter. Experts have been unable to
identify the animal in question and even more surprising is the
fact that another specimen is on the prowl near Antilhue, not
far from where the first one was shot.

Dr. Gallardo appears to continue his research, but a veil of
secrecy has fallen over his endeavors, presumably until a final
verdict on the skull's provenance is issued. The only comment so
far is that it is "unlikely" that the skull could belong to a
mutant variety of the Culpeo, Chilla and Chilote Foxes.

Universidad Austral's Institute of Ecology and Evolution agrees
that it is possible to still find "mammals unknown to science"
-- a statement found in a paper by Dr. Milton Gallardo,
discussing the 1992 discovery of new species of mole-like
creatures in the Valdivian rainforest.

On the other hand, the Police Criminology Lab in Santiago de
Chile says that the so-called Chupacabras hair samples provided
compare to the fur of all animals found in the region, including
lamb's wool.

Universidad Catolica del Norte, writes Ms. Torres, has
determined that the footprint casts collected in northern Chile
match those of dogs, and no biological material was found on the
tattered  jacket of a security guard who survived a Chupacabras
attack.  It appears that similar tests were not performed on
other items of clothing collected from the same region.

IHU wishes to thank Ms. Torres for her letter. We hope thatl our
readers find this information helpful in their own research.

Best wishes,

Scott Corrales
Institute of Hispanic Ufology (IHU)
INEXPLICATA--The Journal of Hispanic Ufology
www.inexplicata.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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 28

                     Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Young

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 11:40:19 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 14:31:08 -0500
Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Young


 >Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 19:26:48 -0500
 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 11:02:18 -0000

 >>>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 00:20:35 -0600


 >Ponder this: is there _any_ case which _anyone_here_ dares to
 >claim is unexplainable, period. If so, then we can argue over
 >whether or not it represents OI/NHI.

 >This, of course, gets us back to ground zero... but what so many
 >"newbies" don't understand is that after all these years
 >_we_are_still_at_ground_zero_ at least as far as the scientific
 >community, and to a large extent the public at large, is
 >concerned.


Hi, Bruce, Et. Al.,

You have stated what is the central conundrum in ufology.


Clear skies,

Bob Young









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 28

                   Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Hamilton

From: Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@space.com>
Date: 28 Feb 2001 09:21:02 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 14:34:01 -0500
Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact - Hamilton


 >From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 19:29:28 EST
 >Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 11:02:18 -0000

 >>>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>>Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 00:20:35 -0600

 >>>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>>Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis & ET Fact
 >>>>Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 16:21:13 -0000

 ><snip>

 >>To me there is a suspicious lack of congruence between the way
 >>the phenomenon often seeks to assert that it is ET in origin and
 >>the virtual absence of any real proof to that effect.


 >Hi List,

 >I have seen endless lines of verbiage on this topic for the past
 >weeks now and one point I never see addressed only mentioned as
 >if everyone already knows the answer, and that is: What is
 >_proof_ of ET origin?

 >I think most answers really amount to Proof of Reality of an
 >extraordinary phenomenon rather than Proof of ET Origin. And
 >they do not even _prove_ the location of the origin at all, only
 >possibly allow inferences to the origin. Which gets us right
 >back to one of the main bones of contention on this List that
 >ETH advocates _infer_ an ET origin by excluding terrestrial
 >origins. This inference seems to be a reasonable one if all
 >terrestrial origins can be reliably eliminated, but it remains
 >only an inference and a very weak one because other
 >non-terrestrial / non-ET possibilities may exist, which Jenny
 >alluded to in the very interesting part of her post I snipped.

 >Then there is the issue of how specific the origin must be to
 >qualify. Skeptics seem to want an exact origin such as "Zeta
 >Reticuli 1" or "Zog from Zorg." ETHers seem to accept "Anywhere
 >But Earth" as reasonable for an "ET Origin" even though that
 >would seem to include the entire universe exclusive of earth and
 >maybe that's sufficient. (If it isn't sufficient, why not? Maybe
 >it is.)

 >The typical answers to the "What is proof of ET origin" question
 >in the past have been:

 >1. UFO lands on White House lawn. (This proves Reality, not
 >Origin, not where the UFO came from.)

 >2. Alien addresses the UN. (This proves Reality, not Origin.
 >Phil Klass' favorite example. This proves Reality of the alien
 >but not where the alien comes from; could be a billion-dollar
 >fraud staged by some government with a lot of money to play with
 >and an agenda of some type.)

 >3. Alien lands somewhere and tells us where he/she/it comes from.
 >(Abductees claim this all the time, does this really prove _where_ the
 >entities came from or only that they are very strange?)

 >4. UFO's destroy large areas of the earth's surface. (Proof of
 >Reality, not Origin. All sorts of half-baked theories could be
 >devised to explain this away -- antimatter collision, a cloud of
 >tiny black holes, etc etc.)

 >5. UFO crashes and leaves intelligible chunks of machinery.
 >(Proof of Reality but what of Origin? Are we supposed to find
 >"Made on Zeta Reticuli" stamped on the wrech=kage? How does a
 >working antimatter propulsion system prove _where_ it came from?
 >Again it's only an inference it had to come from Elsewhere, not
 >proof that it did.)
 >
 >6. And many other similar suggestions.


Brad, I have made similar statements as you have and your
reasoning is excellent. Proof of origin almost amounts to
putting a tracking device on board a UFO and hoping that the
signal does not fade out when it moves back to home base.
Kidding aside...

I would like to suggest an intermediate qualification. The
question is: Do any UFOs move in exoatmospheric regions of
space? This would, at least, demonstrate that UFOs can space
travel to some extent. Since there have been eyewitness
sightings of UFOs moving in that region as well as some
unexamined telescopic footage (Japan) of UFOs moving close to
the lunar surface, could we make a stronger inference that these
UFOs are most likely extraterrestrial in origin? UFOs seen near
MIR or Alpha may also qualify as well as those detected (by
satellites) leaving or entering Earth's atmosphere. I think the
ETH should be thought about in terms of how we can resolve this
problem on a gradient scale.


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 28

                  Re: [SO] Photo of Stars on Moon! - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 11:39:15 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 14:35:48 -0500
Subject: Re: [SO] Photo of Stars on Moon! - Evans


 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 19:26:59 -0500
 >Subject: Re: [SO] Photo of Stars on Moon! - Maccabee
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 18:45:49 -0600
 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Subject: Re: [SO] Photo of Stars on Moon!
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

Previously, I wrote:

 >>What I do find odd about a lot of the moon photos is the "hot
 >>spot" in the center of the frame and how the lighting seems to
 >>fall off drastically in the distance and sides. It almost looks
 >>as if there were a spot light on the astronaut. Weird.

Bruce wrote:

 >This may be a common effect in photography known as "vignetting"
 >(if I recall correctly). The exposure level of an area of film
 >depends upon the area of the lens (aperture). For light coming
 >straight down the axis of the lens... the center of a photo...
 >thearea of the lens is pi r squared or (pi/4)D^2 with D being
 >the diameter an since the f# is focal length/diameter, the area
 >of the lens is proportional to (1/f#^2).

 >However, for light coming at an angle to the axis the lens area
 >is smaller: the lens effectively becomes an ellipse with an area
 >that is (pi/4)D^2 times the cosine of the angle off axis.

 >The extreme example of this "shrinkage" of the aperture is for
 >light coming in at a grazing angle to the lens... nearly
 >perpendicular to the axis... when the fixture holding the lens
 >actually blocks the light so the effective aperture is zero...
 >but this light doesn't get to any film in ordinary cameras.

 >There are other csine factor that can come into play also (up to
 >cosine raised to the fourth power) depending upon the situation.
 >Hence darkening at the extremeties of the picture are not
 >unusual and do notrequire a "spotlight" on the astronaut.


Hi, Bruce!

Well, I'm not taking the stance that a spot light was used.
However, we have about every lens that Hassleblad ever made and
that's what the astronauts shot with, as I understand it. I know
we have all the wide angle lenses for the Hassy's. We've shot
out in the desert at all times of the day under a cloudless sky
and we have never had any vignetting on any of our shots, even
with the wide lenses, which is where you one would expect this
to occur. Plus the light seems to fall off behind the astronaut
and not across the front of the astronaut. A vignette would
affect everything in the photo and wouldn't be selective. I'm
sure there's a logical explanation but it looks pretty weird, to
be sure.

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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 28

                  Re: Cydonian Imperative: 2-26-01 - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 12:19:16 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 14:38:21 -0500
Subject: Re: Cydonian Imperative: 2-26-01 - Evans


 >From: Lan Fleming <apollo18@swbell.net>
 >Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 19:54:46 -0600
 >Subject: Re: Cydonian Imperative: 2-26-01 - Fleming
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 14:16:27 -0500
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Cydonian Imperative: 2-26-01 - Velez

Previously, John wrote:

 >>NASA makes me feel like I'm trapped in a bad B&W 'cine noir'
 >>50's flick. What's up with that! This 2001 not 1951. Tell me
 >>that those dolts don't have any working 'color' imaging cameras
 >>on that craft because I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I'd like
 >>to sell you.  ;)

Lan replied:

 >The MGS low-resolution (approx. 200 meter) camera does have
 >color capability - sort of. It has a red filter and a blue
 >filter, so red and blue images can be combined into a color
 >image.
 >
 >The problem with this is, aside from the low resolution,
 >that nothing like the true color of a scene can be reproduced to
 >any degree of certainty with only red and blue.

Hi, Lan, John.

I understand that you are talking about the specific low-rez camera of
the MGS. However, you give the impression that using color filters in
conjuction with a black and white camera will yield lower resolution
pictures than a color camera and this is not the case. Black and white
video cameras and scanners are inherently higher in resolution than
their color counterparts. In fact, one of the best images you can get on
video (next to a scanner) is to use a modern, high resolution black and
white CCD camera and make three passes; red, blue and green and then
combine them in Photoshop for use on TV productions. I do this for color
artwork and graphics that are too big for my scanner and the resolution
and color definition is far superior to that of any 3-chip color camera.
Of course, the subject matter must not be moving, but the results are
superior.

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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 28

                          Secrecy News -- 02/28/01

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@igc.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 12:29:39 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 14:42:46 -0500
Subject: Secrecy News -- 02/28/01


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
February 28, 2001

       **   ANOTHER HANSSEN AFFIDAVIT
       **   WOLFOWITZ ON CLASSIFIED INFORMATION


ANOTHER HANSSEN AFFIDAVIT

The government yesterday released another FBI affidavit in the
case of Robert Philip Hanssen, the FBI agent who was arrested on
February 18 on suspicion of espionage.

The newly released 9 page affidavit was filed in DC District
Court in support of a search of Hanssen's office space at the
FBI and at the State Department located in the District of
Columbia.  Last week's ample 100 page affidavit was filed in the
Eastern District of Virginia, in support of Hanssen's arrest and
search of his home and cars located in Virginia.

The latest affidavit adds a few poignant details to the picture,
notably the text of a decrypted farewell message that Hanssen
allegedly sent to his Russian handlers.

The text of the affidavit, dated February 21, is posted here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/ops/ci/hanssen_affidavit2.html


WOLFOWITZ ON CLASSIFIED INFORMATION

"It's kind of shocking, the extent to which classified
information frequently and with great speed, finds its way into
public in one form or another," said Paul Wolfowitz, the Bush
Administration nominee for Deputy Secretary of Defense, at his
confirmation hearing yesterday.

"Any one of us has come across a classified document that we may
have thought was overclassified, but that doesn't give you an
individual right to take it on yourself -- (laughs) -- to
declassify it or downgrade it," Mr. Wolfowitz said.  "There are
procedures for doing that and they should be stuck with."

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner asked Mr.
Wolfowitz if he would undertake, "as one of your top
priorities," a review of the safeguarding of classified
information at the Pentagon.  Mr. Wolfowitz said he would.

Their discussion of classification policy is excerpted here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2001/02/wolfowitz.html

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

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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 28

                   Re: Writing, Symbols & Emblems? - Velez

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 13:55:06 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 14:44:38 -0500
Subject: Re: Writing, Symbols & Emblems? - Velez


 >From: Gary Anthony <garyant@mithrand.karoo.co.uk>
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Writing, Symbols & Emblems?
 >Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 00:19:39 -0000

 >Dear Colleagues

 >I am currently continuing to collect samples of alleged alien
 >writing, symbols and emblems with a view to compiling a
 >comprehensive database on alien languages; and in this endeavour
 >I have managed so far to acquire a number of different and
 >interesting examples and references from around the world.

Hi Gary, Hi All, Gary why don't you contact Stuart Apelle at
Cornell University here in New York. Four years ago I submitted
some 'writing samples' to Budd who in turn forwarded them (and
several other samples) to Mr. Apelle for study and analysis. A
report was 'supposed' to have appeared in the Journal of UFO
Studies. As we all know, no such report ever materialized. I
believe JUFOS is no longer being published. In all fairness to
Stuart Apelle there were $ problems with the publication of the
Journal etc.etc.etc. The bottom line is, Mr. Apelle is sitting
on a cache of these writing samples and speaking as one of the
contributors to the study I'm pissed that (for whatever reasons)
it was never conducted.

Try Stuart -and- Budd, (as Budd was the one who provided most,
if not all, of the raw material for the study.) Good luck. I
hope something comes of it. It's a shame that nothing has been
done with this material before now. I'm still waiting for
medical & mental health professionals to launch a formal
investigation into the abduction phenom and the abductees
themselves. Volunteering for a scientific study/examination was
how I got involved in this mess to begin with. (NOVA) I'm still
waiting. So far, it's all been just so much 'rap.'

Mucho viento, poco trabajo! (Lot's of wind, little work.) ;)

Go to my website Gary. Right on the AIC banner you'll find three
examples of what you're looking for. I have incorporated two
"writing" samples (individual letters/words/ whatever) and one
of the "symbols" that are associated with "them." You are
welcome to those for your collection. I cannot provide you more
because I promised Budd I would not make it all a matter of
'public record.' Those writing samples are one of the few tools
he has to help identify legit/ possible abduction cases. They
are still somewhat useful because they have not been splattered
all over the media like the images of Greys have for instance.
-Everybody- knows what a 'Grey' looks like, -few- have ever seen
the writing samples.

http://www.spacelab.net/~jvif/

Regards,

John Velez,
Let's do the science!


                                         *************
                              "Nothing is at last sacred but
                             the integrity of your own mind."
                                 www.spacelab.net/~jvif/
                                         *************







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 28

                      Filer's Files #9 -- 2001 - Pt. 2

From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 17:21:03 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 17:49:56 -0500
Subject: Filer's Files #9 -- 2001 - Pt. 2


AOL has informed me they have considerably shortened the length
of all emails. You may not have recieved the entire Files.

Regards,

George Filer


Filer's Files #9 -- 2001, 2nd Part MUFON Skywatch Investigations
George A. Filer, Director, Mutual UFO Network Eastern February
26, 2001, Sponsored by Electronic Arts; Majorstar@aol.com.
Webmaster Chuck Warren http://www.filersfiles.com,

UFO REPORTS INCREASE IN SPACE, FROM AIRCRAFT AND ON THE GROUND
The new year brings spectacular Disc shaped UFO reports in
Chile, Michigan, Arizona, Oregon and England. Flying Triangle
reports come in from New Jersey, Alabama, and Georgia,
maneuvering lights are reported in Florida, Indiana, Texas, and
United Kingdom.

OREGON DISC WITH LIGHTS SEEN BY CREW CHIEF

ROGUE RIVER -- In one of the best reports I've received recently
an SR-71 Air Force Crew Chief phoned to tell me he and his
family of four had a witnessed a disc shaped UFO outside their
home around 8:30 PM on both February 21st, and 22nd, 2001. It
started when he noticed a bright light at the top of the
mountain behind his home. Since the nearest airport is 35 miles
south in Medford, he thought it was strange to see a plane with
its landing lights on. The home is located in a rural area with
two mountains behind the house, one 2000 feet and the other 3500
feet high. Twenty minutes later he looked out again and saw the
lights were still there. Grabbing his binoculars he was able to
get an excellent view of the craft that was flying lower toward
his home. At first, he noticed a bright diamond shaped light
that at first didn't move. Then it started getting lighter and
brighter and smaller and bigger. It started moving down a hill.
Then it stopped. Then it got lighter, brighter, smaller and
bigger. Then it went back up the hill and seemed to stop. It
kept on doing it over and over. The disc shaped UFO flew down
the side of the mountain and moved at its closest about 400
yards away. The disc was almost as large as his fist at arm's
length. It had four triangular shaped panels or windows in a X
pattern. Two panels were above the rim and two were below
emitting light. The disc was made of a grayish metallic
material. The Crew Chief assured me he had never seen a craft in
the Air Force or any where remotely similar. The craft slowly
climbed in altitude up the side of the mountain sweeping its
bright lights appearing to be searching for something. The red
glowing lights appeared to emit flares as it slowly flew up the
side of mountain very close to the trees. Radio towers are on
the top of the mountain.

The following night there was a similar bright diamond shaped
light in the northwest sky just above the ridge line in the back
of their home. They watched the light pull apart from the sides
and pull back together several times. The light divided and a
separate bright red light came from the north and pulled up next
to the bright light. The second hovered for almost ten seconds
and zigzagged off to the south very quickly. The bright light
hovered and then maneuvered and suddenly disappeared. The object
followed the ground to the top of the ridge and went over the
top and stopped just on the other side. It stayed there for
about 5 minutes and was gone. My son yelled, "Look to the
right." The UFO was moving left, right up and down with terrific
speed. It was not a helicopter or plane and there was no sound
what so ever. Insects, frogs, and other animals started to make
sounds only after the UFO left. They saw the object for 15- 20
minutes. The Crew Chief's eleven year old son said, "The UFO was
cool and awesome!"

Editor's Note: Several elk herds live in the mountains and the
UFO crew may have been searching for food. In Oregon there have
been reports of UFOs picking up elk and abducting them. The
witness also reported the sighting to Peter Davenport who also
felt he was a high quality witness.

CHILE, PILOTS SPOT GIANT SILVER SAUCER

ANTOFAGASTA -- Two airborne jetliners spotted a giant silver UFO
hovering at an altitude of 18,000 meters (60,000 feet) near the
city of Antofagasta in Northern Chile. "A feeling of disquiet
and consternation spread over much of Chile's Second Region,
including large cities such as Calama and Antofagasta, due to
the sighting of an unidentified flying object around 11:00 AM on
Friday, February 16, 2001. "The phenomenon was even observed by
commercial aircraft when flight paths brought them close to it."
"Witnesses identified it as a small silver dot towards the west
of El Loa's provincial capital," Antofagasta, "which remained
initially still and with a swinging motion" "Many tried to see
but were themselves thwarted in the pursuit of this goal as the
object was some distance from the city. Nonetheless, others were
able to see it both unaided and with binoculars."

"Air traffic control personnel from the Cerro Moreno Airport
followed the UFO's movements through accounts from the airline
pilots."  "Two of the three airliners crossing the city
witnessed the object. These were LAN-Chile Flight 560, and Avant
Airlines Flight 471. The event took place at around 11:00 AM,
had a total duration of between 20 and 30 minutes, being first
noticed by LAN-Chile Flight 560 after establishing visual
contact with a shiny, oval object of incredible size. This was
immediately relayed to the Air Traffic Control Center in
Santiago de Chile and was picked up on their radar screens,
which have nationwide coverage. "The phenomenon was also seen by
Calama airport's control tower since 10:45 AM who saw an oval,
shiny object. Avant Airlines Flight 471, flying between Calama
and Antofagasta reported the object to the regional capital's
air facility. The UFO was 'flattened and elongated, like two
plates facing each other,' and was seen 72 miles north of
Antofagasta at Vector 350. "Airport personnel explained that
'Radar systems filter information, otherwise even cars could
show up onscreen as well as air traffic moving slower than the
stipulated speed. Nelson Lope, Cerro Moreno's airport manager,
confirmed the object's presence and noted that two commercial
flights flying over the Pacific Ocean picked up the apparition
without being able to identify it. He added that the airspace
occupied by the UFO contained heavy clouds, which did not allow
for a more objective interpretation. He discarded the weather
balloon theory. "The UFO was tracked by radar operators of the
Fifth Air Brigade of the Fuerzas Aereas de Chile the Chilean Air
Force based at Cerro Moreno." (See the newspaper La Estrella del
Loa for 2/17/01, Thanks to Scott Corrales, and UFO ROUNDUP,
Volume 6 #8 2/22/01, Editor: Joseph Trainor

Editor's Note: It is refreshing to see that UFOs are freely
reported by the news media, airline crews and radar in Chile.
Despite frequent sightings in the US everyone involved seems
afraid to report these incidents, even when crashes or our
aircraft occur.

UNITED KINGDOM HAS 21st UFO REPORT

LEICESTER, ENGLAND -- Andy Seaton reports that, "On the morning
of January 24, 2001, I woke at 05:10 AM, sitting up and looking
out through our East facing window (we sleep with curtains
open). I observed what I first took to be a star, my attention
was drawn by its unusual sparkling appearance akin to a
fireworks sparkler. It then began to move in a very jerky
fashion, not unlike the flight of a butterfly. The general
direction of movement was south to north. The morning was not
yet fully light. There was only a little wispy cloud above the
object. I woke my wife (a skeptic) who, when I showed her, had
to agree it was indeed a UFO. We continued to observe until it
disappeared traveling northward. The whole sighting lasted about
five minutes. I have had an interest in UFO's since I was a
child, but this is my first definite sighting. Thanks to Andy
Seaton seatonaj@lineone.net.

DERBYSHIRE DALES - Farshores reports the February 15, 2001, the
Matlock Mercury Newspaper reports that close encounters continue
in Dales as the national media picks up on the long string of
UFO stories. Last week, sightings including the videotape
episode in Bonsall were reported by the Daily Mail, Channel Five
and BBC News. Now the Mercury has received word of another close
encounter - the 20th sighting since the first back in September.
Paul Hannan (37) of Yeld Close, Bakewell saw a dome-shaped craft
at around 8:00 PM on February 3. "It was over Haddon," he said,
"more or less on the Manchester flight path. "I shouted to my
wife, 'Look at this bright light out here!'  Mr Hannan, who saw
a similar object in Bakewell during the mid-1900s said the craft
was a brilliant white light in the sky. Through the binoculars,
he could see the light gradually fade.

TANSLEY -- The 21st sighting surrounds a Wirksworth couple who
saw a large blue light with an orange tail which shot across the
night-sky. The man was going for a walk with his girlfriend on
Summer Lane, at about 7:30 PM last Thursday when they saw the
strange light. He said: "At first I thought it was a plane
crashing - it is the funniest thing I have ever seen. "It had a
massive glowing tail at the back of it - but it went far too
fast for a plane. "My friend also saw it." Thanks to
farhores@inorbit.com (farshores)

SWEDISH GLOWING CYLINDER

GOTHENBURG --At the age of 12, the witness reports I saw a big
cigar shaped UFO moving slowly and silently following a
horizontal path over Gothenburg. I was with my parents , and
also joined by 3 adult neighbors. It was silver colored and
reflected the light of the afternoon sun. About every 10 seconds
it lit up completely like a light-bulb and ten seconds later,
the light was turned off and it was again silver colored. We saw
no lights, windows or fins on the cigar- it was completely
smooth. No sound. After about 5-10 minutes it suddenly turned
around, and took off in the direction from where it had come.
The speed was now accelerating and it went from horizon to
horizon in a few seconds. Thanks to MUFON Worldwide Data Base
http://ohiomufon.services4all.com/.

PRESIDENT CARTER'S EYES TEAR OVER UFOs

Art Greenfield writes, "In your Filer's Files # 7 on 2/13/01 is
the report of the call to Larry King's show where Shirley
MacLaine was asked about what President Carter had told her
about UFOs? I was that caller." The story of this is in my soon
to be printed book. Additionally, when I first called in to the
show and told the call screener what I was going to ask Shirley,
the screener said: "Larry is going to love this!!!" I followed
up with a letter to President Carter himself, asking him to
reveal what he knew to the public, but I have not had a
response. A year of so later when President Carter was a guest
on the Larry King Show, I called in and told the call screener I
wanted to ask the President what he had told Shirley MacLaine
about the government knowing about aliens and recovered UFOs was
true?  The screener said that President Carter had told them he
would only answer questions about his new book. But that was not
the end of the story. Just a few months before Art Bell retired,
he read a news wire item at the beginning of his show. Art said
that former President Jimmy Carter had been at a book store in
Oregon for a book signing on his new book. A man in line to get
his book autographed asked President Carter about his campaign
promise that if elected, he would look into what the government
knew about UFOs and aliens. Art Bell said, "President Carter
just looked at the man and did not answer in words. "Tears
sprang from his eyes." Thanks to Art Greenfield Cocoa, FL 32926

LAST YEAR 252 CROP CIRCLES REPORTED FROM 16 COUNTRIES

The official ICCA count per month looks is as follows: January:
1 / February: 1 / March: 4 / April: 6 / May: 21 / June: 40 /
July 103 / August: 70 / September: 4 / October 1 / November: 1 /
December: 0. The official ICCA count per country was as follows:
Canada: 9 / Czech Republic: 32 / Denmark: 6 / England: 139 /
Finland: 1 / France: 1 / Germany: 25 / Italy: 2 / Malaysia: 1 /
New Zealand: 1 / Poland: 1 / Russia: 1 / Slovenia: 1 / Spain: 3
/ The Netherlands: 15 / USA: 14. Thanks to
mueller@invisiblecircle.de - http://invisiblecircle.de

NEW YORK CITY THEATRICAL PERFORMANCE ON ABDUCTIONS Bob Durant,
writes, "I got a long email from Harold Egeln concerning a new
play to be performed in New York City. The play is based on UFO
abductions, which I think is a "first." The shows are at 8:30 PM
except Sunday March 4, at 4:00 PM, followed by a Panel
Discussion with Experts on the Topic. 145 Sixth Avenue (between
Spring and Dominick) www.here.org Tickets are $15 to $20, Box
Office @ 212.647.0202

NEW JERSEY GREAT UFO CONGRESS 2001 BORDENTOWN -- March 31 and
April 1 at the Days Inn on Route 206 at the NJ Turnpike Exit #7.
Jan Aldrich, Don and Viki Ecker, Dolores Cannon, Richard
Cassaro, Bob Durant, and Nancy Talbot have been invited to
speak. Call Pat Marcatillio for reservations at 609 631-8955

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 over an
hour long tape of UFOs shot in space. Jeff spends hundreds of
hours watching the shuttle broadcasts from space and is now an
expert on NASA missions and even those onboard the shuttle are
unlikely to see what Jeff does. Using Jeff's directions you will
be able to learn the difference between space junk, ice crystals
and real UFOs. 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 Is, 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 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 2001 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. These reports and comments are not
necessarily the official MUFON viewpoint. Send your letters to
Majorstar@aol.com. Sending mail automatically grants permission
for us to publish and use your name. Please state if you wish to
keep your name, address, or story confidential.Caution: Most of
these are initial reports and require further investigation.











   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 28

                   Re: Wife Sees Husband 'Vanish' - Hatch

From: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 19:37:42 +0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 17:52:44 -0500
Subject: Re: Wife Sees Husband 'Vanish' - Hatch


 >Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 01:29:43 -0800
 >From: Larry Hatch <larryhat@jps.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Wife Sees Husband 'Vanish'

 >>From: Kelly Peterborough <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
 >>Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 15:57:10 -0500
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Wife sees husband 'vanish'


<snip>

 >>In the meantime, Yabi's wife has also sought the assistance of
 >>bomohs to trace the whereabouts of her husband.

 >They give no clue what a "bomoh" is. Might that be some sort of
 >witch doctor or spiritual advisor? A bomoh could be a bloodhound
 >for all they tell you.

Hi Larry,

You got it right first time.

A quick search on the 'net produced:

A Bomoh is a Malay witchdoctor. Also known as pawang or dukun.
They are still active today and work professionally.

This was taken from Enyclopedia Mythica at

http://www.pantheon.org/mythica/articles/b/bomoh.html

Note - The above is the complete entry for 'Bomoh'

Best wishes,
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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 28

                    Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgement - Fuller

From: Paul Fuller <CPaulFuller@cs.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 14:47:37 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 18:09:45 -0500
Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgement - Fuller


Hi there,

I don't normally subscribe to this List but I've been alerted to
some comments that have appeared in the past few days which seem
to imply that I (or my colleagues Jenny Randles, David Clarke
and Andy Roberts) would bow so low as to _invent_ transcripts to
undermine the famous Lakenheath-Bentwaters case of 1956. This is
a very serious allegation which I hereby deny. I think an
apology is required from the individual who is making these
allegations.

I know its a tough life tapping away at our PCs but seriously
please remember that some of us have full-time jobs. I do all I
can in my spare time to research UFO cases but I can't just drop
everything to respond to demands from X, Y and Z to justify
everything I have ever said or done. I think that perhaps we all
forget this sometimes (me included !).

Our Lakenheath re-investigation is continuing to unearth new
facts and new evidence every day. And every day there's more
work to be done to check that evidence from different angles and
chase new leads. With some aspects of this case I still don't
know the truth of what happened or did not happen, so how can I
possibly come before my peers and justify myself even before
I've reached a conclusion ?

So, hold on to your hats. The fat will be in the fire soon
enough,

Cheers,

Paul Fuller
("demented and litigious" according to George Wingfield <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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 28

              Re: Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy' - Evans

From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 14:32:54 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 18:16:50 -0500
Subject: Re: Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy' - Evans


 >From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 02:57:53 EST
 >Subject: Re: Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy' - Rudiak
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>From: Roger Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >>Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 14:03:30 -0600
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Subject: Re: Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy'

Previously, I wrote:

 >>Even with the above snip, we can count no less than 3 times that
 >>David says we can not see any stars during the day because of
 >>the atmosphere.

 >>The sun _is_ a star, big guy. We see it just fine, during the
 >>day, even with the naked eye. We don't see the other stars
 >>because they are too far away and, therefore, too dim to compete
 >>with the intensity of the sun.

David now writes:

 >Just because you can see stars in space with the sun out but not
 >here on Earth, this wild scientific theory cropped up that maybe
 >the Earth's atmosphere had something to do with it -- junk like
 >sunlight scattering off the atmosphere.

 >E.g. check out this bozo who said the exact same things I did.
 >The guy even claims to have a PhD and be a professional
 >astronomer.

  http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

David, I checked out the link. Let's share this info with everyone on
the list that gives two cents about our debate. The link read:

 >The stars are there! They're just too faint to be seen.

 >The Moon's surface is airless. On Earth, our thick atmosphere
 >scatters sunlight, spreading it out over the whole sky. That's
 >why the sky is bright during the day. Without sunlight, the air
 >is dark at night, allowing us to see stars.

 >On the Moon, the lack of air means that the sky is dark. Even
 >when the Sun is high off the horizon during full day, the sky
 >near it will be black. If you were standing in
 >the Moon, you would indeed see stars, even during the day.

 >So why aren't they in the Apollo pictures? Pretend for a moment
 >you are an astronaut on the surface of the Moon. You want to take
 >a picture of your fellow space traveler. The Sun is low off the
 >horizon, since all the lunar landings were done at local morning.
 >How do you set your camera? The lunar landscape is
 >brightly lit by the Sun, of course, and your friend is wearing a
 >white spacesuit also brilliantly lit by the Sun. To take a picture
 >of a bright object with a bright background, you need to set the
 >exposure time to be fast, and close down the aperture setting too;
 >that's like the pupil in your eye constricting to let less light in
 >when you walk outside on a sunny day.

 >So the picture you take is set for bright objects. Stars are
 >faint objects! In the fast exposure, they simply do not have time
 >to register on the film. It has nothing to do with the sky being
 >black or the lack of air, it's just a matter of exposure time.
 >If you were to go outside here on Earth on the darkest night
 >imaginable and take a picture with the exact same camera settings
 >the astronauts used, you won't see any
 >stars!

Gee, that's funny, the very first reason he gives is that the
stars are too dim. Now, why would a professional astronomer with
a Ph.D. say something like that? I guess because that's the
fundamental reason we can't see the _other_ stars.

Continuing David wrote:

 >Hoo boy, were we wrong. Fortunately Roger Who-Knows-All is here
 >to clear up this misconception that our atmosphere keeps us from
 >seeing stars during the day..

I'm glad I could help out in that area. Here's another
misconception I can help you clear up: Only you were wrong,
David. There was no "we" involved. The guy's explanation
acknowledges that the stars are too dim, right from the
beginning.  In fact, it is the very _first_ thing he says on the
topic. In case you missed it, he wrote:

 >The stars are there! They're just too faint to be seen.

I have never said that the atmosphere does not scatter the
light. What I have maintained all along is that the other stars
are too dim to penetrate this. If they were brighter, then they
could also be seen along with the star that we call the "sun".

On the other hand, I purposely let you go on for several posts
with your claims that we can't see any stars during the day,
wondering if you would ever realize the error you were making;
that we _can_ see at least one star during the day. But you
never did. Then, when I pointed out your obvious error, you try
and back pedal your way out of a jam, all the while casting
stones because of my use of the word "see".

It was my assumption that everyone would understand that the
context referred to "why don't we _see_ stars in the photos or
video". I guess I was wrong. Certainly, you should understand
such a slip in writing, David. After all, you're the one that
has written many times that we can't see any stars during the
day on earth because of atmosphere, all the while talking about
how the light from the sun (which is a star) interferes with the
viewing process. In essence you're saying that we can't see any
star while saying, at the same time, that we see too much of
one!

And you bust my chops for using the word "see"?

The big difference is that I can at least justify that I was
operating within a given context; that I assumed we were all on
the same page talking about not seeing other stars in photos and
video. But your statement is outside of context and has no basis
in fact, period. You wrote over and over that we can not see any
stars during the day when we obviously can. You even went so far
as to distinguish the sun as being different from stars, as if
it were a different kind of celestial body. This wasn't just a
slip in writing. This was just plain ignorance of the science
involved.

Admit it, David, you were so hung up on trying to create an
issue where no issue existed, that you forgot that the sun is a
star. What other explanation could you offer?

Or maybe, just maybe you thought that everyone would simply
understand the _context_ of the discussion and _know_ that you
really meant stars other than our sun? Nah... If I can't get any
slack, then why should 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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 28

                 Re: Writing, Symbols & Emblems? - Harrison

From: Diane Harrison - Director AUFORN <tkbnetw@powerup.com.au>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 06:57:05 +1100
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 18:24:54 -0500
Subject: Re: Writing, Symbols & Emblems? - Harrison


 >From: Gary Anthony <garyant@mithrand.karoo.co.uk>
 >To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Writing, Symbols & Emblems?
 >Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 00:19:39 -0000

 >Dear Colleagues

 >I am currently continuing to collect samples of alleged alien
 >writing, symbols and emblems with a view to compiling a
 >comprehensive database on alien languages; and in this endeavour
 >I have managed so far to acquire a number of different and
 >interesting examples and references from around the world.

--

Hi Gary

Here in Australia  we have a Lady ufologist called Mary Rodwell
who works with Abductee's and Contactee's and whilst working
with them she has collected quite a number of drawings of
symbols, ETs  and writings.

Here is Mary's e-mail if you would like to chat to her about them
starline@iinet.net.au

Also Mary and friends produced a Video called Expressions of ET
Contact, a visual blue print, which was presented at the
International UFO Congress, Film Festival in 1999 the video won
two awards.

It would be interesting to see if any of  your collection is the
same as Mary's. Ask Mary about Tarcey Taylors drawing's there
fantastic.

I hope she can help you.

Regards Diane in OZ


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 > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 28

                    Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Clarke

From: Dave Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 21:16:32 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 18:31:16 -0500
Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment - Clarke


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment
 >Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 12:16:08 -0600

 >>From: Andy Roberts <AndyRoberts@ancientassociates.fsnet.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Re: Lakenheath Pre-Judgment
 >>Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 10:21:29 -0000

 >I am told that you and your colleagues are
 >actively refusing to share information with other Lakenheath
 >experts.


Hi Jerry,

I'm sorry to hear that you are paying attention to hearsay
evidence - it was this sort of thing which allowed the myth to
grow in the first place.

Rather than listening to Brad Sparks you should be asking
pertinent questions like why he and Thayer suppressed the
contradictory evidence of the RAF Fighter Controller in their
account of 1980 - a question Sparks has pointedly failed to
address on this List (see the post from Joe McGonagle, and my
reply).

As for us "actively refusing" to co-operate with other
"Lakenheath experts", don't make me laugh.

The only individual you can possibly be referring to is Brad
Sparks, so why don't you make it clear what you mean. Sparks, by
his own admission, has spent 20 years recycling second and third
hand information rather than _investigating_ anything first
hand. Now he realises that someone else has broken the rules of
this rather cosy gentlemen's club and actually traced some
first-hand testimony and documents, he wants to be in on the act
- when it suits _him_.

What qualifies someone as a "Lakenheath expert" other than
self-proclamation?

Private correspondence I had with Sparks made it quite clear
that he could not offer any _new_ information to the
investigation which we did not already possess. This was
explained to Sparks, despite him making a groundless suggestion
that we had already made "serious errors" in our investigation -
something he could not possibly have known as he had no
knowledge of what we had discovered!

Given such an attitude - why on earth should we waste time
corresponding with someone who knows nothing, and jumps to such
a conclusion without evidence?

Our investigation has been conducted following journalistic
procedure - talking to first-hand sources and obtaining
contemporary documents. To this end we have been dealing
directly with RAF aircrew, retired Squadron Leaders and the
Ministry of Defence who have been very helpful. We also have
enlisted the help of two radar experts, with almost a century of
technical experience between them to act as advisors.

Our approach as been simple - unless someone has some _new_
information, rather than just tired old information and
speculation to offer, then why should we pay any attention to
it?

 >Indeed, if that's your view (and it certainly seems to be your
 >view, though I would like to be wrong), one can only conclude,
 >sadly, that you don't understand how the scientific process
 >works.

You talk about "how the scientific process works", but see my
comments above. No scientist involved in a research project
would halt in the middle of his writing up to post his
unfinished notes to an e-mail list before his conclusions have
been formulated.

The correct process is to publish and then allow peer review,
which is what we intend to follow.

No amount of bullying and groundless insinuation will change our
intention to do just that, in our own time.

If that is not good enough for the more impatient "Lakenheath
experts" out there, then so be it.


With best regards,

Dave Clarke








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2001 >
   Feb > Feb 28

                 Re: Writing, Symbols and Emblems - Anthony

From: Gary Anthony <garyant@mithrand.karoo.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 23:01:42 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 18:38:24 -0500
Subject: Re: Writing, Symbols and Emblems - Anthony


 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 13:55:06 -0500
 >Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 14:44:38 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Writing, Symbols & Emblems? - Velez


 >>From: Gary Anthony <garyant@mithrand.karoo.co.uk>
 >>To: <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>Subject: Writing, Symbols & Emblems?
 >>Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 00:19:39 -0000

 >>Dear Colleagues

 >>I am currently continuing to collect samples of alleged alien
 >>writing, symbols and emblems with a view to compiling a
 >>comprehensive database on alien languages; and in this endeavour
 >>I have managed so far to acquire a number of different and
 >>interesting examples and references from around the world.

 >Hi Gary, Hi All, Gary why don't you contact Stuart Apelle at
 >Cornell University here in New York. Four years ago I submitted
 >some 'writing samples' to Budd who in turn forwarded them (and
 >several other samples) to Mr. Apelle for study and analysis. A
 >report was 'supposed' to have appeared in the Journal of UFO
 >Studies. As we all know, no such report ever materialized. I
 >believe JUFOS is no longer being published. In all fairness to
 >Stuart Apelle there were $ problems with the publication of the
 >Journal etc.etc.etc. The bottom line is, Mr. Apelle is sitting
 >on a cache of these writing samples and speaking as one of the
 >contributors to the study I'm pissed that (for whatever reasons)
 >it was never conducted.


Hi John, I contacted Stuart Appelle about a year ago and he told
me:

'Although a linguistic analysis may indeed be interesting, I see
that as a second step. The first step, I believe is to determine
if the symbols reported by abductees differ in any way from
symbols that might be generated by a control population asked to
imagine symbols observed under circumstances similar to those
reported by abductees.'

I agree 100% though was a bit confused why Prof' Appelle would
take this up, as it is in the realm of both psycho-linguistics
and linguistics to determine experimentation. This is indeed a
valid and necessary part of what must seem like a long process,
it would also be interesting to experiment with things like what
people doodle or what 'linguistics experts' _imagine_ an alien
language may represent and how this differs from other cross
section samples. A senior linguistics colleague of mine has also
corresponded with Stuart and exchanged ideas in this area. As
far as I know, Stuart had set up some experimentation along
these lines with 100 subjects, but he had not yet subjected his
data to a statistical analysis. Indeed, if a paper were
published along these lines it would be a necessary addition to
the topic, as it would add to the essence of what we may
consider prima facie examples of alleged alien semiotics to be?
Stuart thinks linguistics analyses are valid as do Mack and
others and yet very few people in the 'ufology' business are
properly archiving or describing the samples in a 'scientific'
manner.

There are two Universities willing to conduct all of this
research and both may conduct certain preliminary
experimentation into various related aspects of alleged alien
communications and symbolism a scientific paper/s combining the
expertise of the fields of psycho-linguistics, linguistics and
cryptography would be propitious to this cause. I am working on
this already John, with two experts, but we still require a lot
more input and co-operation. Understandably, some people are
uncomfortable or do not feel that their samples of alien
semiotics require scrutiny or validation even though I have
access to some of the best linguists in the world, who have also
interjected relevant commentary and suggestions and there are
certainly a lot of tools the 'scientific discipline' of
linguistics can bring to bear on this topic.

 >Try Stuart -and- Budd, (as Budd was the one who provided most,
 >if not all, of the raw material for the study.) Good luck. I
 >hope something comes of it. It's a shame that nothing has been
 >done with this material before now. I'm still waiting for
 >medical & mental health professionals to launch a formal
 >investigation into the abduction phenom and the abductees
 >themselves. Volunteering for a scientific study/examination was
 >how I got involved in this mess to begin with. (NOVA) I'm still
 >waiting. So far, it's all been just so much 'rap.'

Tried Budd Hopkin's with a couple of brief mail requests, trying
to initiate a correspondence, don't know if he has been busy or
whether I may have dissuaded him with my 'British-ness' (not
intended, ironically I think I was one of the first Brits to
have a copy of 'Intruders' signed when colleagues of mine
organised the first big UK conferences). The only big cheese
'state-side' who has contacted me, has been David Jacob's with a
succinct, poignant and surprising mail. I have however, had
lot's of help and assistance with abductees/experiencers and
researchers in America -- particularly people like Leo Sprinkle,
Dana Redfield, Katharina Wilson, Debbie Kauble et al... Who
initially gave me a great start and some brilliant suggestions.
Since then, quite a few people that Budd Hopkin's has worked
with have contacted me and sent samples. I have also been really
surprised by the amount of reference there is out there on this
topic, I have unearthed articles I never thought existed, some
from way back. There are even quite a few behind the scenes
researchers, who have made life-long studies of this topic and
collected reference, some in academia. Mainstream science,
however, is far removed from the abduction phenomenon, despite
cavalier attempts to generate interest and involvement, indeed
much that goes on in 'ufological' circles and literature
sometimes has an opposing effect to academia. However, you can
be assured that as long as there is life in me, I will endeavour
to get this ball rolling a bit faster. I only wish sometimes I
had more time to publicly bounce a few ideas and questions
around forums like this, and since my 'missus' has just had our
twin boys my time is even more limited.

So far, I have been approached by two book publisher's who have
found out what I am doing and asked me to write a book -- this
is unheard of in the present UK publishing climate, as UFO books
and paranormal books delved into a depression recently. Rarely
do publishers approach people, it is usually the other way
around. Obviously they presume I have found a niche or
something, but I will not detract from the main goal of getting
analyses done. Later there may be time for varied publication,
as I have learned some interesting things along the way, that is
for sure. Publishing is secondary and having read many
ufological tomes I am inclined to leave well alone and find some
useful ways of making the information widely and freely
available. There's a niggling curiosity to see where this focus
leads?

 >Mucho viento, poco trabajo! (Lot's of wind, little work.) ;)

Point well taken! I was very frustrated when I started out with
this work and have been waiting for at least 16 years to see
someone do it or see what it may amount to?

 >Go to my website Gary. Right on the AIC banner you'll find three
 >examples of what you're looking for. I have incorporated two
 >"writing" samples (individual letters/words/ whatever) and one
 >of the "symbols" that are associated with "them." You are
 >welcome to those for your collection. I cannot provide you more
 >because I promised Budd I would not make it all a matter of
 >'public record.' Those writing samples are one of the few tools
 >he has to help identify legit/ possible abduction cases. They
 >are still somewhat useful because they have not been splattered
 >all over the media like the images of Greys have for instance.
 >-Everybody- knows what a 'Grey' looks like, -few- have ever seen
 >the writing samples.

Thanks for this John. I will indeed take a look at AIC Banner
and if I may, accurately reproduce same? There is a matter that
I may ask you privately about -- not as a disclosure, but which
I think you may or may not be able to confirm anyway, by way of
covering ground.

 >http://www.spacelab.net/~jvif/

 >Regards,

 >John Velez,
 >Let's do the science!

Best Regards

Gary Anthony