The UFO UpDates Archive
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb

                          UFO UpDates Mailing List
                                  Feb 2003

  Feb 1:

   Vintage UFO-Related Interview Video Clips - Joe McGonagle [19]
   Re: Laughlin Conference - King - Tom King [62]
   Re: Laughlin Conference - King - Tom King [31]
   Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Clarke - David Clarke [93]
   Re: Necessary Speculation - Velez - John Velez [85]
   Re: More On Wrong Roswell Dig Site - Houran - Jim Houran [68]
   C.E.: Brief Report On SOHO Images - Ananda Sirisena [22]
   Shuttle Columbia Lost - Wm. Michael Mott [4]
   Space Shuttle Apparently Disintegrates - Steven L. Wilson, Sr [69]
   Re: EW: SETI On SETA - White - Eleanor White [37]
   Re: Necessary Speculation - Oplatka - Laurel Oplatka [24]
   Re: Corso - Bennett - Colin Bennett [84]
   Re: Necessary Speculation - Goldstein - Josh Goldstein [62]
   Re: Corso - Bennett - Colin Bennett [16]
   Re: More On Wrong Roswell Dig Site - Sparks - Brad Sparks [98]
   Re: Abduction Question - Ledger - Don Ledger [65]
   Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Sandow - Greg Sandow [13]
   Columbia Disaster - Mike Woods [20]
   Space Shuttle Columbia - GT McCoy [3]
   Re: Abduction Question - Bowden - Tom Bowden [21]
   Runcorn UFO Video - Eric Morris [14]
   Re: Corso - Bowden - Tom Bowden [6]
   Re: Abduction Question - Velez - Steven Kaeser [77]
   Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Mott - Wm. Michael Mott [29]
   Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Mott - Wm. Michael Mott [40]
   Re: Validating The Ramey Memo - Morton - Dave Morton [31]
   Re: More On Wrong Roswell Dig Site - Gates - Robert Gates [122]
   Abduction Question Omission/Correction - John Velez [30]
   Re: Necessary Speculation - Velez - John Velez [35]
   Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Hebert - Amy Hebert [33]
   Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Hebert - Amy Hebert [63]
   Re: Corso - Bennett - Colin Bennett [127]
   Re: Laughlin Conference - Velez - John Velez [58]
   Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Hatch - Larry Hatch [38]
   Re: More On Wrong Roswell Dig Site - Hatch - Larry Hatch [35]
   Re: Necessary Speculation - White - Eleanor White [28]
   Re: Runcorn UFO Video - Hale - Roy Hale [21]
   EW: Space Shuttle Columbia Lost - Kurt Jonach - The Electric Warrior
   [36]
   Re: Necessary Speculation - Mott - Wm. Michael Mott [14]
   Re: Necessary Speculation - Velez - John Velez [49]
   Re: Abduction Question - Velez - John Velez [40]
   Faded Disc Research Update - Wendy Connors [16]
   Re: More On Wrong Roswell Dig Site - Velez - John Velez [56]
   Re: Necessary Speculation - Velez - John Velez [38]
   Re: Laughlin Conference - Velez - John Velez [37]
   Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Mott - Wm. Michael Mott [128]

  Feb 2:

   CI: Space Shuttle Columbia Disintegrates Over Texas - Mac Tonnies [35]
   Re: Corso - Gates - Robert Gates [19]
   Re: EW: Space Shuttle Columbia Lost - Velez - John Velez [9]
   Re: Abduction Question - Gates - Robert Gates [31]
   Canadian UFO Toll Free Hotline - Brian Vike - HBCC UFO [40]
   Re: Loss Of Space Shuttle Columbia - Bott - Murray Bott [9]
   Re: Corso - Bennett - Robert Gates [72]
   Faded Disc Research Update - Addendum - Wendy Connors [9]
   Re: Magonia Supplement 45 - Clark - Jerome Clark [26]
   Re: Necessary Speculation - White - Eleanor White [81]
   Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Hebert - Amy Hebert [196]
   Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Stanford - Ray Stanford [20]
   Re: EW: Space Shuttle Columbia Lost - Bowden - Tom Bowden [43]

  Feb 3:

   Re: Necessary Speculation - Denzler - Brenda Denzler [32]
   Re: More On Wrong Roswell Dig Site - Randle - Kevin Randle [167]
   Re: More On Wrong Roswell Dig Site - Randle - Kevin Randle [35]
   Thoughts On Columbia - GT McCoy [21]
   Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Gates - Robert Gates [77]
   Re: Abduction Question - Velez - John Velez [93]
   Re: Abduction Question - Velez - John Velez [106]
   The Anomalist Book Awards 2002 - Loren Coleman [9]
   Re: Validating The Ramey Memo - Houran - Jim Houran [47]
   Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Clark - Jerome Clark [37]
   History Channel 'The UFO week' - Santiago Yturria [22]
   Italian UFO Newsflash No. 383 - Edoardo Russo [116]
   Re: Necessary Speculation - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [68]
   Marcello Truzzi RIP - Jerome Clark [71]
   Re: Validating The Ramey Memo - Morton - Dave Morton [38]
   A. J. & The Brazilian UFO Magazine - A. J. Gevaerd - Revista UFO [143]
   Marcello Truzzi Dies - Loren Coleman [44]
   Re: Abduction Question - Bowden - Tom Bowden [20]
   Re: Magonia Supplement 45 - Hall - Richard Hall [37]
   Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Mott - Wm. Michael Mott [295]
   Bush Backs Alien Evidence - Karl Rotstan [19]
   Re: Abduction Question - Davenport - Peter Davenport [40]
   Re: Thoughts On Columbia - Ledger - Don Ledger [44]
   Re: Necessary Speculation - Kaeser - Steven Kaeser [33]
   Nobel Prize Winner Kary Mullis' Abduction - UFO UpDates - Toronto [130]
   Re: History Channel 'The UFO Week' - Velez - John Velez [69]
   Re: Marcello Truzzi RIP - Sandow - Greg Sandow [45]
   BBC Seeks Info On UK Alien Encounters ASAP - Will Bueche [20]
   EW: Columbia: How You Can Help - Kurt Jonach - The Electric Warrior
   [66]
   Re: Bush Backs Alien Evidence - Hall - Richard Hall [34]
   Bush Backs Alien Evidence - Kelly Peterborough [18]
   Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Ledger - Don Ledger [61]

  Feb 4:

   Re: Validating The Ramey Memo - Rudiak - David Rudiak [170]
   Re: More On Wrong Roswell Dig Site - Gates - Robert Gates [45]
   Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Hebert - Amy Hebert [40]
   Loch Ness UFO Video To Be Screened By Fox - Stig Agermose [27]
   Timothy Good Backs Up Neighbour's Sighting - Stig Agermose [32]
   Otherworldly Questions From Burnt Circles - Stig Agermose [84]
   George Knapp Interviews John Mack - Stig Agermose [96]
   UFO Wisconsin Reports 10 Sightings In New Year - Stig Agermose [83]
   Re: History Channel 'The UFO week' - Bowden - Tom Bowden [41]
   Re: Abduction Question - Velez - John Velez [111]
   Re: Magonia Supplement 45 - Clarke - David Clarke [31]
   New Documentary On Rendlesham - Clarke - David Clarke [41]
   Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Clarke - David Clarke [33]
   Re: Validating The Ramey Memo - Randle - Kevin Randle [69]
   Re: Marcello Truzzi RIP - Hamilton - Bill Hamilton [21]
   Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Mott - Wm. Michael Mott [47]
   Re: More On Wrong Roswell Dig Site - Randle - Kevin Randle [69]
   Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Roberts - Andy Roberts [45]
   Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Reason - Catherine Reason [51]

  Feb 5:

   Secrecy News -- 02/04/03 - Steven Aftergood [141]
   More Spheres Reported Over Yucatan - Scott Corrales [32]
   Re: Validating The Ramey Memo - Morton - Dave Morton [49]
   Soho Pictures - Colin Stevenson [52]
   Photos Show Odd Images Near Shuttle - Rajesh Kumar [43]
   Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Clark - Jerome Clark [47]
   Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Ledger - Don Ledger
   <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca [55]
   Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Ledger - Don Ledger [86]
   The Times On Official French UFO Department - Stig Agermose [165]
   Poster Entries Sought For Aztec UFO Symposium - Stig Agermose [55]
   CI: 'Martian Genesis' & 'The Atlantis Enigma' - Mac Tonnies [30]
   Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Gates - Robert Gates [10]
   Re: More On Wrong Roswell Dig Site - Gates - Robert Gates [41]
   North Yorkshire Police Probe UFO Sightings - Stig Agermose [39]
   Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Hebert - Amy Hebert [24]
   Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Clarke - David Clarke [51]
   Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Bennett - Colin Bennett [79]
   Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Roberts - Andy Roberts [81]
   Re: Abduction Question - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [40]
   Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Reason - Catherine Reason [47]
   Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Reason - Catherine Reason [19]
   Re: More On Wrong Roswell Dig Site - Randle - Kevin Randle [58]
   Re: Validating The Ramey Memo - Randle - Kevin Randle [92]
   Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Hall - Richard Hall [65]
   Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Ledger - Don Ledger [10]
   Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Clarke - David Clarke [106]
   Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Mott - Wm. Michael Mott [75]
   Re: CI: 'Martian Genesis' & 'The Atlantis Enigma' - John Velez [54]
   Re: Validating The Ramey Memo - Rudiak - David Rudiak [628]
   Anyone Have An Agreed Upon Number? - Eleanor White [6]
   Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Roberts - Andy Roberts [16]
   Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Mott - Wm. Michael Mott [23]
   Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Clark - Jerome Clark [119]
   Re: Abduction Question - Velez - John Velez [85]
   Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Clark - Jerome Clark [58]
   Re: 'Martian Genesis' & 'The Atlantis Enigma' - - Mac Tonnies [24]
   Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Ledger - Don Ledger [26]
   Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Ledger - Don Ledger [17]
   Re: CI: 'Martian Genesis' & 'The Atlantis Enigma' - Jerome Clark [42]
   Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Reason - Catherine Reason [23]
   Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Friedman - Stanton Friedman [55]
   Filer's Files #6 -- 2003 - George A. Filer [515]

  Feb 6:

   NASA Rejects Launch Damage Theory - GT McCoy [9]
   Re: Anyone Have An Agreed Upon Number? - Gates - Robert Gates [25]
   Re: Validating the Ramey Memo - Morton - Dave Morton [19]
   Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Gates - Robert Gates [31]
   Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Hebert - Amy Hebert [59]
   Re: Anyone Have An Agreed Upon Number? - Velez - John Velez [37]
   Re: CI: 'Martian Genesis' & 'The Atlantis Enigma' - John Velez [69]
   New Runcorn Video Footage - Eric Morris [35]
   Re: Validating The Ramey Memo - Rudiak - David Rudiak [158]
   Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Denzler - Brenda Denzler [36]
   The Inverstigator Effect [was: Re: New Documentary - Brenda Denzler
   [72]
   Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Bennett - Colin Bennett [226]
   Re: Re: CI: 'Martian Genesis' & 'The Atlantis - Wm. Michael Mott [143]
   Secrecy News - 02/06/03 - Steven Aftergood [131]
   Mysterious Purple Streak Hit Columbia - Kelly Peterborough [64]
   Re: Abduction Question - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [19]
   Re: Anyone Have An Agreed Upon Number? - Sandow - Greg Sandow [55]
   Re: New Runcorn Video Footage - Hale - Roy Hale [30]
   Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Roberts - Andy Roberts [91]
   Abduction Case Help? - Luis R. Gonzalez [27]
   Re: New Runcorn Video Footage - Roberts - Andy Roberts [40]
   Re: NASA Rejects Launch Damage Theory - Ledger - Don Ledger [25]
   Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Mott - Wm. Michael Mott [11]
   Re: Anyone Have An Agreed Upon Number? - White - Eleanor White [23]
   Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Reason - Catherine Reason [66]
   Re: NASA Rejects Launch Damage Theory - White - Eleanor White [38]
   Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? [was: New - Jerome Clark [133]
   Toward The Miraculous [was: Re: New Documentary On - Richard Hall [118]

  Feb 7:

   UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 8 Number 6 - John Hayes [476]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? [was: New - Catherine Reason
   [38]
   EW: Shuttle Sparks High-Altitude Electrophysics - Kurt Jonach - The
   Electric Warrior [55]
   Re: Toward The Miraculous [was: Re: New - Brenda Denzler [36]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Ledger - Don Ledger [54]
   Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Gates - Robert Gates [36]
   Re: More On Wrong Roswell Dig Site - Gates - Robert Gates [21]
   Re: Anyone Have An Agreed Upon Number? - Gates - Robert Gates [36]
   Re: NASA Rejects Launch Damage Theory - Stuart - Chaz Stuart [21]
   Re: Anyone Have An Agreed Upon Number? - Velez - John Velez [98]
   Re: CI: 'Martian Genesis' & 'The Atlantis Enigma'- - Larry Hatch [69]
   Japanese Observatories Swamped By UFO Calls - Stig Agermose [40]
   Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Ledger - Don Ledger [44]
   Air Force Imagery Confirms Columbia Wing Damaged - Don Ledger [14]
   Secret Shuttle Device Sought - UFO UpDates - Toronto [21]
   Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Friedman - Stanton Friedman [28]
   Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' - Dave Haith [549]
   UFO Politik Deja Vu - Larry W. Bryant [78]
   Secrecy News -- 02/07/03 - Steven Aftergood [134]
   Strange Ironies & Tragic Mishaps - Loren Coleman [62]
   Any Transcript of SciFi's Washington Symposium? - Will Bueche [9]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Roberts - Andy Roberts [86]
   Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Clarke - David Clarke [55]
   Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Clarke - David Clarke [35]
   Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Roberts - Andy Roberts [60]
   Re: Secret Shuttle Device Sought - Ledger - Don Ledger [41]
   CI: 'Martian Genesis' & 'The Atlantis Enigma' - - Wendy Christensen
   [31]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Clark - UFO UpDates - Toronto
   [107]
   Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' - - Wendy Connors [13]
   FOIA Request To CIA - 02-07-03 - Larry W. Bryant [49]

  Feb 8:

   Re: Secret Shuttle Device Sought - Hall - Richard Hall [37]
   Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' - - Paul Kimball [49]
   Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Clark - UFO UpDates - Toronto [68]
   Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' - - Richard Hall [18]
   Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' - - Eleanor White [54]
   Analogical Ufology - Richard Hall [25]
   Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Rimmer - John Rimmer [53]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Rimmer - John Rimmer [97]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Rimmer - John Rimmer [36]
   Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Ledger - Don Ledger [91]
   Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' - - Steven Kaeser [31]
   Re: More On Wrong Roswell Dig Site - Kaeser - Steven Kaeser [19]
   Re: Any Transcript of SciFi's Washington - Steven Kaeser [25]
   Camera Catching Shuttle 'Zap' Had Own Glitch - Kelly Peterborough [98]
   Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Mott - Wm. Michael Mott [46]
   New UFO Feature-Length Documentary Praised - Stig Agermose [153]
   Re: CI: 'Martian Genesis' & 'The Atlantis Enigma' - Larry Hatch [48]
   Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' - - Larry Hatch [64]
   Re: Anyone Have An Agreed Upon Number? - Pope - Nick Pope [59]
   Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' - - Wendy Connors [41]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Clark - Jerome Clark [43]
   Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' - - Eleanor White [67]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Clark - Jerome Clark [202]
   Re: New UFO Feature-Length Documentary Praised - Michael Briggs [21]
   Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Clarke - David Clarke [90]

  Feb 9:

   Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Clarke - David Clarke [55]
   Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' - - Joe McGonagle [46]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Reason - Catherine Reason [28]
   Re: Signal Detection Theory - Reason - Catherine Reason [50]
   Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Ledger - Don Ledger [37]
   Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' - - Tom Bowden [23]
   Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Bowden - Tom Bowden [40]
   Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' - - Larry Hatch [59]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Hatch - Larry Hatch [65]
   Re: Camera Catching Shuttle 'Zap' Had Own Glitch - - Peter van Hyum
   [26]
   Looking For Hong Kong Club President - Barry Chamish [8]
   Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' - - Greg Sandow [45]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Rimmer - John Rimmer [274]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Rimmer - John Rimmer [72]
   Re: Secret Shuttle Device Sought - Oberg - James Oberg [10]
   'The Truth Behind Men In Black' (Review) - Mac Tonnies [19]
   Re: Secret Shuttle Device Sought - Gates - Robert Gates [40]
   Re: Anyone Have An Agreed Upon Number? - Gates - Robert Gates [52]
   Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Ledger - Don Ledger [138]
   A UFO Case From Nearly A Century Ago - Tom Bowden [22]
   USAF Imagery Confirms Columbia Wing Damaged - Sean Jones [247]
   UFO Sighted Over City In Peruvian Amazon - Scott Corrales [14]
   Request For Investigation By Air Force Inspector - Larry W. Bryant [45]
   FOIA-Litigation Notice To FAA - Larry W. Bryant [36]
   FOIA Appeal Letter To BLM - Larry W. Bryant [46]
   Re: Analogical Ufology - Bennett - Colin Bennett [140]
   Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' - - Steven Kaeser [52]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Harney - John Harney [25]
   Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' - - Paul Kimball [31]
   CCCRN News: Historical Circle Project - Paul Anderson [66]

  Feb 10:

   Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough - - John Velez [93]
   Another Abduction Question - Robert Gates [9]
   Re: Validating The Ramey Memo - Randle - Kevin Randle [124]
   Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' - - Bill Hamilton [61]
   Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' - - Bill Hamilton [33]
   Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Friedman - Stanton Friedman [68]
   Chupacabras Renews Attacks In Puerto Rico - Scott Corrales [33]
   Whiteman AFB Case? - Albert Rosales [5]
   Re: Signal Detection Theory - Roberts - Andy Roberts [17]
   Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Roberts - Andy Roberts [19]
   Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Hale - Roy Hale [39]
   Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' - - John Velez [48]
   Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Clark - Jerome Clark [191]
   Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' - - Eleanor White [19]
   Secrecy News -- 02/10/03 - Steven Aftergood [153]
   Re: Secret Shuttle Device Sought - John Velez [39]
   Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' - - Eleanor White [32]
   Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Clarke - David Clarke [48]
   Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' - - Steven Kaeser [25]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Clark - Jerome Clark [231]
   Re: Secret Shuttle Device Sought - Ledger - Don Ledger [12]
   Re: Another Abduction Question - Hamilton - Bill Hamilton [14]
   Re: Another Abduction Question - Sandow - Greg Sandow [21]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Clark - Jerome Clark [29]
   Re: Secret Shuttle Device Sought - Peterborough - Kelly Peterborough
   [47]
   Re: Another Abduction Question - Hall - Richard Hall [36]
   Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' - - Larry Hatch [51]
   Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough - - Eleanor White [54]
   Arizona Valley Has Its Own Area 51 - UFO UpDates - Toronto [45]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Clarke - David Clarke [34]
   Re: Secret Shuttle Device Sought - Ledger - Don Ledger [26]
   Re: Secret Shuttle Device Sought - Oberg - James Oberg [25]
   Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Reason - Catherine Reason [192]
   John Mack "We Must Become Galactic Citizens" - UFO UpDates - Toronto
   [60]
   Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Mott - Wm. Michael Mott [37]
   Re: Secret Shuttle Device Sought - Oberg - James Oberg [31]
   Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Clarke - David Clarke [53]
   Re: Signal Detection Theory - Hall - Richard Hall [31]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Clark - Jerome Clark [68]
   Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' - - Larry Hatch [23]
   Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Ledger - Don Ledger [91]
   Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' - - John Meloney [28]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Rimmer - John Rimmer [212]
   Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Clark - Jerome Clark [158]
   Re: Analogical Ufology - Tonnies - Mac Tonnies [203]
   Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Christensen - Wendy Christensen
   [28]
   Re: Validating The Ramey Memo - Morton - Dave Morton [210]
   Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' - - Larry Hatch [54]

  Feb 11:

   Written In The Stars - UFO UpDates - Toronto [305]
   Sibrel The Lunar-Tic - UFO UpDates - Toronto [314]
   Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Bennett - Colin Bennett [401]
   Re: Whiteman AFB Case? - Hatch - Larry Hatch [33]
   Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' - - Larry Hatch [47]
   [canufo] Duncan, British Columbia Report - Brian Vike [45]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Clark - Jerome Clark [226]
   Re: Camera Catching Shuttle 'Zap' Had Own Glitch - - Bruce Maccabee
   [37]
   Re: Another Abduction Question - Velez - John Velez [22]
   Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Ledger - Don Ledger [15]
   Re: Another Abduction Question - Velez - John Velez [61]
   Declassification Review/Release Request 02-10-03 - Larry W. Bryant [38]
   Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough - - Paul Kimball [68]
   Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' - - Paul Kimball [42]
   500 Scientists Discuss UFOs Life & The Universe - Stig Agermose [25]
   Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Bowden - Tom Bowden [10]
   Re: Signal Detection Theory - Reason - Catherine Reason [27]
   Re: A UFO Case From Nearly A Century Ago - Olmos - Vicente-Juan
   Ballester Olmos [21]
   Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Bowden - Tom Bowden [19]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Reason - Catherine Reason [49]
   Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Clarke - David Clarke [103]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Clarke - David Clarke [40]
   Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Clarke - David Clarke [70]
   Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' - - Joe McGonagle [59]
   Re: Looking For Hong Kong Club President - Chamish - Barry Chamish [13]
   Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough - - Steven Kaeser [13]
   NASA's New Mission - UFO UpDates - Toronto [8]
   Bush Backs Alien Evidence - UFO UpDates - Toronto [21]
   Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Tonnies - Mac Tonnies [14]
   Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Clark - Jerome Clark [181]
   Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Ledger - Don Ledger [133]
   Re: Bush Backs Alien Evidence - Sandow - Greg Sandow [60]
   Re: Camera Catching Shuttle 'Zap' Had Own Glitch - - Don Ledger [30]
   Re: A UFO Case From Nearly A Century Ago - - Colin Stevenson [52]
   Re: Another Abduction Question - Gonzalez - Luis R. Gonzalez [47]
   Re: Signal Detection Theory - Roberts - Andy Roberts [30]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Roberts - Andy Roberts [74]
   Re: Written In The Stars - Bourdais - Gildas Bourdais [145]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Hatch - Larry Hatch [50]
   Re: Re: [canufo] Duncan, British Columbia Report - - Ray Stanford [117]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Shough - Martin Shough [71]
   EW: Shuttle Study Groups & Digital Camera Glitch - Kurt Jonach - The
   Electric Warrior [83]
   Re: Signal Detection Theory - Clark - Jerome Clark [26]

  Feb 12:

   Huge Increase In Canadian UFO Reports - UFO UpDates - Toronto [45]
   Re: A UFO Case From Nearly A Century Ago - Warren - Frank Warren [61]
   Liverpool 01-16-03 UFO Video - Eric Morris [38]
   Re: Another Abduction Question - Sandow - Greg Sandow [17]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Ledger - Don Ledger [20]
   Great Los Angeles Air Raid Relived - Grant Cameron [53]
   Re: Another Abduction Question - Velez - John Velez [79]
   Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Bennett - Colin Bennett [210]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Shough - Martin Shough [94]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Shough - Martin Shough [24]
   Inexplicata: UFOs Over Japan - Scott Corrales [121]
   Secrecy News -- 02/12/03 - Steven Aftergood [151]
   Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' - - Eleanor White [24]
   Re: Validating The Ramey Memo - Rudiak - David Rudiak [692]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Rimmer - John Rimmer [21]
   Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough - - Eleanor White [60]
   Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' - - Eleanor White [26]
   Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Clarke - David Clarke [61]
   EBE-ET Bulletin Next Issue - Thiago Luiz Ticchetti [18]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Roberts - Andy Roberts [19]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Clark - Jerome Clark [26]
   Re: Liverpool 01-16-03 UFO Video - Roberts - Andy Roberts [94]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Hall - Richard Hall [30]
   UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 8 Number 7 - John Hayes [377]

  Feb 13:

   2002 Canadian UFO Sightings Increase Sharply - UFO UpDates - Toronto
   [109]
   Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Roberts - Andy Roberts [53]
   Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' - - Richard Hall [73]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Roberts - Andy Roberts [19]
   Re: Another Abduction Question - White - Eleanor White [47]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Rimmer - John Rimmer [61]
   Filer's Files #7 -- 2003 - George A. File [532]
   Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' - - Larry Hatch [62]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Hatch - Larry Hatch [42]
   Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' - - Jerome Clark [48]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Reason - Catherine Reason
   [149]
   Re: Liverpool 01-16-03 UFO Video - King - Tom King [71]
   Re: Filer's Files #7/UFO Seen Near Shuttle - Velez - John Velez [30]
   Re: Another Abduction Question - Gonzalez - Luis R. Gonzalez [30]
   Re: Another Abduction Question - Gonzalez - Luis R. Gonzalez [39]
   Re: Inexplicata: UFOs Over Japan - Gary Anthony [32]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Shough - Martin Shough [213]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Clark - Jerome Clark [103]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Ledger - Don Ledger [118]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Ledger - Don Ledger [63]
   Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Ledger - Don Ledger [81]
   Re: Another Abduction Question - Velez - John Velez [119]
   Secrecy News -- 02/13/03 - Steven Aftergood [104]
   Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Don Ledger [38]
   Re: Another Abduction Question - Sandow - Greg Sandow [78]

  Feb 14:

   Strange Indiana Sightings Reported - UFO UpDates - Toronto [76]
   Re: Another Abduction Question - White - Eleanor White [25]
   Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' - - Eleanor White [36]
   Report From Laughlin UFO Conference - Stig Agermose [149]
   FOIA Request To Chief Of Naval Operations - Larry W. Bryant [39]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [27]
   IFO Imagery [was: Liverpool 01-16-03 UFO Video] - Amy Hebert [50]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Hatch - Larry Hatch [67]
   Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Bennett - Colin Bennett [152]
   Turkish Sighting On 12-01-02 - Dave Acres [8]

  Feb 15:

   Re: Another Abduction Question - Gonzalez - Luis R. Gonzalez [132]
   Re: Another Abduction Question - Gonzalez - Luis R. Gonzalez [39]
   Discredited Canards - Luis R. Gonzalez [18]
   Re: Another Abduction Question - Gonzalez - Luis R. Gonzalez [155]
   Interpreting Paranormal Experiences Through Physics - Jeff Behnke [228]
   Dear (Lowly) Konstituent... - Larry W. Bryant [46]
   CI: Space Exploration: The Next Fifteen Years - Mac Tonnies [60]

  Feb 16:

   'From Elsewhere' (Review) - Mac Tonnies [34]
   Spin Doctors - PhD - Mark Chesney [39]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Roberts - Andy Roberts [42]
   College Programs? - John Hayes [26]
   Creating False Memories? - Steven L. Wilson Sr [65]
   Free UFO Database File - Barry Taylor [39]

  Feb 17:

   Laughlin UFO Congress - Philip Mantle [17]
   Alien 'Abductees' Show Real Symptoms - Philip Mantle [62]
   Re: Discredited Canards - Sandow - Greg Sandow [20]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Clark - Jerome Clark [46]
   Re: Another Abduction Question - Sandow - Greg Sandow [198]
   Re: Another Abduction Question - White - Eleanor White [24]
   Re: CI: Space Exploration: The Next Fifteen Years - Eleanor White [25]
   Re: Discredited Canards - Gonzalez - Luis R. Gonzalez [60]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Ledger - Don Ledger [62]
   Re: Another Abduction Question - Gonzalez - Luis R. Gonzalez [105]
   Re: Another Abduction Question - Tonnies - Mac Tonnies [24]
   Re: Another Abduction Question - Balaskas - Nick Balaskas [53]
   France's Velasco, CNES & SEPRA - UFO UpDates - Toronto [99]
   Re: Discredited Canards - Sandow - Greg Sandow [138]
   Re: CI: Space Exploration: The Next Fifteen Years - Mac Tonnies [22]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Roberts - Andy Roberts [94]
   Binding References - Catherine Reason [21]
   Re: Another Abduction Question - Velez - John Velez [106]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [48]
   EW: Shuttle Sparks Electro-Physics & Explosions - Kurt Jonach - The
   Electric Warrior [106]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Clark - Jerome Clark [81]

  Feb 18:

   Nine Beeps - Mac Tonnies [25]
   UK Jedi Official Religion Of More Than 390,000 - Stig Agermose [25]
   New Technologies Emerge in Search for Alien Life - Stig Agermose [108]
   Re: Binding References - Velez - John Velez [66]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Reason - Catherine Reason [45]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Reason - Catherine Reason [36]
   Re: EW: Shuttle Sparks Electro-Physics & - Dave Morton [27]
   UFOs In Ancient Art - Diego Cuoghi [15]
   Secrecy News -- 02/18/03 - Steven Aftergood [168]
   Lose Your Sense Of Reality In The Skies - UFO UpDates - Toronto [152]
   Re: Alien 'Abductees' Show Real Symptoms - Bueche - Will Bueche [75]
   Re: Alien 'Abductees' Show Real Symptoms - Will Bueche [9]
   Re: Alien 'Abductees' Show Real Symptoms - Bueche - Will Bueche [110]
   Italian UFO Newsflash No. 384 - Edoardo Russo [123]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Clarke - David Clarke [74]
   Re: UFOs In Ancient Art - Tonnies - Mac Tonnies [19]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Clark - Jerome Clark [33]
   Re: Creating False Memories? - White - Eleanor White [64]
   Re: Discredited Canards - Gonzalez - Luis R. Gonzalez [103]
   Re: Another Abduction Question - Gonzalez - Luis R. Gonzalez [33]
   Re: Lose Your Sense Of Reality In The Skys - Warren - Frank Warren [56]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Roberts - Andy Roberts [94]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Roberts - Andy Roberts [55]
   Re: Another Abduction Question - Gonzalez - Luis R. Gonzalez [13]
   Re: Nine Beeps - Gates - Robert Gates [22]
   UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 8 Number 8 - John Hayes [280]
   Unscripted Show Gets Legal Papers - Kelly Peterborough [78]
   Re: UFOs In Ancient Art - Murray - Marty Murray [23]
   Sleep Terrors Not So Alien - UFO UpDates - Toronto [40]

  Feb 19:

   Re: UFOs In Ancient Art - Bowden - Tom Bowden [36]
   Re: adical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Clark - Jerome Clark [36]
   Re: Unscripted Show Gets Legal Papers - Kimball - Paul Kimball [36]
   Re: Nine Beeps - Stevenson - Colin Stevenson [40]
   Re: Another Abduction Question - Velez - John Velez [67]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Rimmer - John Rimmer [35]
   Re: EW: Shuttle Sparks Electro-Physics & - Colin Stevenson [42]
   Re: Nine Beeps - Tonnies - Mac Tonnies [16]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Reason - Catherine Reason
   [181]
   Nine-Beep Mystery Solved? - Mac Tonnies [14]
   Re: Another Abduction Question - Hall - Richard Hall [49]
   Balloons Not UFOs - Scott Corrales [38]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Clark - Jerome Clark [49]
   Re: Radical or Ordinary Misperception - Connors - Wendy Connors [8]
   Re: The WHY? FILES - Video/Audio Files Added - - Geoff Richardson [9]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Clarke - David Clarke [99]
   Re: Another Abduction Question - Tonnies - Mac Tonnies [31]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Ledger - Don Ledger [41]
   Re: Another Abduction Question - Stanford - Ray Stanford [26]
   Re: UFOs In Ancient Art - Cuoghi - Diego Cuoghi [52]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Clark - Jerome Clark [39]
   Filer's Files #8 -- 2003 - George A. Filer [539]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Dabrowski - Andrew Dabrowski
   [30]

  Feb 20:

   Re: UFOs In Ancient Art - Tonnies - Mac Tonnies [43]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Ledger - Don Ledger [83]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Clark - Jerome Clark [75]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Hall - Richard Hall [57]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Hall - Richard Hall [52]
   Case MJ-12 - A Review - Stan Friedman [15]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Rimmer - John Rimmer [8]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Reason - Catherine Reason
   [136]
   Shuttle Columbia: NASA Considers Electrical Damage - Kurt Jonach - The
   Electric Warrior [100]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Reason - Catherine Reason [13]
   Re: Another Abduction Question - Gonzalez - Luis R. Gonzalez [61]
   UK UFO Causes Car Accidents - Loren Coleman [50]
   Re: Another Abduction Question - Bowden - Tom Bowden [31]
   Whitley Strieber's Unknown Country - Josh Goldstein [32]
   Re: Whitley Strieber's Unknown Country - Goldstein - Josh Goldstein [6]
   Re: Nine-Beep Mystery Solved? - Kaeser - Steven Kaeser [28]
   Yes, It Is Flowing Mars Water! - Nick Balaskas [22]
   Re: UFOs In Ancient Art - Hebert - Amy Hebert [34]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Clarke - David Clarke [65]
   Study Explores 'False Memories' - Will Bueche [77]
   Secrecy News -- 02/20/03 - Steven Aftergood [157]
   Re: Another Abduction Question - Hall - Richard Hall [50]
   Re: Whitley Strieber's Unknown Country - Bueche - Will Bueche [18]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Dabrowski - Andrew Dabrowski
   [41]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Clarke - David Clarke [112]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Clarke - David Clarke [33]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Roberts - Andy Roberts [53]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Roberts - Andy Roberts [18]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Roberts - Andy Roberts [72]
   UFO Feature in Maxim Magazine - Nick Pope [10]
   Re: Case MJ-12 - A Review - Tonnies - Mac Tonnies [17]
   Re: UFO Feature in Maxim Magazine - Tonnies - Mac Tonnies [21]
   UFO Experts On The Hunt For Sightings - UFO UpDates - Toronto [53]
   PRG/X-PPAC/D2003/CH Update - 02-21-03 - Stephen G. Bassett [61]

  Feb 21:

   Re: UFOs In Ancient Art - Cuoghi - Diego Cuoghi [39]
   A Wee Bit Crazy? - Jeff Behnke [61]
   New International UFO Reporter - Robert Gates [23]
   Re: A Wee Bit Crazy? - Connors - Wendy Connors [19]
   Re: Creating False Memories? - Reason - Catherine Reason [23]
   Re: A Wee Bit Crazy? - Stevenson - Colin Stevenson [60]
   Re: A Wee Bit Crazy? - Morton - Dave Morton [106]
   Unknown Animal Devours Colt Near Salta Argentina - Scott Corrales [49]
   Re: Unknown Animal Devours Colt Near Salta - Wendy Connors [11]
   Re: A Wee Bit Crazy? - Ledger - Don Ledger [26]
   Re: A Wee Bit Crazy? - White - Eleanor White [31]
   UFOs In Ancient Art - Taylor - Barry Taylor [71]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Rimmer - John Rimmer [28]
   Re: UFOs In Ancient Art - Cuoghi - Diego Cuoghi [45]

  Feb 22:

   Re: A Wee Bit Crazy? - Kimball - Kimballwood@aol.com [36]
   John Alexander On Greer? - John Velez [73]
   Re: Unknown Animal Devours Colt Near - Larry Hatch [21]
   Re: A Wee Bit Crazy? - Kaeser - Steven Kaeser [39]
   Re: A Wee Bit Crazy? - White - Eleanor White [48]
   Re: John Alexander On Greer? - White - Eleanor White [57]
   Re: UFO Feature in Maxim Magazine - Pope - Nick Pope [39]
   Letter From Monty Python's Terry Jones - UFO UpDates - Toronto [77]
   Re: A Wee Bit Crazy? - Hatch - Larry Hatch [50]
   Re: Unknown Animal Devours Colt - Connors - Wendy Connors [32]
   Re: John Alexander On Greer? - Kimball - Paul Kimball [37]
   Re: John Alexander On Greer? - McGonagle - Joe McGonagle [25]

  Feb 23:

   Lawsuit Aims To Silence UFO Watchdog - Royce J. Myers III - The
   Watchdog [82]
   Re: John Alexander On Greer? - Kimball - Paul Kimball [46]
   Re: John Alexander On Greer? - Kimball - Richard Hall [53]
   Zilch Empiricism And UFOs - Vince White [23]
   Re: John Alexander On Greer? - Velez - John Velez [126]
   Budd Hopkins' NYC UFO - 02-22-03 - Intruders Foundation [49]
   Re: John Alexander On Greer? - Gates - Robert Gates [85]
   Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Rimmer - John Rimmer [7]
   Off Topic - Danger To UK Websites - Geoff Richardson [8]
   Re: Another Abduction Question - Gonzalez - Luis R. Gonzalez [53]
   Re: Another Abduction Question - Gonzalez - Luis R. Gonzalez [43]
   Re: Lawsuit Aims To Silence UFO Watchdog - Connors - Wendy Connors [29]
   Spain: CE-1's From Fall 2002 - Scott Corrales [110]

  Feb 24:

   Re: Lawsuit Aims To Silence UFO Watchdog - King - Tom King [16]
   RMP Follow-Up - Andy Roberts [9]
   Selling Ufology By The Pound - Andy Roberts [92]
   Re: Lawsuit Aims To Silence UFO Watchdog - Gevaerd - A. J. Gevaerd -
   Revista UFO [55]
   Re: Another Abduction Question - Bowden - Tom Bowden [72]
   'Jonathan's Space Report' - Latest Issue - Todd Lemire [23]

  Feb 25:

   Re: Another Abduction Question - Tonnies - Mac Tonnies [27]
   Re: Tell Ya What I'm Gonna Do! - Connors - Wendy Connors [25]
   Re: 'Jonathan's Space Report' - Latest Issue - - Don Ledger [29]
   Re: John Alexander On Greer? - Bassett - Stephen G. Bassett [122]
   Re: Cambridge Object Seen? - Hale - Roy Hale [18]
   Re: John Alexander On Greer? - Bassett - Stephen G. Bassett [54]
   Re: Selling Ufology By The Pound - Gates - Robert Gates [112]
   Re: Another Abduction Question - Stanford - Ray Stanford [100]
   Re: Off Topic - Danger Tto UK Websites - Hatch - Larry Hatch [13]
   Re: Off Topic - Danger Tto UK Websites - Shough - Martin Shough [11]
   The Law A Con Man And A Good Alien Story - John. W. Auchettl [113]
   Re: Zilch Empiricism And UFOs - Friedman - Stan Friedman [45]
   Re: Tell Ya What I'm Gonna Do! - Hamilton - Bill Hamilton [31]
   Jerry Black? - A. J. Gevaerd - Revista UFO [5]
   Re: Tell Ya What I'm Gonna Do! - Connors - Wendy Connors [32]
   Re: Selling Ufology By The Pound - King - Tom King [45]
   Re: John Alexander On Greer? - White - Eleanor White [43]
   Re: Another Abduction Question - Hamilton - Bill Hamilton [63]
   Re: Another Abduction Question - Friedman - Stanton Friedman [92]
   Re: Tell Ya What I'm Gonna Do! - Hall - Richard Hall [39]
   UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 8 Number 9 - John Hayes [366]
   19 'Close Encounters' In Fife Being Probed - UFO UpDates - Toronto [42]
   Re: Another Abduction Question - Hall - Richard Hall [81]
   Re: Lawsuit Aims To Silence UFO Watchdog - Hall - Richard Hall [23]
   Re: Cambridge Object Seen? - Hall - Richard Hall [27]
   Re: John Alexander On Greer? - Hall - Richard Hall [45]

  Feb 26:

   Re: John Alexander On Greer? - White - Eleanor White [26]
   Re: Jerry Black? - Young - Kenny Young [18]
   Columbia Investigation Focusing On Mysterious - Loren Coleman [104]
   Re: John Alexander On Greer? - Kimball - Paul Kimball [99]
   Re: John Alexander On Greer? - Kimball - Paul Kimball [36]
   Astronomers Pressing Search For Earth-Like Planets - Stig Agermose
   [117]
   Re: John Alexander On Greer? - Velez - John Velez [190]
   Re: Budd Hopkins' NYC UFO - 02-22-03 - Gonzalez - Luis R. Gonzalez [21]
   Chile: Balloons Begin Crossing S. America - Scott Corrales [33]
   Secrecy News -- 02/26/03 - Steven Aftergood [164]
   Re: Jerry Black? - Gevaerd - A. J. Gevaerd - Revista UFO [11]
   Re: John Alexander On Greer? - VWhite - Vince White [23]
   Filer's Files #9 -- 2003 - George A. Filer [517]
   An Open Letter To Linda Moulton Howe - A. J. Gevaerd - Revista UFO
   [104]
   A Warning To Wendy Connors - Josh Goldstein [26]
   Thing That Fell From The Sky - Scott Corrales [53]
   Possible Meteor Outburst March 1 - Don Ledger [81]
   Re: John Alexander On Greer? - White - Eleanor White [83]
   Aliens Help Roswell To Flourish - UFO UpDates - Toronto [116]
   Re: An Open Letter To Linda Moulton Howe - Moulton - Linda Moulton Howe
   [32]

  Feb 27:

   Re: An Open Letter To Linda Moulton Howe - Gevaerd - A. J. Gevaerd -
   Revista UFO [90]
   Re: A Warning To Wendy Connors - Connors - Wendy Connors [16]
   Re: An Open Letter To Linda Moulton Howe - - Thiago Luiz Ticchetti [53]
   Columbia Tragedy - Tom Bowden [40]
   Observations At Aerospace Facilities? [Was: John - Josh Goldstein [85]
   Re: An Open Letter To Linda Moulton Howe - Gates - Robert Gates [79]
   Re: John Alexander On Greer? - Velez - John Velez [65]
   Review 'Journey to Mars' - Colin Bennett [90]
   South American Balloon Series Ends - Scott Corrales [54]
   Pioneer 10 Spacecraft Falls Silent - Steven L. Wilson, Sr [38]
   About The Brazilian Hoaxer - Eustaquio Anddrea Patounas [91]
   Re: Observations At Aerospace Facilities? - - Bill Hamilton [45]
   Re: Columbia Tragedy - Oberg - James Oberg [23]
   Re: Columbia Tragedy - Lennick - Michael Lennick <xxxx.xxx> [60]
   Re: An Open Letter To Linda Moulton Howe - Gevaerd - A. J. Gevaerd -
   Revista UFO [120]
   Re: About The Brazilian Hoaxer - Gevaerd - A. J. Gevaerd - Revista UFO
   [53]
   Re: Real Blame And A Question - Vince White [15]
   Re: An Open Letter To Linda Moulton Howe - Cunha - Pedro Luz Cunha [41]
   Re: John Alexander On Greer? - White - Eleanor White [105]
   Fylingdales: The UFO Conection - Andy Roberts [18]
   Re: Pioneer 10 Spacecraft Falls Silent - Maccabee - Bruce Maccabee [20]
   Re: Real Blame And A Question - Hall - Richard Hall [31]
   Pioneer 10 - Wendy Connors [15]
   Re: Real Blame And A Question - Denzler - Brenda Denzler [53]

  Feb 28:

   Re: An Open Letter To Linda Moulton Howe - Thiago Luiz Ticchetti [44]
   Re: Pioneer 10 - Tonnies - Mac Tonnies [20]
   Aztec Crash Documentary - Paul Kimball [14]
   E-mail To Linda Moulton Howe - UFO UpDates - Toronto [61]
   Re: Pioneer 10 - McCoy - GT McCoy [28]
   Re: Re: Review 'Journey to Mars' - Oplatka - Laurel Oplatka [20]
   Re: Real Blame And A Question - Goldstein - Josh Goldstein [40]
   Re: Columbia Tragedy - Bowden - Tom Bowden [66]
   Re: Columbia Tragedy - Gates - Robert Gates [87]
   Re: Real Blame And A Question - Kaeser - Steven Kaeser [48]
   Re: Real Blame And A Question - White - Eleanor White [23]
   Re: An Open Letter To Linda Moulton Howe - Roberts - Andy Roberts [24]
   Re: Real Blame And A Question - Hamilton - Bill Hamilton [47]
   Re: Columbia Tragedy - Oberg - James Oberg [35]
   Re: Pioneer 10 - Bennett - Colin Bennett [50]
   Re: An Open Letter to Linda Moulton-Howe - Connors - Wendy Connors [10]
   Re: An Open Letter To Linda Moulton Howe - Gevaerd - A. J. Gevaerd -
   Revista UFO [43]
   Aztec Symposium - Wendy Connors [18]
   Re: Real Blame And A Question - VWhite - Vince White [31]
   Re: An Open Letter To Linda Moulton Howe - - Thiago Luiz Ticchetti [39]
   Secrecy News -- 02/28/03 - Steven Aftergood [169]
   Re: An Open Letter to Linda Moulton Howe - Hebert - Amy Hebert [54]
   Re: Real Blame And A Question - Hall - Richard Hall [73]
   Re: Real Blame And A Question - Hatch - Larry Hatch [65]
   UFO Over Vina del Mar Chile - Scott Corrales [19]





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 1

                  Vintage UFO-Related Interview Video Clips

From: Joe McGonagle <joe@ufology.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 20:15:24 -0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 00:21:55 -0500
Subject: Vintage UFO-Related Interview Video Clips


Crossposted from the UFONET list:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ufonet

Joe

-----

Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 11:48:00 -0000
From: stealthskaters <stealthskaters@yahoo.com>
Subject: Vintage UFO-related Interview Video Clips


I stored some RealPlayer clips at:

http://www.geocities.com/UFO_Videos/index.html

If that server is tied-up, you can download the ZIP-ped
WindowsMediaPlayer (.wmv) or RealPlayer (.rm) files from:

http://www.stealthskater.com/Videos.htm

One of them was from the NBC 'Dateline' interview of Col. Corso,
who at the end said he saw one other crash during his tenure
and - while pointing to a disc have embedded in a rock - said
that one involved a "time machine".

Others include the British and Russian equivalent to our
Roswell, an off-the-cuff interview with Lazar, and former NATO
SHAPE Intelligence Officer Robert Dean's explanation of 'Cosmic
Top Secret'.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 1

                       Re: Laughlin Conference - King

From: Tom King <tomking2030@hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 20:29:43 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 00:27:09 -0500
Subject: Re: Laughlin Conference - King


 >From: Philip Mantle <philip.mantle@eidosnet.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 18:51:53 -0000
 >Subject: Re: Laughlin Conference

 >>From: Tom King <tomking2030@hotmail.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 17:59:15 +0000
 >>Subject: Re: Laughlin Conference

 ><snip>

 >>I thought about going this year since it's only a couple hours
 >>drive from my location. I decided not to attend since it's the
 >>same club of people every year.

 >>Then there's Sean David Morton and Steven Greer. With all the
 >>hard working UFO researchers out there can't they find someone
 >>with better qualifications then those two? On top of that one of
 >>the speakers is a convicted child molester who speaks every
 >>year!

 >>I'd be interested in listening to Stan Romanek a couple others
 >>speaking. Most of the regular speakers will probably give last
 >>years lecture and I'm not interested in that. I think its more
 >>of a UFO circus than a Congress.

 >>Good luck to you and hope you enjoy our weather.

 >It's below freezing here at the moment so the Nevada sunshine
 >will be a welcome relief I can assure you. I can't comment on
 >the organisers choice of speakers. All I can say is that I've
 >never been here before so I doubt if anyone in the audience will
 >have head my presentation before.

 >I'd like to think that my take an abduction accounts in the UK
 >will be of interest to those in attendance and hopefully will be
 >a little different from what they have heard before.


Philip,

At least half of the speakers or more are a pretty good line up.
The UFO Congress is something to experience at least once. After
that, you seen one you seen them all.

I can't see how Wendelle Stevens can show his face in public and
do a slide show. Last time I saw him I just thought of what a
sick mutha he is.

I watched one of his slide shows a few years ago. He relied
heavily on a man called Joe Clowers. Joe and his friends seem to
have the ability to photograph discs very close up. He also
relied upon Mike Hawkin's photos quite a bit. I have proved that
Mike Hawkins is a con-artist in the UFO field recently. I
believe Wendelle doesn't do much to investigate the photos he
shows. It won't take much to pick apart nearly his entire slide
show if it was investigated properly. If you get a chance to see
his show let me know if he has a bunch more from Joe Clowers!

Sean David Morton and Robert Morningsky were recently
interviewed for an upcoming TLC show on prophecies. Even the
producer involved is aware of the UFO field's dislike for Sean
David Morton, but he included him because he delivers good
sound-bites. Whether the guy is a regular liar is secondary to
the show. The producer will be at the UFO Congress so you might
run into him.

I refuse to deal with TLC, DSC, HC or anything else Discovery
owns. I'm boycotting DSC and their tv producers have burned
bridges with just about the whole UFO community. They won't ever
get any UFO footage from me or any friends of mine (neither will
Bob Brown). Furthermore I advise every person I meet that has
something on tape to never deal with DSC because they will
rip-off a person with UFO footage.

Good Luck to you and hope to read your book sometime soon.


Tom 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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 1

                       Re: Laughlin Conference - King

From: Tom King <tomking2030@hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 20:33:32 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 00:31:31 -0500
Subject: Re: Laughlin Conference - King


 >From: Bill Hamilton <skyman22@fastmail.fm>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 13:31:21 -0800
 >Subject: Re: Laughlin Conference

 >>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 14:16:10 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Laughlin Conference

<snip>


 >>Its good to know that somebody reputable (and I know there will
 >>probably be others) going to Laughlin. So often we get the
 >>latest load of Reed/Raith type information and other assortments
 >>of similar speakers.

 >Then we have Monday, February 3rd or should I call it Planet X
 >Day: Mark Hazelwood & Prof. James Mccanney - Planet X research
 >and forecast Sean David Morton - Prophecy, Planet X and the
 >Pyramid Timeline Donald Ware - Planet X - A Philosophical
 >Viewpoint Planet X Panel - Today's speakers will join together
 >for a group discussion and audience Q & A Session.

 >I have issued statements on Planet X to help distinquish this
 >fiction from the facts, but for some mysterious reason I am not
 >one of those to appear on the Panel. Humph! I would like to
 >suggest Bob Young. Maybe he could bring something to the table.


Bill,

I hope you're kidding about Bob Young. I'm still waiting for his
response to John Velez's post from weeks back. Until Bob can
respond to those direct questions by Velez he can stay away from
UpDates with this garbage talk.

Since Bob didn't respond to those questions. His silence proves
to me he doesn't investigate anything he's talking about.


Tom 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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 1

                 Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Clarke

From: David Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 20:39:59 -0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 00:35:52 -0500
Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Clarke


 >From: Nick Pope <nick@popemod.freeserve.co.uk>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 22:35:15 -0000
 >Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

Greetings list, Nick Pope wrote that:

 >Georgina Bruni is consultant to this documentary, and is working
 >hard with the production company to ensure that the programme
 >features only USAF personnel directly connected with the
 >incident, people who have genuinely researched the case (not
 >just written about it) and scientists (astronomers,
 >psychologists or psychiatrists) who can make a meaningful
 >contribution to the analysis of what took place. There will be a
 >balance between believers and sceptics, which is good for the
 >subject.

Having returned from a day filming at Sheffield University with
the production team from Mentorn, I was most amused - as always
- to read Nick's latest hyperbole.

When the producers contacted me requesting an interview
specifically relating to my efforts to secure the release of the
MOD file on the Rendlesham Forest incident, I advised them to
get in touch with a list people who knew more about the
controversy than I did. One of those on the list I gave them was
Georgina.

On Thursday I followed Graham Birdsall of UFO Magazine and Dr
David Hughes for filming at the University's astronomy
department, in the same lecture rooms which I use for teaching.
During the filming, I was most surprised to be told by the
interviewer that they had no plans to interview Georgina for the
forthcoming programme.

When I queried this I was told that she had been keen to put
them in touch with various key witnesses for a consultancy fee.
However, it appeared that they had by-passed her no doubt
selfless offer and made their own arrangements for interviews,
confident that as experienced journalists they could judge for
themselves who could make a meaningful contribution.

Which is a shame, because I was hoping that Georgina might
discuss her theory that the Rendlesham UFOs were "time
travellers from our future or another dimension" (You Can't Tell
the People, p/back edition, p.406).

Yet Nick assures us that she is "consultant to this documentary,
and is working hard with the production company," so maybe there
is hope yet.

When I left them they were laughing about their sudden baptism
of fire in the world of Ufology, which they had perceptively
recognised was full of competing egos, petty bitchiness and
empire-building.

It was nice, they said, to find someone who stuck to the facts
and agreed with me that the people involved in Ufology are more
interesting than the UFOs themselves.

 >The programme will not revolve around ufologists, but
 >USAF, MOD, and the work of Georgina Bruni and former Chief of
 >the Defence Staff Lord Hill-Norton to secure the release of MOD
 >documents on this case.

Nick must be furious to learn that his own boss at Ministry of
Defence - the Permanent Secretary - tells a completely different
story concerning the circumstances that led to the release of
the MOD documents.

In the MOD's report to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the
Permanent Secretary stated the "the release of documents
contained within the 'Rendlesham file' had first been considered
in response to a request in May 2001 from a different
correspondent" [the file was released to me on 11 May 2001
following a formal request late in 2000].

Is Nick therefore suggesting his own employer is not telling the
whole truth?

This looks to me like a clash of interest between attempts to
sell his own hype and what he actually _knows_ to be the facts.

 >Unfortunately, as often happens in situations like this, the
 >production company is being bombarded by calls from people
 >trying to write themselves into the story. Several "enterprising
 >members of the public" are attempting to get in on the act, but
 >people are now getting wise to the tactics of "The Bandwagon
 >Boys", and treating with suspicion anything that looks as if
 >it's aimed at self-promotion or book-plugging.

A case of "the pot calling the kettle black" if ever there was
one. Next time Nick is plugging his latest best-seller we will
have a wonderful piece of prose to quote back to him.

In the meantime, the only bandwagon will be the one that roared
off into the distance leaving Britain's answer to Fox Mulder
wondering why he didn't stick to writing science fiction.

But seriously folks, I hope that the three men and the dog who
currently receive BBC3 will tune in on March 15 for what I am
confident will be a *very well balanced* programme indeed.

If all goes to plan, the highlight of the programme will not be
the 'usual suspects' among the UFOlogists and sceptics, but a
senior RAF officer who I have traced and persuaded to speak -
  for the very first time in public - about his key role in the
events of December 1980.

Best,

Dave Clarke

"The Skeptick doth neither affirm, neither denie any position;
but doubteth of it." - Sir Walter Ralegh

www.flyingsaucery.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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 1

                      Re: Necessary Speculation - Velez

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:42:48 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 00:39:53 -0500
Subject: Re: Necessary Speculation - Velez


 >From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 21:07:46 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Necessary Speculation

 >>From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:39:46 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Necessary Speculation

 ><snip>

 >>I don't know how reliable serious researchers consider Whitley
 >>Strieber, but he has been talking for some years about
 >>experiences inside an alien craft where he was shown images of
 >>alien-earthling hybrids and asked if he "could tell the
 >>difference". The ultimate purpose of the alien presence,
 >>according to his view, seems to be the eventual living together,
 >>openly, on planet Earth.

 >>Do any serious researchers who have an interest in abductions
 >>consider that a possibility?

 >Whitley Strieber is certainly not alone in unusual claims with
 >regard to the purpose of alien abductions. David Jacobs has
 >expressed the belief that the purpose of the alien presence is
 >to hybridize all of mankind, making us all part alien (an over
 >simplification, but covered in "The Threat").

 >I guess it comes down to a question of how critical one is going
 >to be with regard to the claims and beliefs expressed by
 >abductees. One of the more interesting facets of this phenomenon
 >is that there are many parallels that cannot easily be
 >explained. If a researcher continues to hear tales of
 >hybridization then the option is to reject the concept out of
 >hand, or listen with an open mind and try to identify the root
 >cause.

 >Unfortunately, IMO, the concept of alien abductions quickly
 >becomes an all or nothing proposition for the researcher. It
 >becomes very difficult to accept part of someone's experience
 >and reject another part. IMO, the alien abduction phenomenon is
 >(for the most part) based on anecdotal evidence, and a
 >researcher can either accept it or reject it.

<snip>

 >While not inexpensive, a good volume of information dealing with
 >the alien abduction phenomenon can be found at the MIT Press
 >bookstore:

 >http://mitpress.mit.edu/bookstore/authors/aliendis.html


Hi Steve,

You went on to say:

 >Held a decade ago, the MIT conference was a monumental effort
 >designed to bring professionals and researchers together to
 >share information and experiences.

It would have been great if the result of that conference had
been to pique the interest of professionals and researchers to
the point where it might begin to make a difference. It is to
the great shame of all science and scientists that the UFO
phenomenon has been almost unanimously ignored by them.

Who really suffers for the apathy of the 'professionals and
researchers'?

The witnesses and abductees, that's who. They are collectively
left out in the cold, to fend for themselves and to become the
potential victims of hard core users and charlatans. Because
nobody really believes that the plight of abductees has any
substance, countless vulnerable people are being left to sink or
swim in shark infested waters. The only reason I do what I do is
simply because nobody else is doing it.

I'm not an academic, scientist, or an 'expert' anything. Yet it
is left up to people like me (only because I'm not afraid to
speak up in public) to talk to and deal with, individuals who
find themselves smack in the middle of a very real crisis
situation.

Where the hell are all the health care professionals? Why hasn't
federal law enforcement with all it's technological resources
become involved? We're talking about reports of kidnappings
right? They would be able to tell us (the public) in a short
time if there is any real threat to the public's safety. Not to
mention alleviating some of the psychological anguish of the
victims. But again, who cares? We're all just freaking nut-cases
anyway, right?

Maybe if it happened to enough 'professionals and researchers'
they would get up off their judgmental asses and start
investigating a phenomenon that is affecting thousands of
their neighbors. Which may one day affect them!

I'm not holding my breath waiting for them to climb on board.
Are you?


Warmest regards,

John Velez


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

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/petition








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 1

                 Re: More On Wrong Roswell Dig Site - Houran

From: Jim Houran <JHouran@siumed.edu>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 14:52:38 -0600
Fwd Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 00:44:30 -0500
Subject: Re: More On Wrong Roswell Dig Site - Houran


 >From: Tom Carey <TCarey1947@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 10:58:37 -0500
 >Subject: Re: More On Wrong Roswell Dig Site

 >>From: Brad Sparks
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 23:18:17 EST
 >>Subject: More On Wrong Roswell Dig Site

 >>I have received more discrepant coordinates for the Debris Field
 >>and even the site where the UNM did the archaeological
 >>excavation. My thanks to Larry Bryant for "digging" out the
 >>email copies from the packet of UNM documents that he pressed
 >>them to release.

 >>For discussion see my post on Jan 27 and don't pretend you
 >>couldn't find it or I will just re-post it all:

 >>http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2003/jan/m27-010.shtml

 >>Latitude N  Longitude W

 ><snip>

 >Hello List:

 >We are periodically asked the question, "Why can't all you
 >Roswell investigators just work together?" The readers need look
 >no further than the above post from Brad Sparks. Brad had
 >e-mailed me requesting the GPS coordinates of the Foster Ranch
 >debris field site.

 >Thinking that he was researching something related to the
 >subject at hand, I attempted to be of assistance and, in good
 >faith, provided Brad with the only co-ordinates that I had.
 >Having been to the site a half-dozen times or so, I never have
 >paid much attention to what the GPS readings were. Like Don
 >Schmitt, Kevin Randle and a very few others, I don't need GPS
 >coordinates to get to the site.

 >As Kevin has stated in another post, we are certain of the
 >site. All Brad has done is to try to create a false sense of
 >confusion regarding the location of the debris field where there
 >is none to those of us who have been there.

 >Even more damaging, he has provided points of reference for
 >every crazy and wannabee within driving distance of the site to
 >try to become a 'hero' or worse. We are not finished with the
 >site, and still have plans for further research there. If the
 >owner of the ranch in question starts to play 'host' to visitors
 >on his property looking for the debris field site, we run the
 >risk of having our access to it shut down.

 >Brad Sparks has done a dis-service, not only to the on-going
 >investigation, but to himself. In the future, I will no longer
 >provide him with any information whatsoever regarding Roswell.


Hello, List and Tom:

I find your reaction to Brad Sparks' post shocking and basically
hypocritical, Tom.

You recently portrayed me as bailing out of a debate with David
Rudiak, and yet you now portray Mr. Sparks as a traitor of sorts
because he is initiating a debate.

Further, that debate is on an issue that is most relevant to the
subject at hand... a geographical verification of the debris
field.

I do not know Brad Sparks personally or professionally, but if
his accounting of his negative experiences re: asking for data
is reliable (and I have had similar ones myself), then he raises
legitimate questions.

Perhaps he has his numbers wrong (and is simply looking for
clarification and education), or worse, perhaps some researchers
have their location wrong.

Brad Sparks deserves the benefit of the doubt re: his motivation
for asking his questions.

I, for one, congratulate him for taking an empirical approach
and attempting to cross-check "facts" of the case. In my
opinion, that is a typical and responsible action of a careful
researcher.


James (Jim) Houran







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 1

                      C.E.: Brief Report On SOHO Images

From: Ananda Sirisena <ALSIRISENA@AOL.COM>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 05:22:12 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 04:24:52 -0500
Subject: C.E.: Brief Report On SOHO Images


II attended the showing of the SOHO images - so-called UFOs - on
Sat. 25 Jan. 2003 at the National Space Centre in Leicester, UK.

My initial impression is that the majority of the 'marks' on the
SOHO images shown are examples of "pixel bleed". This is
validated by the fact that these 'marks' all "bleed" in a
horizontal direction. However, there are some other images which
are more mysterious but which need further detailed study and
analysis before any conclusion is arrived at.

This ia an example of how not to convince the world of supposed
ufo images. This was a meeting put together with a lot of media
hype and apparently no peer review. The sincerity of the
organiser(s) cannot be doubted but the show was lacking
scientific expertise. It would be a good idea for EuroSETI to
obtain the advice of CCD (charge-coupled devices) experts and
try to duplicate such 'pixel bleeds' and compare them with the
SOHO images.

This is very much a preliminary view and a careful study of the
SOHO pictures may show non-horizontal marks which may be more
difficult to explain. However, at this point in time, I would be
very cautious about conclusions on the strange marks seen on the
images.


Ananda Sirisena







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 1

                            Shuttle Columbia Lost

From: Wm. Michael Mott <mottimorph@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 08:52:14 -0600
Fwd Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 10:35:52 -0500
Subject: Shuttle Columbia Lost


List members,

The space shuttle Columbia has been lost. It has come apart on
re-entry over Texas, about 8:15 CST.


--Mike Mott







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 1

                   Space Shuttle Apparently Disintegrates

From: Steven L. Wilson, Sr <Ndunlks@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 10:27:40 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 10:44:15 -0500
Subject: Space Shuttle Apparently Disintegrates


Space Shuttle Apparently Disintegrates

By MARCIA DUNN
c. The Associated Press

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) - Space shuttle Columbia apparently
disintegrated in flames over Texas on Saturday minutes before it
was to land in Florida. TV video showed what appeared to be
falling debris, as NASA declared an emergency and warned
residents to beware of falling objects.

Six Americans and Israel's first astronaut were on board.

In north Texas, people reported hearing "a big bang" at about 9
a.m., the same time all radio and data communication with the
shuttle was lost.

Television stations showed what appeared to be flaming debris
falling through the sky, and NASA warned Texas residents to
beware of any falling objects. NASA also announced that search
and rescue teams were being mobilized in the Dallas and Fort
Worth areas.

Inside Mission Control, flight controllers hovered in front of
their computers, staring at the screens. The wives, husbands and
children of the astronauts who had been waiting at the landing
strip were gathered together by NASA and taken to secluded
place.

"A contingency for the space shuttle has been declared," Mission
Control repeated over and over as no word or any data came from
Columbia.

In 42 years of U.S. human space flight, there had never been an
accident during the descent to Earth or landing. On Jan. 28,
1986, space shuttle Challenger exploded shortly after liftoff.

On Jan. 16, shortly after Columbia lifted off, a piece of
insulating foam on its external fuel tank came off and was
believed to have struck the left wing of the shuttle. Leroy
Cain, the lead flight director in Mission Control, assured
reporters Friday that engineers had concluded that any damage to
the wing was considered minor and posed no safety hazard.

Columbia had been aiming for a landing at 9:16 a.m. Saturday.

It was at an altitude of 207,000 feet over north-central Texas
at a 9 a.m., traveling at 12,500 mph when Mission Control lost
contact and tracking data.

Gary Hunziker in Plano said he saw the shuttle flying overhead.
"I could see two bright objects flying off each side of it," he
told The Associated Press. "I just assumed they were chase
jets."

"I was getting ready to go out and I heard a big bang and the
windows shook in the house," Ferolito told The AP. "I thought it
was a sonic boom."

Security had been tight for the 16-day scientific research
mission because of the presence of Ilan Ramon, the first Israeli
astronaut.

Ramon, a colonel in Israel's air force and former fighter pilot,
became the first man from his country to fly in space, and his
presence resulted in an increase in security, not only for
Columbia's launch, but also for its planned landing. Space
agency officials feared his presence might make the shuttle more
of a terrorist target.

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's office said it had no
immediate comment.

Columbia's crew had completed 80-plus scientific research
experiments during their time in orbit.

Just in the last week, NASA observed the anniversary of its only
two other space tragedies, the Challenger explosion, which
killed all seven astronauts on board, and Apollo space craft
fire that killed three on Jan. 27, 1967.



02/01/03 10:11 EST


Copyright 2003 The Associated Press. The information contained
in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten
or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of
The Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted
by AOL.

Researcher Steven L. Wilson, Sr






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 1

                        Re: EW: SETI On SETA - White

From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:54:06 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 10:47:28 -0500
Subject: Re: EW: SETI On SETA - White


 >From: Kurt Jonach - The Electric Warrior
<ewarrior_electricwarrior_com@yahoo.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 11:41:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: SETI On SETA
 >Subject: Re: EW: SETI On SETA

<snip>

 >30-Jan-03
 >How to Sort Signs of Artifical Life from the Real Thing

 >http://www.space.com/searchforlife/seti_shostak_artificial_030130.html

 >SETH SHOSTACK (Space.com/SETI) - How do we define 'artificial'?
 >This problem is well known in the context of SETA, the Search
 >for Extraterrestrial Artifacts..... For decades, the Viking
 >Orbiter photo of the 'Face on Mars' lathered up a lot of folk
 >who felt that the appearance of this feature as seen by the
 >Orbiter's camera met the criteria of artificiality.

 >Surprisingly, despite recent high-resolution photos of the
 >'Face' that strongly challenge this conclusion, the debate
 >continues.

Probably the Mars Face debate continues because of government's
proven propensity to lie, particularly when the topic is high-
stakes advances in technology and major changes to scientific
status quo.

The multiple 'explanations' about Roswell being one example.
They can't all be true.

Another example are their assertions that they're not studying
UFOs, yet they have data collection procedures for pilots.

Or the use of the FDA and courts to harass Dr. Stanislaw
Burzinski, who for more than a decade has been demonstrating a
65% cure rate on a number of cancer types, with a non-toxic
medication, out of Houston, TX. Another example, the court
cases themselves providing documentation.

Given that the Mars Face, if verified as artificial, would turn
all kinds of history and science upside down, I'd estimate that
there is a 99% chance that the so-called 'high-resolution
photos' were modified prior to release to kill verification as
artificial.


Eleanor White








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 1

                     Re: Necessary Speculation - Oplatka

From: Laurel Oplatka <calabash2003@webtv.net>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 14:36:33 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 10:49:51 -0500
Subject: Re: Necessary Speculation - Oplatka


Hi,

What about the complex abduction case of Katharina Wilson
detailed in her book, "The Alien Jigsaw"? I've wondered about a
possible MKULTRA type connection, as she "saw" Military
Personnel/Military bases in many instances and feels that
abductees and researchers alike should not ignore the
Military/Government connection.

For example, the Artichoke program of mind control whose scope
was outlined in a 1952 (CIA?) memorandum asked this question:
"Can we get control of an individual to the point where he will
do our bidding against his will and even against fundamental
laws of nature such as self-preservation?"

Katharina relates her feeling that, in several instances, her
abductors were manipulating her in order to "study" her sense of
self-preservation, placing her in various "scenarios" in order
to determine if her desire to "help" in a given situation would
be greater than her desire to escape. She states that she felt
her sense of self-preservation was being studied.

At the close of her book, she speculated that her experiences
could have been one of alien/ET abduction, or some secret
government experimentation in which she was hypnotised and
drugged - she leaves it to people to draw their own conclusions.


Best Regards,

Laurel








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 1

                             Re: Corso - Bennett

From: Colin Bennett <colin@bennettc25.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 22:43:17 -0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 10:54:15 -0500
Subject: Re: Corso - Bennett


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 00:28:38 EST
 >Subject: Re: Corso


 >Let me see if I get this right..... "What is Corso" is on third,
 >"Who is Corso" is on Second, and "Where is Corso" is on
 >first.....  So is the short stop "That is Corso?"    :)

Yes, I got the original Bud Abbot and Lou Costello tape
"Whose in Goal" some years ago. Robert, I'm glad you
publicly admit to opening my posts and have exhibited a
sense of humour rare on this po-faced list of  mechanicals.
These day they get up to all kind of tricks to give people
the impressions that they are not reading my posts. To make
sure they are not seen doing such a thing, the mechanicals open my
posts on the top of telegraph poles (along side dead deer),
  in airplane loos, whilst diving under the sea, and by torchlight
under the blankets.
One woman just out of trauma room after reading Fourth
Day Like Four Long Months of Absence, goes for long walks
in isolated areas and reads my posts on her Nokia after
looking round carefully to see that there is no one in the vicinity,
including airplanes overhead.


 >The movie on this players life will be titled: The Legend, the Man

 >The sound track will feature such hits as:

 >"In the mine with ET.." (with the Grey chorus)
 >"Fly me in your time machine"  (with Crash Landing and the Nazi's)
 >"J Edgar and Me"  (with the Black Bags)
 >"I worked for IKE"  (with the Secret Agent Chorus)

 >Any suggestions for the title of the book?  :)

Yes, Robert. Try these for size:

Mother Hall's enemy
Brother Aldrich's Anathaema
Mistress Connor's Flight From the Enchanter

 >> Who is Corso?

Now you know a liitle more, darling. Watch this space!


 >>>And I take this opportunity, for the first time, to announce
 >>>that soon his diary "Dawn of a New Age" will be out in Italy
 >>>and, subsequently, in several other countries.

 >>>I'm available to discuss it with anybody interested.

Sir,

Welcome to the most exclusive club in the world, sir. The Corso
List Club! It is good to hear from you. I have been defending
Lieutenant-Colonel Corso's honour on this List for several
months as you will see from my previous posts. For my pains, I
have received much abuse from Stalinist Mechanicals, Maoist
Interrogators, and club-footed steam-footplate realists, who
pre-quantum "realism" has not got beyond 1900 and "factual"
frozen to death. Concerning what fascist psychiatrists would
like to do with Corso, Adamski and the like, see my 700-line
previous post, entitled Fourth Day Like Four Long Months of
Absence, this being the first web cyber-literary masterpiece,
first aired on the Ufo Updates List, and roundly cursed and
loved simultaneously. The List is  now split into two parts,
sir. There are those who wish to preserve the sacred flame of
the creative imagination, and the mechanicals. These latter are
now in full retreat, have all fled to live in the tents of Shem
by the railway cuttings the other side of the List, led by
Mother Hall and Mother Aldrich.

My Intelligence tells me that they read my posts secretly by
candle light and car torch. They read them  in locked bathrooms,
bedrooms, and garden sheds. The effect of Bennett deprivations
are serious. Some went into chronic withdrawal being unable
to cope, and one women is still in intensive care after having her
mind blown completely by Fourth Day Like Four Long Months
of Absence.

The fantastic claim and Coleridge's shaping spirit of imagination
are the rain forest of the mind sir, and I intend
to try and stop those who whould drive a rectangular concrete cube
of petite-bourgeois rational provincial conformist order right through it.
And watch out for Nazi shrinks - they will burn the rain forest out of you!

Write to me to support the Corso Cause, good List Bears! Don't let
the humourless disenchanters get away with castrating the deviants!
If the Stalinists get away with it, they'll kill all magic, wonder,
innocence, the spiritual, the transcendental, and they'll have you ass
in the bargain! Defend the dreamers! Denial of anything and everything
is a human Right! Join the Corso Club NOW, bears, or these effing
scientists will turn us all into coporate car-parks papered over by
the TV Times.

Rally to the Fortean banner!

Colin (Bad Man) Bennett

www.thewhyfiles.co.uk  10,000 hits per day Google No 1

Politics of the Imagination: "For sheer ability Colin Bennett
probably has no equal_a marvellous work."
Kate Miller, UFO Magazine UK, September 2002







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 1

                             Re: Corso - Bennett

From: Colin Bennett <colin@bennettc25.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 23:02:30 -0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 11:00:25 -0500
Subject: Re: Corso - Bennett


 >From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 18:22:43 +0100
 >Subject: Re: Corso - Goldstein


 >I'm not Kelly but I have a book title: Corso - I Became a Total
 >Fool. I'd retitle the movie as: Corso - The Legend, The Myth,
 >The Fool.


In case you missed it Mr Goldstein, have a look at my recent
700-line post of a few days ago. Every single line is dedicated
to your ability to choose titles.

Colin (Bad Man) Bennett


Politics of the Imagination: "For sheer ability Colin Bennett
probably has no equal_a marvellous work."
Kate Miller, UFO Magazine UK, September 2002
"Metaphysics of the Moving Image" coming in Fortean Times
168.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 1

                 Re: More On Wrong Roswell Dig Site - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 19:17:20 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 11:14:33 -0500
Subject: Re: More On Wrong Roswell Dig Site - Sparks


 >From: Tom Carey <TCarey1947@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 10:58:37 -0500
 >Subject: Re: More On Wrong Roswell Dig Site - Carey

 >>From: Brad Sparks
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 23:18:17 EST
 >>Subject: More On Wrong Roswell Dig Site

 >>I have received more discrepant coordinates for the Debris Field
 >>and even the site where the UNM did the archaeological
 >>excavation. My thanks to Larry Bryant for "digging" out the
 >>email copies from the packet of UNM documents that he pressed
 >>them to release.

<snip>

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2003/jan/m27-010.shtml

<snip>

 >Thinking that he was researching something related to the
 >subject at hand, I attempted to be of assistance and, in good
 >faith, provided Brad with the only co-ordinates that I had.


Hi Tom, List,

I very much appreciate your assistance. As a matter of fact I am
"researching something related to the subject at hand" and have
been for almost two years since publication of Karl Pflock's
skeptical book on Roswell in 2001:

I have been attempting to reconstruct what flight path
trajectory Dr. Lincoln LaPaz might have determined for the
Roswell object had he indeed investigated the case in 1947 as
the CIC/OSI agents said he did. Karl does not believe LaPaz had
anything to do with Roswell. I believe the CIC/OSI agents. I
suspect you do too, Tom.

I am not aware of any serious research, prior to mine, on
reconstructing the Roswell trajectory that LaPaz might have
calculated. Do you?

You cannot determine a cislunar or interplanetary trajectory
without accurate coordinates.

 >Having been to the site a half-dozen times or so, I never have
 >paid much attention to what the GPS readings were. Like Don
 >Schmitt, Kevin Randle and a very few others, I don't need GPS
 >coordinates to get to the site.

Scientific investigation such as trajectory analysis requires
coordinates. It is nice that you and others can get to the site
without a GPS but how does that hunting-dog-nose (so to speak)
do anything to calculate a trajectory quantitatively? Can I get
a Right Ascension and Declination of the trajectory radiant from
someone else standing in a field?

 >As Kevin has stated in another post, we are certain of the
 >site. All Brad has done is to try to create a false sense of
 >confusion regarding the location of the debris field where there
 >is none to those of us who have been there.

I simply raised the question of how do you know it's the correct
site? Asking a question doesn't deserve the amount of rancor and
tension that is being invoked. Science asks basic questions like
specifying geospatial coordinates. It's just data, and it has to
be accurate. Simply answer the question in the interest of
science.

I would hope that Roswell investigators can take criticism
without making it into a personal issue. I would not think that
you or any of the others believe you should be immune from
rational questioning and critical evaluations as that is part of
the scientific process.

As for any "confusion" the only "confusion" is in the numbers or
site data I received and faithfully reported as accurately as
possible. I did not make up the numbers.

 >Even more damaging, he has provided points of reference

I gave _no_ "points of reference" or driving directions, etc.
But the Sci Fi Channel website does (see below).

Earlier you accused me of creating "confusion" over the exact
site location. If listing the data I received from others
creates such "confusion" then how does that provide exact
"points of reference" for souvenir hunters?

 >for
 >every crazy and wannabee within driving distance of the site to
 >try to become a 'hero' or worse. We are not finished with the
 >site, and still have plans for further research there. If the
 >owner of the ranch in question starts to play 'host' to visitors
 >on his property looking for the debris field site, we run the
 >risk of having our access to it shut down.
<snip>

Uh, excuse me, but Pflock in 2001 and Moore in 1997 published
books commercially available with the Lat-Long coordinates of
the Debris Field - 33-56.35, 105-18.36. Larry Bryant obtained
under the New Mexico state FOIA from UNM the GPS coordinates
that you and others involved in the Sci Fi Channel project
supplied. (See Larry's posting describing his efforts:)

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2003/jan/m31-006.shtml

The "Roswell Dig Diaries" on the Sci Fi Channel website provides
numerous "points of reference" plus actual site photos in color
for alleged souvenir hunters to use to find the site. Others
have posted road directions for getting to the site. It's rather
unfair to pick on me just because I list the _scientific_ data,
minus any road directions, and asked some pertinent questions.

Why should scientific data such as GPS coordinates - mere
numbers - be withheld while "Roswell Dig Diaries" with many
"points of reference" be publicized?

I asked some tough questions in the interests of seeking the
truth. I'm sorry you took it the wrong way.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 1

                       Re: Abduction Question - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 20:32:08 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 11:17:19 -0500
Subject: Re: Abduction Question - Ledger


 >From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 14:53:03 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Abduction Question

 >>From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 07:25:00 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Abduction Question

 >>I'm in touch with an abductee who hasn't seen this info.

 >>Because it was posted on Christmas Eve, and I believe it was in
 >>fact the only posting you sent out that day, would you be
 >>willing to post it again? I really think this idea has merit for
 >>abductees.

 >>>From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >>>Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 05:03:27 -0500
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Subject: Re: Abduction Question

 >><snip>

 >>>Abductees have only themselves, their own inner resources and
 >>>maybe a few other individuals that they can turn to. The
 >>>situation they face is the epitome of the phrase, "Caught
 >>>between a rock and hard place."


 >>>Talk about a sad state of affairs.

 >Hi Eleanor,

 >>Hm. You know, that story about the abductee who was
 >>abducted along with his boat and recording GPS...

 >You have reminded us about an important case here. When it was
 >first made public I thought that finally, here is some rock
 >solid physical evidence that corroborates an abduction report.
 >It ended up being ignored and relegated to the dust heap.

 >IF GPS data that shows a boat travelling over ground isn't
 >enough to demonstrate that something truly odd transpired, then
 >I don't know what is. Here, in this report, is the physical
 >evidence that everyone has been looking for. Yet no one has made
 >any fuss over it at all. Boggles the mind how solid evidence
 >like this can be overlooked and forgotten.


Hi John and Eleanor,

Just one thing here re the GPS anomaly. His computer connected
the dots from the positions the boat was in. But there is an
update that occurs ocassionally with GPS-usually advertized-
because the satellites don't stay in hard fixed positions in
space and the whole GPS system goes offline for some time while
it resets itself to those new positions. This doesn't happen
with the military sats beacause they now have other sats that
use the regular GPS as slaves while some 8-12 satellites are
purley dedicated to the military function. The US can
discontinue GPS at any time it wishes but of course doesn't do
so because there are literally hundreds of thousands of users at
a given moment including airliners, private aircraft and vessels
at sea.

I wonder if the GPS system didn't glitch at the point noted and
the computer just picked up the last known position and the
"present" position and just connected the dots between those two
because there was no information to plot in between the two
positions.

This is just a thought because it happened to me while flying
through to Sherbrooke, Quebec over northern Maine from
Fredericton [where Stan lives], New Brunswick in 2000. The whole
system was down for maybe 15 minutes while it updated. That
includes the time it took my GPS to  re-aguire the satellites
and update itself.

The person affected can probably check back and see if there was
an update.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 1

                      Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Sandow

From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 19:38:24 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 11:18:57 -0500
Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Sandow


 >From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 20:40:57 +0100
 >Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs

 >Listerions, don't hold your breath
 >but it may take until the end of this year for me to issue my
 >final report along with the statistical computations and a
 >Jungian Psychologist's analysis of the pattern of my lay lines.
 >It would help if other serious researchers plot their own "lay
 >lines" and send those patterns to me.


Do we give awards here?

Josh gets my vote for post of the year.

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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 1

                              Columbia Disaster

From: Mike Woods <mike.woods@rogers.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 12:07:43 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 12:38:57 -0500
Subject: Columbia Disaster


Dear List,

Five hundred years ago, our species trembled at the sounds of
the Thunder Gods. One hundred years ago, the idea of flying was
a dream.

Today, we select our bravest and best and throw them into space
riding on a barely-controlled bombs. The risks involved have
always been enormous; the potential reward is the universe
itself.

The Apollo moon landings of the 1960's lead to the Digital
Revolution of the 1990's, one of the most sustained economic
booms in history.

Today's shuttle missions and the International Space Station
offer a similiar hope for our children. No frontier humans have
challenged was without risk, the cost of success is almost
always human life.

Despite the loss of the Space Shuttle and its crew, humanity
will one day takes it's place among the stars.

Mourn the loss of seven brave men and women.

Hail Columbia.


Michael J. Woods








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 1

                       Re: Abduction Question - Bowden

From: Tom Bowden <tomrbowden@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 16:57:05 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 13:24:14 -0500
Subject: Re: Abduction Question - Bowden


 >From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 14:53:03 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Abduction Question

<snip>

 >Simple solution to the research money problem:

 >I would like to take this opportunity to encourage everyone to
 >support this CUFOS abduction study with _dollars_ by subscribing
 >to the journal or just as a donation that can be earmarked for
 >use by the abduction project. If you haven't already subscribed
 >to the journal, 'now' is always a good time to do it. The people
 >at CUFOS are doing important, necessary research that _should
 >be_ supported in a practical way by the members of the larger
 >*UFO community. *That's means _us_ and our dollars!

 >If we can't 'put our money where our mouths are' then we really
 >don't have much right to 'mouth off' in public forums.

 >Support CUFOS with greenbacks.

<snip>

If CUFOS is ready to take back the hatchet job they did on Ed
Walters, then I might consider donating.


Tom B.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 1

                              Runcorn UFO Video

From: Eric Morris <bufosc@hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 01:02:38 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 13:43:11 -0500
Subject: Runcorn UFO Video


BUFOSC are showing the black circular discs recorded on video on
January 16th near Runcorn, at their monthly meeting on February
11th 2003.

We have received a further 20 reports of sightings from Runcorn.
Also some triangular UFO sightings - like the Hudson Valley
event - from Abergele, North Wales. A flying-triangle report
from Manley Cheshire, which left combustion damage in a field is
also being investigated by BUFOSC members.

A video is now available on Eric Morris's historic lecture
relating to the Rendlesham 2 crash is now available at =A310+=A31
p&p, from the usual address, all profits, as usual, to charity.


Eric Morris
Press Release
010203









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 1

                       Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Mott

From: Wm. Michael Mott <mottimorph@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 21:40:00 -0600
Fwd Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 13:57:50 -0500
Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Mott


 >From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 20:40:57 +0100
 >Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs

Josh, I nearly forgot:

 >Other than speculation I don't know of any factual evidence for
 >"ley lines". If anyone knows of such evidence I would also like
 >to see it.

http://www.albertbudden.info/

http://www.webuilders.co.uk/budden/credo.html

Actually, it was Sheldrake who coined the term "morphogenic
fields", but the research is possibly related, as there is some
speculation that living organisms generate a morphogenic form of
an EM field which interacts with localized natural fields, or is
affected by them (in fact, intense EM fields do have an effect
on the brain and awareness):

http://www.mgtaylor.com/delphi/sheldrake.html

Devereaux has made some interesting finds-perhaps the most
interesting - along these "lines," (pardon the pun):

http://www.acemake.com/PaulDevereux/leylines.html
http://www.acemake.com/PaulDevereux/
http://www.acemake.com/PaulDevereux/earthlights.html
http://www.acemake.com/PaulDevereux/ufoabducts.html

While I don't agree with the 'non-physicality' of all reported
UFO occupants, the possibly overlap of his research with that of
Budden, Sheldrake, and Cathie (below) is very interesting,
particularly if UFO technology 'rides' or otherwise utilizes the
EM fields of planetary bodies in order to maneuver and achieve
instantaneous bursts of speed.

Bruce Cathie may have a broader grasp of this concept, in terms
of the overall EM field of our planet:

http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~brucelc/

http://www.crystalinks.com/grid.html

https://slider-secure.vendercom.com/Science/Social_Sciences/Archaeology/Alternat
ive/Planetary_Grids_and_Ley_Lines.htm

David Childress also:

http://www.hiddenmysteries.com/item300/item353.html

There seems to be an interconnection here in terms of EM, and
the EM field of the Earth. There also seems to be an undeniable
connection between EM field manipulation and UFOs.


--Mike










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 1

                   Abduction Question Omission/Correction

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 01:35:03 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 14:12:40 -0500
Subject: Abduction Question Omission/Correction


 >From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 07:25:00 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Abduction Question

 >>From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 05:03:27 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Abduction Question

<snip>

Hi All,

A 'correction' for my last post. I wrote:

 >FYI for interested Listmembers:

 >Dr. Mark Rodeghier and Mark Chesney of CUFOS have been
 >lectronically _monitor_ a select group of 'abductees' over
 >time. This is _the_ single most important 'scientific' study
 >into the abduction phenomenon to date.

One minor correction to my post on UFO Updates about the
abduction study. It is a UFO Research Coalition project (CUFOS,
FUFOR & MUFON) not just CUFOS.

And in the spirit of 'giving credit where it is due':

Dick Hall was involved in the organizing and planning of it and
in obtaining the initial funding to go forward.

So, rather than limiting my 'thank you' to CUFOS, I would like
to publicly acknowledge and thank _all_ of the organizations
involved in the abduction study.


Regards to all,

John Velez

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

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/petition








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 1

                      Re: Necessary Speculation - Velez

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 03:13:15 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 14:17:16 -0500
Subject: Re: Necessary Speculation - Velez


 >From: Wm. Michael Mott <mottimorph@earthlink.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 15:07:43 -0600
 >Subject: Re: Necessary Speculation

 >>From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 02:35:40 -0500
 >>Subject: Necessary Speculation

 >>We are always endlessly debating whether UFOs represent a nuts
 >>and bolts reality or something else. As a result, it is anathema
 >>to ever speculate about what may be the reason or purpose of
 >>these craft/beings. Not without running the risk of having your
 >>head chopped off.

 ><snip>

 >John,

 >This was a great post.

 >My thoughts on this issue, in a nutshell, are in this article:

 >http://home.earthlink.net/~mottimorph/Earth.html

 >More data which supports this (I believe overwhelmingly), can be
 >found in my book.


Hi Mike,

I know naught about subterranean civilizations or the like. What
I do know is; there are enough credible reports of UFOs entering
and leaving bodies of water to raise legitimate questions about
the possible existence of underwater bases.

My own personal theory is; that _all_ evening news weathermen/
women are aliens living among us. Watch the 'Weather Channel'
for more than a half-an-hour and it'll trigger more severe brain
seizures than ten flickering Japanese cartoons all playing
simultaneously! ;)


Regards,

John Velez

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

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/petition








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 1

                      Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Hebert

From: Amy Hebert <yellowrose129@attbi.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 01:56:59 -0600
Fwd Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 14:32:01 -0500
Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Hebert


 >From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 20:40:57 +0100
 >Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs

 >>From: Amy Hebert <yellowrose129@attbi.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 00:45:16 -0600
 >>Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs

 >>>From: Wm. Michael Mott <mottimorph@earthlink.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 15:05:00 -0600
 >>>Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs
 ><snip>

 >>>You are right to some extent, of course. My main theory here is
 >>>that there may be an planetary grid of electromagnetic energy,
 >>>of which ley lines and such are just a subset, which facilitates
 >>>travel for them, when close to the planet's surface.

 >>Can you point me to scientific studies that have established the
 >>existence of "ley lines"?

 >I will be in Northern California near my good friend Larry Hatch
 >this May and after we have had enough beers (burp) and artichoke
 >soup I will then try to compare my lovemaking locations and "lay
 >lines" with Larry's map plots. I take all of Larry's plots of
 >UFO sightings seriously but if Larry does not have enough beers
 >he will not like my efforts. Listerions, don't hold your breath
 >but it may take until the end of this year for me to issue my
 >final report along with the statistical computations and a
 >Jungian Psychologist's analysis of the pattern of my lay lines.
 >It would help if other serious researchers plot their own "lay
 >lines" and send those patterns to me.

 >Amy, what does this mean?

It means you have too much free time on your hands. <grin>


Amy










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 1

                      Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Hebert

From: Amy Hebert <yellowrose129@attbi.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 02:37:48 -0600
Fwd Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 14:36:06 -0500
Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Hebert


 >From: Wm. Michael Mott <mottimorph@earthlink.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 09:02:39 -0600 (CST)
 >Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs

 >>From: Amy Hebert <yellowrose129@attbi.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 00:45:16 -0600
 >>Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs

 >>Can you point me to scientific studies that have established the
 >>existence of "ley lines"?

 >Paul Devereaux has done some extensive work in this area.
 >http://www.acemake.com/PaulDevereux/leylines.html

According to Paul Devereux at the URL you list:

"The first thing I can assure you is that what is talked about
in New Age journals, workshops and groups today about 'leylines'
is mainly a combination of misunderstanding, old falsehoods,
wishful thinking and downright fantasy."

"Ley lines" may exist as a result of fringe groups but this is not
scientific evidence that ley lines have anything to do with the
electromagnetic field of the earth and/or flight paths of UFOs.

 >>Combine this with the extremely hostile conditions of the polar
 >>regions and other areas of the planet as well, and it may answer
 >>many questions about who they really are, as well as indicate
 >>that they have been here all along.

 >Who are "they"?

 >I'm referring to those who pilot the UFOs which look like
 >physical, manufactured aircraft of some sort (as opposed to
 >blobs of light, for instance). In other words, a technologically
 >advanced race or hominid species with whom we share this planet,
 >and always have.

You make a lot of assumptions about who 'they' are with so
little data to go on.

 >>When it comes to claims of being from Zeta Reticuli, we should
 >>remember that disinformation is a powerful tool. We ordinary
 >>human beings utilize it all the time.

 >Yes, and may unwittingly promote it.

 >Yes, they do.

No, _you_ do.

 >What has always amazed me is that abductees, contactees, and
 >others (even "channelers") buy into or swallow, hook, line, and
 >sinker, anything that they're told by UFO occupants, in terms of
 >who they are, where they come from, and what they're up to.

 >It seems to me that if you won't buy a bridge from the first
 >human con-artist you meet on the street, why in the world would
 >you assume that information from a seemingly non-human source is
 >truthful or factual? It's simply not sound, logically speaking.

You should take your own advice.

1. You don't seem to understand what "ley lines" really are.

2. You refer to polar regions as if some clear link has been
established between these regions and UFOs.

3. You refer to UFO pilots as a "technologically advanced race
or hominid species with whom we share this planet, and always
have" when you don't know who or what "UFO pilots" really
are... or are not.

4. You warn of disinformation yet fall for it... hook, line and
sinker.

Mike, I know where you are coming from because I've been there
myself. Now go slap some cold water on your face, look yourself
in the mirror and ask, "What do I _really_ know about UFOs and
how much do I only think I know?"

Do this every day until you come to the realization that you
don't know squat - then you will begin to search for the truth.


A. Hebert








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 1

                             Re: Corso - Bennett

From: Colin Bennett <colin@bennettc25.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 09:07:12 -0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 14:50:16 -0500
Subject: Re: Corso - Bennett


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 00:28:38 EST
 >Subject: Re: Corso

 >>From: Kelly Peterborough kellymcg@attcanada.ca
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 14:31:07 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Corso - Peterborough

Hi all List Bears,

I am so glad that there has been such a splendid response to my
original suggestion that there be a List musical. I comment here
on the replies of Kelly and Robert Gates. List Bears might wish
to send in further sketches and characterisations, suggestions
for scenes and titles of books. It would be a change from doom-
laden "objective" factoids, which are enough to make warthogs
weep with boredom and whales turn over and die through grief.


Kelly,

Let me see if I get this right..... "What is Corso" is on third,
"Who is Corso" is on Second, and "Where is Corso" is on
first.....  So is the short stop "That is Corso?":)

The movie on this players life will be titled: The Legend, the
Man

The sound track will feature such hits as:

"In the mine with ET.." (with the Grey chorus)
"Fly me in your time machine"  (with Crash Landing and the Nazi's)
"J Edgar and Me"  (with the Black Bags)
"I worked for IKE"  (with the Secret Agent Chorus)

Any suggestions for the title of the book?  :)

 >>Robert! It was my idea! The book would be entitled: That
 >>Enigmatic Corso Thing. And the chapters would be entitled 1. Who
 >>is Corso? with the subtitle Hint: He is Not Colin Bennet. 2.
 >>What is Corso? Hint: It is not Colin Bennet. Where is Corso?
 >>Hint: Dead. When is Corso? Hint: One Minute to Midnight. Why is
 >>Corso? Hint: Speculation allowed. How much is Corso? Hint: You
 >>get what you pay for.

Well Kelly and Robert,

Thank you for your great and extremely amusing suggestions!
More, please. But I do hope that you are aware Kelly that in
opening my posts you are are visiting those parts of the List
that your mother warned you about. This is the dark side of town
darling, where, like Alice's Queen, most Bad Folk believe in a
dozen impossible things before breakfast.

We could have another scene in our musical:

The killers of Easter Bunnies on the straight side of town, that
is a gang of "factuals" (nice phrase don't you think Kelly) led
by Iron Age Master, Mother Hall, capture and eat "unscientifics"
and who go back to Straight town where they drape all the legs
of their grand pianos lest they become too inspirational and
imaginative as art objects.

Kelly you say that you have just proved that Postmoderism fails
as an art form.. But the terms failure and success in postmodern
thinking are largely meaningless. These are analogue terms, and
largely cancel one another out in any postmodern evaluation. For
instance, Leslie and Adamski's Flying Saucers Have Landed and
Corso's The Day After Roswell may not amount to much in old
aesthetic "literary" evaluation. But on the contrary, I can tell
you this - these two books tell you more about modern society
than thousands of so-called "literary" novels, now forgotten
almost completely. This is the very crude outline of the
postmodern view of a "text". A text in this postmodern sense can
include everything from the faces of Garbo or Dietrich to the
blitzed face of the Ramey memorandum, through engineering
manuals an even wiring diagrams. They are all connected through
symbol and image, inference, shape and form. They are all
stories in the way, mythological journeys. They form a family of
complex multi-faceted responses by means of which we reason,
navigate, and discover, and don't let the Nazi shrinks and the
Stalinist mechanicals tell you otherwise.

In many posts, I have outlined this view as an approach to what
I myself have called the New Ufology. I intend send a series of
UFOupdates List posts very soon outlining the origins and theory
of postmodernism. They will bring screaming furies about my head
from the Stalinist and steam footplate pre-moderns, but I love
dining off their fried entrails, as previous posts have proved.
There were so many entrails lost that I was left with no
contenders in the ring. I thought to myself as I stood there
alone with the equally puzzled referee, is their something I
thought wrong with the water supply in America, or aren't they
glad to see me?

Unfortunately these views are far too sophisticated for the nuts
and bolts crowd, most of whom have an extremely limited
"scientific" education, that is if science can ever be regarded
as a liberal education in any sense at all. Little do they
realise the the idea of a nut and bolt as metaphor is a social
text in itself, derived from old industrial equations long
turned to virtual dust by a media society. Example: input=finite
poster of Marilyn Monroe by finite artist. Output? Infinity!

This is where postmodernism comes in. We simply must give New
Ufology a nes classy poise and intellectual sophistication,
recsue from the railway minds of the factual. I am preparing a
post entitle Deconstructing Fact. I cannot see for the life of
me why, given the present state of the world, good minds still
stick to input=output mechanical assumptions familiar to a few
generations of pre-Planck 19th century grocers and none else in
all history.

In this respect, every culture sooner or later comes across
problems it cannot solve. Examples are the 17th century problem
with accelerated kinematics until Newton's Prncipia Mathematica
and the Calculus came along. On a much smaller scale of course,
reasoning by analogy, Ufology has a similar crisis with MJ12 and
what might be called the Corso Syndrome. Ufology has failed to
solve these things, and this is exactly the finite historical
moment of the need to create a new paradigm. The MJ12 problem
alone (likeY2K) means that we need to create a whole new theory
concerning the nature of what we call information. I call this
New Ufology (my term, see my post Fourth Day Like Four Long
Months of absence) The nut and bolters see information as the
pancake-piling of what they called "facts" (harpies let lose by
Sir Francis Bacon after being under ice for a thousand years)and
this has almost brought Ufology to its knees weighed under by
such filing cabinets, document boxes, and security
classifications as have never been seen since the fossilised
monarchies of the Europe of old Franz Joseph. Kafka himself died
of this bureacratic dust.

Meantime, please read my Fourth Day Like Four Long Months of
Absence post. But I trust you Kelly, though you will never be
the same you won't bolt for the undergrowth as some I could
mention (Now Mistress Wendy Connors, and Mother Hall, you're not
to peek at this post, now - I will know if you have done!).


Colin (Bad Man) Bennett

Let Colin's Combat Diaries make you a star!

Politics of the Imagination: "For sheer ability Colin Bennett
probably has no equal_a marvellous work."
Kate Miller, UFO Magazine UK, September 2002
Colin Bennett's "Metaphysics of the Moving Image" coming in Fortean
Times 168, now just gone to press. Don't miss the story of NASA and
James Oberg's attack on hoax accusations






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 1

                       Re: Laughlin Conference - Velez

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 04:25:27 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 14:52:17 -0500
Subject: Re: Laughlin Conference - Velez


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 16:34:43 +0000
 >Subject: Re: Laughlin Conference

 >>From: Royce J. Myers III - The Watchdog <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 06:27:20 -0800 (PST)
 >>Subject: Re: Laughlin Conference

 ><snip>

 >>Sean David Morton, indeed. It really is amazing the conferneces
 >>this guy winds up getting invited to despite the amny times he's
 >>been exposed as a liar. I'm equally amazed by the success of
 >>these "conferences" each year. It really is a quandary for the
 >>credible and serious researcher/investigator to find a forum to
 >>present legitimate information.

 >>Here you have some people who have worked extremely hard,
 >>dedicating their time, energy, finances and other resources. On
 >>the other side, you have a lot of morons out there either
 >>creatively producing 'research', simply making up the absurd,
 >>ripping off everyone else under the sun and telling everyone
 >>exactly what they want to hear.

 >>Guess I could on, but I'd be rehashing much of what I've been
 >>saying for some time now and much of what a number of people on
 >>this List already know.....


 >Royce and List,

 >Something that galls me about these circus conferences full of
 >demagogues and frauds is that all too many "name" ufologists on
 >the side of the good guys insist on participating, thereby
 >giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

 >I am talking about some people whom I consider to be friends and
 >colleagues who ought to know better. Apparently they consider
 >themselves to be Teflon-coated, but they only tar themselves by
 >participating and further the news media misperceptions that
 >there is no difference between allegedly scientific researchers
 >and the kooks and crazies, and/or opportunists.

Hi Dick,

You wrote:

 >They ought to boycott and help to isolate and marginalize these
 >scumbags.

'Sometimes' the quality or level of work that someone can produce
is not in direct proportion to their level or quality of personal
character.

And... you remember what happened to the 'Teflon Don' don't you?
Sooner or later the public will begin to see these individuals
for the self-serving, money-grubbing, self-aggrandizing mis-
fires that they are.

Let nature take its course. It's all a part of 'cleaning house.'
Something that the field of 'ufology' is in dire need of. My
mother used to say (in Spanish) "Tell me who you associate with,
(who your friends are) and I'll tell you who _you_ are."

Mom was a wise lady.

Royce... you keep in there kicking ass on these low-lifes. It's
a public service of the highest order.


Regards,

John Velez

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

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/petition








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 1

                      Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 03:07:05 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 14:57:27 -0500
Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Hatch


 >From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 20:40:57 +0100
 >Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs

<snip>

 >Other than speculation I don't know of any factual evidence for
 >"ley lines". If anyone knows of such evidence I would also like
 >to see it. However, I reflected on my own life and have
 >discovered empirical evidence of my "lay lines". I looked back
 >through my diary and using aeronautical charts I found the exact
 >geographical locations of every location where I have had sexual
 >intimacy on this planet.


Hello Josh:


Hahahahahaha! [burp!]


'Lay lines'. Why didn't I think of that?

Heck, I used to play bass in a pickup joint in San Mateo. Villa
Hotel lounge, Charlie Blackwell Trio. Drummer was Tom Widdecomb
who played with some of the biggest jazz bands ever.

Blackwell looked and sounded, well, black. He had a terrific
voice, something like Nat King Cole only more powerful. Dumb as
a sack of rocks and kinda bull-headed, but not a bad guy.

Widdecomb was a psychological mess, but funny at times.
Blackwell maintained he was of American Indian descent... he
looked like he could be 10.3% indian, but his brother looked
like Amos and Andy.

Speaking of which, one time some lady asked Charlie if he was
really Indian. "That's what my mother told me" he replied. Tom
and I went to the coffee shop.

Out of the blue, Tom turns to me and says, in classic George
Kingfish Stevens style:

"Mmmmooooaaah, Kowabunga Andy!"

Knocked me over.


Best

- Larry

PS: I once asked what "ley lines" were, myself. Pretty simple
really. Somebody took various locations of myth and legend, drew
lines on a map, and built a new myhthology out of that. Standard
air-head fodder with a British twist.

= = =









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 1

                 Re: More On Wrong Roswell Dig Site - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 03:27:08 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 15:00:13 -0500
Subject: Re: More On Wrong Roswell Dig Site - Hatch


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 00:38:40 EST
 >Subject: Re: More On Wrong Roswell Dig Site

 >>From: Brad Sparks
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 23:18:17 EST
 >>Subject: More On Wrong Roswell Dig Site

 >>I have received more discrepant coordinates for the Debris Field
 >>and even the site where the UNM did the archaeological
 >>excavation. My thanks to Larry Bryant for "digging" out the
 >>email copies from the packet of UNM documents that he pressed
 >>them to release.

<snip>

 >Hi Brad,

 >Awhile back I received the following:

 >Coordinates for the various sites associated with the Roswell
 >Incident:

<snip>

I don't want to repost the same sets of numbers here, but just
to crow a little bit.

Taking a mental average of the various highly similar
coordinates, I found that my earlier estimate was only off by a
few miles at most.

While that sounds pretty far off, all I had to go on were
various text descriptions of the travails of the earlier
researchers (Friedman, Randle and others) just trying to get to
the place, plus what little clues I could get from old maps;
dirt roads etc.

Good maps are a wonderful thing really. I don't know of any
other printed media that puts as much information onto a single
page, and in a graphical form that anyone can visualize. For
these studies, they are indispensable.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 1

                      Re: Necessary Speculation - White

From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 10:42:13 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 15:03:14 -0500
Subject: Re: Necessary Speculation - White


 >From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:42:48 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Necessary Speculation

 >>From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 21:07:46 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Necessary Speculation

<snip>

 >Maybe if it happened to enough 'professionals and researchers'
 >they would get up off their judgmental asses and start
 >investigating a phenomenon that is affecting thousands of
 >their neighbors. Which may one day affect them!

Hmmm. From what I've heard on the 'Strange Days... Indeed' show,
Errol Bruce-Knapp hosts on CFRB Toronto, abductees are fairly
numerous. Kind of makes you wonder why there _haven't_ been
mainstream scientists among them, right?

Or mainstream high-ranking military officers, politicians,
corporate executives, judges, police, TV evangelists, movie
stars, you name it. Maybe the aliens have been doing some
screening?

Or is it that big name professionals learned early on to keep
their mouths shut. I wonder too if any big name professionals
who have been abducted may have contacted Dr. Greer, and been
rejected by Dr. Greer's project, and may be ready to 'come out'
at some point, perhaps upon successful disclosure of the UFO
craft themselves.


Eleanor White








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 1

                      Re: Necessary Speculation - Mott

From: Wm. Michael Mott <mottimorph@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 13:36:16 -0600
Fwd Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 15:12:39 -0500
Subject: Re: Necessary Speculation - Mott


 >From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 03:13:15 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Necessary Speculation

 >My own personal theory is; that _all_ evening news weathermen/
 >women are aliens living among us. Watch the 'Weather Channel'
 >for more than a half-an-hour and it'll trigger more severe brain
 >seizures than ten flickering Japanese cartoons all playing
 >simultaneously! ;)


John,

ROTFL!

You mean the "Fertility Channel?"

Hybridization before our unsuspecting eyes?

--Mike








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 1

                      Re: Necessary Speculation - Velez

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 15:04:52 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 15:14:22 -0500
Subject: Re: Necessary Speculation - Velez


 >From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 12:08:41 -0800 (PST)
 >Subject: Re: Necessary Speculation

 >>From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >>To: by way of UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 10:58:14 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Necessary Speculation

 >>It's always puzzled me why "MILABs" are often lumped
 >>in with UFO abductions in popular literature.

 >Because supposedly people have been abducted by joint teams of
 >apparent aliens and military personnel.

 >One theory that might account for some of these accounts is that
 >the witness is indeed abducted, and the "aliens" are a bit of
 >theatre introduced to make the experience sound totally spurious
 >to anyone who might listen.

 >Why would the military abduct citizens? I can think of any
 >number of reasons. Given the staggering intelligence black
 >budget and the very real history of MK-ULTRA, it would be naive
 >to dismiss the idea out of hand.

 >In the "Purple Justice" case in France, Frank Fontaine was
 >abducted by an intelligence unit and "vanished," only to appear
 >days later thinking he had been snatched by aliens (shades of
 >Travis Walton).

 >Dr. Jacques Vallee's excellent book "Revelations" has the
 >details.

Hi Mac,

I couldn't agree more with your following statement:

 >Needless to say, this is disturbing territory. While I think
 >most of it is self-perpetuating myth, I think there is indeed
 >something real going on.

While we're 'speculating' here... I think the Intelligence
community would be remiss in its duty if it was not monitoring a
selected few individuals who are reporting 'abduction' events.

And...

In consideration of the clandestine LSD and syphilis experiments
of the past that were inflicted on unwitting human participants,
I wouldn't put _anything_ past the military/gubbamint.

The CIA while working in conjunction with the military was
busted smuggling cocaine into the country not so very long ago.
A more pertinent question at this juncture might be, "What
_wouldn't_ they try to do using the American people as lab
rats?"

Sadly, It'd be a shorter list, that's for sure.


Warm regards,

John Velez

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

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/petition







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 1

                       Re: Abduction Question - Velez

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 15:06:18 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 15:16:36 -0500
Subject: Re: Abduction Question - Velez


 >From: Tom Bowden <tomrbowden@yahoo.com>
 >Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 16:57:05 -0800 (PST)
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Subject: Re: Abduction Question

 >>From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 14:53:03 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Abduction Question

 ><snip>

 >>Simple solution to the research money problem:

 >>I would like to take this opportunity to encourage everyone to
 >>support this CUFOS abduction study with _dollars_ by subscribing
 >>to the journal or just as a donation that can be earmarked for
 >>use by the abduction project. If you haven't already subscribed
 >>to the journal, 'now' is always a good time to do it. The people
 >>at CUFOS are doing important, necessary research that _should
 >>be_ supported in a practical way by the members of the larger
 >>*UFO community. *That's means _us_ and our dollars!

 >>If we can't 'put our money where our mouths are' then we really
 >>don't have much right to 'mouth off' in public forums.

 >>Support CUFOS with greenbacks.

 ><snip>

 >If CUFOS is ready to take back the hatchet job they did on Ed
 >Walters, then I might consider donating.

Hi Tom,

I can respect your withholding of support from CUFOS based on an
issue that you have problems with. But as I mentioned in my
post, you can 'earmark' a donation to go _specifically_ to the
Abduction Monitoring Project. A study that I'm sure you'll agree
is worthy of our support.

Far be it for me to question a man who is taking a stand based
on his sensibilities and principles. If you can steer your way
clear to separate the two issues in your mind, I'm sure that any
support you can give to the Abduction Monitoring Project will be
greatly appreciated by all concerned.


Regards,

John Velez


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

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/petition








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 1

                         Faded Disc Research Update

From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net>
Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 13:06:17 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 15:34:39 -0500
Subject: Faded Disc Research Update


I am please to announce the acquisition of a previously unknown
recorded interview of Major Donald E. Keyhoe. This recording was
made in the studios of Mutual News on December 27, 1961 and
broadcast on January 2, 1962. The quality of the recording is
exceptional.

A pristine copy of the recording from the NICAP Press Conference
of March 28, 1966 has also been obtained. Speakers were Major
Donald E. Keyhoe and J. B. Hartranft.

In 1964 a television show entitled, "Community Dialogue" hosted
by Harry Clarkson, was broadcast. It was a panel discussion
regarding the UFO phenomenon, government views of UFOs and
Adamski's photographs. Panelists included: George Adamski, Dr.
Mark Harrison, Chairman of the American University Physics
Department, Dr. B. L. Clark, Director of the U. S. Naval
Observatory and Dr. Norman L. Trot, Theologian.


Wendy Connors








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 1

                 Re: More On Wrong Roswell Dig Site - Velez

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 15:10:07 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 15:38:33 -0500
Subject: Re: More On Wrong Roswell Dig Site - Velez


 >From: Jim Houran <JHouran@siumed.edu>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 14:52:38 -0600
 >Subject: Re: More On Wrong Roswell Dig Site

 >>From: Tom Carey <TCarey1947@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 10:58:37 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: More On Wrong Roswell Dig Site

 >>>From: Brad Sparks
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 23:18:17 EST
 >>>Subject: More On Wrong Roswell Dig Site

 >>Brad Sparks has done a dis-service, not only to the on-going
 >>investigation, but to himself. In the future, I will no longer
 >>provide him with any information whatsoever regarding Roswell.

 >Hello, List and Tom:

 >I find your reaction to Brad Sparks' post shocking and basically
 >hypocritical, Tom.

 >You recently portrayed me as bailing out of a debate with David
 >Rudiak, and yet you now portray Mr. Sparks as a traitor of sorts
 >because he is initiating a debate.

 >Further, that debate is on an issue that is most relevant to the
 >subject at hand... a geographical verification of the debris
 >field.

 >I do not know Brad Sparks personally or professionally, but if
 >his accounting of his negative experiences re: asking for data
 >is reliable (and I have had similar ones myself), then he raises
 >legitimate questions.

 >Perhaps he has his numbers wrong (and is simply looking for
 >clarification and education), or worse, perhaps some researchers
 >have their location wrong.

 >Brad Sparks deserves the benefit of the doubt re: his motivation
 >for asking his questions.

 >I, for one, congratulate him for taking an empirical approach
 >and attempting to cross-check "facts" of the case. In my
 >opinion, that is a typical and responsible action of a careful
 >researcher.


Hi Jim, All,

I just wanted to chime in for a second to add my own 'ditto' to
the sentiments expressed by Jim. Unlike Jim, I have interacted
with Brad in the past and for many years now via this List. I am
appalled at, and resent the way Tom has tried to impugn his
character. Brad has _always_ shown himself to be an honest and
straight arrow. I have nothing but the highest respect for our
Mr. Sparks.

Rage on Brad. Ask your questions and damn the torpedoes.

BTW Jim, your thoughtful, rational voice has been a welcome
addition to the List. I have read and enjoyed all of your
contributions thus far and I look forward to hearing more from
you in future.


Sincerely,

John Velez,
UFO UpDates List member speaking strictly for myself

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

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/petition








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 1

                      Re: Necessary Speculation - Velez

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 15:11:53 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 15:41:31 -0500
Subject: Re: Necessary Speculation - Velez


 >From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 23:54:12 +0100
 >Subject: Re: Necessary Speculation


Hiya Josh,

You wrote:

 >I respect that John Velez and others certainly believe they
 >have been abducted by aliens but the nature of their belief has
 >not been thoroughly studied by a multidisciplinary team of
 >professionals. I feel that must happen before we can get any
 >closer to the true nature of their claims.

First let me say that I agree. I have been calling for just such
a multidisciplinary investigation for years. As for the basis of
my "belief" that I have been abducted... I ran into a a large
UFO back in 1977 while on my way home from a friend's house. The
'object' was no more than 50 ft or so away from me.

It was silent.
It had no wings or 'engine' that I could see.
It was 'hovering,' completely stationary when first observed.
It was shaped like a slightly flattened (American) football.

It wasn't a...
plane
balloon
bird
kite
helicopter
or anything else that is usually observed in the sky. Ergo,
'UFO'.

That, plus about a hundred other such events, experiences and
physical manifestations has convinced me beyond doubt that I am
dealing with a very real, nuts and bolts phenomenon. So much so
that is impossible for me to ignore it all. It would mean
denying my own life.


Regards,

John Velez


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

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/petition









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 1

                       Re: Laughlin Conference - Velez

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 15:14:45 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 15:44:48 -0500
Subject: Re: Laughlin Conference - Velez


 >From: Tom King <tomking2030@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 20:33:32 +0000
 >Subject: Re: Laughlin Conference

 >>From: Bill Hamilton <skyman22@fastmail.fm>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 13:31:21 -0800
 >>Subject: Re: Laughlin Conference

<snip>

 >>I have issued statements on Planet X to help distinquish this
 >>fiction from the facts, but for some mysterious reason I am not
 >>one of those to appear on the Panel. Humph! I would like to
 >>suggest Bob Young. Maybe he could bring something to the table.

 >Bill,

 >I hope you're kidding about Bob Young. I'm still waiting for his
 >response to John Velez's post from weeks back. Until Bob can
 >respond to those direct questions by Velez he can stay away from
 >UpDates with this garbage talk.


Hi Tom,

You wrote:

 >Since Bob didn't respond to those questions. His silence proves
 >to me he doesn't investigate anything he's talking about.

Don't hold your breath. I didn't expect to get a straight answer
when I asked those questions. He has never done it for anybody
else who asked him specific and legitimate questions in the
past. I have no reason to expect him to suddenly 'change colors'
and answer/respond to, mine. (Directly, without the side-
stepping and run-around.)

The thing that gets me is; when everybody on the List was
calling for his head on a silver platter, I was one of the few
who defended his right to have his _equal_ say on the List. I
almost regret that now.


Regards,

John Velez


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

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/petition








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 1

                       Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Mott

From: Wm. Michael Mott <mottimorph@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 14:20:35 -0600
Fwd Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 15:55:47 -0500
Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Mott


 >From: Amy Hebert <yellowrose129@attbi.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 02:37:48 -0600
 >Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs

 >According to Paul Devereux at the URL you list:

 >"The first thing I can assure you is that what is talked about
 >in New Age journals, workshops and groups today about 'leylines'
 >is mainly a combination of misunderstanding, old falsehoods,
 >wishful thinking and downright fantasy."

 >"Ley lines" may exist as a result of fringe groups but this is not
 >scientific evidence that ley lines have anything to do with the
 >electromagnetic field of the earth and/or flight paths of UFOs.


Amy,

"Fringe" or not, there is evidence for these electromagnetic
anomalies. Just as there is for the "fringe" topic of UFOs.

The problem is not with the data, but with the interpretation. I
see nothing mystical here, but it would seem that there is
enough information out there which would support a proposition
of a hypothesis that UFOs utilize the EM field of the Earth to
some degree, at least when they are in the near vicinity of it.
However, there are probably several things going on:

1) New Age delusion

2) Misinterpretation of plasmas and other natural anomalies as UFOs, and the
confusing of them with aerial craft of unknown origin

3) The interaction of intense EM fields (perhaps naturally occurring and
Earth-generated in certain regions) on unwitting human beings, and resultant
"real" experiences which are actually internal

4) Real UFOs (aircraft) coming and going from and along the same areas of
heightened EM fields, for purposes of propulsion and navigation, not to
mention speed.

5) Top secret military aircraft which are thrown into the mix from time to
time.

It's quite possible that number 4 on this list might represent the rarest of
all these occurences.

 >You make a lot of assumptions about who 'they' are with so
 >little data to go on.

Read my book and you'll see just how much data I have about who
"they" are. There is _considerable_ data to indicate a more-or-
less native presence of an ancient humanoid culture on this
planet that predates our own. This data dates back into the
utmost antiquity of human knowledge, experience, and traditions.

You can check out the research, bibliography and sources then,
before you make the "assumption" that there is little data to go
on.

 >>>When it comes to claims of being from Zeta Reticuli, we should
 >>>remember that disinformation is a powerful tool. We ordinary
 >>>human beings utilize it all the time.

 >>Yes, and may unwittingly promote it.

 >>Yes, they do.

 >No, _you_ do.

No, I do not. What exactly is your point of view here? Eternal
agnosticism on this topic?

 >>What has always amazed me is that abductees, contactees, and
 >>others (even "channelers") buy into or swallow, hook, line, and
 >>sinker, anything that they're told by UFO occupants, in terms of
 >>who they are, where they come from, and what they're up to.

 >>It seems to me that if you won't buy a bridge from the first
 >>human con-artist you meet on the street, why in the world would
 >>you assume that information from a seemingly non-human source is
 >>truthful or factual? It's simply not sound, logically speaking.

 >You should take your own advice.

First, of all, my theories in this matter are based on real
data. Like I said, read the book and you'll get a better idea of
what this data is. Or don't. BTW, do you have any published
research on this topic? I'm not being fascetious here (e-mail is
vocally inflectionless, after all), but I'd like to see and
evaluate *your* point of view.

 >1. You don't seem to understand what "ley lines" really are.

You don't seem to comprehend the connection I'm making between
the Earth's naturally occurring energy fields and the way they
may be utilized by an advanced technology.

 >2. You refer to polar regions as if some clear link has been
 >established between these regions and UFOs.

I don't know how old you are, nor how long you've been
researching, but a polar connection to UFOs has been speculated
upon for many decades (and outside of "hollow earth" circles).
UFO sightings in the Arctic and Antarctic where quite numerous
among sea-going vessels and seafarers of earlier times, and
these events were recorded in much detail and with great
fascination.

Expand your mind a little bit and check into Cathie's world grid
theories. Then get back to me.

Aside from this, there is undeniable evidence of a hidden source
for this phenomenon, on our own planet. This evidence points not
solely to remote regions such as the polar ones, but also to
subterranean and suboceanic places of origin.

 >3. You refer to UFO pilots as a "technologically advanced race
 >or hominid species with whom we share this planet, and always
 >have" when you don't know who or what "UFO pilots" really
 >are... or are not.

And you do - or do not? Do you believe that dozens of described
humanoid forms all come to this one tiny planet, more or less
simultaneously, from a hundred different planets in interstellar
space? Do you really think the odds favor such a thing?

Given that, despite the outlandishness of their "first
impression" made upon witnesses, such beings exhibit something
in common in almost every case - they conform to an
_Earthly_Vertebrate_Template, one head, two eyes, two legs, two
arms, central trunk, phalanges, essentially mammalian,
reptilian, or hominid, and HUMANOID.

Occam's razor would indicate that this is most likely _not_ the
case, and all of these forms spring from the biodiversity of the
Earth:

'Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitas.'

or

Plurality should not be posited without necessity.

 >4. You warn of disinformation yet fall for it... hook, line and
 >sinker.

Respectfully, I submit to you that I'm in all likelihood more on
guard against disinformation than you yourself may be. In fact,
I refute it in a variety of venues, quite often.

 >Do this every day until you come to the realization that you
 >don't know squat - then you will begin to search for the truth.

Amy, I submit to you that _you_ haven't got a clue, and your
mind is so closed with a self-deluded non-scientific method
masquerading as the scientific one, i.e. Consider all the
possibilities and evaluate _all_ evidence, without dismissing
anything out of hand. Theories are to be proved, and not
disproved.

In terms of circumstantial evidence and logical analysis, I
assure you that my point of view in terms of the origin and
nature of UFOs and their occupants is at least on a par with
your own, and quite possibly much more informed and well-
researched.

I guess I'd have to see your data to make that determination in
the final analysis. You might want to try that yourself.


Best regards,

--Mike








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 2

             CI: Space Shuttle Columbia Disintegrates Over Texas

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 12:20:58 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 23:13:51 -0500
Subject: CI: Space Shuttle Columbia Disintegrates Over Texas


Cydonian Imperative
2-1-03

Space Shuttle Columbia Disintegrates Over Texas
by Mac Tonnies

http://www.mactonnies.com/cydonia.html

This morning a friend called to let me know that the space
shuttle Columbia had disintegrated before a scheduled landing.
Somehow, this news came as more of a punch in the face than when
I learned of the terrorist attacks of 2001. Flawed and short-
sighted as it is, NASA is a uniquely American institution
capable of doing truly awe-inspiring things given the budget and
initiative. The recent announcement of Project Prometheus, a
long-overdue effort to use nuclear energy in space in the
peaceful pursuit of knowledge, is an example.

The loss of Columbia is a profound loss that raises important
questions about the future of our already tenuous manned
presence in space. It could be argued that better technology
could have prevented this setback; the shuttle program utilizes
hardware that, if operated in the private sector, would be
considered laughably obsolete. But no one is to blame, and the
loss of the Columbia's crew remains a monumental waste of human
potential that trancends national boundaries. The seven
astronauts killed in the mishap were humanity's envoys, avatars
of our inherent exploratory spirit. We badly need more people
like them.

I argue that the demise of the Columbia and its crew shouldn't
hold us back. Their death should be a rallying call for new,
more efficient and more reliable space transportation systems.
In my opinion, the space shuttle concept, as manifested by NASA,
begs replacement. The time has surely come to broaden our
conception of space and the definition of our role in its
uncompromising vastness.

Let's continue to expand, establishing a permanent beachhead in
the sky.

-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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 2

                              Re: Corso - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 15:22:42 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 23:15:20 -0500
Subject: Re: Corso - Gates


 >From: Tom Bowden <tomrbowden@yahoo.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 17:05:06 -0800 (PST)
 >Subject: Re: Corso


 >Listers, please! Corso has been dead for years.

 >Can we please stop beating on his corpse?

Not beating the corpse, but because Corso told the story
it is open to discussion

 >I hope to have heard the last about this unfortunate
 >episode.

Corso's story will be around for many years... like AA, like
MJ-12, like Billy Meir and others, and will be talked about for
years. Remember Corso told storys, (seeded ET technology) that
in the final analysis, cannot be verified.  He told storys about
NAZI time machine, told storys about meeting ET in a mine at
White Sands, and told storys about an ET time machine vehicle in
1959.. again, not verifiable.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 2

                 Re: EW: Space Shuttle Columbia Lost - Velez

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 15:27:08 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 23:18:59 -0500
Subject: Re: EW: Space Shuttle Columbia Lost - Velez

All,

I'd just like to express my deepest sympathy for the families
who lost loved ones that were near and dear to them. My
heartfelt prayers are with them.

An International tragedy.


John Velez

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

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/petition







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 2

                       Re: Abduction Question - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 15:28:04 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 23:24:46 -0500
Subject: Re: Abduction Question - Gates


 >From: Tom Bowden <tomrbowden@yahoo.com>
 >Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 16:57:05 -0800 (PST)
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Subject: Re: Abduction Question

 >>From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 14:53:03 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Abduction Question

 ><snip>

 >>Simple solution to the research money problem:

 >>I would like to take this opportunity to encourage everyone to
 >>support this CUFOS abduction study with _dollars_ by subscribing
 >>to the journal or just as a donation that can be earmarked for
 >>use by the abduction project. If you haven't already subscribed
 >>to the journal, 'now' is always a good time to do it. The people
 >>at CUFOS are doing important, necessary research that _should
 >>be_ supported in a practical way by the members of the larger
 >>*UFO community. *That's means _us_ and our dollars!

 >>If we can't 'put our money where our mouths are' then we really
 >>don't have much right to 'mouth off' in public forums.

 >>Support CUFOS with greenbacks.

 ><snip>

 >If CUFOS is ready to take back the hatchet job they did on
 >Ed
 >Walters, then I might consider donating.

Only when somebody shows me the Jewel encrusted helmet from
Roswell..... :) Parphrasing somebody recently, "why are we
beating the dead corpse of Gulf Breeze... enough already... :)
Only kidding Tom.

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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 2

                       Canadian UFO Toll Free Hotline

From: Brian Vike - HBCC UFO <hbccufo@telus.net>
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 12:28:39 -0800
Fwd Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 23:28:45 -0500
Subject: Canadian UFO Toll Free Hotline


Canadian UFO Toll Free Hotline
1-866-262-1989


Hi List Members

I am happy to say I have finally got the Canadian UFO Toll Free
Hotline up and running. The Toll Free line is for Canadian
residents only to make their UFO sighting reports. What I am
going to try to do is to gather '_New_ UFO Reports Only' on the
free line, but I would encourage witnesses to still make their
UFO sighting reports for prior years, buy using e-mail, fax or
snail-mail.

Any and all reports in which I receive through the Hotline,
email, fax or any other means will go to an investigator in
which the sighting took place in. Such as, AUFOSG will get all
the Alberta cases to work on if they choose to, and work this
way right across Canada.

The URL provided below is a page within my site which holds many
of the Canadian UFO Groups. If you are not on it, would you
please be kind enough to supply your contact information so I
can update my page, plus know where to send any cases which come
my way.

http://www.geocities.com/hbccufo/CanOrganization.html

Thank you, and lets hope that the new phone will be good for us
all across Canada.


Take care

Brian Vike   (Yogi)
Independent UFO Field
Investigator/Researcher

HBCC UFO Research
Box 1091
Houston, B.C.
Canada
VOJ-1ZO

Editor: Canadian Communicator (Paranormal Magazine)
Paranormal Magazine
Phone/Fax - 1-250-845-2189
Toll Free From Any Where In Canada
1-866-262-1989
Email - hbccufo@telus.net
hbccufo@yahoo.com
http://www.geocities.com/hbccufo/home.html







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 2

                  Re: Loss Of Space Shuttle Columbia - Bott

From: Murray Bott <murrayb@win.co.nz>
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 09:58:11 +1300 (NZDT)
Fwd Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 23:41:21 -0500
Subject: Re: Loss Of Space Shuttle Columbia - Bott


Greetings List

Today is a sad day for the American Space program and for those
Astronauts lost

My deepest sympathies go out to the families of the astronauts.

Regards
Murray Bott

--
Email : murrayb@win.co.nz
Voice : 64-9-6345285
Snail : PO Box 27117, Mt Roskill, Auckland 1030, New Zealand





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 2

                             Re: Corso - Bennett

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 15:57:31 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 23:42:35 -0500
Subject: Re: Corso - Bennett


 >From: Colin Bennett <colin@bennettc25.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 22:43:17 -0000
 >Subject: Re: Corso

 >>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 00:28:38 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Corso

 >>Let me see if I get this right..... "What is Corso" is on third,
 >>"Who is Corso" is on Second, and "Where is Corso" is on
 >>first..... So is the short stop "That is Corso?"  :)

 >Yes, I got the original Bud Abbot and Lou Costello tape
 >"Whose in Goal" some years ago. Robert, I'm glad you
 >publicly admit to opening my posts and have exhibited a
 >sense of humour rare on this po-faced list of mechanicals.
 >These day they get up to all kind of tricks to give people
 >the impressions that they are not reading my posts. To make
 >sure they are not seen doing such a thing, the mechanicals open my
 >posts on the top of telegraph poles (along side dead deer),
 >in airplane loos, whilst diving under the sea, and by torchlight
 >under the blankets.

 >One woman just out of trauma room after reading Fourth
 >Day Like Four Long Months of Absence, goes for long walks
 >in isolated areas and reads my posts on her Nokia after
 >looking round carefully to see that there is no one in the vicinity,
 >including airplanes overhead.

 >>The movie on this players life will be titled: The Legend, the Man

 >>The sound track will feature such hits as:

 >>"In the mine with ET.." (with the Grey chorus)
 >>"Fly me in your time machine" (with Crash Landing and the Nazi's)
 >>"J Edgar and Me" (with the Black Bags)
 >>"I worked for IKE" (with the Secret Agent Chorus)

 >>Any suggestions for the title of the book? :)

 >Yes, Robert. Try these for size:

 >Mother Hall's enemy
 >Brother Aldrich's Anathaema
 >Mistress Connor's Flight From the Enchanter

Nah, those titles have as much corelation to facts as Corsos
story... thus far.

 >>>Who is Corso?

 >Now you know a liitle more, darling. Watch this space!

 >>>>And I take this opportunity, for the first time, to announce
 >>>>that soon his diary "Dawn of a New Age" will be out in Italy
 >>>>and, subsequently, in several other countries.

 >>>>I'm available to discuss it with anybody interested.

Keep in mind that Corso "diary" is totally different then the
14 hours of video tape with Birnes, and the entire manuscript
that Corso and Birnes put together which supposedly would equate
to three or so books. The next book Corso was going to release
was called "A New Day If You Can Take It." and he had segments
of it out.

 >Sir,

 >Welcome to the most exclusive club in the world, sir. The Corso
 >List Club! It is good to hear from you. I have been defending
 >Lieutenant-Colonel Corso's honour on this List for several

We should avoid defending honor and discuss what is truth, what
is verifiable and so forth. The bottom line is other then "Corso
said.." we have no verifiable information that ET technology was
seeded to the private sector between 1960 and 62, we have no
verifiable information that Corso met with ET in a mine, saw a
Nazi time machine, or ET time machine. We know that Corso came
up with the story, then as he got challenged over it, apparently
kept a book in which he was correcting all the errors.

If you want to discuss defending honor, read Stolen Valor
wherein it is documented about people from high ranking officers
on down to enlisted have stroked their military record, service,
told storys that weren't correct, claimed medals that were not
correct and so forth.

We should look at facts...and that is other then "Corso said.."
we don't have anything else at this point.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 2

                    Faded Disc Research Update - Addendum

From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net>
Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 14:41:31 -0700
Fwd Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 23:43:45 -0500
Subject: Faded Disc Research Update - Addendum


Listers,

My apologies for the incompleteness of the research update.
Here's the part left off of the last paragraph in my previous
posting:

"This recording has also been obtained in pristine condition and
will be preserved on audio CD.

All of these recordings will be made available to interested
researchers at a later time.


Wendy Connors








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 2

                      Re: Magonia Supplement 45 - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 16:20:20 -0600
Fwd Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 23:44:47 -0500
Subject: Re: Magonia Supplement 45 - Clark


 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 21:28:17 +0000
 >Subject: Magonia Supplement 45


 >MAGONIA SUPPLEMENT 45
 >Edited by John Harney (magonia@harneyj.freeserve.co.uk)

 >22 January 2003

 >TRINDADE
 >Gentle Reminder No. 1

 >In our previous issue we revealed that Jerome Clark had
 >announced that new evidence would soon become available which
 >would prove that the Trindade photographs were definitely not a
 >hoax. So far the promised evidence has not been forthcoming. We
 >realise that Jerome Clark is a busy man and that this is perhaps
 >not his most urgent priority at present, so we issue this first
 >and, we hope, last reminder in case it has slipped his mind.

I just now found this helpful reminder from the kindly, if
Jerome Clark-obsessed, folk at Magonia. I will gently remind
them in turn that the new Trindade findings are not mine to
announce and describe and that the individual who made them --
  who is on this List -- will release them when he feels inclined
to do so. He is a busy man, involved in several projects at
once, but in my long experience of him, he always delivers the
goods even if it takes him awhile. Patience, good Magonians, is
the soul of virtue.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 2

                      Re: Necessary Speculation - White

From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 17:59:24 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 23:47:52 -0500
Subject: Re: Necessary Speculation - White


 >From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 23:54:12 +0100
 >Subject: Re: Necessary Speculation

 >>From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >>To: by way of UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 10:58:14 -0500 Subject: Re: Necessary Speculation

<snip>

 >Eleanor, I have seen no evidence other than anecdotal testimony to claim
 >that these days there is a project like MKULTRA or bona fide satanic abuse
 >taking place beyond the claims that have not been proven. Do you have such
 >evidence? I feel that on this list you are somewhat disingenuous regarding
 >your own motivations. You have personally let me know of the nature of your
 >own research and I have examined your website. I don't know whether you
 >feel it is not UFO related or have some other reason for not posting a link
 >on this List. I would suggest you reconsider, place a link, and let those
 >interested come to their own questions or conclusions, as you are raising
 >some parallels to abduction claims. If there are other reasons for
 >nondisclosure you are certainly entitled to your privacy.


Josh -

First, I've been interested in UFOs since childhood - way before
I got involved with MKULTRA and its current-day sequel.

I don't post a link, generally (actually, Errol did post a note
I had sent him off list which did have a link to the mind
control survey in it) because this is a UFO list, and I don't
wish to try to pull the conversations away from UFOs on to mind
control. My site is organized as a pushy, attention-grabbing
site similar to those of the U.S. Patriot Movement, which
attempt to get the public's attention on a wide range of
government crimes. I don't think my site itself would be of
interest to serious UFO researchers.

But there are parallels between UFO and abduction cases and the
more advanced mind control effects. Personally, I think there is
a very strong possibility that today's covert mind control
experimenters got their advanced technology from aliens or
downed alien craft. The leap in technology appears to be well
beyond what one would expect from conventional scientific
progress.

One small sidelight is that we've had about a dozen of our members
feel certain they have seen the three abductee symbols on John
Velez' Abduction Information Center web site. Some don't know
where, but they feel strongly they have.

Our group's scholarly site is that of Cheryl Welsh, founder of
Citizens Against Human Rights Abuse:

http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/~welsh

Our members do in fact have physical evidence too, just as
abductees do.  A couple of pages along that line:

http://www.raven1.net/sabotage.htm
http://www.raven1.net/bcanomal.htm
http://www.mindcontrolforums.com  (implants)

But like abductees, and apparently because the signal types
in use today are well beyond conventional electromagnetic,
we can't prove the painful and debilitating signals themselves
exist. We do know these signals penetrate shielding which
stops conventional electromagnetic signals.

Theoretically, signal types called 'scalars' might have the
shielding penetrating characteristics of today's mind/body
weapons, but we don't know of any hands-on demonstration of such
signals. The web sites claiming to demonstrate scalars are
bogus, in my opinion. (Being an engineer and life long ham radio
operator, I can see that those experiments would work simply on
their conventional signals.)

The Paul Bonacci and Johnny Gosch (use a search engine) cases
show a small hint at MKULTRA like abuse, outside the MKULTRA
programme itself. You have to realize that cults are usually
sponsored by the wealthy, and such groups are very good at
covering up their activities. If you talk to professionals who
counsel and treat MKULTRA and ritual abuse survivors, you will
they have no doubts such activities are continuing.

Just look at the epidemic of pedophilia covered up by people in
high places who lead double lives in the following short
article, if you have doubts about the extent of cover up
efforts:

http://www.raven1.net/pedexample.htm

It doesn't take too many instances of the very potent mind/body
effects, up to and including being slammed around physically and
levitated, your sleep constantly disrupted, and having your
home, car and workplace broken into and sabotaged, before the
target understands that something very real is going on - not
just "bad luck" or "faulty perception".


Eleanor White










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 2

                      Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Hebert

From: Amy Hebert <yellowrose129@attbi.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 17:20:02 -0600
Fwd Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 23:52:24 -0500
Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Hebert


 >From: Wm. Michael Mott <mottimorph@earthlink.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 14:20:35 -0600
 >Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs

 >>From: Amy Hebert <yellowrose129@attbi.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 02:37:48 -0600
 >>Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs

 >>According to Paul Devereux at the URL you list:

 >>"The first thing I can assure you is that what is talked about
 >>in New Age journals, workshops and groups today about 'leylines'
 >>is mainly a combination of misunderstanding, old falsehoods,
 >>wishful thinking and downright fantasy."

 >"Fringe" or not, there is evidence for these electromagnetic
 >anomalies. Just as there is for the "fringe" topic of UFOs.

Hi, Mike:

Your references clearly indicate your orientation and where you
have gathered your "evidence" and information. I have yet to see
any scientific evidence that supports your contentions and you
have not provided such.

 >The problem is not with the data, but with the interpretation. I
 >see nothing mystical here, but it would seem that there is
 >enough information out there which would support a proposition
 >of a hypothesis that UFOs utilize the EM field of the Earth to
 >some degree, at least when they are in the near vicinity of it.

Mike, if you are only proposing a hypothesis, that I can
understand. It's the "information" and "evidence" you use to
support your hypothesis that I question.

This same hypothesis has been proposed for decades but still no
clear scientific data has been presented to support the
contention that UFOs utilize the EM field of the earth to any
degree. You direct me to URL's which contain only more
hypotheses and conjecture but you have yet to point to any
scientific data that supports your thesis. Do you know the
meaning of "scientific data"?

 >However, there are probably several things going on:

 >1) New Age delusion

 >2) Misinterpretation of plasmas and other natural anomalies as UFOs,
 >and the confusing of them with aerial craft of unknown origin

 >3) The interaction of intense EM fields (perhaps naturally occurring
 >and Earth-generated in certain regions) on unwitting human beings, and
 >resultant "real" experiences which are actually internal

 >4) Real UFOs (aircraft) coming and going from and along the same
 >areas of heightened EM fields, for purposes of propulsion and
 >navigation, not to mention speed.

 >5) Top secret military aircraft which are thrown into the mix from
 >time to time.

Anything is possible.

 >It's quite possible that number 4 on this list might represent the
 >rarest of all these occurences.

Same for number 2 and number 3.

 >>You make a lot of assumptions about who 'they' are with so
 >>little data to go on.
 >
 >Read my book and you'll see just how much data I have about who
 >"they" are.

I am _sick-and-tired_ of people telling me to read their books
instead of putting their evidence where their mouths are. This
is a discussion List, you got something to say, say it. If you
don't have the time or inclination to discuss and/or defend your
contentions, then I don't have the time or inclination to read
your book.

 >There is _considerable_ data to indicate a more-or-
 >less native presence of an ancient humanoid culture on this
 >planet that predates our own. This data dates back into the
 >utmost antiquity of human knowledge, experience, and traditions.

No, Mike, you and others have _interpreted_ archeological finds
as supporting the presence of an ancient humanoid culture that
predates our own. This is not the same as scientific data that
actually supports the contention that such beings existed/exist.

It all depends on who is interpreting the data and their motives.

 >You can check out the research, bibliography and sources then,
 >before you make the "assumption" that there is little data to go
 >on.

Since you have yet to present anything that even remotely resembles
scientific research or data, I would not assume your book contains
anything more.

 >No, I do not. What exactly is your point of view here? Eternal
 >agnosticism on this topic?

Nope, scientific inquiry and research.

 >>You should take your own advice.

 >First, of all, my theories in this matter are based on real
 >data. Like I said, read the book and you'll get a better idea of
 >what this data is. Or don't.

I might read your book if you can give me something more
substantial than mere conjecture and speculation.

 >BTW, do you have any published
 >research on this topic?

You've got to be kidding?! Wouldn't touch it with a ten foot
pole unless there was some kind of scientific data to support
such research. You have yet to produce anything that gives me
the slightest interest in such an endeavor. I'd rather study
angels dancing on the head of a pin than any proposed connection
between electromagnetic grids, "ley lines" and UFOs.

Just because you wrote a book on this topic does not mean it is
based on research as in scientific study.

 >I'm not being fascetious here (e-mail is
 >vocally inflectionless, after all), but I'd like to see and
 >evaluate *your* point of view.

This *is* my point of view, Mike. What you see is what you get (see
above).

 >>1. You don't seem to understand what "ley lines" really are.
 >
 >You don't seem to comprehend the connection I'm making between
 >the Earth's naturally occurring energy fields and the way they
 >may be utilized by an advanced technology.

The earth has naturally occurring energy fields and there may be
"advanced" technologies here, there, out there- but you have yet
to demonstrate a clear connection between these variables.

 >>2. You refer to polar regions as if some clear link has been
 >>established between these regions and UFOs.

 >I don't know how old you are, nor how long you've been
 >researching, but a polar connection to UFOs has been speculated
 >upon for many decades (and outside of "hollow earth" circles).
 >UFO sightings in the Arctic and Antarctic where quite numerous
 >among sea-going vessels and seafarers of earlier times, and
 >these events were recorded in much detail and with great
 >fascination.

I'm 49 years young. I've been studying UFOs and related
phenomena since the age of 12 - about 37 years. I began
researching abduction phenomena in 1992 and military technology
in 1997 (and psychology in 1972).

I've probably read most of the materials you reference but have
yet to find anyone able to establish a definitive link
(supported by sound scientific research and data) between UFO
sightings and the earth's polar regions. Just because UFOs have
been sighted over the Artic and Antarctic does not mean there is
a connection between polar regions, UFOs and/or non-human,
"advanced" technologies. Since it is your contention there IS a
connection, the burden of proof is on your shoulders.

 >Expand your mind a little bit and check into Cathie's world grid
 >theories. Then get back to me.

 >Aside from this, there is undeniable evidence of a hidden source
 >for this phenomenon, on our own planet. This evidence points not
 >solely to remote regions such as the polar ones, but also to
 >subterranean and suboceanic places of origin.

This is _your_ interpretation of the information you have
reviewed, Mike. I do not agee with your interpretation.

 >>3. You refer to UFO pilots as a "technologically advanced race
 >>or hominid species with whom we share this planet, and always
 >>have" when you don't know who or what "UFO pilots" really
 >>are... or are not.

 >And you do - or do not? Do you believe that dozens of described
 >humanoid forms all come to this one tiny planet, more or less
 >simultaneously, from a hundred different planets in interstellar
 >space? Do you really think the odds favor such a thing?

I don't believe much of anything, Mike, and I am very careful to
distinguish between speculation and fact. How well you support
your contentions determines the validity attributed to the
hypothesis. You have yet to scratch the surface.

 >Given that, despite the outlandishness of their "first
 >impression" made upon witnesses, such beings exhibit something
 >in common in almost every case - they conform to an
 >_Earthly_Vertebrate_Template, one head, two eyes, two legs, two
 >arms, central trunk, phalanges, essentially mammalian,
 >reptilian, or hominid, and HUMANOID.

These "first impressions" are based on witness testimony. Human
witnesses are complex beings. To assume everything they describe
actually exists in physical reality is not scientific nor
logical.

 >Occam's razor would indicate that this is most likely _not_ the
 >case, and all of these forms spring from the biodiversity of the
 >Earth:

You apply "Occam's razor" to your own theories and beliefs -
  circular logic.

 >'Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitas.'

 >or

 >Plurality should not be posited without necessity.

What are you trying to say, Mike?

 >>4. You warn of disinformation yet fall for it... hook, line and
 >>sinker.

 >Respectfully, I submit to you that I'm in all likelihood more on
 >guard against disinformation than you yourself may be.

We will see... ;> The focus of my current research is deception,
disinformation and psyops.

 >In fact,
 >I refute it in a variety of venues, quite often.

Congratulations.

 >>Do this every day until you come to the realization that you
 >>don't know squat - then you will begin to search for the truth.

 >Amy, I submit to you that _you_ haven't got a clue, and your
 >mind is so closed with a self-deluded non-scientific method
 >masquerading as the scientific one, i.e. Consider all the
 >possibilities and evaluate _all_ evidence, without dismissing
 >anything out of hand. Theories are to be proved, and not
 >disproved.

You, sir, have yet to "prove" anything.

 >In terms of circumstantial evidence and logical analysis, I
 >assure you that my point of view in terms of the origin and
 >nature of UFOs and their occupants is at least on a par with
 >your own, and quite possibly much more informed and well-
 >researched.

You think rather highly of yourself, Mike. At least you have
good self-esteem.

 >I guess I'd have to see your data to make that determination in
 >the final analysis. You might want to try that yourself.


I'm waiting.

A. Hebert







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 2

                     Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Stanford

From: Ray Stanford <dinotracker@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 18:28:53 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 23:55:16 -0500
Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Stanford


 >From: Amy Hebert <yellowrose129@attbi.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 02:37:48 -0600
 >Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs

 >>From: Wm. Michael Mott <mottimorph@earthlink.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 09:02:39 -0600 (CST)
 >>Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs

<snip>

 >Mike, I know where you are coming from because I've been there
 >myself. Now go slap some cold water on your face, look yourself
 >in the mirror and ask, "What do I _really_ know about UFOs and
 >how much do I only think I know?"

 >Do this every day until you come to the realization that you
 >don't know squat - then you will begin to search for the truth.


Thanks, again, Amy for getting a fuzzy thinker told to shape up.
Alas, again, it falls on deaf ears. Yikes!

Ray

"You know my method. It is founded upon the observance of trifles." --
Sherlock Holmes in The Boscombe Valley Mystery





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 2

                Re: EW: Space Shuttle Columbia Lost - Bowden

From: Tom Bowden <tomrbowden@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 16:40:05 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 23:59:07 -0500
Subject: Re: EW: Space Shuttle Columbia Lost - Bowden


 >From: Kurt Jonach - The Electric Warrior <eWarrior@electricwarrior.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 11:08:45 -0800
 >Subject: EW: Space Shuttle Columbia Lost

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

 >The Electric Warrior : Web Log February 1, 2003
 >http://www.electricwarrior.com/

 >Space Shuttle Columbia Lost

 >--------------------------------------------------
 >>>SPACE SHUTTLE COLUMBIA LOST
 >space exploration

 >photo: Shuttle Columbia as seen over Dallas, Texas

http://www.electricwarrior.com/img/ShuttleColumbiaLost.jpg

<snip>

On the heels of this tragedy, I would like to express the hope
that NASA would realize that they must put more resources into
developing (or discovering) an alternative technology to the
current means of space travel. Even the newer developments which
have been publicized are rooted in the same ballistic rocketry
that has been used since the beginning.

It is difficult to understand how an agency like NASA can
steadfastly refuse to pay any attention to the potential of
discovering a new space technology by conducting an in-depth
scientific study of UFOs.

Regardless of the many internecine squabbles in the ufological
community, the one thing that unites us is the realization that
we are dealing with something that is real, and that is
unexplained, and which at least _seems_ to represent a flight
technology beyond our conventional aerodynamics and rocketry.

In the wake of the Challenger tragedy, NASA re-engineered their
policies to allow one voice to stop a planned launch if that one
voice brought up a good reason for the delay or cancellation.
  No one can doubt the wisdom of the new policy.

The next step should be for NASA to allow a minority voice to be
heard on unconventional approaches to new development, such as
the study of UFOs as a potential source of new ideas.  They
should not allow the voice of "conventional wisdom", a la James
Oberg, to put blinders on all the thought processes that might
otherwise lead to some radical new approach with potential for a
real improvement.

I sincerely hope that no more tragedies such as the loss of the
Columbia and crew must occur before NASA wakes up a realizes
that they need to do some serious thinking about their approach
to space travel.


Tom Bowden







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 3

                     Re: Necessary Speculation - Denzler

From: Brenda Denzler <bdenzler1@email.msn.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 21:14:00 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 12:03:00 -0500
Subject: Re: Necessary Speculation - Denzler


 >From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 10:42:13 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Necessary Speculation

 >>From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:42:48 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Necessary Speculation

<snip>

 >>Maybe if it happened to enough 'professionals and researchers'
 >>they would get up off their judgmental asses and start
 >>investigating a phenomenon that is affecting thousands of
 >>their neighbors. Which may one day affect them!

 >Hmmm. From what I've heard on the 'Strange Days... Indeed' show,
 >Errol Bruce-Knapp hosts on CFRB Toronto, abductees are fairly
 >numerous. Kind of makes you wonder why there _haven't_ been
 >mainstream scientists among them, right?

 >Or mainstream high-ranking military officers, politicians,
 >corporate executives, judges, police, TV evangelists, movie
 >stars, you name it. Maybe the aliens have been doing some
 >screening?

 >Or is it that big name professionals learned early on to keep
 >their mouths shut. I wonder too if any big name professionals
 >who have been abducted may have contacted Dr. Greer, and been
 >rejected by Dr. Greer's project, and may be ready to 'come out'
 >at some point, perhaps upon successful disclosure of the UFO
 >craft themselves.


You think there haven't been mainstream scientists among them?

Kerry Mullis, a Nobel Prize winning chemist, has had an
experience that sounds very much like an abduction.  He writes
about it in his book, 'Running Naked Through the Mind Field'.


Brenda









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 3

                 Re: More On Wrong Roswell Dig Site - Randle

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 22:34:46 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 12:21:18 -0500
Subject: Re: More On Wrong Roswell Dig Site - Randle


 >From: Brad Sparks
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 21:36:17 -0500
 >Subject: Re: More On Wrong Roswell Dig Site

 >>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >>Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 11:00:48 EST
 >>Fwd Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 16:38:11 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: More On Wrong Roswell Dig Site - Randle

 >>>From: Brad Sparks
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 20:38:42 -0500
 >>>Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs

 ><snip>

 >Hi Kevin, List,

 >You quoted the wrong posting of mine. It's not the one on "Flight-Paths."

 >The correct posts are at:

 >http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2003/jan/m30-005.shtml

 >http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2003/jan/m27-010.shtml

Good Morning, Brad, List, All -

I don't know what happened there, Brad, All, because the top of
the post, from which I was allegedly quoting is not what I had
forwarded before.

 >>>Far be it for me to defend Don Schmitt (especially since I am
 >>>routinely accused of "ranting" about his various deceptions) but
 >>>this latest takes the cake.

 >>>Let's see if I understand this. Brad is suggesting that Schmitt
 >>>had the wrong site because Loretta Proctor (who said she hadn't
 >>>accompanied Mack Brazel down to the debris field) suggested it
 >>>was some place else.

 >>No that is not correct -- I listed Don Schmitt's site
 >>coordinates, in fact half my list comes from Schmitt in some way
 >>including your own.

First, it's not "Don Schmitt's site", it is the site as
identified by Bill Brazel who took both of us there in 1989. My
information about the location does not come from Schmitt... it
comes from Bill Brazel.

 >>As I understand it from Karl Pflock, others besides Loretta
 >>Proctor identified the BLM survey marker as within the Debris
 >>Field.

Which doesn't explain how she came into possession of that
information because she told me, repeatedly, that she had not
gone out there with Mack Brazel.

 >>By the way, Mack Brazel did not take Schmitt out to the site
 >>either.

Didn't say that he had. Didn't mean to imply that he had. We,
Schmitt and I went out there with Bill Brazel who said he found
bits of debris, who described for us the gouge in the debris
field and who provided us with an orientation for the debris
field.

 ><snip>

 >>>And I gave the information on a map based on what Don Schmitt
 >>>had said, if I interpret the last statement correctly.

 >>And I greatly appreciate your help. You said Schmitt took you to
 >>the site.

Schmitt didn't take me to the site. Bill Brazel took me there in
his pick up truck. He drank beer the whole time. I drank one of
them, which was warm and Don Schmitt refused to drink any beer.
I can't conceive of a situation in which I would say that
Schmitt took me there. In fact I have slides of Bill Brazel on
the debris field... I have slides of Don Schmitt with Bill
Brazel on the debris field.

 ><snip>

 >>>Bud Payne, a New Mexican judge who said he had been chased from
 >>>the debris field by military police took us out to the site.
 >>>When he stopped his truck, we were about three quarters of a
 >>>mile from the stone cairn that marked the western end of the

 >>debris field, but inside that last little flag. In other words,

 >>>another eye witness had just taken us to that very same three
 >>>quarter mile stretch of New Mexican desert.

 >>Indeed, some of the Schmitt-derived coordinates are indeed
 >>spread across 0.8 mile from W to E, but almost exactly W to E.
 >>Is that Schmitt's flight path scenario or yours or Frank
 >>Kaufmann's? I don't think so. I understand the flight path
 >>scenario is supposedly heading SE or ESE -- contrary to the
 >>original scenarios of the object haeding NW.

Let's leave Frank Kaufmann out of this since he was not involved
in the discussion of the debris field. One of the flight path
scenarios, however, came from Arthur Exon who flew over the
sites in 1947.

I will also note you mention Schmitt derived coordinates. Have
you gotten anything from Schmitt specifically, or are these
coordinates filtered through another party?

 >>(The azimuth of the Schmitt coordinates turns out to be 83
 >>degrees rather than the 125 degrees that Bill Doleman of UNM
 >>told me was Schmitt's Roswell scenario. That's between ESE and
 >>SE.)

I'll let you fight that out with Dr. Doleman and Don Schmitt
because I wasn't involved in that.

 ><snip>

 >>>On the other side,
 >>>we have Loretta Proctor, a very nice lady, who did not accompany
 >>>Mack Brazel to the scene, but provided a general location.

 >>Again, Mack Brazel didn't take Schmitt out to the Debris Field either.

And again, I didn't say that. I refer to her comments that Mack
was going to take them out (meaning her and Floyd) but they
declined. So, Mack didn't take her out there and neither did
Bill Brazel who did take Don Schmitt and me out there.

 ><snip>

 >>>That [Loretta Proctor] site, as near as I can
 >>>tell is about a mile to two miles from the debris shown to me by
 >>>Bill Brazel.

 >>That is incorrect. The coordinates are only about 1/4 mile away
 >>from your Schmitt Debris Field. Look it up yourself in my table
 >>(below). These are simply listed in order of latitude sothern to
 >>northern, that's why the Bill Brazel/Vic Golubic figures come
 >>first.

Again, it's not Don Schmitt's debris field.

Loretta Proctor identified a site, down past two twin windmills,
with a small third standing nearby, down along a dirt road, down
among hills and cliffs and beyond a couple of fence lines, to a
point that is a mile or two from the debris field shown to Don
Schmitt and me by Bill Brazel. You seem to indicate another site
identified by Loretta Proctor some time later... Great! Now we
have another location, as if we didn't have enough already.

 >>Latitude N  Longitude W

 >>  *             *         Kevin Randle approx. marking of
 >>                          site map based on Schmitt's ID
 >>                          (Randle Aug. 2002)


This last I still don't understand... Why am I relying on
Schmitt and why am I relying on it in 2002?


 >>>I have been questioned repeatedly about the precise location of
 >>>the debris field and have been reluctant to supply the exact
 >>>coordinates. Why? Because it is on private property with no
 >>>roads that lead to it.

 >>Apparently the Debris Field site(s) is on US Government land and
 >>the Bureau of Land Management has seen fit to suppress the site
 >>coordinates used by the Sci Fi Channel/University of New Mexico
 >>project. See Larry Bryant's message soon to be posted based on
 >>information that Roswell investigators have had for months if
 >>not years.

Yes, it's on BLM land, but it is surrounded by private property.
You can't get to it without crossing private property which
might be why the BLM is reluctant to supply the information. The
land around it is a working ranch and the owners might not be
thrilled with everyone and his or her cousin trying to get to
it.

 ><snip>

 >>>The point is that while Brad has collected precise information,
 >>>he has collected it from those who have not been taken to the
 >>>spot by those involved.

 >>Half the data come from Schmitt and you Kevin -- who were taken
 >>to the spot by "those involved" either family members of
 >>witnesses or witnesses.

 ><snip>

 >>>but we have the right location...

 >>Well, which one?

The one on which Bill Brazel stood and said it was here, with
the gouge over there.

 ><snip>

 >>>and who is to say that Jess Marcel's claim that the field was three
 >>>quarters of a mile long is precise. Maybe it was only half a
 >>>mile, or maybe it was just over a mile, which, of course, puts
 >>>both ends of the debris field as marked in the right location.

 >>>KRandle

 >>Which claim should we believe? Mack Brazel's estimate of 600
 >>feet for the Debris Field, published on July 9, 1947? Or
 >>Marcel's from 30+ years later? Or others'? Does Marcel's 3/4-
 >>mile figure include two sites separated by a gap? Etc.

Well, is Mack Brazel's interview coerced? If so, would that
render it inaccurate? Is Marcel's memory accurate? Bill
Brazel's? I myself mentioned that Marcel's three quarters of a
mile might not be accurate. All I'm saying is that the site that
Dr. Doleman, et.al, surveyed is the same site that Bill Brazel
showed us, the same site that Bud Payne showed us, and the same
site that Tommy Tyree showed us. Period.

KRandle


[* Co-ordinates removed by Moderator --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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 3

                 Re: More On Wrong Roswell Dig Site - Randle

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 22:43:08 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 12:22:42 -0500
Subject: Re: More On Wrong Roswell Dig Site - Randle


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 23:00:32 EST
 >Subject: Re: More On Wrong Roswell Dig Site

 >>From: Tom Carey <TCarey1947@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 10:58:37 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: More On Wrong Roswell Dig Site

 >>>From: Brad Sparks
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 23:18:17 EST
 >>>Subject: More On Wrong Roswell Dig Site

 >>As Kevin has stated in another post, we are certain of the
 >>site. All Brad has done is to try to create a false sense of
 >>confusion regarding the location of the debris field where there
 >>is none to those of us who have been there.

 >He and Kevin have pointed out the descrepencys on where the site
 >was. Kevin points out that Don Schmitt puts the location a
 >little 2 or 3 hundred years west then he does although you could
 >say in the same area. One also gathers from Kevins post that
 >location information that came from Loretta Proctor (although
 >she apparently is a nice person) may not be accurate.



Good Evening, All -

First, I did not say two or three yards, but two or three
hundred feet too far to the west. I have also suggested that Don
Schmitt might claim I put it two to three hundred feet too far
east. But I also suggested that if Jess Marcel's estimate of
size was wrong and the field was a mile long, then both ends
would have been on the right site. I also said that the
archaeological dig was on the right site and the disagreement,
slight though it is, is about the precise east-west edges and
nothing more.

Tom is right here. It is the same place. It really boils down to
the location of the borders, but it is the same place.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 3

                            Thoughts On Columbia

From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 21:39:03 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 12:28:38 -0500
Subject: Thoughts On Columbia


As an aviator (former aviator) we all are lessened by the crash
in the Texas plains of a space shuttle that didn't complete her
mission. Note I use "Her" in the nautical sense, also Columbia
is female as I understand. As a student of history and one who
would be on the next Shuttle (even if it were fueled up on the
next pad today.)

We, as a spacefaring  people must not give up. To give up is to
die, to not look at the night sky and wonder, to not ask, are we
all that exsists, is this just for us? Maybe not, as also are
we the result of a Cosmic crapshoot?

I believe in the God who is there, but I also beleive in the
Human nature to question, to sometimes defy, to quarrel, to be
defying, to fight. That is Human nature, that stubborn,
bullheadedness, sometimes, that is not good, but we still are. We
stand at the threshold, are we we or aren't we spacefarers.

The Russians (whom I admire,) say "Light the candle " for the
supply ship to the space station is going up there tomorrow. it
is up to all of us:

Light the Candle.----GO!


GT McCoy

Speaking as someone who'd ride the next rocket out of 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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 3

                      Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 01:40:59 EST - Goldstein
Fwd Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 12:31:11 -0500
Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Gates


 >From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 20:40:57 +0100
 >Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs

 >>From: Amy Hebert <yellowrose129@attbi.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 00:45:16 -0600
 >>Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs

<snip>

 >Other than speculation I don't know of any factual evidence for
 >"ley lines". If anyone knows of such evidence I would also like
 >to see it. However, I reflected on my own life and have
 >discovered empirical evidence of my "lay lines". I looked back
 >through my diary and using aeronautical charts I found the exact
 >geographical locations of every location where I have had sexual
 >intimacy on this planet.

Apparently an extensive list of locations...

 >I next plotted the lines between those locations and found a
 >strange abstract pattern. Most locations are in the United
 >States but a number are located in Vietnam and Europe. A number
 >in the US were within the restricted areas on the aeronautical
 >charts and several were within the prohibited flight zone near
 >the White House. Note - these were prior to President Clinton's
 >romps in that zone. I also have two locations where in the early
 >nineties we camped out overlooking Area 51. We were not observed
 >by the "cammo dudes" but may have been picked up on sensors. It
 >may rank with the Groom Lake UFO video in popularity amongst the
 >range personnel. A few years ago an archeologist somehow snuck
 >through the Tikaboo valley and got away with it. Perhaps when I
 >am back in California my girlfriend and I will attempt the same
 >expedition but the objective will be to veer to Area S4 and make
 >love at night in front of one of the hidden saucer entrances. Of
 >course I will ask Bob Lazar for expert advice.

Just make sure that none of Bob Lazar's alleged female friends
are around....

 >For some strange reason, in making love we were always naturally
 >drawn to being aligned north to south. I don't know what that
 >means. As a matter of fact I don't know the meaning of anything.

Sounds polarizing if you ask me.

 >I just have empirical data of the locations and lines but I
 >don't know what that strange pattern indicates. Tomorrow I will
 >go outside and observe flies to see if they approach poop in a
 >north - south flight plan. Looking out my window I can see that
 >by the curb there are many fly feeding stations. Perhaps I will
 >place some of my own poop along the curb and observe if the
 >flies prefer human or dog waste and if there is any difference
 >in their flight paths. This may require numerous observations in
 >various countries and the plotting of fly flight pattern lines.

 >Perhaps I will present the data at the Laughlin, Nevada UFO
 >Conference next year if they will cover my expenses and pay my
 >hefty fee for public presentations. I'll bet that lots of folks
 >there will be eager to buy my book linking fly lines with my
 >"lay lines". I am sure they will also purchase samples of the

Some of the Laughlin crowd would go absolutly beserk over the
presentation and there would be a wild public chorus wanting you
invited back next year.

However timing is everything. First you would prime the crowd
with the the latest in UFO chart topping music:

"In the mine with ET.." (with the Grey chorus)
"Fly me in your time machine" (with Crash Landing and the Nazi's)
"J Edgar and Me" (with the Black Bags)
"I worked for IKE" (with the Secret Agent Chorus)

Followed by the latest revelations from unnamed intel community
sources, and a Reed/Raith update.

Lastly your presentation on "Lay lines" (or was that Banging on
the Door of S4?) and poop research, all of which would whip the
crowd into a frenzy which would cause rioting in the streets of
Laughlin.... :)

After something like that you can bet you will be asked to come
back next year, although you would have to top that the next
time.

<snip>

 >Amy, what does this mean?

Sounds like you are on the right track to a 5 million dollar
govt grant or an expense paid trip to Laughlin...... :)

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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 3

                       Re: Abduction Question - Velez

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 05:43:13 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 12:34:17 -0500
Subject: Re: Abduction Question - Velez


 >From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 20:32:08 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Abduction Question

 >>From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 14:53:03 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Abduction Question

 >>>From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 07:25:00 -0500
 >>>Subject: Re: Abduction Question

 >>>I'm in touch with an abductee who hasn't seen this info.

 >>>Because it was posted on Christmas Eve, and I believe it was in
 >>>fact the only posting you sent out that day, would you be
 >>>willing to post it again? I really think this idea has merit for
 >>>abductees.

 >>>>From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >>>>Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 05:03:27 -0500
 >>>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>>Subject: Re: Abduction Question

 >>><snip>

 >>>>Abductees have only themselves, their own inner resources and
 >>>>maybe a few other individuals that they can turn to. The
 >>>>situation they face is the epitome of the phrase, "Caught
 >>>>between a rock and hard place."

 >>>>Talk about a sad state of affairs.

 >>>Hm. You know, that story about the abductee who was
 >>>abducted along with his boat and recording GPS...

 >>You have reminded us about an important case here. When it was
 >>first made public I thought that finally, here is some rock
 >>solid physical evidence that corroborates an abduction report.
 >>It ended up being ignored and relegated to the dust heap.

 >>IF GPS data that shows a boat travelling over ground isn't
 >>enough to demonstrate that something truly odd transpired, then
 >>I don't know what is. Here, in this report, is the physical
 >>evidence that everyone has been looking for. Yet no one has made
 >>any fuss over it at all. Boggles the mind how solid evidence
 >>like this can be overlooked and forgotten.

 >Just one thing here re the GPS anomaly. His computer connected
 >the dots from the positions the boat was in. But there is an
 >update that occurs ocassionally with GPS-usually advertized-
 >because the satellites don't stay in hard fixed positions in
 >space and the whole GPS system goes offline for some time while
 >it resets itself to those new positions. This doesn't happen
 >with the military sats beacause they now have other sats that
 >use the regular GPS as slaves while some 8-12 satellites are
 >purley dedicated to the military function. The US can
 >discontinue GPS at any time it wishes but of course doesn't do
 >so because there are literally hundreds of thousands of users at
 >a given moment including airliners, private aircraft and vessels
 >at sea.

Hola Dandy Don,

You wrote:

 >I wonder if the GPS system didn't glitch at the point noted and
 >the computer just picked up the last known position and the
 >"present" position and just connected the dots between those two
 >because there was no information to plot in between the two
 >positions.

Excellent question. I only have the information that was
released by George Filer. Like all of those preliminary reports,
it wasn't very comprehensive, nor did it provide enough detailed
information to answer your question properly.

It was probably another one of the many cases George passes
on that was originally handled and reported by NUFORC. (National
UFO Reporting Center) Maybe Peter can tell us who the original
investigator was (if any) on this case.

Does anybody within earshot know who investigated this case?
Peter, if you're reading this, could you point us at the right
person(s) to contact?

 >This is just a thought because it happened to me while flying
 >through to Sherbrooke, Quebec over northern Maine from
 >Fredericton [where Stan lives], New Brunswick in 2000. The whole
 >system was down for maybe 15 minutes while it updated. That
 >includes the time it took my GPS to  re-aguire the satellites
 >and update itself.

My guess is that a flock of those supersonic Pelicans were
cruising along in low gear at 189 mph, they got between you and
the satellite signal and cut off your feed. ;)

 >The person affected can probably check back and see if there was
 >an update.

Again, it's an excellent question Don. Maybe we can find out who
'may have' worked on this case and then we can all look into it
a little further. Give it the old 'hairy eyeball.'

Because GPS data is involved, it's worth the effort. If the GPS
system was 'up and running' the report becomes a whopper of an
anomaly.

Last I heard, boats can't fly.


Warmest regards,

John Velez

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

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/petition








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 3

                       Re: Abduction Question - Velez

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 05:50:46 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 12:36:24 -0500
Subject: Re: Abduction Question - Velez


 >From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 20:44:49 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Abduction Question

 >>From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 14:53:03 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Abduction Question

 ><snip>

 >Before I make a quick comment below, I wanted to mention that
 >George Filer had a story last year of a tractor-trailer driver
 >whose GPS apparently stopped moving in the middle of the
 >Interstate highway between Williamsburg and Richmond in
 >Virginia. If I recall correctly, he allegedly had no idea that
 >his rig had stopped moving and other truck drivers with his
 >company were talking about it and mystified.

 >Unfortunately, this tale turned out to be the invention of some
 >of those truck drivers to provide a strange tale around a
 >malfunctioning GPS tracking device. Since this occurred in our
 >backyard, some of the Fund members began checking into the story
 >and were once again reminded that stories appearing on the
 >Internet are often not what they seem.

 >But, that's not why decided to respond.....

 >>FYI for interested Listmembers:

 >>Dr. Mark Rodeghier and Mark Chesney of CUFOS have been
 >>conducting an ongoing, long-term study. The intent is to
 >>electronically _monitor_ a select group of 'abductees' over
 >>time. This is _the_ single most important 'scientific' study
 >>into the abduction phenomenon to date.

 >>I wonder if they know about these $400. GPS units? If used in
 >>conjunction with the other monitoring equipment they are already
 >>employing, the inclusion of these individual GPS devices would
 >>be an ideal way to track the individuals 24 hours-a-day. And,
 >>without adding any new demands on the individual subjects
 >>already compromised privacy. Adding the device to the ones they
 >>are already using shouldn't prove to be a problem on that level.
 >>At the end of the day it would all be about $. (Funding)

 >>Simple solution to the research money problem:

 >>I would like to take this opportunity to encourage everyone to
 >>support this CUFOS abduction study with _dollars_ by subscribing
 >>to the journal or just as a donation that can be earmarked for
 >>use by the abduction project. If you haven't already subscribed
 >>to the journal, 'now' is always a good time to do it. The people
 >>at CUFOS are doing important, necessary research that _should
 >>be_ supported in a practical way by the members of the larger
 >>*UFO community. *That's means _us_ and our dollars! If we can't
 >>'put our money where our mouths are' then we really don't have
 >>much right to 'mouth off' in public forums.

 >>Support CUFOS with greenbacks.

 >>One more... regarding diagnostic criteria in abduction cases:

 >>Dr. Mark Rodeghier and Mark Chesney have used a set of criteria
 >>to determine which 'abduction' cases qualified for inclusion in
 >>the study. I am going to wait for their formal report on the
 >>CUFOS abduction study to be released to see if the criteria they
 >>used can be applied by all researchers when evaluating possible
 >>abduction cases. No need to reinvent the wheel (create a set of
 >>diagnostic criteria) if competent and qualified people like Dr.
 >>Mark Rodeghier and Mark Chesney have already taken the time to
 >>do it.

 >>I wish them the best of luck and I look forward to reading the
 >>results of this important inquiry.

Hi Steve,

You responded:

 >Unless there's a second project that I've not heard about, I
 >believe you're referring to the Abduction Monitoring Project
 >(AMP) that has been funded through the UFO Coalition. This joint
 >effort of CUFOS, MUFON, and the Fund has been extended several
 >times to gather more data. Little has been said about this
 >project publicly, and it has been ongoing for the past four or
 >five years.

Yeah, they were keeping it quiet and under wraps for quite awhile.
However, both 'Marks' (Rodeghier and Chesney) appeared on EBK's
'Strange Days... Indeed' a couple of months ago and spoke about
the study openly. I don't think I've let any cats out of the bag.

Not everyone who reads the List listens to SDI.  It was the two
Marks who first made a public appeal for funds. (on SDI) I was
just reiterating it here on-list. Hopefully some folks will
subscribe to the journal or donate $ directly to what is a
worthwhile research project.

 >Unfortunately, finding suitable subjects for this project has
 >proven to be very difficult. As you noted, there is a certain
 >criteria that must be met, and it takes a certain amount of
 >commitment by the individual being monitored.

A few years ago I was asked if I wanted to participate via Greg
Sandow. The reason I chose not to was because of the privacy
issue. It would have been ok if it was just me. I would have let
them set up an TV studio in my bedroom if it would help to catch
the little bastards 'in the act.'  I just thought it would have
a been a terrible imposition for my wife. She is, by nature, a
very private person. I 'reluctantly' passed. I do believe in
what they are doing though.

I admire and respect the ones who accepted the conditions for
participation. It does take commitment - and courage.

 >Let me concur with your comment regarding the need for funds to
 >continue this type of research. I would urge that everyone
 >become a CUFOS Associate and subscribe to IUR, and also that
 >they support MUFON by subscribing to the MUFON Journal. The
 >Internet can provide a vast amount of free information, but as
 >shown by the tale of the abduction tractor trailer driver I
 >mentioned above, you often get exactly what you pay for.

Sad but true. Caveat emptor!


Regards,

John Velez

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

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/petition








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 3

                       The Anomalist Book Awards 2002

From: Loren Coleman <lcolema1@maine.rr.com>
Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 08:12:32 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 12:52:34 -0500
Subject: The Anomalist Book Awards 2002


The Anomalist Book Awards & Book List 2002 has been announced.

Top winners in the following categories have been awarded:

Best Reference

Most Original

Best Science

Best Autobiography

Best Biography


For details, please go directly to them at:

http://www.anomalist.com/books/awards02.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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 3

                   Re: Validating The Ramey Memo - Houran

From: Jim Houran <JHouran@siumed.edu>
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 09:41:57 -0600
Fwd Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 13:09:53 -0500
Subject: Re: Validating The Ramey Memo - Houran


 >From: Dave Morton <Marspyrs@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 22:43:27 EST
 >Subject: Re: Validating The Ramey Memo

 >>From: Jim Houran <JHouran@siumed.edu>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 11:51:40 -0600
 >>Subject: Re: Validating The Ramey Memo - Houran

<snip>

 >>As I have said repeatedly, I urge anyone
 >>that has issues with my study or proposals to submit a formal
 >>Letter to the Editor of the JSE, as well as submit their own
 >>work to a peer-reviewed, scientifc journal, and allow others to
 >>independently attempt to replicate and validate that work. That
 >>is what we academics call the scientific method.

 >>Good luck to you, Tom, and all other researchers on your work on
 >>the Ramey Memo. I look forward to seeing it published in
 >>scientific journals.

 >Well, at least we know one thing: If Tom or David do decide to
 >submit their work to a peer-reviewed, scientific journal, they
 >won't have to be bothered with the irritating formality of
 >submitting the data supporting their main conclusions. We now
 >have a precedent for that streamlined procedure with JSE!

 >What a wonderful gift - and it saves on postage, too!


Hi, Dave and List,

I thought it might be helpful if I provided the contact info for
the JSE, so that you and/or other investigators of the Ramey
document may individually or collectively prepare a formal
Letter to the Editor in re: to my paper with Kevin Randle. In
this way, the various points of view about the conceptual and
methodological issues surrounding research on the document may
be properly documented in the scientific literature.

Send to:

JSE Managing Editor
Allen Press
810 E. 10th St.
Lawrence, KS 66044

Please be specific in the criticisms you raise so that Randle
and I may properly respond to your objections. Do not be overly
concerned with the length of the Letter, as the JSE is typically
generous with the amount of space devoted to correspondence
(they might edit a bit for clarity and space, however). I am
sure Kevin Randle would agree with my when I say that this has
the potential for being an extremely productive exchange, and
one that we certainly look forward to.


Sincerely,

Jim Houran







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 3

                  Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 13:43:49 -0600
Fwd Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 13:27:51 -0500
Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Clark


 >From: David Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 20:39:59 -0000
 >Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham


 >>From: Nick Pope <nick@popemod.freeserve.co.uk>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 22:35:15 -0000


Dave,

 >>Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

 >When I left them they were laughing about their sudden baptism
 >of fire in the world of Ufology, which they had perceptively
 >recognised was full of competing egos, petty bitchiness and
 >empire-building.

As opposed, I suppose, to what happens in other human
subcultures. I love it when critics pretend to believe that what
occurs inside ufology is somehow fundamentally different from
what goes on in any other human enterprise, where ordinary
failings are equally in view. Maybe these critics ought to get
out of the house more often. If nothing else, the experience
should teach them a little about humility. Or, if not that, at
least something about perspective.

 >It was nice, they said, to find someone who stuck to the facts
 >and agreed with me that the people involved in Ufology are more
 >interesting than the UFOs themselves.

Could you be any more condescending?

If you really believe that - and aren't, as I suspect, merely
engaged in an egotist's chest-thumping - maybe it's time for you
to find something else to do.

In my years in ufology, I've met all variety of men and women,
but none of them, sane or crazy, virtuous or venal, has ever
struck me as anything other than purely human, with his or her
counterpart easily findable elsewhere in life. If I want to
learn about my fellow Homo sapiens, all I have to do is go out
and meet them. The UFO phenomenon presents far more complex and
interesting challenges.  Maybe all you're telling us is that
you're just not up to them.


Jerry Clark








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 3

                       History Channel 'The UFO week'

From: Santiago Yturria <syturria@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 15:07:02 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 14:01:30 -0500
Subject: History Channel 'The UFO week'


It started on Monday January 27 and continued all week long. The
History channel presented two UFO documentaries every day and
yesterday Saturday February 1 they decided to broadcast a UFO
Marathon all day long starting at 2.00 PM.

More than 12 hours of continuous UFO documentaries was certainly
a precedent rarely seen these days since the major networks are
always cold to the UFO subject. This was an important impulse
for Ufology and the History channel proved that UFOs are still a
fascinating subject for the people. Are you hearing CBS, NBC,
ABC and FOX ?

These are the documentaries presented during saturday's
marathon:


UFOs In The Bible
UFOs Aliens And Contact
UFO Hot Spots
When UFOs Arrive
Roswell: Final Desclassification
Other World: Area 51 The Real Story
UFOs Nightmare Abduction
UFOs The Innocent Years
The Crop Circle Connection


Santiago








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 3

                        Italian UFO Newsflash No. 383

From: Edoardo Russo <edoardo.russo@tiscali.it>
Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 22:49:23 +0100
Fwd Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 14:02:53 -0500
Subject: Italian UFO Newsflash No. 383


ITALIAN UFO NEWSFLASH

ISSUE NO. 383 -  24 JANUARY 2003

by the Italian Center for UFO Studies
(Centro Italiano Studi Ufologici, CISU)

Contents:

- At Risk: The SOS-OVNI Archives
- "UFOs & The CIA": A New Book by A. Lissoni
- The New Issue of "Clypeus"


At Risk: The SOS-OVNI Archives

The international UFO community is mobilizing an attempt to
rescue one of the largest French ufological archives from
dismantlement.

It concerns the archives and library of the association SOS-
OVNI, under the management of Perry Petrakis, which is heavily
in debt as a result of the slump in sales of its journal
"Phenomena",  for many years the only UFO magazine on sale in
French newsstands.

Its creditors have initiated legal proceedings, and there now
exists the very real risk that hundreds of (very rare) books,
thousands of UFO magazines from all over the world, audio-visual
materials, and case investigations files, are headed for the
auction block.

In order to avert this risk, a European "pool" is being formed
of organizations which have among their objectives the recovery
and the preservation of UFO archives, coordinated by an
anonymous Franco-Swedish alliance between Arkivet for UFO-
Forskning (AFU) and the group Sauvegarde et Conservation des
=C9tudes et Archives Ufologiques (SCEAU). This alliance has issued
an appeal for the gathering of proposals from the international
ufological community.

For Italy, the Italian Center for UFO Studies  (CISU), which
already has come to the rescue of some ufological archives and
libraries, is offering itself as a collection center for
proposals and donations from our nation, via the postal checking
account of Cooperativa UPIAR.

[Communication by Bruno Mancusi, Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos,
Perry Petrakis and Clas Svahn; EuroUfoList, 20 January.]


UFOs & The CIA: A New Book by Lissoni

MIR Edizioni is sending bookstores a new literary work from
Alfredo Lissoni: it's entitled UFOs & The CIA and represents the
updated version, in book form, of a text previously published
only in electronic format in CD-ROM installments, in 1996.

  From Majestic 12 to alien retro-engineers; animal mutilations
to Area 51; the "shadow government" to the revelations of Corso;
and "Men In Black" to "villainous pacts" with the aliens  none
of the arguments relating to the UFO conspiracy theory are left
out here.

The volume totals 224 pages and costs 12 Euro, plus postage. The
Cooperativa UPIAR has purchased a stock of it, on sale beginning
next week at the e-commerce Website of Upiar Store,
(www.upiar.com), at a price of 16 Euro (13 for CISU
subscribers).

[Communication by Alfredo Lissoni; Chucara2000, 23 January.]


Just Out: The New Issue Of Clypeus

Shipment is underway to all members of Issue No. 111 of Clypeus
  Chronicles Of The Unusual.

The historic journal, directed by Gianni Settimo, is the oldest
Italian publication covering topics including the "ufological":
it was actually conceived in December 1963 as a "journal of
flying saucers," a body of the Centro Studi Clipeologici (Center
for Media Clip Studies). Subsequently, after having led the way
in 1965 in the creation of a "Unique National Center for the
study of phenomena believed to be of an extraterrestrial nature"
  e.g., the CUN  it continued as an independent journal devoted
to the unusual, available by subscription but with some
occasional installments sent to newsstands (in 1964, 1972 and
then in `76). In 1991, it promoted the formation of an Italian
Fortean Society to work alongside the monumental cataloguing
project of Umberto Cordier.

In the new issue: a UFO in an epic manifesto; Hessdalen in Val
del Lys; the dragon of Finale Ligure; and the miracle to the
north of Scotland.

Membership (for 3 issues) costs 8 Euro. As always, subscribers
to the CISU receive a 20% discount.

[Communication by and Gianni Settimo; web.tiscali.it/clypeus.]


Collaborators on this edition were: Alfredo Lissoni, Bruno
Mancusi, and Gianni Settimo.


- - -

This is the English translation of UFOTEL, a free phone/Internet
information service on UFOs edited weekly by  Edoardo Russo for
the Italian Center for UFO Studies (Centro Italiano Studi
Ufologici), available in Italian by calling +39-011-545294, or
by e-mail subscription, or on CISU website:

at http://www.arpnet.it/ufo/ultime.htm

UFOTEL is a supplement to "UFO - Rivista di informazione
ufologica", published by the Italian Center for UFO Studies,
registered at Tribunale
di Torino,  No. 3670, on 19 June 1986.
Director: Giovanni Settimo.
Publisher: Cooperativa UPIAR, Corso Vittorio
Emanuele 108, 10121 Turin, Italy

Translated from Italian to English by:
Gary J. Presto, Freelance IT-EN Translator/Proofreader
1123 Revere Beach Pky., # 12
Revere, MA 02151 USA
Tel.: ++ 1.781.485.1683, Fax: ++ 1.781.485.1684
ICQ: 110502923, E-mail: gpresto@attbi.com
Webpage: http://www.proz.com/translator/723



- - -

(c) 2003 by: CISU,
Corso Vittorio Emanuele 108,  10121 Torino, Italia

This newsletter (as a whole or in part) may be freely copied,
photocopied, reproduced, stored, distributed and retrieved, at
the only condition that Centro Italiano Studi Ufologici is
reported as the source.

You may get it directly via e-mail by subscribing
(just send a blank message to:
cisuflash-subscribe@yahoogroups.com)

The CISU is a no-profit association whose aims are:
- to promote the scientific study of UFO phenomena in Italy;
- to help circulate information about UFO phenomena and studies;
- to coordinate national activities of data collecting and studying.

You may reach Centro Italiano Studi Ufologici:
- by mail: CISU, Corso Vittorio Emanuele 108, 10121 Torino, Italia
- by phone: +39 (011) 30.78.63 (24 hours UFO Hotline)
- by fax: +39 (011) 54.50.33
- by Internet e-mail: cisu@ufo.it
- at the World Wide Web URL: http://www.cisu.org






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 3

                    Re: Necessary Speculation - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 18:08:39 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 14:05:11 -0500
Subject: Re: Necessary Speculation - Maccabee


 >From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 02:35:40 -0500
 >Subject: Necessary Speculation


 >Hi All,

 >We are always endlessly debating whether UFOs represent a nuts
 >and bolts reality or something else. As a result, it is anathema
t>o ever speculate about what may be the reason or purpose of
 >these craft/beings. Not without running the risk of having your
 >head chopped off.

 >Just for the 'halibut' I'd like to speculate a bit and I'd like
 >to invite anyone else who may wish to do so, to please chime in.
 >If UFOs represent 'somebody else's' technology... this exercise
 >is some thing we _need_ to do. It's also a healthy psychological
 >workout. Stretches the mind and it's boundaries a bit.

 >Speculation:

<snip>

 >"For the first time in our history we are studying something
 >that's studying us!"

 >And there's the rub... this time, _we_ are what is in the Petrie
 >dish. Not the other way around. This time _we_ are the Indians
 >not the Conquistadors.

 >If this study includes following the genetic/biological and
 >social evolution of our species, then the whole abduction
 >phenomenon becomes clear and takes on a new meaning. It makes
 >sense that certain blood-lines would be monitored over time. It
 >would also make sense that they would need to keep themselves as
 >hidden from view as necessary in order not to tip their presence
 >too early on in the 'experiment' (study).

 >There may have been times in our history when these beings have
 >lived openly among us. That they may have "found the daughters
 >of men to be fair and taken them as wives." Thereby
 >introducing/mixing their own genetic material with ours. That
 >would make us, _all_ of us, a hybrid-race.

 >Just about all of the implications of the UFO phenomenon are
 >nothing short of earth-shattering. To further speculate, the
 >modern increase in UFO activity and UFO awareness may be a
 >prelude to the re-introduction of the presence and reality of
t>hese beings into our history and our daily lives. It might not
 >hurt some of us to begin to seriously entertain these
 >possibilities. If nothing else it would serve to lessen the
 >psychological shock should 'they' make their presence known in
 >some sudden, dramatic or surprising fashion.

 >'If you stay ready... you won't have to get ready!'  ;)

 >I've just been spending some time trying to make sense of it
 >all. It's an exercise that helps me to maintain my equilibrium
 >and sanity in the face of what I _know_ is happening to me and
 >mine. And to many others as well. I honestly don't think that we
 >need to 'fear' the possibilities. I do think it's necessary that
 >we are at least (internally) prepared to face any eventuality.>

 >It's better than getting caught with your psychological nickers
 >down around your ankles.

 >Just speculating.

 >Anyone?

Yup.

Reread the last full chapter of Abduction In My Life.
Also, see "Future, Ugh" at:

http://brumac.8k.com.

IMHO it is the obvious stupendous implications of UFO reality
which powers the "chosen ignorance" which I call the "self -
cover up."

Most people realize that if UFOs/aliens are real our
understanding of our position/status in the universe will go to
hell in a handbasket very fast.  IThe realization of UFO reality
introduces yet another uncertainty into our lives and into
society in general.... and society does not like uncertainty
because uncertainty means a loss in control... and all life is
about "control."







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 3

                             Marcello Truzzi RIP

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 18:12:56 -0600
Fwd Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 14:07:25 -0500
Subject: Marcello Truzzi RIP


Late this afternoon (Sunday) I received a call from Kris Truzzi,
informing me that his father, Marcello Truzzi, died at around 3
p.m. EST today. The cause of death was the cancer Marcello had
been battling off and on for seven years. Kris informed me that
around the middle of the week his father suddenly took a turn
for the worse, and his health declined rapidly after that.

Marcello, a sociologist at Eastern Michigan University
(Ypsilanti), was a dear friend of mine. We last spoke when he
called me a week ago this afternoon. He was bedridden but
reasonably optimistic, though realistic, about his condition. He
was not a religious man, but he remarked calmly that he was not
afraid to die. My impression, however, is that he did not expect
to go so quickly, because he talked at length about his thoughts
for a personal and intellectual autobiography. It would have
been a fascinating, original book.

But then Marcello was a fascinating and original man. I first
met him in 1977, around the time he left the Committee for the
Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP),
which he co-founded with Paul Kurtz. It soon became apparent to
Marcello (as well as to Kurtz and many others who were looking
on) that he and Kurtz had fundamental philosophical differences.
Kurtz and other hard- liners in the organization suspected that
he was soft on anomalous claims and insufficiently committed to
the crusade against "irrationalism," in CSICOP's often-used
characterization of contrary opinion. For his part Marcello felt
he was a true skeptic, who doubts, rather than a debunker (he
later preferred "scoffer"), who denies.

In an interview J. Gordon Melton and I conducted with him in his
home in Ann Arbor, Michigan, in 1979, he eloquently laid out
those views. The interview appears in the September and October
1979 issues of Fate. He wrote and published frequently, his
writings reflecting his wide range of interests, including stage
magic, music, carnivals and circuses (he was born into a
prominent European circus family), the sociology of science,
folklore, anthropology, psychology, popular culture, politics.
Perhaps the paper that best summarizes his views on subjects
closest to List members is his "Zetetic Ruminations on
Skepticism and Anomalies in Science," which appeared in his own
journal, Zetetic Scholar 12/13 (1987). Unfortunately, he never
did expand that essay into a full- length book, though from time
to time he talked about it.

To the end he doubted, but he did not deny. He thought that
whether or not they were ultimately proved to be as
extraordinary as they seemed, the issues raised by anomalous
experiences, and investigated by serious, critical-minded
ufologists, cryptozoologists, and parapsychologists, are
legitimate ones which science dismisses or ignores to its own
detriment. In our last conversation he spoke of the fundamental
uncertainty that underlies all existence and understanding.

I might note here that it was Marcello, not Carl Sagan, who
coined the often-misattributed maxim "Extraordinary claims
demand extraordinary evidence." In recent years Marcello had
come to conclude that the phrase was a non sequitur --
  meaningless and question-begging -- and he intended to write a
debunking of his own words. Sad to say, he never got around to
it.

No single human being influenced my thinking on UFOs and other
anomalies as Marcello did. Over the years we spoke, usually over
the phone, dozens and dozens of times. Sometimes his ideas
provoked or even annoyed me, but he never failed to force me to
think deeper and harder because of that. He was smarter than any
five other humans combined. I suspect that every day that passed
by, he had at least one insight that had never occurred to
anybody else. It is sad to reflect that that wonderful,
unceasingly creative intelligence is now lost to this world. My
last words to him were, "Take care of yourself. There's only one
of you."

Beyond that, he was a good and valued friend, a warm and funny
man, whom it was an honor and a delight to know. I loved him. I
will miss him forever.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 3

                   Re: Validating The Ramey Memo - Morton

From: Dave Morton <Marspyrs@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 20:20:10 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 14:10:50 -0500
Subject: Re: Validating The Ramey Memo - Morton


 >From: Jim Houran <JHouran@siumed.edu>
 >Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 11:51:40 -0600
 >Fwd Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 16:47:42 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Validating The Ramey Memo - Houran


 >>From: Thomas Carey <TCarey1947@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 10:14:42 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Validating The Ramey Memo

 >>>From: Jim Houran <JHouran@siumed.edu>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 14:25:53 -0600
 >>>Subject: Re: Validating The Ramey Memo

<snip>

 >As I have said repeatedly, I urge anyone
 >that has issues with my study or proposals to submit a formal
 >Letter to the Editor of the JSE, as well as submit their own
 >work to a peer-reviewed, scientifc journal, and allow others to
 >independently attempt to replicate and validate that work.
 >That is what we academics call the scientific method.

<snip>

 >Sincerely,

 >Jim Houran

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

Dear Scientific, Learned, and Honorable JSE Editor:

Why did you approve Mr. Houran's paper on his "Roswell telegram"
study for publication in your journal, when he does not possess,
and never did possess, the raw data supporting his main
conclusion?

Also, could you write to Mr. Houran and ask him how he was able
to draw his main conclusion if he didn't have the data to
support it, and apparently never even saw it?

Thank you, kind Sir, for taking the time to read this, and I
apologize for consuming your valuable time.

I look forward to your most generous reply.


Gratefully,

Dave Morton

(Poor, uneducated non-scientist, with no clue as to how
the scientific method is supposed to work).

PS: Be sure to click on "Send" to send your reply.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 3

                     A. J. & The Brazilian UFO Magazine

From: A. J. Gevaerd - Revista UFO <gevaerd@ufo.com.br>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 08:26:59 -0200
Fwd Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 14:14:39 -0500
Subject: A. J. & The Brazilian UFO Magazine


Dear Colleagues:

I am glad to inform that we have been able to re-establish the
circulation of the Brazilian UFO Magazine. The publication is
the only one existing in Brazil and is 19 years old, what makes
it one of the long-lasting in the world, however written in
Portuguese only. Its circulation became irregular in 2001, due
to the increase of Brazilian economy crisis. But since last
October we have managed to get it printed again on a monthly
basis, totally in collor and with much more pages.

With the "rebirth" of the Brazilian UFO Magazine a new agenda of
UFO conferences is being gradually planned in this country,
including an second edition of the World UFO Forum. For this
reason we are searching also to re-establish contact with some
of our old friends, whose addresses are uncertain to us now. So,
please, if any of them is in UFO UpDates, please contact me in
private (gevaerd@ufo.com.br). And if anybody here knows the
whereabouts of them, in case they are not on the List, I would
thanks any help.


A. J. Gevaerd, editor
Brazilian UFO Magazine


Here is the list:


Antonello Lupino
Antonio Huneeus
Ariel Sanchez
August Meessen
Barry Chamish
Bob Brown
Bob Shell
Boris Shurinov
Brian O'leary
Bruce Maccabbee
Budd Hopkins
Candida Mammoliti
Carlos Alberto Iurchuk
Chris Rutkowski
Colin Andrews
Cristian Riffo Morales
Daniel Munhoz
David Jacobs
Don Waldrop
Donald Ware
Duncan M. Roads
Edoardo Russo
Elias Abraham Gonzales Tapia
Enrique Castillo Rincon
Enrique De Vicente
Erik Fredriksson
Francisco Fazio Baiz
G. C. Schellhorn
Gabor Tarcali
Gildas Bordais
Giorgio Bongiovanni
Giuliano Marinkovicc
Glennys Mackay
Hachiro Kubota
Hakan Blomqvist
Helmut Lammer
Ib Laulund
J. J. Benitez
J. J. Hurtak
Jaime Maussan
Jaime Rodriguez Tanguay
James Courant
Javier Sierra
Jean Bastide
Jean Georges Almendras
Jean-Jacques Velasco
Jeff Sainio
Jerome Clark
Jim Dilettoso
Joaquim Fernandes
Joe Lewis
Joel Mesnard
John Carpenter
John Mack
Jorge Alfonso Ramires
Jorge Da Costa Xavier
Jorge Martin
Joseph Trainor
Juhan Af Grann
Juri Lina
Keith Basterfield
Kim Moller Hansen
Laura Bei
Leo Sprinkle
Lloyd Pie
Marco Ferri
Marcos Temesio
Mario Dussuel Jurado
Mario Flores Lujan
Mark Carlotto
Mark Moravec
Maurizio Baiata
Melinda Leslie
Mentz Darre Kaarbo
Methuselem Meier
Michael Brein
Michael Hesemann
Michael Lindemann
Mohammad Hamadan
Odd-Gunnar Red
Pablo Villarubia Mauso
Pat Marcatillo
Peter Davenport
Peter Sorenson
Phillip Mantle
Raul Garza Jimenez
Ricardo Vilchez Navamuel
Richard Haines
Richard J. Boylan
Rob Baldwin
Robert A. Fairfax
Robert Mitchell
Robert O. Dean
Roberto E. Banchs
Roberto Pinotti
Robin D. Cole
Rodrigo Fuenzalida
Roger Leir
Ryszard Z. Fiejtek
Salvador Freixedo
Sebastiano Di Gennaro
Shawn Atlanti
Sixto Paz Wells
Stanton T. Friedman
Sun Shi Li
Ted Loman
Tim Crawford
Timo Koskeniemmi
Tom Adams
Tom Theofanous
Tunne Kelan
Valery Ouvarov
Vicente Juan Ballester Olmos
Vicki Cooper Ecker
Victor Lourenco
Walter Andrus
Wendelle C. Stevens
Whitley Strieber
Wido Hoville
William Jervis
Yuriy Gerassimov
Yves Bosson








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 3

                            Marcello Truzzi Dies

From: Loren Coleman <lcolema1@maine.rr.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 10:40:37 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 14:16:50 -0500
Subject: Marcello Truzzi Dies


Marcello Truzzi, 67, Always Curious, Dies

Marcello Truzzi died rather suddenly February 2, 2003. As
recently as a week before his death, he was talking with his
friends about his excitement in working on his planned personal
autobiography. Truzzi's swift passing, thus, is a surprise to
his friends and his family. He had been suffering from colon
rectal cancer during the last seven years, but would go in and
out of remission.

Truzzi was associated with the beginnings of the intellectual
understandings of skepticism in America, first with his
association with the Resources for the Scientific Evaluation of
the Paranormal, whose members included Martin Gardner, Ray
Hyman, James Randi, and Marcello Truzzi, all magicians. Also
during the early 1970s, Truzzi was also publishing a privately
circulated newsletter called the Zetetic. In 1976, Truzzi was
the co-founder, with Paul Kurtz, of the Committee for the
Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP),
but he would later break from Kurtz and CSICOP. In 1978, he
began publishing the Zetetic Scholar, and created the Center for
Scientific Anomalies Research. He was a sociologist at Eastern
Michigan University in Ypsilanti.

Marcello Truzzi's family was a rather famous Russian Italian
circus family, being part of Circus Truzzi in Russia. Indeed,
Truzzi was born in Copenhagen, Denmark, on September 6, 1935,
when his family was there on tour. His family moved to the USA
in 1940. He continued, throughout his life, to have a passionate
and intellectual interest in magic, juggling, sideshows,
carnivals, and circuses, as well as sociology, anthropology,
psychology, and folk culture. I shall always recall our frequent
email exchanges on everything from hoaxing and anomalistic
phenomena, to ice falls and cryptozoology. He loved to coin
words like "pseudoskepticism" and "cryptometeorology."

An extraordinary wordsmith, Truzzi edited books on a variety of
topics (criminal life, anthropology, sexism, revolution,
sociology, police law), as well as coauthoring several books.
Some of these include Caldron Cookery: An Authentic Guide for
Coven Connoisseurs (with illus. Victoria Chess; 1969), The Blue
Sense: Psychic Detectives and Crime (with Arthur Lyons; 1992),
UFO Encounters (with Jerome Clark; 1992), and The Complete
Idiot's Guide to Extraterrestrial Intelligence (with Michael
Kurland; 1999).

He will be deeply missed.


Loren Coleman

Portland, Maine








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 3

                       Re: Abduction Question - Bowden

From: Tom Bowden <tomrbowden@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 08:56:18 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 14:18:53 -0500
Subject: Re: Abduction Question - Bowden


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 15:28:04 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Abduction Question

 >>From: Tom Bowden <tomrbowden@yahoo.com>
 >>Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 16:57:05 -0800 (PST)
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto
 ><ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Abduction Question

<snip>

 >>If CUFOS is ready to take back the hatchet job they
 >d>id on Ed Walters, then I might consider donating.

 >Only when somebody shows me the Jewel encrusted helmet from
 >Roswell..... :) Parphrasing somebody recently, "why are we
 >beating the dead corpse of Gulf Breeze... enough already... :)
 >Only kidding Tom.


Robert,

Hey, I deserved that. GB is dead, too.
Sorry for the outburst.


Tom B.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 3

                      Re: Magonia Supplement 45 - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 17:05:06 +0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 14:20:56 -0500
Subject: Re: Magonia Supplement 45 - Hall


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 16:20:20 -0600
 >Subject: Re: Magonia Supplement 45

 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 21:28:17 +0000
 >>Subject: Magonia Supplement 45

 >>MAGONIA SUPPLEMENT 45
 >>Edited by John Harney (magonia@harneyj.freeserve.co.uk)

 >>22 January 2003

 >>TRINDADE
 >>Gentle Reminder No. 1

 >>In our previous issue we revealed that Jerome Clark had
 >>announced that new evidence would soon become available which
 >>would prove that the Trindade photographs were definitely not a
 >>hoax. So far the promised evidence has not been forthcoming. We
 >>realise that Jerome Clark is a busy man and that this is perhaps
 >>not his most urgent priority at present, so we issue this first
 >>and, we hope, last reminder in case it has slipped his mind.

 >I just now found this helpful reminder from the kindly, if
 >Jerome Clark-obsessed, folk at Magonia. I will gently remind
 >them in turn that the new Trindade findings are not mine to
 >announce and describe and that the individual who made them --
 >who is on this List -- will release them when he feels inclined
 >to do so. He is a busy man, involved in several projects at
 >once, but in my long experience of him, he always delivers the
 >goods even if it takes him awhile. Patience, good Magonians, is
 >the soul of virtue.

 >Jerry Clark

John,

As in our patient waiting for the long overdue expose of the
Lakenheath case that certain of your countrymen swore was going
to blow us out of the water. Oh, where we flailed with hints and
promises of a rather gloating nature. We are waiting patiently.
Our boats are still afloat. Fire away!


- 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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 3

                       Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Mott

From: Wm. Michael Mott <mottimorph@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 10:11:11 -0600 (CST)
Fwd Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 14:29:58 -0500
Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Mott


 >From: Amy Hebert <yellowrose129@attbi.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto" <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 17:20:02 -0600
 >Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs

 >>"Fringe" or not, there is evidence for these electromagnetic
 >>anomalies. Just as there is for the "fringe" topic of UFOs.

 >Hi, Mike:

 >Your references clearly indicate your orientation and where you
 >have gathered your "evidence" and information. I have yet to see
 >any scientific evidence that supports your contentions and you
 >have not provided such.

You have yet to examine the research. I'm certainly not going to
post a book's worth of data here for you to nit-pick in what
seems to be a meaningless desire for argumentation for its own
sake--without factual basis on any point from your side, I might
add.

 >>The problem is not with the data, but with the interpretation. I
 >>see nothing mystical here, but it would seem that there is
 >>enough information out there which would support a proposition
 >>of a hypothesis that UFOs utilize the EM field of the Earth to
 >>some degree, at least when they are in the near vicinity of it.

 >Mike, if you are only proposing a hypothesis, that I can
 >understand. It's the "information" and "evidence" you use to
 >support your hypothesis that I question.

Again, _what_ do you know here? Everything you express is either
assumption, or based on assumption.

 >This same hypothesis has been proposed for decades but still no
 >clear scientific data has been presented to support the
 >contention that UFOs utilize the EM field of the earth to any
 >degree. You direct me to URL's which contain only more
 >hypotheses and conjecture but you have yet to point to any
 >scientific data that supports your thesis. Do you know the
 >meaning of "scientific data"?

Strong circumstantial evidence is admissible in a court of law.
Patterns of behavior, parallels of description, etymology from a
wide range of sources, and dozens of other types of data
(including scientific--medical, evolutionary, archeological, and
from physics) can be contrasted, compared, and evaluated. One or
two patterns may be meaningless; dozens or scores of matching
patterns indicates something more.

Scientific evidence *does* exist as well. Re-read the list below
and consider what is being said.

 >>However, there are probably several things going on:

 >>1) New Age delusion

 >>2) Misinterpretation of plasmas and other natural anomalies as UFOs,
 >>and the confusing of them with aerial craft of unknown origin

 >>3) The interaction of intense EM fields (perhaps naturally occurring
 >>and Earth-generated in certain regions) on unwitting human beings, and
 >>resultant "real" experiences which are actually internal

 >>4) Real UFOs (aircraft) coming and going from and along the same
 >>areas of heightened EM fields, for purposes of propulsion and
 >>navigation, not to mention speed.

 >>5) Top secret military aircraft which are thrown into the mix from
 >>time to time.

 >Anything is possible.

You mean that UFOs originate from the rectums of blue whales?
Anything is certainly _not_ possible. Make up your mind, after
all--this is not a scientific point of view. Again, this
indicates you argue just to read your own words on the list.

You can't have it both ways, after all. Either you're a self-
styled hyper-critic and skeptic, or you're malleable whenever
convenient. Which is it?

 >>It's quite possible that number 4 on this list might represent the
 >>rarest of all these occurences.

 >Same for number 2 and number 3.

Sure. You miss the point--stretch a little.

 >>>You make a lot of assumptions about who 'they' are with so
 >>>little data to go on.

 >>Read my book and you'll see just how much data I have about who
 >>"they" are.

 >I am _sick-and-tired_ of people telling me to read their books
 >instead of putting their evidence where their mouths are.


Really? I'm _sick-and-tired_ of people who _don't_ do real
research, or have the guts to put their own thoughts, theories,
and _discoveries_ out there, still having the gall to lambast
those who do so, with the gutlessness of their own convictions.

 >This
 >is a discussion List, you got something to say, say it.

Apparently I've been pitchin' 'em, but you aren't catchin' 'em.

 >If you
 >don't have the time or inclination to discuss and/or defend your
 >contentions, then I don't have the time or inclination to read
 >your book.

I understand completely. Nor are you qualified to do anything
other than express an apparently baseless opinion. You know, of
course, about the validity of all opinions and their
numerological equivalence to specific bodily orifices?

 >>There is _considerable_ data to indicate a more-or-
 >>less native presence of an ancient humanoid culture on this
 >>planet that predates our own. This data dates back into the
 >>utmost antiquity of human knowledge, experience, and traditions.

 >No, Mike, you and others have _interpreted_ archeological finds
 >as supporting the presence of an ancient humanoid culture that
 >predates our own. This is not the same as scientific data that
 >actually supports the contention that such beings existed/exist.

There you go again with assumptions which simply demonstrate
your lack of knowledge in a specific area. BTW, archeology is a
branch of science. Look it up.

There are literally dozens of examples of evidence for the
culture in question. Since I don't have either the time nor the
inclination to go out of my way to take you seriously, I
recommend that you look up the Eltanin Antenna. Since the
planting of this object, in the location where it was
discovered, surpasses even our current capabilities, why not
bless the list with your personal theories as to its origin and
nature?

Be sure and regale me with some vacuous statements as to
"coincidence," "junk," or something equally inconclusive and
dismissive.

 >It all depends on who is interpreting the data and their motives.

Yes, you demonstrate this well.

 >>You can check out the research, bibliography and sources then,
 >>before you make the "assumption" that there is little data to go
 >>on.
 >
 >Since you have yet to present anything that even remotely resembles
 >scientific research or data, I would not assume your book contains
 >anything more.
 >

There you go with assumptions again--seems to be your substitute for
critical thinking and evaluation.

 >>No, I do not. What exactly is your point of view here? Eternal
 >>agnosticism on this topic?

 >Nope, scientific inquiry and research.

Really? Please be so kind as to point me to the journals,
magazines, or other publications which contain your research and
inquiry in any of the matters under discussion.

 >>>You should take your own advice.

 >>First, of all, my theories in this matter are based on real
 >>data. Like I said, read the book and you'll get a better idea of
 >>what this data is. Or don't.

 >I might read your book if you can give me something more
 >substantial than mere conjecture and speculation.

Speculation, if conducted logically, leads to theory. _Factual_,
verifiable evidence--scientific and circumstantial--is then
examined for both pro and con evaluation.

 >>BTW, do you have any published
 >>research on this topic?

 >You've got to be kidding?! Wouldn't touch it with a ten foot
 >pole unless there was some kind of scientific data to support
 >such research. You have yet to produce anything that gives me
 >the slightest interest in such an endeavor. I'd rather study
 >angels dancing on the head of a pin than any proposed connection
 >between electromagnetic grids, "ley lines" and UFOs.

The electromagnetic connection to UFOs and the interest of non-
human beings in EM and power sources is well documented. But go
ahead and study pinheads.

 >Just because you wrote a book on this topic does not mean it is
 >based on research as in scientific study.

Whatever.

 >>I'm not being fascetious here (e-mail is
 >>vocally inflectionless, after all), but I'd like to see and
 >>evaluate *your* point of view.

 >This *is* my point of view, Mike. What you see is what you get (see
 >above).

It would seem that your point of view is to actually offer no
real point of view, other than argumentation.

 >>>1. You don't seem to understand what "ley lines" really are.
 >>
 >>You don't seem to comprehend the connection I'm making between
 >>the Earth's naturally occurring energy fields and the way they
 >>may be utilized by an advanced technology.

 >The earth has naturally occurring energy fields and there may be
 >"advanced" technologies here, there, out there- but you have yet
 >to demonstrate a clear connection between these variables.

See the "whatever" above.

 >>>2. You refer to polar regions as if some clear link has been
 >>>established between these regions and UFOs.

 >>I don't know how old you are, nor how long you've been
 >>researching, but a polar connection to UFOs has been speculated
 >>upon for many decades (and outside of "hollow earth" circles).
 >>UFO sightings in the Arctic and Antarctic where quite numerous
 >>among sea-going vessels and seafarers of earlier times, and
 >>these events were recorded in much detail and with great
 >>fascination.
 >
 >I'm 49 years young. I've been studying UFOs and related
 >phenomena since the age of 12 - about 37 years. I began
 >researching abduction phenomena in 1992 and military technology
 >in 1997 (and psychology in 1972).

Really? From your argumentative tone it seemed that you were
still in college--no offense meant!

 >I've probably read most of the materials you reference but have
 >yet to find anyone able to establish a definitive link
 >(supported by sound scientific research and data) between UFO
 >sightings and the earth's polar regions. Just because UFOs have
 >been sighted over the Artic and Antarctic does not mean there is
 >a connection between polar regions, UFOs and/or non-human,
 >"advanced" technologies. Since it is your contention there IS a
 >connection, the burden of proof is on your shoulders.

Just because any data has been recorded or reported or verified
in any way, doesn't mean anything at all--according to your
philosophy. This is ultimately how your point of view breaks
down.

 >>Expand your mind a little bit and check into Cathie's world grid

 >>Aside from this, there is undeniable evidence of a hidden source
 >>for this phenomenon, on our own planet. This evidence points not
 >>solely to remote regions such as the polar ones, but also to
 >>subterranean and suboceanic places of origin.

 >This is _your_ interpretation of the information you have
 >reviewed, Mike. I do not agee with your interpretation.


Now _that_ is the first honest, logical response you've given
me. Simple and factual. Everything else was ad hominem and a-
priori- -unless of course you are omniscient, in which case you
can fill us all in on the facts.

 >>>3. You refer to UFO pilots as a "technologically advanced race
 >>>or hominid species with whom we share this planet, and always
 >>>have" when you don't know who or what "UFO pilots" really
 >>>are... or are not.

 >>And you do - or do not? Do you believe that dozens of described
 >>humanoid forms all come to this one tiny planet, more or less
 >>simultaneously, from a hundred different planets in interstellar
 >>space? Do you really think the odds favor such a thing?

I note that _you did not answer the question_? You avoided it:

 >I don't believe much of anything, Mike, and I am very careful to
 >distinguish between speculation and fact. How well you support
 >your contentions determines the validity attributed to the
 >hypothesis. You have yet to scratch the surface.

See that "whatever" again.  Do some research, have the courage
to think beyond your carefully-constructed self-image as
habitual scoffer, and you might learn something that will blow
you away.

 >>Given that, despite the outlandishness of their "first
 >>impression" made upon witnesses, such beings exhibit something
 >>in common in almost every case - they conform to an
 >>_Earthly_Vertebrate_Template, one head, two eyes, two legs, two
 >>arms, central trunk, phalanges, essentially mammalian,
 >>reptilian, or hominid, and HUMANOID.

 >These "first impressions" are based on witness testimony. Human
 >witnesses are complex beings. To assume everything they describe
 >actually exists in physical reality is not scientific nor
 >logical.

Yeah? So what? What does this have to do with the statement?
_Nothing_.

Either 1) All witnesses are delusional or hallucinating, 2) Some
witnesses are delusional or hallucinating, 3) All witnesses are
telling the truth about real experiences, 4) No witnesses are
telling the truth about real experiences, or 5) Some witnesses
are telling the truth about real experiences.

Can you tell which accounts fit which categories? Again, this
can be determined through _comparison_ and parallels between
witness accounts and accounts from a variety of traditional,
historical, folk, mythical, religious, and scientific sources.

If you select 4) No witnesses are telling the truth about real
experiences, then you need to find a new hobby because you're
wasting your time, and everyone elses' time as well.

 >>Occam's razor would indicate that this is most likely _not_ the
 >>case, and all of these forms spring from the biodiversity of the
 >>Earth:

 >You apply "Occam's razor" to your own theories and beliefs -
 >circular logic.


Wrong. This statement is meaningless. Apparently what I'm saying
is beyond your understanding in this instance (revisit the
question you dodged, above).

 >>'Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitas.'

 >>or

 >>Plurality should not be posited without necessity.

 >What are you trying to say, Mike?

 >>>4. You warn of disinformation yet fall for it... hook, line and
 >>>sinker.

 >>Respectfully, I submit to you that I'm in all likelihood more on
 >>guard against disinformation than you yourself may be.

 >We will see... ;>The focus of my current research is deception,
 >disinformation and psyops.


And you are quite good at it. Obfuscation is part of the mix you
mention, after all. As I said, I'm on guard as well, as our
exchange should indicate.

 >>In fact,
 >>I refute it in a variety of venues, quite often.

 >Congratulations.


Thanks. The case at hand is a good example.

 >You, sir, have yet to "prove" anything.


You have yet to prove or disprove anything. You're simply making
noise. Generation of obfuscation, and wasting time and energy.

 >>In terms of circumstantial evidence and logical analysis, I
 >>assure you that my point of view in terms of the origin and
 >>nature of UFOs and their occupants is at least on a par with
 >>your own, and quite possibly much more informed and well-
 >>researched.

 >You think rather highly of yourself, Mike. At least you have
 >good self-esteem.


I'm apparently in good company in that regard.

 >>I guess I'd have to see your data to make that determination in
 >>the final analysis. You might want to try that yourself.

 >I'm waiting.

As am I. At least read a book to tear apart. I'm certainly not
going to transcribe it here for you. In the meantime, have the
guts to express your own beliefs on these matters, or just say
that you don't know, rather than assault research you know
nothing about.

The reviewer for FATE seemed to find the research quite sound,
so your asessment is really of little consequence to me. The
last line said something about "a fascinating, informative,
groundbreaking work."

On the other hand, put up or shut up. Prove or disprove
something. Make a bold revelation. Demonstrate whatever your
convictions are. Eternal scoffing and skepticism is not
scientific, enlightened, or even meaningful. It's a cop-out.

--Mike







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 3

                          Bush Backs Alien Evidence

From: Karl Rotstan <krotstan@bfdmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 13:22:15 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 14:31:30 -0500
Subject: Bush Backs Alien Evidence


Source Ananova

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_746860.html?menu=


George W Bush says there is mounting evidence to suggest there
is alien life on other planets.

The US President used his budget document to declare that there
may be "space aliens" to be discovered.

A passage entitled, "Where are the Real Space Aliens?", states
that important scientific research over the last 10 years
indicates that proof of "habitual worlds" in outer space is
becoming more of a reality.

Evidence for the current or previous existence of large bodies
of water, an essential element for life, has already been found
on Mars and on Jupiter's moons.

Astronomers are also discovering planets outside of our solar
system, including around 90 stars with at least one planet
orbiting them.

The document says: "Perhaps the notion that 'there's something
out there' is closer to reality than we have imagined."

Story filed: 16:29 Monday 3rd February 2003







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 3

                     Re: Abduction Question - Davenport

From: Peter Davenport <ufocntr@nwlink.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 10:32:46 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 16:17:35 -0500
Subject: Re: Abduction Question - Davenport


 >From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 05:43:13 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Abduction Question

 >>From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 20:32:08 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: Abduction Question

<snip>

 >>I wonder if the GPS system didn't glitch at the point noted and
 >>the computer just picked up the last known position and the
 >>"present" position and just connected the dots between those two
 >>because there was no information to plot in between the two
 >>positions.

 >Excellent question. I only have the information that was
 >released by George Filer. Like all of those preliminary reports,
 >it wasn't very comprehensive, nor did it provide enough detailed
 >information to answer your question properly.

 >It was probably another one of the many cases George passes
 >on that was originally handled and reported by NUFORC. (National
 >UFO Reporting Center) Maybe Peter can tell us who the original
 >investigator was (if any) on this case.

 >Does anybody within earshot know who investigated this case?
 >Peter, if you're reading this, could you point us at the right
 >person(s) to contact?


GPS/Boat Case

The case could be from NUFORC, or it could have originated with
George Filer. If someone could please provide me with the date
and location of the case, I will see if it is in the NUFORC
database.

Regards to All,

Peter


Peter B. Davenport, Director
National UFO Reporting Center
P. O. Box 45623
University Station
Seattle, WA  98145
E-Mail:  director@ufocenter.com
Web: www.UFOCENTER.com
Reporting Hotline:  (206) 722-3000







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 3

                      Re: Thoughts On Columbia - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 14:40:38 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 16:21:18 -0500
Subject: Re: Thoughts On Columbia - Ledger


 >From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 21:39:03 -0800
 >Subject: Thoughts On Columbia

 >As an aviator (former aviator) we all are lessened by the crash
 >in the Texas plains of a space shuttle that didn't complete her
 >mission. Note I use "Her" in the nautical sense, also Columbia
 >is female as I understand. As a student of history and one who
 >would be on the next Shuttle (even if it were fueled up on the
 >next pad today.)

 >We, as a spacefaring  people must not give up. To give up is to
 >die, to not look at the night sky and wonder, to not ask, are we
 >all that exsists, is this just for us? Maybe not, as also are we
 >the result of a Cosmic crapshoot?  I believe in the God who is
 >there, but I also beleive in the Human nature to question, to
 >sometimes defy, to quarrel, to be defying, to fight. That is
 >Human nature, that stubborn, bullheadedness, sometimes, that is
 >not good, but we still are. We stand at the threshold, are we we
 >or aren't we spacefarers.

 >The Russians (whom I admire,) say "Light the candle " for the
 >supply ship to the space station is going up there tomorrow. it
 >is up to all of us:

 >Light the Candle.----GO!


Hi GT,

I'm betting that there isn't an astronaut in any of the 6 or 7
countries, including this one, that participate - who wouldn't
climb aboard the STS-108 tomorrow if they had it ready and
cleared to go - and go. Like you, I would go, but at grand a
pound they'd probably insist I leave $60,000.00 of me behind.

This latest disaster has the the feeling of that one sees when
an airliner crashes rather than the feeling surrounding the
Challenger disaster. There's no hesitation about getting up and
running again, and pressing the edge of space. Even Bush said
that on Saturday.

It's sad that what happened, happened, but even NASA has said in
the past that they want space travel to be seen as routine and
not a Hollywood production each time a shuttle goes into space.
We tended to take the launches and returns for granted until
Saturday, despite how dangerous it was. But the safer and more
mundane it gets, the closer we will get to going back to the
Moon and off to Mars.

Bless 'em all.

Keep 'em flyin'

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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 3

                     Re: Necessary Speculation - Kaeser

From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 13:46:26 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 16:30:58 -0500
Subject: Re: Necessary Speculation - Kaeser


 >From: Brenda Denzler <bdenzler1@email.msn.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto" <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 21:14:00 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Necessary Speculation

<snip>

Eleanor White commented:

 >>Hmmm. From what I've heard on the 'Strange Days... Indeed' show,
 >>Errol Bruce-Knapp hosts on CFRB Toronto, abductees are fairly
 >>numerous. Kind of makes you wonder why there _haven't_ been
 >>mainstream scientists among them, right?

<snip>

 >You think there haven't been mainstream scientists among them?

 >Kerry Mullis, a Nobel Prize winning chemist, has had an
 >experience that sounds very much like an abduction. He writes
 >about it in his book, 'Running Naked Through the Mind Field'.

 >Brenda

A quick search failed to show any reference to this event in his
life, but I did find that he was one of many Nobel prize winners
to experiment with LSD. As a child of the 60's I'm no angel in
that regard, but that would likely limit his value as an
abductee. I don't have details regarding his "experience", but I
think that facet of his past would cloud ths issue.

I would add that there most likely have been a number of
professionals that have reported abduction events in their
lives, including some who work in the medical, legal, and law
enforcement areas. Unfortunately (and IMO), it will probably
take more than that to initiate the paradigm shift necessary for
society to acknowledge the alien abduction phenomenon. As noted
by John in an earlier comment in this thread, the MIT Abduction
Conference should have had far more impact than it did, and yet
it remains the only major forum where medical professionals and
researchers could compare notes and present their findings.

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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 3

                  Nobel Prize Winner Kary Mullis' Abduction

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 16:40:52 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 16:40:52 -0500
Subject: Nobel Prize Winner Kary Mullis' Abduction

'The OZ Files - The Australian UFO Story Tour'

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2000/mar/m31-011.shtml

by Bill Chalker

-----

Source: CUFOS

http://www.cufos.org/iur_Spring99_addendum.html


An Interesting Aside
by
Bill Chalker

On a Friday night in April 1983, Dr. Kary Mullis, a biochemist,
was driving up to his cabin in Mendocino county in northern
California. During that drive to his Anderson Valley cabin
Mullis conceived one of the great discoveries of modern
chemistry - the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), a surprisingly
simple method for making unlimited copies of DNA, thereby
revolutionizing biochemistry almost overnight. Kary Mullis
described his discovery in Scientific American ("The Unusual
Origin of the Polymerase Chain Reaction, April, 1990). He was
awarded the 1993 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his discovery.

Two years later, on a Friday night, during the summer of 1985,
Kary Mullis drove up to his cabin. Arriving around midnight
after driving for about three hours, Mullis dumped groceries he
bought on the way, switched on the lights (powered by solar
batteries) and headed, with flashlight in hand, to the outside
toilet located about 50 feet west of the cabin. He never got
there that night. Quoting from his 1998 book Dancing Naked in
the Mine Field, Mullis encountered something extraordinarily
weird on the way. "...at the far end of the path, under a fir
tree, there was something glowing. I pointed my flashlight at it
anyhow. It only made it whiter where the beam landed. It seemed
to be a raccoon. I wasn't frightened. Later, I wondered if it
could have been a hologram, projected from God knows where."

"The raccoon spoke. 'Good evening, doctor,' it said. I said
something back, I don't remember what, probably, 'Hello.' The
next thing I remember, it was early in the morning. I was
walking along a road uphill from my house."

Mullis had no idea how he got there but he was not wet from the
extensive early morning dew. His flashlight was missing. He was
never able to find it. He had no signs of injury or bruising.
The lights of the cabin were still on, along with the groceries
on the floor. Some six hours had gone by unaccounted for. Later
in the day he found that an area of his property - "the most
beautiful part of my woods" - had inexplicably become a place of
dread. A year or so later Mullis exorcised this fear John
Wayne-style by shooting the wood up. While his attempt at
psychotherapy proved successful it did not help him find out
what had happened that night in the summer of 1985. Mullis would
become the only known Nobel prize laureate to claim an
experience of what might be an alien abduction.

Kary Mullis describes himself as "a generalist with a chemical
prejudice." Others have described him as "Hunter Thompson meets
Stephen Hawking" or "the world's most eccentric and outspoken
Nobel Prize-winning scientist." It is not easy to dispose of
Mullis's experience as a drug or alcoholic hallucination. For
one, he was not affected by either that midnight. Plus, he has
not been the only one to have experienced strange events at the
cabin.

His daughter, Louise, disappeared for about three hours after
wandering down the same hill. She also reappeared on the same
stretch of road. Her frantic fianc=DAe was about to call the local
sheriff. Mullis had told no one of his experience until his
daughter called to tell him to buy Whitley Strieber's Communion.
She was ringing to also tell her father about her strange
experience. By coincidence when she rang, Mullis had already
been drawn to the book and was up to the point where Strieber
reports strange "owls" and little men entering his house.

In his own book Mullis concluded, "I wouldn't try to publish a
scientific paper about these things, because I can't do any
experiments. I can't make glowing raccoons appear. I can't buy
them from a scientific supply house to study. I can't cause
myself to be lost again for several hours. But I don't deny what
happened. It's what science calls anecdotal, because it only
happened in a way that you can't reproduce. But it happened."

Kary Mullis confirmed all this and more when I spoke with him
recently. Another person encountered a "glowing raccoon" between
the cabin and the toilet. This was a friend of Mullis who did
not know of the "raccoon" story and was a first-time visitor,
during a party at the cabin after the announcement of the Nobel
Prize win in 1993. This man did not stick around and fled up the
hill towards the house. On the way he encountered a small
glowing man, which then suddenly enlarged into a full sized man
who said something like, "I'll see you tomorrow." The man, who
was not experiencing a drug or alcohol-induced hallucination
left with a friend without informing anyone. They returned to
their hotel at a nearby town. That night the man inexplicably
found himself outside in the hotel car park troubled and
terrified by the impression he had somehow been back at the
Mullis cabin. He and his friend returned the following night to
the cabin. The celebratory party was carrying on from the
previous night. As the man arrived he was shocked to see the
"full-sized man" seen as an enlarging apparition the night
before drive up in a car. This was too much for the first time
visitor. He left in a panic, holding Mullis somehow responsible
for the previous nights events. Sometime later in tears he
revealed the full story to Mullis, who identified the man his
friend he had seen as his elderly neighbor. Mullis checked with
his neighbor and sure enough he had come to the party on the
second night, arriving to be seen by the terrified visitor.
However he was certain he was not there on the first night, not
in person and not lurking as a glowing raccoon or a small
glowing man that enlarged into a vision of himself. There is
more but that can perhaps wait for another more detailed
telling.

Given this sort of activity on his property it perhaps isn't
surprising that Kary Mullis told me he thinks the nature of his
experience is even stranger than abducting ETs. Instead he
speculates about multi-dimensional physics (a la Michio Kaku's
Hyperspace, 1994) at a macrocosmic level, "like anything can
god-damn happen and the speed of light is not really the limit
in terms of interactions with other cultures or whatever. This
stuff about grabbing people or subjecting them to all kinds of
experiments - it's just anthropology at a level we don't
understand quite yet." As for PCR testing of biological samples
from abductee experiences he indicated, "You might imagine that
I thought of that myself. As for instance in 'you can have some
of mine, if I can have some of yours.'" He would like to look at
this work, however he feels that the idea of an alien culture
needing our DNA to survive is very unlikely and a program on the
scale and nature of David Jacobs's The Threat improbable. Any
culture that could conquer the barrier of space-time could have
easily conquered the far simpler problems of complex
biochemistry and would not need us in the manner described in
the grey alien-human "hybrid" agenda theories.

  -  - -

See also:

Dancing Naked In The Mind Field
by
Kary Mullis

1998 - Vintage Books
A Division of Random House Inc, N.Y.

ISBN 0-679-77400-9

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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 3

                 Re: History Channel 'The UFO Week' - Velez

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 14:48:42 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 17:52:10 -0500
Subject: Re: History Channel 'The UFO Week' - Velez


 >From: Santiago Yturria <syturria@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 15:07:02 EST
 >Subject: History Channel 'The UFO week'

 >It started on Monday January 27 and continued all week long. The
 >History channel presented two UFO documentaries every day and
 >yesterday Saturday February 1 they decided to broadcast a UFO
 >Marathon all day long starting at 2.00 PM.

 >More than 12 hours of continuous UFO documentaries was certainly
 >a precedent rarely seen these days since the major networks are
 >always cold to the UFO subject. This was an important impulse
 >for Ufology and the History channel proved that UFOs are still a
 >fascinating subject for the people. Are you hearing CBS, NBC,
 >ABC and FOX ?

 >These are the documentaries presented during saturday's
 >marathon:

 >UFOs In The Bible
 >UFOs Aliens And Contact
 >UFO Hot Spots
 >When UFOs Arrive
 >Roswell: Final Desclassification
 >Other World: Area 51 The Real Story
 >UFOs Nightmare Abduction
 >UFOs The Innocent Years
 >The Crop Circle Connection

Hola Santiago, All,

I sat glued to the TV for five nights in a row, taking in all of
the programs that aired. Although some segments were better than
others, overall I'd say it was an excellent presentation. They
managed to recruit some of the best people available for the
commentaries.

Stan Freidman, Dick Hall, Kevin Randle, Dick Haines and Mark
Rodeghier were among those who handled the UFO-related
segments. Appearing in the abduction segment was Ray Fowler,
Budd Hopkins (along with myself and another of his cases,
Rosemary, both of us from New York City) and David Jacobs. Dick
Hall also contributed some commentary.

I was shocked to see myself!

Although the clips of me that were used were eight years-old,
(and they were used without asking me/securing my permission) I
have decided not to make an issue of it because of the quality
of the presentation and the other cases that were selected. They
focused the whole segment on cases where the witnesses were
fully conscious/awake and had a close-up encounter with a UFO
that developed into an abduction. That, along with reporting all
the attendant details such as; 'missing time' and the physical/
psychological sequelae of these events, made a strong case for
the reality of the UFO abduction phenomenon. The cases that I
appeared along-side of are all people/cases I am comfortable
with, and confident in.

The abduction segment featured the Betty and Barney Hill case,
the Allagash four case along with my own and that of Rosemary.
(Rosemary and myself were presented by Budd Hopkins.)

They did a good job elucidating on the phenomenon although I
wouldn't have minded if they hadn't included Michael Persinger
and his electric football helmet. Other than that, it was a well
balanced and informative documentary. The four cases presented
were solid and representative of what is being reported by
people from all over the globe.

All in all, very well done. Kudos to all the Listmembers who
participated. The series as a whole was an excellent primer for
anybody who was unfamiliar with the subject of UFOs and UFO
abduction. I'm only sorry that our Canadian friends were unable
to watch the series on their cable system. It was a goodie.


Regards,

John Velez

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

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/petition








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 3

                      Re: Marcello Truzzi RIP - Sandow

From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 15:13:00 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 18:00:49 -0500
Subject: Re: Marcello Truzzi RIP - Sandow


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 18:12:56 -0600
 >Subject: Marcello Truzzi RIP


I second everything that Jerry said. In the last couple of
years, I had the chance to get to know Marcello. We met once,
and then kept in occasional touch with e-mail. He was an
extraordinary man. Certainly he's one of the clearest thinkers
I've ever known. He had his preconceptions, as we all do, but he
kept a rigorous distance between what he might believe, and what
the facts might indicate. That made him open-minded. He's
perhaps best known for his criticism of organized skeptics, but
I discussed UFOs with him, and as I'm sure Jerry will confirm,
Marcello could be just as hard on ufologists. I never felt,
though, that I was up against an enemy, someone who was out to
destroy anything I thought, and would assume from the start that
my position was worthless. Instead, as Jerry so eloquently
noted, Marcello thought UFOs and other out-there subjects were
worth taking seriously. The questions he'd ask were invaluable.
In the unlikely event that I ever write a UFO book, I'll miss
Marcello, because I'd think he would have been the best possible
person to read it, and find its weaknesses. Any point he raised
- any criticism he made, any hole he found in the evidence or
reasoning - I'd take very seriously.

And he was lots of fun. He loved jokes, both to tell them, and
to study them academically. So hanging out with him meant a
barrage of jokes. Sometimes they were wonderful, sometimes you'd
groan, often he'd apologize, or seem a little sheepish, because
he just couldn't resist telling one more, and then another, and
another. His enthusiasm was contagious, though, and life was
always a little more enjoyable when he was around. One of his
enthusiasms was music. He'd e-mail me from time to time, to tell
me about music he'd discovered, and I always thought his views
of it were valuable. He'd also bombard me, once in a while, with
ideas for operas I should compose. They were his kind of ideas,
not mine, but that was why they were wonderful. I don't need
anyone to think of my ideas, and he'd always give me a different
view. I doubt I'm alone in this - I'm sure he sent off e-mails
with ideas to many people. And that's beyond the regular stream
of mail I and many others got from him, alerting us to
interesting websites (which really _were_ interesting).

I didn't know Marcello well, but he touched my life, and I'll
really miss him. Thanks, Jerry, for writing such a true and
heartfelt euology.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 3

                 BBC Seeks Info On UK Alien Encounters ASAP

From: Will Bueche <info@centerchange.org>
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 15:26:17 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 18:02:54 -0500
Subject: BBC Seeks Info On UK Alien Encounters ASAP


Center for Psychology and Social Change

If any List members are aware of any UK abduction cases, a BBC
reporter has just contacted us looking for info, for background
to accompany discussion of Spielberg's TAKEN miniseries which is
currently showing in the UK.

Regrettably most of the usual sources are away in Laughlin NV at
the moment so he's in a bit of a bind. He's not finding many UK
cases on the net.

If you are reading this message on Monday 2/3/02 please contact
him with any info on good cases that would show that the UK has
alien encounters too.

Contact him at:

matthew.oconnell [at] bbc.co.uk
-replace [at] with @-

Thank you.


Will Bueche
--
Center for Psychology and Social Change
Founded by John E. Mack, M.D.
PO Box 398080, Cambridge, MA 02139
www.centerchange.org







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 3

                       EW: Columbia: How You Can Help

From: Kurt Jonach - The Electric Warrior
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 12:36:58 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 18:06:07 -0500
Subject: EW: Columbia: How You Can Help


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

The Electric Warrior : Web Log February 3, 2003
http://www.electricwarrior.com/

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

Columbia: How You Can Help. We Must Go On

 >> COLUMBIA (UDATE)
space exploration

photo: Shuttle Columbia as seen over Dallas, Texas
http://www.electricwarrior.com/img/ShuttleColumbiaLost.jpg

 >> HOW YOU CAN HELP

02-Feb-03
NASA Asks Public for Shuttle Photo Uploads
http://weblog.siliconvalley.com/column/dangillmor/archives/000769.shtml#000769

DAN GILLMOR (Silicon Valley) - NASA is asking the public to help
in the investigation of the shuttle tragedy. The agency has set
up this page giving instructions on how people with photographic
evidence - photos and video - can upload it to NASA servers for
further investigation...The Internet goes in both (many)
directions. It isn't read-only. NASA gets this.

Instructions for Uploading Images and Video Related to the
Columbia Accident

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/instructions.html

JOHNSON SPACE CENTER (NASA) - For anyone who has recorded video
or taken photos that they believe may be of aid in the
investigation of the Space Shuttle Columbia accident, NASA has
established a special location on the Web where Internet users
may upload their media files to be reviewed by NASA.

 >> WE MUST GO ON

01-Feb-03
Shuttle Astronauts, RIP; Space Program, Too?
http://weblog.siliconvalley.com/column/dangillmor/archives/000768.shtml#000768

DAN GILLMOR (Silicon Valley) - We can feel little but sadness
for the men and women who perished this morning as their space
shuttle broke into pieces on re-entry into the earth's
atmosphere..... A re-examination of the entire space program -
and maybe turning it into a truly global affair - would be
smart at this point. But we would dishonor the memory of the
astronauts, and take away from our own future, if we let this
tragedy turn us away from the heavens.

01-Feb-03
Space Shuttle Columbia Disintegrates Over Texas
http://www.mactonnies.com/imperative36.html

TONNIES (The Cydonian Imperative) - Columbia's disintegration is
a profound loss that raises important questions about the future
of our already tenuous manned presence in space. It could be
argued that better technology could have prevented this
setback..... The demise of the Columbia and its crew shouldn't
hold us back. Their death should be a rallying call for new,
more efficient and more reliable space transportation systems.
The space shuttle concept, as presently manifested by NASA, begs
replacement. The time has surely come to broaden our conception
of space and the definition of our role in its uncompromising
vastness.

--------------------------------------------------
THE ELECTRIC WARRIOR
February 3, 2003
Silicon Valley, CA
http://www.electricwarrior.com

Graphics & Gonzo

--------------------------------------------------
The Space Shuttle photo is courtesy of Reuters

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

http://www.electricwarrior.com

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

eWarrior@electricwarrior.com








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 3

                    Re: Bush Backs Alien Evidence - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 21:33:06 +0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 18:10:01 -0500
Subject: Re: Bush Backs Alien Evidence - Hall


 >From: Karl Rotstan <krotstan@bfdmail.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 13:22:15 -0500
 >Subject: Bush Backs Alien Evidence

 >Source Ananova

 >http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_746860.html?menu=

 >George W Bush says there is mounting evidence to suggest there
 >is alien life on other planets.

 >The US President used his budget document to declare that there
 >may be "space aliens" to be discovered.

 >A passage entitled, "Where are the Real Space Aliens?", states
 >that important scientific research over the last 10 years
 >indicates that proof of "habitual worlds" in outer space is
 >becoming more of a reality.

 >Evidence for the current or previous existence of large bodies
 >of water, an essential element for life, has already been found
 >on Mars and on Jupiter's moons.

 >Astronomers are also discovering planets outside of our solar
 >system, including around 90 stars with at least one planet
 >orbiting them.

 >The document says: "Perhaps the notion that 'there's something
 >out there' is closer to reality than we have imagined."

 >Story filed: 16:29 Monday 3rd February 2003

Karl,

This is an example of utterly irresponsible internet alleged
news reporting by Ananova (who the hell are they? Their web site
was not terribly enlightening). The source is given as Pres.
Bush's budget; having held some of those in my hands during my
abstracting days at Congressional Information Service, that's
like saying the source is there somewhere among the grains of
sand on the beach. What volume, section, page? Furthermore, the
reported content sounds very far-fetched. Count me as highly
skeptical until someone verifies an actual quote.


  - 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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 3

                          Bush Backs Alien Evidence

From: Kelly Peterborough <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 17:24:40 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 18:12:17 -0500
Subject: Bush Backs Alien Evidence


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/usbudget/budget-fy2004/nasa.html

Despite all the space aliens that appear in science fiction
movies and books, we have yet to find conclusive evidence for
life, even microbes, anywhere in the universe besides Earth.
Through the early 1990s, research showed that the universe,
except for the Earth, was possibly inhospitable to life.
However, in the past 10 years, a number of important discoveries
indicate that habitable worlds may be much more prevalent than
previously thought. Researchers have found life in very harsh
environments on Earth, which expands the possible kinds of
places where life might exist. In our solar system, scientists
have discovered evidence of currently or previously existing
large bodies of water, a key ingredient of life, on Mars and the
moons of Jupiter. Astronomers also have begun to find planets
outside our solar system, identifying approximately 90 stars
with at least one planet orbiting them. Perhaps the notion that
'there's something out there' is closer to reality than we have
imagined.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 3

                 Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 18:27:24 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 18:33:17 -0500
Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Ledger


 >>From: David Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 20:39:59 -0000
 >>Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

 >>>From: Nick Pope <nick@popemod.freeserve.co.uk>
 >>>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 22:35:15 -0000
 >>>Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham


 >Dave,

 >>>Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

 >>When I left them they were laughing about their sudden baptism
 >>of fire in the world of Ufology, which they had perceptively
 >>recognised was full of competing egos, petty bitchiness and
 >>empire-building.

 >As opposed, I suppose, to what happens in other human
 >subcultures. I love it when critics pretend to believe that what
 >occurs inside ufology is somehow fundamentally different from
 >what goes on in any other human enterprise, where ordinary
 >failings are equally in view. Maybe these critics ought to get
 >out of the house more often. If nothing else, the experience
 >should teach them a little about humility. Or, if not that, at
 >least something about perspective.

 >>It was nice, they said, to find someone who stuck to the facts
 >>and agreed with me that the people involved in Ufology are more
 >>interesting than the UFOs themselves.

 >Could you be any more condescending?

 >If you really believe that - and aren't, as I suspect, merely
 >engaged in an egotist's chest-thumping - maybe it's time for you
 >to find something else to do.

 >In my years in ufology, I've met all variety of men and women,
 >but none of them, sane or crazy, virtuous or venal, has ever
 >struck me as anything other than purely human, with his or her
 >counterpart easily findable elsewhere in life. If I want to
 >learn about my fellow Homo sapiens, all I have to do is go out
 >and meet them. The UFO phenomenon presents far more complex and
 >interesting challenges.  Maybe all you're telling us is that
 >you're just not up to them.



Hi Jerry,

It seems David borrowed this line from his and Andy's missive in
the Forteans Times, from some self-satisfied quack who was
looking at the reporters and witnesses to UFO sightings. The
whole piece was simply a grouping of insults rather than
anything of meaningful contribution to the phenomenon. And this
mind you after Andy advised that all serious UFO investigators
should read this.

Self-serving at best.

To borrow one of his lines, I was rather amused and it seems
rather silly to me in light of the overwhelming number of
qualified witnesses from many professions and persuasions to
continue on this path of denial.

I spent last Friday afternoon talking to a decorated Army
officer here in Canada about his daylight encounter, along with
his driver, of a monsterous object not more than a few hundred
feet away from them. Yet I'm supposed to care what some silly,
apparently unqualified, and seriously neglegent doctor has to
say or quip about. I would think any doctor who talked about his
patients this way should be deprived of his license.

Another Attack of the Clones. Come on boys, produce hard
evidence to the contray or shut up. Yourselves and several
others are just wasting time.

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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 4

                   Re: Validating The Ramey Memo - Rudiak

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 20:44:54 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 08:57:15 -0500
Subject: Re: Validating The Ramey Memo - Rudiak


 >From: Jim Houran <JHouran@siumed.edu>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 11:51:40 -0600
 >Subject: Re: Validating The Ramey Memo

 >>From: Thomas Carey <TCarey1947@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 10:14:42 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Validating The Ramey Memo

 >>>From: Jim Houran <JHouran@siumed.edu>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 14:25:53 -0600
 >>>Subject: Re: Validating The Ramey Memo

 >>>I cannot speak for Kevin Randle, but I will leave this now non-
 >>>constructive debate on this final note. It seems that Rudiak
 >>>neither understands the rationale for my arguments on bias or
 >>>the influence of preconceived notions, nor the implications of
 >>>the various statistical findings in my JSE paper with Randle.
 >>>Suffice it to say, we must agree to disagree. I strongly suggest
 >>>to Rudiak, however, that he submit his study of the Ramey Memo
 >>>to a peer-reviewed, scientific journal, as I have done. I will
 >>>continue my work on the problem in the way I feel it should be
 >>>handled, and I will disseminate the results (be they pro or
 >>>con) in said forums.

 >>In case you missed it folks, what Jim Houran just executed
 >>is known in debating and debunking circles as the "discreet
 >>withdrawal". Congratulations, David.

 >Reality check, Tom. As I have said repeatedly, I urge anyone
 >that has issues with my study or proposals to submit a formal
 >Letter to the Editor of the JSE, as well as submit their own
 >work to a peer-reviewed, scientifc journal, and allow others to
 >independently attempt to replicate and validate that work. That
 >is what we academics call the scientific method.

Here's a real reality check. The "scientific method" demands
that conclusions follow logically from data. In the case of the
Houran/Randle paper, the scientific method has been turned on
its head. The primary conclusion ("very significant" context
"priming" effect) has no data to support it. When asked for the
data by one of the referees of JSE, it turns out there was no
data because the research assistant had tossed it in the trash.

At that point, the paper should have been automatically rejected
by the peer reviewers for lack of proper supporting data. But
it wasn't, another serious failing of the "scientific method"
and the process of peer review.

The "scientific method" also demands that data reduction be done
properly. It turns out that in at least one instance that I
just discovered, this wasn't done either, and should have been a
big red flag to at least one author of this paper or at least
one JSE peer reviewer. In the "Results" section, the average
words deciphered per person for each of the 3 testing conditions
was discussed: the Roswell context condition with a mean of 4.6
words, the atomic testing condition with 4.8 words, and the
context-free control condion with 1.6 words.

What struck me as odd on my first read-through was that the
standard deviations for all three groups were identical at 0.23
words. The odds of that happening by chance are pretty slim,
probably much less than 1%.  Furthermore, these SD's seemed
much too small. We're talking about 2/3's of the readers being
within about "quarter of a word" of the mean in number of words
read, and 95% being within about "half a word" of the mean.

When I finally looked at it more closely yesterday, it turned
out to be more than odd -- it was impossible, unless they were
scoring fractional words or syllables. E.g., in the Atomic
testing group, one could obtain a mean of 4.8 words by 47 of the
58 subjects reading 5 words and the remaining 11 reading 4
words. But the standard deviation is 0.40, not 0.23, even in
this best-case scenario. The minimum possible SD's are even
larger for the Roswell and control groups, where the means are
further removed from being whole numbers.

This isn't opinion on my part. This is just math, correct math,
another key component of the scientific method.

Thus on top of a conclusion with no supporting data, we now have
some rather obviously bogus standard deviations. Where did
these come from? Are these just innocent typos? Did somebody
not know how to calculate SD's? Or did somebody just make them
up after the paper was submitted? Without the raw data, it
would be impossible to calculate them if later requested by a
referee. So maybe somebody just pulled them of a hat but didn't
have the sense to make them mathematically possible much less
plausible.

All I know is that this is another instance of where JSE's peer
review process failed miserably. It doesn't take that much
smarts to realize that something was probably wrong with those
standard deviations. It certainly took me only a few minutes to
verify that they were impossible.

There are other oddities in the numbers, such as the Atomic
testing group reading so-called "exlusive" words with nearly
three times the frequency as the Roswell group despite spending
20% less time on average (200 words vs. 75). That makes no
sense, nor do other numbers in the test results, all of which
should be raising red flags that maybe the experiment wasn't
carried out properly. But there is no way to check any of this
because the raw data got tossed in the dumpster. Incredible!

I guess what present-day "academics" call the "scientific
method" has changed somewhat since I was in the academic
community.

 >Some of the comments I have read make me, an outsider to
 >ufology, think that selected ufologists and researchers have
 >never heard of it, or have no practical knowledge re: research
 >methods and study design. I don't hide from criticism or debate,
 >nor I do refrain from giving it where I see it should be
 >applied, as anyone who knows me and my work record can attest.
 >Indeed, there is nothing discreet about me.

James Houran's psychological experiment has completely bogus
standard deviations. There is no data to support the main
conclusion. Allegedly the research assistant threw it out. Or
maybe Houran's dog ate it. How can one reach a conclusion
without the proper data and write a paper about it? And why
would the peer reviewers OK such a paper for publication? The
whole point of peer review is to screen out such obviously
deficient research.

Under the circumstances, James Houran's statements about how he
understands the scientific experimental process while his
critics don't are supercilious and hypocritical, if not
laughable. Instead, pretending to be above it all is his rather
transparent way of avoiding embarrassing questions.

 >My impression is that my work on the Ramey problem scares people
 >who have clear vested interests in particular interpretations of
 >the Ramey Memo.

My impression is that James Houran is scared to answer questions
about his work on the "Ramey problem." Some of his reported data
is clearly invalid (the standard deviations), perhaps even
fabricated, and his primary conclusion has no supporting data.
He stated in his paper that their "expectations" were that they
would find a "very significant" "priming" or biasing of readings
based on context. Lo and behold, that's what they found, or so
they claim. When a referee asked to see the relevant data, they
claimed it had been thrown away by the research assistant.

Supposedly it's this unsupported expected conclusion from data
that does not exist that has those of us with "vested interests"
so "scared." Houran has the emotion wrong. It is not fear that
I feel. It is anger and outrage that this study with it's sham
results could possibly be considered "scientific" or that
anybody would take it seriously.

That a paper with so many serious and obvious deficiencies got
through the peer review process at JSE is also highly
disturbing. There is no way to describe the peer review on this
paper other than it being shoddy and inept. Maybe some "peer"
back-scratching was involved. JSE needs to take a very close at
its peer review process if it wants to develop credibility as a
journal of alternative science.

 >Tom, the person you should really congratulate is Kevin Randle,
 >who has had remarkable fortitude in resisting participation in
 >this thread. That is what we call in certain circles "class".

Kevin Randle has obviously put in an enormous amount of time
into the Roswell case. He has also always been very helpful to
me when I've asked him questions concerning Roswell. So I am
very sorry to see him associated with this train wreck of a
"scientific" study. Nonetheless, he is the coauthor of the paper
and shares responsibility, even if maybe he didn't handle the
psychological experiment portion with the imaginary standard
deviations and missing supporting data of the primary
conclusion.

 >Good luck to you, Tom, and all other researchers on your work on
 >the Ramey Memo. I look forward to seeing it published in
 >scientific journals.

 >Sincerely,

 >Jim Houran

I look forward to Jim Houran anwering questions for a change
instead of stalling and dodging. I asked him for the numbers
supporting his primary conclusion. No answer. Instead I get his
evasive response that if I have problems with the paper I should
write a letter to the JSE. Why, do they have the missing data?
Why won't the primary author answer a simple question?

To the list of quesions, I would now like to add where he got
those obviously bogus standard deviations for words deciphered?
However, I seriously doubt we will get any answers from this
not-so-sincere sincere academician. Instead he pretends to be
taking the high road and representing the scientific process,
which has actually been very badly corrupted in this study.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 4

                 Re: More On Wrong Roswell Dig Site - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 00:25:36 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 09:00:20 -0500
Subject: Re: More On Wrong Roswell Dig Site - Gates


 >From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 22:43:08 EST
 >Subject: Re: More On Wrong Roswell Dig Site

 >>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 23:00:32 EST
 >>Subject: Re: More On Wrong Roswell Dig Site

 >>>From: Tom Carey <TCarey1947@aol.com>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 10:58:37 -0500
 >>>Subject: Re: More On Wrong Roswell Dig Site

<snip>

 >>>As Kevin has stated in another post, we are certain of the
 >>>site. All Brad has done is to try to create a false sense of
 >>>confusion regarding the location of the debris field where there
 >>>is none to those of us who have been there.

 >>He and Kevin have pointed out the descrepencys on where the site
 >>was. Kevin points out that Don Schmitt puts the location a
 >>little 2 or 3 hundred years west then he does although you could
 >>say in the same area. One also gathers from Kevins post that
 >>location information that came from Loretta Proctor (although
 >>she apparently is a nice person) may not be accurate.

 >Good Evening, All -

 >First, I did not say two or three yards, but two or three
 >hundred feet too far to the west. I have also suggested that Don

Evening, all,

One should note that when I wrote this, I said two or three
hundred years, not yards... a keyboard mistake on my part, and
in fact I meant feet.

 >Schmitt might claim I put it two to three hundred feet too far
 >east. But I also suggested that if Jess Marcel's estimate of
 >size was wrong and the field was a mile long, then both ends
 >would have been on the right site. I also said that the
 >archaeological dig was on the right site and the disagreement,
 >slight though it is, is about the precise east-west edges and
 >nothing more.

The point I get out of all this is we have the area correct.
Obviously we don't have "the exact" location of the debris field
as that could be dependent on the testimony of the witnesses,
i.e. 600 feet long in 47, 3/4 of a mile long years later.

One wonders on what basis Don Schmitt moves the debris field
over 2 or 3 hundred feet.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 4

                      Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Hebert

From: Amy Hebert <yellowrose129@attbi.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 23:31:33 -0600
Fwd Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 09:02:09 -0500
Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Hebert


 >From: Wm. Michael Mott <mottimorph@earthlink.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 10:11:11 -0600 (CST)
 >Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs

 >>From: Amy Hebert <yellowrose129@attbi.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto" <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 17:20:02 -0600
 >>Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs

<snip>

 >You have yet to examine the research. I'm certainly not going to
 >post a book's worth of data here for you to nit-pick in what
 >seems to be a meaningless desire for argumentation for its own
 >sake--without factual basis on any point from your side, I might
 >add.

Hi, Mike:

On Thursday, Jan. 30, 2003, you wrote:

 >>>>You are right to some extent, of course. My main theory here is
 >>>>that there may be an planetary grid of electromagnetic energy,
 >>>>of which ley lines and such are just a subset, which facilitates
 >>>>travel for them, when close to the planet's surface.

You proposed your theory.

I asked for scientific data/evidence that this "grid" and "ley
lines" existed and that they were connected to UFOs - as per
your contentions.

You referred me to URL's that were nothing more than futher
theory and speculation (and your book).

Now you jump up and down trying to put the burden of proof on my
back.

Mike, it's your theory, not mine. I am asking for clear,
scientific data/research that supports the physical reality of
this "planetary grid of electromagnetic energy" and "ley lines"
which you claim facilitates travel for "them". I have not said
these things do not exist. I said I want to see some kind of
scientific data from scientific research that supports your
claims.

Until you can provide the data/research you claim supports your
claim, we have nothing to discuss.


A. Hebert

PS- As for me being still in college, you're sort of right. I
will soon be working on my Ph.D.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 4

                  Loch Ness UFO Video To Be Screened By Fox

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@privat.dk>
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 06:42:52 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 09:03:52 -0500
Subject: Loch Ness UFO Video To Be Screened By Fox


Source: The Inverness Courier

http://www.inverness-courier.co.uk/news.asp?storyvar=3D5995

Stig

***

4 February 2003

U.S. and world screening for Loch Ness UFO video

**

A VIDEO of a mysterious light seen near Loch Ness is set to be
seen by millions of television viewers across the USA after
being snapped up by Fox News.'

The video, taken by Ian and Liz Gresham of Drumnadrochit, has
already been screened on BBC Scotland after featuring in The
Inverness Courier two weeks ago.

The light was seen above the village over successive nights,
prompting a number of UFO researchers to announce plans to visit
Drumnadrochit and investigate the phenomenon for themselves.

Mr Gresham expects the video to be screened sometime next week
on the Fox Channel =E2=C7" the network which produced "The X-Files".

He hopes showing it in the USA, and around the world on cable
and satellite, will produce an explanation for the unidentified
object.

"There are bound to be a lot more people interested in UFOs and
know about them over there than there are in this country," he
commented.

Possible explanations suggested so far include a man-made object
or an electrical discharge created by tectonic forces in the
Great Glen geological faultline, but Mr Gresham remains to be
convinced by these.

editorial@inverness-courier.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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 4

                 Timothy Good Backs Up Neighbour's Sighting

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@privat.dk>
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 06:58:11 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 09:05:26 -0500
Subject: Timothy Good Backs Up Neighbour's Sighting

Source: Newsshopper

http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/bromley/display.var.689995.index.proof_ufos_ar
e_out_there.html



this is LOCAL LONDON
Part of the this is network

10:56 Tuesday 28th January 2003
News And Features

Bromley

*

Proof UFOs are out there

By Richard Simcox

**

A UFO expert reckons his neighbour has vital new evidence for
the existence of aliens.

Author Timothy Good, 60, believes a mysterious circular object
moving across the sky spotted by neighbour Chris Taylor, could
be a genuine and important sighting.

Postman Mr Taylor, 44, saw the object from his bedroom in The
Avenue, Beckenham.

He said "I looked out of the window and saw this thing, like a
light moving very quickly, going against the usual direction of
air traffic.

"It was going way too fast to be a hot air balloon, and seemed
very high up. I couldn't say what it was.

"I've never seen anything like it in my life. I've seen unusual
things but nothing like that."

Mr Good, who claims to have seen a UFO above Orpington back in
1980, is a world-renowned expert on UFOs.

He believes there are several different species of aliens living
on earth and has been invited to The Pentagon to discuss his
research.

He said: "It sounds like this could be a genuine sighting, and I
was very interested in what Mr Taylor said."

Have you seen an unfamiliar flying object? Email
swarden@london.newsquest.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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 4

                  Otherworldly Questions From Burnt Circles

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@privat.dk>
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 07:16:59 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 09:54:02 -0500
Subject: Otherworldly Questions From Burnt Circles


Go to the page for photo!

Stig

***

Source: The Bellingham Herald, Washington State

http://news.bellinghamherald.com/stories/20030201/LocalState/127166.shtml

Saturday, February 1, 2003=C2

Otherworldly questions rise from burnt grass circles

DAMAGED FIELD: Agriculture experts say rings could be result of
fungus.

Ericka Pizzillo, The Bellingham Herald

**

Two local farmers are speculating that otherworldly visitors may
be responsible for the various-sized rings of dead grass in a
Whatcom County pasture. But some Washington State University
researchers say that the only thing that may be among us is
fungus.

There are a number of fungi that could have caused the rings on
farmer Gary Gansler's leased grass pasture south of Lynden, said
Tim Miller, a weed specialist with the Washington Cooperative
Extension Service in Mount Vernon.

One is a disease commonly known as a "fairy ring." Fairy rings
produce mushrooms in a circular pattern on highly fertilized
areas, but the mushrooms can die back quickly. The rings spread
out in circles in search of more food and sometimes leave behind
circles of dead grass, although healthy grass is left in the
middle of the circle, creating a doughnut shape.

The bigger the circle, the longer the fungus has been on the
ground, Miller said. Some fairy rings are more than a hundred
years old and 100 feet in diameter.

Gansler said he finds Miller's explanation hard to believe. His
rings didn't sprout the telltale mushrooms that signal a turf
disease.


Appeared in November

  Gansler first noticed his rings in November. The rings, one at
least 40 feet across and others between 5 and 9 feet across,
were covered in black soot.

In the weeks afterward, the rain washed away the soot, leaving
behind dead grass and bare ground to create the rings' doughnut
shape.

Miller said one type of fungus called "inky cap" produces
mushroom that disintegrate into a black goo, although it's not
typically known to produce circular shapes.

The black soot could have also been the decomposing grass after
it died, said Steve Fransen, a forage specialist at the WSU
Cooperative Extension Service in Prosser.


Friend has UFO info


Gansler grows hay and grass for silage that he sells to other
farmers and to feed his herd of a dozen beef cattle. He
fertilizes the ground with chicken manure he gets from friend
Russell Simonson, who was excited to hear about Gansler's rings.

Simonson, a member of the Bellingham UFO group called Contact,
said he's seen stories about crop circles which are intricate
patterns pressed into crop fields, but where no damage is done
to the plants, unlike the circles on Gansler's land.

Several years ago two men in England demonstrated how they
hoaxed local citizens by creating crop circles with a rope and a
board. But belief in crop circles still exists among some who
believe in alien visitation to Earth. And Simonson said he's
seen documentation about burned circles in farmland that could
be alien-related.


Burnt by hand?


Simonson's son-in-law suggested that someone might have burned
the grass in circular shapes, but Simonson brought out a propane
torch to show that isn't possible in a short period of time.

"It would take maybe six months to produce these," Simonson said
as he burned a spot of grass.

Gansler said he's still skeptical about the existence of aliens,
but said he saw an unidentified object with purple lights and an
orange glow, lift up off a Van Dyk Road farm several years ago.

Gansler didn't talk about the sighting for years.

"I thought people would think I was crazier than a loon,"
Gansler said.

Simonson said he's had several sightings, including the first in
1978 when he was featured in a Herald article about his
experience.

Whatcom County-based cooperative extension agent Craig
MacConnell said the university lab can do soil tests on samples
of the rings to really figure out what caused the rings, which
he also said were likely fungal.

But MacConnell said he wouldn't diagnose the problem without
seeing it first hand.

"This is the kind of stuff we see regularly," MacConnell said.

Reach Ericka Pizzillo at ericka.pizzillo@bellinghamherald.com or
call 715- 2266.

**

Copyright 2002, The Bellingham Herald. 1155 N. State. St.,
Bellingham, WA 98225, Phone (360) 676-2600.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 4

                      George Knapp Interviews John Mack

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@privat.dk>
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 07:30:53 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 09:55:44 -0500
Subject: George Knapp Interviews John Mack


Source: Las Vegas Mercury

http://www.lasvegasmercury.com/2003/MERC-Jan-30-Thu-2003/20572275.html


Thursday, January 30, 2003
Copyright Las Vegas Mercury

Knappster: Harvard prof takes alien abduction seriously

By George Knapp

**

I first met Dr. John Mack in 1993 at a tiny UFO conference in
the Ozarks. The publication of Dr. Mack's book about alleged
alien abductions was still a year away, but the fact that a
professor from the Harvard Medical School was taking the
phenomena seriously was big news in the UFO field. Mack was an
immediate celebrity, although he seemed to wear the mantle with
some reluctance.

Mack wasn't exactly your run-of-the-mill, leather-patches-on-
the-elbows, stuffy academic. He had founded the Department of
Psychiatry at Cambridge Hospital, had logged 30-plus years as a
board-certified psychoanalyst and even won a Pulitzer Prize for
his biography of T.E. Lawrence, better known as Lawrence of
Arabia. He had an impeccable reputation as a man of science, but
clearly had other talents and interests as well. Of course, all
that went out the window when he went nuts. Oh, he went crazy
all right. In 1992, Mack was co-chair of a conference held at
MIT, a conference focusing on the scientific investigation of
alleged encounters with aliens. And in 1994, his landmark book
Abduction: Human Encounters with Aliens hit the stands,
verifying the view among his colleagues that he had gone loony.

Harvard Medical School responded to the publicity about Dr.
Mack's book by launching a 15-month inquiry into his
professional ethics and standards. Because he was tenured, they
couldn't simply fire him, but a committee of skeptical peers
made his life as miserable as they could. Harvard honchos were
aghast, they said, when they tuned into the Oprah Winfrey show
and saw one of their professors talking about people being
abducted by little green men.

"I doubt the dean had actually watched the show," Mack recalls.
"I said nothing about little green men, but the nature of the
administration's anxiety was apparent."

Although his Harvard colleagues had little or no familiarity
with the case studies of alleged abductees, they already "knew"
that none of this malarkey could be true, so they put Mack
through the ringer for more than a year. He eventually had to
hire famed Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz (the same legal
whiz who helped represent local murder defendants Sandy Murphy
and Rick Tabish) to defend his integrity. In the end, Harvard
backed off, and Mack continued his research.

In the beginning, Mack says, he focused on trying to prove that
abductions were "really taking place in a literal, physical
sense." He studied dozens of cases, ruled out psychosis or
hallucinations as the root cause, and was left with some very
disturbing data in the end, information that challenges our most
fundamental beliefs about the nature of reality itself. It is
very heavy stuff, and not everyone is ready to hear it.

"Behind the nervous efforts to discredit the encounter reality
lies a deeper concern," Mack says. "This phenomena does not
stand alone, but is one anomaly among many. Others include near-
death experiences, spirit manifestations, shamanic journeys and
others. All of these challenge our understanding of reality and
suggest the presence in the universe of other intelligences that
may reach into our world under particular conditions."

Mack does not adhere to the simple notion that aliens from other
planets are visiting Earth in spaceships. This new reality he's
been exploring goes a lot deeper than that, suggesting there are
other intelligences in the world, maybe other worlds or
dimensions, and that we don't know diddly about how the cosmos
really operates. Not your typical "I was ravished by beautiful
aliens from Venus" claptrap.

"Our understanding of reality is extremely limited, the cosmos
is more mysterious than we have imagined," Mack says. "There are
other intelligences all about, consciousness itself may be the
primary creative force in the universe, and our knowledge of the
physical world is far from complete."

This is really only a thumbnail sketch of what Dr. Mack has to
say. He has dared to challenge our accepted view of reality and
has already been ripped to shreds for having the audacity to
speak his mind. Anyone interested in hearing his full take on
the nature of reality might want to check out the International
UFO Congress, set for Feb. 2-8 at the Flamingo Hotel in
Laughlin. In addition to Dr. Mack, speakers of note include Budd
Hopkins, whose best-selling books about alleged abductions are
what got Mack interested in the first place; Jaime Maussan, a
journalist who worked for Mexico's "60 Minutes" but who quit to
work full time on UFO disclosure; Graham Birdsall, a British
magazine publisher known for coming up with fascinating UFO
videos that are tough to explain; and Jim Marrs, an
investigative reporter who has written popular books about
government secrecy and hidden agendas. (For further info, check
out ufocongress.com)

Knappster can relate somewhat to being dubbed a UFO nutcase.
There are many among us who do not welcome open and honest
inquiry into matters that might upset our basic beliefs and
foundations. Admittedly, much of what you see and read in the
UFO field is a bunch of crap. Likewise, not everything you will
hear at the Congress could be considered to be literal truth.
Some if it promises to be downright wacky. But rest assured that
at least some of the speakers will knock the socks off of anyone
who attends with an 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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 4

               UFO Wisconsin Reports 10 Sightings In New Year

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@privat.dk>
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 07:53:42 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 09:57:44 -0500
Subject: UFO Wisconsin Reports 10 Sightings In New Year


Source: OnMilwaukee.com,

http://www.onmilwaukee.com/buzz/articles/ufowisconsin.html

Stig

***

05:23 a.m. January 29, 2003

UFO Wisconsin reports 10 sightings in new year

By Molly Snyder Edler

**

Although many of us are skeptical of anyone who claims to have
seen an unidentified flying object, UFO Wisconsin
(www.ufowisconsin.com) has already received 10 reports of
supposed UFO sightings.

The first report came on New Years Day, from Lodi. "It was
hovering over the Badger Ordinance area moving very slow with a
hissing sound and blinking lights when it jetted off just like
that and it was gone."

A week later, on Jan. 8, a report was filed by a man in
Wauwatosa who claims, "I was driving down the street. I saw a
bird flying along about 50 feet above the ground. It was just
flying swiftly -- then BAM! -- it stopped in dead flight. Like
it hit a wall and then fell and hit the road. Whatever it hit,
it was transparent. The streetlights at this intersection where
this occurred have been messed up for three days now."

Three reports came in on Jan. 14 , from Wisconsin Rapids, West
Bend and Greenwood. One came in on the 15th from Wisconsin Dells
and three sightings were reported on the 16th from Sturgeon Bay,
Vesper and again from the Dells.

"At 6:15 p.m. I was driving west on Griffith Avenue towards
town," reads one of the reports filed from Wisconsin Dells. "I
was driving along and I saw five bright lights in the
southwestern sky. They were very bright and circle shaped. It
didn't appear to be moving at the time, but after five seconds,
they started to flash. One by one they disappeared."

Finally, on Jan. 17, a report was filed from Cudahy. "My
neighbor and I were looking out her picture window when I saw
two silver-type objects in the sky. One seemed to be motionless,
the other one was traveling in a westerly direction. It hovered
for a bit and then went higher. It then hovered again and moved
southward. Within a few seconds after this, it disappeared. It
was an extremely bright white color. It seemed to have a
slightly curved top."

John Hoppe and his wife started ufowisconsin.com in September of
2001, and since then, almost 80,000 people have visited the
site. The site has two goals: to further the awareness of the
UFO phenomena and to track the UFOs in our state's skies.

The idea for the web site was born in July of 2001 when the
Hoppes attended the annual UFO Daze event at Benson's Hide-away
on Long Lake. According to Hoppe, on the evening of July 21,
2001, approximately 50 witnesses saw UFO's fly over the lake.

"The site was created for Wisconsinites to be able to report
Unidentified Flying Objects and get the attention that the
sightings deserve," he says.

Hoppe, who lives in Sheboygan, claims to have experienced three
UFO sightings since he was a child. "The term UFO doesn't
necessary mean alien driven space craft; it simply means
'Unidentified Flying Object,'" says Hoppe. "Sometimes a simple-
looking object at night can be easily misidentified. So take
some extra time to gather as much information as possible."

After high school, Hoppe joined the Army where he became a
mechanic. He later earned a diploma to be an Emergency Medical
Technician and Paramedic and continues to take classes in
computer programming, leadership and psychology. He currently
works in Sheboygan as an offset pressman.

As for the existence of aliens, Hoppe is unresolved in his
beliefs. He says he has never seen an alien, but is empathetic
to those who have reported abductions and believes that someone
-- or something -- must be driving the crafts. He also thinks,
possibly, aliens are responsible for crop circles. "On another
note maybe it's the government doing all this in the first
place, " he admits.

UFO Wisconsin doesn't claim that these sightings actually
happened, rather they provide a place for people to file reports
and to have them published. The site also features a photo and
video gallery, a UFO library, discussion groups and UFO news. It
also cites Milwaukee's Flying Saucer Cafe as a UFO- friendly
place to hang out.

UFO Wisconsin's next monthly meeting is scheduled for Sat., Feb
1 at the St. Francis Library, 4230 S. Nicholson Ave. The meeting
is free and open to everyone: believers, non-believers, those
who have seen a UFO and those who are simply curious.

"We respect everyone's opinions," says Hoppe. "I have learned
early on that once a firm belief exists in someone, it is hard
to change that belief."

**

C. 2003, OnMilwaukee.com, LLC Milwaukee's Daily Magazine and
Internet City Guide








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 4

                 Re: History Channel 'The UFO week' - Bowden

From: Tom Bowden <tomrbowden@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 00:06:39 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 09:59:48 -0500
Subject: Re: History Channel 'The UFO week' - Bowden


 >From: Santiago Yturria <syturria@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 15:07:02 EST
 >Subject: History Channel 'The UFO week'

 >It started on Monday January 27 and continued all week long. The
 >History channel presented two UFO documentaries every day and
 >yesterday Saturday February 1 they decided to broadcast a UFO
 >Marathon all day long starting at 2.00 PM.

 >More than 12 hours of continuous UFO documentaries was certainly
 >a precedent rarely seen these days since the major networks are
 >always cold to the UFO subject. This was an important impulse
 >for Ufology and the History channel proved that UFOs are still a
 >fascinating subject for the people. Are you hearing CBS, NBC,
 >ABC and FOX?

<snip>

Dear List,

I was very impressed with this series on the whole. While it did
give the skeptical or alternative views on many cases, it did
not always wrap up with the skeptics having the last word, as
has been the case with many of these documentary programs.

Now if we could just stop people from making ludicrous, twisted
science statements such as what was said about the heavy
hydrogen, "H3O" (egad!) coming from volcanoes, we might be able
to get some credibility. If that gentleman is reading this
posting, I hope he would please have a chat with his friendly
neighborhood chemist or physicist to get some help with sorting
out the difference between the isotopes of hydrogen and the
true, existing compounds containing hydrogen.

I also did not care for the publicity given to James Gilliland.
I have been to his Sattva Sanctuary a couple of times, and
although I do not doubt that some UFOs have been seen and
perhaps photographed there, most of the things seen there are
misperceptions of explainable events. Personally, I find James
very likeable, but I don't think his mystical beliefs have any
actual relationship to UFOs.  Someday I may be proven wrong,
though. What do I know, really?

I am planning to write to the History Channel and congratulate
them for a job well done. I hope anyone else who enjoyed and
appreciated this series will do likewise.


Sincerely,

Tom Bowden









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 4

                       Re: Abduction Question - Velez

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 03:27:19 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 10:08:33 -0500
Subject: Re: Abduction Question - Velez


 >From: Peter Davenport <ufocntr@nwlink.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 10:32:46 -0800
 >Subject: Re: Abduction Question

 >>From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 05:43:13 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Abduction Question

 >>>From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 20:32:08 -0400
 >>>Subject: Re: Abduction Question

 ><snip>

 >>>I wonder if the GPS system didn't glitch at the point noted and
 >>>the computer just picked up the last known position and the
 >>>"present" position and just connected the dots between those two
 >>>because there was no information to plot in between the two
 >>>positions.

 >>Excellent question. I only have the information that was
 >>released by George Filer. Like all of those preliminary reports,
 >>it wasn't very comprehensive, nor did it provide enough detailed
 >>information to answer your question properly.

 >>It was probably another one of the many cases George passes
 >>on that was originally handled and reported by NUFORC. (National
 >>UFO Reporting Center) Maybe Peter can tell us who the original
 >>investigator was (if any) on this case.

 >>Does anybody within earshot know who investigated this case?
 >>Peter, if you're reading this, could you point us at the right
 >>person(s) to contact?

 >GPS/Boat Case

 >The case could be from NUFORC, or it could have originated with
 >George Filer. If someone could please provide me with the date
 >and location of the case, I will see if it is in the NUFORC
 >database.


Hello Peter,

Thank you for the speedy reply. Below I have included a copy of
George's initial report in 'Filer's Files', along with all
pertinent attributions. George 'usually' mentions you (credits
NUFORC) when he is forwarding one of your reports. There is no
mention in this one so it may well have originated somewhere
else. He credits a "Paul S."

Thank you in advance for your time and assistance. It is
appreciated. Hopefully we will all be able to take a closer look
at what is a very intriguing case. I look forward to your
response. I hope that you can help to point us in the right
direction.

Regards,

John Velez, 'Inquiring minds want to know!'  ;)

-----

Excerpt from Filer's Files post at:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/jan/m31-001.shtml


From: George A. Filer <WeeklyFiles@filersfiles.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 11:40:28 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 04:38:59 -0500
Subject: Filer's Files - 05 2002


FILER'S FILES #05-2002 MUFON Skywatch Investigations
George A. Filer, Director, Mutual UFO Network Eastern
January 30, 2002, Majorstar@AOL.COM.
Webmaster Chuck Warren http://www.cewarren.com

UFOs were observed over Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, West
Virginia, Louisiana, Arkansas, California, New Hampshire,
Hawaii, Mexico, Brazil, England and Italy A new UFO Museum opens
in Ankara, Turkey.

ARKANSAS ABDUCTION

CARLYLE -- Paul S. wrote, I was abducted October 28.1999, on the
north side of the railroad bridge while boating in Carlyle. That
was my third known abduction that year. Two were from The Lake
of the Ozarks. I remember very little of the actual abduction,
but I was able to recall the position changes. It took some time
to figure out what happened and I am still remembering only bits
and pieces. I remember boating under the bridge near the
railroad embankment when I paused to open a map in order locate
the main channel. The next thing I remember is being one quarter
of a mile into the stumped filled northern section of the lake.
I was understandably confused and disorientated. I figured out
where I was with a map and compass, which is normally not needed
there. I then proceeded to explore and fish the area totally
forgetting the position change. I was reminded by what I think
is an unusual trigger using the GPS equipment in my boat. I
found a way to put my saved GPS trails on a computer map. When I
put the saved trail from that fishing trip on the map I got a
shock.

The trail went over the railroad embankment and back in a
rapidly moving narrow parabolic curve. Somehow the boat had to
be flying in the air. Then there is a gap and the spot the trail
starts again is the spot I remembered, "appearing" at. When I
saw the evidence, the memory of the position change came back as
if I had never forgotten it. The same thing occurred at the
second Lake of the Ozarks abduction. I went to a therapist in
St. Louis and in eleven sessions was able to get no further. I
kept blocking up when I got to the point of the abductions. I do
have a memory of a gray alien and a structure on the craft. I
have some other mental pictures, but I am not sure of them.
Predictably I began to remember some things from my childhood
that indicates a possible history of these things. I have been
writing a narrative of the events as I recall them with my
opinions and thoughts on it. It seems to be good therapy. I seem
to be affected less than many abductees. Thanks to Paul S.

Editor's Note -- I encourage abduction reports particularly when
some evidence such as this Global Positioning System (GPS)
tracking is found. The GPS system provides accurate time and
location within fifteen feet giving credibility to an alleged
abduction. In recent years the science as made amazing strides
and interest in abductions has been hurt by the lack of
supporting evidence. Here is a case that provides some key
evidence. For a thousand dollars anyone can put a satellite
tracking system into their vehicle that is about the size of a
pound of margarine. The only way this tracking data could have
occurred is with a hovering craft.

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

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/petition







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 4

                     Re: Magonia Supplement 45 - Clarke

From: David Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 09:28:54 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 10:26:20 -0500
Subject: Re: Magonia Supplement 45 - Clarke


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 17:05:06 +0000
 >Subject: Re: Magonia Supplement 45

 >>>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 21:28:17 +0000
 >>>Subject: Magonia Supplement 45

 >As in our patient waiting for the long overdue expose of the
 >Lakenheath case that certain of your countrymen swore was going
 >to blow us out of the water. Oh, where we flailed with hints and
 >promises of a rather gloating nature. We are waiting patiently.
 >Our boats are still afloat. Fire away!


Dick,

Watch out for the "Lakenheath-Bentwaters Collaboration" URL
arriving soon - featuring contributions from just about everyone
who has something to say on the case. All sides of the belief
spectrum will be represented, along with the factual evidence,
compiled by Martin Shough and myself.

It might not "blow you out of the water" but I predict you will
be staggered by the amount of new material now uncovered. And
no, it's not a debunking exercise, but hopefully a peer-reviewed
presentation for all to read, digest and make up their own minds
about, following the tradition set by Kevin Randle's excellent
work on the Mantell case.

As soon as the site is uploaded we will post the link. But in
the team several hundred thousand words have to be processed. As
someone who runs an archive of his own, I'm sure you appreciate
the logistical problems this entails.


Best,

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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 4

                   New Documentary On Rendlesham - Clarke

From: David Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 09:31:55 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 10:28:59 -0500
Subject: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Clarke


 >From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 18:27:24 -0400
 >Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

 >>>From: David Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
 >>>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 20:39:59 -0000
 >>>Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

 >It seems David borrowed this line from his and Andy's missive in
 >the Forteans Times, from some self-satisfied quack who was
 >looking at the reporters and witnesses to UFO sightings.

Don,

The "self-satisfied quack" you refer to is Alex Cassie, an RAF
pilot who was shot down by the Germans and spent several years
incarcerated in the notorious Stalag Luft POW camp.

It was here that the experiences that eventually made him a
respected defence psychologist were honed. His story of was
later used as the basis for Donald Pleasance's character in the
film 'The Great Escape.'

He spent two years in the late '60s interviewing UFO witnesses
on the payroll of the Ministry of Defence. His considered
opinion was: "...that the people who reported sightings of UFOs
were far worthier of research than the reports themselves."

That opinion can be interpreted in whichever way you like. The
fact that you interpret it in the way that you do says more
about you than it does about Cassie.

 >The whole piece was simply a grouping of insults rather than
 >anything of meaningful contribution to the phenomenon.

And what is "self serving quack" if it is not an insult?

The article reported the opinions of those people we
interviewed, and those who left their views to history in the
form of public documents. Perhaps we should have just ignored
what they said, in case it upset anyone?

I'd be interested to know what you feel is "a meaningful
constribution to the phenomenon."  Surely you mean, a
"meaningful contribution to the study of the phenomenon." Is not
a study of the MoD's investigations not a "meaningful
contribution"?  Perhaps it only qualifies for such if it reaches
the conclusions you want to hear.


Best,

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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 4

                 Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Clarke

From: David Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 09:41:42 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 10:30:58 -0500
Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Clarke


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 13:43:49 -0600
 >Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

 >>From: David Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 20:39:59 -0000
 >>Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

 >Could you be any more condescending?

Jerry,

Sometimes the most appropriate response to nonsense is the
application of sarcasm.

 >In my years in ufology, I've met all variety of men and women,
 >but none of them, sane or crazy, virtuous or venal, has ever
 >struck me as anything other than purely human, with his or her
 >counterpart easily findable elsewhere in life.

On that point, we are in agreement. This is why the 'UFO
phenomenon' is so fascinating from the _human_ viewpoint. We all
approach the subject within in the context of our own interests
and specialities. Why should 'UFOlogy' be any different from say
archaeology, which employs both physical scientists and
anthropologists? Indeed in this country, we even have post-
modernist viewpoints on archaeology....

 >If I want to
 >learn about my fellow Homo sapiens, all I have to do is go out
 >and meet them. The UFO phenomenon presents far more complex and
 >interesting challenges. Maybe all you're telling us is that
 >you're just not up to them.

Is it OK if I leave you to study the complex and interesting
challenges of the UFO phenomenon, while I concentrate upon those
"sane, crazy, virtuous and venal" people you refer to?


Best,

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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 4

                   Re: Validating The Ramey Memo - Randle

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 08:43:25 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 10:33:39 -0500
Subject: Re: Validating The Ramey Memo - Randle


 >From: Dave Morton <Marspyrs@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 20:20:10 EST
 >Subject: Re: Validating The Ramey Memo

<snip>

 >Dear Scientific, Learned, and Honorable JSE Editor:

 >Why did you approve Mr. Houran's paper on his "Roswell telegram"
 >study for publication in your journal, when he does not possess,
 >and never did possess, the raw data supporting his main
 >conclusion?

<snip>

Good Afternoon Dave, List, All -

I confess that I do not understand the animosity being exposed
here. Our study did not suggest that those engaged in research
on the Ramey memo had made an errors that invalidated their
work, that continued study would reveal nothing of value, or
that nothing could be learned here. It did suggest that priming
might be a confounding variable and should be taken into
consideration. It did not say that those studying the memo had
made that error. We suggested a method for furthering the
scientific study of the memo, and I have suggested to others
that I believed that we could gain validation in independent
studies of the memo. If that could be accomplished, then we
would have moved this study forward. Instead we learn all the
reasons that validation should not be attempted and how no one
other than one or two specific people are capable of
understanding the Ramey memo.

There are those who were worried  because we don't have the raw
data from our study. Well, that's not exactly the truth. In
fact, we do have a computerbase of the raw quantitative data,
just not the actual score sheets (This is stated in our
article). This is how we know the average number of words each
group perceived and their correlations with the various
cognitive variables (including prior knowledge about Roswell and
the Ramey document). And confounding effects aside, we can also
turn our study around and ask how well can people replicate the
findings of Rudiak et al? That is, if their assertions about the
clear legibility of the key text in the document is valid, then
a significant portion of our sample (if not the ENTIRE sample)
should have seen it. Some words did seem to be reliable but
other key text was not validated by our sample. However, the
clear finding is one that should not be controversial to those
well-versed in research design... and that is we need more
stringent control procedures in further work on the document in
order to properly control for the effects of belief and
expectation, which are well-known in scientific circles.

I will make just one more comment about this lack of "raw" data.
As I was working on my dissertation, I converted the data from
the interviews onto score sheets and into a spreadsheet. Did I
make any mistakes in that conversion? Possibly, but I was
careful to check and recheck that data. Any mistake made would
not alter the overall results. It is the same case here. Yes,
the score sheets are gone, but not the raw data. I make this
point only because some of that earlier information has been
lost but not the "raw" data.

It would seem to me that if we turned all these energies to a
scientific study we would be farther along. And, no I'm not
suggesting that the studies conducted to this point are less
than scientific or credible, only that other work must be done,
and those who began the study cannot work for the validation or
the confirmation. When, and if, others do that, then the
pioneering work of the first researchers will become even more
valuable.

I might suggest that some of us reread the psychological
journals dealing with conformity. Seems that we have another
example of it being used here. If I shout loud enough and long
enough, everyone will conform to my opinion which must be right
because it is mine.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 4

                     Re: Marcello Truzzi RIP - Hamilton

From: Bill Hamilton <skyman22@fastmail.fm>
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 06:03:17 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 10:36:31 -0500
Subject: Re: Marcello Truzzi RIP - Hamilton


 >From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 15:13:00 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Marcello Truzzi RIP

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 18:12:56 -0600
 >>Subject: Marcello Truzzi RIP

<snip>

 >I didn't know Marcello well, but he touched my life, and I'll
 >really miss him. Thanks, Jerry, for writing such a true and
 >heartfelt euology.


I did not know Marcello Truzzi, but his writing was enlightning.

Here is one of his articles on psuedo-skepticism:

http://www.anomalist.com/commentaries/pseudo.html

In one line he says, "Since "skepticism" properly refers to
doubt rather than denial - nonbelief rather than belief -
critics who take the negative rather than an agnostic position
but still call themselves "skeptics" are actually pseudo-
skeptics and have, I believed, gained a false advantage by
usurping that label."








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 4

                       Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Mott

From: Wm. Michael Mott <mottimorph@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 08:09:21 -0600 (CST)
Fwd Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 19:56:21 -0500
Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Mott


 >From: Amy Hebert <yellowrose129@attbi.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 23:31:33 -0600
 >Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs

 >On Thursday, Jan. 30, 2003, you wrote:

 >>>>>You are right to some extent, of course. My main theory here is
 >>>>>that there may be an planetary grid of electromagnetic energy,
 >>>>>of which ley lines and such are just a subset, which facilitates
 >>>>>travel for them, when close to the planet's surface.

 >You proposed your theory.


Yes.

 >I asked for scientific data/evidence that this "grid" and "ley
 >lines" existed and that they were connected to UFOs - as per
 >your contentions.

 >You referred me to URL's that were nothing more than futher
 >theory and speculation (and your book).

I referred you to considerably more. It's up to you to follow
through, I'm certainly not going to do it for you.

What do you have to offer, or to bring to bear on this topic, in
a meaningful, considered, or well-thought-out manner or example?

 >Now you jump up and down trying to put the burden of proof on my
 >back.

No, I'm simply pointing out that both your statements and your
arguments are filled with flaws, holes, and outright fallacies
of fact.

 >Mike, it's your theory, not mine. I am asking for clear,
 >scientific data/research that supports the physical reality of
 >this "planetary grid of electromagnetic energy" and "ley lines"
 >which you claim facilitates travel for "them". I have not said
 >these things do not exist. I said I want to see some kind of
 >scientific data from scientific research that supports your
 >claims.

Obviously you are stumped. You can neither answer the question
you dodged, nor respond in a thoughtful manner to my _answer_ to
you query about proof of non-human culture on this planet. I
provided you with an example, which of course would require
further research on your part--and you did not respond.

Look into the mystery of the Eltanin antenna. You might learn
something.

 >Until you can provide the data/research you claim supports your
 >claim, we have nothing to discuss.

And of course, I think you're just making noise for the sake of
doing so. Or is there another agenda at work with your posts?
What was your area of study again? Disinformation? You've said
as much, at any rate.

Amused regards,

--Mike Mott






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 4

                 Re: More On Wrong Roswell Dig Site - Randle

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 11:11:39 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 19:57:58 -0500
Subject: Re: More On Wrong Roswell Dig Site - Randle


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 00:25:36 EST
 >Subject: Re: More On Wrong Roswell Dig Site

 >>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 22:43:08 EST
 >>Subject: Re: More On Wrong Roswell Dig Site

 >>>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 23:00:32 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: More On Wrong Roswell Dig Site

 >>>>From: Tom Carey <TCarey1947@aol.com>
 >>>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>>Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 10:58:37 -0500
 >>>>Subject: Re: More On Wrong Roswell Dig Site

<snip>

 >>>>As Kevin has stated in another post, we are certain of the
 >>>>site. All Brad has done is to try to create a false sense of
 >>>>confusion regarding the location of the debris field where there
 >>>>is none to those of us who have been there.

 >>>He and Kevin have pointed out the descrepencys on where the site
 >>>was. Kevin points out that Don Schmitt puts the location a
 >>>little 2 or 3 hundred years west then he does although you could
 >>>say in the same area. One also gathers from Kevins post that
 >>>location information that came from Loretta Proctor (although
 >>>she apparently is a nice person) may not be accurate.

 >>Good Evening, All -

 >>First, I did not say two or three yards, but two or three
 >>hundred feet too far to the west. I have also suggested that Don

 >Evening, all,

 >One should note that when I wrote this, I said two or three
 >hundred years, not yards... a keyboard mistake on my part, and
 >in fact I meant feet.

 >>Schmitt might claim I put it two to three hundred feet too far
 >>east. But I also suggested that if Jess Marcel's estimate of
 >>size was wrong and the field was a mile long, then both ends
 >>would have been on the right site. I also said that the
 >>archaeological dig was on the right site and the disagreement,
 >>slight though it is, is about the precise east-west edges and
 >>nothing more.

 >The point I get out of all this is we have the area correct.
 >Obviously we don't have "the exact" location of the debris field
 >as that could be dependent on the testimony of the witnesses,
 >i.e. 600 feet long in 47, 3/4 of a mile long years later.

 >One wonders on what basis Don Schmitt moves the debris field
 >over 2 or 3 hundred feet.



Good Morning Robert, List, All -

First let me point out where it said two or three feet, it
should have been two or three hundred feet.

Second, this discussion is a non starter. We know the exact
location given the information we have gathered. We do not know
the exact dimensions which is a totally different proposition.

Third, as we stood on the hill side with Bill Brazel, him
holding one of those warm beers, he pointed to another hill
across a shallow little valley and said that the debris started
up near there. My impression was that he was pointing to a place
about two hundred feet from the place that Schmitt thought he
was pointing. We didn't realize this problem until later... no,
it's not a problem, just a matter of interpretation. He thought
Brazel was pointing to a point a little farther up the hill than
I did, but when we did the archaeological research in 1989, we
incorporated both ends in that research so that no parts were
left out.

So,  this is of little consequence. It sort of a question of how
much territory to include on the debris field but we never left
out any that should have been included.

This is a tempest in a teapot.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 4

                 Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Roberts

From: Andy Roberts <aj.roberts@blueyonder.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 20:00:24 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 20:00:24 -0500
Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Roberts


 >From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 18:27:24 -0400
 >Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

Don wrote:

 >It seems David borrowed this line from his and Andy's missive in
 >the Forteans Times, from some self-satisfied quack who was
 >looking at the reporters and witnesses to UFO sightings.


 >Self serving at best

As Bobby says "You gotta serve somebody"

 >To borrow one of his lines, I was rather amused and it seems
 >rather silly to me in light of the overwhelming number of
 >qualified witnesses from many professions and persuasions to
 >continue on this path of denial.

 >I spent last Friday afternoon talking to a decorated Army
 >officer here in Canada about his daylight encounter, along with
 >his driver, of a monsterous object not more than a few hundred
 >feet away from them. Yet I'm supposed to care what some silly,
 >apparently unqualified, and seriously neglegent doctor has to
 >say or quip about. I would think any doctor who talked about his
 >patients this way should be deprived of his license.

Ahh, bless, the myth of the credible witness gets out of its
crib for the first time this year, rather like the first cuckoo.
I can provide you with many cases, Don, where such people as you
quote above have been _verifiably_ proven to have been victims
of radical misperception. Our books, and indeed ufology, are
full of them. How about the old favourite of two policemen who
stood, watched and photoggraphed a 'UFO' for an hour only to
find out it was a complicated rock reflection. Better still this
very same illusion had been there for the two years they had
lived in the police house they saw it from yet on one day only
it became a 'UFO'. _These_ are the real mysteries of ufology -
  not the abductee nonsense or wishful thinking with which this
List is full. The myth of the credible witness doesn't state
that _all_ witnesses are misperceiving but it does prove that
many are. And as no case has yet been idenified as anything
which is a genuine 'tructured craft of unknown origin' I'm
afraid that, whether you, Jerry, Dick or whoever has to live
with the fact that radical misperception is the _best_
demonstrable theory we have.

If you know - and can prove differently - I'd be interested to
hear. Otherwise I'll leave you and your chums to rant until you
have something worth replying to.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 4

                 Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Reason

From: Catherine Reason <CathyM@ukf.net>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 18:07:36 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 20:03:55 -0500
Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Reason


 >From: David Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 09:31:55 -0000
 >Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

I hope you'll both excuse me for interrupting, but this sounds
definitely odd to me.

 >The "self-satisfied quack" you refer to is Alex Cassie, an RAF
 >pilot who was shot down by the Germans and spent several years
 >incarcerated in the notorious Stalag Luft POW camp.

 >It was here that the experiences that eventually made him a
 >respected defence psychologist were honed. His story of was
 >later used as the basis for Donald Pleasance's character in the
 >film 'The Great Escape.'

 >He spent two years in the late '60s interviewing UFO witnesses
 >on the payroll of the Ministry of Defence. His considered
 >opinion was: "...that the people who reported sightings of UFOs
 >were far worthier of research than the reports themselves."

Well whoever he was, "respected defence psychologist" or not
(what is one of those, by the way?) - this was an extremely ill-
  considered remark.

As it happens, I also find the psychosocial dynamics surrounding
UFOs and their investigation more interesting than the UFOs
themselves, but saying that is one thing, and asserting that
"the people who report sightings of UFOs are far worthier of
research than the UFOs themselves" is quite another. The first
is an explicitly subjective statement about my own areas of
interest, whereas the second purports to be an objective
statement of fact.

The problem is, if one is going to be scientific about this,
there is no way one can do research on the people who report
UFOs without taking into account the reports they have made, the
enviromental context in which the reports were made (including
the likely stimulus to which the reports refer); the social
context in which the reports were made, and the social context
in which the reports are being discussed and investigated - and
that includes the social context in which the people who make
the reports are discussed and investigated.

Any attempt to isolate one aspect of this complex web of
relationships risks being scientifically very dubious indeed,
because it creates an artifactual boundary between who or what
is being studied, and who or what is doing the studying. Bear in
mind that these aren't physics-lab type experiments in which
this boundary can be explicitly defined and controlled -
  whatever assumptions and misconceptions lie on "our" side of
the boundary are likely to be unjustifiably insulated from
skeptical scrutiny.

This is a long-standing problem in psychological research (as in
all social science research, and also medical, psychiatric and
much medical research as well).


Cathy

[Catherine Reason]







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 5

                          Secrecy News -- 02/04/03

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@fas.org>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 12:56:26 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 08:44:00 -0500
Subject: Secrecy News -- 02/04/03


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
Volume 2003, Issue No. 9
February 4, 2003


**      COLUMBIA AND NASA INFO POLICY
**      HOMELAND SECURITY AND FOIA
**      USS PUEBLO MOBILIZED FOR PROPAGANDA WAR
**      DOD BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS MAY GO TO OPM
**      NEW RELEASES AND ACQUISITIONS


COLUMBIA AND NASA INFO POLICY

NASA's investigation of the fiery disintegration of Space
Shuttle Columbia on February 1 has been marked to date by a
degree of candor and responsiveness that contrasts sharply with
the agency's handling of the 1986 Challenger disaster.

"We're still poring over a lot of data," noted Shuttle program
director Roger Dittemore at a remarkably detailed press briefing
on February 2 adding, with uncommon humility, "It's certainly
possible that we'll contradict ourselves from day to day."

NASA has established a web site to "collect and distribute
information about the crew, the mission, and the ongoing
investigation" here:

http://www.nasa.gov/columbia/index.html


HOMELAND SECURITY AND FOIA

"The Freedom of Information Act language [in the Homeland
Security Act] has got to be clarified," said Senator Carl Levin
at the January 17 confirmation hearing of Tom Ridge to be the
new Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. "We are
denying the public unclassified information in the current law
which should not be denied to the public."

Furthermore, Senator Levin said, "There could be some very
unintended consequences there, which could give protections for
wrongdoing that threaten our health and environment which we
should not be giving to wrongdoers."

In response, Governor Ridge expressed a willingness to correct
the problem.  "It certainly wasn't the intent, I'm sure, of
those who advocated the Freedom of Information Act exemption to
give wrongdoers protection or to protect illegal activity," he
said.  "And I'll certainly work with you to clarify that
language."  See:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2003/s011703.html

Senator Levin reiterated his concerns on January 22 when the
Senate voted to confirm Gov. Ridge, and added: "I am hopeful
that Governor Ridge will help us to remedy some of the FOIA
problems caused by the Homeland Security Act and restore the
bipartisan compromise worked out in our committee."  See:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2003/s012203.html

Meanwhile, the Justice Department Office of Information and
Privacy provided an interpretation of the requirements of the
Homeland Security FOIA exemption in a January 27 posting here:

http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/foiapost/2003foiapost4.htm


USS PUEBLO MOBILIZED FOR PROPAGANDA WAR

As tensions between the United States and North Korea have
escalated in connection with the DPRK's nuclear weapons program,
both sides have invoked the U.S.S. Pueblo, the American
intelligence vessel that was attacked and captured by North
Korea in 1968.

In case anyone had forgotten, the North Korean Central News
Agency boasted on January 20 that "The spy ship Pueblo, a trophy
captured by Korean seamen from the U.S. imperialists, is on
display on the river Taedong in Pyongyang."  See:

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2003/01/dprk012003.html

In Washington, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell reintroduced his
resolution from last year demanding the return of the Pueblo to
the U.S. Navy.

"It is important to note that even to this day the capture of
the USS Pueblo has resulted in no reprisal against North Korea,
demonstrating remarkable restraint by the United States,"
Senator Campbell said on January 29.  See:

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2003_cr/sr29.html


DOD BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS MAY GO TO OPM

Background investigations that are conducted in support of
security clearances at the Department of Defense may soon be
performed by Office of Personnel Management (OPM) instead of the
Pentagon's Defense Security Service.

See "OPM - DoD Announce Consolidation of Background
Investigation Services," February 3:

http://www.opm.gov/pressrel/2003/EG-Investigations.asp

The Defense Department personnel security program has suffered
for years from huge backlogs, management problems, and related
defects that cumulatively cast doubt on the integrity of the
security clearance system.

Under Secretary of Defense Dov Zakheim explained the move as a
way to eliminate needless redundancy at a February 3 press
briefing:

"We [DOD] do security clearances. The Office of Personnel
Management does security clearances. Sometimes they both do them
at the same time for the same people.  I was one.  I had
investigators coming to see me within several days of each
other.  And they went to their bosses and said, 'Why are we both
wasting the government's money and the taxpayers' money
interviewing the same guy?  His address hasn't changed in two
days.'  And the answer was, because you have to.  We're trying
to move that out to the Office of Personnel Management," Zakheim
said.


NEW RELEASES AND ACQUISITIONS

The early history of the National Reconnaissance Office is
examined in new detail by Jeffrey T. Richelson in a National
Security Archive monograph entitled "Civilians, Spies, and Blue
Suits: The Bureaucratic War for Control of Overhead
Reconnaissance, 1961-1965" here:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/monograph/nro/

In recent years, a more standardized classified document marking
system has been adopted by U.S. intelligence and defense
agencies.  The development and application of that system are
described in "Intelligence Community Classification and Control
Markings Implementation," a 1.5 MB PowerPoint document available
here (thanks to B):

http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/icmarkings.ppt

Director of Central Intelligence Directive (DCID) 6/9 on
"Physical Security Standards for Sensitive Compartmented
Information Facilities" was adopted on November 18, 2002, and
replaces the former DCID 1/21.  A copy is available here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/dcid6-9.htm

Senators John Edwards and Charles Schumer last week introduced a
bill to provide access to classified information on terrorist
threats to qualified State and local government personnel.  See
S. 266, the "Antiterrorism Intelligence Distribution Act of
2003," here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2003_cr/s266.html

"Left-wing extremism continues... to be a potential threat to
U.S. government agencies," according to an assessment performed
for the Department of Energy Office of Safeguards and Security
in April 2001.  See "Left-Wing Extremism: The Current Threat"
here (thanks to MJR):

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/left.pdf


_______________________________________________
Secrecy News is written by Steven Aftergood and published by the
Federation of American Scientists.

To SUBSCRIBE to Secrecy News, send email to
secrecy_news-request@lists.fas.org
with "subscribe" in the body of the message.

OR email your request to saftergood@fas.org

Secrecy News is archived at:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/index.html

_______________________
Steven Aftergood
Project on Government Secrecy
Federation of American Scientists
web:    www.fas.org/sgp/index.html
email:  saftergood@fas.org
voice:  (202) 454-4691







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 5

                     More Spheres Reported Over Yucatan

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 13:58:24 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 08:48:18 -0500
Subject: More Spheres Reported Over Yucatan


INEXPLICATA
The Journal of Hispanic Ufology
February 4, 2003


MORE METAL SPHERES REPORTED IN PROGRESO, YUCATAN

Date: Wednesday, January 29, 2003
Time: 11:00 p.m. (local time - 6 GMT)
Place: Progreso, Yucatan, Mexico
Witness: Mar=EDa Barrera

Another sighting was reported along the Merida to Progreso
highway, this time in the vicinity of the Flamboyanes
subdivision (5 km from Progreso at 11:00 p.m.

Mrs. Maria Barrera, the eyewitness in the January 17 report, has
seen the phenomenon once more, this time in greater numbers,
since eighty (80) spheres were reported on January 29th. On this
occasion, the event lasted between 15 to 20 minutes, and the
spectacle was also seen by the drivers of several vehicles who
pulled over to watch the phenomenon, among them an official
vehicle from the Federal Electric Commission. Unfortunately,
there is no evidence to report. [The witness] states that she
looked carefully at the spheres as they made figure-like shapes
in the air, first a rhomboid and then an arrow. The apparent
diameter of these spheres--explained Mrs. Barrera-- was between
30 and 40 centimeters. She made it clear that the sky has been
completely clear on both occasions.

This is the third report of such spheres at the site.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Translation (C) 2003 S. Corrales
Institute of Hispanic Ufology
Special thanks to Ing. David Triay Lucatero
Centro de Analisis de Fenomenos Espaciales (CAFE).








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 5

                   Re: Validating The Ramey Memo - Morton

From: Dave Morton <Marspyrs@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 15:59:25 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 08:50:25 -0500
Subject: Re: Validating The Ramey Memo - Morton


 >From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 08:43:25 EST
 >Fwd Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 10:33:39 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Validating The Ramey Memo - Randle

 >>From: Dave Morton <Marspyrs@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 20:20:10 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Validating The Ramey Memo

<snip>

 >>Dear Scientific, Learned, and Honorable JSE Editor:

 >>Why did you approve Mr. Houran's paper on his "Roswell telegram"
 >>study for publication in your journal, when he does not possess,
 >>and never did possess, the raw data supporting his main
 >>conclusion?

<snip>

 >Good Afternoon Dave, List, All -

Good afternoon Kevin,

 >I confess that I do not understand the animosity being exposed
 >here.

I was simply taking Jim Houran's repeated recommendation to
write a letter to the Editor of JSE, and posted my rough draft
here. I have not yet sent it. The sarcasm was directed towards
the Editor of JSE for apparently failing in his duties to
excercise journalistic integrity, and towards Houran for
suggesting the seemingly pointless excercise of asking the
Editor questions which should be directed to the author(s). I
have no bones to pick with you, Kevin. Maybe I should, but I
don't. I respect your prior work on Roswell too much, often done
at great personal expense, as I'm sure we all do.

<snip>

 >There are those who were worried  because we don't have the raw
 >data from our study. Well, that's not exactly the truth. In
 >fact, we do have a computerbase of the raw quantitative data,
 >just not the actual score sheets (This is stated in our
 >article). This is how we know the average number of words each
 >group perceived and their correlations with the various
 >cognitive variables (including prior knowledge about Roswell
 >and the Ramey document).

<snip>

I'm snipping your good points simply to zero-in on 1 important
issue: the conclusions and the data supporting them.

 From your database of raw, quantitative data:

1. How many "hits" did each Exclusive word (UFO, flash, etc)
have?

<snip>

Sorry for the many snips, but I just want to address that 1
point, for the moment.

 >KRandle

Dave Morton







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 5

                                Soho Pictures

From: Colin Stevenson <colin@c2k2.fsworld.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 20:48:14 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 09:02:04 -0500
Subject: Soho Pictures


Soho pictures small selection (some folk may not have seen
them). Just a note to inform you of my efforts over the past few
days see:

http://www.colsweb.com/ETatTheBeach.htm

see Candyfloss cartoon.

Feel free to send on this information wherever.

Camera, pixelation faults and smudging -I dont think so! Look at
the center picture to discover why they've been stamped on one
of many pictures analyzed my myself. A vertically compressed
mono chrome to bring out detail, especially in the UK.

I have published the way I have to try and avoid the onslaught
if I did it in the usual way.

I know, I know. Bring on the lambasting and dont forget to
mention the 'fluffy bunny gray alien' etc. I had on the site a
few years ago ( grimace, it was real I tells ya.

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

This may also be of interest in regard to this tragic accident;

Photos show odd images near shuttle

David Perlman, Chronicle Science Editor
Sunday, February 2, 2003

A San Francisco amateur astronomer who photographs the space
shuttles whenever their orbits carry them over the Bay Area has
captured five strange and provocative images of the shuttle
Columbia just as it was re-entering the Earth's atmosphere
before dawn Saturday.

The pictures, taken with a Nikon 8 camera on a tripod, reveal
what appear to be bright electrical phenomena flashing around
the track of the shuttle's passage, but the photographer, who
asked not to be identified, will not make them public
immediately.

"They clearly record an electrical discharge like a lightning
bolt flashing past, and I was snapping the pictures almost
exactly... when the Columbia may have begun breaking up during
re-entry," he said.

The photographer invited The Chronicle to view the photos on his
computer screen Saturday night, and they are indeed puzzling.

They show a bright scraggly flash of orange light, tinged with
pale purple, and shaped somewhat like a deformed L. The flash
appears to cross the Columbia's dim contrail, and at that
precise point, the contrail abruptly brightens and appears
thicker and somewhat twisted as if it were wobbling.

"I couldn't see the discharge with own eyes, but it showed up
clear and bright on the film when I developed it," the
photographer said. "But I'm not going to speculate about what it
might be

----------------------
It would seem that it's not just the Soho camera which is faulty?
---------------------

Also, thank you Will Bueche for your post and I will send on my
abduction and ET interference account to:

matthew.oconnell [at] bbc.co.uk

  -replace [at] with @- as I do live in the UK with many ties
abroad.

Best Wishes to all and condolences to the bereaved

Col






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 5

                     Photos Show Odd Images Near Shuttle

From: Rajesh Kumar <xkumar1@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 23:46:00 +0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 09:14:59 -0500
Subject: Photos Show Odd Images Near Shuttle

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/02/02/MN221641.DTL

February 2, 2003

Photos show odd images near shuttle

by David Perlman, Chronicle Science Editor

A San Francisco amateur astronomer who photographs the space shuttles
whenever their orbits carry them over the Bay Area has captured five
strange and provocative images of the shuttle Columbia just as it was
re-entering the Earth's atmosphere before dawn Saturday.

The pictures, taken with a Nikon-880 digital camera on a tripod, reveal
what appear to be bright electrical phenomena flashing around the track
of the shuttle's passage, but the photographer, who asked not to be
identified, will not make them public immediately.

"They clearly record an electrical discharge like a lightning bolt
flashing past, and I was snapping the pictures almost exactly . . .
when the Columbia may have begun breaking up during re-entry," he said.

The photographer invited The Chronicle to view the photos on his
computer screen Saturday night, and they are indeed puzzling.

They show a bright scraggly flash of orange light, tinged with pale
purple, and shaped somewhat like a deformed L. The flash appears to
cross the Columbia's dim contrail, and at that precise point, the
contrail abruptly brightens and appears thicker and somewhat twisted as
if it were wobbling.

"I couldn't see the discharge with own eyes, but it showed up clear and
bright on the film when I developed it," the photographer said. "But
I'm not going to speculate about what it might be."

E-mail David Perlman at dperlman@sfchronicle.com.

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

This incident was mentioned again in subsequent article
in the San Francisco Chronicle:

"And a San Francisco amateur astronomer has shown The Chronicle
-- but not released publicly -- a photograph of a vivid,
lightning-like discharge apparently crossing through the
contrail's left side. The image is one of five snapped in
sequence at 5:53 a.m., when the shuttle's sensors began to
fail."

The full article is entitled:

Breakup may have begun above California - Caltech astronomer
noted 'debris shedding' as Columbia passed overhead

It is located at:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/02/03/MN33624.DTL&type=sci
ence

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

Rajesh Kumar
rajesh@earthweb.org
xkumar1@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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 5

                  Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 19:25:14 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 09:16:21 -0500
Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Clark


 >From: Andy Roberts <aj.roberts@blueyonder.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >SDate: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 16:59:39 -0000
 >Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

 >>From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 18:27:24 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

 >>To borrow one of his lines, I was rather amused and it seems
 >>rather silly to me in light of the overwhelming number of
 >>qualified witnesses from many professions and persuasions to
 >>continue on this path of denial.

 >Ahh, bless, the myth of the credible witness gets out of its
 >crib for the first time this year, rather like the first cuckoo.
 >I can provide you with many cases, Don, where such people as you
 >quote above have been _verifiably_ proven to have been victims
 >of radical misperception. Our books, and indeed ufology, are
 >full of them. How about the old favourite of two policemen who
 >stood, watched and photoggraphed a 'UFO' for an hour only to
 >find out it was a complicated rock reflection. Better still this
 >very same illusion had been there for the two years they had
 >lived in the police house they saw it from yet on one day only
 >it became a 'UFO'. _These_ are the real mysteries of ufology -
 >not the abductee nonsense or wishful thinking with which this
 >List is full. The myth of the credible witness doesn't state
 >that _all_ witnesses are misperceiving but it does prove that
 >many are. And as no case has yet been idenified as anything
 >which is a genuine 'tructured craft of unknown origin' I'm
 >afraid that, whether you, Jerry, Dick or whoever has to live
 >with the fact that radical misperception is the _best_
 >demonstrable theory we have.

 >If you know - and can prove differently - I'd be interested to
 >hear. Otherwise I'll leave you and your chums to rant until you
 >have something worth replying to.

Don,

If ever there was a post not worth replying to, this is it. Andy
pulls out an anecdote out of the air, uses it as proof that
"radical misperception is the _best_ demonstrable theory we
have" (love that emphasis), says that he has to prove nothing
and you have to prove all, and signs off with a patented
Robertsian adolescent sneer. He's telling us, of course, that
whenever a witness reports something Andy is too smart to take
seriously, no problem -- just scream "radical misperception" and
the wascally wabbit will go away.

One doesn't know whether to laugh or cry, but I vote for the
former. At least that's the one I'm engaged in at the moment.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 5

                 Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 22:31:35 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 09:21:11 -0500
Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Ledger


 >From: Andy Roberts <aj.roberts@blueyonder.co.uk
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 16:59:39 -0000
 >Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

 >>From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 18:27:24 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

 >Don wrote:

 >>It seems David borrowed this line from his and Andy's missive in
 >>the Forteans Times, from some self-satisfied quack who was
 >>looking at the reporters and witnesses to UFO sightings.

 >>Self serving at best

 >As Bobby says "You gotta serve somebody"

 >>To borrow one of his lines, I was rather amused and it seems
 >>rather silly to me in light of the overwhelming number of
 >>qualified witnesses from many professions and persuasions to
 >>continue on this path of denial.

I spent last Friday afternoon talking to a decorated Army
officer here in Canada about his daylight encounter, along with
his driver, of a monsterous object not more than a few hundred
feet away from them. Yet I'm supposed to care what some silly,
apparently unqualified, and seriously neglegent doctor has to
say or quip about. I would think any doctor who talked about his
patients this way should be deprived of his license.

 >Ahh, bless, the myth of the credible witness gets out of its
 >crib for the first time this year, rather like the first cuckoo.
 >I can provide you with many cases, Don, where such people as you
 >quote above have been _verifiably_ proven to have been victims
 >of radical misperception. Our books, and indeed ufology, are
 >full of them. How about the old favourite of two policemen who
 >stood, watched and photoggraphed a 'UFO' for an hour only to
 >find out it was a complicated rock reflection. Better still this
 >very same illusion had been there for the two years they had
 >lived in the police house they saw it from yet on one day only
 >it became a 'UFO'. _These_ are the real mysteries of ufology -
 > not the abductee nonsense or wishful thinking with which this
 >List is full. The myth of the credible witness doesn't state
 >that _all_ witnesses are misperceiving but it does prove that
 >many are. And as no case has yet been idenified as anything
 >which is a genuine 'tructured craft of unknown origin' I'm
 >afraid that, whether you, Jerry, Dick or whoever has to live
 >with the fact that radical misperception is the _best_
 >demonstrable theory we have. If you know - and can prove
 >differently - I'd be interested to hear. Otherwise I'll leave
 >you and your chums to rant until you have something worth
 >replying to.

Your above contribution just re-enforced my original point.

Two cops shot pictures of a reflection and that makes all the
other reports mistaken identification of known phenomenon, eh
Andy?

Psycho-social or psycho-babble. It must be an experience to live
in your world.

Roy Rodgers to you as well.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 5

                 Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 22:45:49 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 09:27:56 -0500
Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Ledger


 >From: David Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 09:31:55 -0000
 >Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

 >>It seems David borrowed this line from his and Andy's missive
 >>in the Forteans Times, from some self-satisfied quack who was
 >>looking at the reporters and witnesses to UFO sightings.

 >Don,

 >The "self-satisfied quack" you refer to is Alex Cassie, an RAF
 >pilot who was shot down by the Germans and spent several years
 >incarcerated in the notorious Stalag Luft POW camp.

 >It was here that the experiences that eventually made him a
 >respected defence psychologist were honed. His story of was
 >later used as the basis for Donald Pleasance's character in the
 >film 'The Great Escape.'

 >He spent two years in the late '60s interviewing UFO witnesses
 >on the payroll of the Ministry of Defence. His considered
 >opinion was: "...that the people who reported sightings of UFOs
 >were far worthier of research than the reports themselves."

Yeah I know who he is/was and I know the point you were trying
to make by association. Anyone who looks into the phenomenon, or
as you call it 'flying saucers'-ad nauseum- [incidentally do you
and Andy giggle every time you get to slip in that appellation]-
  and as you said below I can take his comment any way I want-but
since it was meant only to be taken ONE way, an arms length slap
at and a distancing technique [see Condon-Corning Glass Works
and the Low Memorandum] from any of us who chose to look at it-
it was and is insulting. There were literally hundreds of other
RAF, RCAF, RAAF, USAAF and enemy pilots who encountered these
so-called natural phenomenon. And since then there have been
many thousands more pilots who have also encountered these
phenomena who would likely take umbrage at Cassie

 >That opinion can be interpreted in whichever way you like. The
 >fact that you interpret it in the way that you do says more
 >about you than it does about Cassie.

 >>The whole piece was simply a grouping of insults rather than
 >>anything of meaningful contribution to the phenomenon.

 >And what is "self serving quack" if it is not an insult?

It was meant to be an insult! Tit for tat. Consider his
profession-a psychologist-and then his remark. He couched his
insult in more socially acceptable terms. That doesn't make it
any less self serving and belittling of those who have chosen to
look at the phenomenon. I'm just more blunt than your war hero.

 >The article reported the opinions of those people we
 >interviewed, and those who left their views to history in the
 >form of public documents. Perhaps we should have just ignored
 >what they said, in case it upset anyone?

 >I'd be interested to know what you feel is "a meaningful
 >constribution to the phenomenon."  Surely you mean, a
 >"meaningful contribution to the study of the phenomenon."

Yes. Thanks for correcting me-but I'm sure you knew what I meant.

 >Is not a study of the MoD's investigations not a "meaningful
 >contribution"?  Perhaps it only qualifies for such if it reaches
 >the conclusions you want to hear.

Sure it is if you can leave out the jabs. And another thing. It
doesn't end with the MOD or DND [here] or DOD in the US. Just
remember if we are looking at this from the point of view of the
aviation community, know that the armed air forces are the
tiniest percentage of it. There are working professionals out
there reporting these things with a hell of a lot more airtime
than most air force pilots can ever hope to have. They work
there, putting in tens of thousands of hours in a lifetime. 99
percent of air force pilots are lucky to get more that 2,000
hours of air time.

It gets to be a phenomenon with a high degree danger when you
don't know what the hell these things are. I don't really care
what the air force thinks. They aren't the ones responsible for
civilian airspace and the control of hundreds of thousands of of
commercial traffic and their millions of passengers every day.

Putting the air force in charge of investigating the UFO
phenomenon was to my mind akin to astronomers employed to study
snowflakes- because they fall from the sky. Their resources
should have been used but then scientists such as Paul R. Hill
and others like him who understood the dynamics should have been
brought in to run the investigation[s].

But to get back to what annoyed you, let me answer by saying
that to try and make this phenomenon the provenance of those
lacking full psychological facilities is patently unfair not to
mention untrue. This ploy has been used throughout the last 50
plus years and all it has served to do is stymie the reporting
of, and the scientific study of, the phenomenon.

Your piece was interesting but dragged down by the veiled and
oft alluded to jabs at the investigators - the same people Andy
urged to read the article.


Yours,

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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 5

                 The Times On Official French UFO Department

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@privat.dk>
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 03:52:46 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 09:33:25 -0500
Subject: The Times On Official French UFO Department


Source: The Times of London

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7-566025,00.html

Stig

***

Times 2 - features
February 05, 2003

Reportage

Salut, Earthlings

By Adam Sage

**

If the truth really is out there, the French are taking serious
steps to find it

*

ON A cold Monday morning 22 years ago, Jean-Jacques Velasco was
sitting in his office when a gendarme rang to tell him about a
strange incident. Renato Nicolai, a retired technician, had been
working in his garden in Trans-en-Provence, near Nice, when he
saw a dark, round object come down from the sky, settle on the
ground and take off again, the gendarme said. Over the years,
Velasco has heard many such stories, and disproved most of them.
But this one was different =E2=C7" this one was credible, he
believes. Something seems to have landed in Trans-en-Provence,
he says, and that something has never been identified.

But who is Velasco? Another crackpot determined to find a flying
saucer? A follower of Claude Vorilhon, the Frenchman who founded
the Raelian sect amid claims that he was the son of an
extraterrestrial being? No, he is a scientist working for the
state-run National French Centre for Space Studies (CNES), where
he heads a department responsible for analysing what are
commonly called unidentified flying objects (UFOs) but what are
officially known as unidentified aerospace phenomena (UAP).

It is a unique department, the only permanent government-
financed scientific project set up by a developed country to
unravel fact from fiction in the debate about UFOs.

In an area that draws the deranged and the dreamers, this is a
serious research programme. "We have shown that there is a
category of events that are not part of the classical physical
scheme of things," says Velasco. These may be a light, or an
object moving across the sky on "an abnormal trajectory",
sometimes noiselessly.

"In some cases, there is a feeling that the phenomenon is
adapting its behaviour to the environment. In others, people
claim to have seen small material objects very close to them,
which may even land. In the most extreme cases, people claim to
see objects with beings next to them."

A neatly-dressed, bespectacled man, Velasco talks with the
careful precision of an academic who is keen to be understood.
He is not saying that he has come across visitors from another
planet; he is saying merely that events occur for which science
has yet to find an explanation, and which merit further inquiry.

"Two hundred years ago, the French Academy of Science said
meteorites did not fall to Earth, that the phenomenon did not
exist," he says. "Now we know it does."

Velasco's department was set up in 1977, the year that Close
Encounters of the Third Kind was released amid a global UFO
fever. Across the world people thought they saw strange figures,
flying saucers and bright lights. Sects such as the Raelians
claimed to be in contact with extraterrestrial life. And amateur
associations pledged to shed light on the burning question: are
we alone? But there were few serious attempts to probe the
issue. The US authorities had studied it ten years earlier and
concluded that it was a waste of taxpayers' money. Most other
countries, including Britain, thought likewise. Only France took
the matter seriously, partly because it has the centralised
state apparatus necessary to do so, and partly, no doubt,
because of a vainglorious belief that if a UFO is to be found,
France should be the one to find it.

The CNES duly set up the Service for Expert Appraisal of
Atmospheric Re- entry Phenomena (Sepra). Based in Toulouse, the
department is as pedantic as its title sounds: the staff are
state-employed scientists, shaped by a prudent, rigorous and
somewhat bureaucratic culture. In France such bureaucracy can
often be cumbersome and painfully rigid. Yet in this domain at
least, this rigidity offers a guarantee of impartiality that is
rare as far as UFOs are concerned.

Last year, when the CNES was told to reduce its 1.3 billion franc
(=A3853 million) budget, the organisation's president, Alain
Bensoussan, ordered an audit into Sepra's work. A wide range of
French scientists was asked whether it was worth continuing
research; almost all said yes.

One reason is because, unlike most other UFO-hunters, Sepra's
staff are neither seeking publicity nor peddling an obscure
belief in extraterrestrial civilisation. They say they do not
know whether extraterrestrial beings exist or not, and look
disparaging when you ask them to voice their hunches on the
question.

They do not have hunches, only statistics. Yet the statistics
that Velasco has made public are eloquent. Since, 1977, Sepra
has received some 6,000 reports of alleged UFO sightings. Of
these, 110 are from civil or military aircraft crew, and the
rest from ordinary French people who have almost invariably
contacted their local gendarmerie. In 21.3 per cent of cases
there is a clear, indisputable and banal explanation: a firework
display, a novel lighting system involving a luminous balloon, a
cloud above the Pyrenees that is shaped like a flying saucer. In
24.9 per cent there is a probable explanation, and in 41.3 per
cent the information is too vague to be of use. But in 12.5 per
cent of cases "about 750 sightings since 1977" the evidence is
precise, detailed and inexplicable, and is thus categorised as
an unidentified phenomenon.

Before reaching such a conclusion, Velasco conducts an extensive
investigation using a method dubbed exemplary by Peter Sturrock,
a British academic who founded the Society for Scientific
Exploration. It involves inquiring into the psychological and
social background of the person claiming to have seen a UFO,
checking the initial witness statement against all other
available evidence and working with different branches of the
French administration. For instance, Sepra has a formal
procedure to be followed by every gendarmerie that deals with an
alleged sighting. Officers seal off the area, take ground
samples and ask pre-established questions to weed out the mad
and the drunk.

But most alleged UFOs are spotted by the sober and sensible,
says Velasco. "In all our statistics on the personalities of the
people who see these phenomena only one in 1,000 is not credible
because of alcohol. People go to gendarmerie spontaneously; in
99 per cent of cases it is because they genuinely want to know
what they have seen."

Yet a witness's good faith is not enough, and the story must be
corroborated. "What interests the scientist is not so much the
tale that is told, but to go further and check the tale against
objective data, to measure these phenomena," says Velasco. So he
has established links with laboratories that analyse samples
found at the scene, and an agreement with the civil and military
aviation authorities to provide radar details of any
unidentified flights.

Consider, for instance, a case reported in 1994, when the crew
of an Air France flight from Nice to London saw a dark, 300m
(1,000ft)long object over the Paris region. The object
disappeared before the aircraft had got near it, and the flight
continued without difficulty. A few days later Velasco travelled
from his office in Toulouse to the military aviation control
centre outside Paris, where he was given a read-out of the radar
information from the day in question. It revealed that an
unknown object had indeed flown over the French capital.

Consider, too, the Trans-en-Provence case. Velasco went through
the usual checks with the gendarme who had rung him. Was the
witness, Nicolai, reeking of alcohol or babbling incoherently?
The answer was no. Was there any evidence to back up his story?
The apparent answer was yes, since there were marks in the grass
where the object had supposedly landed.

Velasco drove to Trans-en-Provence and took ground samples.
These showed that the area had been heated to between 300C and
600C, that it had been compressed by something weighing up to a
tonne and that the plants there had been affected by a strong
electromagnetic field. Velasco concluded that Nicolai had indeed
witnessed a strange happening.

So should we conclude that little green men were taking a look
at Provence from their spaceship? Velasco dismisses such ideas.
"We cannot say whether there is a link between the question of
extraterrestrial life and that of non-identified aerospace
phenomena," he says adding: "But we can show that UFOs exist.
The problem is interpreting them, and I hope that scientists,
and other people, look at this question more seriously."

A guide to alien French:

Un OVNI (objet volant non identifi=C3=A9): a UFO (unidentified
flying object).

Une soucoupe volante: a flying saucer.

Les extraterrestres sont parmi nous: the aliens are among us.

Rencontres Rapproches du Troisieme Type: Close Encounters of the
Third Kind.

C'etait un petit bonhomme vert: it was a little green man.

C'est quoi, cette etrange lumiere dans le ciel?: what's that
strange light in the sky?

Les extraterrestres essaient de communiquer avec nous: the
aliens are trying to communicate with us.

Amenez-moi =C3  votre chef: take me to your leader.

**

Copyright 2003 Times Newspapers Ltd.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 5

                Poster Entries Sought For Aztec UFO Symposium

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@privat.dk>
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 04:10:42 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 09:38:23 -0500
Subject: Poster Entries Sought For Aztec UFO Symposium


Source: The Farmington Daily Times, New Mexico

http://www.daily-times.com/Stories/0,1413,129%257E6574%257E1156719,00.html

Stig

***

Article Last Updated:
Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 2:00:29 AM MST

Aztec UFO poster entries sought

By Darren Marcy/Staff writer

**

AZTEC - The Aztec Public Library is hosting its annual art
contest to determine what image will appear on this year's
poster for the sixth-annual Aztec UFO Symposium.

The Aztec UFO 2003 Space Art and Writing Contests gives anyone
with a creative bent a chance to challenge themselves on the
topic of space.

People of all ages can enter the contest in one or more
categories of: Written work, bookmarks, art (painting, drawing
or mixed media), electronic space art, or 3-D imaging.

First and second place prizes will be awarded in each category
and age division.

Adults compete among themselves while children will compete in
age classifications of: kindergarten to third grade, fourth to
sixth, seventh to ninth and high school.

Each entrant will get a certificate of participation and the
winners will be awarded prizes. The entry deadline is March 1.

The contest is growing in popularity with entries coming in from
all over the United States as well as 14 foreign countries.

"It's becoming more of an international contest," said Librarian
Leanne Hathcock.

Hathcock said the Internet is allowing Aztec's library fund-
raiser to grow through "digital world of mouth."

She said the UFO Web site is receiving 500 hits a week.

"There just seems to be so much interest in this phenomenon,"
Hathcock said.

In addition to the Internet, information about the contest has
been sent to school children in Aztec, Bloomfield and the
Central Schools. UFO officials will speak with the Farmington
School District about the Farmington schools soon.

But anyone wanting to enter can find a form on the Web site at:
aztecufo.com or at the Aztec Library.

This is the fifth year for the art contest with the winning
piece selected to for the commemorative poster each year.

Hathcock said the plan is to turn the event into a juried art
show somewhere down the line. This year, the winner will be
chosen by the Northwest New Mexico Arts Council.

There is no requirement that the art depict UFOs, only that it
have a space theme.

The art show always brings in a wide variety of art proving that
the UFO topic is one that dwells deep in some people's minds and
often comes out differently depending on the person. "It's a
visual imprint of the consciousness of this topic," Hathcock
said. "Subconsciously, it's what people are thinking of this
topic. We get a good variety."

Information: aztecufo.com, Aztec Public Library (505) 334-7658,
UFO Center (505) 334-9890, or (505) 326-2226.

Darren Marcy: darrenm@daily-times.com

**

C. 1999-2003 MediaNews Group, Inc.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 5

                CI: 'Martian Genesis' & 'The Atlantis Enigma'

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 20:29:57 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 09:39:39 -0500
Subject: CI: 'Martian Genesis' & 'The Atlantis Enigma'


Cydonian Imperative
2-5-03

"Martian Genesis" and "The Atlantis Enigma" by Herbie Brennan
(reviewed by Mac Tonnies)

http://www.mactonnies.com/cydonia.html (page 36)


"Martian Genesis":

In this quick, highly readable volume, Brennan suggests that the
human race originated on Mars and cites archaeological anomalies
that may eventually lead our species to a profound redefintion
of who and what we are. "Martian Genesis" contains many "ancient
astronaut" cliches, but remains thought-provoking. The question
Brennan addresses cannot be comfortably brushed aside: If the
Martian "Face" is artificial, then what does it say about our
evolutionary heritage?


"The Atlantis Enigma":

Continuing in the same archaeological vein as "Martian Genesis,"
Brennan's "The Atlantis Enigma" is a thought-provoking
reappraisal of human history. Taking Plato's poetic description
of the lost civilization of Atlantis as a starting point,
Brennan subjects orthodox anthropological theories to late-
breaking findings including (but by no means limited to) the
construction of the Pyramids and Sphinx, convergent world
mythologies, tectonic upheaval, and meteor collisions. Brennan
argues that the Ice Age was preceded by a technologically
sophisticated global civilization that was obliterated by a
"supernova fragment." Brennan's book is open to argument, but
it's incisive, well-cited and potentially illuminating.

For related titles, see Mars/Cydonia Book Reviews at:

http://www.mactonnies.com/cydoniabooks.html

-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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 5

                  Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 00:48:07 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 09:47:39 -0500
Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Gates


 >From: David Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 09:31:55 -0000
 >Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

<snip>

 >And what is "self serving quack" if it is not an insult

Gosh, I thought it was referencing skeptibunkers...oops,
saying that in pelicanese its a "self-serving squawk.." :)


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 5

                 Re: More On Wrong Roswell Dig Site - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 01:07:57 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 09:49:42 -0500
Subject: Re: More On Wrong Roswell Dig Site - Gates


 >From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 11:11:39 EST
 >Subject: Re: More On Wrong Roswell Dig Site


 >>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 00:25:36 EST
 >>Subject: Re: More On Wrong Roswell Dig Site

<snip>

 >>One wonders on what basis Don Schmitt moves the debris field
 >>over 2 or 3 hundred feet.

 >First let me point out where it said two or three feet, it
 >should have been two or three hundred feet.

Kevin,

Isn't it about this time that one of us start blathering about
false and misleading claims made by the other.. :)

As you once mentioned in jest (as I recall) there is this notion
around that there are no honest mistakes, just false and
misleading claims, blah blah blah...

 >Second, this discussion is a non starter. We know the exact
 >location given the information we have gathered. We do not know
 >the exact dimensions which is a totally different proposition.

 >Third, as we stood on the hill side with Bill Brazel, him
 >holding one of those warm beers, he pointed to another hill

Isn't drinking warm beer like drinking cold coffee?? That was a
burper... sorry.

 >across a shallow little valley and said that the debris started
 >up near there. My impression was that he was pointing to a place
 >about two hundred feet from the place that Schmitt thought he
 >was pointing. We didn't realize this problem until later... no,
 >it's not a problem, just a matter of interpretation. He thought
 >Brazel was pointing to a point a little farther up the hill than
 >I did, but when we did the archaeological research in 1989, we
 >incorporated both ends in that research so that no parts were
 >left out.

I appreciate the above. The one observation I would make about
the research line of trying to determine a trajectory is it
depends if there was any in flight course changes that the
object took before it went boom and crashed.

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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 5

                 North Yorkshire Police Probe UFO Sightings

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@privat.dk>
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 07:57:13 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 09:51:31 -0500
Subject: North Yorkshire Police Probe UFO Sightings


Source: Leeds Today

http://www.leedstoday.net/ViewArticle.aspx?SectionID=3D39&ArticleID=3D234542

Stig

***

31 January 2003

Police probe UFO sightings

BY HOWARD WILLIAMSON

**

Police are quizzing UFO hunters over several incidents of lights
in the sky off the east coast.

Full-time researcher Russell Kellett has been interviewed by
officers after a strange incident near Filey Brigg.

And he claims fellow UFO enthusiasts have also been quizzed by
officers.

"It is all very strange," said Mr Kellett at his Filey home.
"Two officers interviewed me after I reported an experience I
had at Filey Brigg last summer.

"I was looking out to sea when I suddenly saw five saucer-shaped
objects flying in a row. I turned away to get my camera and the
objects were gone, but then I heard a bang and saw a flash and
an RAF plane came flying over the area.

"I phoned RAF Leeming about it and they sent the police officers
round to interview me. They told me I had seen and heard a heat-
seeking flare.

"But they are usually fired to ward off incoming missiles. And
this was over a built-up area."

Graham Birdsall, editor of UFO Magazine, which is produced at
Stourton, Leeds, said: "We have information that many police
forces are now told to take all UFO sightings seriously.

"Since the demise of the Royal Observer Corps, the UFO people
who watch the skies are the eyes and ears of the nation and can
alert the authorities to anything suspicious. This is
particularly important at a time of heightened security."

A spokesman for North Yorkshire Police said: "If someone reports
an incident which could impinge on public safety then we take it
seriously. If something looks worrying, it is our job to do
something about it."

Sky watches have been planned at Filey, Whitby and Scarborough.
Anyone interested can phone 07901 597743.

howard.williamson@ypn.co.uk

**

All rights reserved =A9 2002 Johnston Press New Media.










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 5

                      Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Hebert

From: Amy Hebert <yellowrose129@attbi.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 01:03:20 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 09:53:09 -0500
Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Hebert


 >From: Wm. Michael Mott <mottimorph@earthlink.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 08:09:21 -0600 (CST)
 >Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs

 >>From: Amy Hebert <yellowrose129@attbi.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 23:31:33 -0600
 >>Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs

<snip>

 >>You referred me to URL's that were nothing more than futher
 >>theory and speculation (and your book).

 >I referred you to considerably more. It's up to you to follow
 >through, I'm certainly not going to do it for you.

Play your cards, Mike, or leave the table.

Either provide the scientific data/research that (according to
your claims); 1) clearly establishes the existence of
electromagnetic energies flowing through the earth along "grid
lines" and "ley lines", plus 2) data which clearly links flight
paths of UFO's to these alleged electromagnetic energies flowing
along grid-lines and ley lines - or fold.

Put up or shut up.

(I am taking the advice of others, who have told me I am wasting
my time with you, and moving on to much more important matters.)


A. Hebert








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 5

                 Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Clarke

From: David Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 07:53:14 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 09:54:51 -0500
Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Clarke


 >From: Catherine Reason <CathyM@ukf.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 18:07:36 -0000
 >Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

 >>From: David Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 09:31:55 -0000
 >>Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

 >I hope you'll both excuse me for interrupting, but this sounds
 >definitely odd to me.

 >Well whoever he was, "respected defence psychologist" or not
 >(what is one of those, by the way?) - this was an extremely ill-
 >considered remark.


Hi Catherine,

A defence psychologist is exactly what it says: a psychologist
employed by the Ministry of Defence, in this case the Royal Air
Force (responsible to the Chief Scientist).

 >As it happens, I also find the psychosocial dynamics surrounding
 >UFOs and their investigation more interesting than the UFOs
 >themselves, but saying that is one thing, and asserting that
 >"the people who report sightings of UFOs are far worthier of
 >research than the UFOs themselves" is quite another. The first
 >is an explicitly subjective statement about my own areas of
 >interest, whereas the second purports to be an objective
 >statement of fact.

 >The problem is, if one is going to be scientific about this,
 >there is no way one can do research on the people who report
 >UFOs without taking into account the reports they have made, the
 >enviromental context in which the reports were made (including
 >the likely stimulus to which the reports refer); the social
 >context in which the reports were made, and the social context
 >in which the reports are being discussed and investigated - and
 >that includes the social context in which the people who make
 >the reports are discussed and investigated.

But hold the bus a minute: who is suggesting that Cassie did not
take into account "the enviromental context in which the
reports were made (including the likely stimulus to which the
reports refer); the social context in which the reports were
made, and the social context in which the reports are being
discussed and investigated" etc etc ?

Unless you have spoken to Cassie, and had access to the reports
he produced during his assignment, you cannot know the basis for
his conclusion. All you have is his statement, and the reactions
to it witnessed on this list, which are interesting in
themselves.

Until we have a 'UFO' to examine the only subjects we have to
study are the people who make the reports of UFOs. That is how I
interpret Cassie's remarks, and it is common sense rather than
psychology.


Best,

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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 5

                 Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Bennett

From: Colin Bennett <colin@bennettc25.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 11:34:18 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 17:01:29 -0500
Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Bennett


 >From: Andy Roberts <aj.roberts@blueyonder.co.uk>
 >Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 20:00:24 -0500
 >Fwd Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 20:00:24 -0500
 >Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Roberts

Hello all good List Bears,

Andy says of course, as he almost always says, that most UFO
reports are misconceptions. I am not going into a rant saying
this opinion is a misconception in itself. If I did that, Andy
would dine off me for breakfast, and I would dine off him for
dinner the next day. And so on. Judging from my private mail,
these List confrontations with Andy (including those I have had
with Dick Hall and Josh Goldstein) have been the cause of
considerable planet-wide wonder and amusement. A published
version is to be available next year, only the names have been
changed to protect the guilty.

I wish to suggest a way out of the affliction of binary
colonization of real and false, perception and misperception
that holds us in thrall. That is to see the whole Ufological
debate as art form. That way (as Jimmy Durante put it before
Warhol) Everybody gets into the act. For example, we have the
constant state of denial of our Andy (a wonder in itself), mixed
with the screams of the queens (no names, I am in a good mood
this morning ebk, so you can post this in safety), and the cool
loftiness of the web intellectuals, mortally afraid of mixing it
in a brawl, unlike Andy, Dick, and myself.
Mixed with the wondrous certainty is the magical nature of that
continuous process industry that produces fast-food facts beyond
number for junk intellectual consumerism. Yes, this post is such
junk Andy, I saw that coming, but then so are your
misconceptions and indeed mine own. As a Fortean, I see my mind
as a junk-fuzzy mess, like yours. That's the way it works.
That's the way it worked with Corso. Please List Bears don't
pick me up on that name, that's my other planet-sized mailbag,
and very possibly next year's book, when I have a title. I
always know a book is coming when I have a title.

This List art form is built of visions and the quest for
knowledge just as much as it is built of have frustration and
envy, and often savage anger and insults. Should one of Matthew
Arnold's children of Nature wander into the List by mistake they
would see a genuine 21st century art form that makes the
"proper" art form of the great big outer world look camp, limp,
and positively pre-electric by comparison. Ufology is not dead,
it is very much alive in this sense.

These List debates are just not going on anymore in the world.
In one day we can jump from cave painting to quantum theory,
from mediaeval mysticism to the pure postmodern artform of
Roswell. This rich complexity has vanished from the common
central culture. A modern Arthur Koestler say, would no longer
have major reviews in the Sunday Times. He would be wrestling
with Andy and Dick.

Now Andy will come back and say that all this is long-worded
long winded artyfarty fancy crap from fancy ponce Bennett, but
we've been through all that before, Andy, so don't lets bore
everybody stiff with it again. Dick will complain (if he ever
speaks to me again) that art form gives him nothing to measure.
I say to him (if he will ever listen to me again) is there a
need to measure Hamlet or the Paradise Lost? They are eternal
sources of wonder, as will be this List. In Entertainment State,
this dimension is one of our narrowing list of evolutionary
options.

The Ramey Memorandum and the MJ12 matter are examples of science
and technology both working towards pure art form, and I mean
that sincerely (Dick's favourite word). The List, like Project
1947, is modern pyramid culture, no more no less. That the
pyramid is virtual is our own way of doing it. The case
histories are secondary functions of the pyramid culture. Go for
the culture, that's the heart of the paradigm. Find that, and
the case histories largely solve themselves. The other way
around, and as we have seen, heads can be lost forever smothered
in document boxes, one Dickensian death-and-a-half to my mind.

Is that postmodern enough for you, Andy?

Colin (Bad Man) Bennett

PS I am preparing a long and detailed post on a postmodern
interpretation of the Ramey Memorandum.


********************
Combat Diaries http://www.thewhyfiles.co.uk
Politics of the Imagination: The Anomalist Award for Best
Biography of the Year
Article on Oberg and NASA now running in Fortean Times
168






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 5

                 Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Roberts

From: Andy Roberts <aj.roberts@blueyonder.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 17:06:07 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 17:03:47 -0500
Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Roberts


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 19:25:14 -0600
 >Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

Jerry wrote:

 >If ever there was a post not worth replying to, this is it. Andy
 >pulls out an anecdote out of the air, uses it as proof that
 >"radical misperception is the _best_ demonstrable theory we
 >have" (love that emphasis), says that he has to prove nothing
 >and you have to prove all, and signs off with a patented
 >Robertsian adolescent sneer. He's telling us, of course, that
 >whenever a witness reports something Andy is too smart to take
 >seriously, no problem -- just scream "radical misperception" and
 >the wascally wabbit will go away.

 >One doesn't know whether to laugh or cry, but I vote for the
 >former. At least that's the one I'm engaged in at the moment.

Well, the usual highly predictable believer knee jerk reaction.
A post which explains how UFO sightings work and have been
proven to work and yet not worth replying to!

Jerry, as you would bombastically say "you have made my case
for me"

Let's do it again listers and if _any of you_ can find genuine
fault in this argument without resorting to Jerry Jerk reactions
I'd be pleased to hear them.

* People see UFOs

* Many people believe there is something highly unusual about
these sightings. Some even claim they are structured craft not
built on earth

* Many of those above use the myth of the credible witness to
justify those beliefs on the grounds that just because pilot/
police/judge etc sees and reports therefore it they must be
reporting what they saw because they are experienced observers/
unimpeachable human beings/whatever

Now, none of you can argue with that so far, can you? Especially
as it is one of the main tenents of the religion of Don and
Jerry (sounds like Tom and Jerry doesn't it - no similarity
intended!)

But.....

* Many cases of UFO sightings which have been made by these
'credible witnesses have been demonstrably proven to be mundane
objects or natural phnomenena radically misperceived. Jer makes
the point that I use an 'anecdote'. I don't - I use a case
investigated and solved by myself and Dave Clarke - I can even
show you the policman on video explaining how he was mistaken.
There are many more such cases, all fully documented, if anyone
doubts this. Read what Jer says again and then realise he is
talking rubbish.

* The fact that many hitherto unexplained UFO sightings,
including those by 'crdible witnesses' have been explained
thusly indicates that in future others will also be solved the
same way. It does not, as I said but which Don and Jerry can't
seem to understand, mean that _all_ cases are resolvable this
way. Just that many have been and are, and on that basis it is
reasonable that others in the future will be. My personal belief
based on 20 years of in the field investigations indicates to me
that all cases follow this pattern.

* Now, if any of you have a better theory for the nature and
origins of UFOs - one which has some basis in fact, and one
which you can give examples of let's here it then.

But I, and you, know that there isn't one.

I await the anguished howls of the believers - ie Don and Jerry,
by return post! Please note that unlike the English sceptics
they won'y use reasoned argument, nor will they discuss
individual cases to prove whatever wooly point they are hunting
at. No, hell no. They will use insult and dismissal, for to do
otherwise would expose them to having to think, argue and debate
and neither can sustain either for very long.

Oh, and incidentally. About two weeks ago Jerry used the phrase
'belief system' in a post to this List. Jerry, please remember
your own prejudices. It was only a year or so ago you were
ranting that there were no such things as 'belief systems'!. Do
they exist now or did you make a mistake?

Unless, yes, I've got it - you were being post-modern like your
friend who you admire and agree with so much, Colin. Which is a
bit weird as Colin hates and disagrees with Dick and Jan and yet
you agree with Dick too! God this is getting so post-modern it's
uncanny. Er, or is it you choose to agree with any fuzzy thinker
who happens to come along and keep the whole UFO cottage inustry
in business? Mystery sells, eh kids.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 5

                      Re: Abduction Question - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 13:03:24 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 17:06:44 -0500
Subject: Re: Abduction Question - Maccabee


 >From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 03:27:19 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Abduction Question

 >>From: Peter Davenport <ufocntr@nwlink.com>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 10:32:46 -0800
 >>Subject: Re: Abduction Question

<snip>

 >Excerpt from Filer's Files post at:

 >http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/jan/m31-001.shtml


 >From: George A. Filer <WeeklyFiles@filersfiles.com>
 >Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 11:40:28 -0500
 >Fwd Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 04:38:59 -0500
 >Subject: Filer's Files - 05 2002


 >ARKANSAS ABDUCTION

 >CARLYLE -- Paul S. wrote, I was abducted October 28.1999, on the
 >north side of the railroad bridge while boating in Carlyle. That
 >was my third known abduction that year. Two were from The Lake
 >of the Ozarks. I remember very little of the actual abduction,
 >but I was able to recall the position changes. It took some time
 >to figure out what happened and I am still remembering only bits
 >and pieces. I remember boating under the bridge near the
 >railroad embankment when I paused to open a map in order locate
 >the main channel. The next thing I remember is being one quarter
 >of a mile into the stumped filled northern section of the lake.
 >I was understandably confused and disorientated. I figured out
 >where I was with a map and compass, which is normally not needed
 >there. I then proceeded to explore and fish the area totally
 >forgetting the position change. I was reminded by what I think
 >is an unusual trigger using the GPS equipment in my boat. I
 >found a way to put my saved GPS trails on a computer map. When I
 >put the saved trail from that fishing trip on the map I got a
 >shock.

<snip>

When I read this over year ago I naturally assumed someone would
be "all over" this report. Bad assumption, I guess. I wonder if
Paul S has ever been located/interviewed by a UFO investigator,
if he still has his computer map of the GPD positions, and if he
has recalled any more.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 5

                 Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Reason

From: Catherine Reason <CathyM@ukf.net>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 16:09:56 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 17:08:08 -0500
Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Reason


 >From: David Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 07:53:14 -0000
 >Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

 >Hi Catherine,

Hello Dave,

 >A defence psychologist is exactly what it says: a psychologist
 >employed by the Ministry of Defence, in this case the Royal Air
 >Force (responsible to the Chief Scientist).

I'd gathered that much from the fact that he'd compiled a report
for the MoD. But there is no such discipline of study as
"defence psychology" - there are various sub-disciplines of
psychology which can be applied to defense work, such as
ergonomics, aptitude testing and selection, psychological
warfare, mulidisciplinary, whatever. By no means all of these
involve skills or expertise which would readily transfer to the
investigation of UFOs or their reporters, and it would of course
be quite typical of the MoD to disregard this (if indeed they
were aware of it in the first place).


 >But hold the bus a minute: who is suggesting that Cassie did not
 >take into account "the enviromental context in which the
 >reports were made (including the likely stimulus to which the
 >reports refer); the social context in which the reports were
 >made, and the social context in which the reports are being
 >discussed and investigated" etc etc ?

I'm assuming you've quoted him correctly, but this:

"His considered opinion was: '...that the people who reported
sightings of UFOs were far worthier of research than the reports
themselves.'"

is not a conclusion of any sort, it's an outline for a research
program. And as a research program it's untenable - you simply
cannot study human beings in this way, divorced from the context
in which they live and operate, and expect to get anything other
than garbage in, garbage out. Volume upon volume of exceedingly
poor research has been published already based on exactly this
faulty premise.

Part of the context, inevitably, is the context defined by
Cassie himself and the MoD context in which he was operating -
  with its subcultures, belief systems, internal politics and
dynamical group relationships with the wider context of British
society at the time - which of course has its own group dynamics
and cultural pecking order to consider. One of the most powerful
forces in any organization is peer group pressure, and I'm quite
sure the MoD is no exception - and academia most certainly is
not.

Cathy

[Catherine Reason]







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 5

                 Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Reason

From: Catherine Reason <CathyM@ukf.net>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 16:52:41 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 17:09:30 -0500
Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Reason


 >From: David Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 07:53:14 -0000
 >Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

Oops, forgot about the second part of this:

 >his conclusion. All you have is his statement, and the reactions
 >to it witnessed on this list, which are interesting in
 >themselves.

Yes, I agree - but so is this, which is a rather nice example of
ingroup formation:


"When I left them they were laughing about their sudden baptism
of fire in the world of Ufology, which they had perceptively
recognised was full of competing egos, petty bitchiness and
empire-building.

It was nice, they said, to find someone who stuck to the facts
and agreed with me that the people involved in Ufology are more
interesting than the UFOs themselves."


Cathy

[Catherine Reason]








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 5

                 Re: More On Wrong Roswell Dig Site - Randle

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 12:24:10 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 17:19:22 -0500
Subject: Re: More On Wrong Roswell Dig Site - Randle


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 01:07:57 EST
 >Subject: Re: More On Wrong Roswell Dig Site


 >>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 11:11:39 EST
 >>Subject: Re: More On Wrong Roswell Dig Site


 >>>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 00:25:36 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: More On Wrong Roswell Dig Site

 ><snip>

 >>>One wonders on what basis Don Schmitt moves the debris field
 >>>over 2 or 3 hundred feet.

 >>First let me point out where it said two or three feet, it
 >>should have been two or three hundred feet.

 >Kevin,

 >Isn't it about this time that one of us start blathering about
 >false and misleading claims made by the other.. :)

Good Morning Robert, List, All -

Yes, it is, so here goes. You made the false claim that the
western end of the debris field was two or three hundred
years.....

 >As you once mentioned in jest (as I recall) there is this notion
 >around that there are no honest mistakes, just false and
 >misleading claims, blah blah blah...

 >>Second, this discussion is a non starter. We know the exact
 >>location given the information we have gathered. We do not know
 >>the exact dimensions which is a totally different proposition.

 >>Third, as we stood on the hill side with Bill Brazel, him
 >>holding one of those warm beers, he pointed to another hill

 >Isn't drinking warm beer like drinking cold coffee?? That was a
 >burper... sorry.

Listen, I wasn't delighted with drinking the warm beer, but
Brazel was driving us out there and he was sucking down the suds
and I thought to be cordial, it demanded that one of us suck
down one of those cans, not to mention it was about eight in the
morning, and by drinking it myself, I was keeping it out of him.

 >>across a shallow little valley and said that the debris started
 >>up near there. My impression was that he was pointing to a place
 >>about two hundred feet from the place that Schmitt thought he
 >>was pointing. We didn't realize this problem until later... no,
 >>it's not a problem, just a matter of interpretation. He thought
 >>Brazel was pointing to a point a little farther up the hill than
 >>I did, but when we did the archaeological research in 1989, we
 >>incorporated both ends in that research so that no parts were
 >>left out.

 >I appreciate the above. The one observation I would make about
 >the research line of trying to determine a trajectory is it
 >depends if there was any in flight course changes that the
 >object took before it went boom and crashed.

I think here might be the most important point. The exact
dimensions of the field aren't all that important, especially
with a discrepancy that is so small, but the orientation of the
gouge is what we really need to know and that was oriented NW to
SE or SE to NW depending on your point of view.

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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 5

                   Re: Validating The Ramey Memo - Randle

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 12:41:59 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 17:21:02 -0500
Subject: Re: Validating The Ramey Memo - Randle


 >From: Dave Morton <Marspyrs@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 15:59:25 EST
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Subject: Re: Validating The Ramey Memo

 >>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >>Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 08:43:25 EST
 >>Fwd Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 10:33:39 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Validating The Ramey Memo - Randle

 >>>From: Dave Morton <Marspyrs@aol.com>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 20:20:10 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: Validating The Ramey Memo

 ><snip>

 >>>Dear Scientific, Learned, and Honorable JSE Editor:

 >>>Why did you approve Mr. Houran's paper on his "Roswell telegram"
 >>>study for publication in your journal, when he does not possess,
 >>>and never did possess, the raw data supporting his main
 >>>conclusion?

 ><snip>

Good Afternoon Dave, List, All -

 >Good afternoon Kevin,

 >>I confess that I do not understand the animosity being exposed
 >>here.

 >I was simply taking Jim Houran's repeated recommendation to
 >write a letter to the Editor of JSE, and posted my rough draft
 >here. I have not yet sent it. The sarcasm was directed towards
 >the Editor of JSE for apparently failing in his duties to
 >excercise journalistic integrity, and towards Houran for
 >suggesting the seemingly pointless excercise of asking the
 >Editor questions which should be directed to the author(s). I
 >have no bones to pick with you, Kevin. Maybe I should, but I
 >don't. I respect your prior work on Roswell too much, often done
 >at great personal expense, as I'm sure we all do.

First, let me say that I understood your point, but I do not
understand the acrimony.

Second, we do have the raw data, we don't have the individual
score sheets which is not the same thing. Once the data havd
been transferred, the score sheets were mistakenly destroyed.
One of the referees of the article had addressed this question
and found that (a) our answer was satisfactory and (b) that the
original score sheets were not as important because we did have
the raw data.

Third, Jim is suggesting here that these questions asked in the
pages of the JSE would have a wider audience and permit a wider
discussion of the problems that you see. All points, yours, Dave
Rudiak's, ours, would be published so that those interested in
the research could decide if we had committed a fatal flaw, or
if the existence of the raw data, much of it converted to ANOVA
was sufficient.

This, I think, is how science should work. We ask a question,
and develop an experiment to answer that question. We gather our
data, study it, and then develop a theory about it. We publish
our findings in a journal, which tacitly invites criticism of
our theories and findings. Maybe someone else has a question
related to the first, creates another study that confirms our
original work, or suggests where we might have gone wrong. We
all look at the data and then say, "Well, yes."

In other words we all progress through a thoughtful discussion.
So, Jim was suggesting a way to invoke that discussion.

I hope you don't believe that I'm lecturing here, or my rather
simple discussion of science is all there is. I'm merely
suggesting that Jim was not dodging the question or refusing to
answer, he was suggesting we take it all into the public arena
of a science journal which would be a good thing for all of us,
a good thing for science and a very good thing for Ufology
because we've moved it into the scientific arena.

 ><snip>

 >>There are those who were worried  because we don't have the raw
 >>data from our study. Well, that's not exactly the truth. In
 >>fact, we do have a computerbase of the raw quantitative data,
 >>just not the actual score sheets (This is stated in our
 >>article). This is how we know the average number of words each
 >>group perceived and their correlations with the various
 >>cognitive variables (including prior knowledge about Roswell
 >>and the Ramey document).

 ><snip>

 >I'm snipping your good points simply to zero-in on 1 important
 >issue: the conclusions and the data supporting them.

 >From your database of raw, quantitative data:

 >1. How many "hits" did each Exclusive word (UFO, flash, etc)
 >have?

Those data do exist and some of them were published in the
original article..... The ANOVA tables for others are available
if you wish to examine them.

<snip>

 >Sorry for the many snips, but I just want to address that 1
 >point, for the moment.

And I certainly understand your concern, as does Jim. Let me go
back and review some of this but please don't think I'm
attempting to dodge the situation. Real world considerations are
moving to reduce my time for my pursuits.

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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 5

                  Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 16:31:16 +0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 17:22:27 -0500
Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Hall


 >From: David Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 07:53:14 -0000
 >Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

 >>From: Catherine Reason <CathyM@ukf.net>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 18:07:36 -0000
 >>Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

 >>>From: David Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
 >>>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 09:31:55 -0000
 >>>Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

 >>I hope you'll both excuse me for interrupting, but this sounds
 >>definitely odd to me.

 >>Well whoever he was, "respected defence psychologist" or not
 >>(what is one of those, by the way?) - this was an extremely ill-
 >>considered remark.

 >Hi Catherine,

 >A defence psychologist is exactly what it says: a psychologist
 >employed by the Ministry of Defence, in this case the Royal Air
 >Force (responsible to the Chief Scientist).

 >>As it happens, I also find the psychosocial dynamics surrounding
 >>UFOs and their investigation more interesting than the UFOs
 >>themselves, but saying that is one thing, and asserting that
 >>"the people who report sightings of UFOs are far worthier of
 >>research than the UFOs themselves" is quite another. The first
 >>is an explicitly subjective statement about my own areas of
 >>interest, whereas the second purports to be an objective
 >>statement of fact.

 >>The problem is, if one is going to be scientific about this,
 >>there is no way one can do research on the people who report
 >>UFOs without taking into account the reports they have made, the
 >>enviromental context in which the reports were made (including
 >>the likely stimulus to which the reports refer); the social
 >>context in which the reports were made, and the social context
 >>in which the reports are being discussed and investigated - and
 >>that includes the social context in which the people who make
 >>the reports are discussed and investigated.

 >But hold the bus a minute: who is suggesting that Cassie did not
 >take into account "the enviromental context in which the
 >reports were made (including the likely stimulus to which the
 >reports refer); the social context in which the reports were
 >made, and the social context in which the reports are being
 >discussed and investigated" etc etc ?

 >Unless you have spoken to Cassie, and had access to the reports
 >he produced during his assignment, you cannot know the basis for
 >his conclusion. All you have is his statement, and the reactions
 >to it witnessed on this list, which are interesting in
 >themselves.

 >Until we have a 'UFO' to examine the only subjects we have to
 >study are the people who make the reports of UFOs. That is how I
 >interpret Cassie's remarks, and it is common sense rather than
 >psychology.


David,

No, that's not common sense; it's a statement of (dis)belief,
and exactly the same thing said by psychologists associated
early with the Colorado University study. It implies that there
is no objective reality to the phenomenon that can be studied.
When someone reports an event of any kind that is (at least
initially) mysterious, or puzzling, or unexplained, and
especially when there are multiple witnesses and various forms
of instrumental data, one does not say, "Let's investigate the
reporters" rather than what they are reporting without implying
that they must all be mistaken, or crazy.


  - 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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 5

                      Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 14:24:41 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 17:24:09 -0500
Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Ledger


 >From: Amy Hebert <yellowrose129@attbi.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 01:03:20 -0600
 >Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs

<snip>

Hi Amy and all,

I thought Ley Lines were those ancient pathways meandering
trough the southern portions of England and Wales. Am I thinking
of something else?

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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 5

                 Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Clarke

From: David Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 14:17:24 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 17:28:01 -0500
Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Clarke



 >From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 22:45:49 -0400
 >Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

 >Anyone who looks into the phenomenon, or
 >as you call it 'flying saucers'-ad nauseum- [incidentally do you
 >and Andy giggle every time you get to slip in that appellation]-
 >and as you said below I can take his comment any way I want-but
 >since it was meant only to be taken ONE way, an arms length slap
 >at and a distancing technique [see Condon-Corning Glass Works
 >and the Low Memorandum] from any of us who chose to look at it-
 >it was and is insulting.

Don,

Given your new found ability for remote viewing, you probably
already know what I'm about the say, but here goes anyway:

Like it or not "Flying Saucers" is a legitimate, historically-
sound phrase, that appears in John Ayto's Dictionary of 20th
Century Words (Oxford University Press 1999, p. 275), viz:

"flying saucer n (1947) a disc-or saucer-shaped object reported
as appearing in the sky and alleged to come from outer space."

So whether Don Ledger likes it or not, it remains a fact, and I
prefer the phrase to UFO because it removes all the ambiguity of
the latter. Flying Saucers - if they exist - are interplanetary
craft, nothing wrong with that.

The phrase is used constantly in newspapers and mass media from
1947 until at least the late 60s (in the UK). Any account that
refers to this period without the use of the phrase is either
culturally ignorant or indulging in some form of historical
revisionism.

Thus we get "structured craft of unknown origin" and other such
nonsense. I have a lot more respect for people back in the 40s
and 50s, because at least they said what they meant and meant
what they said.

 >There were literally hundreds of other >RAF, RCAF, RAAF, USAAF
and enemy pilots who encountered these >so-called natural
phenomenon. And since then there have been >many thousands more
pilots who have also encountered these >phenomena who would
likely take umbrage at Cassie

Yes, and many of those pilots refer to phenomena they saw and
heard about from fellow pilots as "flying saucers."

A good example is the Little Rissington report of October 1952
(see my article in UFO magazine UK February 2003); here we have
RAF and Royal Navy pilots entering the phrase: "Three Flying
Saucers, sighted at height" in their flying logbook. One of
them, Air Commodore Mick Swiney, told me how:

"[when I saw them] I immediately thought of saucers, because
that's actually what they looked like."

Mick Swiney believes they saw something unusual, that was not a
misidentification of a known object. I happen to agree with him,
but I can tell you that despite that fact both men are equally
as sceptical as I am. Despite their own experiences, they
maintain that the vast majority of reports made by fellow
pilots, *including themselves* are misidentifications - and that
is the same healthy viewpoint I have found in dozens of
interviews with aircrew conducted over the past four years.

Aircrew who have, on numerous occasions, actively sought to
speak to us because they did not want their stories to be
misinterpreted by what one called the "UFO industry."

Swiney in particular recalls a second incident in 1954 where he
was scrambled to pursue a UFO over Germany that turned out to be
a meteorological balloon. Crofts, the Navy pilot, is of the
opinion that the 'flying saucers' he saw could have been
advanced Bell X jets misidentified because of the angle of
sight. Both can point to pilots who have sworn that objects they
have seen *could not be identified* only to discover later they
*were* aircraft or natural phenomena.

So to suggest that all military aircrew who see 'flying saucers'
(or UFOs) are utterly convinced what they have seen in
unexplainable is simply untrue, and does a disservice to the
witnesses themselves. My own remarks are honed from discussions
I have had with many of these people.

Yes, I think some of them have seen "flying saucers." But I
don't think *all* of them have.


 >>Is not a study of the MoD's investigations not a "meaningful
 >>contribution"? Perhaps it only qualifies for such if it reaches
 >>the conclusions you want to hear.
 >
 >Sure it is if you can leave out the jabs.

So you're quite happy to edit the honest viewpoints of those who
have participated in a historical investigation, simply because
you disagree with what they say? That sounds like a cover up to
me.

 >But to get back to what annoyed you, let me answer by saying
 >that to try and make this phenomenon the provenance of those
 >lacking full psychological facilities is patently unfair not to
 >mention untrue. This ploy has been used throughout the last 50
 >plus years and all it has served to do is stymie the reporting
 >of, and the scientific study of, the phenomenon.

So we've established you don't like psychologists. Well
unfortunately Don, until you can deliver one of these flying
saucers (ooops) to a physicist, or provide some tangible
evidence for them to look at, the only scientists you are going
to interest in the data are social scientists. Because the data
is nothing except narrative and stories of things that people
claim to have seen or experienced. There is nothing, not one
single thing, that a physicist or chemist can grapple with.

 >Your piece was interesting but dragged down by the veiled and
 >oft alluded to jabs at the investigators - the same people Andy
 >urged to read the article.

Have you ever heard of "the investigator effect" in which the
investigator of a 'phenomenon' becomes part of the very
mystery he or she is investigating?


Best,

Dave Clarke

"The Skeptick doth neither affirm, neither denie any position;
but doubteth of it." - Sir Walter Ralegh

www.flyingsaucery.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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 5

                       Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Mott

From: Wm. Michael Mott <mottimorph@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 14:17:24 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 17:30:06 -0500
Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Mott


 >From: Amy Hebert <yellowrose129@attbi.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 01:03:20 -0600
 >Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs

 >>>You referred me to URL's that were nothing more than futher
 >>>theory and speculation (and your book).

 >>I referred you to considerably more. It's up to you to follow
 >>through, I'm certainly not going to do it for you.

 >Play your cards, Mike, or leave the table.

Uh huh.

 >Either provide the scientific data/research that (according to
 >your claims); 1) clearly establishes the existence of
 >electromagnetic energies flowing through the earth along "grid
 >lines" and "ley lines",

You've been referred to the theories and research of Bruce
Cathie, Paul Devereaux, Albert Budden, and others. Do the
research and demonstrate that you have the ability to do so by
being able to discuss it in a rational manner.

 >plus 2) data which clearly links flight
 >paths of UFO's to these alleged electromagnetic energies flowing
 >along grid-lines and ley lines - or fold.

Again, see the work of Cathie, Budden, and Le Poer Trench, as
well as Ted Holiday (_The Dragon and the Disc_ and _The Goblin
Universe_). Similar evidence is presented in Keel's _Operation
Trojan Horse_ and _The Mothman Prophecies_, particularly the
former.

In particular, locate and read a copy of _The Flying Saucer
Vision_, by John Michell.

Look up a little book from the late 17th century, _The Secret
Commonwealth_, and see what Robert Kirk had to say about the
interest of subterrestrial beings in human abduction; their
ability to 'fly;' and their intense interest in and aversion to
an "ultimate lodestone" in the far north. There's more about
this in my book in particular. This is related.

BTW, I can by no means take credit (nor do I seek to do so) for
the study or theory of world grids, ley lines, or UFOs using
them for their electromagnetic properties. Others (above) wrote
extensively on these topics, with data, long before I brought
them up--not are these things major topics of my book, and if
mentioned it is only in the briefest manner.

I believe that much of the research is sound, however, and it
goes far toward supporting my own contention that there is a
major electromagnetic connection and fascination in regard to
non-human beings and their technology, not to mention that they
are native to this planet, and have been here all along.

 >Put up or shut up.

I've essentially already said this to you. You generate much bravado in
retreat, don't you?

You never answered my (now repeated) question about the odds of
recurrent humanoid forms having their origin on other planets.
You have nothing to state about the fact that I provided you
with an example of "proof" which _you_ requested (the Eltanin
antenna). You avoid answering questions or remarking in a
meaningful way on data presented to you, because you have no
answers. No theories. No original thoughts on this topic
whatsoever.

You have, however, admitted that your personal area of "study"
is in disinformation and psychology. You did not respond to my
observations about this. Why not? What is your personal agenda
in regard to promoting any particular UFO origin theory, or
disputing others?

Your ad hominem, a-priori statements and tactics represent or
certainly resemble the modus operandi of obfuscatory, dis- and
misinformation campaigns. I find this very interesting. You
offer nothing in terms of original thought, but are certainly
glad to blather ridicule and derision. Discussing this topic
with you is esentially like discussing sex with a eunuch.

What is your agenda in even discussing these topics? What are
your personal theories?

 >(I am taking the advice of others, who have told me I am wasting
 >my time with you, and moving on to much more important matters.)


Good idea. You might want to go expand your library and do a
little more research.

Adios,

--Mike






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 5

              Re: CI: 'Martian Genesis' & 'The Atlantis Enigma'

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 17:06:11 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 17:37:14 -0500
Subject: Re: CI: 'Martian Genesis' & 'The Atlantis Enigma'


 >From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 20:29:57 -0800 (PST)
 >Subject: CI: 'Martian Genesis' & 'The Atlantis Enigma'

 >Cydonian Imperative
 >2-5-03

 >"Martian Genesis" and "The Atlantis Enigma" by Herbie Brennan
 >(reviewed by Mac Tonnies)

 >http://www.mactonnies.com/cydonia.html (page 36)

 >"Martian Genesis":

 >In this quick, highly readable volume, Brennan suggests that the
 >human race originated on Mars and cites archaeological anomalies
 >that may eventually lead our species to a profound redefintion
 >of who and what we are. "Martian Genesis" contains many "ancient
 >astronaut" cliches, but remains thought-provoking. The question
 >Brennan addresses cannot be comfortably brushed aside: If the
 >Martian "Face" is artificial, then what does it say about our
 >evolutionary heritage?

 >"The Atlantis Enigma":

 >Continuing in the same archaeological vein as "Martian Genesis,"
 >Brennan's "The Atlantis Enigma" is a thought-provoking
 >reappraisal of human history. Taking Plato's poetic description
 >of the lost civilization of Atlantis as a starting point,
 >Brennan subjects orthodox anthropological theories to late-
 >breaking findings including (but by no means limited to) the
 >construction of the Pyramids and Sphinx, convergent world
 >mythologies, tectonic upheaval, and meteor collisions. Brennan
 >argues that the Ice Age was preceded by a technologically
 >sophisticated global civilization that was obliterated by a
 >"supernova fragment." Brennan's book is open to argument, but
 >it's incisive, well-cited and potentially illuminating.

 >For related titles, see Mars/Cydonia Book Reviews at:

 >http://www.mactonnies.com/cydoniabooks.html

 >-end-

Hiya Mac,

Off the wall, off-topic question:

While we're waxing 'New Agey' here, I'd like to know what ever
happened to Mu and Lemuria? Two (alleged) ancient technological
civilizations that supposedly predated Atlantis. For some odd
reason Atlantis gets all the modern day press as well as the
attention of the New Age community. Maybe because of the Edgar
Cayce material. But even old Edgar spoke of Mu and Lemuria.

Any New-ager worth his Couchgrass and St. John's wart tea knows
that Mu and Lemuria predated Atlantis. I wonder why it is that
those much older civilizations are never mentioned, much less
blamed on "aliens." After all, it's the hip, 'modern' thing to
do isn't it? They can at least get the chronological order
correct.    ;)

Preserving my essence and precious bodily fluids in New York,

tu amigo,

John Velez, reincarnated Lemurian shoe salesman

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

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/petition








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 5

                   Re: Validating The Ramey Memo - Rudiak

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 14:11:54 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 17:42:41 -0500
Subject: Re: Validating The Ramey Memo - Rudiak


 >From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 08:43:25 EST
 >Subject: Re: Validating The Ramey Memo - Randle


 >>From: Dave Morton <Marspyrs@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 20:20:10 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Validating The Ramey Memo

<snip>

 >Dear Scientific, Learned, and Honorable JSE Editor:

 >>Why did you approve Mr. Houran's paper on his "Roswell telegram"
 >>study for publication in your journal, when he does not possess,
 >>and never did possess, the raw data supporting his main
 >>conclusion?

 >I confess that I do not understand the animosity being exposed here.

The animosity stems from your study with James Houran claiming
you've proven that context has a very serious biasing effect in
reading the Ramey memo. But when I read the paper, there is no
data to back up your primary conclusion. The paper, instead,
sheepishly acknowledges the critical data was thrown out.

When I pointed this out and demanded to see the data, James
Houran refused to respond directly. He was above it all. I was
to write a letter to JSE and publish my results in a peer-review
journal. There were lots of condescending remarks and insults
about how some of us were biased, being afraid of the results
because it ran counter to our agenda, not understanding the
scientific method or peer review or experimental science, etc.

But numbers to back up your primary conclusion? Forget it! All I
got was the runaround. That sort of attitude and evasion has a
lot to do with triggering "animosity."

 >Our study did not suggest that those engaged in research
 >on the Ramey memo had made an errors that invalidated their
 >work,

Totally not true. Your paper very clearly implied that there was
no agreement and that people were seeing only what they wanted
to see. More details further below.

 >that continued study would reveal nothing of value, or
 >that nothing could be learned here. It did suggest that priming
 >might be a confounding variable and should be taken into
 >consideration.

You more than suggested it. You said you expected it, you
clearly found it, it was a major effect, and this was the
primary conclusion of your paper. But you can't back it up with
anything, and the numbers you do provide in your paper actually
contradict it. Furthermore, you totally ignored a very obvious,
robust improvement in readings in the group given the correct
context.

 >It did not say that those studying the memo had made that error.

This is completely false. That is _exactly_ what you suggested,
repeatedly. You devoted pages to saying this. Sample quotes from
the paper are provided further below.

 >We suggested a method for furthering the
 >scientific study of the memo, and I have suggested to others
 >that I believed that we could gain validation in independent
 >studies of the memo.

No, what your paper actually said was that the memo as evidence
of a UFO crash could _never_ be validated by positive results
from further studies, except in the minds of "hardened
researchers." But negative results should be accepted at face
value, i.e., the memo could be invalidated but never validated.
Again, I refer people to quotes further down.

 >If that could be accomplished, then we
 >would have moved this study forward. Instead we learn all the
 >reasons that validation should not be attempted and how no one
 >other than one or two specific people are capable of
 >understanding the Ramey memo.

You have deliberately set up a double bind in your paper. No
study can ever validate the memo, only invalidate it. How
exactly to propose to move anything forward after making such
statements?

 >There are those who were worried because we don't have the raw
 >data from our study.

We're not "worried." The ones who should be worried are you and
Houran and maybe the sleeping peer reviewers at JSE. I am,
however, flabbergasted and outraged that you could conclude
something and have no data to back it up, in fact stating the
relevant data had been tossed out. I'm also flabbergasted and
outraged that this didn't cause automatic rejection of the paper
by the peer reviewers. Since when does a scientific journal
accept papers in which the primary conclusion has no supporting
data?

 >Well, that's not exactly the truth.

If that isn't the exact truth, then why am I not seeing the
relevant numbers, that I have repeatedly requested? James Houran
and now you are tip-toeing all around it.

 >In fact, we do have a computerbase of the raw quantitative data,
 >just not the actual score sheets (This is stated in our article).

What the article says is:

"One referee requested that we list how many participants in
each condition deciphered each word. We contacted our primary
research assistant for these numbers, as we only immediately had
the computerized data for analysis. We unfortunately learned
that the assistant disposed of the actual score sheets thinking
they were useless after he prepared his notes on the words
common to the three conditions and compiled the computerized
database. As a result, _we only have detailed data on the
deciphered words common across the three suggestions._"

That statement says you only had the numbers on the "common"
words, but not on the words you call "exclusive" to context.
This is the crux of the matter. You need the numbers on those
"exclusive" words to support your main conclusion of a "very
signficant" "priming" effect, and you don't have them.

Without those numbers it is not possible for you & Houran to
validly conclude anything about a "priming effect." Certainly
you could not write, as you did in your paper abstract, "Many
participants indeed claimed to be able to read the document,
although their subsequent solutions appeared to follow directly
from the experimental suggestions."

Numbers please. What do you mean by "many participants" and
"their subsequent solutions?" What percentages of subjects and
read words are we talking about here?

As I wrote in a previous post, when I went over the numbers you
did provide in the paper for the Roswell context condition
(which you and Houran labeled the "pro-UFO condition"), there
were 271 words deciphered by the group of 59, 196 of these, or
72%, being in the "common" words group. That left just 75 words,
or 28% being assigned to the "exclusive" words.

Only four anecdotal examples of "exclusive" words were given in
your Table 3: remains, fundamental, crash, and UFO. Two of these
words are quite neutral (remains and fundamental) and have no
obvious Roswell contextual connection. That left just 2 words as
examples of possible "priming" by the Roswell context (crash and
UFO). And, as I also wrote, if we assume that four people saw
each of these words, that left just 8 words out of 271, or 3%
"primed" by context, hardly "very significant" at all.

Also curiously left out of the data and discussion were the
small, common words like "the", "at", "of", etc. that make up
about 40% of the message. Many of these are relatively easy to
pick out and I can only assume that many subjects saw them. Most
of these should have gone into the list of "common" words, but
nothing is there mentioning their existence. Instead I further
have to assume they got lumped in with the "exclusive" words and
make up the vast bulk of them, instead of words like "UFO" and
"crash." If that were the case, then the "exclusive" words were
"padded out" with words that had nothing at all to do with
context.

Thus, not only is there no data to support your main conclusion
of signficant "priming" due to context, what's left of the data
suggests exactly the opposite.

Another thing left out of your paper, which is _extremely
obvious_ when examining your Table 3, is that the Roswell group
is far better at picking out the "common" words like "Fort
Worth, Tex." and "weather balloons." (E.g. the Roswell group
picked out 196 of these vs. only 77 for the Atomic bomb
condition and 31 for the control.)

This was a very good demonstration of the obvious benefits of
knowing the proper context. Knowing that the photo was taken in
Fort Worth and knowing that the military's public story was
about a mistaken weather balloon obviously makes it a lot easier
to pick out such words. It also contradicts Jim Houran's many
recent statements about how proper context was "confounding" and
made the reading "unreliable." Without a doubt, exactly the
opposite happened. But there was zero discussion of this.

It looks to me that the study actually showed that the benefits
of knowing proper context greatly outweighed any minor "priming"
effect, which was nothing but anecdotal in nature anyway.

Yet, despite never demonstrating any major "priming" effect in
your first paper, and after completely ignoring the clear
benefits of knowing context that _was_ shown in your study, you
are Houran are now claiming that you have laid the groundwork
for your next study in which you plan to completely remove
context to avoid allegedly biasing the readers and making the
readings "unreliable."

 >This is how we know the average number of words each
 >group perceived and their correlations with the various
 >cognitive variables (including prior knowledge about Roswell and
 >the Ramey document).

The main point continues to be, how can you and Houran conclude
that there was a "very signficant" priming effect when you don't
have the data to support it?

 >And confounding effects aside,

By "confounding" you obviously mean knowing the proper context
and knowing something about the Roswell case.

Kevin, you've been in military intelligence. Do you think being
personally knowledgeable and given contextual background
information was "confounding" and made your judgments less
reliable? Or rather, wasn't it enormously helpful in coming to
logical, informed decisions, maybe not always right, but still
more often right than not?

Would the CIA or NSA use completely ignorant analysts to figure
out what was being said in a very noisy cell-phone intercept
from a known terrorist? Would they tell them nothing about the
circumstances, such as the date, the place, the name, etc., on
the theory that it made their interpretations more "objective"?
That would be an extremely foolish way to approach the task and
would virtually guarantee failure.

Yet that is exactly what you and Houran are proposing for your
next study on the pretext that your first study demonstrated
some huge priming effect, and that this is severely detrimental
to reading the message. In reality, your first study showed
nothing of the sort and actually demonstrated that knowing
context was not "confounding" but enormously beneficial in
reading some of the words (the "common" words).

 >we can also turn our study around and ask how well can people
 >replicate the findings of Rudiak et al?

I would suggest using people who are not deaf, dumb, and blind
about Roswell and instead using people very knowledgeable about
Roswell and providing them all relevant information. Just being
computer technicians and knowing how to twiddle dials and
enhance images is insufficient background in itself to properly
tackle the task.

I would suggest making them adhere to certain strict protocol
procedures, the key ones being: 1) making objective letter
counts of words (which can be done with most words) and then
rigidly adhering to these letter counts words and using correct
spelling with their own words, and 2) insisting that whatever
they ultimately came up with was both grammatical, made sense,
and was internally consistent, instead of sounding like a bunch
of disconnected gibberish. It also wouldn't hurt if the readings
had some consistency with the known Roswell historical facts.
  Any sections of the message with misspelled words, or words of
the wrong length, sounding like complete gobbletygook, or
completely off-the-charts historically would be sound grounds
for rejecting as valid interpretions. Not all interpretations
should be treated as equally valid.

I would suggest they use word search engines to look for
possible fits, then apply proper context and little common sense
to find a best fit or fits.

I would suggest providing them with multiple sources of the best
imagery available, primarily first-generation blow-up prints of
the message done at multiple levels of exposure, what I have
found to be best at maximizing resolution and picking up
subtleties in the gray tones, particularly in the very hard-to-
read shadowed areas. Direct negative scans are also helpful, but
don't provide the maximum level of resolution in pixels or grey
levels. (I went back and forth between various images, sometimes
picking up different details that showed up better in different
images.)

And I would suggest throwing gobs of money at them for
"motivation," since they are unlikely to persist at the task for
any great length of time without it. Persistance and motivation
are huge factors in solving any difficult puzzle. If only a few
hours were spent by the analysts, I would declare this to be a
sham effort. If the point is to read most or all of the message,
I'm looking for an effort in the neighborhood of at least 100
hours over an extended period of time (so they can properly mull
things over).

Unfortunately, even if there was replication of results,
particularly on the critical words and phrases, your paper
states that this still would not constitute acceptable evidence
of a UFO crash. In other words, no amount of replication or
verification has any value in your opinion. So what's the point?
You have already raised the bar of evidence to an impossibly
high level.

 >That is, if their assertions about the
 >clear legibility of the key text in the document is valid, then
 >a significant portion of our sample (if not the ENTIRE sample)
 >should have seen it.

Total nonsense. You asked your participants to read the _entire_
message, not key in on certain sections. Your participants were
not provided with optimized, enhanced images. Although they
could play with the images if they chose, this amounted to
double-tasking them, a major "confounding variable" in itself.
Now they were supposed to both read as much as they could of the
entire message plus do their own image enhancement.

On top of this, the average person in your study spent only 17
minutes looking at the message. Even the most motivated "Roswell
group" spent only 20 minutes total on average. Out of the about
70 words "in the open" and not hidden in whole or part by
Ramey's thumb or paper curvature or hiding in shadow, the
average person devoted only about 15 seconds per word.

How many people could solve a difficult word puzzle, like the
N.Y. Times crossword with its many ambiguous and enigmatic
clues, devoting only 15 seconds per word? Do we conclude that if
people spending such a limited time disagree about various words
or that if none get certain words that the words can't be read,
or that people are only engaged in "wishful thinking" or "seeing
faces in the clouds?"

What if, in addition, a third of the people were deliberately
mislead with especially ambiguous or enigmatic clues and another
third had all the vertical cross-word clues removed as a control
to prevent them from applying context from the vertical cross-
words to the horizontal cross-words. That might be considered
pretty darn "confounding" in itself.

I think the average person is smart enough to realize that this
is not a proper test of people's word puzzle solving ability.
There would also be the realization that a lot more time needed
to be spent on the task, that people usually get better at such
a task the more familiar they become with the puzzle and the
longer they work at it, that good puzzle-solvers typically
change the mind about some initial "takes" when they find
inconsistencies later cropping up and then make adjustments,
that not everybody is equally knowledgeable or adept at solving
such puzzles, that not everybody is equally motivated or
persistent, etc. etc., and all this factors into maybe only a
small percentage of people who tackle the puzzle finishing it.

Yet you make the statement above, "if their assertions about the
clear legibility of the key text in the document is valid, then
a significant portion of our sample (if not the ENTIRE sample)
should have seen it."

This is another classic example of raising the bar. Despite the
extremely difficult conditions that your subjects were presented
with and very limited time spent, not only a "signficant
portion" of your sample should have seen these words, but the
"entire sample."

Wow, what a statement! By that logic, I guess you should have
rejected the "common" words as being there because not all of
the subjects saw them either, not even a big percentage. E.g.,
in the blind condition, only 2 people out of 59 (3%) saw
"balloons" and none saw "weather." Only 5 out of 58 (9%) picked
out "weather balloons" in the misleading "atomic bomb" context.
And finally 20 out of 59 (34%) saw "weather balloons" in the
correct Roswell context. Overall, only 15% of all subjects saw
either "balloons" or "weather balloons."

Yet you and Houran concluded that the "common" words were very
likely there because people saw them across all experimental
conditions (hence the use of the word "common"). There was
certainly no statements that the "entire sample" should have
seen them, or that the "atomic" or "blind" condition people had
to see them in large numbers.

Nobody saw "weather" in the blind condition and only 3% saw
"balloons." One could easily conclude, looking at just these
numbers, that the words weren't there. Yet this is exactly the
same sort of situation you intend to set up in your next study,
using totally ignorant readers. If nobody sees "weather" here
either, is your conclusion going to be that it isn't there and
everybody else is just seeing "faces in the clouds?"

To better understand what the Houran/Randle subjects confronted,
I prepared a graphic showing two words from the primary image
used by the subjects. (I originally prepared this graphic to
illustrate comments submitted to Vicki Ecker at UFO Magazine for
their next issue, but missed the deadline.)  I have put this up
on my Website for the Listerians to view. See:

http://www.roswellproof.com/Randle_Houran_demo.html

These words, the alleged keywords "VICTIMS" and "'DISC'", were
clipped from the scan done directly off the negative by Stan
Friedman. This was the primary image viewed in the Houran/Randle
study. The subjects were shown this scan on a video monitor in
its raw, unprocessed state. It is of low contrast and very
noisy, and there is perspective compression of these two words
because of camera/message angle. The subjects were thus
confronted with the top two words in my graphic.

The middle part of the graphic shows what happens when one
applies a simple contrast enhancement and stretches the words
vertically 50% to make the letter proportions more normal. I
have also cut away a lot of the surrounding film grain noise.
Greatly improves readability, doesn't it? Of course you need to
spend a lot of time doing such enhancements. Different parts of
the message can be brought out better in different ways.
Sometimes you have to stretch the letters. Sometimes you have to
rotate them. Sometimes you have to use one image rather than
another. 17 minutes average just isn't going to do it, and the
subjects should never have been required to do this on top of
being asked to read the words. That's just poor experimental
design.

(Ironically, they suggested using standardized enhancements in
their next study, but never used them in this study. Like many
other things, there was no comment about how lack of such
enhancements may have "confounded" their experimental results.)

(It also would have been good experimental design to tell the
subjects ahead of time that the message was in all caps and the
letters were equally spaced. This would have told them nothing
about message content or context, but would have helped them
greatly in interpreting letters properly. Remember, the
experimental task should have been restricted to whether subject
reading were signficantly affected by the given message context,
not saddling subjects with the additional tasks of image
processing and determining details like all caps.)

Finally, at the bottom, I have an enhanced, stretched, and
isolated the words off a 600 dpi scan of one of my print
enlargements (approximately 20X). Note that there is greater
overall resolution than can be found on the Freeman scan. It is
just plain easier to see some of the letters, but it does help
to go back and forth and compare the various scans. (In the
Houran/Randle study, subjects could also study a print
enlargement through an optical loupe. But this is of very
limited use, since this too is unenhanced, and there is no way
to perform any enhancements. Furthermore, the average person
spent far too little time to be able to go back and forth to
compare images.)

I have also included comparison with the actual teletype font of
the period, again helpful in making decisions about words and
letters. Tick marks above these letters indicate the expected
central character positions. (Sometimes knowing these positions
can be a big help in distinguishing between letter
possibilities. But all this takes a lot of time and analysis,
time not spent by these subjects. However, it could have been
part of standardized image enhancements made available to the
subjects to assist them in their interpretations.)

 >Some words did seem to be reliable but other key text was not
validated by our sample.

With unenhanced, non-optimum images, multiple tasks to perform,
very limited time reading, 2/3rds not knowing the proper context
and many unmotivated readers, why is this so surprising?

 >However, the clear finding

I thought the clear finding was that people were hopelessly
"primed" by the context. But there are no numbers to support
this contention, just a few anecdotal word examples, about half
of which were very neutral words like "fundamental" or "meaning"
and have no obvious "exclusive" contextual connection.

 >is one that should not be controversial to those
 >well-versed in research design... and that is we need more
 >stringent control procedures in further work on the document in
 >order to properly control for the effects of belief and
 >expectation, which are well-known in scientific circles.

Again I ask you, where are the numbers to support your claim
that "belief and expectation" had any signficant effect on word
reading? Like Houran, you are just talking all around this
point.

And I again raise the point that the _only_ clear finding of
your study, actually supported by such numbers, was that correct
context greatly improved reading of the "common" words, which
you state in the paper are likely there because they are seen
across all situations. Why wasn't this flagrantly obvious effect
never discussed in your paper?

It is also well-known in scientific circles that belief and
expectation can affect experimenters:

Paper introduction: "We expected that each suggestion condition
would elicit signficant differences in the participants'
interpretations."

Paper results: "The findings generally supported our
expectations...

Followed by the anecdotal, not numerical results:

"Table 3 shows that participants primed to notice Roswell-
related terms indeed tended to interpret some words in
accordance with earlier interpretations of the same words in the
same positions by ufologists (e.g., "remains," weather
balloons," "land")."

This is a highly misleading statement of results, since
"remains" is a very neutral word, and people knowing nothing
about Roswell in the other groups also saw "weather balloons"
and "land." What should have been said is that the Roswell group
were much better at seeing such words.

Continuing, "Likewise, [for the participants in the Atomic Bomb
Conditions], the change of context was accompanied by new
inpretations of certain words. Now, we see that participants
perceived content that was congruent with the atomic bomb
scenario (e.g., "flash," "glasses", "atomic").

This again is misleading. Two of the six "atomic" "exclusive"
words were very obviously neutral: "meaning" and "morning."
Furthermore, "meaning" was a concensus word of those earlier
"ufologists" approaching this from a Roswell context, and one of
those ufologists also entertained "atomic laboratory" at one
point. Words like "flash" and "glasses" could also be
accommodated from within a Roswell context.

But the key point is that there are no numbers telling us just
how many people saw any of these words or what the percentages
were out of the total of all words. It's just anecdotal results
and author spin.

Then followed the confession that the vital data about the
"exclusive" words no longer existed. Only the numerical data on
the "common" words existed.

So they expected certain results, claimed they found the
results, but when you look closely, the data just isn't there.
On top of this, they ignored the results showing how much
correct context improved reading of the "common" words. Other
important details were also ignored, such as important
commonalities in original readings. Double standards were set
up, such as the impossibility of every verifying such
commonalities. Discussions were one-sided. All this and much
more point to rather obvious experimenter bias in my opinion.

 >I will make just one more comment about this lack of "raw" data.
 >As I was working on my dissertation, I converted the data from
 >the interviews onto score sheets and into a spreadsheet. Did I
 >make any mistakes in that conversion? Possibly, but I was
 >careful to check and recheck that data. Any mistake made would
 >not alter the overall results. It is the same case here. Yes,
 >the score sheets are gone, but not the raw data. I make this
 >point only because some of that earlier information has been
 >lost but not the "raw" data.

I'm sorry, but if the raw data still exists, then why isn't it
present in the paper to support the main conclusion that
"exclusive" words were "primed" by context. And why is there the
comment in the paper that when a referee asked for the relevant
raw data, you discovered that the main research assistant had
thrown out the score sheets that now you are saying that you
yourself had compiled. The R.A. threw out _your_ scoresheets?
None of this makes any sense.

 >It would seem to me that if we turned all these energies to a
 >scientific study we would be farther along.

A good place to start would be your own study to make it truly
scientific, such as providing data to support the main
conclusion.

 >And, no I'm not suggesting that the studies conducted to this
 >point are less than scientific or credible,

Oh, more nonsense. Your paper is just dripping with such
suggestions, e.g. in your introduction:

"Estes (1998) said investigators were seeing the equivalent of
'faces in the clouds.'"

Quoting Don Burleson from the Roswell Daily Record, "A number of
attempts have been made to read the Ramey letter. Quite frankly,
most of these attempts are amateurish, and even some ufologists
have concluded that there is nothing in the Ramey image that
advances the case for the Roswell incident. They are MISTAKEN."

Followed by: "Given Carey's objection to what Burleson had
written in the Roswell Daily Record and given that Burleson
seemed to believe that his interpretation was the only one to
make sense while the others were 'amateurish,' _what does this
say about the **credibility** of these attempts to read the
document...? Este's suggestion of 'faces in the clouds' begins
to carry some credence_, as _those who seem to have a specific
agenda are seeing the memo exactly what they expect_ (Randle,
2000)."

Followed by: "[Rob] Belyea [working with Stan Friedman] did say,
'They're pulling off all sorts of [readings], but they're making
some of it up."

Followed by: "There is currently no consensus on either the
source or content of the message. One researcher, a champion of
the Roswell case, said that it had to be assumed that the
message had something to do with the Roswell case because Ramey
is holding it while Johnson is taking his picture (Carey, 1998).
There really is no reason now to make that assumption. The
message could be about almost anything, could be from almost
anywhere, and _the words and images being seen might be a
reflection of what the researcher wanted to see rather than what
is actually there_."

Over and over again, through careful wording and selective
quoting, suggestions are dropped of extreme bias, seeing only
what investigators want to see, seeing "faces in the clouds," of
the attempts being "amateurish", driven solely by "agendas" or
wishful thinking, and definitely _not_ credible.

I would agree there is some limited measure of truth here, but
like other parts of the paper, everything is grossly overstated
and badly slanted. E.g., I searched in vain for a discussion of
the parts of the Ramey message that various investigators _do_
agree on. It is nowhere to be found. (The only exception to this
is a summary table, Table 1, compiling various peoples readings
and denoting with an "A" on a summary line if there was
consensus agreement on any words or phrases.)

But reading only the commentary, the casual reader of this paper
would conclude that there was _no_ agreement _anywhere_ in the
readings. Yet this is patently _not_ true. There is extremely
important agreement on some key words and phrases in the
message. This is _very important_ and definitely should have
been discussed in the main body of the paper. The omission of
such a discussion appears to be deliberate (just like the
omission of any discussion of the enhanced reading by the
Roswell group of the "common" words). When I see glaring
omissions like this, I think not of scientific writing but of
propaganda.

The discussion should have mentioned that literally _everybody_
agrees that the words "weather balloons" are there. However,
this would have totally demolished your statement that "the
message could be about almost anything." Well obviously not.
Given the historical circumstances (the very important context),
it has to be about Roswell in some way. Other key words of
consensus are "victims" and "'disc'" (or "disk"), again clearly
indicating this has to be about Roswell.

There was also the consensus reading of the extremely critical
phrase "the victims of the wreck you forwarded to the ?????? at
Fort Worth, Tex." Most important here is the word "victims" and
the phrase "victims of the wreck." 5 out of 6 people concur on
"victims." 4 out of 6 agree on "victims of the wreck."

Wishful thinking? Seeing "faces in the clouds." I again refer
people to my enhanced graphics so they can form their own
opinion about these very critical words and phrases:

www.roswellproof.com/victim_compare.html
www.roswellproof.com/critical_phrases.html

But according to some, whatever you think you might see there is
strictly the result of your imagination or personal agendas. In
other words, don't believe your own lying eyes.

 >only that other work must be done,
 >and those who began the study cannot work for the validation or
 >the confirmation.

Why not? Looks to me like you are making up the ground rules.
You can work for validation despite your obvious prejudices
concerning the Ramey memo but not me? This sounds like a double
standard if I ever heard one.

 >When, and if, others do that, then the pioneering work of the first
researchers
 >will become even more valuable.

"Pioneering work?" Well, that's not exactly how the "first
researchers" were depicted as a group in your paper.
Collectively we were an amateurish, biased, agenda-driven bunch
seeing only what we wanted to see.

Now let's get to the part where you set up a double bind making
validation or confirmation basically impossible. In your summary
discussion you state:

"We speculate that any positive findings from a blind,
triangulated study will only interest hardened researchers of
the case. Many people will likely not regard statistical
analysis of a computer-enhanced photograph of the document as
hard evidence of a UFO crash and retrieval. In short, there is
no substitute for having the original or a good verifiable copy
of the document."

Followed by:

"Of couse, more advanced and systematic triangulated studies of
the document could reveal a content that bears favorably on a
conventional explanation for the crash debris. The field should
be prepared for such a verdict as well, and treat the findings
with the same respect as they would if the findings were pro-
extraterrestrial."

I would like to know how our "pioneering work" becomes more
valuable by doing what you propose? When you cut through all the
verbiage, basically what you are saying that positive results
verifying our "pioneering work" are worthless as evidence and
only of interest to "true believers" (charitably referred to as
"hardened researchers"). Negative results, in contrast, should
be blindly accepted at face value. Why should positive results
be dismissed while negative results be given full credance?
Sounds like another classic double standard to me.

 >I might suggest that some of us reread the psychological
 >journals dealing with conformity. Seems that we have another
 >example of it being used here. If I shout loud enough and long
 >enough, everyone will conform to my opinion which must be right
 >because it is mine.

Oh brother. I could equally well argue with such psychobabble
that if James Houran and Kevin Randle "shout loud enough and
long enough," everyone will "conform" to their opinions, which
must be right because they are theirs. Huh?

What I (and also Dave Morton) "shouted" for was the authors,
either James Houran or you, to provide the actual data that
backs up your primary and "expected" conclusion of a "very
significant" priming effect.

We are still waiting for those numbers. James Houran weaved and
bobbed and told us to write a letter to the Journal of
Scientific Exploration with our objections, or in simpler
language, "drop dead." Now you are telling everybody that our
_valid_ criticisms and demands for data are nothing but an
example of "shouting" everybody into "conformity".

At least our collective "shouting" is starting to have an
effect. James Houran e-mailed me yesterday and started backing
off. He conceded my point that your standard deviations for
average words deciphered were completely wrong and indeed
impossible. (I must have shouted him into conformity.) He says
he will write a letter to JSE (and also UpDates) and correct
this. Good for him. Gone for the moment seem to be the
condescension and insults about how we don't understand the
scientific method or proper experimental processes while he
does. Now you are beginning to respond as well, but still not
directly on most points. But it's a beginning.

Maybe if we keep "shouting" we'll start getting some straight
answers. Dave Morton and I still want to see those numbers
supporting your primary conclusion. Without them, everything
else is just spin. If the numbers don't exist, then the paper
should be withdrawn and the experiment redone. Bummer, I know,
but that's how science really should work.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 5

                     Anyone Have An Agreed Upon Number?

From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 17:16:38 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 17:44:54 -0500
Subject: Anyone Have An Agreed Upon Number?


Hi -

Does anyone involved with abduction research have a generally
agreed upon number of abductions to date? If not absolutely
verified, a conservative estimate?


Thanks,

Eleanor White








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 5

                 Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Roberts

From: Andy Roberts <aj.roberts@blueyonder.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 22:20:37 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 17:47:08 -0500
Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Roberts


 >From: Colin Bennett <colin@bennettc25.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 11:34:18 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
 >Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

Colin wrote:

 >Ufology is not dead, it is very much alive in this sense.

As my old Auntie never used to say:

"Ufology - delicious hot, disgusting cold"

 >Is that postmodern enough for you, Andy?

It's quite the most modern post I've seen in some while. A tad
more creosote might just seal it permenantly though Colin!

 >PS I am preparing a long and detailed post on a postmodern
 >interpretation of the Ramey Memorandum.


Well, whoopydoo

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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 5

                       Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Mott

From: Wm. Michael Mott <mottimorph@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 16:36:38 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 17:50:27 -0500
Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Mott


 >From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: "UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 14:24:41 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs

 ><snip>

 >Hi Amy and all,

 >I thought Ley Lines were those ancient pathways meandering
 >trough the southern portions of England and Wales. Am I thinking
 >of something else?



Don,

To some extent you are thinking of the same thing. Look into the
research of the writers I mentioned in my last post,
particularly Devereaux, Cathie, and John Michell. Ted Holiday
and the others also offered some interesting insights along the
"lines" of areas of "earth energy" (i.e., areas or conduits of
an increased EM field which is part of the planet's overall EM
field), and the relationship to the UFO phenomenon.

The problem is - as I said a few days ago - not with the data,
but with some of the new age interpretations which are out
there. This tends to discredit the factual evidence which
exists, at least in the minds of habitual (or professional)
scoffers and self-styled debunkers.


--Mike







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 5

                  Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 16:59:02 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 17:58:11 -0500
Subject: Re:  New Documentary On Rendlesham - Clark



 >From: Andy Roberts <aj.roberts@blueyonder.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto" <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 17:06:07 -0000
 >Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham


 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 19:25:14 -0600

 >>One doesn't know whether to laugh or cry, but I vote for the
 >>former. At least that's the one I'm engaged in at the moment.

 >Well, the usual highly predictable believer knee jerk reaction.
 >A post which explains how UFO sightings work and have been
 >proven to work and yet not worth replying to!

Uh, where did you "explain how UFO sightings work and have been
proven to work"? I saw an anecdote, followed by an ex cathedra
pronouncement, and capped with a sneer. Not very impressive, and
certainly not very interesting.

 >Jerry, as you would bombastically say "you have made my case
 >for me"

Uh huh.

 >Let's do it again listers and if _any of you_ can find genuine
 >fault in this argument without resorting to Jerry Jerk reactions
 >I'd be pleased to hear them.

 >* People see UFOs

 >* Many people believe there is something highly unusual about
 >these sightings. Some even claim they are structured craft not
 >built on earth

What fools. Tell us what they _really_ saw, And.

 >* Many of those above use the myth of the credible witness to
 >justify those beliefs on the grounds that just because pilot/
 >police/judge etc sees and reports therefore it they must be
 >reporting what they saw because they are experienced observers/
 >unimpeachable human beings/whatever

Poor fools. They need to talk with Andy Roberts pronto.

 >Now, none of you can argue with that so far, can you? Especially
 >as it is one of the main tenents of the religion of Don and
 >Jerry (sounds like Tom and Jerry doesn't it - no similarity
 >intended!)

My brother's name happens to be Tom. If you find that wildly
hilarious, I feel sorry for you.

 >But.....

 >* Many cases of UFO sightings which have been made by these
 >'credible witnesses have been demonstrably proven to be mundane
 >objects or natural phnomenena radically misperceived. Jer makes
 >the point that I use an 'anecdote'. I don't - I use a case
 >investigated and solved by myself and Dave Clarke - I can even
 >show you the policman on video explaining how he was mistaken.
 >There are many more such cases, all fully documented, if anyone
 >doubts this. Read what Jer says again and then realise he is
 >talking rubbish.

You gave us an anecdote, And, and stretched its meaning beyond
anything that could be empirically demonstrated. In other words,
the usual.

 >* The fact that many hitherto unexplained UFO sightings,
 >including those by 'crdible witnesses' have been explained
 >thusly indicates that in future others will also be solved the
 >same way. It does not, as I said but which Don and Jerry can't
 >seem to understand, mean that _all_ cases are resolvable this
 >way. Just that many have been and are, and on that basis it is
 >reasonable that others in the future will be. My personal belief
 >based on 20 years of in the field investigations indicates to me
 >that all cases follow this pattern.

Instead of these sorts of sweeping and meaningless assertions,
it would be more interesting if we got some sense of what sorts
of cases are more likely to be resolvable into IFOs as opposed
to the sorts that are less likely to do so. We may safely assume
that cases that are most easily solved, as any ufologist long
ago figured out (e.g., Allan Hendry), are those that involve
nebulous nocturnal light sources. In other words, the lower the
strangeness, the more likely the source is unanomalous. For
example, the garden-variety sighting of Venus by Gen. Custer,
which you once magically transformed into a "radical
misperception" even though from the description alone the
stimulus was obvious. In my observation, high- strangeness
claims which are solvable in prosaic terms tend -- with, of
course, the occasional exception -- to be hoaxes or (more
rarely) hallucinations.


 >* Now, if any of you have a better theory for the nature and
 >origins of UFOs - one which has some basis in fact, and one
 >which you can give examples of let's here it then.

 >But I, and you, know that there isn't one.

And you alone would know, wouldn't you?

 >I await the anguished howls of the believers - ie Don and Jerry,

Since I'm not a believer and neither, from my experience of him,
is Don (Ledger, I presume), we may safely assume that you are
waiting for somebody else's anguished howls. I, too, await silly
prouncements from believers with anthropological interest, just
as I look forward to pronouncements from pelicanists with
comparably clinical fascination. Your posts are more informative
than you realize.

 >Oh, and incidentally. About two weeks ago Jerry used the phrase
 >'belief system' in a post to this List. Jerry, please remember
 >your own prejudices. It was only a year or so ago you were
 >ranting that there were no such things as 'belief systems'!. Do
 >they exist now or did you make a mistake?

My, my, And, no sense of humor or irony, either. If you had a
sense of either, you could have figured out how I was using that
sorry expression.

 >Unless, yes, I've got it - you were being post-modern like your
 >friend who you admire and agree with so much, Colin.

No postmodernism here, And. Just humor and irony. You should
become acquainted with them, and no, jeers and sarcasm, the
habitual Robertsian prose style, are not the same.

 >Which is a
 >bit weird as Colin hates and disagrees with Dick and Jan and yet
 >you agree with Dick too!

Uh huh. Your point being?

 >God this is getting so post-modern it's
 >uncanny. Er, or is it you choose to agree with any fuzzy thinker
 >who happens to come along and keep the whole UFO cottage inustry
 >in business? Mystery sells, eh kids.

It does? Please tell me where all that money is, And. I've never
found it, and I've been at this, uh, "business" for a long time.
UFO- bashing, on the other hand, is big bucks, as witness, say,
CSICOP's annual budget versus CUFOS'. Even your insults are
boringly unoriginal (see "religion" above). And here, after
reading the book you and Dave Clarke wrote on MoD and UFOs, I
had begun to take you seriously, And. Foolish me.

And Dale Evans to you, too,


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 5

                       Re: Abduction Question - Velez

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 18:25:52 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 19:01:52 -0500
Subject: Re: Abduction Question - Velez


 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 13:03:24 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Abduction Question

 >>From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 03:27:19 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Abduction Question

 >>>From: Peter Davenport <ufocntr@nwlink.com>
 >>>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 10:32:46 -0800
 >>>Subject: Re: Abduction Question

 ><snip>

 >>Excerpt from Filer's Files post at:

 >>http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/jan/m31-001.shtml

 >>From: George A. Filer <WeeklyFiles@filersfiles.com>
 >>Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 11:40:28 -0500
 >>Fwd Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 04:38:59 -0500
 >>Subject: Filer's Files - 05 2002

 >>ARKANSAS ABDUCTION

 >>CARLYLE -- Paul S. wrote, I was abducted October 28.1999, on the
 >>north side of the railroad bridge while boating in Carlyle. That
 >>was my third known abduction that year. Two were from The Lake
 >>of the Ozarks. I remember very little of the actual abduction,
 >>but I was able to recall the position changes. It took some time
 >>to figure out what happened and I am still remembering only bits
 >>and pieces. I remember boating under the bridge near the
 >>railroad embankment when I paused to open a map in order locate
 >>the main channel. The next thing I remember is being one quarter
 >>of a mile into the stumped filled northern section of the lake.
 >>I was understandably confused and disorientated. I figured out
 >>where I was with a map and compass, which is normally not needed
 >>there. I then proceeded to explore and fish the area totally
 >>forgetting the position change. I was reminded by what I think
 >>is an unusual trigger using the GPS equipment in my boat. I
 >>found a way to put my saved GPS trails on a computer map. When I
 >>put the saved trail from that fishing trip on the map I got a
 >>shock.

 ><snip>

Hi Bruce,

You wrote:

 >When I read this over year ago I naturally assumed someone would
 >be "all over" this report. Bad assumption, I guess.

Who'da thunk it!  I'm as surprised as you are. I'm going to e-
mail George Filer on the outside chance that this report was
sent directly to him from 'Paul S. -Instead of getting it from
his regular source, Peter Davenport at NUFORC. (National UFO
Reporting Center)

I pray that one of the 'usual suspect' abductionologists doesn't
get their mitts on this guy and hypnotize him into 'un-
usability.' If Paul S.'s reading of the GPS data is correct,
then we might have a genuine 'smoking gun' that is connected to
an abduction report. Although I have reservations about it as a
clear-cut "abduction" report. Paul S. is ambiguous about it in
his initial report.

I don't recall reading anything in the initial report about a
UFO sighting. Or of being 'taken' by its occupants. What he does
say is this: "I went to a therapist in St. Louis and in eleven
sessions was able to get no further. I kept blocking up when I
got to the point of the abductions. I do have a memory of a gray
alien and a structure on the craft."

That's not the same as saying,"I saw a UFO, its occupants took
me on-board." He 'thinks' he recalls 'Grey aliens' and some
'structure' on the 'craft' and that after eleven therapy
sessions. 'Structure' which he does not describe. Was this
'structure' something he saw while he was 'on' the UFO? Or was
it 'on' the UFO itself? It isn't as clear cut as it would need
to be to pass muster as a clear-cut "UFO abduction case."

But man, if this guy had reported contact with an unknown aerial
object and its occupants, and he presented it in conjunction
with solid GPS data, Lordy what a case it would be. One for the
history books!

 >Paul S has ever been located/interviewed by a UFO investigator,
 >if he still has his computer map of the GPD positions, and if he
 >has recalled any more.

I'm going to see if George Filer can help out. Maybe you'll get
an opportunity to pose your questions to Paul S. yourself. If
this turns out to be a solid case, oh momma, I can't wait to see
the song and dance the Pelicanists and psycho-'socialists' will
perform in order to explain this puppy away.

Regards,

John Velez

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

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/petition








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 5

                  Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 18:06:06 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 19:19:18 -0500
Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Clark


 >From: David Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 14:17:24 -0600
 >Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

 >>From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 22:45:49 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

 >>Anyone who looks into the phenomenon, or
 >>as you call it 'flying saucers'-ad nauseum- [incidentally do you
 >>and Andy giggle every time you get to slip in that appellation]-
 >>and as you said below I can take his comment any way I want-but
 >>since it was meant only to be taken ONE way, an arms length slap
 >>at and a distancing technique [see Condon-Corning Glass Works
 >>and the Low Memorandum] from any of us who chose to look at it-
 >>it was and is insulting.

 >Like it or not "Flying Saucers" is a legitimate, historically-
 >sound phrase, that appears in John Ayto's Dictionary of 20th
 >Century Words (Oxford University Press 1999, p. 275), viz:

 >"flying saucer n (1947) a disc-or saucer-shaped object reported
 >as appearing in the sky and alleged to come from outer space."

 >So whether Don Ledger likes it or not, it remains a fact, and I
 >prefer the phrase to UFO because it removes all the ambiguity of
 >the latter. Flying Saucers - if they exist - are interplanetary
 >craft, nothing wrong with that.

With all due respect, Dave, this is nonsense - or, at the
very least, rank disingenuousness on your part.

"Flying saucer" was a silly term devised by an American
journalist two days after Arnold's sighting.  It should have
been forgotten along ago. It was a useless phrase then - it
didn't even accurately characterize what Arnold reported seeing,
much less the cigars, triangles, spheres, et al., that were
already figuring in other people's sightings - and it has even
less meaning now.

UFOs are not "flying saucers." UFOs are not all disc shapes, for
one thing, and for another, their origin is unknown, the subject
of purely hypothetical speculation.  Except, of course, to
contactees and saucerians (contactee followers).  In that sense,
the prominent religious-studies scholar J. Gordon Melton has
made an arguably useful distinction, namely that to ufologists
UFOs are unidentifieds and unknowns; to contactees and
saucerians, they are flying saucers: identified and known to be
piloted by benign space or paranormal/interdimensional visitors.
  (In that sense, even this definition invalidates the puny
dictionary one that you would have us believe is definitive,
since not even all saucerians believe flying saucers to be
necessarily "from outer space".) Or perhaps you wish to blur the
distinction between ufologists and saucerians, so as to render
the former as silly as the latter.  After all, your pal and
associate Andy Roberts would label all ufologists mere
"believers," just like people who accept Adamski's claims as
literally true.

In a forthcoming book, I make the point that "flying saucer"
survives as a comic phrase, useful to cartoonists and to those
who seek, via rhetorical device as opposed to serious argument,
to diminish the potential significance of the UFO phenomenon by
assigning it a trivial, humorous name.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 5

               Re: 'Martian Genesis' & 'The Atlantis Enigma' -

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 16:24:38 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 22:35:50 -0500
Subject: Re: 'Martian Genesis' & 'The Atlantis Enigma' -


 >From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 17:06:11 -0500
 >Subject: Re: CI: 'Martian Genesis' & 'The Atlantis Enigma'

<snip>
 >Hiya Mac,

 >Off the wall, off-topic question:

 >While we're waxing 'New Agey' here, I'd like to know what ever
 >happened to Mu and Lemuria? Two (alleged) ancient technological
 >civilizations that supposedly predated Atlantis. For some odd
 >reason Atlantis gets all the modern day press as well as the
 >attention of the New Age community. Maybe because of the Edgar
 >Cayce material. But even old Edgar spoke of Mu and Lemuria.

Good point. I always sort of assumed Mu and Lemuria were the
same thing as Atlantis... and by "Atlantis" I mean a technically
advanced society that predated the ancient Greeks, not
necessarily a 'continent' or 'island'.

All I know about Lemuria came from Richard Shaver, and I tend to
doubt its, ah, veracity... ;-)

=====
 >Mac Tonnies
macbot@yahoo.com

MTVI: http://www.mactonnies.com
Transcelestial Ontology, Posthumanism and Theoretical Ufology

Blog: http://posthumanblues.blogspot.com (updated daily)







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 5

                 Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 20:24:57 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 22:40:01 -0500
Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Ledger


 >From: Andy Roberts <aj.roberts@blueyonder.co.uk>To: UFO
 >UpDates - Toronto" <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>Date:
 >Wed, 5 Feb 2003 17:06:07 -0000 Subject: Re: New Documentary
 >On Rendlesham

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>To:
 >><ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 19:25:14 -0600
 >>Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham


<snip>

Hi Andy,

You used the terms below. Some of them the same as the ones I
mentioned you and David used, for what reasons I can't imagine'
in the oterwise decent Fortean piece.

"... believers, religion, "credible" witnesses, myth of the
credible witness, religion of Don and  Jerry (sounds like Tom
and Jerry doesn't it, I await the anguished howls of the
believers, you [Jerry] were ranting..."

Can't you get through a sentence without the use of "buzz"
words? Did little ol' me get you pissed-off or Jerry?

You also said - which I found strange considering what follows:

"....who happens to come along and keep the whole UFO cottage
inustry in business? Mystery sells, eh kids."

"Out of the Shadows" by David Clarke and Andy Roberts

BTW - I see Amazon UK has your book partnered up with 'You Can't
Tell the People' by Georgina Bruni. You guys friends now?


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 5

                 Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 20:43:11 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 22:44:57 -0500
Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Ledger


 >From: David Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk
 >To:<ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 14:17:24 -0600
Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

Hi Dave,

Let's cut through all of the defensive drivel. You use the term
because it has a connotation that tends to denigrate the whole
phenomenon,the witnesses and those of us who investigate it;
otherwise you would use the term UFO. I even have an RCAF
document somewhere date 1948 using the term Unidentified Flying
Object in the report. But you prefer 'flying saucer' because you
want to denigrate the phenomenon, the millions of witnesses, me
and those like me for whatever reason. You even sign off with
it.

www.flyingsaucery.com

Pretty much says it all.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 5

              Re: CI: 'Martian Genesis' & 'The Atlantis Enigma'

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 18:56:58 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 22:46:22 -0500
Subject: Re: CI: 'Martian Genesis' & 'The Atlantis Enigma'


 >From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 17:06:11 -0500
 >Subject: Re: CI: 'Martian Genesis' & 'The Atlantis Enigma'

 >>From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 20:29:57 -0800 (PST)
 >>Subject: CI: 'Martian Genesis' & 'The Atlantis Enigma'


Hi, John,

 >While we're waxing 'New Agey' here, I'd like to know what ever
 >happened to Mu and Lemuria? Two (alleged) ancient technological
 >civilizations that supposedly predated Atlantis. For some odd
 >reason Atlantis gets all the modern day press as well as the
 >attention of the New Age community. Maybe because of the Edgar
 >Cayce material. But even old Edgar spoke of Mu and Lemuria.

 >Any New-ager worth his Couchgrass and St. John's wart tea knows
 >that Mu and Lemuria predated Atlantis. I wonder why it is that
 >those much older civilizations are never mentioned, much less
 >blamed on "aliens." After all, it's the hip, 'modern' thing to
 >do isn't it? They can at least get the chronological order
 >correct.    ;)

Well, actually, the Atlantis legend has genuine historical
pedigree (albeit, from all available evidence, not historical
existence), going back to 355 B.C. and two of Plato's works.

Lemuria was theorized by 19th-Century British biologist Philip
L. Schattler, who thought of it as an Indian Ocean land bridge
connecting Madagascar and extreme southern India.  In the days
before continental drift had been hypothesized and then
validated, he sought to explain why two widely separated
locations shared many of the same flora and fauna.  Occultists
and mystics soon picked up on this modest notion and transformed
Lemuria (also known as Mu) into the Atlantis of the Pacific,
holding a vast supercivilization.

The most influential work is Helene Petrovna Blavatsky's The
Secret Doctrine (1889), but in the 1920s James Churchward
published four books on Mu, "the motherland of man," based on
alleged ancient documents whose existence he could never prove.
The books are believed to be pure fiction masquerading as fact.
In the 1940s, of course, Richard Shaver used Lemuria to riveting
effect in the tall tales, remembered as the Shaver Mystery, that
he told in the pages of Ray Palmer's SF and fantasy magazines.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 5

                 Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Reason

From: Catherine Reason <CathyM@ukf.net>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 01:19:33 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 22:47:30 -0500
Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Reason


 >From: Andy Roberts <aj.roberts@blueyonder.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >SDate: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 16:59:39 -0000
 >Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

Oh well, since I'm here:

 >List is full. The myth of the credible witness doesn't state
 >that _all_ witnesses are misperceiving but it does prove that
 >many are. And as no case has yet been idenified as anything
 >which is a genuine 'tructured craft of unknown origin' I'm
 >afraid that, whether you, Jerry, Dick or whoever has to live
 >with the fact that radical misperception is the _best_
 >demonstrable theory we have.

May I ask a question? What is a "radical misperception", and in
what way does it differ from an ordinary misperception?

Is a "radical misperception" consistent with what we know about
human visual perception, or inconsistent with that? If the
former, then I don't see how radical misperceptions differ from
ordinary misperceptions; if the latter, then I don't see how
"radical misperception" is any better off as an explanatory
hypothesis than the ETH, the Tectonic Strain Hypothesis, or any
other miracle-invoking exotic explanation for UFOs.

Cathy

[Catherine Reason]







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 5

                Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Friedman

From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys@rogers.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 21:48:08 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 22:51:17 -0500
Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Friedman


 >From: David Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 14:17:24 -0600
 >Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

 >>From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 22:45:49 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

<snip>

 >So we've established you don't like psychologists. Well
 >unfortunately Don, until you can deliver one of these flying
 >saucers (ooops) to a physicist, or provide some tangible
 >evidence for them to look at, the only scientists you are going
 >to interest in the data are social scientists. Because the data
 >is nothing except narrative and stories of things that people
 >claim to have seen or experienced. There is nothing, not one
 >single thing, that a physicist or chemist can grapple with.

What utter hogwash! Ted Phillips 2000 best physical trace cases
from 70 countries provide a great deal of opportunity to use
physics and chemistry. The observations of color and changes in
color with velocity, the analysis of photographs,triangulation
of multiple observations from different directions (see Martin
Jasek's excellent work on huge flying saucers [used in the
generic sense as described above}, frame by frame analysis of
motion picture footage, review of EM signals as noted by Jim
MacDonald in the Gulf of Mexico case, evaluation of stealth
characteristics ,evaluation of effects on aircraft
instrumentation as noted by Dr. Richard Haines, analysis of
wreckage such as from Roswell,review of material in the Ramey
memo, all of these and a host more provide plenty of opportunity
for the use of chemistry and physics.

Where have you been Dave? Science is more than examination of an
artifact that I can touch,and the performance of reproducible
controllable experiments.The evaluation of sudden unexpected
events cannot exclude science even if they can't be rerun
again.. witness the Columbia destruction.Meteorites have been
found because of eyewitness testimony.

 >>Your piece was interesting but dragged down by the veiled and
 >>oft alluded to jabs at the investigators - the same people Andy
 >>urged to read the article.

 >Have you ever heard of "the investigator effect" in which the
 >investigator of a 'phenomenon' becomes part of the very
 >mystery he or she is investigating?

Remember the question is not "are all UFOs alien space craft?,
it is "are any?". The answer is, yes .

Witness misperception does happen. But I really don't believe
that the 2000+ physical trace cases involving observations of
strange round craft landing and taking off out in the middle of
nowhere,leaving behind peculiar circles of effected soil and
flora, frequently accompanied for a bit of time by small beings,
are really misperceptions of silent helicopters disguised as
flying saucers and involving midgets hired by the CIA to stand
in for aliens.


Stan Friedman
www.v-j-enterprises.com/sfpage.html







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 5

                          Filer's Files #6 -- 2003

From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 21:27:46 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 22:53:08 -0500
Subject: Filer's Files #6 -- 2003


FILER'S FILES #6 -- 2003 Skywatch Investigations.
George A. Filer,  Director Mutual UFO Network Eastern
February 5, 2003,   Majorstar@aol.com  Webmaster: Chuck
Warren -- My website is at:    Filer's Files web
Sponsored by:  www.filer.unfranchise.com

UFO SIGHTINGS INCREASE WORLDWIDE.

The purpose of these files is to report the UFO eyewitness and
photo/video evidence that occurs on a daily basis around the
world and in space. This report includes an: Unidentified object
near shuttle Columbia, Massachusetts strange white craft with
cloaking device, New York cylinder spotted without wings,
Pennsylvania teardrop craft flies a few feet over home, West
Virginia missing time, South Carolina orange pursued by an
airplane, Georgia V formation and flying wing, Florida floating
triangle, Alabama glowing plasma, Mississippi light over Gulf,
Illinois beam of lights, Wisconsin witness spots six lights in a
row, Arkansas light in the sky, Oklahoma huge orange ball, Texas
cigar shaped object in eastern sky, Louisiana starlight object
sparkles, Colorado video of UFO, California red orbs sighted
with chemtrails, Oregon cylinder spotted, Washington flying
triangle, Ireland it appeared to be red in color and emitted two
fireballs, England diamond definite sighting by two professional
people, Spain flower petal UFO, and Malaysia high speed disk
shape.

SPACE SHUTTLE  DISASTER, METEOROID OR UFO  HYPOTHESIS?

TEXAS --The Space shuttle Columbia disintegrated in flames over
Texas on Saturday minutes before it was to land in Florida. TV
video showed falling debris over Northern Texas and six
Americans and Israel's first astronaut lost their lives.  People
reported hearing "a big bang" at about 9 AM, the same time all
radio and data communication with the shuttle was lost.  It was
at an altitude of 207,000 feet traveling at 12,500 mph when
Mission Control lost contact and the shuttle disintegrated.

Bob Beck writes, "If you observe the beginning of the reentry of
the Space Shuttle, underneath the contrail is a small bright
light.  About 12 inches on TV behind the Shuttle. The light
suddenly shoots forward towards the Shuttle. Then shoots back
again. The Shuttle then appears to break apart. A UFO?
Observing? This should be studied!  Thanks to Bob Beck

Several others wrote that they saw a bright light behind the
shuttle prior to the explosion on CNN. Some feel this may have
been a meteor or perhaps a UFO.  Some feel the flashes were
caused by the tiles coming off.  Each time a tile came off the
skin of the craft got exposed and you'd see flashes in
succession causing a zipper effect that eventually destroyed the
craft.  Others felt an object trailing the shuttle shot a flash
of light towards the shuttle.  The CNN videos should be closely
examined.  Many feel the videos clearly record an electrical
discharge like a lightning bolt  flashing past the shuttle, just
before it started breaking up during re-entry.

Editor's Note: If tears could build a stairway and memories a
lane, I'd walk right up to heaven and bring the astronauts home
again.  We pray for their families.

JUPITER NEARBY

The brightest star rising in eastern sky after sunset is
Jupiter, the biggest planet in our solar system.  On February 2,
the Earth and Jupiter were closer together than at any other
time this year.  Even a small telescope will reveal the giant
planet's cloudy belts and its four largest moons.  Jupiter is
the brightest "star" in the evening sky.

MASSACHUSETTS STRANGE WHITE CRAFT WITH CLOAKING DEVICE

SANDWICH -- My Parks Department coworker and I were speaking to
our supervisor, truck to truck, when our supervisor drew our
attention to what appeared to be ice crystals falling from the
sky on January 21, 2003, at 10:15 AM.  They were unusual as the
were large but, obviously light.  We dismissed this as wind
blown ice and we drove off.  My partner and I then noticed an
object in the southeast sky that was in front of two jets who
were both making contrails.  The object appeared to be oval and
very white or was reflecting the sun to a high degree.  It
looked to us as if it was traveling away from us as it was
getting smaller with no side to side deviation from its course.
  We have both seen a lot of aircraft, and this was not a
familiar object.  We were both watching for several minutes when
suddenly it appeared to go out of focus as if it was caught in
the shimmer over heat sources.  We both said at the same time
"did you see that!"  The object then began to glow very brightly
for 30 seconds then faded again and rapidly dwindled away going
up and showing no contrail.  My partner said he thought there
was a glow around it, but I did not see it except when it was
bright.  We both watched it till it disappeared in the distance.
  We spend allot of time outside and there is a military air base
very close to us and we are use to seeing various aircraft in
our skies, but this was very different.

NEW YORK CYLINDER SPOTTED WITHOUT WINGS

PORTCHESTER -- I observed one large dark cylinder shaped object
heading north on January `16, 2003, flying very slow at 1:34 AM.
  The cylinder turned west and started going towards that
direction.  The object the whole time had no lights.  It was
dark but appeared to give a slight water shine for maybe half a
second.  Shortly after that happened, I lost it as if it blended
itself with the night sky.  Thanks to Peter Davenport NUFORC
www.ufocenter.com

PENNSYLVANIA TEARDROP CRAFT A FEW FEET OVER HOME

GLEN MILLS -- The witness woke up at 7 AM, on January 20, 2003,
and was sitting on his couch looking out his large window when
he witnessed three large teardrop shaped craft floating a few
feet over than the top of his house.  There was a glare
surrounding the outside of the teardrop objects and one was
higher than the others.  The witness reports, "I could tell they
were spinning.  All three of them were spinning towards the
right of me.  I opened my back door and I heard a loud humming
sound.  I was shocked because this was the second sighting I've
seen within two years.  The same thing came to my attention
perviously. They were also white and had a glow to them.  After
I gawked for about four minutes they started to fly a little
higher and took off at what seemed to be the speed of light up.
  They left a trail of a reddish white streak of light that faded
away within seconds.  Thanks to Peter Davenport NUFORC

SOUTH CAROLINA ORANGE PURSUED BY AN AIRPLANE

ISLE OF PALMS -- We live a few blocks from the beach on a
barrier island outside of Charleston.  Around midnight, several
nights a week, I spend an hour or so on our third floor deck
listening to the ocean, looking for shooting stars and
satellites (wondering about UFO's).  On January 17, 2003, at
12:30 AM, I saw a very bright (brighter than the brightest
star/planet) orange light in the sky moving from the shore,
inland WNW.  It appeared lower than a plane when it is on
approach and holding.  Behind it was a jet.  We live near an Air
Force base and often see airplanes traveling in tandem, so I
assumed it were a pair of Air Force jets although an object
moving across the sky with nothing visible but a bright orange
light looked quite peculiar.  Less than a minute passed when I
realized I was observing a jet in pursuit of the orange light.
  The two traveled back and forth and up and down, with the plane
clearly following whatever the orange light was doing.  It
really looked like a rather slow chase.  They were both moving
at about the same speed of an airplane on approach.  After about
six minutes, the plane followed the orange light SE and out of
my view.

On 23 January at the same time of night, my boyfriend and I saw
the same orange light in the sky moving inland from the ocean.
  It was a cloudy night and it disappeared behind some clouds in
under two minutes.  There were no airplanes in pursuit

GEORGIA V FORMATION AND FLYING WING

HEPHZIBAH -- The mother and daughter called NUFORC to report a
January 7, 2003, at 8 PM, sighting of six yellow white lights in
three sets of two lights each, in a V formation, descending
vertically in the western sky.  The mother and her daughter said
they would telephone the local military base, which also was
located to the west of their location at the time of the
sighting, to see if any pyrotechnic device had been launched
there at the time of the sighting.

TUCKER -- The witness reports that on January 16, 2003, at 7:30
AM, "I received a call from a friend, who excitedly urged me to
go outside to see the paths the jet traffic was clearing through
a low level cloud bank.  It was amazing to see a narrow swath of
clear sky showing through the clouds as several jets passed
overhead, and burned away a clear path.  This alone was a
phenomenon that I had never witnessed in 54 years.  But, as I
was watching is fascination, I saw what looked like a shadow
moving south through the cloud bank.  The shadow was the shape
of a "flying wing" spotted over Atlanta.  I desperately tried to
get my friend to see what I was seeing, but was unsuccessful.
  Although the object appeared as if a shadow, it could not have
been, in so much as, it was about 5 degrees from the vertical,
and the sun was less than 5 degrees from the horizontal.

FLORIDA FLOATING TRIANGLE

WELLINGTON -- The witness writes, "My teenage son and I were
leaving Wellington High School on January 21, 2003, at 7:30 PM
after a JV basketball game when we noticed a floating triangle
with three lights on each corner just hovering about 200 meters
above the ground."  It was north of Forest Hill Boulevard about
one mile west of Route 441.  I lowered my window and turned off
the radio to listen for any sound (to see if it was a
helicopter) but I couldn't hear any ascertainable aircraft
engine noise.  I tried to slow down and study the craft but had
to move on as we were in traffic.  Previously I've seen a
traveling "ball of light" with my wife flying 500 meters above
the ground at 70 MPH for two miles in Boca which then hovered
over the Boca West development for 30 minutes this past summer.
  Thanks to Guy in Boca.

WISCONSIN WITNESS SPOTS SIX LIGHTS IN A ROW

WISCONSIN DELLS -- We live in the country where it is very dark,
so we had a good view on January 15, 2003, at 7 PM, of objects
that were very bright lights that seemed to be round and of
numerous beautiful pinks, blues, yellows, purple, greens and
white.  My husband saw similar objects before, but this was my
first sighting, and it was the most remarkable, awe inspiring
thing I have ever seen.  They were not all lit at once and one
would go off and others would come on.  After the light went off
at each sight, we could see small, dim white lights flowing
around that area.  Then there would be a break for seven minutes
and the round, colored objects would appear again in a different
spot in the sky.  The most dramatic display was a line of six in
a row.  They would take turns going on and off and the most lit
at one time was three.  We could see the shadow of those that
were off when the others would light.  This went on for maybe
10-20 seconds before they all disappeared.  All would be dark
and then it would start over with one or two lighting at one
time in a different area.  We viewed them from about 19:00-20:00
hours.  Then there was a half hour before we saw two more.  They
seemed to dart around, moving very fast from one location to
another.  We also noticed five airplanes seeming to be following
them.  The five planes however seemed to try and stay with or
near the objects.  When all the objects disappeared, so did the
planes.  Thanks to Peter Davenport NUFORC

ARKANSAS RED LIGHT IN SKY

FT SMITH -- My parents and brothers fianc=E9 was fixing to leave
to go get some Ice Cream on January 24, 2003, at 6:15 PM, when
they left about ten seconds later they rang the door bell many
times.  I opened the door and it was my Mom saying get out side
quick.  I ran out and my Mom said look at the light.  It was a
red circle in the sky that was not too high, but not to low and
it was jerking side to side, vertically and horizontally.  It
was not jerking too fast and it would not move too far when it
did jerk.  About 50 seconds later it did what was a quick U-turn
and took off as if something was moving to get away.  It was
very fast.  My parents drove one way and I drove the other way
to see if we couldn't see what it was.  Then after that we saw 7
airplanes flying around in the sky.  At Ft. Smith airport isn't
that busy, and never has that many airplanes around at once.
  Thanks to Peter Davenport

LOUISIANA STARLIGHT OBJECT SPARKLES AS STAR

NATCHITOCHES -- I never thought I'd be reporting ANY UFO
sighting.  However, I do believe in life beyond our planet.  I
did not have any alcohol in my system and what I and my fianc=E9e
saw was as real as these words I now type.  We had extremely
cold conditions tonight due to the freeze that has hit much of
the south.  My fianc=E9e and I were leaving our home at 6:50 PM,
to meet a friend for dinner.  We are both college professors and
live on the east side of the city where there are few street
lights.  We were walking to my sedan when my fianc=E9e said, "Look
up, the stars are so beautiful."  I did, and at that moment as I
was looking toward the eastern sky, 65 degrees above the horizon
we saw a bright star moving.  This light (star) moved to the
north of the constellation Orion.  This star like light moved
slowly north and had no trails like a comet, but did not travel
quickly, and leave a streak as a meteor or meteorite.

The moving light was as bright as the surrounding stars, but
moved awkwardly, but mostly in a straight line.  This star
stayed aglow and traveled north-northeast, the light diminished
in intensity, and then faded as if losing power?  Switching
itself off or climbing higher out of the earth's atmosphere into
space.  The light flicked out.  There were absolutely no clouds
in the sky; and we went to dinner shaking our heads.  I truly
believe what we saw was not an aircraft, meteor, meteorite, or
satellite.  This object had none of their characteristics.
  Thanks to Peter Davenport

TEXAS CIGAR SHAPED OBJECT IN EASTERN SKY.

EL PASO -- On January 20, 2003, at 7:26 AM, I was pulling out of
my driveway to take my children to school.  As I pulled out I
noticed a very bright object in the eastern sky.  At first,
because of its location directly above the sun, the object
appeared to resemble a bright ball of light in the sky.  But
after a few seconds the object started to move to the northeast
revealing its true shape, which resembled a cigar.  The object
was tilted at a 45 degree angle as it moved through the sky.  I
can only guess the altitude or distance it was from us, but from
what we saw it was a very big object.  It continued to move
east/northeast and eventually disappeared.  I did not literally
see it disappear or shoot off towards the eastern sky, I
describe it this way because I turned my head to yell at my
wife, who was in the garage, to look at the UFO and as I turned
back to look at the object it was gone.  There was also a plane
in eastern sky, but it was far off in the distance.  My 12 year
old daughter also witnessed the entire event. Thanks to NUFORC

COLORADO VIDEO OF UFO

SOUTH PARK -- Tim Edwards reports that his daughter Brandy
Edwards, and their cousin Sashay Rauter, first noticed an object
in the western sky about 30 degrees above the horizon, that
appeared as a very bright tube or cigar of intense white light.
  Over a dozen vapor trails in the area were also observed and
taped entering on November 22, 2002, on Highway 24 and leaving
the area and western horizon during the duration of sighting.
  The UFO was 2 to 3 times brighter then illuminated [setting
sun] vapor trails in the area and clearly not diffused or
exhausting.  Object didn't appear to move during the duration of
sighting[ [25 minutes], staying in a fixed horizontal position.
  Object was filmed in the western sky from 2 locations on
Highway 24 in South Park, the first about 40 miles east of Buena
Vista Colorado and then about 30 miles east of it.  The object
was filmed with a Canon CCD-TRV43 NTSC Hi 8 Video [20 optical
zoom] camera for about two minutes.  It appeared very distant
from the camera, about 1/4 inch long holding your hand out.
  Buffalo Peaks are in the video, just to the north of object.
  Other objects were observed around the main object but were not
real clear with the naked eye and we didn't have binoculars.  As
close as I could tell the object was 40 to 50 miles away which
would have put it over Buena Vista Colorado or west of it.  In
the video it appears that a plasma field or something was
surrounding the object and 2 barbell shaped objects are with it
and stationary in conjunction with it.  Video did not show the
intense white cigar in it but rather a red and tan colored
envelope.  Object gradually diminished and disappeared before
our eyes as a vapor trail approached the location and passed
through it and was not visible after that or after dark.  Thanks
to Tim Edwards

CALIFORNIA MULTIPLE ORBS NEAR CONTRAILS

GLENDALE -- Nicholas Jones reports that on Saturday, January 25,
2003, at 4:00 PM, he received a call from a friend in Glendale
who was outdoors with 10 witnesses and observing multiple
spheres/orbs interacting with each other and newly formed
chemtrails.  There were at least 3 separate objects -- one a
brilliant red, one a white color and the third clear, "Star-
like" -- which spontaneously appeared and then disappeared but
on several occasions moved closer to each other and then further
apart.  These objects reversed direction several times but
maintained position in the sky more or less at the zenith
(directly overhead).

At 4:30 PM, viewing eastward from West Los Angeles, I
photographed two (military) jets flying parallel in close
noncommercial formation, leaving clear, persistent
contrails/chemtrails.  These jets appeared from the north
horizon and flew southwards, directly overhead, adjusting course
slightly westward as they crossed the zenith and proceeded
towards the southwest.  Immediately following these jets, I
spotted a white smaller unmarked commuter jet flying at lower
altitude that did not leave a contrail/chemtrail.  Slightly to
the west, and not far from where this third jet appeared, I
noticed a brilliant red light moving gradually toward the east.
  At this time, I grabbed my Nikon Coolpix 5700, 5 MB digital
camera, with setting on "Fine" (JPG with low compression), using
standard zoom lens at 8x telephoto, auto setting and tried to
shoot the jet and the red light together but missed.  Although,
the sequence of photos (Nos. 1 - 6) begin just a minute after
the jet left and follow the red object across eastern sky The
light moves near the contrails/chemtrails, at about 60 degrees
altitude, in a southerly direction.  The object remained a
brilliant red, like a "fiery chrome" finish, which was too
bright to be the reflecting sunlight.  It gradually changed
color to a dull, dark hue and then finally into a less formed
white, amorphous shape, before disappearing altogether.  The
sequence records about 5 minutes of elapsed time. The pictures
clearly show a circular object with some internal
differentiation but no visible, conventional means of propulsion
like wings or engine exhaust trail.  The object was extremely
bright, a very dramatic sight, and hopefully was witnessed by
many others.  The object was brighter than the brightest star I
have seen, and this was broad daylight, and so would have been
easily noticed by anyone who happened to look up.  Thanks to
Nicholas Jones jones@spincontrol.ca.  Photos are at views:
Weekly Files http:www.georgefiler.com

Editor's Note: Nicolas also reports the red orbs only appeared
when jets were forming contrails.  Unfortunately, a shot to
define that unique relationship eluded us.  Aircraft as they
pass through the sky generate static electricity or plasmas.
  The sky above Los Angels is likely charged with a tremendous
amount of electrical energy that may develop into something like
ball lightning.  Two Tesla coils can create this electrical
plasma in a laboratory.  I suggest it might be possible that
fast moving jets generating energy and contrails in an
electrically charged atmosphere may be able to form red plasma
orbs that were imaged by Nicolas.

OREGON CYLINDER WAS BEEN SPOTTED OVER THE SKIES OF SALEM."

SALEM -- On January 22, 2003, at 5:05 PM, the initial report of
this sighting came KPTV NEWS Fox 12, via a call to investigator
Ron Wright. He in turn contacted KPTV Reporter Shauna Parsons
for the full story that they ran.  "A UFO has been spotted over
the skies of Salem." The witness grabbed his camera and took
these pictures of an unidentified flying object.  He stated, "I
was sitting in my house, and I happened to look up into the west
sky and I saw something real bright. at first I thought it was
just a jet with a contrail, but I started looking at it, and
came out side and looked at it. and it was just really strange
cause the trail was right on the plane, and just real bright --
  it was brighter than anything I ever seen before."  If you look
at these pictures of ordinary jet planes -- you can see the long
trail they leave.  This UFO is probably not an alien craft --
  but it's not any ordinary plane either.

He says he asked a few of his friends in the Army Reserve if
they knew what kind of plane it could be -- and they were just
as puzzled as he was.  On 25 Jan. 2003, I spoke with the witness
via land line to get more details on the sighting that occurred
in Salem.  He said, "It was traveling south 20 degrees off
horizon at an altitude of approximately; 20,000 to 30,000 feet
at 5 AM. It was partly cloudywith a temperature of 48 degrees.
  He videotaped for  45 seconds. The witness description of the
object was cylindrical shape, round and long, brightly lit
colors of orange/yellow.  Object emitted a flame out the rear of
the craft unlike any normal commercial a/c would do, to the
extent of 6-7 times the length of the object itself.  Again
witness described the object as rounded cylinder tube shape,
dark gray, which was noticed through his Canon Video cam, which
had a zoom of 800X power.  Witness also claims that object was
moving across the horizon faster than a normal commercial a/c
would fly, going from the North to the South 20 degrees off the
horizon at a very high rate of speed.

Witness called several law enforcement agencies, and some news
stations, KPTV Fox News aired the tape 6 AM on the 23rd of Jan.
2003; they still have the original tape, which will be returned
to witness soon.  I have asked the witness for a copy of the
video which will be available soon.  Thanks to Peter Davenport
Ron Wright, Director, TRIAD RESEARCH Colo. Spurges, CO.
LoneWolf@codenet.net

WASHINGTON  FLYING TRIANGLE OVERHEAD

LYNNWOOD -- My brother and I witnessed a slow steady white light
on January 20, 2003, at 6:20 PM, turning of then on many times,
he thought it was a radio tower, but after about 30 seconds the
light stopped the (SOS) type flashes and steadily moved to the
right and out of view.  I figured It was probably a news
helicopter because of rush hour traffic, but I have never seen a
plane or helicopter do a steady SLOW beat, like a large search
light going off and on.  I got to my house and saw two close
yellow lights just over the trees behind our house, that looked
like a 747 when they fly towards you.  This was not too odd to
see because of our location near the airports, but the craft
never crested over those trees, it actually went down dropping
in altitude.  I was about to get into my car with my brother
when I saw the same two yellowish white lights coming from the
right of the trees.  This time I watched it for about ten
seconds then noticed no sound and told my brother to get out of
the car and look at this, he did and by the time he got out of
the car it was over head with three yellowish white lights in a
perfect triangle.  As it went over head I couldn't hear
anything, but as it was past us, we started to hear what sounded
like a low frequency jet type sound but very quiet and very low.
  I was ecstatic because I have witnessed a triangle craft that
to me was a UFO.  After we calmed down we started to drive the
two miles to our friends house.  About halfway, we both
witnessed another strobe search like craft.  I was a lot closer
this time.  After I started thinking about it, the first strobe
object we saw might have been a craft to clear the way for this
huge triangle craft and the last strobe craft was to follow up.
  What we saw was probably human craft.  But a lot newer then the
old stealth bombers!  At the time the triangle craft was over
our heads my cat jumped into my car and refused to come out.  I
had to drag him from the back and hold him, he was shaking and
appeared scared?  Thanks to Peter Davenport NUFORC

IRELAND IT APPEARED TO BE RED IN COLOR AND EMITTED 2 FIREBALLS

DUN LAOGHAIRE, COUNTY DUBLIN -- I looked out of my bedroom
window on January 26, 2003, at 7:07 PM, and heading east was a
Fireball that was going slightly faster that a normal aeroplane.
  It then accelerated to possibly 400 mph plus, and I noticed
that it dropped two other fireballs from it that disintegrated.
  It was a very reddish color (about the color of Mars), and then
it made a turn much sharper that an aero plane or any other
craft could.  From my eyesight, the thing looked about half a
centimeter in diameter and it then disappeared.  The duration
was thirty seconds.

ENGLAND DIAMOND DEFINITE SIGHTING BY 2 PROFESSIONAL PEOPLE

DOVER -- On a clear starry evening on January 24, 2003, at 6:35
PM, we at first thought it was a shooting star because of the
speed.  It was a definitely structured craft with four faint
lights in a square.  That flew from N.E. to S.W. across the sky
in about 30 seconds.  It was very high and could have been in
Earth's atmosphere or in space

GERMANY I SAW A WHITE SPOT UFO

BENSHEIM -- My mother-in-law, my wife, my two kids, and I were
driving home on January 25, 2003, at 2:03 PM, when we came to a
stop at a traffic light in the middle of town.  I saw a white
spot in the blue sky.  At first I thought it was a plane, but
then I noticed it wasn't moving.  Further in the distance to the
right of the object I saw an airplane flying leaving a white
trail behind it.  This kind of helped me notice it was not
moving, and looked too big for a star.  Plus the plane and this
were the only two things in the sky that I could see.  Looking
closely, I noticed there was a sort of white, cloudy smoke
around it.  The object looked like someone took a pencil, dipped
the eraser in some paint, and taped it on the sky.  I looked
away for only 1 or 2 seconds to make sure my wife was looking in
the right direction.  The car hadn't started moving yet, and the
airplane was still in site.  It happened very quick.  But it was
bigger than the airplane for sure.  It disappeared after about
15 seconds.

SPAIN FLOWER PETAL UFO

MARCELLA -- On January 16, 2003, at 4:25 AM, a witness with
considerable education and responsibility in his place of
employment saw a flying object that was round with three flower
like petals around the center.  The object was silver, with
black circles and silver frames visible in the center.  It was
at a 40 degree angle over the sea and 250 meters from my bedroom
window.  The object was stationary.

MALAYSIA HIGH SPEED DISK SHAPE

SKUDAI -- On January 17, 2003, at 9:30 PM, my dad and I saw an
orange colored flying object move from east to west above my
Dad's house.  This object moved fast and was stable when it was
moving.  It was going up and not going down.  I'm sure this is a
disk shaped flying object.  The UFO slowed a bit as it hovered
above us, and seems like it noticed us as we looked at them.
  After few minute it continued with a fast and stable speed and
disappeared behind the crown.  This is fifth time I've seen UFOs
in the last two years.  The last time it was closer, bigger, and
we even saw the "windows" of the UFO.

SOLVE YOUR HEALTH POLLUTION PROBLEMS

Don Kile writes:  "I have had allergies or asthma like
respiratory problems that seem related to chemtrails/contrails
or the general engine burning pollution in our air.  I know that
if I breathe car exhaust fumes, or get near certain plants, I
start sneezing, coughing, my back hurts, and my eyes and my nose
runs.  Your Isotonix OPC-3 is the only product that has cleared
these problems.  I though perhaps it was a fluke so I stopped
taking it for a couple weeks.  My symptoms appeared again and I
remembered that for a dollar a day Isotonix OPC-3 was well worth
it. After a couple days I was breathing normal again.  Thanks
for showing me this product from the Health and Food Store.

SHOP AT THE MALL WITHOUT WALLS WITH 100 STORES

There is a store for your every special need, and you qualify as
a preferred customer by reading these files.  Register as a
Preferred Customer and pick the store of your choice for special
discounts.  Search for the Health and Nutrition Store or
Isotonix OPC-3.  You can use Visa or Master charge at:
http://www.filer.unfranchise.com

WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW WHEN BUY OR SELL A HOME

Learn how you can obtain the best real estate agent for your
needs.  To get a free copy of this report e-mail me at
  Majorstar@aol.com

MUFON UFO JOURNAL -- For more detailed monthly investigative
reports subscribe to the MUFON JOURNAL.  A MUFON membership
includes the Journal and costs only $35.00 per year.  To join
MUFON or to report a UFO go to http://www.mufon.com/.  To ask
questions contact MUFONHQ@aol.com or HQ@mufon.com.  Mention that
I recommended you for membership.

Filer's Files is copyrighted 2003 by George A. Filer, all rights
reserved.  Readers may post the complete files on their Web
Sites if they credit the newsletter and its editor by name and
list the date of issue that the item appeared.  These reports
and comments are not necessarily the OFFICIAL MUFON viewpoint.
  Send your letters to Majorstar@aol.com.  Sending mail
automatically grants permission for us to publish and use your
name.  Please state if you wish to keep your name, address, or
story confidential.  CAUTION, MOST OF THESE ARE INITIAL REPORTS
AND REQUIRE FURTHER INVESTIGATION.

Regards,

George A. Filer  www.Georgefiler.com












   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 6

                      NASA Rejects Launch Damage Theory

From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 20:13:38 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 11:10:14 -0500
Subject: NASA Rejects Launch Damage Theory


Hello, all.

More surprising NASA News

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2731169.stm

I have a friend, a former NASA engineer, also who worked for
Rockwell. He was surprised that the shuttle breakup stared as
high as it did, over California. His concern was the
atmosphereic pressure wasn't quite high enough to cause the
breakup that high.

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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 6

               Re: Anyone Have An Agreed Upon Number? - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 00:49:31 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 11:14:46 -0500
Subject: Re: Anyone Have An Agreed Upon Number? - Gates


 >From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >To: by way of UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 17:16:38 -0500
 >Subject: Anyone Have An Agreed Upon Number?


 >Hi -

 >Does anyone involved with abduction research have a generally
 >agreed upon number of abductions to date? If not absolutely
 >verified, a conservative estimate?

Hi Eleanor,

If we look at how many "actual" cases have been reported and
investigated I understand the number is less then 1200.

A while back, the MUFON abduction project allegedly had around
600 'actual' cases.

John Carpenter's case files were around 20, or so.

Everybody else combined might stretch it with another 400 cases,
although I recall one major abduction researcher saying
something about having 35 or so 'actual' cases. These are in
the ball park of what the other researchers had, less the over
lap cases.

In terms of "projected" or "estimated" based upon running
numbers, I have heard "in the 100s of thousands if not
millions." But again a difference between 'actual' and
'projected' or 'estimated'.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 6

                   Re: Validating the Ramey Memo - Morton

From: Dave Morton <Marspyrs@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 01:01:06 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 11:18:07 -0500
Subject: Re: Validating the Ramey Memo - Morton


For Jim and Kevin when you locate your data on Exclusive words:

Numbers, please.

Please fill in the blanks, below.


Words Exclusive to Groups
-------------------------

Word         # of Times Reported (n)
-----------  -------------------------

Remains        ____
Fundamental    ____
Crash          ____
UFO            ____

Glasses        ____
Morning        ____
Meaning        ____
Flash          ____
Atomic         ____
Laboratory     ____

Flew           ____


If you cannot supply the numbers, I will supply them in a future
post.


Dave Morton







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 6

                  Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 01:04:58 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 11:20:28 -0500
Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Gates


 >From: David Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 14:17:24 -0600
 >Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

<snip>


 >>But to get back to what annoyed you, let me answer by saying
 >>that to try and make this phenomenon the provenance of those
 >>lacking full psychological facilities is patently unfair not to
 >>mention untrue. This ploy has been used throughout the last 50
 >>plus years and all it has served to do is stymie the reporting
 >>of, and the scientific study of, the phenomenon.

 >So we've established you don't like psychologists. Well
 >unfortunately Don, until you can deliver one of these flying
 >saucers (ooops) to a physicist, or provide some tangible
 >evidence for them to look at, the only scientists you are going
 >to interest in the data are social scientists. Because the data
 >is nothing except narrative and stories of things that people
 >claim to have seen or experienced. There is nothing, not one
 >single thing, that a physicist or chemist can grapple with.

Not quite true. Look at the Hubble photographs that allegedly
confirmed that the universe was in fact 10-14 billion years old,
based on only photographic interpretation as opposed to actually
having some of the talked about alleged dark matter in hand, or
sent off to various so called scientific labs for verification
of age.

So, if we were to pursue the above theory, we should be
investigating and checking out the 14 or so core astronomers who
were involved in that project, rather then looking at the
information and data they came up with....


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 6

                      Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Hebert

From: Amy Hebert <yellowrose129@attbi.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 00:51:04 -0600
Fwd Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 11:23:16 -0500
Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Hebert


 >From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: "UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 14:24:41 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs

<snip>

 >Hi Amy and all,

 >I thought Ley Lines were those ancient pathways meandering
 >trough the southern portions of England and Wales. Am I thinking
 >of something else?

Hi, Don:

You are correct.

According to the "Skeptic's Dictionary" at:

http://skepdic.com/leylines.html

which happened to be the first web site that came up when I did
a Google search and my first time to visit the site:


"Ley lines are alleged alignments of ancient sites or holy
places, such as stone circles, standing stones, cairns, and
churches. Interest in ley lines began with the publication in
1922 of Early British Trackways by Alfred Watkins (1855-1935), a
self-taught amateur archaeologist and antiquarian. Based upon
the fact that on a map of Blackwardine, near Leominster,
England, he could link a number of ancient landmarks by a series
of straight lines, he became convinced that he had discovered an
ancient trade route. Interest in these alleged trade routes as
sources of mystical energy has become very popular among New
Agers in Great Britain.

Today, ley lines have been adopted by New Age occultists
everywhere as sources of power or energy, attracting not only
curious New Agers but aliens in their UFOs and locals with their
dowsing rods. These New Age occultists believe that there are
certain sites on the earth which are filled with special
"energy." Stonehenge, Mt. Everest, Ayers Rock in Australia,
Nazca in Peru, the Great Pyramid at Giza, Sedona (Arizona),
Mutiny Bay, among other places, are believed to be places of
special energy. There is no evidence for this belief save the
usual subjective certainty based on uncontrolled observations by
untutored devotees. Nevertheless, advocates claim that the
alleged energy is connected to changes in magnetic fields. None
of this has been scientifically verified."



So, according to Alfred Watkins, "ley lines" exist. In
addition, there are those who claim there are energies connected
to these "lines" and that UFOs are attracted to these energies.
  Another example of what I call "leap of faith".

Before we can go around claiming "ley lines" and "energy grids"
are used to facilitate travel by UFOs, these alleged "grids"
and "lines" of energy must be first be established via
scientific means rather than mere conjecture and speculation.
Since there has not been any such data forthcoming to date,
connecting UFOs to these alleged lines and grids is putting the
cart before the horse.

Anyone claiming scientific data which verifies the physical
existence of this "electromagnetic grid" and "ley lines" related
to said grid needs to produce such data or stop giving UFOlogy
yet another black eye.

As for the rest of the gobbley-gook in this thread, just ignore
it. We still don't have scientific evidence that these "grids"
exist no matter what a few short-sighted individuals may claim.

Sincerely,

Amy 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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 6

                          New Runcorn Video Footage

From: Eric Morris <bufosc@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 11:10:21 +0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 11:32:17 -0500
Subject: New Runcorn Video Footage


Because of demand for tickets BUFOSC (The British UFO Studies
Centre) will be using a bigger hall to accomodate the growing
army of enthusiasts coming to see the latest amazing UFO footage
to be filmed over the UK in many a year.

BUFOSC will be using their video projection machine for the
evening to show this extraordinary UFO footage.

NO photogpraphic equipment will be allowed into the meeting
because of the sensitivity of this tape, we already have
received threats not to show it, by menacing telephone calls.We
are showing it regardlessly.

BUFOSC will not and never be intimidated by these pathetic
thinly veiled threats, it makes BUFOSC more determined.

As Part 2 of "Rendlesham 2" after January's amazing lecture by
Eric Morris, a video will be shown of the crash site of
Rendlesham 2, never shown before to the public.

This night will be a historic one, Morris is quickly formulating
his new book on British Ufology, The cases YOU have never heard
about.

I would advise people to  come along early to get in, once full
that is that.

Morris plans to take the footage to UFO Magazine for analysis
when time permits, due to Morris's work schedule.

This is an interesting time for British Ufology, BUFOSC hold the
'Smokin Gun' evidence UFO Groups have been searching for, for
years.

See you there Tuesday 11th February 2003 at 7:30pm
Waterloo Community Centre Waterloo Road Ruuncorn,Cheshire.

First in first served, once the room is full no more will be
allowed in and under no terms is photographic equipment being
allowed into the venue.

Eric Morris

BUFOSC Press Release
Thursday 6th February 2003 (5 days to go to the 'Smokin Gun'. Forget
Colin Powel's 'Smouldering Gun' on Iraq, this is the real McCoy.

You have been warned!








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 6

                   Re: Validating The Ramey Memo - Rudiak

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 04:16:12 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 11:35:15 -0500
Subject: Re: Validating The Ramey Memo - Rudiak


 >From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 12:41:59 EST
 >Subject: Re: Validating The Ramey Memo - Randle

 >>From: Dave Morton <Marspyrs@aol.com>
 >>Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 15:59:25 EST
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Subject: Re: Validating The Ramey Memo

 >>>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >>>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 08:43:25 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: Validating The Ramey Memo - Randle


 >...we do have the raw data, we don't have the individual
 >score sheets which is not the same thing. Once the data havd
 >been transferred, the score sheets were mistakenly destroyed.
 >One of the referees of the article had addressed this question
 >and found that (a) our answer was satisfactory and (b) that the
 >original score sheets were not as important because we did have
 >the raw data.

If you had the raw data all along, then why weren't the numbers
already provided in your paper? Instead your paper said they
were thrown out.

Not providing the critical data that supports your main
conclusion should be _automatic_ cause for rejection of the
paper. Otherwise peer review is completely pointless.

That the referees let this pass does not serve as vindication of
your paper. Rather it shows that the peer review process at JSE
is seriously flawed and not up to the standards of a good
quality scientific journal (at least in this one instance).

 >Third, Jim is suggesting here that these questions asked in the
 >pages of the JSE would have a wider audience and permit a wider
 >discussion of the problems that you see.

UFO UpDates has a wide audience, probably wider, and a number of
very sharp people fully capable of understanding the arguments.
Furthermore, such a forum provides a quick back-and-forth that
submitting objections to the journal does not.

There is typically a 6 to 9 month lead time before publication
in scientific journals. Editors also exert considerable power in
such situations, if they choose to exert it. E.g., they could
simply refuse to publish my letter. Or they could always cut out
what they find embarrassing, such as my criticisms of their
journal's peer review. Or they can play favorites by careful
editing of my remarks, leaving out key components of my
argument. This isn't just paranoia. I have seen one example of
this already in JSE. Historian Rich Dolan wrote a detailed
letter-to-the-editor rebuttal of criticisms by Michael Swords of
his book ("UFOs and the National State"). The editor chose to
publish only a few sentences, and left 80+% of the remaining
page blank rather than publishing the rest. Dolan never did get
his full say.

Even if none of this happens, the authors always get the last
word to any criticisms of their work. Maybe they don't
adequately respond to the points. If that happens, I'm put in
the position of sending off yet another set of questions and
objections, waiting another 6 to 9 months, etc., etc. This could
go on forever.

Why not just settle it now? Straight answers would help
enormously to resolve this in a quick and amiable fashion.
Follow-up letters to-the-editor can always be done afterwards to
make it "official," but there is no conceivable reason I can
think of why the matter can't be first discussed in detail here.

 >All points, yours, Dave
 >Rudiak's, ours, would be published so that those interested in
 >the research could decide if we had committed a fatal flaw, or
 >if the existence of the raw data, much of it converted to ANOVA
 >was sufficient.

 >This, I think, is how science should work.

If "science" and peer review were working properly, the relevant
numbers supporting your main conclusion should have already been
published. If peer review were working properly, the paper
should have been automatically rejected without those numbers.
If the numbers were permanently lost, then the experiment should
have been redone. That is how I think science should work.

 >We ask a question,
 >and develop an experiment to answer that question. We gather our
 >data, study it, and then develop a theory about it. We publish
 >our findings in a journal, which tacitly invites criticism of
 >our theories and findings. Maybe someone else has a question
 >related to the first, creates another study that confirms our
 >original work, or suggests where we might have gone wrong. We
 >all look at the data and then say, "Well, yes."

 >In other words we all progress through a thoughtful discussion.
 >So, Jim was suggesting a way to invoke that discussion.

 >I hope you don't believe that I'm lecturing here, or my rather
 >simple discussion of science is all there is. I'm merely
 >suggesting that Jim was not dodging the question or refusing to
 >answer, he was suggesting we take it all into the public arena
 >of a science journal which would be a good thing for all of us,
 >a good thing for science and a very good thing for Ufology
 >because we've moved it into the scientific arena.

I'm sorry, but from over here it does indeed look like more
stalling, dodging, and doubletalk. Either you have the relevant
numbers or you don't. Everything else strikes me as spin and
damage control. Thus high-minded talk about uplifting Ufology
and moving this into "the scientific arena" instead sounds like
a way you hope to control the situation by moving it into a more
friendly venue and also avoid for the moment answering some very
hard questions concerning your paper. I have provided many
examples in other posts. I don't care to repeat them here.

If the science had been properly done to begin with, we wouldn't
even be having this discussion. Flawed scientific research and
peer review are not beneficial to Ufology or any other field of
knowledge.

<snip>

 >>>There are those who were worried because we don't have the raw
 >>>data from our study. Well, that's not exactly the truth. In
 >>>fact, we do have a computerbase of the raw quantitative data,
 >>>just not the actual score sheets (This is stated in our
 >>>article). This is how we know the average number of words each
 >>>group perceived and their correlations with the various
 >>>cognitive variables (including prior knowledge about Roswell
 >>>and the Ramey document).

<snip>

 >>From your database of raw, quantitative data:

 >>1. How many "hits" did each Exclusive word (UFO, flash, etc)
 >>have?

 >Those data do exist and some of them were published in the
 >original article..... The ANOVA tables for others are available
 >if you wish to examine them.

Yes, I would very much like to examine them. However, none of
this data shows up in your paper, except for the few anecdotal
examples. There are no numbers, and the numbers are absolutely
critical to supporting your main conclusion. Where are the
numbers?

Your statement above also directly contradicts what you wrote in
the paper. After the referee requested the numbers, you stated
that the research assistant threw out the score sheets. "As a
result, we _only_ have detailed data on the deciphered words
common across the three suggestion conditions."

If you _only_ have detailed data on the "common" words, then you
_don't_ have detailed numbers on the "exclusive" words. But
above you say you do. Which is it?

Or to be more specific, exactly how many "exclusive" words total
do you have for each experimental situation (Roswell, Atomic
Testing, Control), what were the words, and how many instances
of each word were there?

There also needs to be an accounting for the simple, common
English words like "the", "at", "of", etc. which aren't
mentioned at all in your paper. Yet they among the easier words
to read and make up about 40% of Ramey's message. How many
instances of these words were there and how were they
categorized? Were they placed in the "common" words, "exclusive"
words, or both? I would like to see the breakdown on this.

<snip>

 >>Sorry for the many snips, but I just want to address that 1
 >>point, for the moment.

 >And I certainly understand your concern, as does Jim. Let me go
 >back and review some of this but please don't think I'm
 >attempting to dodge the situation. Real world considerations are
 >moving to reduce my time for my pursuits.

Fine, we all have to give priority to real life now and then. I
should be doing that too instead of engaging in this endless
sparring. Take your time and review what you have. But I don't
intend to let this drop. If I seem a bit "snippy", it's because
I feel you are Jim Houran are giving us the runaround. I hope
you prove me wrong by eventually giving us some straight
answers.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 6

                 Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Denzler

From: Brenda Denzler <bdenzler1@email.msn.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 07:20:53 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 11:38:21 -0500
Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Denzler


 >From: Catherine Reason <CathyM@ukf.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 01:19:33 -0000
 >Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

 >>From: Andy Roberts <aj.roberts@blueyonder.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 16:59:39 -0000
 >>Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

 >Oh well, since I'm here:

 >>List is full. The myth of the credible witness doesn't state
 >>that _all_ witnesses are misperceiving but it does prove that
 >>many are. And as no case has yet been idenified as anything
 >>which is a genuine 'tructured craft of unknown origin' I'm
 >>afraid that, whether you, Jerry, Dick or whoever has to live
 >>with the fact that radical misperception is the _best_
 >>demonstrable theory we have.

 >May I ask a question? What is a "radical misperception", and in
 >what way does it differ from an ordinary misperception?

 >Is a "radical misperception" consistent with what we know about
 >human visual perception, or inconsistent with that? If the
 >former, then I don't see how radical misperceptions differ from
 >ordinary misperceptions; if the latter, then I don't see how
 >"radical misperception" is any better off as an explanatory
 >hypothesis than the ETH, the Tectonic Strain Hypothesis, or any
 >other miracle-invoking exotic explanation for UFOs.

OK. I'll come out of 'lurk' mode long enough to ask a question.

Catherine, can you explain how the tectonic strain theory is a
"miracle-invoking" theory? Or the ETH, for that matter? Just
curious. I've never thought of either one as particularly
oriented toward the miraculous. The evidence may weigh more or
less in each one's favor as possible explanations for at least
some UFO events, but I have never thought of the evidence for
either as being so scanty as to qualify them to be termed
"miraculous" explanations.

Thanks for your help.

Brenda







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 6

             The Inverstigator Effect [was: Re: New Documentary

From: Brenda Denzler <bdenzler1@email.msn.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 07:45:46 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 11:47:55 -0500
Subject: The Inverstigator Effect [was: Re: New Documentary


 >From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys@rogers.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 21:48:08 -0400
 >Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

 >>From: David Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 14:17:24 -0600
 >>Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

 ><snip>

 >>Have you ever heard of "the investigator effect" in which the
 >>investigator of a 'phenomenon' becomes part of the very
 >>mystery he or she is investigating?

 >Remember the question is not "are all UFOs alien space craft?,
 >it is "are any?". The answer is, yes .

 >Witness misperception does happen. But I really don't believe
 >that the 2000+ physical trace cases involving observations of
 >strange round craft landing and taking off out in the middle of
 >nowhere,leaving behind peculiar circles of effected soil and
 >flora, frequently accompanied for a bit of time by small beings,
 >are really misperceptions of silent helicopters disguised as
 >flying saucers and involving midgets hired by the CIA to stand
 >in for aliens.


Hmmmm... Seems like this List thrives on name-calling and
assault as much as on calm, rational, friendly exchange of ideas
among people with different views. I'm not very good at the
former. I aspire to the latter. In fact, faced with the former,
I just tend to back away. So... if you all want to attack me for
anything I say, please don't be surprised if I fade back into
the wallpaper. Having said _that_:

Stan, I'm with you up to the point where you frame the whole
question in terms of what sounds like the traditional ETH. I
started out my interest in ufology by being focused on abduction
accounts.

When I was forced to go back and look at the entire modern-day
history of UFO events, I gained a lot of respect for and
interest in the non-abduction stuff, too. (Historical UFO-type
events is another piece which I will leave to the side here.)

I agree that there are enough sighting reports with tangible,
physical evidence to make the whole question irreducible to
_just_ misperception, although I also agree that there are large
numbers of misperceptions _and_ some outright hoaxes included in
the phenomenon. But to say that these cases lead one to say that
some UFOs are alien spacecraft - well, I can't go that far. I
think that attributing provenance to these things goes beyond
the evidence. It's an interpretation _of_ the evidence. It may
well be correct, in the end. But right now, at this point in
time, I don't think that ufology has enough evidence to be able
to make that leap.

It is in that leap (or what seems to _me_ like a leap) that you
make, that the "investigator effect" cited by David Clarke comes
into play. (And in other ways, too, I might add.) As far as I
can tell, though, the fact that in _any_ field of inquiry the
investigator becomes a part of the system he/she is studying,
does not (or should not) be either a cause for alarm or a cause
for dismissal of the system/phenomenon.

When some folks study the UFO-subculture, they find study of the
system most interesting, including the investigators of UFOs. Of
course, if these folks are honest and consistent, they must
admit that by studying even just the investigators of UFOs, they
have themselves become part of the system they are studying. A
delicious piece of reflexivity for the Trickster. (See George
Hansen's 'The Trickster and the Paranormal'. Quite a good read,
and very apposite for this field of endeavor.)

As for those who do not find the study of UFO investigators of
interest, but are more nuts-and-bolts oriented (and even more
for those whose field of investigation is abduction-related
events) it still behooves them, IMHO, to be aware that by their
very interest and activities in this regard, they become a part
of the system/phenomenon they are studying.

OK. Let the name-calling begin. "Brenda, you ignorant slut...."
(Anyone ever watch the old SNL's take-off on Point-Counterpoint?)


Brenda Denzler







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 6

                 Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Bennett

From: Colin Bennett <colin@bennettc25.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 13:10:30 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 11:51:48 -0500
Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Bennett


 >From: Andy Roberts <aj.roberts@blueyonder.co.uk>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 17:06:07 -0000
 >Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham -- Roberts


 >Unless, yes, I've got it - you were being post-modern like your
 >friend who you admire and agree with so much, Colin. Which is a
 >bit weird as Colin hates and disagrees with Dick and Jan and yet
 >you agree with Dick too! God this is getting so post-modern it's
 >uncanny. Er, or is it you choose to agree with any fuzzy thinker
 >who happens to come along and keep the whole UFO cottage inustry
 >in business? Mystery sells, eh kids.


Hi Andy, all List Bears,

Andy, you must seriously consider changing your position
concerning anomalous experience. Perhaps not to believe in
little green men (as I do) no, but for goodness sake, surely you
now see that you must apply a rather more complex analysis than
this metal-bashing yes or no technique, which in a media age
makes you look like a very 19th century person indeed. The
simple absolute fact versus absolute fiction argument is far too
simple a pre-quantum formula to apply willy-nilly in the sense
that you are using it. If you don't adapt to new thinking, then
you will be left behind both as a thinker and a researcher. This
will be a great pity, because you can take it as a compliment
that I am saying this to you, since I believe you are the only
skeptic worth saving, other than the Blessed Brentford Polonius.
You have personality, creative energy, you talk to people, you
have a great sense of life and humour, you engage in interactive
dramatic communication, and your cursing is an art form in
itself. Also, you don't get out of the ring when the going gets
very rough indeed, which is a quality I very much admire in you.

All I am asking you to do is at least look at say holistic
dimensions and mystical experience, a little more
sympathetically. You certainly did this in your beautifully
written essay The Big Grey Man of Ben Macdui (Fortean Studies
Volume 5) which is a classic essay on folklore, and praised by
the brilliant metaphysician Patrick Harpur whose demoniac
reality view would appear to be of exactly the opposite opinion
to your self. Judging from this work, at this time you were
approaching the Coleman/Devereaux/Harpur position which is the
royal road to modern anomalistics, but since then you seem to
have relapsed into factual mechanistic Stalinism so typical of
the many steam footplate persons on this List.

Frankly, your "factual" absolutism is absurd in an age when most
poor deprived souls live permanently inside Michael Jackson's
brain, to give but one bracing example. Like most old-fashioned
mechanistic/deterministic old-industrial absolutes, your binary
yes/no simplicity is not sufficient to describe the bewildering
anomalistic nature of personality, identity, mental activity and
moral experience. Such conservative reactionary views mean
stasis, very much like the tank/horse problem in the First World
War.

With respect this, I now want to give the very briefest outline
of the binary yes/now paradigm as cultural function. Sorting
through scores of names at random, if the great historians such
Toynbee, Herodotus, Gibbon, and Lancelot Hogben (the much
neglected historian of technology), are read through thoroughly,
it will be found that cultures (the Athens of Pericles, the
Alexandria of Ptolemy, the England of Chaucer) are essentially
problem-solving entities. Whilst the culture is alive and
growing, the management of solutions in agriculture, navigation,
military affairs, whatever, is largely successful. There may be
boundary layer problems, but the major axis of reference and
interpretation remains secure (orders of angels, heirarchical
mediaeval heavens for Early Middle England, chains of Being and
Nature for Shakespeare, atoms and molecules for the 19th
century).

But what makes a culture go into decline when its infrastructure
and its environment appears to be perfectly stable (Mayan
culture for example)? Bar gross climate or geological change, it
is not physical attack, or economic decline so much as a
particular, very special question comes along which is not
answerable in the old terms. If this question is not answered,
if this new problem is not solved, then the culture withers on
the vine in the midst of prosperity and success. In other words,
the culture in the midst of plenty, suffers an acausal nervous
breakdown. It goes into shock.

Such a new question is characterized by not being answerable
within the old terms of reference. To answer it means making a
fundamental change in basic principles of thought itself. The
question is thought itself undergoing evolution. In other words,
when such a question comes along, it is no use piling evidence
upon evidence upon research upon yet more research so much as
having to create an entirely new theory of about information and
what information means in the new social and intellectual
context. The appearance of this new question is the threshold
prior to the experience of change of paradigm.

Briefly, examples of such questions are: the late 17th century
problem with accelerated kinematics. This could not be solved in
existing 17th century terms in the way that this century had
solved other practical and theoretical problems. In the 18th
century, British expansion would not have been possible without
the practical and mathematical solution of Latitude and
Longitude. Similarly, the many gross anomalies in radiation and
electromagnetism that showed up in 19th century physics were
resolved (or almost) only by Planck and Einstein who stood the
19th idea of "solid" matter on its head, although the concept of
"solid" still remains as a rather decayed 19th century metaphor
in Andy's head in the way that we still "board" an aircraft. Now
reasoning by analogy and on a much smaller scale, we have, I
contend, Ufology reaching a similar practical and theoretical
crisis. There are certain number of such special questions
(we'll call them Alpha questions) come up which need, in the
historical sense I have described, a quite unprecedented
solution. I am preparing a series of List posts to suggest a
possible approach to what I call the Four Body Problem. In my
argument, I contend that we must abandon the totally
unsatisfactory "separate the facts from the fiction" two-state
binary culture, and transfer to postmodern thinking involving
Fuzzy and Fortean principles as outlined in my recent book. In
this sense, the work done by Randle, Rudiak and Friedman is
cutting edge. They are postmodernists, though they do not know
it yet.

The three problems are:

(1) MJ-12 problem (needs a new postmodern theory of information)

(2) The Ramey Text (a postmodern text)

(3) The Grey Area Problem (intermediate states between old
industrial absolutes Fact and Fiction)

(4) The Corso Problem. (the fantastic claim as Trickster
Function)

Postmodernism has now reached the stage where it can be used as
a reader-friendly journalistic tool. I have an article about
James Oberg and NASA in the current Fortean Times, and to my
knowledge, this is the first time that a full postmodern
analysis has been applied to a major theme of our time in a
mainstream popular Journal. It has been said quite independently
to me that this essay is a model of what the New Ufology is
going to look and sound like. My only regret is that it should
appear at a time when the whole of the Western World is in
mourning for the loss of the crew of Columbia.

You will see immediately in my article that the false/truth
paradigm has been discarded and a theory of information flow and
media substituted. The result has been described as the
replacement of v=3Ds/t by v=3Dds/dt. We simply must make experiments
of this nature, as I did recently in a 700-line CyberNovel on
this List. Millions of mid-grade antennae touches are one thing,
inspiration and synthesis quite other things. In Ufology we must
move forward. This means controversial experiment or die. The
trouble that this causes is in itself part of the definingof the
problem.

Which means that the train is about to leave the station Andy,
and you'd better get aboard very quickly. Ufology must be
brought up to date if only because postmodernism is now taught
in almost every university in the world, and has had the most
profound effect as regards the entire range of modern literary
criticism, literature and philosophy, where the phrase "separate
the facts from the fiction" sounds like something from the
script of Arsenic and Old Lace or Fanny By Gaslight. Good texts
in their time yes, but not the future of Rock n' Roll exactly.

By comparision, poor Ufology, despite the Herculean efforts of
people like Jerry Clark, still remains rooted in its ancient
factual Stalinism, and has yet to make a single night school
course. The aim of the New Ufology is to try and bring it out of
the rusted ruins of old East Germany as it were into an age of
media, information, and web virtuality. I can almost hear the
sneers at that one from the steam footplate folk.

Now Andy if this post is going to be greeted by abuse and
sneering typical British anti-modernism and (surprising to me)
American anti-intellectualism, I shall not answer it. We have
all had great fun on the List with that crap with Dick and Jan
(nice TV show title, there for you Andy, what? I designed it
with you in mind), for many months, and that is all over (thinks
-- could this be the end of the Bad Man?). Besides I have my
Ruppelt (An American Demonology) book to finish and my analysis
of the Randle/Friedman dialogues ( pure postmodern protein) to
continue, and I haven't time to return a stream of your famous
curses, as much as I enjoy them and wear them as a Red Badge of
Ufological Courage, along with my Dick and Jan campaign ribbons,
and my Wendy Connors War Memorial Badge. At the moment I am only
on the second level of expanded metaphor in the Randle/Friedman
dialogues, I have a long way to go, and the Tea House in Holland
Park is closed, one of my mastiffs has to be taken to the vet,
and a riot has broken outside George's Fish Bar, complete with
12-foot water spouts. The spouts demolished two parked invalid
chairs and the Salvation Army has had to be abandoned. Walking
frames and Social Security Sandwich bags are momentarily stored
in a local trendy cocktail bar, and this goes down really well
with the smart young yah-yah media folk perched on the chromium
stools.

And you think you've got problems, Andy.

Postmodernism is not nearly so difficult or abstract as it sounds.
I leave you Andy with a first postmodern equation whose
strange geometry leads right out of the old industrial input=3Doutput
configuration:

Input=3Da poster of Marilyn Monroe
Output=3Dinfinity
Result? Fourth Day Like Four Long Months of Absence

What is this List but a postmodern conversation? EBK has created
the new Gutenberg Galaxy.

I'll be back.

Meantime keep smiling, List Bears!

Colin

(the Bad Man)



PS. You mention names. As regards Jerry Clark, I am proud to
claim him as a friend and colleague. He is, I repeat, the Dr.
Johnson of Ufology. His Dictionary is one of the very few books
that have reached Literary acceptance in the outer world as
distinct from the tiny intellectual leper colony you and I write
for, Andy. The higher mental and academic level of Clark's
Dictionary is what we must all aim for.

Regarding Dick and Jan, we had a battle of Titans and we said
absolutely dreadful things about one another. You will
understand that I was attacked by them with little cause, and
the only claim that I will make about myself is that I thrive on
intimidation, as both the gentlemen you name will now both
surely bear witness. My hand is now outstretched, but I doubt if
they will take it because they do not open my posts, and they
are very proud Prussian iron-master men. Unlike your good self,
Andy, they do not roll with the punch. I think they will now
understand that no writer/journalist can call himself such if he
doesn't fight his way into trouble and out again just to get
information, if only because information does not come easily. I
was the new boy on the block and they tried to strangle me at
birth. Parts of my life have been rougher than others and
anybody who wants to strangle me at birth or at any other time
had better give the idea very serious consideration. In any
case, a writer who is not in often outrageous confrontation is
no writer at all. If people get hurt on the way, they have my
sympathy. I could sit here in London until my gut hangs over my
belt making nice people happy. That's not the way I do it, and
it's not the way you do it, Andy. I think we'd both rather be
dead.

Hallelujah, List Bears!

Combat Diaries http://www.thewhyfiles
Politics of the Imagination: Anomalist Award for
Best Biography of 2002
2002








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 6

                Re: Re: CI: 'Martian Genesis' & 'The Atlantis

From: Wm. Michael Mott <mottimorph@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 08:29:24 -0600
Fwd Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 12:08:26 -0500
Subject: Re: Re: CI: 'Martian Genesis' & 'The Atlantis


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 18:56:58 -0600
 >Subject: Re: CI: 'Martian Genesis' & 'The Atlantis Enigma'

 >>From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 17:06:11 -0500 Subject:
 >>Re: CI: 'Martian Genesis' & 'The Atlantis Enigma'

 >>While we're waxing 'New Agey' here, I'd like to know what ever happened
to Mu
 >>and Lemuria? Two (alleged) ancient technological civilizations that
 >>supposedly predated Atlantis. For some odd reason Atlantis gets all the
 >>modern day press as well as the attention of the New Age community. Maybe
 >>because of the Edgar Cayce material. But even old Edgar spoke of Mu and
 >>Lemuria.

 >>Any New-ager worth his Couchgrass and St. John's wart tea knows that Mu and
 >>Lemuria predated Atlantis. I wonder why it is that those much older
 >>civilizations are never mentioned, much less blamed on "aliens." After all,
 >>it's the hip, 'modern' thing to do isn't it? They can at least get the
 >>chronological order correct.  ;)

 >Well, actually, the Atlantis legend has genuine historical pedigree (albeit,
 >from all available evidence, not historical existence), going back to 355
B.C.
 >and two of Plato's works.

 >Lemuria was theorized by 19th-Century British biologist Philip L. Schattler,
 >who thought of it as an Indian Ocean land bridge connecting Madagascar and
 >extreme southern India. In the days before continental drift had been
 >hypothesized and then validated, he sought to explain why two widely
separated
 >locations shared many of the same flora and fauna. Occultists and mystics
 >soon picked up on this modest notion and transformed Lemuria (also known as
 >Mu) into the Atlantis of the Pacific, holding a vast supercivilization.

 >The most influential work is Helene Petrovna Blavatsky's The Secret Doctrine
 >(1889), but in the 1920s James Churchward published four books on Mu, "the
 >motherland of man," based on alleged ancient documents whose existence he
 >could never prove. The books are believed to be pure fiction masquerading as
 >fact. In the 1940s, of course, Richard Shaver used Lemuria to riveting effect
 >in the tall tales, remembered as the Shaver Mystery, that he told in the
pages
 >of Ray Palmer's SF and fantasy magazines.


Oh yeah, I remember Lemuria!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

The name "Lemuria" was _invented_ by an English zoologist,
Phillip L. Schlater, back in the early days of Darwinism, in
order to explain the fossilized remains of lemurs similar to
those that live in Madagascar only today. He proposed the
existence of an antediluvian land-bridge or landmass between
Madagascar and the Indian subcontinent, and he dubbed this
hypothetical continent Lemuria. It may or may not have existed,
but it certainly was not the "Lemuria" or Mu of modern-day
mystical and new age thought! This was created later by input
from a variety of sources. One source was Madame Helena
Blavatsky, who was renowned as a charaltan and caught in the act
of perpetrating a fraud more than once. Blavatsky used the
scientific concept of Lemuria to create her own cosmology and
pseudo-theology from blending elements from a dozen religious
and mystical traditions, folklore, and science, calling it
"theosophy." The other source of the Mu and Lemuria myth was
James Churchward, who provided evidence which was both
archaeologically excellent and convincing, or else highly
subjective and spurious at best.

Blavatsky was something of a "fake," and she did have a
reputation as a con-artist extraordinare. She is the one who
came up with the "story" about Atlantis and Lemuria going to war
and destroying one another. This fiction (and it is fiction) of
hers was picked up later by Edgar Cayce and others, who have all
put their own "spin" on it. Again, this tends to cloud any
reality to the situation of ancient, perhaps submerged
civilizations, and tends to cause the topic to not be taken
seriously--When it probably deserves to be taken very seriously,
as recent find of ancient ruins under the world's oceans (the
Cuban ruins and the Yonaguni site, and others) demonstrates.

The best research done on the possibility of a missing Pacific
civilization has been done, in my opinion, by author and "rogue
archaeologist" David Hatcher Childress. Childress sticks to the
facts; he conducts in-depth research and verifies everything,
and does the field work that an archaeologist has to do.
Polynesians tend to remember this ancient civilization as "Mu,"
or as variants of the name. By chance the name Mu is included in
the fabricated word LeMUria, but this is purely coincidental,
unless the ancient civilization at hand was founded by time-
travelling highly-evolved Lemurs who gave it their name from the
future--highly unlikely.

Given the various interpretations of "Lemurian" activity around
Mt. Shasta (which I'm not saying does or doesn't occur), I find
it interesting to note that to the ancient Romans, the "Lemurs"
were the savage ghosts of the unhappy dead, and had to be
placated with a yearly ritual called, coincidentally again,
"Lemuria".

Britannica.com says:


"Lemures

Encyclopedia Britannica Article

also called Larvae, in Roman religion, wicked and fearsome
spectres of the dead. Appearing in grotesque and terrifying
forms, they were said to haunt their living relatives and cause
them injury. To propitiate these ghosts and keep them from the
household, ritual observances called Lemuria were held yearly on
May 9, 11, and 13. These Lemuria, reputedly instituted by
Romulus in expiation of his brother's murder, required the
father of every family to rise at midnight, purify his hands,
toss black beans for the spirits to gather, and recite
entreaties for the spirits' departure."


My problem is not really with the Shasta phenomena per se, but
simply with the use of wholly subjective channeled or astral-
travel-obtained information about the unknown, which is often
cited as "evidence," particularly when there is no external
evidence which supplies verification. This has often been the
only source of "esoteric" information about "Lemuria" in
general.

Maurice Doreal (Claude Doggins by birth) began teaching, or
preaching, a variant of the current theory as expounded by
Branton, David Icke, and others, in the mid-nineteen-forties. He
spoke about an ancient race of lizard or serpent humanoids with
advanced technology, representatives of which were preserved in
"Rainbow City," a hidden metropolis somewhere in Antarctica. He
also propagated a mythos about Mt. Shasta, and wrote a book
called "The Mysteries of Mt. Shasta."  His ancient history of
the world included blue-eyed, blond-haired Aryan superhumans who
came from Mars to Earth, and who warred with the Serpent Race.
The two groups (according to Doreal) eventually nearly destroyed
one another with terrible weapons, and then fled underground for
survival. Their descendants, according to Doreal, are at war
with one another to this day, and he somehow managed to tie this
all in with the deros and teros of Shaver's "mystery."

Of course we have to ask: Why would the "Lemurians" call
themselves by a name which was not invented until the first half
of the 19th century by an English scientist? Unless of course
they were naming their country after the much-later Roman
holiday of unfriendly dead who must be appeased--but Why? The
very fact that they are called "Lemurians," or allegedly refer
to themselves in this manner, demonstrates that modern or
contemporary human beings are probably responsible for many of
the mysterious phenomena at Mt. Shasta, such as the "music," the
"ohming," strange lights, sudden visits by people who
"disappear" (usually into woods or brush, btw), and so on. I
have to wonder if, in the interest of making new age tourist
dollars, there isn't some degree of chicanery going on at Mt.
Shasta, propagating the myth of ufo-piloting "Lemurians" living
beneath the mountain.

It _is_ interesting that this name Lemuria has attached itself,
in both antiquity and the present day, to some sort of
supernatural, paranormal, ufological, and spectral activity.


--Mike








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 6

                           Secrecy News - 02/06/03

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@fas.org>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 10:26:37 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 12:11:48 -0500
Subject: Secrecy News - 02/06/03


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
Volume 2003, Issue No. 10
February 6, 2003


**      TRANSCRIPT SHINES LIGHT ON FISA REVIEW COURT
**      REPORT ON PATRIOT ACT OVERSIGHT
**      POWELL AT THE UN: A LANDMARK IN DISCLOSURE POLICY
**      UK REPORT ON IRAQI SECURITY APPARATUS
**      CLINTON WAIVES CONFIDENTIALITY


TRANSCRIPT SHINES LIGHT ON FISA REVIEW COURT

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (FISCR), a
hitherto unknown branch of the judiciary, was convened last
September for the first time. The transcript of that closed
session provides new insight into the structure of the Court and
its conduct.

At issue was the Justice Department's appeal to overturn a lower
court decision that limited the government's ability to share
surveillance information between intelligence and law
enforcement personnel.

The hearing was extraordinary not only because the Court had
never met before, but also because it was an ex parte
proceeding, i.e. only Justice Department representatives and the
panel of three federal judges were present.

"This is a strange proceeding because it is not adversarial,"
observed FISCR presiding Judge Ralph B. Guy, Jr. "If one were to
just read the transcript of this hearing today, one might think
that the adversary, if there was one, is [the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court], the lower body in this matter"
whose decision was being appealed. (Transcript, page 100).

Indeed. The record of the hearing suffers substantively from the
absence of an articulate opposing view. And despite some
sparring on technical issues, the judges generally assumed a
servile posture toward the executive branch, even consulting the
Justice Department on how to handle its critics.

"Do you have a view what we should do with amicus briefs?" asked
Judge Laurence H. Silberman, referring to the unsolicited
pleadings submitted by civil liberties groups in support of the
lower court decision.

"Our position is we have no objection to the Court receiving
amicus briefs," Solicitor General Ted Olson generously
responded. "In fact, I think it's probably good that the Court
receive amicus briefs." (Pp. 67-68). It did so.

The FIS Court of Review granted the Justice Department appeal in
a November 18 decision.

The transcript of the September 9 hearing was declassified at
the request of Senator Patrick Leahy. A copy was obtained by
Secrecy News and is available here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/hrng090902.htm


REPORT ON PATRIOT ACT OVERSIGHT

The Justice Department Office of Inspector General (OIG)
received hundreds of complaints alleging "Patriot Act-related
civil rights or civil liberties" violations during the last six
months of 2002, but narrowed these down to 33 "that raised
credible Patriot Act violations on their face," according to a
new Inspector General report to Congress.

"These allegations ranged in seriousness from alleged beatings
of detainees to INS Inspections staff allegedly cursing at
airline passengers," the report said. As a result, several new
OIG investigations have been initiated, while others have been
closed, as detailed in the new report.

Meanwhile, the OIG is also conducting an ongoing evaluation of
alleged civil rights and civil liberties abuses of September 11
detainees. "The OIG is close to completing the draft of its
report describing the results of this review [and] intends to
issue a public report describing its findings soon."

See the Second "Report to Congress on Implementation of Section
1001 of the USA PATRIOT Act," submitted by Inspector General
Glenn A. Fine on January 22, here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/oig/patriot012203.html


POWELL AT THE UN: A LANDMARK IN DISCLOSURE POLICY

Secretary Colin Powell's February 5 presentation to the United
Nations Security Council - in which he released U.S.
intelligence imagery, audio clips of intercepted Iraqi
conversations, and reports of defectors and other intelligence
sources - was a landmark in national security information
disclosure policy.

Although the circumstances of the brewing confrontation with
Iraq are extraordinary, the official decision to disclose
information of the highest classification levels in this
instance inevitably sets a precedent for possible future
declassification actions. It also provides a reference point for
evaluating the sometimes fatuous claims of national security
sensitivity that are offered in the normal course of affairs.

See "Telling Secrets: Not Just What, but How" by Dana Priest,
Washington Post, February 6:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32107-2003Feb5.html


UK REPORT ON IRAQI SECURITY APPARATUS

The Office of the Prime Minister of Great Britain released a
report recently on Iraqi efforts to obstruct the UN weapons
inspection process.

The new report contrasts with Secretary Powell's presentation to
the UN in that it is completely unsourced and undocumented and,
therefore, less compelling. However, the report notably provides
a useful, quasi-official description of Iraqi security and
intelligence agencies.

See "Iraq: Its Infrastructure of Concealment, Deception and
Intimidation," dated January 2003, here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iraq/uk0103.pdf


CLINTON WAIVES CONFIDENTIALITY

Former President Clinton has waived his right to withhold
Presidential records reflecting confidential advice, the
Associated Press reported, in a move that should expedite public
access to such records.

"I believe that the more information we can make available to
scholars, historians and the general public, the better informed
people will be about the formulation of public policy and the
decision-making process at the White House," Clinton said in
response to written questions.

See "Ex-President Clinton to Reveal Advice Info" by Brian
Skoloff, Associated Press, January 31:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7822-2003Jan31.html

Under Executive Order 13233 of November 1, 2001, however,
President Bush asserted a right to block the release of records
from prior Administrations even if a past President authorized
their disclosure.


_______________________________________________
Secrecy News is written by Steven Aftergood and published by the
Federation of American Scientists.

To SUBSCRIBE to Secrecy News, send email to
  secrecy_news-request@lists.fas.org
with "subscribe" in the body of the message.

OR email your request to saftergood@fas.org

Secrecy News is archived at:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/index.html

_______________________
Steven Aftergood
Project on Government Secrecy
Federation of American Scientists
web:www.fas.org/sgp/index.html
email: saftergood@fas.org
voice: (202) 454-4691








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 6

                    Mysterious Purple Streak Hit Columbia

From: Kelly Peterborough <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 10:49:46 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 12:17:45 -0500
Subject: Mysterious Purple Streak Hit Columbia


Source: San Francisco Chronicle

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/02/05/MN192153.DTL


Wednesday, February 5, 2003

S.F. man's astounding photo

Mysterious purple streak is shown hitting Columbia 7 minutes
before it disintegrated

Top investigators of the Columbia space shuttle disaster are
analyzing a startling photograph - snapped by an amateur
astronomer from a San Francisco hillside - that appears to show
a purplish electrical bolt striking the craft as it streaked
across the California sky.

The digital image is one of five snapped by the shuttle buff at
roughly 5: 53 a.m. Saturday as sensors on the doomed orbiter
began showing the first indications of trouble. Seven minutes
later, the craft broke up in flames over Texas.

The photographer requested that his name not be used and said he
would not release the image to the public until NASA experts had
time to examine it.

Although there are several possible benign explanations for the
image - such as a barely perceptable jiggle of the camera as it
took the time exposure - NASA's zeal to examine the photo
demonstrates the lengths at which the agency is going to tap the
resources of ordinary Americans in solving the puzzle.

Late Tuesday, NASA dispatched former shuttle astronaut Tammy
Jernigan, now a manager at Lawrence Livermore Laboratories, to
the San Francisco home of the astronomer to examine his digital
images and to take the camera itself to Mountain View, where it
was to be transported by a NASA T-38 jet to Houston this
morning.

A Chronicle reporter was present when the astronaut arrived.
First seeing the image on a large computer screen, she had one
word: "Wow."

Jernigan, who is no longer working for NASA, quizzed the
photographer on the aperture of the camera, the direction he
faced and the estimated exposure time - about four to six
seconds on the automatic Nikon 880 camera. It was mounted on a
tripod, and the shutter was triggered manually.

In the critical shot, a glowing purple rope of light corkscrews
down toward the plasma trail, appears to pass behind it, then
cuts sharply toward it from below. As it merges with the plasma
trail, the streak itself brightens for a distance, then fades.

"It certainly appears very anomalous," said Jernigan. "We sure
will be very interested in taking a very hard look at this."

Jernigan flew five shuttle missions herself during the 1990s,
including three on Columbia. On her last flight, the pilot of
the craft was Rick Husband, who was at the controls when
Columbia perished.

"He was one of the finest people I could ever hope to know,"
said Jernigan.

It was an astounding day for the San Francisco photographer, who
said he had not had any success in reaching NASA through its
published telephone hot lines.

He ultimately reached investigators through a connection with a
relative who attends the same church as former astronaut Jack
Lousma, who flew 24 million miles in the Skylab 3 mission in
1973.

Lousma put him in direct touch with Ralph Roe Jr., chief
engineer for the shuttle program at Johnson Space Flight Center
in Houston.

After a series of telephone conversations Tuesday afternoon, the
photographer had a veteran shuttle mission specialist knocking
at his door by dinnertime. Within hours, he was left with a
receipt, and his camera was on its way to Houston.

E-mail Sabin Russell at srussell@sfchronicle.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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 6

               Re: Anyone Have An Agreed Upon Number? - Sandow

From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 11:59:07 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 16:03:10 -0500
Subject: Re: Anyone Have An Agreed Upon Number? - Sandow


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 00:49:31 EST
 >Subject: Re: Anyone Have An Agreed Upon Number?

 >>From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >>To: by way of UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 17:16:38 -0500
 >>Subject: Anyone Have An Agreed Upon Number?

 >>Does anyone involved with abduction research have a generally
 >>agreed upon number of abductions to date? If not absolutely
 >>verified, a conservative estimate?

 >If we look at how many "actual" cases have been reported and
 >investigated I understand the number is less then 1200.

 >A while back, the MUFON abduction project allegedly had around
 >600 'actual' cases.

<snip>

Budd Hopkins has had, I think, more than 600 cases. Dave Jacobs
must have several hundred, and John Mack a couple of hundred as
well. Budd also has letters from likely abductees that he hasn't
been able to follow up.

To these numbers we can add those studied by other researchers -
- John Carpenter, Dick Hall, others. Plus cases that have been
published. Eddie Bullard's 1987 abduction study listed all that
had been published before then. Plus cases in the MUFON project.
Plus cases reported abroad, for example many in the UK. Nick
Pope might be able to estimate a number.

Then you have people with abduction experiences who've seen a
few therapists who don't do abduction research, but are willing
to work with the emotions abductees experience.

Then you have many self-reported abductees, and abduction
support groups, which are said to exist all over the country.
Here we get into dicey territory, because some of these people
might not impress a serious abduction researcher. Not, of
course, that we know for sure what abductions are, or how to
tell who's really an abductee.

Finally we come to the most controversial numbers. Some years
ago a Roper poll surveyed people for indicators of abduction --
  experiences that, if you remember having them, may mean you've
been abducted. If we take that survey and its interpretation
seriously, some 2% (if I remember correctly) of Americans may
have been abducted. I have to repeat that these numbers are
highly controversial. Do the experiences the poll surveyed (like
seeing lights in your bedroom) really indicate abductions? And
even if they do, how many of them does someone need to have
before they become a reliable indicator? A second Roper poll,
some years later, showed lower numbers, further complicating
these results.

Leaving the Roper poll aside, it's fair to say, I think, that a
few thousand abduction cases are known to exist. Surely in the
low thousands. But we can also assume that for each case known,
there are many that aren't known. That's true of UFO sightings;
it ought to be true of abductions as well. I myself have met
several people who have what sound like abduction experiences,
but have never reported them to any UFO or abduction researcher.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 6

                    Re: New Runcorn Video Footage - Hale

From: Roy Hale <roy.hale@ntlworld.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 17:02:15 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 16:05:31 -0500
Subject: Re: New Runcorn Video Footage - Hale


 >From: Eric Morris <bufosc@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 11:10:21 +0000
 >Subject: New Runcorn Video Footage

 >Because of demand for tickets BUFOSC (The British UFO Studies
 >Centre) will be using a bigger hall to accomodate the growing
 >army of enthusiasts coming to see the latest amazing UFO footage
 >to be filmed over the UK in many a year.

 >BUFOSC will be using their video projection machine for the
 >evening to show this extraordinary UFO footage.
 >NO photogpraphic equipment will be allowed into the meeting
 >because of the sensitivity of this tape, we already have
 >received threats not to show it, by menacing telephone calls.We
 >are showing it regardlessly.

 >BUFOSC will not and never be intimidated by these pathetic
 >thinly veiled threats, it makes BUFOSC more determined.

Hi BUFOSC,

As I have had no public response on this list, as regards my
question BUFOSC, and its " extraordinary UFO footage", I will
ask you again.

As BUFOSC has had this footage for some time, what is the
professional opinion on what BUFOSC feels is actually on this
tape?

I hope this will enable other world researchers to ask other
questions, once they have an idea on where BUFOSC stand on this
" extraordinary UFO footage" as we all cannot travel to Runcorn
to view it.

Roy..

Roy Hale is the Owner of The Lost Haven
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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 6

                   Re: New Runcorn Video Footage - Roberts

From: Andy Roberts <aj.roberts@blueyonder.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 17:29:12 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 16:13:42 -0500
Subject: Re: New Runcorn Video Footage - Roberts


 >From: Eric Morris <bufosc@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 11:10:21 +0000
 >Subject: New Runcorn Video Footage

Pilgrims,

Eric wrote:

 >Because of demand for tickets BUFOSC (The British UFO Studies
 >Centre) will be using a bigger hall to accomodate the growing
 >army of enthusiasts coming to see the latest amazing UFO footage
 >to be filmed over the UK in many a year.

 >BUFOSC will be using their video projection machine for the
 >evening to show this extraordinary UFO footage.

 >NO photogpraphic equipment will be allowed into the meeting
 >because of the sensitivity of this tape, we already have
 >received threats not to show it, by menacing telephone calls. We
 >are showing it regardlessly.

Eric trots out these fantasies about being threatened every so
often as a means of attracting attention to himself. The last
time was a few years ago. Strangely, there's never any proof.

 >BUFOSC will not and never be intimidated by these pathetic
 >thinly veiled threats, it makes BUFOSC more determined.

Good for them. It must give Eric a warm glow to know his
work in ufology is so important as to attract threats.

 >As Part 2 of "Rendlesham 2" after January's amazing lecture by
 >Eric Morris, a video will be shown of the crash site of
 >Rendlesham 2, never shown before to the public.

 >This night will be a historic one, Morris is quickly formulating
 >his new book on British Ufology, The cases YOU have never heard
 >about.

'Quickly formulating' - Eric apparently doesn't write - he
'formulates'!

 >BUFOSC Press Release
 >Thursday 6th February 2003 (5 days to go to the 'Smokin Gun'. Forget
 >Colin Powel's 'Smouldering Gun' on Iraq, this is the real McCoy.

Ahh, so a quite probably tatty video is more important that the
possibility of a war in which thousands of people - many no
doubt related to people on this list - will die in agony?

Don't make us laugh Eric.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 6

                       Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Mott

From: Wm. Michael Mott <mottimorph@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 12:28:06 -0600
Fwd Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 16:33:32 -0500
Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Mott


 >From: Amy Hebert <yellowrose129@attbi.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 00:51:04 -0600
 >Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs

 >As for the rest of the gobbley-gook in this thread, just ignore
 >it. We still don't have scientific evidence that these "grids"
 >exist no matter what a few short-sighted individuals may claim.


Still waiting for meaningful responses to any number of
questions, as well as commentary on data provided.

I don't expect to see it, though.

--Mike








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 6

               Re: Anyone Have An Agreed Upon Number? - White

From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 13:30:19 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 16:35:09 -0500
Subject: Re: Anyone Have An Agreed Upon Number? - White


 >From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 04:36:33 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Anyone Have An Agreed Upon Number?

 >>From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >>To: by way of UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 17:16:38 -0500
 >>Subject: Anyone Have An Agreed Upon Number?

 >>Does anyone involved with abduction research have a generally
 >>agreed upon number of abductions to date? If not absolutely
 >>verified, a conservative estimate?

 >About all that anyone can do is to 'guesstimate' the actual
 >number. If you go by the Roper Poll we're talking millions here
 >in the US alone. If you try to extrapolate from the numbers of
 >people that the major abduction researchers have gathered over
 >the last thirty years, you get a number in the thousands.

<snip>

Special thanks to you and Robert Gates for answering my
question.

Does that multi-disciplinary group of professionals in NYC have
any idea when they might have something to tell the public about
their study?


Eleanor White








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 6

                 Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Reason

From: Catherine Reason <CathyM@ukf.net>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 21:17:44 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 16:37:21 -0500
Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Reason


 >From: Brenda Denzler <bdenzler1@email.msn.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 07:20:53 -0500
 >Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

 >OK. I'll come out of 'lurk' mode long enough to ask a question.

Hello Brenda

 >Catherine, can you explain how the tectonic strain theory is a
 >"miracle-invoking" theory? Or the ETH, for that matter? Just
 >curious. I've never thought of either one as particularly
 >oriented toward the miraculous. The evidence may weigh more or
 >less in each one's favor as possible explanations for at least
 >some UFO events, but I have never thought of the evidence for
 >either as being so scanty as to qualify them to be termed
 >"miraculous" explanations.

Just as the investigator effect predicts, by commenting on the
phenomenon I become involved in it :-)

I think of these explanations as "miracle-invoking" because they
appear to depend on highly speculative mechanisms which would
need substantial additions to our scientific knowledge before
they could be validated and understood. The TSH, for example,
would require some sort of mechanism for creating large,
relatively long-lasting light-forms capable of independent
movement high up in the air, and no such mechanism is currently
known to exist. None of the suggested explanations
(piezoelectricity, triboluminescence etc) will work, and some of
the more recent far-fetched suggestions, such as "vorton
plasmas" which invoke fundamentally new particles of nature,
have an air of desperation about them.

Actually, I think an ever bigger problem with the TSH is its ad
hoc nature. It has never actually predicted anything, and yet is
still sufficiently malleable theoretically to explain almost
everything after the fact. The assumption that tectonically
generated light-froms will exhibit the properties of UFOs, for
example, is entirely ad hoc - no-one knows if tectonically
generated light-forms, even if they could exist in the first
place, would really behave in the manner required. Historically,
this has nearly always been a sure sign of a bad theory, and
until someone manages to derive some sort of concrete prediction
from the TSH, and test it (and heaven knows, it's been around
for decades so there should have been plenty of time to do so) I
think it must remain scientifically pretty dubious.

As for the ETH, well that obviously depends on the
multiplication of many separate hypotheses. Just how many can be
shown by the uncertainty surrounding the terms in the Drake
Equation, which I'm sure has been discussed here previously -
  and the Drake Equation by no means exhausts the number of
currently unvalidated assumptions which would be required to
support the ETH. We would need to make all sorts of assumptions
about the capabilities of alien technology, for example, which
could not possibly be tested.

This doesn't necessarily mean I think the ETH is wrong, or even
unlikely - I actually think the ETH (or some version of it) is
highly likely. But this isn't because I think the UFO evidence
points unambiguously in that direction, rather because I think
the Fermi paradox indicates to us that the a priori probability
of extraterrestrial intelligence being resident in our solar
system is actually pretty high. (BTW the same reasoning also
indicates strongly that any such alien presence would probably
have arrived many millions of years ago, probably even before
the emergence of humanity on earth - a fairly simple statistical
calculation.) If extraterrestrial intelligence is present in our
solar system, then UFOs would seem to be the most likely visible
manifestation of it.

Does that help any?

Cathy

[Catherine Reason]








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 6

                Re: NASA Rejects Launch Damage Theory - White

From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 16:36:29 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 16:39:42 -0500
Subject: Re: NASA Rejects Launch Damage Theory - White


 >From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 14:23:13 -0400
 >Subject: Re: NASA Rejects Launch Damage Theory

 >>From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 20:13:38 -0800
 >>Subject: NASA Rejects Launch Damage Theory

 >>More surprising NASA News

 >>http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2731169.stm

<snip>

 >I think it's a little to early to move away from any reasonable
 >explanation to the cause of the wing deterioating and I'm a bit
 >surprised that NASA is doing so so quickly. Since they can't see
 >what happened or what damage occurred with the insulation
 >hitting under the wing why the haste to throw that idea out?

I've heard it said that NASA is in a budget crunch to such an
extent that the Shuttle program has been privatized and penny-
pinched. I wonder if hiding shortcuts could explain the haste?

 >I've seen straws of grass embedded in 2 x 4s during hurricanes.
 >One can imagine the damage even insulation could at Mach one
 >plus.

I heard that the fuel tank insulation broke loose at two minutes
after liftoff. The Challenger disaster occurred at 1:15 after
liftoff, and at that time the announced velocity was 2,900 feet
per second. The fuel tanks and solid boosters are getting
lighter as time passes, and it could be that the airspeed was
closer to mach 4 or even 5 at 2 minutes after liftoff.

If local airflow drove the insulation, which was light ceramic,
not soft foam, at the observed angle somewhere in the 10 - 15
degree incidence range, at twice the speed of the highest
velocity bullets, damage is certainly possible.

 >As for the rarified atmosphere-what happens when a tire [or two]
 >pressurized to 300PSI blows in such a rarified atmosphere in a
 >contained area?

Didn't they say that the wheel well temperature itself was
within limits for as long as the telemetry lasted?


Eleanor White








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 6

                Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? [was: New

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 16:15:06 -0600
Fwd Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 17:41:50 -0500
Subject: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? [was: New


 >From: Andy Roberts <aj.roberts@blueyonder.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 17:03:06 -0000
 >Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 16:59:02 -0600
 >>Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham


 >As noted in an earlier post Don and Jerry, Dick and Cathy
 >and the rest of those who wish to perpetuate, not solve,
 >mystery gave the usual Jerry-jerk reactions.

Not quite, And. We just don't share your breathless enthusiasm
for pretending to certainties that don't exist. Nor, while we
may question your judgment, do we share your habit of trashing
the integrity and motives of someone with whom we happen to
disagree.

 >>Uh, where did you "explain how UFO sightings work and have been
 >>proven to work"? I saw an anecdote, followed by an ex cathedra
 >>pronouncement, and capped with a sneer. Not very impressive, and
 >>certainly not very interesting.

 >And displayed his inability to distinguish between a well
 >documented and investigated case and an anecdote. Makes me worry
 >about the content of all those books he churns out.

What about all those well-documented and -investigated cases
that don't end in solutions or magical misperceptions? Lots of
those, you know. You _are_ aware of them, aren't you? Many were
conducted by individuals with rather more years of investigative
experience than yours, and significantly more formal scientific
training.

 >As I said Jerry, if you can disprove the radical misperception
 >theory of UFOs, or of UFO cases then please do so. Take as long
 >as you like. Get Colin to help with the big words.

Let's see. We get one anecdote, from which you draw a sweeping,
empirically unjustified, and finally absurd conclusion which you
are able to mount no serious argument for or defense of, only
ever more fervent assertion. And then you insist that it's up to
_us_ to disprove it?

 >>My brother's name happens to be Tom. If you find that wildly
 >>hilarious, I feel sorry for you.

 >Feel sorry. It amused me for quite a while.

Unfortunately, I believe you. And since I do, I am forced to
ask the inevitable follow-up question: Just how old _are_ you,
And?

 >Parents with a
 >sense of humour then?

Well, And, they had a fine sense of humor, but it had precisely
nothing to do with the naming of their sons. I was named in
honor of an uncle who was killed in France in the Battle of the
Bulge. He is buried in that country. Lots of laughs there. My
brother - younger than I, thus it's Jerry and Tom, not the
other way around -- was named after another uncle. My parents, I
might add, were teetotalers. (My mother, who is still alive, is
still one.)

 >>You gave us an anecdote, And, and stretched its meaning beyond
 >>anything that could be empirically demonstrated. In other words,
 >>the usual.

 >Not an anecdote. The solution to this particular case was
 >empircally demonstrated. Next time you're in the UK come and
 >stay for a few days and Dave and I will take you to see this
 >'UFO' and the policman who photographed it. That goes for any
 >other listers who happen to be passing through Yorkshire.

Okay, then I'll take you to see credible UFO witnesses whose
sightings have not been solved, even after careful
investigation. Lots of those, And. You can read about them in
all kinds of places. Starting, for example, with the Condon
Report.

 >>For
 >>example, the garden-variety sighting of Venus by Gen. Custer,
 >>which you once magically transformed into a "radical
 >>misperception" even though from the description alone the
 >>stimulus was obvious.

 >Glad you raised this Jerry. It wasn't obvious to Custer and his
 >troops who believed it was a flaming Indian arrow shot to warn
 >others of their presence. It may be obvious in retrospect but at
 >the time they genuinely misperceived a planet as a rapidly
 >moving, flaming, arrow. Which answers Cathy's question elsewhere
 >about the difference between radical and ordinary misperception.
 >The latter is when someone sees something out of context and
 >assumes it's something else - like if you see a hang glider at a
 >distance and wonder what that big bird is etc. The former is
 >when people see things out of context and believe them to be
 >objects for which there is as yet no proof of, ie 'UFO's (and
 >many others things). A sighting is proof of nothing.

Oh, my. Neither, by the way, is a debunked case, Andy Roberts's
fervent claims to the contrary notwithstanding. There is
sometimes a difference between what people see and what they
think they're seeing, which is a wholly different issue from the
red herring you're introducing into the water. The "radical
misperception" myth notwithstanding, Custer -- whatever he
thought he saw -- described Venus pretty accurately. No radical
misperception except, it appears, your own.

 >>And here, after
 >>reading the book you and Dave Clarke wrote on MoD and UFOs, I
 >>had begun to take you seriously, And. Foolish me.

 >So Jerry, would you say you've been a victim of misperception?
 >And if so, was it radical or ordinary?

Radical misperception (RMP) seems to be a concept even you can't
demonstrate as an ordinary and dependable human occurrence, to
be trotted out whenever someone reports something that doesn't
fit your crabbed worldview.

I'd love, incidentally, to see you go on a tear with RMP and,
say, ball-lightning sightings. In no time at all, you'd prove
that the alleged witnesses were RMPing the sun, rubber balls,
red birds, lighted cigarettes, flashlights, aircraft lights,
spots in front of the eyes, red popsicles, and on and on, and
demand that the rest of us prove otherwise. There's a job for
you. If people RMP about UFOs all the time, they must do the
same with other ostensible anomalies such as BL. I look forward
to your book on that subject, and I hope you get a healthy
advance and big sales, so that the rest of us can pretend to
believe you were in it for the money all along.

Meantime, good skeptic that I am, I'll wait for the evidence we
haven't seen yet, beyond your by now well-traveled anecdote
about your serious investigation.

Finally, in answer to your question:

Mine, I'm afraid, was just an ordinary misperception. In
common with the vast majority of misperceptions that give
rise to bogus UFO sightings.

 >And I have to say I thoroughly support Dave C and the term
 >'flying saucers'. We love it. That's what many people say
 >they've seen. It's a great term. I pushed for Out of the Shadows
 >to be called 'Flying Saucer Secrets' but it was vetoed
 >unfortunately. It's a damn sight better than UFOs as no-one has
 >proved they are 'objects' as yet - oh, except of course when
 >they are resolved to be radical misperceptions of known objects.
 >But then of course they are no longer Unidentified.

I rest my case. You have kindly validated what I said in
response to Dave Clarke. Thanks, guy. Those of you who have
followed this dreary thread will recall Dave's disingenuous
defense of the term "flying saucers," while I pointed out -- as
And here demonstrates -- it is in fact a term of derision, and
was always so intended by Dave and sidekook.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 6

             Toward The Miraculous [was: Re: New Documentary On

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 22:09:48 +0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 17:47:28 -0500
Subject: Toward The Miraculous [was: Re: New Documentary On


 >From: Catherine Reason <CathyM@ukf.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 21:17:44 -0000
 >Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

 >>From: Brenda Denzler <bdenzler1@email.msn.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 07:20:53 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

 >>OK. I'll come out of 'lurk' mode long enough to ask a question.

 >Hello Brenda

 >>Catherine, can you explain how the tectonic strain theory is a
 >>"miracle-invoking" theory? Or the ETH, for that matter? Just
 >>curious. I've never thought of either one as particularly
 >>oriented toward the miraculous. The evidence may weigh more or
 >>less in each one's favor as possible explanations for at least
 >>some UFO events, but I have never thought of the evidence for
 >>either as being so scanty as to qualify them to be termed
 >>"miraculous" explanations.

Cathy,

Before I make a few comments below, I want to thank both you and
Brenda for your participation on this List. Both of you are
exemplars of rational debate/discussion, staying focused on
important issues, asking good questions, and making well-
informed comments. Who can ask for anything more?

I think I know why Brenda questioned use of the word
"miraculous" in this context. Her excellent book:

Lure Of The Edge: Scientific Passions, Religious Beliefs, And
The Pursuit Of UFOs

Brenda Denzler, PhD
Religious Studies
Duke University

www.trionica.com/bdenzler/lure.htm

(which I have reviewed for JSE) approaches the subject from the
viewpoint of religious theory or philosophy. I happen to agree
with her question and disagree with your answer. See below.

 >Just as the investigator effect predicts, by commenting on the
 >phenomenon I become involved in it :-)

 >I think of these explanations as "miracle-invoking" because they
 >appear to depend on highly speculative mechanisms which would
 >need substantial additions to our scientific knowledge before
 >they could be validated and understood. The TSH, for example,
 >would require some sort of mechanism for creating large,
 >relatively long-lasting light-forms capable of independent
 >movement high up in the air, and no such mechanism is currently
 >known to exist. None of the suggested explanations
 >(piezoelectricity, triboluminescence etc) will work, and some of
 >the more recent far-fetched suggestions, such as "vorton
 >plasmas" which invoke fundamentally new particles of nature,
 >have an air of desperation about them.

I agree with your views on the TSH, and have often wondered why
anyone takes it seriously at all. As one who has researched and
written extensively (in a data-focused way) about the ETH, and
having formally studied scientific method, I am not aware of
using any "highly speculative mechanisms" in my argumentation.

 >Actually, I think an ever bigger problem with the TSH is its ad
 >hoc nature. It has never actually predicted anything, and yet is
 >still sufficiently malleable theoretically to explain almost
 >everything after the fact. The assumption that tectonically
 >generated light-froms will exhibit the properties of UFOs, for
 >example, is entirely ad hoc - no-one knows if tectonically
 >generated light-forms, even if they could exist in the first
 >place, would really behave in the manner required. Historically,
 >this has nearly always been a sure sign of a bad theory, and
 >until someone manages to derive some sort of concrete prediction
 >from the TSH, and test it (and heaven knows, it's been around
 >for decades so there should have been plenty of time to do so) I
 >think it must remain scientifically pretty dubious.

 >As for the ETH, well that obviously depends on the
 >multiplication of many separate hypotheses. Just how many can be
 >shown by the uncertainty surrounding the terms in the Drake
 >Equation, which I'm sure has been discussed here previously -
 >and the Drake Equation by no means exhausts the number of
 >currently unvalidated assumptions which would be required to
 >support the ETH. We would need to make all sorts of assumptions
 >about the capabilities of alien technology, for example, which
 >could not possibly be tested.

To my way of thinking, it is the Drake Equation - not
scientifically oriented UFO investigators - that makes an
endless series of unwarranted assumptions, but people like Drake
are not burdened with the ridicule and offhand rejection that we
receive so people tend to accept their ideas uncritically.

More importantly, theory does not take precedence over fact. We
are not required to prove that life exists elsewhere within
striking distance of the earth in some manner or other in order
to argue quite logically and reasonably that the ETH probably is
the most likely answer (you acknowledge that it is clearly in
the running). In its essential elements but not entirely (some
of the evidence directly supports the ETH), it is a reductio ad
absurdum argument.

Speaking now of the thoroughly investigated hardcore cases
clearly depicting craft-like objects whose performance is far
beyond ours, what else could they be? There is always a faint
possibility that (a) someone made a fantastic technological
breakthrough long ago and has managed to keep it hidden behind a
UFO facade for decades, (b) Hitler is alive and well in
Antarctica sending flying saucer on missions out of the hole in
the pole, or (c) some malicious extragalactic sadist is teasing
us with holographic images.

Otherwise, I think we are being visited by beings from
elsewhere, be that another planet in space, time travelers, or
other-dimensioners.

 >This doesn't necessarily mean I think the ETH is wrong, or even
 >unlikely - I actually think the ETH (or some version of it) is
 >highly likely. But this isn't because I think the UFO evidence
 >points unambiguously in that direction, rather because I think
 >the Fermi paradox indicates to us that the a priori probability
 >of extraterrestrial intelligence being resident in our solar
 >system is actually pretty high. (BTW the same reasoning also
 >indicates strongly that any such alien presence would probably
 >have arrived many millions of years ago, probably even before
 >the emergence of humanity on earth - a fairly simple statistical
 >calculation.) If extraterrestrial intelligence is present in our
 >solar system, then UFOs would seem to be the most likely visible
 >manifestation of it.

My understanding of the Fermi Paradox is quite the opposite.
Isn't its basic skeptical question, "Where are they?" My answer
to that, of course, is "Right under your noses."

  - 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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 7

                       UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 8 Number 6

From: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 20:46:48 +0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 10:14:33 -0500
Subject: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 8 Number 6


Posted on behalf of Joseph Trainor.

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

       UFO ROUNDUP
Volume 8, Number 6
February 5, 2003
Editor: Joseph Trainor

http://www.ufoinfo.com/roundup/


SPACE SHUTTLE COLUMBIA
DESTROYED ON REENTRY

       "Space shuttle Columbia, a 21st Century cargo ship
carrying a cross-section of America and the first Israeli
astronaut, disintegrated in flames Saturday," February 1,
2003, over eastern Texas.
       "All seven astronauts died.  They never had a
chance.  Astronauts have no way to escape a shuttle as it
glides toward a landing without power at 13,000 miles per
hour (20,000 kilometers per hour)."
       "The crew included three U.S. military officers, one
of the nation's few black astronauts and a woman who
immigrated to America from India.  Six were married.
Among them, the astronauts of shuttle Columbia had 12
children."
       "Astronauts depend upon muscular but fragile
technology.  It let seven of them down on Saturday, but
they knew the risks going in."
       "'I take the risk because I think what we're doing
is really important,' Michael Anderson, 43, Columbia's
payload commander, said before Columbia blasted off from
Cape Canaveral on (Thursday) January 16 (2003).  He was
the son of an Air Force man and grew up on military
bases."
       "'This day has brought terrible news and great
sadness to our country,'" President George W. Bush said,
"'The Columbia is lost.  There are no survivors.  The
crew of the shuttle Columbia did not return safely to
Earth, yet we can pray they are all safely home.  May God
bless the grieving families.'"
       Crew members included Anderson, a USAF lieutenant
colonel from Spokane, Washington (state), who flew on a
shuttle mission to the Russian space station Mir in 1998;
shuttle commander Rick Husband, 45, a USAF colonel from
Amarillo, Texas, an astronaut since 1994, who served
aboard the shuttle Discovery in 1999; mission specialist
David Brown, 46, a U.S. Navy captain who became an
astronaut in 1996; mission specialist Laurel Clark, 41,
of Racine, Wisconsin, who joined the astronaut corps in
1996; shuttle pilot William McCool, 41, of Lubbock,
Texas, a U.S. Navy commander who graduated second in his
1983 class from the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis,
Maryland and became an astronaut in 1996; mission
specialist Kalpana Chawla, 41, who was born in Karnal,
north of New Delhi, India, immigrated to the USA in the
1980s, became an astronaut in 1994 and flew on a shuttle
mission in 1997; and payload specialist Ilan Ramon, 48, a
colonel in the Israeli Air Force, who flew combat
missions in the Yom Kippur War of 1973 and the Lebanon
War of 1982 and who participated in the Israeli attack on
Saddam Hussein's Osirak nuclear power plant in Iraq in
1981.
       Last week's mission was the first space flight for
Brown, Clark, McCool and Ramon.
       Ramon had four children, who live in Tel Aviv.
McCool had three children; Husband had two and Clark had
one.  All of the astronauts were married except Brown.
       "It was the shuttle program's 113th mission and
second major disaster, eerily reminiscent of the (January
28) 1986 explosion of the Challenger during liftoff,
which also killed all seven astronauts aboard."
       "No cause was immediately apparent, but sensors
aboard Columbia reported a sudden spike of intense heat,
an indication that the ship's heat shield had been
breached."
       "The temperature at that point of reentry: 3,000
degrees (Fahrenheit).  The altitude: 207,135 feet, or 39
miles (63 kilometers) above Earth."
       USA "Government officials said nothing indicated
terrorism and the shuttle was well out of range of
missiles when the accident occurred."
       "The president and others vowed that the human space
program would continue after a lengthy investigation."
       "'It's more than a job; this is a passion for us,'
said Ron Dittemore, 52, NASA's shuttle program manager.
'There's going to be a period of mourning in this
community, then we're going to fix this problem, and
we're going to get back to the launch pad.'"
       "The shuttle was only 16 minutes from the landing
strip at the Kennedy Space Center on Cape Canaveral,
Florida when NASA lost communication with it."
       "The last word from Columbia came at 8 a.m."
       "Temperatures rose (suddenly) in the left wheel
well.  A sensor above the left wing captured a 60-degree
increase.  Increased drag on the left wing was sensed,
and the shuttle rolled (to the) right in an effort to
correct it."
       "The final words from aboard Columbia, from
commander Rick Husband, came at about the same time
officials believe the shuttle was breaking apart nearly
210,000 feet (63,000 meters) over Texas."
       "'Columbia, Houston, we see your tire pressure
messages, and we did not copy your last...'"
       "'Roger, buh,' Husband said.  And then...silence."
       "Residents far below reported hearing a loud bang."
       "Cherokee County Sheriff James Campbell was at home
when he and his wife heard the terrible sound."
       "'I said, 'It's probably the shuttle's entry back
into the atmosphere,'' Campbell said.  'She said, 'No,
come look at the vapor trail.'  It was zigzagging down,
and I said, 'Well, something's wrong.''"
       "Late Saturday, recovery crews prepared to begin the
grim, agonizing search for human remains.  And NASA
engineers and managers launched the first phase of a
painstaking search for the accident's cause."
       On Sunday, February 2, 2003, "police, firefighters
and volunteers walked shoulder to shoulder through fields
and woods in east Texas as they searched for the remains
of the seven crewmembers of the shuttle Columbia and for
debris scattered across hundreds of square miles of piney
forests and small towns."
       The primary debris field measures 100 miles (160
kilometers) long and 10 miles (16 kilometers) wide and
stretches from Anderson County, Texas through the city of
Nacogdoches, Texas (population 29,914) southeast to
Vernon Parish, Louisiana.
(Editor's Note:  In the USA's state of Louisiana, a
county is called a parish.)
       "Key parts of the wreckage might not be found for
weeks, said Sue Kennedy, a Nacogdoches County official
responsible for emergency management."
       "Constable Michael Hightower of San Augustine,
Texas, near Nacogdoches, said pieces of Columbia that
fell ranged in size from 'as big as a quarter (USA 25-
cent coin--J.T.) to a pickup (truck).'"
       "Debris also fell in Louisiana--a smoldering bundle
of wires in a front yard in Shreveport (population
200,145) and debris about 80 miles (120 kilometers) to
the east that authorities said 'might possible be a
(landing) parachute.'"  (See the Duluth, Minn. News-
Tribune for February 2, 2003, "'Columbia is lost,'" page
1, and "Clues strewn across Texas," page 35; USA Today
for February 3, 2003, "NASA probes 'thermal problem,'
page 1A; "Seven who reached for the stars," page 16A;
"Minutes into descent, readings signaled problem," page
7A; "Some remains found in unprecedented search," page 3A
and USA Today for February 4, 2003, "NASA's focus: Launch
debris," page 1A; "Investigators seek 'missing link' to
explain shuttle Columbia disaster," page 2A; and "'That
missing link is out there,'" page 4A.)


SPHERICAL UFO VIDEOTAPED
FOLLOWING COLUMBIA

       An amateur astronomer videotaped a strange white
object following the space shuttle Columbia as the
orbiter passed overhead on its final approach into Cape
Canaveral, Florida, a newspaper in Nevada reported.
       According to the Reno, Nev. Gazette-Journal, the
amateur astronomer, a student working at the Fleischmann
Planetarium in Sparks, Nevada (population 66,346), just
east of Reno, observed the Columbia via telescope as the
vehicle flew high over the Spanish Springs Valley and
Shadow Mountain.  He also had a videocamera automatically
recording his observation.
       "'There was a pulse in the trail,' the Reno Gazette-
Journal quoted the witness as saying, 'I noticed a
smaller object trailing the space shuttle a little after
the flash.'"
       The witness described the UFO as "a small spherical
object" following the orbiter at a close distance.
       Eyewitnesses further west, in California, also
reported seeing and photographing strange flashes around
the space shuttle.
       According to the San Francisco Chronicle, "An
astronomer who regularly photographs space shuttles as
they pass over the San Francisco Bay area" in California
"has captured five 'strange and disturbing images of
Columbia as it was re-entering the atmosphere."
       "The Chronicle reports the images 'appear to be
bright electrical phenomena flickering around the track
of the shuttle's passage.'"
       "'They clearly record an electrical discharge like a
lightning bolt flashing past, and I was snapping the
picture almost exactly...when Columbia may have begun
breaking up during re-entry,' the photographer, who asked
not to be identified, told the Chronicle."
       "The photos were snapped with a Nikon 8 camera using
a tripod.  Though the space scientist is not making the
photos public immediately, he invited the newspaper to
view the images on his home computer this weekend."
        "David Perlman, science editor of the Chronicle,
calls the photos 'indeed perplexing.'"
       "'They show a bright scraggly flash of orange light,
tinged with pale purple, and shaped somewhat like a
deformed L,' Perlman notes, 'The flash appears to cross
Columbia's thin contrail, and at the precise point, the
contrail abruptly brightens and appears somewhat thicker
as if it were wobbling.'"
       "A contrail (short for condensation trail--J.T.) is
a white trail of condensed water vapor that sometimes
forms in the wake of an aircraft."
       "'I couldn't see the discharge with my own eyes, but
it showed up clear and bright on the film when I
developed it,' the photographer said, 'But I'm not going
to speculate on what it might be.'"
       "Meanwhile, an Australian astronomer working in
California says he saw what could be tiles falling off
the orbiter as it flew over the Golden State."
       "'After the first flashes, I thought to myself then
I knew the shuttle lost tiles as it re-entered and quite
possibly that was what was going on,' Anthony Beasley
told ABC News."
       "Beasley was north of Los Angeles when he made his
report, indicating that the shuttle possibly began to
disintegrate over California."
       Beasley "witnessed 'a couple of flashes' and 'things
clearly trailing' Columbia."
       "'I think that after this particularly bright event
I started to wonder whether or not things were happening
how they should,' Beasley said."  (See the Reno, Nev.
Gazette-Journal for February 3, 2003, and the San
Francisco Chronicle for February 2, 2003, "Mystery
flashes spotted near shuttle."  Many thanks to Steve
Wilson Sr., Rick Wiles and Loren Coleman for these
newspaper articles.)
(Editor's Comment:  For the "trailing object" to be
visible from the ground, it would have to be a lot larger
than a cluster of breakaway heat-shield tiles.)


ACCIDENT OR SHOOTDOWN?
THE COLUMBIA MYSTERY

       The cause of the catastrophic explosion that turned
the space shuttle Columbia into a bright fireball
streaking across the blue Texas morning sky, as of this
writing, is still unknown.
       In the debate raging on Internet chatrooms, some
feel that the event was "just an accident," while others
believe the shuttle was "shot down" by "Iraqis or
aliens."
       UFO Roundup editor Joseph Trainor talked to a former
Navy man who said he thinks the explosion was caused "by
a cascading series of disasters."
       The source pointed out that the shuttle's liquid
oxygen tank is located just in front of the wheel well
and behind and beneath the Spacelab module.
       The loss of heat tiles caused the temperatures to
soar upward by 60 degrees, he explained.  The heat
increase was concentrated in the wheel well.  The rising
heat caused the air in the shuttle's tires to expand.
The tires burst.  Because this took place in the very
thin high atmosphere (39 miles or 63 kilometers in
altitude), the explosive force radiated outward.  "Up
there it would have a lot more kick than it would at sea
level."
       The force of the tires' rupture damaged the area
around the wheel well, including the liquid oxygen tank.
Oxygen began leaking and, as it made contact with the
3,000-degree "friction aura" around the shuttle, it
ignited.  This made the oxygen tank explode, creating the
catastrophic blast that destroyed the Columbia.
       "This is what happens when you have a (tire) blowout
at 210,000 feet," he added.
       When it was destroyed, Columbia was traveling at an
airspeed of Mach 18.1, or about 12 times faster than a
speeding bullet.  It was impossible for any aircraft or
missile to get a "target acquisition lock" on the
speeding orbiter, let alone catch up with or intercept
it.
       At least, it could not have been targeted or
intercepted by any known Earth-based technology.  Which
leads us to "the unusual suspects."
       Aliens - The unusual flashes reported in California
and Nevada are suggestive of extraterrestrial technology.
But it is not understood why any alien race visiting
Earth would deliberately destroy an unarmed cargo
spaceship.
       Aliens of Zarzi, Iraq - Persistent rumor has it that
a UFO crashed or landed in Iraq in 1998, and the aliens
were given refuge by Saddam Hussein, at a place called
Qalaat-e-Julundi in the Little Zab River valley,
southeast of Irbil.  Some theorize that these aliens
ambushed the Columbia and destroyed it as perhaps a favor
to their Iraqi benefactor or as a symbolic "black eye" to
American technological prestige.
       Saddam Hussein - A variant of the above theory has
Saddam successfully "back-engineering" the crashed saucer
and building one or more of his own.  This saucer, flown
by Iraqis, carried out the mission, which gave "So Damn
Insane" a shot at damaging both the USA and Israel at the
same time.
(Editor's Comment:  Has anyone else noticed the macabre
symbolism of Col. Ilan Ramon, Israel's first astronaut,
going down in flames over Palestine, Texas?)
       Shambhala - The UFO, called a vimana in the ancient
Hindu texts of Kalpana Chawla's birthplace, left the
hidden underground city of Shambhala in Afghanistan and
attacked the Columbia as a favor to Osama Bin Laden, who
reportedly took refuge there with his son-in-law,
Mohammed Mullah Omar, in December 2001.
(Editor's Comment:  I don't know if I buy this one.  The
Sages of Shambhala are above politics.  They spend all
their time in meditation and pondering the next turn of
the Cosmic Wheel.  But, then again, the Sages aren't the
only people who live in Shambhala.  Maybe Osama does have
some friends there.)
       Saucer Nazis - Whether they came from some secret
colony in Antarctica or an Aldebarani armada in deep
space, their motive for the attack was obvious--Get Ilan
Ramon!  The Israeli astronaut's mother and grandmother
survived the Nazi Vernichtungenslager (German for
destruction camp) at Auschwitz, and his father and
grandfather both fought the Arabs in the 1948 Middle East
war.  That would make it a "prestige assassination," sort
of like the Luftwaffe's attack on the civilian airliner
carrying British actor Leslie Howard in 1943.
       Meanwhile, the Columbia disaster has become the
hottest topic since the loss of TWA Flight 800 over six
years ago.


MORE UFO SIGHTINGS
REPORTED IN UK

       On Tuesday, January 21, 2003, at 12:37 a.m., Bob W.
noticed a UFO approaching his home from the west in
Shrewsbury, England, UK.  He reported, "I was by myself
looking at the clouds toward the south.  It was a
triangular-shaped object, and it flew at a high rate of
speed to the north of me.  The hull was (coloured) a
black finish and it then headed east.  I could make out
two engine things (nacelles--J.T.).  There were a million
bloody lights on the thing.  The strange thing is that it
made no sound at all.  It was larger than any small (jet)
fighter craft but smaller than an airliner."  (Email Form
Report)
       Elsewhere in UK, "a UFO expert reckons his neighbour
has vital new evidence for the existence of aliens."
       "Author Timothy Good, 60, believes a mysterious
circular object moving across the sky spotted by
neighbour Chris Taylor, could be a genuine and important
sighting."
       "Postman Mr. Taylor, 44, saw the object from his
bedroom in The Avenue, Beckenham," a suburb of London.
"He said, 'I looked out of the window and saw this thing,
like a light moving very quickly, going against the usual
direction of air traffic.  It was going up too fast to be
a hot-air balloon and seemed very high up.  I couldn't
say what it was.'"
       "'I've never seen anything like it in my life.  I've
seen unusual things but nothing like that.'"
       "Mr. Good, who claims to have seen a UFO above
Orpington back in 1980, is a world-reknowned expert on
UFOs."
       "He said, 'It sounds like this could be a genuine
sighting, and I was very interested in what Mr. Taylor
said.'"  (See the newspaper This Is London for January
30, 2003, "Beckenham man claims proof of UFOs.")


OVAL-SHAPED GOLDEN UFO
SIGHTED IN AUSTRALIA

       "Local people have reported strange objects in the
sky above Dubbo," in Australia's state of New South
Wales, "recently, prompting an appeal from the
Independent Network of UFO Researchers (INUFOR) for
anyone with similar sightings to come forward."
       "On Tuesday, January 14 (2003), about 8 p.m., a
family on a property between Dubbo and Parkes saw
something in the evening sky they couldn't explain,
according to INUFOR coordinator Moira McGhee."
       "'It was one report but several members of the same
family witnessed it,' she said, 'They saw an oval-shaped
ball in the sky, glowing gold in colour.  The object was
roughly the size of a large plane but had no flashing
lights.  It was very bright and travelled east to west
across the northern sky.'"
       "'The man did not embellish the story, or make it
fanciful and entertaining,' she said, 'He was very
straight in what he said, and he was reluctant to come
forward.'"
       "It is not the first report of a strange object in
the central western sky, with Ms. McGhee recounting a
'spate' of recent sightings about six years ago."
       "'A Queensland couple was travelling through Dubbo
on the Newell Highway, on their way home from a holiday
(vacation in the USA--J.T.) in Victoria,' she said."
       "'They were travelling in a coach (bus in the USA--
J.T.) following behind a truck, and they rested in a
front seat, in earshot of the UHF radio.'"
       "'The truck driver said, 'Can you see that, mate?'
And the bus driver replied, 'I sure can!'  And the couple
looked up to see a giant glowing disc in the sky, much
larger than the shops it was passing over."
       Parkes, N.S.W. is about 150 kilometers (90 miles)
south of Dubbo and about 320 kilometers (200 miles) west
of Sydney.  (See the Daily Liberal for January 29, 2003,
"Residents reporting strange sightings."  Merci beaucoup
a Robert Fischer pour cette article de journal.)


LUMINOUS UFOs HOVER
WAIHI, NEW ZEALAND

       On Tuesday, January 28, 2003, at 10:10 p.m., S.L.
was at his home in Waihi, North Island, New Zealand when
he spotted "stationary light spheres of bright white
colour shining in the west, moved from west to east, then
made a sudden sharp turn to the south, gaining altitude
and speed and then disappearing."
       "It was a clear, star-filled night," he reported, "I
noticed a bright sphere in the west rising from the
horizon.  I thought it was a very bright star, but it
suddenly started moving east, gaining altitude and speed.
It sharply turned south, still gaining altitude.  As it
gained altitude, it rapidly faded from sight."
       "When first spotted, it was approximately the height
(altitude) of a light aircraft.  But when it disappeared
from sight, its altitude must have been measured in
miles." (Email Form Report)


BURNT "SAUCER CIRCLE"
DISCOVERED IN ARGENTINA

       On Sunday, January 26, 2003, residents of San Andres
de Giles, in Argentina's Buenos Aires province,
discovered "a large circle measuring some 7 meters (23
feet) in diameter, with burned grass and a talc-like ash
at its center, on a soybean field south of a cattle
ranch."
       "Juan Carlos Ferreto was startled upon seeing the
perfect circle.  All around him, the soybean plants were
very green, having a height of 40 centimeters (25 inches)
overall, except for the 7-meter section found."
       "This event was 'reminiscent of others which
occurred in the same spot on September 4, 1981, when
another ash-filled circle was discovered.  Juan Carlos
Mendizabal recalled those events, remembering that, at
the time, a large Australian water tank had been drained
of water, and the electrical system (fuses, wires and
windings--S.C.) had been completely melted."
       The 1981 "saucer circle" case was never solved.
(Muchas gracias a Scott Corrales y Guillermo Gimenez para
eso informe.)


UFO FLOTILLA SEEN OVER
MEXICO'S YUCATAN

       "On Friday, January 17, 2003, Maria Barrera, 42,
saw" a flotilla of silvery UFOs "from the port of
Progreso," in Mexico's Yucatan state, 30 kilometers (18
miles) north of Merida."
       Sra. Barrera saw the objects "over the bridge that
crosses the swamp leading to the harbor area--40 glowing
metallic spheres, presenting a rising and descending
motion, seemingly unaffected by the prevailing wind.
This discounts the possibility that they were balloons or
flocks of birds."
       "After a brief time period, the spheres disappeared
toward the horizon," heading north into the Gulf of
Mexico.  "Skies were clear," she added, "This is not the
first time this event has happened."
       "She said that last year (2002), while the
(highway's) median strip was being expanded in the same
location, both she and the construction company's workers
saw more than 80 spheres executing a variety of maneuvers
over the same site."
(Muchas gracias a Scott Corrales, David Triay Lucatero y
el Centro de Analisis de Fenomenos Espaciales A.C. (CAFE)
para eso informe.)


       That's it for this time.  We'll be back next week
with more UFO, Fortean and paranormal news from around
the planet Earth, brought to you by "the paper that goes
home--UFO Roundup."  See you then.

UFO ROUNDUP: Copyright 2003 by Masinaigan Productions,
all rights reserved.  Readers may post news items from
UFO Roundup on their websites or in news groups provided
that they credit the newsletter and its editor by name
and list the date of issue in which the item first
appeared.

E-Mail Reports to: Joseph Trainor <Masinaigan@aol.com>
or use the Sighting Report Form at:

http://www.ufoinfo.com/forms/form_sighting.htm

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Website comments: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>

UFOINFO: http://www.ufoinfo.com

Official Archives of UFO Roundup, AUFORN Australian
UFO Reports and Experiences, UFO + PSI Magazine, plus
archives of Filer's Files, Oz Files, UFO News UK and
UFO Sightings Italia.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
UFO Roundup is only sent to subscribers.
If you wish to unsubscribe or feel you have received
the bulletin in error, please write to:

   <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>

With the subject: Unsubscribe UFO Roundup.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 7

               EW: Shuttle Sparks High-Altitude Electrophysics

From: Kurt Jonach - The Electric Warrior
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 17:37:03 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 10:24:49 -0500
Subject: EW: Shuttle Sparks High-Altitude Electrophysics


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

The Electric Warrior : Web Log February 6, 2003
http://www.electricwarrior.com/

--------------------------------------------------
 >> SHUTTLE SPARKS HIGH-ALTITUDE ELECTROPHYSICS
space exploration

photo: Red Sprite
http://www.electricwarrior.com/img/RedSprite.jpg

(The Electric Warrior) - An unusual purple lightning bolt that
can be seen in a photograph of Shuttle Columbia has sparked
discussion about rare forms high-altitude lightning. Strange
flashes of colored lightning with names like Red Sprites and
Blue Jets are a recent scientific discovery that continue to
intrigue scientists. One peculiar thing about the phenomenon is
that the discharge travels away from Earth, up from a stormy
cloud bank toward the ionosphere.

A purple corkscrew lightning bolt can reportedly be seen in a
photograph taken by a Bay Area shuttle buff on the morning of
the Columbia accident. NASA experts are examining digital
photographs which await public release by the photographer, who
at this time remains anonymous.

An expert in high-atmospheric physics at Los Alamos National
Laboratories in New Mexico says it is not likely that the
electrical phenomenon has anything to do with the Columbia
accident, but that it needs to be studied. "I'm highly skeptical
they could have had anything to do with Columbia's demise," he
told the San Francisco Chronicle. "But somebody needs to see how
they interact with spacecraft."

--------------------------------------------------
RELATED RESOURCES

<p>
06-Feb-03
West Coast footage may hold clues to tragedy
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/02/06/MN22145.DTL

SAN FRANCISCO (Chronicle) - The images could turn out to be the
result of a subtle jiggle of the camera or might depict some
rare electrical phenomenon in the zone known as the ionosphere,
more than 40 miles above Earth...Should the photograph prove
significant, it would open the inquiry into a strange world of
high-altitude electro-physics. The field studies a place in the
skies once described by physicists as the "ignorasphere,"
because so little is know about it. It is populated by ghostly
electromagnetic effects that the same wags named "blue jets,
elves and sprites."

--------------------------------------------------
THE ELECTRIC WARRIOR
February 6, 2003
Silicon Valley, CA
http://www.electricwarrior.com

Graphics & Gonzo

--------------------------------------------------
Photo courtesy of NASA

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

http://www.electricwarrior.com

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

eWarrior@electricwarrior.com








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 7

                   Re: Toward The Miraculous [was: Re: New

From: Brenda Denzler <bdenzler1@email.msn.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 20:57:28 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 10:29:23 -0500
Subject: Re: Toward The Miraculous [was: Re: New


 >From: Catherine Reason <CathyM@ukf.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 21:17:44 -0000
 >Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

 >>From: Brenda Denzler <bdenzler1@email.msn.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 07:20:53 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

 >>OK. I'll come out of 'lurk' mode long enough to ask a question.

 >>Catherine, can you explain how the tectonic strain theory is a
 >>"miracle-invoking" theory? Or the ETH, for that matter? Just
 >>curious. I've never thought of either one as particularly
 >>oriented toward the miraculous. The evidence may weigh more or
 >>less in each one's favor as possible explanations for at least
 >>some UFO events, but I have never thought of the evidence for
 >>either as being so scanty as to qualify them to be termed
 >>"miraculous" explanations.

 >Just as the investigator effect predicts, by commenting on the
 >phenomenon I become involved in it :-)

 >I think of these explanations as "miracle-invoking" because they
 >appear to depend on highly speculative mechanisms which would
 >need substantial additions to our scientific knowledge before
 >they could be validated and understood. The TSH, for example,
 >would require some sort of mechanism for creating large,
 >relatively long-lasting light-forms capable of independent
 >movement high up in the air, and no such mechanism is currently
 >known to exist. None of the suggested explanations
 >(piezoelectricity, triboluminescence etc) will work, and some of
 >the more recent far-fetched suggestions, such as "vorton
 >plasmas" which invoke fundamentally new particles of nature,
 >have an air of desperation about them.

<snip>

 >Does that help any?


Sure thing. Thanks for explaining. It's not quite the definition of
"miracle" that I'm most familiar with, but it works for me.


Brenda







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 7

               Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 22:03:21 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 10:34:17 -0500
Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Ledger


 >From: Andy Roberts <aj.roberts@blueyonder.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 17:03:06 -0000
 >Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>To:
 >><ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 16:59:02 -0600
 >>Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

 >Pilgrims,

 >As noted in an earlier post Don and Jerry, Dick and Cathy and
 >the rest of those who wish to perpetuate, not solve, mystery
 >gave the usual Jerry-jerk reactions.

 >I'm happy to comment on a few whilst my tea cooks.

 >And then Don wrote:

 >>"Out of the Shadows" by David Clarke and Andy Roberts

 >No money in it old boy, we just write for the fun of it. I
 >can assure you that our research costs far outsrip our income
 >from writing anything. The money merely keeps things going -
 >which is all money is fit for.

 >>BTW - I see Amazon UK has your book partnered up with 'You
 >>Can't Tell the People' by Georgina Bruni. You guys friends
 >>now?

 >Yes, we thought that amusing too. I believe Amazon have
 >organised this deal as an antidote for those foolish to buy
 >'You Can't Tell The People'.

 >I'll ignore the rest of the bleatings as Stanton's was tripe
 >- lots of scientists quote Ted Philips' work don't they Stan?
 >And I'm afraid Don needs to do some reading if he either
 >believes Ley Lines exist (read Devereux on this) or in fact
 >were confined to the South of England.

 >And I have to say I thoroughly support Dave C and the term
 >'flying saucers'. We love it. That's what many people say
 >they've seen. It's a great term. I pushed for Out of the
 >Shadows to be called 'Flying Saucer Secrets' but it was
 >vetoed unfortunately. It's a damn sight better than UFOs as
 >no-one has proved they are 'objects' as yet - oh, except of
 >course when they are resolved to be radical misperceptions of
 >known objects. But then of course they are no longer
 >Unidentified.

 >Anyway, keep up the good work. As long as you lot are
 >replying to Colin and I you aren't out in the real world
 >annoying people!


Hi Andy,

Still don't know what Ley lines are and don't care. I'd thought
they were old trails or pathways used by Celts or Saxons or
whoever or whatever.

However you could have just said "yes" several emails ago when I
posited that you two had written the Fortean piece to ridicule
UFO researchers instead of going through all of this. Now that
you have admitted as much, I can tune you out of the serious
side of the research community and just class you as a bit of an
odd soul and a debunker and not to be taken seriously. Back to
my Air Force docs.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 7

                      Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 23:28:09 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 11:13:40 -0500
Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Gates


 >From: Amy Hebert <yellowrose129@attbi.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 00:51:04 -0600
 >Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs

 >>From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 14:24:41 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs

 ><snip>

 >>Hi Amy and all,

 >>I thought Ley Lines were those ancient pathways meandering
 >>trough the southern portions of England and Wales. Am I thinking
 >>of something else?

<snip>

 >Anyone claiming scientific data which verifies the physical
 >existence of this "electromagnetic grid" and "ley lines" related
 >to said grid needs to produce such data or stop giving UFOlogy
 >yet another black eye.

 >As for the rest of the gobbley-gook in this thread, just ignore
 >it. We still don't have scientific evidence that these "grids"
 >exist no matter what a few short-sighted individuals may claim.

Hi Amy,

For whatever its worth over the years I have never seen anything
about the ley lines that was significant without wading through
numbers of new age stories and story tellers. Thats not to say
it doesn't exist, just when I looked at this subject I didn't
find anything useful.

Laying it on the line further (pun intended) one always wondered
(after you read some of the discourses on the ley lines) that if
you somehow hook yourself up to one of these lines, you will
suddenly get rich, beautiful, and all the wrinkles will
instantly fall away from your body..... :)

Hmm, wonder if there is some kind of corelation between
Sasquatch sightings and ley lines......  :)


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 7

                 Re: More On Wrong Roswell Dig Site - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 23:32:17 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 11:15:21 -0500
Subject: Re: More On Wrong Roswell Dig Site - Gates


 >From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 12:24:10 EST
 >Subject: Re: More On Wrong Roswell Dig Site

<snip>

 >I think here might be the most important point. The exact
 >dimensions of the field aren't all that important, especially
 >with a discrepancy that is so small, but the orientation of the
 >gouge is what we really need to know and that was oriented NW to
 >SE or SE to NW depending on your point of view.

I was thinking after watching the space shuttle tragedy unfold
that the debris field was 100 or so miles by 10 miles wide
and breakup happened at 207,000 feet.

Would there be any way to make any educated guess, based upon
the estimated measurements of the Roswell debris field to
speculate a guess on what altitude the object was?

Also begs the speculation as to what caused the gouge
mark..perhaps the craft hitting the ground, breaking up, then
bouncing off to another location.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 7

               Re: Anyone Have An Agreed Upon Number? - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 23:46:24 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 12:06:27 -0500
Subject: Re: Anyone Have An Agreed Upon Number? - Gates


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 00:49:31 EST
 >Subject: Re: Anyone Have An Agreed Upon Number?

 >>From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >>To: by way of UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 17:16:38 -0500
 >>Subject: Anyone Have An Agreed Upon Number?


 >>Hi -

 >>Does anyone involved with abduction research have a generally
 >>agreed upon number of abductions to date? If not absolutely
 >>verified, a conservative estimate?

 >Hi Eleanor,

 >If we look at how many "actual" cases have been reported and
 >investigated I understand the number is less then 1200.

 >A while back, the MUFON abduction project allegedly had around
 >600 'actual' cases.


Eleanor,

Slight numbers revisions here based upon email I looked up.

Supposedly the MUFON abduction transcript was around 215 actual
names/warm bodys. Plus they received a bundle more from 20-50
abduction researchers. Apparently the transcripts (could have
been 4 transcripts from the same person) totaled around 900 or
there abouts. So the 600 number is probably close at least when
I received the email from people that worked with it.

John Carpenters case file was in the neighborhood of 140, and as
mentioned earlier the actual number from some of these "main
stream abduction researchers" may be 20-40 cases per
researcher...which alot supposedly were included in the MUFON
project.

 From what I have reviewed, I suspect that 1200 or less probably
represent the "actual" numbers as opposed to estimated,
projected, guessed upon numbers based upon people who wouldn't
report it 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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 7

               Re: NASA Rejects Launch Damage Theory - Stuart

From: Chaz Stuart <Daydisk2@webtv.net>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 23:47:45 -0500 (EST)
Fwd Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 12:10:44 -0500
Subject: Re: NASA Rejects Launch Damage Theory - Stuart


 >From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 16:36:29 -0500
 >Subject: Re: NASA Rejects Launch Damage Theory

 >>From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 14:23:13 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: NASA Rejects Launch Damage Theory



Re the insulation foam damage theory:

I heard today that NASA tested it in the lab using twice the
weight of the insulation and twice the air speed and still no
serious damage resulted. I don't know if this was tested by
computer or actual foam and tiles.

Remember though that the velocity of the rocket is not the
velocity with which the foam hit the wing because the foam is
moving forward at the same speed as the wing until it breaks
loose and is slowed by air resistance and gravity. The
insulation being light would stop moving forward much quicker
than, say a bolt, but I don't think even it would come to a
complete stop in a fraction of a second. Am I wrong about this?


--Chaz







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 7

             Re: CI: 'Martian Genesis' & 'The Atlantis Enigma'-

From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 12:32:23 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 12:19:42 -0500
Subject: Re: CI: 'Martian Genesis' & 'The Atlantis Enigma'-


 >From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 05:49:35 -0500
 >Subject: Re: CI: 'Martian Genesis' & 'The Atlantis Enigma'

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 18:56:58 -0600
 >>Subject: Re: CI: 'Martian Genesis' & 'The Atlantis Enigma'

 >>>From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 17:06:11 -0500
 >>>Subject: Re: CI: 'Martian Genesis' & 'The Atlantis Enigma'


<snip>

 >>Lemuria was theorized by 19th-Century British biologist Philip
 >>L. Schattler, who thought of it as an Indian Ocean land bridge
 >>connecting Madagascar and extreme southern India. In the days
 >>before continental drift had been hypothesized and then
 >>validated, he sought to explain why two widely separated
 >>locations shared many of the same flora and fauna. Occultists
 >>and mystics soon picked up on this modest notion and transformed
 >>Lemuria (also known as Mu) into the Atlantis of the Pacific,
 >>holding a vast supercivilization.

 >Hi Jerry,

 >Thanks for the info.

 >You wrote:

 >>The most influential work is Helene Petrovna Blavatsky's The
 >>Secret Doctrine (1889),

 >Back in the 70's I plowed through all four of Blavatsky's tomes.
 >Secret Doctrine and Cosmogenisis. Keerist! It took months to get
 >through it all. I kept a Latin to English dictionary at my side
 >the whole time. Her work is, a la Victorian style writing,
 >verbose and littered with phrases and axioms that she shares
 >with her readership in Latin only. Funny, she 'assumed' a
 >knowledge of Latin in her readers. Anyway, it was in
 >Cosmogenesis that she expounded about Lemuria in what I assume
 >was a 'channelled' telling of human history and development.

 >For those who aren't familiar with Blavatsky, she was a well
 >known medium and the founder of the Theosophical Society. Her
 >'philosophy' was later adopted and bastardized by the Nazi's in
 >order to bolster/justify their Aryan superman crapolla. It is
 >now well known that certain high ranking Nazi officials were
 >mystics and actively engaged in securing historical religious
 >artifacts of great significance and other 'objects of power.'
 >Blavatsky's work played a big role in instigating all of that
 >activity.

 >I was just curious why the 'New-Agers,' who are collectively
 >enraptured with tales of Atlantis, have ignored tales of
 >Lemuria. Just wondering is all.

 >Back to UFOs. ;)

 >Warm regards,

 >John


Hello John:

Just two thoughts before we get back on track.

1) Maybe the new-agers simply never heard about Lemuria.

2) At the other end of the scale, I had a similar experience
with a book of poems I had in my teens, some anthology.

One poem went on for some stanzas, and the last line, presumably
the punch line, was entirely in Greek!

Yes, greek letters (the typesetters must have been annoyed) so I
couldn't even tell if the last word(s) rhymed or not.

I suspect that was an affectation; the author as much as saying
"Look how much more literate I am that you are." Sound familiar?

I'm as Lemuria-ignorant as the next guy. It struck me as new-
agey too, so I didn't pursue it.

In Blatavsky's case, I suggest a stock gimmick to further
befuddle the innocent. Pseudo-scientists do something similar
with terminology and equations that don't apply.


Best wishes

- Larry








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 7

                 Japanese Observatories Swamped By UFO Calls

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@privat.dk>
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 08:04:00 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 12:23:45 -0500
Subject: Japanese Observatories Swamped By UFO Calls


Source: Mainichi Daily News - Japan

http://mdn.mainichi.co.jp/news/20030207p2a00m0fp003000c.html

Go to the page for photo!

Stig

***

Mainichi Shimbun, Feb. 7, 2003

Great balls of fire, is that a UFO?

**

Observatories throughout western Japan were swamped overnight
with calls from people claiming to have spotted a UFO, the
Mainichi learned Friday.

Dozens witnessed the phenomenon at around 8:30 p.m. Thursday
night, and though what they saw may have shook their nerves,
there was little need for them to rattle their brains as it
appears to have been great balls of fire caused by a falling
meteor or comet.

Moving from west to east across the sky, the initial fireball
split into three before disappearing.

"It was white at first and then turned yellow. It was like
watching the headlights of a truck from a long distance. I
thought it must have been a meteor, but I was shocked as I'd
never experienced anything like this before," said Yoshitaka
Hazenoki, a member of the board of education in the Wakayama
Prefecture city of Arita.

Shinya Narusawa of the Nishi Harima Observatory in Hyogo
Prefecture's Sayo told of receiving many reports about the
phenomenon.

"We've received information of sightings in Tanegashima
(Nagasaki Prefecture)," he said. "For the moment, we think it
was a meteor that dropped into the Pacific Ocean."

Observatories around Fukuoka also reported seeing the flaming
balls of fire streaming through the sky. Fukuoka Observatory
officials said the fireballs were either a meteor or comet.

Reports from Kitakyushu of a bright red light with a tail
traveling across the sky in an easterly direction over
Kitakyushu were also forwarded to the Mainichi.

**

C. 2003 The Mainichi Newspapers Co.

Under the copyright law of Japan, use of all materials on this
website, except for personal and noncommercial purposes, is
prohibited without the express written permission of the
Mainichi Newspapers Co. The copyright of the materials belongs
to the Mainichi Newspapers Co. unless stated otherwise.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 7

                      Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 03:07:26 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 12:26:41 -0500
Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Ledger


 >From: Amy Hebert <yellowrose129@attbi.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 00:51:04 -0600
 >Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs

 >>From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>To: "UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 14:24:41 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs

 ><snip>

 >>I thought Ley Lines were those ancient pathways meandering
 >>trough the southern portions of England and Wales. Am I thinking
 >>of something else?

 >You are correct.

 >According to the "Skeptic's Dictionary" at:

 >http://skepdic.com/leylines.html

 >which happened to be the first web site that came up when I did
a Google search and my first time to visit the site:

 >"Ley lines are alleged alignments of ancient sites or holy
 >places, such as stone circles, standing stones, cairns, and
 >churches. Interest in ley lines began with the publication in
 >1922 of Early British Trackways by Alfred Watkins (1855-1935), a
 >self-taught amateur archaeologist and antiquarian. Based upon
 >the fact that on a map of Blackwardine, near Leominster,
 >England, he could link a number of ancient landmarks by a series
 >of straight lines, he became convinced that he had discovered an
 >ancient trade route. Interest in these alleged trade routes as
 >sources of mystical energy has become very popular among New
 >Agers in Great Britain.

 >Anyone claiming scientific data which verifies the physical
 >existence of this "electromagnetic grid" and "ley lines" related
 >to said grid needs to produce such data or stop giving UFOlogy
 >yet another black eye.

 >As for the rest of the gobbley-gook in this thread, just ignore
 >it. We still don't have scientific evidence that these "grids"
 >exist no matter what a few short-sighted individuals may claim.



Hi Amy,

Thanks for the clarification. It was the information in the
first paragraph that was the subject of my brief intervention on
this thread-despite inferences by another to the contrary. I
have no real interest in the subject.

As for any such lines being of interest to UFOs, I think they
probably go where ever they please - lines or not:)

Best,

Don









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 7

              Air Force Imagery Confirms Columbia Wing Damaged

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 04:23:02 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 12:35:08 -0500
Subject: Air Force Imagery Confirms Columbia Wing Damaged


This is interesting. Not only the details but the ability of the
Mil-sats to keep an eye on the shuttles when they are coming
back in from LEO. [Low Earth Orbit]

------

Source: Spaceflightnow.Com

http://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts107/030207avweek/

Air Force Imagery Confirms Columbia Wing Damaged

High-resolution images taken from a ground-based Air Force
tracking camera in southwestern U.S. show serious structural
damage to the inboard leading edge of Columbia's left wing, as
the crippled orbiter flew overhead about 60 seconds before the
vehicle broke up over Texas killing the seven astronauts on
board February 1.

http://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts107/030207avweek/

-----

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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 7

                        Secret Shuttle Device Sought

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 12:37:20 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 12:37:20 -0500
Subject: Secret Shuttle Device Sought

http://www.torontostar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?GXHC_gx_session_id_=f5e8b6938
8327d94&pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1035777547235&call_p
ageid=968332188854&col=968350060724

Feb. 7, 2003. 05:49 AM

Secret Shuttle Device Sought

REUTERS

CAPE CANAVERAL, FLA.--Hundreds of searchers combed an area in
east Texas yesterday for a top-secret object from the shuttle
Columbia. They searched block by block and used machetes to hack
their way through thick woods that surround the tiny town of
Bronson, near the Louisiana border.

They were given a picture of a faceplate from the device, which
said "Secret Government Property" in white letters on a black
background. Texas state troopers stood guard and told
photographers to keep their distance, saying they would be asked
to leave the area if searchers found something they did not want
photographed.

The Houston Chronicle reported yesterday the object was a
communications device that handled encrypted messages between
the shuttle and ground. It said the device was in a top-secret
government "telecommunications security" category.

-----

Hmmm..... The "Houston, we have a bogey..." box?

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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 7

                Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Friedman

From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys@rogers.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 08:07:25 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 12:41:18 -0500
Subject: Re:  New Documentary On Rendlesham - Friedman


 >From: Andy Roberts <aj.roberts@blueyonder.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 17:03:06 -0000
 >Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 16:59:02 -0600
 >>Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

 >Pilgrims,

<snip>

 >I'll ignore the rest of the bleatings as Stanton's was tripe -
 >lots of scientists quote Ted Philips' work don't they Stan?

How convenient to ignore the comments about the many ways that
chemists and physicists can get involved.

Certainly some scientists who have become familiar with
Phillips' work, do refer to it. But what kind of test is that
Andy?

Remember, as you have just demonstrated, that rule number one
for debunkers is "What the public doesn't know, we won't tell
them." Because 13 anti-UFO books don't even mention BLue Book
Special Report 14, even though they were all aware of it,
doesn't mean it isn't important work.

If scientists and journalists who speak out so strongly against
UFOs would do their homework instead of displaying their
ignorance, we would all be better off.

But then, rule number 4 for debunkers is "Do your research by
proclamation, investigation is too much trouble".


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 7

                             UFO Politik Deja Vu

From: Larry W. Bryant <overtci@cavtel.net>
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 19:37:14 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 12:53:02 -0500
Subject: UFO Politik Deja Vu


UFOpolitik Deja Vu

By

Larry W. Bryant


[LWB Note: Those of you who like to collect form-letter
responses from the powers-that-be might want to put the
following one into your current file.]

-----

FROM: U. S. National Security Agency
       Fort George G. Meade, MD 20755-6000

TO:  Larry W. Bryant

FOIA Case No. 42436

DATE: January 22, 2003

Dear Mr. Bryant:

This responds to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request
submitted via the Internet on 26 December 2002, which was
received by this office on 7 January 2003 for all NSA-generated
and NSA-received records pertaining to a special briefing
provided by NSA personnel to President Jimmy Carter on the
reality of some UFO's as alien spacecraft. For the purpose of
fee assessment, you have been placed into the "all other"
category for this request. As such, you are allowed 2 hours of
search and the duplication of 100 pages at no cost. Since
processing fees were minimal, no fees were assessed, and your
request for a fee waiver was not addressed. Your request has
been assigned Case Number 42436. Please refer to this case
number when corresponding with this office concerning your
request.

Regarding your request for information pertaining to a briefing
provided by NSA to President Jimmy Carter on the reality of some
UFO's as alien spacecraft, a thorough search of our files was
conducted, but no records responsive to your request were
located. We do however have two (2) documents out on the
Internet that deal with the Roswell New Mexico incident of 1947.
These documents can be found on the website listed below under
items 32 and 39 of the index.

The fact that we were unable to locate records responsive to
your request may be considered by you as an adverse
determination, and you are hereby advised of this Agency's
appeal procedures. Any person notified of an adverse
determination may file an appeal to the NSA/CSS [Central
Security Service] Freedom of Information Act Appeal Authority.
The appeal must be postmarked no later than 60 calendar days
after the date of the initial denial letter. The appeal shall be
in writing addressed to the NSA/CSS FOIA Appeal Authority
(DC321), National Security Agency, 9800 Savage Road STE 6248,
Fort George G. Meade, MD 20755-6248. To aid in processing the
appeal, it should reference the inability of the Agency to
locate the records you seek, in sufficient detail and
particularity, and the grounds upon which you believe this
Agency maintains such records. NSA/CSS FOIA Appeal Authority
will endeavor to respond to the appeal within 20 working days
after receipt, absent unusual circumstances.

Since your request relates to UFOs, it may be of interest to you
that NSA has reviewed and declassified 461 pages of material
related to UFOs and has made the material available on the
Internet. You can access the NSA FOIA Home Page at the following
URL:

http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/

The UFO material is found by clicking on "Frequently Requested
Information. Released Records." There is also a listing of UFO
terms for which we hold no records.

If you would like this office to provide you with a copy of the
released material, please be advised that duplication charges
are $54.15 (461 pages -- 100 free pages = 361 pages x $.15 per
page = $54.15). Costs are computed in accordance with DoD
Regulation 5400.7-R, which assesses $.15 per page for
duplication. There are no search fees since no search is
required to locate the material. The material will be released
to you upon receipt of your certified check or money order
within 60 days of the date of this letter made payable to the
Treasurer of the United States, in the amount of $54.15. If the
available material does not satisfy your request, please advise
us of the records you require.

Please address any correspondence regarding this request to
NSA/CSS FOIA Services (DC321), 9800 Savage Road STE 6248, Fort
George G. Meade, MD 20755-6248.

Sincerely,


LOUIS F. GILES
Director of Policy







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 7

                          Secrecy News -- 02/07/03

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@fas.org>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 10:04:09 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 12:56:01 -0500
Subject: Secrecy News -- 02/07/03


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
Volume 2003, Issue No. 11
February 7, 2003


**      ARE DOD LABS DYING?
**      GEOSPATIAL INTELLIGENCE ARRIVES AT NIMA
**      FOI CASE COMES TO SUPREME COURT
**      UK REPORT ON IRAQ PLAGIARIZED


ARE DOD LABS DYING?

The Defense Department's network of research laboratories may be
dying, according to a new internal assessment.  And that is not
good, according to Don J. DeYoung, a senior official at the
Naval Research Laboratory (NRL).

"Far from being organizational dinosaurs, these laboratories are
critical to the government for their independent technical
advice and ability to conduct long-term, high-risk R&D,
especially in areas not attractive to commercial application,"
DeYoung told Secrecy News.

"In the span of 18 months, the Department of Defense lost a key
part of its 25-year-old ability to perform fiber optics research
at NRL, the only site with this world-class defense capability,"
DeYoung reported in his new assessment.

"The death of this 'canary' sends warning that an ill wind is
blowing for the Defense Laboratories.  Without reform, their
loss of expertise will worsen, eventually to the point where it
affects good government and poses significant risks to national
security," DeYoung wrote.

See "The Silence of the Labs" by Don J. DeYoung, published by
the Center for Technology and National Security Policy at the
National Defense University, January 2003, available here:

http://www.fas.org/man/eprint/deyoung.pdf

The DoD labs deserve to die, suggested former NSA director Gen.
William E. Odom some years ago.

"Major savings could be achieved by abolishing virtually all the
Defense Department and military service laboratories.  Few of
them have invented anything of note in several decades, and many
of the things they are striving to develop are already available
in the commercial sector," according to Odom.

"Sadly, these laboratories not only waste money on their own
activities; they also resist the purchase of available
technologies from the commercial sector.  Because they are
generally so far behind the leading edges in some areas, they
cause more than duplication; they also induce retardation and
sustain obsolescence," Odom wrote ("America's Military
Revolution," American University Press, 1993, p. 159).

But Odom's view is asserted rather than argued, and it is
effectively rebutted, at least in part, by DeYoung's plaintive
analysis.


GEOSPATIAL INTELLIGENCE ARRIVES AT NIMA

The National Imagery and Mapping Agency is promoting the term
"geospatial intelligence" to refer to a new, over-arching
concept of its mission that stresses fusion of multiple
intelligence sources in an all-digital environment.

Advances in intelligence technology and processing are so
profound, according to NIMA, that geospatial intelligence
amounts to "a new intelligence discipline."

"The union of three technological achievements -- precision
geopositioning, advanced imagery and sensor technologies, and
low cost ubiquitous digital data processing -- has made possible
the convergence of geospatial and imagery analysis into the
integrated discipline of geospatial intelligence."

See the new NIMA publication "Geospatial Intelligence: Capstone
Concept," January 2003, here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/nima/capstone.pdf

Incredibly, this PDF document weighs in at a preposterous 16 MB.
  With its thirty pages of mostly text, it has no business being
that large.  But it may be an indication that NIMA is now
operating in such a bandwidth-rich environment that it can
afford to be profligate with its file sizes.


FOI CASE COMES TO SUPREME COURT

There is cause for trepidation any time that a Freedom of
Information Act matter comes before the Supreme Court since any
ruling issued by the Court immediately propagates throughout the
system as binding precedent.

One such matter, Department of the Treasury v. City of Chicago,
will be heard by the Court next month and, public interest
groups warn, it has the potential to significantly narrow the
application of the FOIA if the Court sides with the Bush
Administration.

For details, see "Supreme Court Case Poses Risk to Freedom of
Information" on the web site of the National Security Archive,
which filed an amicus (friend of the court) brief on the matter,
here :

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/amicus0203/

Amicus briefs were also filed by the Reporters Committee for
Freedom of the Press, with allied press groups:

  http://www.rcfp.org/news/documents/20030205atfvchicag.html

and, from a slightly different angle, by the Electronic Privacy
Information Center and associates:

http://www.epic.org/open_gov/foia/chicago_amicus.pdf


UK REPORT ON IRAQ PLAGIARIZED

The report on Iraqi efforts to deceive UN weapons inspectors
that was published recently by the UK Office of the Prime
Minister was "completely unsourced and undocumented," Secrecy
News noticed yesterday.

But in fact, it was worse than that.  Entire sections of the
report were plagiarized -- lifted without attribution from other
published sources, including even punctuation errors made by the
original, unacknowledged authors.

"The British government's latest report on Iraq's non-
  compliance with weapons inspections, which claims to draw on
'intelligence material', has been revealed as a wholesale
plagiarism of three old and publicly-available articles, one of
them by a graduate student in California," according to an
assessment by Cambridge analyst Glen Rangwala that circulated
yesterday.  See:

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2003/02/uk020603.html

"The dossier may not amount to much but this is a considerable
embarrassment for a government trying still to make a case for
war," Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Menzies
Campbell told the BBC.  See:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2735031.stm

Speaking at the UN on Wednesday, Secretary of State Powell
praised the UK document as "a fine paper... which describes in
exquisite detail Iraqi deception activities".

By this morning, the link to the document on the Downing Street
website had disappeared, observed Stephen Fidler of the
Financial Times.


_______________________________________________
Secrecy News is written by Steven Aftergood and published by the
Federation of American Scientists.

To SUBSCRIBE to Secrecy News, send email to
secrecy_news-request@lists.fas.org
with "subscribe" in the body of the message.

OR email your request to saftergood@fas.org

Secrecy News is archived at:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/index.html

_______________________
Steven Aftergood
Project on Government Secrecy
Federation of American Scientists
web:    www.fas.org/sgp/index.html
email:  saftergood@fas.org
voice:  (202) 454-4691







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 7

                      Strange Ironies & Tragic Mishaps

From: Loren Coleman <lcolema1@maine.rr.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 11:50:45 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 13:40:34 -0500
Subject: Strange Ironies & Tragic Mishaps


Source: Arutz Sheva IsraelNationalNews.com

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=3D1956

Strange Ironies and Tragic Mishaps
by Shabtai Alboher

February 07, 2003

The unexpected and shocking explosion of the space shuttle
Columbia, killing all seven astronauts on board, including Col.
Ilan Ramon, Israel=B9s first man in space, seems to be an event
riddled with strange ironies and tragic mishaps. Some of the
ironies coming out of the ill-fated mission seem to warrant
deeper thought and analysis.

The flight originated as an American gesture to the state of
Israel to help boost the doomed Oslo peace process, shortly
before it went haywire. Ironically, the news of Ramon burning up
on re-entry evoked the horror of a suicide bomb attack, with
army rabbinical chaplains rushing to America to search for body
parts.

As parts of the Columbia, whose name connotes America, rained
down on a tiny, insignificant dot on the map called Palestine,
Texas, the whole ordeal took on a surrealistic tone, causing
many people to ask themselves whether this was really happening,
and, if it was, what could it all mean?

The post disaster revelations of negligence at NASA, of an
ageing spacecraft, built back when Ramon was training for his
mission to bomb the Iraqi nuclear reactor, put the failed
mission into a morbid post-mortem, much like state of the failed
peace process it was designed to boost.

Yet, maybe the strangest irony of all was that the Holocaust
became a motif of the mission. Ramon, whose mother beat the odds
to survive Auschwitz, took with him on the Columbia a drawing
depicting the earth as seen from space, sketched by a 14 year
old boy, Peter Ginz, who didn=B9t survive the Nazi death camp.

At the same time, the Columbia got off the ground thanks to
technology developed by Werner von Braun, the Nazi rocket
scientist and former SS officer who was brought to America after
the war, in order to form the nucleus of the United States space
program. Von Braun=B9s work for NASA (he developed the rocket that
propelled man to the moon) was based on his work for Hitler,
designing and building a weapon of mass destruction called the
V-2 rocket, at Mittlewerk, a German a slave labor camp.
Ironically, thousands of Jews died working on the V-2,
developing the basic technology that put Ilan Ramon into space.
Many of them were incinerated at Buchenwald.

The same America that gave Ramon an opportunity to ride the
Columbia, didn=B9t bother to bomb the death camps during the war,
something that may have saved the lives of tens of thousands of
Jews, including (ironically) the life of Peter Ginz whose
drawing became a symbol of the mission. Ironically (again), the
U.S. did bomb Mittelwerk, though not because Jews were being
killed there. Rather, they mistook the camp to be a munitions
depot of the German army.

One powerful symbol did manage to survive the fiery break up of
the Columbia: a blue Star of David on an Israeli Air Force flag
that Ramon took up into space.

That flag may be carrying a message of comfort to Israelis that,
despite the Holocaust and the tragic death of Ilan Ramon, "the
nation of Israel lives."

It may also be, ironically, sending a warning to the millions of
Jews still on board the ship called "America".

--------------------------------------------------------
Shabtai Alboher is an attorney who formerly served as legal
counsel to the IDF Judge Advocate General.


[Thanks RDH]







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 7

               Any Transcript of SciFi's Washington Symposium?

From: Will Bueche <wbueche@centerchange.org>
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 11:56:39 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 13:41:40 -0500
Subject: Any Transcript of SciFi's Washington Symposium?


Did anyone make a transcript for themselves of any of the
SciFi Channel's symposium at George Washington University,
Washington, D.C., "Interstellar Travel and Unidentified Aerial
Phenomena: Science Fiction or Science Fact?"

Actually I am seeking transcripts of all three of their
symposiums. So far I've only seen Podesta's remarks in rough
form, but that indicates that someone is indeed working on it.

If so please contact me at wbueche [at] centerchange.org

Thank you.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 7

              Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Roberts

From: Andy Roberts <aj.roberts@blueyonder.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 08:34:11 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 13:44:03 -0500
Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Roberts


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 16:15:06 -0600
 >Subject: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?


Pilgrims,

As usual, Jerry has to respond for the sake of it rather than to
make any pertinent points. But I'm waiting for some builders to
come so am happy to respond and illuminate his problematic
thought processes:

 >Nor, while we
 >may question your judgment, do we share your habit of trashing
 >the integrity and motives of someone with whom we happen to
 >disagree.

Thos with the stomach for it should stufy the list archives to
see clearly how Jerry has done exactly that with _everyone_ he
disagrees with. Usually using the same stock phrases which gave
rise to the 'Jerry Clark Bingo' game. But we can disregard that
because the pearls he casts before us swine are well worth the
wait.

 >What about all those well-documented and -investigated cases
 >that don't end in solutions or magical misperceptions? Lots of
 >those, you know. You _are_ aware of them, aren't you? Many were
 >conducted by individuals with rather more years of investigative
 >experience than yours, and significantly more formal scientific
 >training.

Well, Jerry. Yet again you've made my case for me! I agree with
wat you say but the RMP theory in action can produce many cases
- 'big' cases, especially in the UK - which were unsolved for
years and then were solved as RMP. So, up until the solving of
these cases they were being touted as UFOs, best ever cases etc
etc, as you note above. I am in total agreement that there are
still many 'good' cases which remain as yet unsolved but the
history of the subject shows that slowly they fall. Perhaps we
have a better track record of investigation than you do in the
states?

 >My parents, I
 >might add, were teetotalers. (My mother, who is still alive, is
 >still one.)

Why did you feel the need to share that with us Jerry. But hey,
what a coincidence, mine are too.

 >Okay, then I'll take you to see credible UFO witnesses whose
 >sightings have not been solved, even after careful
 >investigation. Lots of those, And. You can read about them in
 >all kinds of places. Starting, for example, with the Condon
 >Report.

See statments above. See the forthcoming Lakenheath/Bentwaters
site which has some new and interesting things to say about that
case.

 >Custer -- whatever he
 >thought he saw -- described Venus pretty accurately. No radical
 >misperception except, it appears, your own.

Oh dear. Read the book again Jerry. Whatever you may think from
the smugness of your 21st century conco, what they _saw_ was
Venus. What they _believed_ it to be was a fast moving arrow on
fire. If that's not a radical misperception I'll eat your hat.

 >Mine, I'm afraid, was just an ordinary misperception. In
 >common with the vast majority of misperceptions that give
 >rise to bogus UFO sightings.

But aren't you leaving out the Radical Misperptions which give
rise to the more stubborn 'good' cases Jerry, as have been
described to you?

And at the end Lister please read this para again....

 >>And I have to say I thoroughly support Dave C and the term
 >>'flying saucers'. We love it. That's what many people say
 >>they've seen. It's a great term. I pushed for Out of the Shadows
 >>to be called 'Flying Saucer Secrets' but it was vetoed
 >>unfortunately. It's a damn sight better than UFOs as no-one has
 >>proved they are 'objects' as yet - oh, except of course when
 >>they are resolved to be radical misperceptions of known objects.
 >>But then of course they are no longer Unidentified.

and then let your mind wonder and boggle how Jerry misinterpreted
it to mean what he writes below.

 >I rest my case. You have kindly validated what I said in
 >response to Dave Clarke. Thanks, guy. Those of you who have
 >followed this dreary thread will recall Dave's disingenuous
 >defense of the term "flying saucers," while I pointed out -- as
 >And here demonstrates -- it is in fact a term of derision, and
 >was always so intended by Dave and sidekook.

Lordy me. However, I'm pleased to see that Jerry is still
refusing to accept the central tenet of ufology, ie that people
don't always describe what they see properly and that no exotic
explanation has yet been found for _one single_ UFO case.

Well, better go to work now and deal with some people who
haven't got an excuse for being disadvantaged.

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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 7

                 Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Clarke

From: David Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 17:51:20 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 17:36:49 -0500
Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Clarke


 >From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 20:43:11 -0400
 >Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

 >>From: David Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk
 >>To:<ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 14:17:24 -0600
 >Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

 >You use the term because it has a connotation that tends to
 >denigrate the whole phenomenon,the witnesses and those of us
 >who investigate it; otherwise you would use the term UFO.

What a load of old codswallop. If witnesses feel 'denigrated' by
our approach then there must be hundreds of masochists resident
in the UK.

As for Ufologists, there are many good, conscientious ones who
deserve praise, they know who they are but they don't tend to be
very prominent here - probably because they are too busy doing
some *real* research.

 >I even have an RCAF document somewhere date 1948 using the term
 >Unidentified Flying Object in the report. But you prefer
 >'flying saucer' because you
 >want to denigrate the phenomenon, the millions of witnesses, me
 >and those like me for whatever reason.

Now whose being 'defensive.' You presume to speak for "millions
of witnesses" but in reality you are speaking only for yourself
and the tiny band of people who shout the loudest.

Ufology as defined by Don and Jerry is a closed, hermetically-
sealed system that simply cannot accept critical scrutiny from
outside. From those same people we hear lots of anguished hand-
wringing about why scientists won't take your data seriously,
etc. But when it comes to debating the data, they simply cannot
produce the goods. All we get is acres of formulaic rhetoric to
distract attention away from difficult questions.

The exchanges on this list over the past few days have
underlined what a waste of time formal 'Ufology' is. Jerry
suggests I should try something else, but the reality is that my
interests in the supernatural field have always ranged far wider
than the narrowly defined definition that you place on 'UFOs.'

Colin Bennett is correct about the tired old 'corporate Ufology'
on display here. To paraphrase Richard Ashcroft, Ufology don't
work.

It requires radical deconstruction and critical analysis, but
its high priests won't like the result. I'm off to read some
Derrida.

 >You even sign off with it

 >www.flyingsaucery.com

 >Pretty much says it all.


Sure does!

Best,

Dave Clarke

"...A myth is not a fairy story. It is the presentation of facts
belonging to one category in the idioms appropriate to another.
To explode a myth is accordingly not to deny the facts but to
re-allocate them."

Gilbert Royle (1900-1976) British philosopher








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 7

                 Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Clarke

From: David Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 17:55:27 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 17:38:18 -0500
Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Clarke


 >From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys@rogers.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 08:07:25 -0400
 >Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

 >>From: Andy Roberts <aj.roberts@blueyonder.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 17:03:06 -0000
 >>Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

 >>I'll ignore the rest of the bleatings as Stanton's was tripe -
 >>lots of scientists quote Ted Philips' work don't they Stan?

 >How convenient to ignore the comments about the many ways that
 >chemists and physicists can get involved.

Stan,

If Philips' catalogue provided the physical evidence you
suggest, then there would be no debate about the reality of
flying saucers.

I don't see queues of physicists lining up to order copies, or
the appearance of the catalogue in the bibliographies of learned
institutions as the conclusive evidence we've all been waiting
for.

The sources for Ufological catalogues are predominantly made up
of newspaper cuttings and anecdotes copied from the works of
earlier UFO authors whose original sources were newspaper
cuttings and the writings of still earlier authors.

There may be some scientifically challenging data hidden there,
but you would have a job to find it among the 'anecdotes.' This
is where the lack of critical thinking becomes a factor once
again - the signal is drowned out by the noise.

What you have is a body of testimony, not of scientific
evidence. It is of interest to folklore, but not to physics. You
can huff and puff all you like, but I return to my point: if
your physical trace catalogue was worth the paper it was written
on, we would not be having this debate.

Best,

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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 7

               CI: 'Martian Genesis' & 'The Atlantis Enigma' -

From: Wendy Christensen <christensen@catlas.mv.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 13:57:49 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 17:46:56 -0500
Subject: CI: 'Martian Genesis' & 'The Atlantis Enigma' -


Mr Hatch commented on the use of Greek and Latin:

 >From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 12:32:23 -0800
 >Subject: Re: CI: 'Martian Genesis' & 'The Atlantis Enigma'

 >Yes, greek letters (the typesetters must have been annoyed) so I
 >couldn't even tell if the last word(s) rhymed or not.

 >I suspect that was an affectation; the author as much as saying
 >"Look how much more literate I am that you are." Sound familiar?

No... it was not an affectation, but a simple expectation that
was valid in those days. Up until the 1950's-1960's era, no one
graduated from college without at least a reading knowledge of
both Latin and Greek. Both were required. Both were considered
essential tools for the educated person. Authors and
commentators of the past could assume that their educated
readers would understand Latin and Greek quotations and
allusions, as well as numerous literary, poetic, mythological
and other allusions in English and (to a lesser extent) French.
Readers were simply expected to recognize numerous quotations,
in many languages, from the classic works.

One of my favorite cat books, a 1904 classic, abounds with
quotations from French poetry, in the original. No translation
required, or - in those days - expected.

To bring this back around to ufology, a working knowledge of
Latin and Greek (not to mention other languages) would be an
excellent tool in the kit of a researcher who hopes to
understand the historical roots of this and related phenomenon
(or their mythological, folkloric, literary or psychological
roots, if one leans to that side of the fence).


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 7

               Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Clark

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 13:34:13 -0600
Fwd Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 17:48:57 -0500
Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Clark


 >From: Andy Roberts <aj.roberts@blueyonder.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 08:34:11 -0000
 >Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 16:15:06 -0600
 >>Subject: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?


 >As usual, Jerry has to respond for the sake of it rather than to
 >make any pertinent points. But I'm waiting for some builders to
 >come so am happy to respond and illuminate his problematic
 >thought processes:

 >>Nor, while we
 >>may question your judgment, do we share your habit of trashing
 >>the integrity and motives of someone with whom we happen to
 >>disagree.

 >Thos with the stomach for it should stufy the list archives to
 >see clearly how Jerry has done exactly that with _everyone_ he
 >disagrees with. Usually using the same stock phrases which gave
 >rise to the 'Jerry Clark Bingo' game. But we can disregard that
 >because the pearls he casts before us swine are well worth the
 >wait.

Let's see, now. In one posting alone, you accused me of being a
mere "believer," then a follower of some kind of unspecified
"religion," then in the next cyber-breath of perpetuating
mystery for the sheer love of money -- hilariously oblivious, I
might note, to the logical inconsistency of the charges. I don't
blame you, actually; if you have no good argument to make, you
have no choice but to attack the critic's motives. It is a bit
much, however, to see you accusing others of doing what you do
routinely (and unoriginally).

 >>What about all those well-documented and -investigated cases
 >>that don't end in solutions or magical misperceptions? Lots of
 >>those, you know. You _are_ aware of them, aren't you? Many were
 >>conducted by individuals with rather more years of investigative
 >>experience than yours, and significantly more formal scientific
 >>training.

 >Well, Jerry. Yet again you've made my case for me! I agree with
 >wat you say but the RMP theory in action can produce many cases
 >- 'big' cases, especially in the UK - which were unsolved for
 >years and then were solved as RMP. So, up until the solving of
 >these cases they were being touted as UFOs, best ever cases etc
 >etc, as you note above. I am in total agreement that there are
 >still many 'good' cases which remain as yet unsolved but the
 >history of the subject shows that slowly they fall. Perhaps we
 >have a better track record of investigation than you do in the
 >states?

The history of the subject, of course, suggests no such thing.
With all the ill will in the world, even the Condon Committee,
for one prominent example, failed to prove anything of the sort.
The best cases have stood up pretty well over time. Your faith
that they are doomed to fall is neither impressive nor grounded
in anything but grand assertion and wishful thinking.

Given your hostility bordering on contempt for this subject,
incidentally, why should anybody believe any conclusion you
come to about a case? Your purpose, to all appearances, is
to destroy a hated heresy rather than to come to reasoned
conclusions based on actual evidence collected with something
approximating an open mind.

 >>My parents, I
 >>might add, were teetotalers. (My mother, who is still alive, is
 >>still one.)

 >Why did you feel the need to share that with us Jerry. But hey,
 >what a coincidence, mine are too.

Then why did you bring up the subject of my parents at all and
ridicule the names they gave their sons? Nothing more relevant
to offer, perhaps? Or a simple problem with maturity?

 >>Okay, then I'll take you to see credible UFO witnesses whose
 >>sightings have not been solved, even after careful
 >>investigation. Lots of those, And. You can read about them in
 >>all kinds of places. Starting, for example, with the Condon
 >>Report.

 >>See statments above. See the forthcoming Lakenheath/Bentwaters
 >site which has some new and interesting things to say about that
 >case.

I can hardly wait. Based on your record of sweeping assertions
without empirical foundation, I retain healthy skepticism unless
provided with actual reason to believe you.

 >>Custer -- whatever he
 >>thought he saw -- described Venus pretty accurately. No radical
 >>misperception except, it appears, your own.

 >Oh dear. Read the book again Jerry. Whatever you may think from
 >the smugness of your 21st century conco, what they _saw_ was
 >Venus. What they _believed_ it to be was a fast moving arrow on
 >fire. If that's not a radical misperception I'll eat your hat.

This is fatuous, even by your standards. At least you've given
us a definition: _any_ misperception, according to Robertsian
dogma, is radical by definition. In point of fact, Custer's was
quite an ordinary misperception. Whatever he thought he saw, he
perceived and described it accurately; it was his intepretation
of what he saw that was in error. Maybe "radical misperception"
sounds sexier to you. Or maybe you're just by nature more
excitable than the rest of us.

 >Lordy me. However, I'm pleased to see that Jerry is still
 >refusing to accept the central tenet of ufology, ie that people
 >don't always describe what they see properly and that no exotic
 >explanation has yet been found for _one single_ UFO case.

Maybe that's the root of your problem, my friend - you are
incapable of understanding what others are saying. You
repeatedly betray evidence of an utter inability to think and
argue with nuance or to understand those who do. Since it is
clear that the best you can do when criticized is to turn your
critics' views into absurd caricature, there seems no point in
continuing this discussion. At least until you start making
sense, which I don't expect to happen, I'm afraid, anytime soon.

And Dale Evans to you, guy,

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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 7

              Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' -

From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net>
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 12:25:18 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 18:13:31 -0500
Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' -


 >From: Dave Haith <visions@ntlworld.com>
 >To: UFO Updates <UFOUpdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 12:15:19 -0000
 >Subject: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough'


 >Well folks this is it!

<snip>

 >2) Greer has been conned or tricked in some way

 >3) Greer is a trickster, a liar or insane.

I think he's two Tiddly's away from Wink. Does this mean he won't
have to buy batteries for the flashlights he and his cronies use
to signal down the flying saucers on their snipe hunting forays
into the boonies?


Wendy Connors







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 7

                       FOIA Request To CIA - 02-07-03

From: Larry W. Bryant <overtci@cavtel.net>
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 14:54:01 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 18:18:24 -0500
Subject: FOIA Request To CIA - 02-07-03


TO: Freedom of Information Manager
    U. S. Central Intelligence Agency
    Washington, DC 20505

FROM: Larry W. Bryant
     3518 Martha Custis Drive
     Alexandria, VA 22302

DATE: February 7, 2003

Recent publicity about former CIA operative "Wendy Lee" (a
secrecy-imposed pseudonym) and her failure to win from the
Central Intelligence Agency full prepublication clearance for
her draft memoirs (as submitted in manuscript form for CIA
review in June 2002) prompts me to submit this FOIA request for
access to the entire CIA case file on her submission. Ms.
"Lee's" First Amendment lawsuit against your agency is being
represented by attorney Mark S. Zaid of Washington, D.C.

Please send me a copy of all the contents of the case file to
date -- to include all correspondence, reports, memoranda for
record, e-mail messages, memoranda of telephone conversations,
document-transmittal slips, minutes of meetings, telegrams,
legal opinions, briefing papers/charts, personnel non-disclosure
agreements, congressional inquiries, the CIA standing operating
procedure for conducting such manuscript review-clearance, and
the draft manuscript itself.

In your records search, please specifically include the
following CIA organizational elements' files: the Prepublication
Review Board; the Office of the General Counsel.

Since I make this request as a First Amendment
activist/scholar/advocate on behalf of the public's interest in
learning/evaluating your agency's manuscript-review policies and
processes, I ask that you waive all records-search fees incident
to your fulfilling it. What's more: because of the irreparable
harm to Ms. "Lee's" First Amendment rights being imposed by your
agency's prior-restraint censorship of her manuscript, and
because of the resultant deprivation of the public's right to
receive the product of her speech, I ask that this FOIA request
be spared the protracted processing delay so customary within
your agency.

Please note that I'm snail-mailing to you a signed printout of this
e-formatted letter.



LARRY W. BRYANT
Founding Member of the American
  Civil Liberties Union of Virginia

Copies furnished to:

Chairman, U. S. Senate Committee on Intelligence

Chairman, U. S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary

Chairman, Subcommittee on Government Information, Management, and
Technology - U. S. House of Representatives

Mark S. Zaid, Esq.

Lewis Kannon







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 8

                   Re: Secret Shuttle Device Sought - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 22:16:27 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 09:41:11 -0500
Subject: Re: Secret Shuttle Device Sought - Hall


 >From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >To: <- UFO UpDates Subscribers ->
 >Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 12:37:51 -0500
 >Subject: UFO UpDate: Secret Shuttle Device Sought

 >Source: The Toronto Star

 >http://www.torontostar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?GXHC_gx_session_id_=f5e8b69
388327d94&pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1035777547235&call
_pageid=968332188854&col=968350060724

 >Feb. 7, 2003. 05:49 AM

 >Secret Shuttle Device Sought

 >REUTERS

 >CAPE CANAVERAL, FLA.--Hundreds of searchers combed an area in
 >east Texas yesterday for a top-secret object from the shuttle
 >Columbia. They searched block by block and used machetes to hack
 >their way through thick woods that surround the tiny town of
 >Bronson, near the Louisiana border.

 >They were given a picture of a faceplate from the device, which
 >said "Secret Government Property" in white letters on a black
 >background. Texas state troopers stood guard and told
 >photographers to keep their distance, saying they would be asked
 >to leave the area if searchers found something they did not want
 >photographed.

 >The Houston Chronicle reported yesterday the object was a
 >communications device that handled encrypted messages between
 >the shuttle and ground. It said the device was in a top-secret
 >government "telecommunications security" category.

 >Hmmm..... The "Houston, we have a bogey..." box?

 >ebk

This is extremely interesting! What is NASA up to behind our
backs? Indeed, this question should be raised in one or more of
the forthcoming Congressional hearings.

I know from having specialized in NASA/space information as an
abstractor for Congressional Information Service and having
friends employed by NASA that what once was a bright and shining
"Camelot" of a peaceful, civilian space program has increasingly
been taken over by the military and increasingly has had more
sinister purposes mixed in with the good scientific projects and
exceedingly worthwhile goal of space exploration.

  - 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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 8

              Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' -

From: Paul Kimball <Kimballwood@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 17:33:43 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 09:42:34 -0500
Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' -


 >From: Dave Haith <visions@ntlworld.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 12:15:19 -0000
 >Subject: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough'


 >Well folks this is it!

 >Either this radio interview transcript with Dr Steven Greer of
 >the UFO Disclosure Project will prove:

 >1) A pivotal point in history and the answer to the world's
 >   energy problems

 >2) Greer has been conned or tricked in some way

 >3) Greer is a trickster, a liar or insane.

Hmmm... which could it be?

<snip>

 >GN: Yeah, I was just going to say, if you can harness it - my
 >gosh, you're going to save humanity!

 >SG: Well, this is why I'm talking to you. I returned from this
 >trip, ...and I wanted to be very very clear that this information
 >got out ...because I have to tell you that this is the sort of
 >thing that people have unfortunately in the past been absorbed
 >into operations where these technologies have been suppressed.
 >People have been murdered, people have been imprisoned, people
 >have had these things bought out only to sit on the black shelf
 >at a major corporation.

 >GN: Mm Hmm.

 >SG: That is not a conspiracy theory. We can prove this in a
 >court of law that this has happened over and over again. And the
 >reason that we are moving quickly to let the world know that
 >this exists is that the ultimate shield against that happening
 >is two things: Number one - my absolute assurance that I will
 >take a bullet before I will let this be suppressed, and number
 >two - that there is no amount of money, that you cannot put
 >enough zeros after a one, to buy us out and keep this thing from
 >getting out to the public.

We have a winner - #3!

At the risk of incurring the wrath of Greer's misguided acolytes
- c'mon, folks, try and be objective when you read the interview
- the only real question is which part of #3 above is the truth?
Liar, trickster, or, to put it politely, a few cards shy of a
complete deck? A new-age snake-oil salesman? A secular
millenialist - 'the end days of unlimited, free energy are just
a couple of months away!'' Who can really say at this point?

 >If there's just a chance it's the first option, we could all do
 >with some good news right now, so this is worth a read.

Yes, we could all do with some good news right now - which is
why Greer's nonsense is all the more dangerous - because some
people, desperate enough for that good news, will take him at
his word. History, sadly, is replete with their kind.


Paul Kimball
www.redstarfilm.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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 8

                  Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Clark

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 17:24:23 -0600
Fwd Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 09:47:24 -0500
Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Clark


 >From: David Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 17:55:27 -0000
 >Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

 >>From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys@rogers.com>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 08:07:25 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

 >>>From: Andy Roberts <aj.roberts@blueyonder.co.uk>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 17:03:06 -0000

 >>>Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

 >If Philips' catalogue provided the physical evidence you
 >suggest, then there would be no debate about the reality of
 >flying saucers.

Since we're talking about UFOs, not flying saucers, this statement
is meaningless. Somehow, though, we know that won't stop Dave.
Here he goes:

 >I don't see queues of physicists lining up to order copies, or
 >the appearance of the catalogue in the bibliographies of learned
 >institutions as the conclusive evidence we've all been waiting
 >for.

This is as naive a statement of how science operates in the real
world as I have seen from someone who expects us to take him
seriously. It is clear that Dave Clarke's knowledge of science's
reception of anomalous claims consists in its entirety of what
he reads in junior-high science texts. There is a whole
literature on this subject which documents, in eye-opening
detail, the nonscientific considerations that cause scientists
in any given era to take up certain questions and to ignore or
denigrate others. Science's neglect of a particular matter does
not necessarily mean that the matter at issue will never be
taken up, or that it is without potential scientific interest or
validity.

In fact, science historians and sociologists with an interest in
anomalistics - e.g., Henry Bauer, Ron Westrum, the late Marcello
Truzzi, Jamcs McClenon, among others - have always made a point
of stating that the UFO phenomenon is a legitimate potential
source of scientific study and that science's current neglect of
the phenomenon says nothing about its nature or epistemological
status.

(Two books with which Dave might start to educate himself, if he
cares enough, are

Henry H. Bauer. Science or Pseudoscience: Magnetic Healing,
Psychic Phenomena, and Other Heterodoxies. Urbana: University of
Illinois Press, 2000.

Seymour H. Mauskopf, ed. The Reception of Unconventional
Science. Washington: American Association for the Advancement of
Science, 1979.

An excellent essay is Truzzi's "Zetetic Ruminations on
Skepticism and Anomalies in Science," in Zetetic Scholar 12/13
[1987].)

As anybody who has interacted with skeptical scientists knows,
very few know enough about the subject to hold an informed
opinion. Those who do know something about the subject (or who
have had their own puzzling sightings), as both Allen Hynek and
Peter Sturrock learned in their respective surveys of
astonomers, are far more likely to take it seriously. Where
scientific skepticism about UFOs is concerned, to borrow a
phrase from Orwell, ignorance is strength. The great philosopher
of science C. S. Peirce astutely remarked that "the general
public is no fool in judging of human nature; and the general
public is decidedly of the opinion that there is such a thing as
scientific pedantry that swells with complaisance when it can
sneer at popular observations, not always wisely."

Dave, who ought to know better, is being extraordinarily silly,
unsophisticated, or disingenous. Take your pick.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 8

                             Analogical Ufology

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 00:15:47 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 09:58:01 -0500
Subject: Analogical Ufology


List,

Aside from detesting the word "Ufology", I am struck by the fact
that converging eyewitness testimony with a modicum of physical
evidence (artifacts, films, etc.) on the Columbia shuttle
disaster is indicating that something happened as the Columbia
began re-entry above California.

People saw things, and in a number of cases managed to obtain
videotaped or digital footage which, along with a lot of other
lines of evidence, certainly can be analyzed and lead to a
convincing solution.

The parallels with UFO research are obvious.

The Andy Roberts' of the world will quickly state, _but_ we
know what the Columbia is (was) and that it disintegrated upon
re-entry into the atmosphere. (Except for the Colin Bennetts'
of the world who will insist that no one can know because there
is no such thing as objective truth.)

To me, that is entirely beside the point. We are dealing with
many unknown factors and specific details, but in practice,
eyewitness testimony is playing an important role in determining
the truth, and its essential credibility  (as checked by radar,
telemetry, films) is not in doubt. Basically, people are
reporting honestly what they saw, and the better witnesses among
them are providing significant clues and leads that are highly
important in the overall truth-seeking process.


  - 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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 8

                      Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 00:09:02 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 10:02:02 -0500
Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Rimmer


 >From: Wm. Michael Mott <mottimorph@earthlink.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 14:17:24 -0600
 >Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs

 >You've been referred to the theories and research of Bruce
 >Cathie, Paul Devereaux, Albert Budden, and others. Do the
 >research and demonstrate that you have the ability to do so by
 >being able to discuss it in a rational manner.

There is very little in common between the work of these three
people. Cathie's books are splendid accretions of wild
speculation and scientific ignorance, and fall easily into Colin
Bennett's concept of ufologys as art - except that they are
rather tedious and uninteresting art.

Budden's speculations have nothing to do with leys. Rather they
ascribe almost magical properties to elecricity, and there seem
to be almost nothing, from UFOs to England's disastrous cricket
tour of Australia, which he cannot blame on electrical energies
of some kind or another.

I think Deveraux would not be pleased at being categorised with
these two. He has specifically denounced the concept of leys as
"energy lines" and received some harsh criticism for so doing.
I'm grossly oversimplifying here, but basically he regards leys
as ceremonial paths related to a variety of religious
experiences and social practices.

Devereux's main contribution to UFO research has been in the
field of "earthlights", naturally produced illuminations
emanating from geological faults. This brings him close to
people like Persinger, who, I seem to recall, has regulalry been
denounced on this List as a pelicnist debunker for trying to
explain UFOs in terms other than extraterrestrial spaceships.

 >>plus 2) data which clearly links flight
 >>paths of UFO's to these alleged electromagnetic energies flowing
 >>along grid-lines and ley lines - or fold.

Some early ley-hunters, like Tony Wedd, did very specifically
see leys as flight paths for UFOs - or "flying saucers" as he
unambiguously called them, and it is tempting to see this as a
reflection of his background as an RAF pilot. Although one or
two British writers still promote this simplistic concept, the
majority of ley researchers have move on to positions which are
more compatible with contemporatry archaeology.

 >Again, see the work of Cathie, Budden, and Le Poer Trench, as
 >well as Ted Holiday (_The Dragon and the Disc_ and _The Goblin
 >Universe_). Similar evidence is presented in Keel's _Operation
 >Trojan Horse_ and _The Mothman Prophecies_, particularly the
 >former.

 >In particular, locate and read a copy of _The Flying Saucer
 >Vision_, by John Michell.

I would certainly recommend this book, although I think "binary
stalinists" - (c) Colin Bennett, 2003 - will find it unbearably
frustrating.

--
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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 8

               Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 23:48:18 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 10:04:00 -0500
Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Rimmer


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 16:15:06 -0600
 >Subject: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >What about all those well-documented and -investigated cases
 >that don't end in solutions or magical misperceptions? Lots of
 >those, you know. You _are_ aware of them, aren't you? Many were
 >conducted by individuals with rather more years of investigative
 >experience than yours, and significantly more formal scientific
 >training.

It is true that there are many cases which have, so far, not
ended in solutions. The problem is that Jerry, and many similar-
minded ufologists are determined to ensure that they *never*
will end in solutions.

I get the impression, from many posts to this list that there
is a sort of inviolable canon of cases that have been set in
aspic and must never be questioned. Certain researchers, most
notably James Macdonald, seem to be established as prophet-like
figures, and the very mention of their name is apparently
thought enough to counter any critical re- examinations.

 >Let's see. We get one anecdote, from which you draw a sweeping,
 >empirically unjustified, and finally absurd conclusion which you
 >are able to mount no serious argument for or defense of, only
 >ever more fervent assertion. And then you insist that it's up to
 >_us_ to disprove it?

An anecdote, Jerry? Like the hundreds of anecdotes that make up
your encyclopedias? Is this a new conjugation?

I do first-hand research.
You compile reports.
He tells anecdotes.


 >>>My brother's name happens to be Tom. If you find that wildly
 >>>hilarious, I feel sorry for you.

 >>Feel sorry. It amused me for quite a while.

Have to say, it amused me a bit too. You'd have to be a pretty
strange sort of person not to find it mildly amusing. Much as if
a UFO write called Jeff had a brother called Mutt, or - for
British readers - someone called Mark had a brother called
Spencer.

 >Radical misperception (RMP) seems to be a concept even you can't
 >demonstrate as an ordinary and dependable human occurrence, to
 >be trotted out whenever someone reports something that doesn't
 >fit your crabbed worldview.

I have come across several instances of what I would describe as
"radical misperception" outside of a ufological context.
Obviously, though, it would be pointless to describe them, as
presumably you would denounce them as "anecdotes".

 >I'd love, incidentally, to see you go on a tear with RMP and,
 >say, ball-lightning sightings. In no time at all, you'd prove
 >that the alleged witnesses were RMPing the sun, rubber balls,
 >red birds, lighted cigarettes, flashlights, aircraft lights,
 >spots in front of the eyes, red popsicles, and on and on, and
 >demand that the rest of us prove otherwise. There's a job for
 >you. If people RMP about UFOs all the time, they must do the
 >same with other ostensible anomalies such as BL. I look forward
 >to your book on that subject, and I hope you get a healthy
 >advance and big sales, so that the rest of us can pretend to
 >believe you were in it for the money all along.

Certainly people do have radical misperceptions about a variety
of anomalies, including a wide range of paranormal phenomena. I
see no reason why many reports of ball-lightning might not be
misperceptions, radical or conservative, of other phenomena.
This was certainly a widely-held viewpoint until quite recently,
and I do not think is is yet totally dead.

It surprises me just how narrow most ufologists' knowledge is
about other anomalous and controversial phenomena. The recent
exchanges about leys on this list provides a good example. They
seem to think that no- one else has ever come across similar
examples of anomalous perception.

 >I rest my case. You have kindly validated what I said in
 >response to Dave Clarke. Thanks, guy. Those of you who have
 >followed this dreary thread will recall Dave's disingenuous
 >defense of the term "flying saucers," while I pointed out -- as
 >And here demonstrates -- it is in fact a term of derision, and
 >was always so intended by Dave and sidekook.

There may be a transatlantic culture-gap here. American ufology
has, historically at least, been far more dominated by military
concepts than in the UK, so quasi-official terminology such as
"UFO", "EBE", etc., has ousted terms such as "flying saucer" and
"alien" more than it has over here. Certainly many people,
including percipients, are happy to use the term "flying
saucer".

I think in many ways it is a useful term, and its use should be
encouraged. I have pointed out a couple of times in previous
postings that some researchers - Jerry included - use the term
"UFO" almost as an explanation: a sighting is explained as being
a UFO. They seem unable to accept that, by definition, calling
something an "Unidentified Flying Object" implies that at some
stage it should be possible to identify what it is, so that all
UFO sightings are potentially explainable.

Perhaps if people were a little more honest in their usage, they
could reserve the term "flying saucer" for cases where they felt
that no further investigation was necessary, and the case had
been adequately explained as a phenomena unknown to science. Or
would that be too much of a hostage to fortune?

--
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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 8

               Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 00:56:04 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 10:05:56 -0500
Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Rimmer



 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 13:34:13 -0600
 >Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >>From: Andy Roberts <aj.roberts@blueyonder.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 08:34:11 -0000
 >>Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >>Oh dear. Read the book again Jerry. Whatever you may think from
 >>the smugness of your 21st century conco, what they _saw_ was
 >>Venus. What they _believed_ it to be was a fast moving arrow on
 >>fire. If that's not a radical misperception I'll eat your hat.

 >This is fatuous, even by your standards. At least you've given
 >us a definition: _any_ misperception, according to Robertsian
 >dogma, is radical by definition. In point of fact, Custer's was
 >quite an ordinary misperception. Whatever he thought he saw, he
 >perceived and described it accurately; it was his intepretation
 >of what he saw that was in error. Maybe "radical misperception"
 >sounds sexier to you. Or maybe you're just by nature more
 >excitable than the rest of us.

Jerry, aren't you confusing perception with description? People
may give a fairly accurate description of an event or object,
but misperceive it by an order of magnitude, or draw completely
false conclusions about its nature and actions - for example
describing the moon as "as big as a football (that's a "soccer"
ball to you) at arms length", which is one description I have
come across. This then led the witness to conclude that the
"huge object" was following them along a country road. However
the solution was immediately obvious to the investigator because
in all other respects - direction, colour - their description
was accurate.

Just an example from one case report - sorry, "anecdote" - I've
come across.

--
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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 8

                 Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 21:07:45 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 10:09:39 -0500
Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Ledger


 >From: David Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 17:51:20 -0000
 >Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

 >>From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 20:43:11 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

 >>>From: David Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk
 >>>To:<ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 14:17:24 -0600
 >>>Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

 >>You use the term because it has a connotation that tends to
 >>denigrate the whole phenomenon,the witnesses and those of us who
 >>investigate it; otherwise you would use the term UFO. > >What a
 >>load of old codswallop. If witnesses feel 'denigrated' by our
 >>approach then there must be hundreds of masochists resident in
 >>the UK.

 >As for Ufologists, there are many good, conscientious ones who
 >deserve praise, they know who they are but they don't tend to be
 >very prominent here - probably because they are too busy doing
 >some *real* research.


I'm not sure as a debunker, that you are in the position to
choose who is and who isn't capable of  _real_  research. I
don't claim to be a scientists but I do have certain skills that
I can bring to the table. I do research, hang out in library's,
scroll through thousands of documents, like many others. Certain
Jerry is a consummate researcher and has the volumes to prove
it.  You've probably fallen back on his encylopedias yourself to
check out cases.

 >>I even have an RCAF document somewhere date 1948 using the
 >>term Unidentified Flying Object in the report. But you prefer
 >>'flying saucer' because you want to denigrate the phenomenon,
 >>the millions of witnesses, me and those like me for whatever
 >>reason. > >Now whose being 'defensive.' You presume to speak for
 >>"millions of witnesses" but in reality you are speaking only for
 >>yourself and the tiny band of people who shout the loudest.

Well of course, you are being defensive. [Excessive use of
derogatory terms, denigrating the researchers.Remember?] And
someone has to speak for  the millions of witnesses. It sure as
heck won't be you and yours.

 >Ufology as defined by Don and Jerry is a closed, hermetically-
 >sealed system that simply cannot accept critical scrutiny from
 >outside.

Well that's just more diversionary horse manure, David. In your
Fortean piece you weren't attacking the phenomenon directly, you
were attempting to denigrate us because you can't get at the
phenomenon. For every little NL case you shoot down - and who
cares - there are thousands you can't come to grips with. So you
try the-let's see if the government is covering up ploy- and
since they say they are not then they must be telling the truth
when they say there is nothing to it.  Even you aren't that
naive. But since they aren't the experts -and believe you me,
they have their own, I've run into them in my country-we have to
take up the slack. Hold their feet to the fire. But to suggest
that your government would come completely clean about all
aspects of this phenomenon and some of the events that have
occurred is totally naive. You've even admitted yourself that
they have withheld documents.


 From those same people we hear lots of anguished hand- >
wringing about why scientists won't take your data seriously,
etc. But when it comes to debating the data, they simply cannot
produce the goods. All we get is acres of formulaic rhetoric to
distract attention away from difficult questions.

Actually I thought that was your aim here. Add as much noise to
the signal as possible. I really can't see where you've been any
help. And of course you don't have the answers either. We know
that.

 >The exchanges on this list over the past few days have
 >underlined what a waste of time formal 'Ufology' is. Jerry
 >suggests I should try something else, but the reality is that my
 >interests in the supernatural field have always ranged far wider
 >than the narrowly defined definition that you place on 'UFOs.'

Tell you what then David. Why don't you devout more of your time
to faeries and trolls and things that go bump in the night. I
promise I won't interfere there.

 >Colin Bennett is correct about the tired old 'corporate
 >Ufology' on display here. To paraphrase Richard Ashcroft,
 >Ufology don't work.

Yeah, well who the hell is Richard Ashcroft?  And I hardly know
Colin. And I'm only at this seriously now for about 10 years-so
I'm hardly tired and old in that sense.

 >It requires radical deconstruction and critical analysis, but
its high priests won't like the result.

I'm not certain that you can or have the right to bandy about
words like 'critical analysis'. And there you go again. High
priests. You just can't help yourself.  However, we are working
on it.  It may take some time.

We'll call you.

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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 8

                 Re: More On Wrong Roswell Dig Site - Kaeser

From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 20:32:53 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 10:12:21 -0500
Subject: Re: More On Wrong Roswell Dig Site - Kaeser


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 23:32:17 EST
 >Subject: Re: More On Wrong Roswell Dig Site

<snip>

 >I was thinking after watching the space shuttle tragedy unfold
 >that the debris field was 100 or so miles by 10 miles wide
 >and breakup happened at 207,000 feet.

 >Would there be any way to make any educated guess, based upon
 >the estimated measurements of the Roswell debris field to
 >speculate a guess on what altitude the object was?

 >Also begs the speculation as to what caused the gouge
 >mark..perhaps the craft hitting the ground, breaking up, then
 >bouncing off to another location.

I think that's why they kept referring to this as the "skip"
site, which indicates that another crash site exists where the
object finally came to rest. I believe that's the site that has
become the subject of so much speculation over the years.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 8

                  Re: Any Transcript of SciFi's Washington

From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 20:48:20 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 10:13:25 -0500
Subject: Re: Any Transcript of SciFi's Washington


 >From: Will Bueche <wbueche@centerchange.org>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 11:56:39 -0500
 >Subject: Any Transcript of SciFi's Washington Symposium?

 >Did anyone make a transcript for themselves of any of the
 >SciFi Channel's symposium at George Washington University,
 >Washington, D.C., "Interstellar Travel and Unidentified Aerial
 >Phenomena: Science Fiction or Science Fact?"

 >Actually I am seeking transcripts of all three of their
 >symposiums. So far I've only seen Podesta's remarks in rough
 >form, but that indicates that someone is indeed working on it.

Will-

The transcript you have was probably obtained from

http://www.freedomofinfo.org/

The Coalition for Freedom of Information was set up by the SciFi
Channel as part of their ongoing effort to pursue the truth in
regard to UFOs. While their primary goal is one of
entertainment, Larry Landsman has indicated that they have taken
this on as a project, just as other groups would support the
protection of the environment or endangered species (which I
offer as a general comparison and don't mean that they are
linked in any way).

Your request has been forwarded on, and we'll see what type of
response we get.

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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 8

                Camera Catching Shuttle 'Zap' Had Own Glitch

From: Kelly Peterborough <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 21:59:51 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 10:16:12 -0500
Subject: Camera Catching Shuttle 'Zap' Had Own Glitch


Source: WorldNet Daily

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article. asp?ARTICLE_ID=3D30904

Thursday, February 6, 2003

Catastrophe In The Sky

Camera catching shuttle 'zap' had own glitch

Nikon admits digital devices sometimes show purple aberrations

By Joe Kovacs

=A9 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

As interest skyrockets in an unreleased photograph purporting to
show the space shuttle Columbia being "zapped" by some kind of
purple electrical phenomenon, WorldNetDaily has learned that the
digital camera model which took the picture has been known to
have its own color glitches.

Nikon 880 digital camera

The Nikon 880 occasionally produces a purple fringe around the
edges of some photographs, said a top Nikon official.

"It was a complaint [we heard from users]," said Michael Rubin,
senior product manager for Nikon Inc. "Sometimes you see it,
sometimes you don't."

The issue of the camera's reliability has been raised since an
amateur astronomer using an 880 claims to have captured a
mysterious image of a bright, multi-colored flash surrounding
the orbiter shortly before it disintegrated Saturday morning.

"Wow."

That was veteran astronaut Tammy Jernigan's stunned reaction
Tuesday night when she viewed the photo at the home of the San
Francisco man who documented the shuttle's early morning re-
entry into the atmosphere and flyover of the Bay area.

Former astronaut Tammy Jernigan

"It certainly appears very anomalous," Jernigan told the San
Francisco Chronicle. "We sure will be very interested in taking
a very hard look at this."

Reporters from the Chronicle are among the few people who have
seen the image, as the photographer says he won't release the
photo publicly until NASA has a chance to review it.

"In the critical shot," stated the Chronicle, "a glowing purple
rope of light corkscrews down toward the plasma trail, appears
to pass behind it, then cuts sharply toward it from below. As it
merges with the plasma trail, the streak itself brightens for a
distance, then fades."

"[The photos] clearly record an electrical discharge like a
lightning bolt flashing past, and I was snapping the pictures
almost exactly .. when the Columbia may have begun breaking up
during re-entry, " the photographer originally told the paper
Saturday night.

A misquote concerning an early statement by the man led to some
confusion about digital versus traditional analog images.

"I couldn't see the discharge with my own eyes, but it showed up
clear and bright on the film when I developed it," the
astronomer was originally published as saying. But the Chronicle
has clarified that the device is indeed a Nikon 880 digital
camera which has no need of film to be developed.

Nikon says unless it examines the San Francisco photo, it would
be pure speculation to know if the "purple rope of light" has
anything to do with any defect in its device.

"Without seeing the image, it's like a blind person guessing
what blue sky looks like," Rubin told WorldNetDaily.

He says it's "color interpolation combined with chromatic
aberration" that causes the purple fringe around the edges, and
can occur when the lens is wide open, there's high contrast, and
what normally would be a white line could appear purple.

In an online evaluation of the Nikon 880 when it debuted in
2000, photography expert Phil Askey of Digital Photography
Review noted he had trouble re-creating the chromatic glitch,
except in one instance.

An example of 'purple fringe' aberration by Nikon 880 (photo
courtesy DPReview.com)

"We waded through our 1000-plus 'real life' shots looking for an
example of purple fringing but couldn't find any," Askey wrote.
"Oddly, though, our test shot (black card with a pattern cut
into it shot against a window, deliberately overexposed)
produced the same amount of fringing as we saw in the 990
[model]."

Overall, Askey raved about the reliability of the camera.

"The 880 has the best overall image quality of any 3 megapixel
compact digital camera in its 'size league.' ... Images were
excellently metered (thanks to Nikon's matrix metering system),
well color-balanced (erring on the side of neutrality rather
than oversaturation), great resolution and detail definition."

While the camera in question was reportedly flown to the Johnson
Space Center in Houston, a NASA spokesman was not available
yesterday to comment on the device or the mysterious picture.

And although shuttle program manager Ron Dittemore did not make
a specific reference to the San Francisco image during
yesterday's news briefing, he did say all photographs in
connection with Columbia would be studied closely.

"We're working information from all sources -- public and
government, " he said. "We're searching all avenues to see if
there is some information that can come to the table to help us
understand the events."

He called upon the public to submit any photographs of the
disaster directly to NASA.

Meanwhile, it seems many are begging to get a glimpse of the
"zap photo," even Nikon's public-relations agency.

"I'd love to see the photo with something 40 miles up," said
Brian Williams of the MWW Group. "Forty miles is a hell of a
distance. It could be a great tool for the committee
investigating the disaster, or it could just be an aberration."








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 8

                 New UFO Feature-Length Documentary Praised

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@privat.dk>
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 07:09:42 +0100
Fwd Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 10:24:20 -0500
Subject: New UFO Feature-Length Documentary Praised


Source: San Francisco Chronicle

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/02/07/NB128511.DTL

Stig

***

PEOPLE

Bolinas man's film says we are not alone

Alex Horvath, Special to The Chronicle

Friday, February 7, 2003

C. 2003 San Francisco Chronicle

**

On a recent Friday morning, Marin filmmaker James Fox was in New
York City trying to do what he calls "some guerrilla marketing."
In case you missed him, that was Fox on NBC's "Today" show -
  standing in the crowd behind host Matt Lauer, holding up a sign
that posed the question, "Are UFOs Real?"

The sign also listed a Web site where viewers could learn about
Fox's newest documentary, "Out of the Blue," which ponders the
existence of UFOs and how much the government has actually
revealed about them. It was Fox's second time on "Today" in a
week - having pulled the same stunt on Monday morning after
arriving in the Big Apple. The unscheduled background
appearances on national television were a success, the Bolinas
resident said.

"My Web site got more than 1,700 hits on Monday alone and sold
enough copies of the video to pay my airfare. It more than paid
for the trip to New York," he said.

While Fox's "Today" show antics might be viewed by some as
extreme, praise has come from those who have actually seen the
film, including the publisher of Skeptic Magazine.

"With what seems like an almost illimitable supply of
documentaries on UFOs one begins to wonder what else can be said
about these elusive craft. 'Out of the Blue' breaks out of the
paradigmatic mold and emerges as one of the very best films ever
produced on this, one of the most interesting subjects in the
history of science," Skeptic Magazine Publisher Michael Shermer
said.

The film also won two EBE awards in March 2002 at the
International UFO Congress - one for Best UFO Documentary and
the other a People's Choice Award. EBE stands for
Extraterrestrial Biological Entity.

An executive at the Sci Fi Channel confirmed that negotiations
are under way to purchase broadcast rights to "Out of the Blue."

At 34, Fox is making a name for himself in the world of
documentary filmmakers and flying saucer chasers, sometimes
referred to as "UFOlogists."

Not bad for someone with no formal journalistic background or
film and video training and who, until recently, hadn't given
much thought to government cover-ups or the existence of UFOs.

The video is Fox's second work on the existence of
extraterrestrials. His first film, "UFOs: 50 Years of Denial?"
sold to the Discovery Channel in 1999 and was broadcast there
(and on the Learning Channel) for the past three years.

The documentary features interviews with astronauts Gordon
Cooper and Edgar Mitchell, who sy scientific investigations into
the existence of extraterrestrial life are warranted based on
evidence from high-ranking military officials they have met who
say they have worked with alien technology and hardware.

"Out of the Blue" offers a more in-depth look at the flying
saucer phenomenon and skewers government officials for allegedly
concealing facts.

The two-hour documentary, which is narrated by actor Peter
Coyote, who lives in Mill Valley, offers an alternative view,
including astronauts, former presidents and retired military
personnel lending credence to the possibility of alien life and
flying saucers.

In the film, former President Jimmy Carter claims to have seen a
UFO hurtling across the Georgia sky in 1969, and former
President Gerald Ford verifies that as a Congressman he ordered
hearings into UFO sightings that the Air Force officials had
been dismissing as being "swamp gas."

Mercury 7 astronaut Cooper tells how, in 1955, he witnessed an
event that has yet to be explained. While he was supervising the
filming of a precision-landing facility for F-86 fighter jets, a
saucerlike craft flew directly over the cameraman. According to
Cooper, three landing gear apparatus opened, and the object
landed on the dry lakebed. Apollo 14 astronaut Mitchell tells of
a covert effort to keep the subject matter top secret.

Fox had a connection to journalism through his family; his
father is Charles Fox, a writer whose work has appeared in
Rolling Stone, Playboy and Esquire magazines, among others. Fox
remembered going along on an interview with his father for a PC
Magazine article about physicist Stephen Hawking in the early
1990s.

"It was a story about the software that helps him communicate
with the outside world. But we didn't want to talk about
software; we wanted to talk about the black hole. He ticked away
with his thumb for a few minutes writing out his response. What
finally came out was 'I thought this interview was supposed to
be about computers - not God.' "

Fox's career in filmmaking happened accidentally. He majored in
French at San Francisco State University, graduating in 1988,
but several years later, he picked up a video camera and he was
hooked. The passion for video production led him to working in
freelance production and making promotional videos.

"I did PSAs for the Black Coalition on AIDS and a video about
homeless people in different parts of the country," he said.
"Then I did everything from videos about migratory songbirds to
winemaking."

His co-filmmakers on "Out of the Blue," are Tim Coleman, a
British journalist and documentary filmmaker whose work has
appeared on BBC-TV, and Boris Zubov, a production designer based
in San Francisco and New York.

Fox said that his interest in the UFO phenomenon developed a few
years ago after a friend told him about the infamous "Area 51,"
and UFO crash recovery information associated with the 1947
crash in Roswell, N.M.

"I dismissed him as a crackpot immediately," Fox said.

But then the story was corroborated by another friend, Richard
Van Sickel, whom Fox was apprenticing with at a video production
company. Shortly thereafter, with a handful of friends, Fox and
company road-tripped down to the Area 51/Groom Lake region of
Nevada, 90 miles east of Las Vegas, where, according to Fox,
they had a UFO encounter. "It was a saucer-shaped craft with the
ability to hover, about 200 yards away," Fox said.

Returning home, Fox found that family members doubted his
credibility.

"That is when I decided to launch my own investigation - because
my own family didn't believe me," Fox said.

Fox found working as a documentary journalist took persistence.

"I spent two years establishing a rapport with President Ford's
secretary, Penny Circle," Fox said. "I found a letter in his
personal archives initiating congressional hearings (on UFOs) in
1968. President Ford confirmed it. He said,

'I undoubtedly wrote to a general on the armed services
committee that such an investigation be taken.' Previous to
that, the Air Force's explanation of UFO sightings as being just
swamp gas was absurd - a spit in the face. (Ford's hearings)
were the closest we came to full disclosure."

Fox said that in order to use the telephone interview with
President Ford, the former president first had to view the film
and approve it.

To finance his second film, Fox said he used some of the money
he made from the Discovery Channel - and was fortunate to get a
$20,000 donation from an interested individual.

"He was a gentleman I had never met. He contacted me and offered
the money with no strings attached," Fox said. "He was former
military and didn't want his name to be known.

"I only look at myself a little bit as a UFOlogist," Fox said.
"I look at myself more as a documentary filmmaker."

His next topic, he says, will be on the history of alternative
energy sources.

"Dealing with the subject of UFOs has generally not been a
subject worthy of serious consideration," Fox said. "There is a
preponderance of evidence in this film. You can dismiss one or
two testimonies - and I challenge people to discredit some of
the testimonies in the film.

"You get to a certain point when you can't dismiss each and
every witness. You have to ask yourself: Are UFOs real?" Fox
said.

"Someone asked my father recently if he had any doubts about my
work or the existence of UFOs. He replied, 'Not anymore.' "

Information about "Out of the Blue" can be found at
outoftheblue.tv.

**

C. 2003 San Francisco Chronicle

Page 1







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 8

              Re: CI: 'Martian Genesis' & 'The Atlantis Enigma'

From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 00:54:25 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 10:26:15 -0500
Subject: Re: CI: 'Martian Genesis' & 'The Atlantis Enigma'


 >From: Wendy Christensen <christensen@catlas.mv.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 13:57:49 -0500
 >Subject: CI: 'Martian Genesis' & 'The Atlantis Enigma'

 >Mr Hatch commented on the use of Greek and Latin:

 >>From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 12:32:23 -0800
 >>Subject: Re: CI: 'Martian Genesis' & 'The Atlantis Enigma'

 >>Yes, greek letters (the typesetters must have been annoyed) so I
 >>couldn't even tell if the last word(s) rhymed or not.

 >>I suspect that was an affectation; the author as much as saying
 >>"Look how much more literate I am that you are." Sound familiar?

 >No... it was not an affectation, but a simple expectation that
 >was valid in those days. Up until the 1950's-1960's era, no one
 >graduated from college without at least a reading knowledge of
 >both Latin and Greek. Both were required. Both were considered
 >essential tools for the educated person. Authors and
 >commentators of the past could assume that their educated
 >readers would understand Latin and Greek quotations and
 >allusions, as well as numerous literary, poetic, mythological
 >and other allusions in English and (to a lesser extent) French.
 >Readers were simply expected to recognize numerous quotations,
 >in many languages, from the classic works.

<snip>

 >To bring this back around to ufology, a working knowledge of
 >Latin and Greek (not to mention other languages) would be an
 >excellent tool in the kit of a researcher who hopes to
 >understand the historical roots of this and related phenomenon
 >(or their mythological, folkloric, literary or psychological
 >roots, if one leans to that side of the fence).


Hello Wendy:

Foreign languages are an excellent advantage for any study,
especially ufology.

But, Latin and Greek required into the 1960s? Not here.

After 4 years of high school Spanish, I was able to spend days
or weeks in Spain or Latin America without speaking a word of
English. This allowed me to bypass language courses in college.

I started college in 1963, graduating at San Jose State in the
late 1960s. Never did I hear of a requirement for Latin nor
Greek, nor any mention of same in any recent context. The two
languages could have been Farsi and Sanskrit for all I knew at
the time, the issue never came up. Believe me, I would remember
if it had!

If it weren't for ufology, I never would have learned to read
(but not speak) French! Its ironic in a way.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 8

              Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' -

From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 03:09:50 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 10:27:30 -0500
Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' -


 >From: Dave Haith <visions@ntlworld.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 12:15:19 -0000
 >Subject: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough'

 >Well folks this is it!

 >Either this radio interview transcript with Dr Steven Greer of
 >the UFO Disclosure Project will prove:

 >1) A pivotal point in history and the answer to the world's
 >energy problems

 >2) Greer has been conned or tricked in some way

 >3) Greer is a trickster, a liar or insane.

 >If there's just a chance it's the first option, we could all do
 >with some good news right now, so this is worth a read.


Hello Dave:

Thanks much for providing the transcript of of the Greer Free-
Energy show. I heard it on the way home from work recently, and
almost gagged.

I would love to see a new "free" source of energy as much as you
or anyone.

But, I deeply doubt that Greer's Garage Einstein has anything to
offer. Frankly, what I see here is another perpetual motion
machine. Just add wheels and an electric motor [burp!]

Schemes like this date back to the days before people knew any
physics, and nothing nothing nothing has ever come of it.

300, 400, 500 Watts of power, from a device weighing a few
pounds, with no external source of power or energy?

You will see earthworms play the piano first.

There _is_ one fine source of free energy, for eons to come. Its
called the Sun. Wind power is solar energy really, so are the
direct rays. We should make better use of that while we have it.

I have to cross your Option #1 above off the list.

Greer is far too intelligent and well educated to fall for such
grade-school trickery. A physician who knows no physics at all?
  I don't think so. There goes Option #2.

What I think I see, is an example of what I call "BS Inflation".
  Its simple really. It starts out when some shaman (or whatever)
gains a large audience with extravagant claims.

The pigeons who attend the lectures (for a fee), buy the books /
tapes etc., are addicted to this stuff, but like other
addictions, the thrill wears off (unlike beer) and they seek
ever larger jolts.

The audience (thus the income stream) dwindles, so the huckster
has to up the ante. Greater and more idiotic claims come forth,
sometimes unrelated to the original claims! Thus 'inflation'.

Eventually, it becomes so bizarre that the scheme either falls
apart or turns into a religion or cult of sorts. That at least
is my pet theory, subject to improvement.

In short, I am left with option #3, by the process of
elimination if nothing else.

As for the garage nobelist-to-be; I wound up working for General
Electric due to some buyout where I work. They have so many
scientists and engineers working for them, they probably lost
count. They would have grasped at any straw for a find like
Greer describes, at any time during their century long search
for inventions and profits, but no.

Neither did the people at the worlds largest energy companies.
Nor did the Japanese, the Soviets, the Europeans ..

Again, no. A self-tutored Garage Genius finds the penultimate
"free lunch" energy-wise. Instead of seeking out investors in
the usual way, in a world full of idle venture capital, he takes
this stunning achievement to Dr. Steven Greer!

Sorry for the rant. Now I will get another beer and chill out.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 8

                Re: Anyone Have An Agreed Upon Number? - Pope

From: Nick Pope <nick@popemod.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 14:49:39 -0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 10:30:05 -0500
Subject: Re: Anyone Have An Agreed Upon Number? - Pope


 >From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 11:59:07 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Anyone Have An Agreed Upon Number?

<snip>

 >Budd Hopkins has had, I think, more than 600 cases. Dave Jacobs
 >must have several hundred, and John Mack a couple of hundred as
 >well. Budd also has letters from likely abductees that he hasn't
 >been able to follow up.

 >To these numbers we can add those studied by other researchers -
 >- John Carpenter, Dick Hall, others. Plus cases that have been
 >published. Eddie Bullard's 1987 abduction study listed all that
 >had been published before then. Plus cases in the MUFON project.
 >Plus cases reported abroad, for example many in the UK. Nick
 >Pope might be able to estimate a number.

<snip>

Eleanor, Robert, Greg and List,

Greg suggested that I might estimate how many abduction cases
had been received in the UK. My casefiles run to about 100, but
the degree of involvement I've had with these people varies
considerably. Some of these cases concern people where my role
has been limited to exchanging letters, telephone calls or
emails. This is either because of circumstances (e.g. the person
lives overseas) or because that's the way the individual
concerned wishes to play things. On the other hand, some of
these cases have involved numerous meetings and trips. The 11
January 2003 article in the Daily Mail (the text of which was
posted on this List) described one case involving a woman with
whom I'd worked for several years, who I'd taken to New York to
work with Budd Hopkins.

The above throws up an interesting point about the statistics,
because of the issue of double-counting (or in this case triple-
counting, as the woman concerned has also worked with Dolores
Cannon).

The more fundamental point, which others have covered, relates
to the difficulty of calculating a total figure. The Roper Poll
attempted to quantify the extent of the phenomenon in the USA,
but List members are well aware of the debate about the validity
of the methodology used. All I think we can say with any degree
of certainty is that like the UFO phenomenon, alien abductions
are under-reported; either through fear of ridicule, or lack of
knowledge about who to contact.

And as we've seen from previous posts, even those cases that are
reported aren't scored centrally. Researchers and investigators
don't generally share data, either because of witness
confidentiality, personality clashes with others in the field,
time constraints, or a combination of these factors. And as has
been pointed out, that's just researchers. Other cases get
reported to the media, the Ministry of Defence, witness support
groups, etc.

So I'm going to stick with the 100 or so cases that I have data
on personally, and not attempt any extrapolation for the UK as a
whole.

There are plenty of other UK investigators who have done a lot
of work with abductees. Philip Mantle, for example, might like
to come in on this thread, although I think he's at the Laughlin
conference now, talking about UK abduction cases, as it happens.


Best wishes,

Nick Pope







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 8

              Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' -

From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net>
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 08:10:25 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 10:34:15 -0500
Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' -


 >From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >To: UFO Updates <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 18:50:14 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough'

 >>I think he's two Tiddly's away from Wink. Does this mean he won't
 >>have to buy batteries for the flashlights he and his cronies use
 >>to signal down the flying saucers on their snipe hunting forays
 >>into the boonies?

 >I've heard two interviews, by Errol's Sunday night counterpart
 >Richard Syrett, of Dr. Peter Lindemann, a researcher of what are
 >somewhat mis-named "free energy" devices. According to Dr.
 >Lindemann, more than one "free energy" device is under
 >development with an eye towards the commercial market.

<snip>

 >Remember human nature, and please don't be too quick to condemn
 >Dr. Greer, who may be seen by history as a hero on one or both
 >of the frontiers he is working on.

Please be serious here, Eleanor. Your first statement "...eye
towards the commerical market," tells a great deal. Do you
honestly believe most people fell off the pumpkin cart? Anything
heading toward the commercial market will certainly _not_ be free.
There is no such thing as a free lunch. This is the real world.
If something can be produced for nothing, it certainly will not
be allowed in the hands of the masses. Economics 101.

Secondly, I'm suppose to not condemn a man who charges
intellectually challenged Bozo's $400 a pop to journey with him
into the boondocks to sing around the camp fire, flashing beams
from their flashlights into the sky to signal flying saucers and
hopefully get a reply, as a person who isn't a snake oil
salesman?

The only thing Dr. Greer needs is for anyone with a brain to run
the other way when he approaches with his spiel. Dr. Greer is no
"Hero." His shell game is a joke and a con. Besides, do you
think he's doing his thing without a profit motive behind it?
Yeah, right. About the only thing Greer needs to complete his
dog and pony show is to take a cue from that zany UFO lawyer,
Peter Gersten and get himself a set of robes in chartruse to
complement his flashlight explorations.

OK, everyone. Repeat after me...M-o-n-k-a...M-o-n-k-a...


Wendy Connors

So there ya have it, but what've ya got?







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 8

               Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 09:31:34 -0600
Fwd Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 10:57:53 -0500
Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Clark


 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 00:56:04 +0000
 >Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 13:34:13 -0600
 >>Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >>>From: Andy Roberts <aj.roberts@blueyonder.co.uk>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 08:34:11 -0000
 >>>Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >>>Oh dear. Read the book again Jerry. Whatever you may think from
 >>>the smugness of your 21st century conco, what they _saw_ was
 >>>Venus. What they _believed_ it to be was a fast moving arrow on
 >>>fire. If that's not a radical misperception I'll eat your hat.

 >>This is fatuous, even by your standards. At least you've given
 >>us a definition: _any_ misperception, according to Robertsian
 >>dogma, is radical by definition. In point of fact, Custer's was
 >>quite an ordinary misperception. Whatever he thought he saw, he
 >>perceived and described it accurately; it was his intepretation
 >>of what he saw that was in error. Maybe "radical misperception"
 >>sounds sexier to you. Or maybe you're just by nature more
 >>excitable than the rest of us.

 >Jerry, aren't you confusing perception with description?

I don't think so. It's the difference between what David Hufford
and other folklorists call folk experience and folk explanation.
The experience may be quite real, and the experient may describe
it reasonably (or, in many cases, exactly) accurately, but he or
she may have the wrong explanation for it.

 >People
 >may give a fairly accurate description of an event or object,
 >but misperceive it by an order of magnitude, or draw completely
 >false conclusions about its nature and actions - for example
 >describing the moon as "as big as a football (that's a "soccer"
 >ball to you) at arms length", which is one description I have
 >come across.

This is, of course, what I am talking about. There are known
perceptual mechanisms which cause the moon to look bigger than
in fact it is. These are ordinary, not radical, misperceptions.
Andy's, I think, is a generally useless, and at the least wildly
melodramatic, assertion.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 8

              Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' -

From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 11:09:39 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 16:58:15 -0500
Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' -


 >From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net>
 >To: UFO Updates <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 08:10:25 -0700
 >Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough'

 >>From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >>To: UFO Updates <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 18:50:14 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough'

 >>>I think he's two Tiddly's away from Wink. Does this mean he won't
 >>>have to buy batteries for the flashlights he and his cronies use
 >>>to signal down the flying saucers on their snipe hunting forays
 >>>into the boonies?

 >>I've heard two interviews, by Errol's Sunday night counterpart
 >>Richard Syrett, of Dr. Peter Lindemann, a researcher of what are
 >>somewhat mis-named "free energy" devices. According to Dr.
 >>Lindemann, more than one "free energy" device is under
 >>development with an eye towards the commercial market.

 ><snip>

 >Please be serious here, Eleanor. Your first statement "...eye
 >towards the commerical market," tells a great deal.

Something wrong in selling energy producing devices?

 >Do you
 >honestly believe most people fell off the pumpkin cart? Anything
 >heading toward the commercial market will certainly _not_ be free.
 >There is no such thing as a free lunch. This is the real world.
 >If something can be produced for nothing, it certainly will not
 >be allowed in the hands of the masses. Economics 101.

Dr. Lindemann and Dr. Ted Loder never claimed the energy was
free. Their devices require a small amount of energy and return
much more energy than is required to "prime the pump". Again I
refer to the electrostatic lifters which have become popular
science toys. Aside from the tiny amount of electrical energy to
charge the capacitor plates, any work from lifting is
essentially free. That has been demonstrated, even by NASA, not
to mention the kits which can be bought.

 >Secondly, I'm suppose to not condemn a man who charges
 >intellectually challenged Bozo's $400 a pop to journey with him
 >into the boondocks to sing around the camp fire, flashing beams
 >from their flashlights into the sky to signal flying saucers and
 >hopefully get a reply, as a person who isn't a snake oil
 >salesman?

I've never understood why communicating with UFOs by flashlight
should be a subject for ridicule. I see that as nothing short
of amazing, and I've heard of others doing the same thing. It's
puzzling that people willing to accept that UFOs are worthy of
serious study, yet the moment someone succeeds with primitive
communication, the whole issue becomes the butt of jokes.

 >The only thing Dr. Greer needs is for anyone with a brain to run
 >the other way when he approaches with his spiel. Dr. Greer is no
 >"Hero." His shell game is a joke and a con. Besides, do you
 >think he's doing his thing without a profit motive behind it?

Well, if someone wants to undertake very expensive UFO research,
more than could be done by someone holding down a job, one would
have to fund such work somehow, right?

 >Yeah, right. About the only thing Greer needs to complete his
 >dog and pony show is to take a cue from that zany UFO lawyer,
 >Peter Gersten and get himself a set of robes in chartruse to
 >complement his flashlight explorations.

 >OK, everyone. Repeat after me...M-o-n-k-a...M-o-n-k-a...

 >Wendy Connors

 >So there ya have it, but what've ya got?

Apparently what I've got is a viewpoint that there can be no
more to learn in the field of physics, beyond what we studied in
high school. Most surprising is the viewpoint originates from
people who concede that UFOs may be craft using physics _far_
beyond that high school physics text book.


Eleanor White







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 8

               Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 10:42:53 -0600
Fwd Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 17:01:12 -0500
Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Clark


 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 23:48:18 +0000
 >Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 16:15:06 -0600
 >>Subject: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?


John,

 >>What about all those well-documented and -investigated cases
 >>that don't end in solutions or magical misperceptions? Lots of
 >>those, you know. You _are_ aware of them, aren't you? Many were
 >>conducted by individuals with rather more years of investigative
 >>experience than yours, and significantly more formal scientific
 >>training.

 >It is true that there are many cases which have, so far, not
 >ended in solutions. The problem is that Jerry, and many similar-
 >minded ufologists are determined to ensure that they *never*
 >will end in solutions.

There you go again. I just got through reading your other
response to me and was struck at the thoughtfulness of your
question. For a moment, I thought you were actually advancing
the discussion. Then this. Why do I keep radically misperceiving
you guys and thinking you're actually up to something useful,
even collegial?

First of all, as anybody who has read my books knows fully well,
the last sentence of your rant above is not remotely true.
Unless there's _another_ Jerome Clark out there. Maybe you're
referring to somebody in a parallel universe. More seriously, I
am always gratified when my critics have to make up stuff out of
thin air. Call it the pelicanist compulsion to reinvent their
critics' arguments into absurd caricatures.

 >I get the impression, from many posts to this list that there
 >is a sort of inviolable canon of cases that have been set in
 >aspic and must never be questioned. Certain researchers, most
 >notably James Macdonald [sic], seem to be established as prophet-like
 >figures, and the very mention of their name is apparently
 >thought enough to counter any critical re- examinations.

"Prophet-like figure."  The air around me has suddenly grown
markedly hotter. Strange how that so often happens in the
vicinity of pelicanists. Fitting that you can't even spell the
poor man's name correctly.

In fact, as I know you haven't, anyone who goes through
McDonald's (note spelling) files will see more than ample
demonstration of this scientist's commitment to investigation -
  of all scientists of his generation, only Allen Hynek
investigated and conducted serious reviews/analyses of a
comparable mass of cases. In the summer of 1997, four of us --
  all of them, alas, representing that most hated of species:
American ufologists (Swords, Aldrich, Gross, and me) - spent a
week working long days reviewing McDonald's case files, housed
at the University of Arizona.

As these thousands of documents attest, McDonald interviewed
hundreds of witnesses, from the classic cases to obscure ones to
ones recent to the period, and from there went on to seek out
relevant experts and other individuals who could shed light on the
incidents in question and to review weather records, balloon flights,
and all the rest. McDonald's long and respected career as an
atmospheric physicist gave him particular advantage in atmospheric
effects and ostensible UFO sightings. Among other things, McDonald
found, as have other investigators, that a significant number of alleged
IFO cases were in fact UFO cases. Inadequate conventional
explanations are a recurring, and depressing, feature of the UFO
controversy over the decades.

McDonald's critics are typically reduced to the sort of insult
you hurl above. In reality, of course, he was no prophet - his
sheer humanity, including his battle with clinical depression
(which sadly he would lose in the spring of 1971), is much in
evidence in those papers - but he was extraordinarily
intelligent, thorough, and conscientious, unafraid to follow the
evidence wherever it went, even at great professional cost. A
real scientist, in short, and one well worth more than a casual,
empty slur.

 >>Let's see. We get one anecdote, from which you draw a sweeping,
 >>empirically unjustified, and finally absurd conclusion which you
 >>are able to mount no serious argument for or defense of, only
 >>ever more fervent assertion. And then you insist that it's up to
 >>_us_ to disprove it?

 >An anecdote, Jerry? Like the hundreds of anecdotes that make up
 >your encyclopedias? Is this a new conjugation?

Now, do I have this right? Anecdotal testimony about debunked cases
is okay, but anecdotal testimony to apparently unexplainable anomalies
is worthless? Got it.

 >>>>My brother's name happens to be Tom. If you find that wildly
 >>>>hilarious, I feel sorry for you.

 >>>Feel sorry. It amused me for quite a while.

 >Have to say, it amused me a bit too. You'd have to be a pretty
 >strange sort of person not to find it mildly amusing. Much as if
 >a UFO write called Jeff had a brother called Mutt, or - for
 >British readers - someone called Mark had a brother called
 >Spencer.

So what do _you_ think the average mental age of the British
pelicanist is, John?  Do we get now to make fun of _your_ first
name now, or the last, both of which any adolescent could easily
find hilarity in? We American ufologists, happily, are above
that sort of eternal eleven-year-oldness.

 >>I'd love, incidentally, to see you go on a tear with RMP and,
 >>say, ball-lightning sightings. In no time at all, you'd prove
 >>that the alleged witnesses were RMPing the sun, rubber balls,
 >>red birds, lighted cigarettes, flashlights, aircraft lights,
 >>spots in front of the eyes, red popsicles, and on and on, and
 >>demand that the rest of us prove otherwise. There's a job for
 >>you. If people RMP about UFOs all the time, they must do the
 >>same with other ostensible anomalies such as BL. I look forward
 >>to your book on that subject, and I hope you get a healthy
 >>advance and big sales, so that the rest of us can pretend to
 >>believe you were in it for the money all along.

 >Certainly people do have radical misperceptions about a variety
 >of anomalies, including a wide range of paranormal phenomena.

Now reread that sentence. I was specifically _not_ talking about
"a wide range of paranormal phenomena," but about an unusual
natural phenomenon which science, after long skepticism, has
finally mostly come to accept, based on eyewitness testimony
from credible witnesses.*

You, however, want to turn the discussion in exactly the
direction that makes pelicanist approaches such a dead end. Call
it the tradition of disbelief. Here you are saying in effect: "X
thought he had a paranormal experience but in fact experienced
radical misperception. How do we know he suffered radical
misperception? Because he thought he had a paranormal
experience." Since you "know" paranormal phenomena don't exist,
RMP _must_ be the explanation; the very existence of the report
is sufficient proof of that. This is the - using the term very
loosely - logical underpinning of RMP: Since UFOs don't exist as
extraordinary anomalies, eyewitness testimony dramatically
suggesting the contrary _must_ be the result of RMP.

I was trying to draw you into another, more honestly productive
area where you would have to do some actual thinking and provide
some actual evidence. If RMP is a real phenomenon which we can
safely assume explains most or all otherwise unexplained UFO
reports (that is, ones that depend on eyewitness testimony
alone; obviously, CE2s, radar/visuals, and the like are an
entirely other matter), we need solid empirical evidence that it
routinely operates in other areas of human experience, where
rare, ephemeral phenomena whose epistemological status is
unquestioned are encounted. That's why I asked where the
evidence is of RMP of ball lightning. Predictably, you
immediately changed the subject to the paranormal.

 >There may be a transatlantic culture-gap here. American ufology
 >has, historically at least, been far more dominated by military
 >concepts than in the UK, so quasi-official terminology such as
 >"UFO", "EBE", etc., has ousted terms such as "flying saucer" and
 >"alien" more than it has over here. Certainly many people,
 >including percipients, are happy to use the term "flying
 >saucer".

 >I think in many ways it is a useful term, and its use should be
 >encouraged. I have pointed out a couple of times in previous
 >postings that some researchers - Jerry included - use the term
 >"UFO" almost as an explanation: a sighting is explained as being
 >a UFO. They seem unable to accept that, by definition, calling
 >something an "Unidentified Flying Object" implies that at some
 >stage it should be possible to identify what it is, so that all
 >UFO sightings are potentially explainable.

In point of fact, Andy Roberts's imaginative claims to the
contrary, more IFOs have become UFOs than the reverse, as Allen
Hynek, Allan and Elaine Hendry, James McDonald, Jacques Vallee,
Peter Sturrock, Brad Sparks, and others have found when they
went through Blue Book case files and reevaluated the materials
therein. It's amusing to reflect that when, post-Ruppelt, Blue
Book began doing the most perfunctory investigations (if
investigations at all), it began "explaining" nearly all the
cases. For examples of UFOs that were once claimed IFOs, see
relevant examples in my encyclopedia and elsewhere in the
literature.

It seems safe to offer this maxim: As a general rule, the
lousier the investigation of a high-strangeness UFO case, the
more likely it is to be transformed into an IFO. There are,
obviously and happily, exceptions, but my maxim is more
generally true than its opposite, as the history of UFO
investigation richly demonstrates.

 >Perhaps if people were a little more honest in their usage, they
 >could reserve the term "flying saucer" for cases where they felt
 >that no further investigation was necessary, and the case had
 >been adequately explained as a phenomena unknown to science. Or
 >would that be too much of a hostage to fortune?

"A phenomena?" I believe you know better than this grammatical
monstrosity, John, so I'll cut you a break and assume this is a typo.

Beyond that: Neoskeptics' obsession with the useless phrase
"flying saucer" would be puzzling if its point were not clear:
to denigrate the phenomenon in question. Flying saucer, as I've
already had occasion to observe, was a tongue-in-cheek term
invented by a journalist in late June 1947. It was a cute catch
phrase, and no more. It should have been forgotten long ago. It
has no meaning on any level (except perhaps in, as Gordon Melton
has suggested, its utility to contactees and saucerians).
"Unidentified flying object" is a perfectly respectable term --
  one of its strengths is that it does indeed leave open the
possibility, even if slight from currently available evidence,
that the case may one day be explained (e.g., Mantell's);
moreover, it does not commit the evaluator to any particular
theory about the report's ultimate nature - and those who
respect the complex issue that the phrase represents will
continue to use it.

Jerry Clark

*Australian plasma physicist and ball-lightning authority John
Lowke: "Though ... I have never seen the phenomenon personally,
I feel that there is no question that ball lightning exists. I
have talked to six eyewitnesses ... and think there is no
reasonable doubt as to the authenticity of their observations.
Furthermore, the reports are all remarkably similar and have
common features with the hundreds of observations that appear in
the literature."







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 8

               Re: New UFO Feature-Length Documentary Praised

From: Michael Briggs <Mbriggs@newpress.upress.ukans.edu>
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 10:42:31 -0600
Fwd Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 17:04:37 -0500
Subject: Re: New UFO Feature-Length Documentary Praised


 >From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@privat.dk>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 07:09:42 +0100
 >Subject: New UFO Feature-Length Documentary Praised

 >Source: San Francisco Chronicle

 >http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/02/07/NB128511.DTL

Hi, Errol and UpDates Listers:

Did anyone note the quote by skeptic/debunker Michael Shermer in
the San Francisco Chronicle article on the documentary Out Of
The Blue?

In (apparently) praising the documentary as one of the best in
its genre, he also states that UFOs are "one of the most
interesting subjects in the history of science." I certainly
would agree but would also urge Shermer to follow the logic of
his own statement towards what should be an obvious conclusion:
the subject of UFOs needs much greater engagement by mainstream
science.

Since I don't expect Shermer to advocate that, I wonder if his
quote is accurate or if perhaps I may have mis-read it. Any
thoughts?


Mike Briggs








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 9

              Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' -

From: Joe McGonagle <joe@ufology.org.uk>
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 17:27:05 -0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 12:55:29 -0500
Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' -


 >From: Dave Haith <visions@ntlworld.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 12:15:19 -0000
 >Subject: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough'


 >Either this radio interview transcript with Dr Steven Greer of
 >the UFO Disclosure Project will prove:

 >1) A pivotal point in history and the answer to the world's
 >    energy problems

 >2) Greer has been conned or tricked in some way

 >3) Greer is a trickster, a liar or insane.

 >If there's just a chance it's the first option, we could all do
 >with some good news right now, so this is worth a read.


#3 gets my vote....

 >-----
 >Source: Disclosure Project

 >http://www.disclosureproject.org/transcriptcoasttocoastJan312003.htm

 >Transcript of Dr. Steven Greer's Interview
 >on Coast to Coast AM Radio with George Noory
 >January 30/31 2003

 >George Noory's web site

<snip>

 >GN: Yeah, I was just going to say, if you can harness it - my
 >gosh, you're going to save humanity!

 >SG: Well, this is why I'm talking to you. I returned from this
 >trip, ...and I wanted to be very very clear that this information
 >got out ...because I have to tell you that this is the sort of
 >thing that people have unfortunately in the past been absorbed
 >into operations where these technologies have been suppressed.
 >People have been murdered, people have been imprisoned, people
 >have had these things bought out only to sit on the black shelf
 >at a major corporation.

 >GN: Mm Hmm.

 >SG: That is not a conspiracy theory. We can prove this in a
 >court of law that this has happened over and over again.

<snip>

If Dr. Greer is serious about the above, why does he not
approach the police or the F.B.I.? Surely they can't all be
involved in the Military-Industrial Jasonite Masonic Alien
Bilderburg conspiracy, can they? (I hope I didn't miss any
there!).

Also, isn't it his civic duty to report a crime of murder to the
authorities, especially one or more which he can prove "in a a
court of law"? Here in the UK it is an offence not to do so.

If there are any of his sympathisers on-list please ask him the
above questions, I would be very interested to see his response.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 9

               Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Reason

From: Catherine Reason <CathyM@ukf.net>
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 18:14:32 -0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 13:00:20 -0500
Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Reason


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 09:31:34 -0600
 >Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

Just briefly...

Johm Rimmer had written:

 >>describing the moon as "as big as a football (that's a "soccer"
 >>ball to you) at arms length", which is one description I have
 >>come across.

And Jerry replied:

 >This is, of course, what I am talking about. There are known
 >perceptual mechanisms which cause the moon to look bigger than
 >in fact it is.

There are indeed, Jerry, but this isn't necessarily one of them.
Most people are simply not very good at estimating the angle
which any given object would subtend at any given distance. This
isn't in the least surprising, because to estimate that the
information flow through the visual system would have to go in
exactly the wrong direction - that is, from actual size to angle
subtended on the retina, instead of the other way round. Hynek
referred to this problem in "The UFO Experience".

 >These are ordinary, not radical, misperceptions.

I'm still waiting for some more or less intelligible explanation
of why the difference is so important. I haven't heard anything
yet that would indicate anything particularly out of the
ordinary.


Cathy

[Catherine Reason]





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 9

                    Re: Signal Detection Theory - Reason

From: Catherine Reason <CathyM@ukf.net>
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 19:16:33 -0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 13:02:02 -0500
Subject: Re: Signal Detection Theory - Reason


 >From: Andy Roberts <aj.roberts@blueyonder.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 08:34:11 -0000
 >Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

Jerry, Andy, may I add something here?

 >Well, Jerry. Yet again you've made my case for me! I agree with
 >wat you say but the RMP theory in action can produce many cases
 >- 'big' cases, especially in the UK - which were unsolved for
 >years and then were solved as RMP. So, up until the solving of
 >these cases they were being touted as UFOs, best ever cases etc
 >etc, as you note above. I am in total agreement that there are
 >still many 'good' cases which remain as yet unsolved but the
 >history of the subject shows that slowly they fall. Perhaps we
 >have a better track record of investigation than you do in the
 >states?

A friend of mine once referred to this sort of thing as the
"domino" illusion.

I'm afraid things aren't so simple, Andy. Imagine we have an
array of spinning saucers (just ordinary crockery ones will do,
on the tops of poles - still seems fairly topical). Let's
imagine that some of them are spinning to the left, and some are
spinning to the right. Imagine that, for some reason not to be
gone into, we want to determine the direction of spin of this
array of saucers.

Now let's imagine we have a spin detector. This detector D is
90% accurate, in the sense defined as follows:

When presented with a saucer spinning to the left, D will give
the result "left" 90% of the time, and "right" 10% of the time.

When presented with a saucer spinning to the right, D will give
the result "right" 90% of the time, and "left" 10% of the time.

Now, let's assume that of our array of saucers, 99 out of every
hundred will spin to the right, and the remaining one out of
every hundred spins to the left. We want our detector to find,
as accurately as possible, the ones which spin to the left.

If we have a thousand saucers, then ten of these will spin to
the left, and our detector D will on average detect nine of
them. But it will also wrongly record 10% of the right-spinning
saucers as left-spinning. So our detector, being 90% accurate,
actually records 99 of the right-spinning saucers as left-
  spinning, as well as nine of the saucers which really are left-
  spinning. Our 90% accurate detector has actually recorded
eleven times as many incorrect results as correct results.

This illustrates how dangerous it is to make inferences about
the reliability of some detection procedure simply on the basis
of the number of false positives it generates, without taking
into account the relative frequencies of the events it detects.
This applies just as much to UFO investigators as it does to our
detector of spinning saucers.


Cathy

[Catherine Reason]








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 9

                      Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 15:51:51 -0400
Fwd Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 13:04:43 -0500
Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Ledger


 >From: Wm. Michael Mott <mottimorph@earthlink.net>To: UFO
 >UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>Date:
 >Fri, 07 Feb 2003 22:16:23 -0600 Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of
 >UFOs

 >>From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>To: "UFO UpDates
 >>- Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>Date: Fri, 07
 >>Feb 2003 03:07:26 -0400 Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs

 >>>From: Amy Hebert <yellowrose129@attbi.com>To: UFO
 >>>UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>Date:
 >>>Thu, 6 Feb 2003 00:51:04 -0600 Subject: Re: Flight-Paths
 >>>Of UFOs

 >>>You are correct.

 >>>According to the "Skeptic's Dictionary" at:

 >>>http://skepdic.com/leylines.html

 >>Thanks for the clarification. It was the information in the
 >>first paragraph that was the subject of my brief
 >>intervention on this thread-despite inferences by another
 >>to the contrary. I have no real interest in the subject.

 >Ah yes,

 >According to http://skepdic.com/ufos_ets.html:

 >"Snothing has come from the study of UFOs in the past 21
 >years that has added to scientific knowledge... further
 >extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the
 >expectation that science will be advanced thereby." --Edward
 >U. Condon

<snip>

Sure Mike,

Whatever turns your crank. As I said the subject of "Ley Lines"
doesn't interest me.

I'm not going to be drawn into the other nonsense.

If you want to have your ego stroked, try Andy Roberts and David
Clarke or John Rimmer and James Easton and some of the others in
the skeptical NNN areas.

I know Andy and David are into the "supernatural". Andy
chastised me for not reading up on Ley lines so presumably he
has good knowledge of them.....


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 9

              Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' -

From: Tom Bowden <tomrbowden@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 11:58:54 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 13:06:53 -0500
Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' -


 >From: Paul Kimball <Kimballwood@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 17:33:43 EST
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough'

 >>From: Dave Haith <visions@ntlworld.com>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 12:15:19 -0000
 >>Subject: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough'

<snip>

Paul, Dave, Wendy, and all who follow this thread,

We can easily sort this out with a "wait and see" approach. Dr.
Greer says he is having this invention analyzed and verified by
three independent groups of researchers, presumably university
science departments. Since Dr. Greer is so big on disclosure, he
would have to make this matter public, and the results thereof
would also have to be publicized.

This will either make or break Greer's SEAS initiative. If he
honestly discloses the outcome of the independent validation,
whether negative or positive, then his credibility will be
enhanced. If the disclosure is not forthcoming, but turns into
some sort of shell game, then the conclusion will be obvious to
everyone.


Tom Bowden







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 9

                      Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Bowden

From: Tom Bowden <tomrbowden@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 12:44:32 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 13:10:18 -0500
Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Bowden


 >From: Wm. Michael Mott <mottimorph@earthlink.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 22:16:23 -0600
 >Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs

<snip>

 >A UFO is an unidentified flying object which has been identified
 >as a possible or actual alien spacecraft. Such objects include
 >meteors, disintegrating satellites, flocks of birds, aircraft,
 >lights, weather balloons, and just about anything moving within
 >the visible band of electromagnetism. So far, however, nothing
 >has been positively identified as an alien spacecraft in a way
 >required by common sense and science. That is, there has been no
 >recurring identical UFO experience and there is no physical
 >evidence in support of either a UFO flyby or landing.


Mike,

So far I have tried to stay out of this absurd debate, but you
are dead wrong with your definition of "unidentified flying
object". Your definition might be presumed by the uneducated,
but it is not a valid definition for working in the field.

This is the only acceptable definition of the term UFO, or
Unidentified Flying Object:


An airborne object or aerial phenomenon for which enough
information is available to make a determination, and which
cannot be reasonably identified as any known natural phenomenon,
heavenly body, manmade object, flying life form, or other
probable prosaic event. In any case where there is not enough
data to make a determination, the sighting should be classified
in the "insufficient data" category. In any case where
identification as a known object or phenomenon is strongly
suspected, it is reasonable to categorize the sighting as
"probably identified" according to the most likely explanation.

Identification of UFOs as extraterrestrial spacecraft may be a
leading hypothesis, but it is not a proper categorization for
triage in UFO field investigations. Anyone who is equating UFOs
with ET spacecraft as their primary definition of the term
should refrain from commenting on this forum and find an
audience on some new-age chat room somewhere.


Tom Bowden
MUFON Field Investigator
Asst. State Director for Oregon









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 9

               Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 15:21:59 -0800
Fwd Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 13:15:05 -0500
Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Hatch


 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 23:48:18 +0000
 >Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 16:15:06 -0600
 >>Subject: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

<snip>

 >It is true that there are many cases which have, so far, not
 >ended in solutions. The problem is that Jerry, and many similar-
 >minded ufologists are determined to ensure that they *never*
 >will end in solutions.

This sounds like the 'forteans' described by Truzzi; those who
love the anomaly more than the solution .. people who would
actually be disappointed if space aliens made their existence
unambiguously known.

 >I get the impression, from many posts to this list that there
 >is a sort of inviolable canon of cases that have been set in
 >aspic and must never be questioned.

The List is open to the public, with modest requirements. No
telling who or what will wander in, as long as they don't use
fancy fonts or the like.

Now to the point:

 >There may be a transatlantic culture-gap here. American ufology
 >has, historically at least, been far more dominated by military
 >concepts than in the UK, so quasi-official terminology such as
 >"UFO", "EBE", etc., has ousted terms such as "flying saucer" and
 >"alien" more than it has over here. Certainly many people,
 >including percipients, are happy to use the term "flying
 >saucer".

 >I think in many ways it is a useful term, and its use should be
 >encouraged. I have pointed out a couple of times in previous
 >postings that some researchers - Jerry included - use the term
 >"UFO" almost as an explanation: a sighting is explained as being
 >a UFO. They seem unable to accept that, by definition, calling
 >something an "Unidentified Flying Object" implies that at some
 >stage it should be possible to identify what it is, so that all
 >UFO sightings are potentially explainable.

At the risk of alienating some people, I rather like the term
'flying saucers'. Once upon an innocent time, I went into a
large local bookstore and asked where the flying saucers books
were.

The $4 clerk turned up his nose and said "You mean UFOs? That
would be in the Occult section over there.." (pointing toward
the Tarot cards.) This same bookstore had a collection of
leftist literature that would be the envy of Konstantin
Chernyenko, assuming he could read unassisted.

I like the term 'flying saucers', but with the tacit assumption
we are describing the classic 3 dimensional ovoid, one soup-bowl
overturned over another, preferably with a dome or cupola on
top, but without those hemispheric Adamski styled 'landing gear'
on the bottom.

'Cigars' are troublesome. They could be a class FS seen edge on.
Flying Triangles are all two often simply 3 lights in the night,
at apparent close proximity.

A little theramin music will complete the picture for those
disposed to automatic dismissal, but I note that even FSR
(Flying Saucer Review) is still in print, and not UFO Review(s),
any number of which sank without a bubble.

This will sound silly, but I have a nostalgic attachment for
flying saucers, especially those which do not mimic well known
astronomical objects at all.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 9

             Re: Camera Catching Shuttle 'Zap' Had Own Glitch -

From: Peter van Hyum <pvanhyum@bigpond.net.au>
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 08:06:23 +0800
Fwd Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 13:17:36 -0500
Subject: Re: Camera Catching Shuttle 'Zap' Had Own Glitch -


 >From: Kelly Peterborough <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 21:59:51 -0500
 >Subject: Camera Catching Shuttle 'Zap' Had Own Glitch

 >Source: WorldNet Daily

 >http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article. asp?ARTICLE_ID=30904

 >Thursday, February 6, 2003

 >Catastrophe In The Sky

 >Camera catching shuttle 'zap' had own glitch

<snip>

Hi all,

I have experienced this same phenomena when testing some digital
cameras for our internal company hardware standards.

Taking a shot out of our office windows, 36 floors above the
Perth freeway system which snakes through the city, a car
windscreen reflected the sun at the precise moment the shot was
taken and the resultant image exhibited very similar purple
aberrations as those described in this story.

It would be advisable to check weather conditions on the day,
especially the sunshine intensity. The aberration may well have
been because of the intense light emitted by metal burning or
the sun reflecting off the re-entering shuttle.

Television footage seen in Australia depicted a very clear blue
sky, hence the sun could very well have been a factor.


Regards, to all

Peter








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 9

                    Looking For Hong Kong Club President

From: Barry Chamish <chamish@netvision.net.il>
Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 01:53:24 +0200
Fwd Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 13:25:09 -0500
Subject: Looking For Hong Kong Club President


[Barry needs a valid address for Moon Fong in Hong Kong.
  Do any readers have info? --ebk]

..... we met in Laughlin, NV in 1999 and you invited me
to speak to your club in Hong Kong.

In March, I am going on a speaking tour of Australia and am
returning via Hong Kong. Would you like to meet? Let me know.


Best,

Barry Chamish (Israel)











   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 9

              Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' -

From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 19:29:41 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 13:28:12 -0500
Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' -


 >From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 11:09:39 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough'

 >I've never understood why communicating with UFOs by flashlight
 >should be a subject for ridicule. I see that as nothing short
 >of amazing, and I've heard of others doing the same thing. It's
 >puzzling that people willing to accept that UFOs are worthy of
 >serious study, yet the moment someone succeeds with primitive
 >communication, the whole issue becomes the butt of jokes.

Several years ago, I interviewed someone from Greer's group for
a magazine article. She told me all about the flashlight
communication. This was the first time I'd ever heard of it. So
I asked if I could come and watch. "Oh, no," said this CSETI
spokeswoman. "Whenever we've invited the press, they say it
doesn't happen."

Which left me with two possibilities. The press was lying. Or
the communication with flashlights never happened.

I put my vote in column B. I've seen, first-hand, NOVA distort
things about Budd Hopkins' work with abductions. But I've also
seen and heard of Greer distorting things even more. One I
observed myself was on the CSETI website. They had (and may
still have) a page purporting to document more than a hundred
UFO crashes.

But when I looked at the individual crash reports, or alleged
crash reports, I found that many weren't what CSETI claimed they
were. In one case, the entire report consisted of a statement by
a reputable Italian ufologist that the event in question had
never happened! This, remember, was on a page that claimed to be
an account of actual crashes. In another case, the entire report
was an e-mail from somebody who'd seen a light cross the sky at
night, and thought maybe it had plowed into the ground. No
further investigation. No evidence that anything at all had hit
the ground, or, for that matter, that the light had been
anything unusual.

Anyone who operates this way is hard to believe. My own guess is
that Greer shines his flashlights at the sky and imagines he
sees lights blinking back. That would be easy to do on a really
bright starry night, if you really want to believe that aliens
are signalling to you. Of course, I could easily be wrong; this
is just a theory. But whatever the truth may be behind these
claims of flashlight communication, Greer wouldn't exactly be
the first person to tell the world about some dramatic UFO event
that never really happened.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 9

               Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 23:34:24 +0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 13:54:26 -0500
Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Rimmer


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 09:31:34 -0600
 >Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 00:56:04 +0000
 >>Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 13:34:13 -0600
 >>>Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >>>This is fatuous, even by your standards. At least you've given
 >>>us a definition: _any_ misperception, according to Robertsian
 >>>dogma, is radical by definition. In point of fact, Custer's was
 >>>quite an ordinary misperception. Whatever he thought he saw, he
 >>>perceived and described it accurately; it was his intepretation
 >>>of what he saw that was in error. Maybe "radical misperception"
 >>>sounds sexier to you. Or maybe you're just by nature more
 >>>excitable than the rest of us.

 >>Jerry, aren't you confusing perception with description?

 >I don't think so. It's the difference between what David Hufford
 >and other folklorists call folk experience and folk explanation.
 >The experience may be quite real, and the experient may describe
 >it reasonably (or, in many cases, exactly) accurately, but he or
 >she may have the wrong explanation for it.

But the "folk explanation" is also part of what we are studying.
The "folk experience" is something that cannot be experienced by
the investigators. When an experient gives their account of an
event to an investigator their "explanation" is seamlessly
incorporated into their description. So in the case I cited, the
person in question gave a dramatic and lucid account of her car
being pursued by a large object which was very close to her.
This was how she "explained" the event, and there was no
indication in her description of her experience that what she
saw was in fact a quarter of a million miles away. A mis-
percaption of that order surely must merit the description
"radical"?

 >>People
 >>may give a fairly accurate description of an event or object,
 >>but misperceive it by an order of magnitude, or draw completely
 >>false conclusions about its nature and actions - for example
 >>describing the moon as "as big as a football (that's a "soccer"
 >>ball to you) at arms length", which is one description I have
 >>come across.

 >This is, of course, what I am talking about. There are known
 >perceptual mechanisms which cause the moon to look bigger than
 >in fact it is. These are ordinary, not radical, misperceptions.
 >Andy's, I think, is a generally useless, and at the least wildly
 >melodramatic, assertion.

I do not think that the known perceptual mechanisms which make
the moon look larger than it is - usually the experience of
viewing it against objects of known size on the horizon rather
than against the scaleless background of open sky - and similar
optical effects, is adequate to account for misinterpretation of
the magnitudes which arise in the sorts of cases which Andy is
writing about. There is clearly another, probably psychological,
mechanism at work. And in many cases something which is more
subtle that sheer panic.

I always find it strange that you seen to accept the existence
of an unknown physical phenomenon which would explain otherwise
baffling UFO reports without offering any possible suggestion as
to what it might be, yet demand that other researchers present
proof positive of the existence of a possible psychological
explanation.

You have always been unwilling to express any opinion as to what
you think a UFO might be - "I don't know. That's why they're
unidentified", you once told me on this List. I find _that_ a
generally useless assertion.


  -- 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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 9

                  Re: Secret Shuttle Device Sought - Oberg

From: James Oberg <jamesoberg@houston.rr.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 18:54:04 -0600
Fwd Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 13:58:14 -0500
Subject: Re: Secret Shuttle Device Sought - Oberg


 >From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >To: <- UFO UpDates Subscribers ->
 >Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 12:37:20 -0500
 >Subject: Secret Shuttle Device Sought

<snip>

 >Hmmm..... The "Houston, we have a bogey..." box?

 >ebk

No, the shuttle's spam/virus filter to prevent unauthorized
commanding from would-be cyber-saboteurs.

I hope it's OK with you guys to install such a device? <grin>












   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 9

                  'The Truth Behind Men In Black' (Review)

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 17:02:22 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 13:59:40 -0500
Subject: 'The Truth Behind Men In Black' (Review)


"The Truth Behind Men In Black" by Jenny Randles

reviewed by Mac Tonnies

When "The Truth About Men In Black" was first published to
correspond with the comedy film "Men In Black," I assumed it was
a hasty rehash of familiar cases and didn't read it. But I
should have; Randles' "The Truth About Men In Black" is nothing
less than the best book about the bizarre "Men In Black"
phenomenon I've read or am likely to read, addressed with
skepticism, wit and good journalism.

Randles not only cites compelling cases you've likely never
heard of, but furnishes a chillingly plausible explanation for
who the notorious "Men In Black" really are--but not before
exploring exotic possibilities a la John Keel's "The Mothman
Prophecies."

"The Truth About Men In Black" is both a balanced treatment of a
myth in the making and a rare look at a hidden, thoroughly
disturbing reality. This is a must for readers not afraid to
look behind the curtain of mainstream ufology.


For more: http://www.mactonnies.com/ufobooks.html






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 9

                  Re: Secret Shuttle Device Sought - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 20:03:46 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 14:05:55 -0500
Subject: Re: Secret Shuttle Device Sought - Gates


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 22:16:27 +0000
 >Subject: Re: Secret Shuttle Device Sought

 >>From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>To: <- UFO UpDates Subscribers ->
 >>Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 12:37:51 -0500
 >>Subject: UFO UpDate: Secret Shuttle Device Sought

 >>Source: The Toronto Star

 >>http://www.torontostar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?GXHC_gx_session_id_=f5e8b6
9388327d94&pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1035777547235&cal
l_pageid=968332188854&col=968350060724

 >>Feb. 7, 2003. 05:49 AM

 >>Secret Shuttle Device Sought

 >>REUTERS

 >>CAPE CANAVERAL, FLA.--Hundreds of searchers combed an area in
 >>east Texas yesterday for a top-secret object from the shuttle
 >>Columbia. They searched block by block and used machetes to hack
 >>their way through thick woods that surround the tiny town of
 >>Bronson, near the Louisiana border.

 >>They were given a picture of a faceplate from the device, which
 >>said "Secret Government Property" in white letters on a black
 >>background. Texas state troopers stood guard and told
 >>photographers to keep their distance, saying they would be asked
 >>to leave the area if searchers found something they did not want
 >>photographed.

 >>The Houston Chronicle reported yesterday the object was a
 >>communications device that handled encrypted messages between
 >>the shuttle and ground. It said the device was in a top-secret
 >>government "telecommunications security" category.

 >>Hmmm..... The "Houston, we have a bogey..." box?

 >>ebk

 >This is extremely interesting! What is NASA up to behind our
 >backs? Indeed, this question should be raised in one or more of
 >the forthcoming Congressional hearings.

It is an interesting question. Is this device used "every"
mission, or only the missions where they are messing with
military sats? If it is used "every" mission then obviously some
of the data/voice traffic is encrypted and not publicly
available.

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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 9

               Re: Anyone Have An Agreed Upon Number? - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 21:08:52 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 14:07:59 -0500
Subject: Re: Anyone Have An Agreed Upon Number? - Gates


 >From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 01:31:44 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Anyone Have An Agreed Upon Number?

 >>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 00:49:31 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Anyone Have An Agreed Upon Number?


 >Hi Robert,

 >I'd like to make a couple of comments. You wrote:

See my earlier email where I corrected the Carpenter number

 >>If we look at how many "actual" cases have been reported and
 >>investigated I understand the number is less then 1200.

 >Budd Hopkins alone has personally investigated over 600 cases.
 >That isn't counting Dave Jacobs who was 'at it' ten years longer
 >than Budd. Nor does your number take into account the cases that
 >were investigated by Mack, Fowler, Carpenter, Smith and lord
 >knows how many others. That's only in the USA and doesn't take
 >into consideration how many unreported cases there may be both
 >here and abroad.

 >>A while back, the MUFON abduction project allegedly had around
 >>600 'actual' cases.

 >>John Carpenter's case files were around 20, or so.

 >You've touched a live nerve. Major shift in gears ahead...

Carpenters Case files were around 140 total. I don't know if
this number represents cases that "he was the lead investigator
on" as opposed to having copies of somebody elses' files as
well. By one account 49- 60 or so of the files were his, and the
rest were copies of case files from other abduction researchers.
Supposedly those case files came from other well known abduction
researchers who were more then happy to provide them to John at
that point in time.

I also heard along those lines that 20-40 percent of abduction
researcher case files represent "overlap" case files material,
i.e. material from 'other sources' let that read other
researchers.

MUFON abduction transcript project involved 215 or so files.
Supposedly some of those were from well known researchers. Also
plugged into my number was additional files from well known
researchers which is where I got the less then 1200. Nick Pope
mentioned in an email that his UK number is around 100.

The point to all of this is when we hear all these abduction
numbers floating around, say thousands, tens of thousands,
millions and so on they may "actually" be estimates, educated
guesses, extropolations, theories based upon few case files as
opposed to actually having tens of thousands of "actual" case
files in hand.

This is not to say abductions don't happen, it is to say that
some of the numbers we hear in popular literature may not be
'accurate'.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 9

                    A UFO Case From Nearly A Century Ago

From: Tom Bowden <tomrbowden@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 21:47:17 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 14:15:55 -0500
Subject: A UFO Case From Nearly A Century Ago


To those who believe there is no UFO sighting which cannot be
explained as a known object or phenomenon within the bounds of
our _current_ accepted scientific knowledge, I submit the
following historic "flap" of UFO sightings.

In 1904 and 1905, many travellers in the countryside near
Dayton, Ohio, reported sightings of a strange flying machine.
Some of them took photographs. Some of them signed sworn
statements as to what they had witnessed. Despite these
eyewitness accounts, editorials in the New York Times and in
Scientific American maintained that all of these people were
either mistaken, were suffering from delusions, or were involved
in an elaborate hoax. After all, everyone knew that no heavier-
than-air craft could actually fly. Such a thing would defy the
laws of physics!

Many scientists continued to maintain that these so-called
flying machines were a physical impossibility until finally, in
1908, President Theodore Roosevelt ordered a demonstration of
the Wright Brothers' invention at Ft. Myers, Virginia, where the
reality of flight by heavier-than-air craft was proven once and
for all.

QED. The counterpoint to scientific pedantism.


Tom Bowden








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 9

                 USAF Imagery Confirms Columbia Wing Damaged

From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 08:06:51 +0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 14:18:44 -0500
Subject: USAF Imagery Confirms Columbia Wing Damaged


FYI

---



Source: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=3D733


USAF Imagery Confirms Columbia Wing Damaged
Craig Covault/Kennedy Space Center
Thursday, February 06, 2003

Pictures from ground camera in Southwest shortly before breakup
show jagged edge on shuttle's wing

High-resolution images taken from a ground-based Air Force
tracking camera in southwestern U.S. show serious structural
damage to the inboard leading edge of Columbia's left wing, as
the crippled orbiter flew overhead about 60 sec. before the
vehicle broke up over Texas killing the seven astronauts on
board Feb. 1.

According to sources close to the investigation, the images,
under analysis at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, show a
jagged edge on the left inboard wing structure near where the
wing begins to intersect the fuselage. They also show the
orbiter's right aft yaw thrusters firing, trying to correct
the vehicle's attitude that was being adversely affected by
the left wing damage. Columbia's fuselage and right wing
appear normal. Unlike the damaged and jagged left wing section,
the right wing appears smooth along its entire length. The
imagery is consistent with telemetry.

The ragged edge on the left leading edge, indicates that either
a small structural breach - such as a crack - occurred, allowing
the 2,500F reentry heating to erode additional structure there,
or that a small portion of the leading edge fell off at that
location.

Either way, the damage affected the vehicle's flying qualities
as well as allowed hot gases to flow into critical wing
structure - a fatal combination.

It is possible, but yet not confirmed, that the impact of foam
debris from the shuttle's external tank during launch could
have played a role in damage to the wing leading edge, where the
deformity appears in USAF imagery.

If that is confirmed by the independent investigation team, it
would mean that, contrary to initial shuttle program analysis,
the tank debris event at launch played a key role in the root
cause of the accident.

Another key factor is that the leading edge of the shuttle wing
where the jagged shape was photographed transitions from black
thermal protection tiles to a much different mechanical system
made of reinforced carbon-carbon material that is bolted on,
rather than glued on as the tiles are.

This means that in addition to the possible failure of black
tile at the point where the wing joins the fuselage, a failure
involving the attachment mechanisms for the leading edge
sections could also be a factor, either related or not to the
debris impact. The actual front structure of a shuttle wing is
flat. To provide aerodynamic shape and heat protection, each
wing is fitted with 22 U-shaped reinforced carbon-carbon (RCC)
leading-edge structures. The carbon material in the leading
edge, as well as the orbiter nose cap, is designed to protect
the shuttle from temperatures above 2,300F during reentry. Any
breach of this leading-edge material would have catastrophic
consequences.

The U-shaped RCC sections are attached to the wing "with a
series of floating joints to reduce loading on the panels due to
wing deflections," according to Boeing data on the attachment
mechanism.

"The [critical heat protection] seal between each wing leading-
edge panel is referred to as a =E2=C7=FFtee' seal," according to
Boeing, and are also made of a carbon material.

The tee seals allow lateral motion and thermal expansion
differences between the carbon sections and sections of the
orbiter wing that remain much cooler during reentry.

In addition to debris impact issues, investigators will likely
examine whether any structural bending between the cooler wing
structure and the more-than-2,000F leading edge sections could
have played a role in the accident. There is insulation packed
between the cooler wing structure and the bowl-shaped cavity
formed by the carbon leading-edge sections.

The RCC leading-edge structures are bolted to the wing using
Inconel fittings that attach to aluminum flanges on the front of
the wing.

The initial NASA Mission Management Team (MMT) assessment of the
debris impact made Jan. 18, two days after launch, noted "The
strike appears to have occurred on or relatively close to the
"wing glove" near the orbiter fuselage (see p. 28).

The term "wing glove" generally refers to the area where the RCC
bolt-on material is closest to the fuselage. This is also the
general area where USAF imagery shows structural damage.

The second MMT summary analyzing the debris hit was made on Jan.
20 and had no mention of the leading-edge wing glove area. That
report was more focused on orbiter black tiles on the
vehicle's belly. The third and final summary issued on Jan. 27
discusses the black tiles again, but also specifically says
"Damage to the RCC [wing leading edge] should be limited to
[its] coating only and have no mission impact." Investigators in
Houston are trying to match the location of the debris impact
with the jagged edge shown in the Air Force imagery.

Columbia reentry accident investigators are also trying to
determine if, as in the case of the case of Challenger's
accident 17 years ago, an undesirable materials characteristic
noted on previous flights=E2=C7"in this case the STS-112 separation
of external tank insulation foam debris=E2=C7"was misjudged by
engineers as to its potential for harm, possibly by using
analytical tools and information inadequate to truly identify
and quantify the threat to the shuttle. As of late last week,
NASA strongly asserted this was not the case, but intense
analysis on that possibility continues.

The shuttle is now grounded indefinitely and the impact on major
crew resupply and assembly flights to the International Space
Station remain under intense review (see p. 30).

Killed in the accident were STS-107 Mission Commander USAF Col.
Rick Husband; copilot Navy Cdr. William McCool; flight engineer,
Kalpana Chawla; payload commander, USAF Lt. Col. Michael
Anderson; mission specialist physician astronauts Navy Capt.
Laurel Clark and Navy Capt. David Brown and Israeli Air Force
Col. Ilan Ramon.

"We continue to recover crew remains and we are handling that
process with the utmost care, the utmost respect and dignity,"
said Ronald Dittemore, shuttle program manager.

No matter what the investigations show, there are no apparent
credible crew survival options for the failure Columbia
experienced. With the ISS out of reach in a far different orbit,
there were no credible rescue options if even if wing damage had
been apparent before reentry=E2=C7"which it was not.

If, in the midst of its 16-day flight, wing damage had been
found to be dire, the only potential=E2=C7"but still
unlikely=E2=C7"option would have been the formulation over several
days by Mission Control of a profile that could have, perhaps,
reduced heating on the damaged wing at the expense of the other
wing for an unguided reentry, with scant hope the vehicle would
remain controllable to about 40,000 ft., allowing for crew
bailout over an ocean.

Reentry is a starkly unforgiving environment where three out of
the four fatal manned space flight accidents over the last 35
years have occurred.

These include the Soyuz 1 reentry accident that killed cosmonaut
Vladimir Komarov in 1967 and the 1971 Soyuz 11 reentry accident
that killed three cosmonauts returning after the first long-
duration stay on the Salyut 1 space station.

The only fatal launch accident has been Challenger in 1986,
although Apollo astronauts Gus Grissom, Ed White and Roger
Chaffee were killed when fire developed in their spacecraft
during a launch pad test not involving launch.

No other accident in aviation history has been seen by so many
eyewitnesses than the loss of Columbia=E2=C7"visible in five states.

Telemetry and photographic analysis indicate the breakup of the
historic orbiter took place as she slowed from Mach 20-to-18
across California, Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico with the loss
of structural integrity 205,000 ft. over north central Texas
where most of the debris fell (see p. 39).

The science-driven STS-107 crew was completing 16 days of
complex work in their Spacehab Research Double module and were
16 min. from landing at Kennedy when lost. Landing was scheduled
for 8:16 a.m. CST.

Abnormal telemetry events in the reentry began at 7:52 a.m. CST
as the vehicle was crossing the coast north of San Francisco at
43 mi. alt., about Mach 20.

The orbiter at this time was in a 43-deg. right bank completing
its initial bank maneuver to the south for initial energy
dissipation and ranging toward the Kennedy runway still nearly
3,000 mi. away.

That initial bank had been as steep as about 80 deg. between
Hawaii and the California coast, a normal flight path angle for
the early part of the reentry. The abnormal events seen on
orbiter telemetry in Houston indicate a slow penetration of
reentry heat into the orbiter and damage on the wing,
overpowering the flight control system. Key events were:


7:52 a.m. CST: Three left main landing gear brakeline
temperatures show an unusual rise. "This was the first
occurrence of a significant thermal event in the left wheel
well," Dittemore said. Engineers do not believe the left wheel
well was breached, but rather that hot gasses were somehow
finding a flow path within the wing to reach the wheel well.

7:53 a.m. CST: A fourth left brakeline strut temperature
measurement rose significantly - about 30-40 deg. in 5 min.

7:54 a.m. CST: With the orbiter over eastern California and
western Nevada, the mid-fuselage mold line where the left wing
meets the fuselage showed an unusual temperature rise. The 60F
rise over 5 min. was not dramatic, but showed that something was
heating the wing fuselage interface area at this time. Wing
leading edge and belly temperatures were over 2,000F. While the
outside fuselage wall was heating, the inside wall remained cool
as normal.

7:55 a.m. CST: A fifth left main gear temperature sensor showed
an unusual rise.

7:57 a.m. CST: As Columbia was passing over Arizona and New
Mexico, the orbiter's upper and lower left wing temperature
sensors failed, probably indicating their lines had been cut.
The orbiter was also rolling back to the left into about a 75-
deg. left bank angle, again to dissipate energy and for
navigation and guidance toward Runway 33 at Kennedy, then about
1,800 mi. away.

7:58 a.m. CST: Still over New Mexico, the elevons began to move
to adjust orbiter roll axis trim, indicating an increase in drag
on the left side of the vehicle. That could be indicative of
"rough tile or missing tile but we are not sure," Dittemore
said. At the same time, the elevons were reacting to increased
drag on the left side of the vehicle, the left main landing gear
tire pressures and wheel temperature measurements failed. This
was indicative of a loss of the sensor, not the explosion or
failure of the left main gear tires, Dittemore believes. The
sensors were lost in a staggered fashion.

7:59 a.m. CST: Additional elevon motion is commanded by the
flight control system to counteract right side drag. The drag
was trying to roll the vehicle to the left, while the flight
control system was commanding the elevons to roll it back to the
right.

But the rate of left roll was beginning to overpower the
elevons, so the control system fired two 870-lb. thrust right
yaw thrusters to help maintain the proper flight path angle. The
firing lasted 1.5 sec. and, along with the tire pressure data
and elevon data, would have been noted by the pilots.

At about this time, the pilots made a short transmission that
was clipped and essentially unintelligible

In Mission Control, astronaut Marine Lt. Col. Charles Hobaugh,
the spacecraft communicator on reentry flight director Leroy
Cain's team, radioed "Columbia we see your tire pressure
[telemetry[ messages and we did not copy your last
transmission."

One of the pilots then radioed "Roger," but appeared to be cut
off in mid transmission by static. For a moment there was
additional static and sounds similar to an open microphone on
Columbia but no transmissions from the crew.

All data from the orbiter then stopped and the position plot
display in Mission Control froze over Texas, although an
additional 30 sec. of poor data may have been captured.

Controllers in Mission Control thought they were experiencing an
unusual but non-critical data drop out. But they had also taken
notice of the unusual buildup of sensor telemetry in the
preceding few minutes.

About 3 min. after all data flow stopped, Hobaugh in mission
control began transmitting in the blind to Columbia on the UHF
backup radio system. "Columbia, Houston, UHF comm. check" he
repeated every 15-30 sec., but to no avail. In central Texas,
thousands of people at that moment were observing the orbiter
break up at Mach 18.3 and 207,000 ft.

Milt Heflin, Chief of the Flight Director's office said he
looked at the frozen data plots. "I and others stared at that
for a long time because the tracking ended over Texas. It just
stopped. It was was then that I reflected back on what I saw [in
Mission Control] with Challenger."

The loss of Challenger occurred 17 years and four days before
the loss of Columbia.

"Our landscape has changed," Heflin said. "The space flight
business today is going to be much different than yesterday.

"It was different after the Apollo fire, it was different after
Challenger."

Columbia, the first winged reusable manned spacecraft first
launched in April 1981, was lost on her 28th mission on the
113th shuttle flight.

Reprinted with permission from the upcoming 14 February 2003
issue of Aviation Week & Space Technology


---
Sean








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 9

                  UFO Sighted Over City In Peruvian Amazon

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 17:30:52 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 14:22:47 -0500
Subject: UFO Sighted Over City In Peruvian Amazon


SOURCE: Rastreador News
DATE: 02.07.03

PERU: UFO Sighted over City in the Peruvian Amazon

An unidentified flying object was reported on January 13, 2003
over the Peruvian city of Pucallpa. The witness was a
functionary of Aeropantanal, a private corporation.

Alberto Santiva Panduro, a functionary of the airline, claims
having seen the UFO in the morning when the skies were
"completely clear."

He added that the unknown object was heading southward, adding
that during that same week, he had seen another similar object
in the northern reaches of the Peruvian community.

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

Translation (C) 2003Institute of Hispanic Ufology
Special thanks to Guillermo D. Gimenez, PlanetaUFO







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 9

              Request For Investigation By Air Force Inspector

From: Larry W. Bryant <overtci@cavtel.net>
Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 20:14:30 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 14:24:58 -0500
Subject: Request For Investigation By Air Force Inspector


TO: Inspector General
    Headquarters, U. S. Department of the Air Force
    The Pentagon
    Washington, DC 20330

FROM: Larry W. Bryant
     3518 Martha Custis Drive
     Alexandria, VA 22302

DATE: February 9, 2003

Now that more than 60 days have passed without my receiving any
response to my letter of Nov. 25, 2002, to the secretary of the
Air Force (copy enclosed), by which I seek his submission to a
polygraph exam as to his knowledge of UFO reality and of his
predecessors' official cover-up thereof, I ask that you
investigate that lack of response, and that you furnish me a
report of your investigation.

I base this request on the following rationale:

(1) For a U. S. departmental head to ignore citizens'
expressions of concern about such a vital public issue as UFO
reality cum the 60-year-long government cover-up of the UFO
experience runs counter to that official's statutory and moral
obligation. What's more, the official abuse of authority
inherent in the cover-up (e.g., the official lying to the
public) cannot help being encouraged by Mr. Roche's failure to
respond. Thus, that failure casts him in the same category as
the cover-up's original perpetrators. Can you not appreciate
that, if this matter were to pertain not to the UFO cover-up but
to a case of sexual harassment, he would have to be held legally
accountable for his nonresponse?

(2) If Mr. Roche has nothing to hide in this matter, he gladly
should take this much-needed step toward restoring public
confidence in USAF policy/programs/activities. His continued
failure to be polygraphed, however, will become his own self-
indictment -- a legacy to be expected as more UFO-cover-up
whistleblowers emerge from their captivity of enforced silence.

Please keep me timely informed as to all your actions taken
toward fulfilling this request.



LARRY W. BRYANT
Director, Washington, D.C., Office of
Citizens Against UFO Secrecy

Copies furnished to:

Chairman, Subcommittee on Government Information, Management, and
Technology -- U. S. House of Representatives

Peter Robbins, Editor-in-Chief, http://www.ufocity.com

P.S.: By snail-mail, I'm sending to you a signed printout of this
e-formatted request.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 9

                        FOIA-Litigation Notice To FAA

From: Larry W. Bryant <overtci@cavtel.net>
Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 23:57:25 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 14:26:34 -0500
Subject: FOIA-Litigation Notice To FAA


TO:  Administrator
      U. S. Federal Aviation Administration
      ATTN:  General Counsel
      800 Independence Avenue, S.W.
      Washington, DC  20591

FROM:  Larry W. Bryant
        3518 Martha Custis Drive
        Alexandria, VA  22302

DATE:  February 9, 2003

Now that more than 60 days have passed without my receiving ANY
response to my FOIA request of Dec. 5, 2002 (copy enclosed), by
which I seek access to the entire contents of the FAA FOIA case
file on the several FOIA requests that your agency has received
about the July 26, 2002, UFO fly-over and subsequent USAF jet-
intercept chase near Waldorf, Md., I now construe that lack of
response as a deliberate act of bad faith on the part of your
agency's FOIA staff.

Accordingly, I hereby serve notice that I am instructing my
attorney, Mark S. Zaid of Washington, D.C., to file suit in U.
S. District Court for the District of Columbia -- so as to
compel your agency's full, prompt compliance with FOIA basic
requirements and procedures.  Mr. Zaid also has my instructions
to seek from the court all appropriate penalties to be levied
against any FAA personnel who are taking, and/or have taken,
part in your agency's blatant subversion of the letter and
spirit of the U. S. Freedom of Information Act.

Please note that I'm snail-mailing to you a signed printout of
this e-formatted notice.



LARRY W. BRYANT
Director, Washington, D.C., Office of
Citizens Against UFO Secrecy

Copies furnished to:

Mark S. Zaid, Esq.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Government Information, Management,
and Technology -- U. S. House of Representatives

Peter Robbins, Editor-in-Chief, http://wwww.ufocity.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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 9

                          FOIA Appeal Letter To BLM

From: Larry W. Bryant <overtci@cavtel.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 01:04:26 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 14:28:53 -0500
Subject: FOIA Appeal Letter To BLM


TO: Director
    Bureau of Land Management
    U. S. Department of the Interior
    ATTN: General Counsel
    Washington, DC 20240

FROM: Larry W. Bryant
     3518 Martha Custis Drive
     Alexandria, VA 22302

DATE: February 10, 2003

By her Dec. 11, 2002, reply (copy enclosed) to my freedom-of-
  information request of Nov. 7, 2002, your deputy state director
for support services in the BLM New Mexico state office has
failed to comply fully with the letter and spirit of the U. S.
Freedom of Information Act.

In the first place, the package of documents she has furnished
me contains no copy of the proposed dig-site "map" referred to
in (and originally attached to) the Archeological Testing and
Remote Sensing Study Plan for Foster Ranch Impact Site, as
submitted by officials at the University of New Mexico for BLM
review/approval. If that omission of the map was intentional and
meant to deny me access to it, then I hereby appeal that
decision on obvious grounds.

Second: please note that the third paragraph of the study plan's
introduction (copy enclosed) contains unexplained white blanks
after the designated "BLM lands: Sec. 19... Sec. 20... Sec.
29... and, possibly Sec. 30...; Private (?) lands: Sec. 29..."
By consultation with another, authoritative source, I've learned
that the blanks constitute BLM-originated redactions. Of course,
Ms. Gamby's Dec. 11, 2002, letter fails to identify ANY such
redactions, much less attempts to justify them.

This appeal, therefore, asks that you immediately rescind the
redactions -- and that you furnish me all the withheld
information promptly. In your granting this appeal, you also
might wish to arrange for the BLM FOIA staff in New Mexico to
undergo refresher training in the basic FOIA requirements and
procedures.



LARRY W. BRYANT
Director, Washington, D.C., Office of
Citizens Against UFO Secrecy

Copies furnished to:

Mark S. Zaid, Esq. (Washington, D.C.)

Chairman, Subcommittee on Government Information, Management, and
Technology -- U. S. House of Representatives

Peter A. Robbins, Editor-in-Chief, http://www.ufocity.com

P.S.: By snail-mail, I'm sending you a signed printout of this
e-formatted appeal.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 9

              Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' -

From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 07:55:49 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 15:31:32 -0500
Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' -


 >From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 18:50:14 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough'

<snip>

 >I've heard two interviews, by Errol's Sunday night counterpart
 >Richard Syrett, of Dr. Peter Lindemann, a researcher of what are
 >somewhat mis-named "free energy" devices. According to Dr.
 >Lindemann, more than one "free energy" device is under
 >development with an eye towards the commercial market.

<snip>

Eleanor-

This conversation would have gotten off to better start without
the mention of Dr. Greer, which carries a certain amount of
"baggage" with many of us on this List. However, that would have
been difficult because he is the one who was allegedly
announcing this to the world. But be that as it may.....

"Free energy", for most people, is defined as any process that
provides more energy than you put into the process. I haven't
visited the site you've mentioned, but would certainly agree
that this is not a new line of research and that there are
numerous individuals around the world trying to harness this
power for the use of mankind. I would wish them all well, and
suggest that the proof is in their ability to provide a
demonstration of it as a repeatable process.

Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann believed that they had
developed a form of "Free Energy" through cold fusion in early
1989, which was announced to the world in a major presentation
before the press and other scientists. They were taken seriously
by all concerned, and a number of groups attempted to duplicate
their findings. One of those was at MIT, which resulted in an
article being published in The Tech:

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V109/N15/fusion.15n.html

A description of their process can also be found on line:

http://www.galactic-server.com/radio/p-f.html

Suffice it to say that we aren't today living in a world where
energy has been provided by cold fusion. While an interesting
effect was shown it couldn't seem to be repeated with
reliability. Obviously there are factors involved here that
physicists aren't (yet) aware of, and one can only hope that
this latest announcement by Dr. Peter Lindemann proves that
we've reached that understanding.

One hopes that this announcement is being made after they've
managed to nail down the process, and not because they need a
few extra dollars for research.

BTW, Pons and Fleischmann were left Utah not long after their
announcement was made and went their separate ways.

For those who are interested in this subject there are numerous
web sites and lists that you can join. However, IMO it probably
shouldn't become a major subject of debate and discussion on UFO
UpDates and I apologize for my verbosity.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 9

               Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Harney

From: John Harney <magonia@harneyj.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 19:24:30 -0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 15:37:01 -0500
Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Harney


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 10:42:53 -0600
 >Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >John,

 >>>>>My brother's name happens to be Tom. If you find that wildly
 >>>>>hilarious, I feel sorry for you.

 >>>>Feel sorry. It amused me for quite a while.

 >>Have to say, it amused me a bit too. You'd have to be a pretty
 >>strange sort of person not to find it mildly amusing. Much as if
 >>a UFO write called Jeff had a brother called Mutt, or - for
 >>British readers - someone called Mark had a brother called
 >>Spencer.

 >So what do _you_ think the average mental age of the British
 >pelicanist is, John?  Do we get now to make fun of _your_ first
 >name now, or the last, both of which any adolescent could easily
 >find hilarity in? We American ufologists, happily, are above
 >that sort of eternal eleven-year-oldness.

 >Jerry Clark

Oh, really? Then what about all the baby-talk by "We American
ufologists" about "skeptibunking pelicanists squawk squawk",
etc.  that breaks out on this List every time someone attempts
to take a critical look at one of the precious "classic" UFO
cases?

John Harney








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 9

              Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' -

From: Paul Kimball <Kimballwood@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 14:40:05 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 15:39:50 -0500
Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' -


 >From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 11:09:39 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough'

 >>From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net>
 >>To: UFO Updates <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 08:10:25 -0700
 >>Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough'

<snip>

 >>Secondly, I'm suppose to not condemn a man who charges
 >>intellectually challenged Bozo's $400 a pop to journey with him
 >>into the boondocks to sing around the camp fire, flashing beams
 >>from their flashlights into the sky to signal flying saucers and
 >>hopefully get a reply, as a person who isn't a snake oil
 >>salesman?

 >I've never understood why communicating with UFOs by flashlight
 >should be a subject for ridicule. I see that as nothing short
 >of amazing, and I've heard of others doing the same thing.

Eleanor:

The problem is that there is no evidence (nor, do I suspect,
will any ever be presented) that Greer and his flashlight
brigades are 'communicating' with anything. As for others doing
the same thing, why not? The first pyramid scheme has certainly
inspired many more hucksters and flim-flam artists to take wads
of money from well-meaning but incredibly naive people, the same
one's now traipsing about the wilderness trying to say hello to
ET with a flashlight. If ridicule can prevent even one person
from falling for this scheme, then let's all ridicule away!


Best regards,

Paul Kimball

www.redstarfilm.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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 10

               Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough -

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 00:38:27 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 15:45:57 -0500
Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough -


 >From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 11:09:39 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough'

 >>From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net>
 >>To: UFO Updates <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 08:10:25 -0700
 >>Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough'

 >>>From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >>>To: UFO Updates <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 18:50:14 -0500
 >>>Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough'

 >>>>I think he's two Tiddly's away from Wink. Does this mean he won't
 >>>>have to buy batteries for the flashlights he and his cronies use
 >>>>to signal down the flying saucers on their snipe hunting forays
 >>>>into the boonies?

 >>>I've heard two interviews, by Errol's Sunday night counterpart
 >>>Richard Syrett, of Dr. Peter Lindemann, a researcher of what are
 >>>somewhat mis-named "free energy" devices. According to Dr.
 >>>Lindemann, more than one "free energy" device is under
 >>>development with an eye towards the commercial market.

 >><snip>
 >
 >>Please be serious here, Eleanor. Your first statement "...eye
 >>towards the commerical market," tells a great deal.

 >Something wrong in selling energy producing devices?

 >>Do you
 >>honestly believe most people fell off the pumpkin cart? Anything
 >>heading toward the commercial market will certainly _not_ be free.
 >>There is no such thing as a free lunch. This is the real world.
 >>If something can be produced for nothing, it certainly will not
 >>be allowed in the hands of the masses. Economics 101.

 >Dr. Lindemann and Dr. Ted Loder never claimed the energy was
 >free. Their devices require a small amount of energy and return
 >much more energy than is required to "prime the pump". Again I
 >refer to the electrostatic lifters which have become popular
 >science toys. Aside from the tiny amount of electrical energy to
 >charge the capacitor plates, any work from lifting is
 >essentially free. That has been demonstrated, even by NASA, not
 >to mention the kits which can be bought.

Hi Eleanor,

WAC wrote:

 >>Secondly, I'm suppose to not condemn a man who charges
 >>intellectually challenged Bozo's $400 a pop to journey with him
 >>into the boondocks to sing around the camp fire, flashing beams
 >>from their flashlights into the sky to signal flying saucers and
 >>hopefully get a reply, as a person who isn't a snake oil
 >>salesman?

You responded:

 >I've never understood why communicating with UFOs by flashlight
 >should be a subject for ridicule. I see that as nothing short
 >of amazing, and I've heard of others doing the same thing. It's
 >puzzling that people willing to accept that UFOs are worthy of
 >serious study, yet the moment someone succeeds with primitive
 >communication, the whole issue becomes the butt of jokes.

American Heritage Dictionary definition:

scam (skam) Slang. n. 1. A fraudulent business scheme;
a swindle.

It's one thing to discuss cases where UFOs have reportedly
responded to signals from ground observers/witnesses and quite
another to charge people almost $400. to stand around in cow
pastures expecting to vector in UFOs with flashlights. One is a
discussion about an unusual set of reports that may indicate
'intelligent control' on the part of the UFOs, while the other
is nothing more than an old fashioned 'scam.'

It's important to be able to distinguish between the two.

Yes, there are reports of UFOs responding to signals from
witnesses. A well known abduction case with such a component
springs to mind immediately, the 'Allagash Four' abduction. I
believe it was 'Charlie' (sorry, I forgot his last name) who
started flashing a hand-held torch/flashlight at the object and
the UFO immediately began to move toward them at high speed.
There are many other reports of similar behaviors/responses from
UFOs to ground signals. A set of reports that beg further
investigation.

On the other hand...

Charging people hundreds of dollars to stand around in cow
pastures waving flashlights around in hopes of vectoring in a
UFO is just an old fashioned rip off. As stated in the
dictionary definition, "A fraudulent business scheme; a
swindle." If all anyone had to do to vector in a UFO was to wave
a flashlight around, then we could all simply open a window,
wave a flashlight around, and expect to have a field day
photographing and video taping UFOs. From the comfort of home...
and for free!

We should separate the two issues (UFOs responding to signals
and what Greer 'sells') and deal with them each according to its
merits. In Greer's case, the very stern criticism he's getting
is just what the 'doctor ordered' and no more than he deserves.

Regards,

John Velez

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

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/petition







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 10

                         Another Abduction Question

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 01:31:05 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 15:47:49 -0500
Subject: Another Abduction Question


As many Listers know Eleanor asked a simple question as to how
many abductions have taken place. This was responded to by
myself and others on the here.

Let me float an additional question.

How many abductions have occured in which the person abducted
actually remembers what happened without undergoing any form of
hypnosis, regression or otherwise?


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 10

                   Re: Validating The Ramey Memo - Randle

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 09:58:47 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 15:53:09 -0500
Subject: Re: Validating The Ramey Memo - Randle


Good Morning, David, List, All -

As I have mentioned, real world (or maybe I should say outside
world) considerations are taking more of my time. I have little
control over this situation, but it is one for which I
volunteered.*

That said, let's address some of the things that seem to plague
the thinking of a few on this List. First, as both Jim Houran
and I have attempted to make clear, the original score sheets
for our experiment were inadvertently destroyed. This is a
regrettable error. Once our article was submitted, the point was
questioned by a referee and he found that our data and our
answers to be satisfactory. In other words, he did not see this
as a fatal error. Had the raw data entered into the computer
database been inadequate or unavailable, then we would have had
to recreate the experiment, but those judging the situation
didn't believe that necessary.

Second, neither Jim nor I have been attempting to avoid this
discussion. Jim believed then, and believes now, that part of
the debate should take place in the pages of JSE because it
would be of benefit to science and to Ufology, if such was done.
Again, this is not an attempt to avoid the dialogue, just an
attempt to open it to a wider audience. Members on this List who
have published in a refereed journal should understand this.

Jim has offered, off-line to Rudiak, SPSS analysis sheets so he
could verify the SDs and ANOVA results were now correct. Ruidak
never wrote back. For Morton, Jim clarified how Letters to the
Editor work, because one of Morton's more recent posts gave the
impression that he assumed those preparing such letters were in
fact asking the Editor questions about the study and that this
approach allowed authors to dodge having to answer for
themselves. Jim's e-mail corrected this assumption, and Morton
merely acknowledged that, yes, he understood how the process
worked and that he understood that that point was obscured in
his posts. He has not corrected, in later posts, the implicit
assumption his message gives, which was that Letters to the
Editor are meaningless exercises.

Finally, I would like to point out that, in writing the article,
we did not spin it, leave out relevant data, or engage in
careful selection of the data included. We did try to provide an
historical context for the attempts to read the memo, including
the situation as it existed in 1947 when J. Bond Johnson took
the photograph. We noted that there had been several individuals
and teams working to understand what was written there and that
there was little in the way of initial agreement. Even the line,
"Victims of the wreck" was not universally understood. Some
could not read it at all and others claimed it said,
"Remains..." If the key word is remains, then the context is
altered.

I'm going to make several additional comments here. First, I
wonder just how independent that original research is. Neil
Morris, I believe, was the first to publish his analysis, and he
might have been the first to mention "victims", though with no
great confidence. So, did David and the others, knowing of
Neal's work, validate what it said? Did David know of Neal and
his original interpretation?

Second, David Rudiak seems to object to our report that J. Bond
Johnson carried the document into General Ramey. That Johnson
made the claim, later that he said that he just handed the
document to Ramey which had been on his desk, is an important
point. If Johnson brought it with him, then it certainly relates
to the Roswell events, but it has no real importance because it
would be a teletype message from the wire services and not a
classified document created inside the military.

Third, if it is a military teletype, then there are problems
that have not been addressed. For example, in that era, military
teletypes rarely had punctuation marks on them and the vast
majority of those messages used PD for period and CMA for comma,
yet in none of the various interpretations do any of those sorts
of things appear. This is not a fatal flaw because I can find a
few, though rare, examples that suggest that some teletype
messages used regular punctuation.

There are no examples of military jargon in the various
interpretations. Dave Rudiak has said we must assume proper
grammar and spelling and that the memo will conform to standard
English. I have just spent several days in military briefings
and have to say that sometimes they became so jargon happy that
I couldn't follow what was being said. Yet, in this military
memo we have no jargon and we have no designations of military
organizations. I find this a little strange... again not a fatal
flaw, but one that raises a red flag for me (though a very small
one).

David points out that we concentrated only on the differences,
but not on the commonality. The problem is, we saw little
commonality in the various interpretations of the memo. One
named location in the memo was translated as Magdalena, Roswell,
or Carlsbad by various researchers and was unidentified in our
experiment. Well, all three interpretations can't be right, yet
each has it's advocate and each is positive that he is right and
the others are wrong.

We have the same problem with the name at the bottom. It is said
to be either Ramey or Temple, with a variation that it is
RRamey. One researcher thought that Temple was the internal
code name for J. Edgar Hoover and tried to verify this with the
FBI. I applaud his effort. The FBI would neither confirm nor
deny which was no help to us.

They also complain about our bias, but we attempted to avoid
that by reporting on the facts of the case. They have ignored
our conclusions which we boldly stated, which suggest that those
attempting to read the memo in our experiment did, in fact, in
all three conditions, agree on the interpretation of some of the
words. This tells us that some of the memo can be read. Instead,
they choose to concentrate on what they consider the negatives.

And to return to "victims of the wreck" I might point out here
that, in our investigation, no one interpreted the line in that
way. If it is as clear as these investigators believe, then
someone outside the Roswell research community should have seen
it independently. That no one did should be viewed as a
significant revelation but certainly not one that invalidates
the work done by others.

In fact, if the interpretation of the memo is as self-evident as
the researchers have claimed, then shouldn't some of those in
our sample have spotted those words and if they didn't, why
didn't they?

Jim has offered, off-line, to provide data to both Rudiak and
Morton, but, for the most part, they have failed to respond.
Instead, we are attacked for "spin" and for dodging the
questions. Well, our methodology is laid out in the article, we
have answered, in public, the criticisms of our article, and Jim
has made the reasonable request that we engage in this debate in
JSE. Why is it that they refuse?


*And apropos of nothing, has anyone noticed the number of Army
Reserve and National Guard units that have been activated in
recent weeks?

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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 10

              Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' -

From: Bill Hamilton <skyman22@fastmail.fm>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 07:26:49 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 16:10:52 -0500
Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' -


 >From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 18:50:14 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough'

<snip>

Having been associated with this field of research in the past
and having had constructed a type of homopolar generator, I can
say that there have been some successful efforts and very high
efficiency conversion devices. There are many claims now of
having tapped the Zero-Point Energy, but nothing has been
verified, at least so far, by Dr. Hal Puthoff who I correspond
with. He has written many theoretical papers on the ZPE,
especially its role in inertial and gravitational phenomena.

 >It's like the "electrostatic lifters", today's version of
 >Townsend Brown's experiment in which an electrostatic field can
 >produce thrust (therefore lift) without any moving parts or
 >moving stream of the air. This is not completely understood
 >either, but it is clearly not fiction.

Having also experimented with the Brown effect with a friend who
is an electronics engineer and having some success using pulsed
DC and high voltage sources, I have also been in touch with the
Lifter experimenters, especially Tim Ventura who has made
significant progress in this endeavor.

The argument revolving around the Lifter technology is whether
the effect is produced by an ion wind current or whether the
effect can be produced in a vacuum and has any significant
contra-gravitational effects. The Lifter propulsion is now being
referred to as Electrokinetic propulsion and even NASA is not
missing out on this technology either. A NASA employee was
awarded a U.S. patent, #6,317,310 on the asymetrical capacitor
thruster and it is assigned to NASA. We may see future
significant developments.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 10

                Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Friedman

From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys@rogers.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 12:26:01 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 16:13:05 -0500
Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Friedman


 >From: David Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 17:55:27 -0000
 >Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

 >>From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys@rogers.com>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 08:07:25 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

 >>>From: Andy Roberts <aj.roberts@blueyonder.co.uk>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 17:03:06 -0000
 >>>Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

 >>>I'll ignore the rest of the bleatings as Stanton's was tripe -
 >>>lots of scientists quote Ted Philips' work don't they Stan?

 >>How convenient to ignore the comments about the many ways that
 >>chemists and physicists can get involved.

 >Stan,

 >If Philips' catalogue provided the physical evidence you
 >suggest, then there would be no debate about the reality of
 >flying saucers.

 >I don't see queues of physicists lining up to order copies, or
 >the appearance of the catalogue in the bibliographies of learned
 >institutions as the conclusive evidence we've all been waiting
 >for.

 >The sources for Ufological catalogues are predominantly made up
 >of newspaper cuttings and anecdotes copied from the works of
 >earlier UFO authors whose original sources were newspaper
 >cuttings and the writings of still earlier authors.

Thank you Dave, for demonstrating rule No. 2 for debunkers
"Don't bother me with the facts, my mind is made up". Just how
much of Ted's files have you reviewed? When he was interviewed
for my 1979 documentary "UFOs ARE Real!" he had already
personally investigated 300 cases.. yes that means field visits,
measurements, etc. Do you just make up these proclamations? I
realize folklore is big, but please let's not to try to pass it
off as factual. He doesn't have a book out yet, but you might
lookat his 176 page report "Delphos".....Lots of lab tests, etc.

I guess when you get down to it, the writings of folklorists
probably do come from cuttings and clippings form people who
have read other cuttings and clippings.

 >There may be some scientifically challenging data hidden there,
 >but you would have a job to find it among the 'anecdotes.' This
 >is where the lack of critical thinking becomes a factor once
 >again - the signal is drowned out by the noise.

There are many fields of science where there is great difficulty
in sorting out the signal from the noise. Most chemicals don't
cure any disease, but fortunately a very small percentage do.
Most stars aren't black holes, but some are. Most isotopes
aren't fissionable, but fortunately for us nuclear guys, some
are.The signals from our space probes are often hidden in noise,
but fortunately some smart people are available to do the
sorting with special equipment. Most gold ore is dross, but
fortunately for gold miners, maybe an ounce of more of gold can
be sifted from a tonne of ore.My job in trying to protect the
crew of a nuclear powered craft is dealing with the tiniest
fraction of the original radiation source that actually gets out
of the shield. Serious scientific ufologists like James
MacDonald and Bruce Maccabee seem able to sift the gold from the
dross. I am sure radar investigators would not be happy at
having their signals termed anecdotal.

 >What you have is a body of testimony, not of scientific
 >evidence. It is of interest to folklore, but not to physics. You
 >can huff and puff all you like, but I return to my point: if
 >your physical trace catalogue was worth the paper it was written
 >on, we would not be having this debate.

Based on your examination of how much of that catalogue???



Stan Friedman
Not a folklorist








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 10

                  Chupacabras Renews Attacks In Puerto Rico

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 11:56:11 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 16:32:17 -0500
Subject: Chupacabras Renews Attacks In Puerto Rico


SOURCE: El Vocero (newspaper)
DATE: February 8, 2003


Chupacabras Renews Attacks In Fajardo
by Miguel Rivera Ortiz

FAJARDO--The fearsome animal known as "Chupacabras" reappeared
in a central sector of Fajardo where it allegedly slew two
rabbits, "sucking" all of their blood, and leaving a goat at
death's door. Domingo Ramos, 70, told Police that he had
witnessed the macabre activity of the Chupacabras as it killed
his rabbits and tried to drain his goat's blood. As of the close
of this edition, the animal was still alive with what little
blood remained in its body.

The time was around 2:00 a.m. Monday when Domingo, residing at
Fajardo's Desv=EDo Street, heard a "ruckus" out by his rabbit
cages and when he looked through the window, was appalled by the
sight of a giant bird with large wings and bulging eyes slaking
its thirst with his animals' blood. The bird, which Domingo said
could measure over 5 feet in height, practically attacked his
goat in a single motion and drained its blood by biting near the
heart.

The "Chupacabras" jumped and flew off toward parts unknown as
Domingo began shouting. In an exclusive interview with EL
VOCERO, Domingo compared the "Chupacabra" with a gigantic
"guaraguao" (falcon) but with a practically human face.

This case was then investigated by the Puerto Rico Police as yet
another in which it is alleged that the animal dubbed
"Chupacabras" has attacked domestic animals on the island's
eastern reaches.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Translation (C) 2003. Scott Corrales
Institute of Hispanic Ufology
Special thanks to Lucy Guzman, ovni.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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 10

                             Whiteman AFB Case?

From: Albert Rosales <Garuda79@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 12:58:04 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 16:33:37 -0500
Subject: Whiteman AFB Case?

Hello everyone, I am looking for information on a UFO landing
trace case were an occupant was seen, in May 1966 in Whiteman
AFB Missouri, can anyone help?


Thank you,

Albert








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 10

                    Re: Signal Detection Theory - Roberts

From: Andy Roberts <aj.roberts@blueyonder.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 18:22:56 -0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 16:35:13 -0500
Subject: Re: Signal Detection Theory - Roberts


 >From: Catherine Reason <CathyM@ukf.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 19:16:33 -0000
 >Subject: Re: Signal Detection Theory

Cathy wrote:

 >This illustrates how dangerous it is to make inferences about
 >the reliability of some detection procedure simply on the basis
 >of the number of false positives it generates, without taking
 >into account the relative frequencies of the events it detects.
 >This applies just as much to UFO investigators as it does to our
 >detector of spinning saucers.

Er, no, Cathy - for the simple reason that it is _humans_ who
are doing the saucer 'detecting' and the human instrument is
subject to many variables which make it an inexact recording
device.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 10

                     Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Roberts

From: Andy Roberts <aj.roberts@blueyonder.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 18:28:15 -0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 16:36:37 -0500
Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Roberts


 >From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 15:51:51 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs

 >I know Andy and David are into the "supernatural". Andy
 >chastised me for not reading up on Ley lines so presumably he
 >has good knowledge of them.....


Ahh, Don, Don. Yes, we're into the 'supernatural' (as in saucers
- which surely must be that by the very definition of their
alleged characteristics). But as for Ley Lines - they were
misperceptions and extrapolations of relatively short alignments
of pre (and often post) historic sites. Now hijacked by the New
Age crowd as 'spirit lines' - even more unprovable and
supernatural than saucers. However, the 'ley line' approach to
saucerdom has some cultural merit as the Rimmerman suggested.
Much of today's saucerology in the UK can be traced back to Tony
Wedd, John Michell and similar people.


Trappy Hails

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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 10

                       Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Hale

From: Roy Hale <roy.hale@ntlworld.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 18:35:06 -0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 16:38:52 -0500
Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Hale


 >From: Tom Bowden <tomrbowden@yahoo.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 12:44:32 -0800 (PST)
 >Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs

 >So far I have tried to stay out of this absurd debate, but you
 >are dead wrong with your definition of "unidentified flying
 >object". Your definition might be presumed by the uneducated,
 >but it is not a valid definition for working in the field.

Hi,

The uneducated? Lets see, Hynek uneducated? Come on, let us not
sit on great stalls in the sky looking down on the humble human
and casting your definition on what UFOs 'Maybe'. The ETH has
been around for a long time, and will still be around for many
years, simply because one cannot rule out the " possibility " of
Alien Life forms of some kind, visiting this planet.

 >This is the only acceptable definition of the term UFO, or
 >Unidentified Flying Object:

You mean: 'This is _my_ only acceptable definition of the term
UFO.'

 >An airborne object or aerial phenomenon for which enough
 >information is available to make a determination, and which
 >cannot be reasonably identified as any known natural phenomenon,
 >heavenly body, manmade object, flying life form, or other
 >probable prosaic event. In any case where there is not enough
 >data to make a determination, the sighting should be classified
 >in the "insufficient data" category. In any case where
 >identification as a known object or phenomenon is strongly
 >suspected, it is reasonable to categorize the sighting as
 >"probably identified" according to the most likely explanation.

Somehow swamp gas or pelicans did not make an apearance?

 >Identification of UFOs as extraterrestrial spacecraft may be a
 >leading hypothesis, but it is not a proper categorization for
 >triage in UFO field investigations. Anyone who is equating UFOs
 >with ET spacecraft as their primary definition of the term
 >should refrain from commenting on this forum and find an
 >audience on some new-age chat room somewhere.

Not primary, but as a definition, where does the word proper
have any basis in UFO research?


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 10

              Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' -

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 13:41:09 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 16:40:51 -0500
Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' -


 >From: Joe McGonagle <joe@ufology.org.uk>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 17:27:05 -0000
 >Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough'

<snip>

 >If Dr. Greer is serious about the above, why does he not
 >approach the police or the F.B.I.? Surely they can't all be
 >involved in the Military-Industrial Jasonite Masonic Alien
 >Bilderburg conspiracy, can they? (I hope I didn't miss any
 >there!).

Hey Joe, where you goin wit dat gunin yoe han?

You've missed two 'biggies'... the Illuminati and the Vatican!
Now that you've drawn public attention to their world domination
schemes, I fear that members of the Illuminati will contract
Vatican 'hit squads,' cold-blooded, killer priests, to rain .45 cal.
hell-fire down on your chatty, blasphemous head.

Hey, maybe they'll send you to serve an undetermined stint at
that Canadian concentration camp where the Americans allegedly
sequestered their 'loose-lipped, loose cannons.' You'll be
assigned a number, you'll be drugged regularly, and chased by
large, white, spherical balloons. It's no more than you deserve
for acting like a washwoman gossiping over the back fence,
spilling the beans about 'secret societies' and 'impending world
domination'.

Some people just can't keep a secret!

 >Also, isn't it his civic duty to report a crime of murder to the
 >authorities, especially one or more which he can prove "in a a
 >court of law"? Here in the UK it is an offence not to do so.

Greer is probably blathering about (and pluralizing) the death
of Tesla. The gubbamint did move in pretty quickly after he
expired and secured all of his notes and logs/diaries. To this
day, none of that material has seen the light of day. Makes you
wonder what's in there. It is that 'slight nod' towards the
truth in Greer's statements that seduces a few people who only
half-know what they think they know. To them, Greer makes sense.
But, being a half-wit _is_ a prerequisite!

Let's wait and see. If Greer 'saves the world' I'll be the first
to liberally sprinkle salt on my hat and eat it in Macy's window
at high noon. Until then... we wait.

 >If there are any of his sympathisers on-list please ask him the
 >above questions, I would be very interested to see his response.

Be careful what you ask for Joe... you just might get it! And
then, Ghod help us all!  ;)

Best,

John Velez

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

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/petition








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 10

                  Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 13:02:10 -0600
Fwd Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 16:42:57 -0500
Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Clark


 >From: David Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 17:13:24 -0000
 >Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham


 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 17:24:23 -0600
 >>Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

 >>>From: David Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
 >>>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 17:55:27 -0000
 >>>Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham


Dave,

 >>Science's neglect of a particular matter does
 >>not necessarily mean that the matter at issue will never be
 >>taken up, or that it is without potential scientific interest or
 >>validity.

 >I have no argument with this. But despite 55 years of saucer-
 >ology, science at large has steadfastly been unimpressed by the
 >evidence that UFOlogists have been able to muster.

What is "saucerology?" This is a new one on me. Sounds
like something I'd want no part of, in any event.

Let's change the subject and take up something of interest to
people on this List, namely UFOs. Where UFOs are concerned,
science has not been "unimpressed." With an honorable few
exceptions, science has ignored the UFO question, and few
scientists know anything about the subject. Even the typical
scientist quoted sneering in your local newspaper, your
inclination to take his words as Holy Writ notwithstanding,
probably couldn't cite one evidential UFO case.

When scientists have looked at the evidence, they have indeed
been impressed. I refer to individual scientists who have
contributed to our understanding of the UFO phenomenon as well
as to scientific bodies - such as the American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics UFO Subcommittee - which, after
actually looking at the evidence in some reasonable depth,
concluded that the UFO phenomenon is indeed serious, puzzling,
potentially important, and worthy of further inquiry, with the
funding and scientific expertise lay ufologists, working
parttime with no money, don't have.* Even the Condon Committee
found it could not explain nearly one-third of its cases,
notwithstanding Condon's dishonest conclusions. The Battelle
Memorial Institute study found that IFOs and UFOs are
fundamentally unalike, though it chose to fudge that
extraordinary fact. Both Hynek and Sturrock found in their
respective survey of astronomer colleagues that those who had
read on the subject, or had their own sighting, were more likely
to be open-minded than those who had neither read nor seen.

Unless a scientist has bothered to acquaint himself with the UFO
evidence, his opinion is no more worth taking seriously than any
uninformed layman's. Unless, of course, you believe that
scientists are priests with a divine wisdom that enables them to
speak truth on matters about which they know nothing. Or that
science's long neglect of the subject is all the reason we need
for its further neglect.

 >When and if they do we can have a sensible debate on this
 >subject. It is not my responsibility to convince a sceptical
 >scientific community, as I'm not making any claims.

Yes, you are. You just did. Nearly every post you write makes
some claim or another. Which is fine. It's just that, like all
of us, you also have an obligation to defend your position with
sensible arguments when challenged. Your principal claim appears
to be that UFOs are nothing but social pathology and folklore.
If that is indeed your belief, you have an obligation to present
evidence and logical argument. If you can't be bothered, then
don't say anything at all. Only those who say nothing have no
obligation to defend their positions.

 >It's up to _you_ and your friends to convince science that
 >ufological "data" should be taken seriously.

Please explain the scare quotes above. Or does your computer
just generate them randomly?

 >It's no use blaming the fact that they haven't so far on the
 >shortcomings of scientific philosophy and methodology. If the
 >evidence for any form of exotic origin for flying saucers is as
 >compelling as you, Dick and Stan et al are telling us they would
 >be clambering to look at it, in view of the opportunities for
 >grants and career enhancement.

Since I don't believe in flying saucers, none of what you are
saying above applies to me. Perhaps you should contact the
George Adamski Foundation.

 >Besides your output of popular books on flying saucers how
 >exactly are you involved in trying to interest the scientific
 >community, and what success have you had so far?

Do you mean scientists who have read my books as opposed to
those who haven't? If you mean the former, I've had good success
and many compliments. If you mean the latter, I haven't heard
from them.

 >>In fact, science historians and sociologists with an interest in
 >>anomalistics - e.g., Henry Bauer, Ron Westrum, the late Marcello
 >>Truzzi, Jamcs McClenon, among others - have always made a point
 >>of stating that the UFO phenomenon is a legitimate potential
 >>source of scientific study and that science's current neglect of
 >>the phenomenon says nothing about its nature or epistemological
 >>status.

 >Yes, but surely the above are asking for _all_ branches of science
 >including the human sciences, to look at the subject, which
 >is what I have been arguing for years!

Huh? The individuals above come from both the physical and the
social sciences. I take it you haven't bothered to read their
work. Bauer, for example, was a chemist for most of his academic
career. The others are social scientists. Not one of them
expresses the view that only one kind of science - social,
natural, or physical - is adequate to address all of the
interesting questions raised by puzzling UFO sightings. That is
why, Dave, in case you've mentioned a whole lot of discussion on
this matter, ufology is generally regarded as a multi-discipline
pursuit.

 >As yet it appears that _only_ the psychologists and sociologists
 >and folklorists have paid any attention. That speaks for itself.

And, besides not being true, what exactly _does_ that say?
Nothing?

Let's list some physical scientists who have paid attention (and
this is just off the top of my head) and in one way or another
contributed to UFO study (I'm confining myself here, for reasons
of convenience and no other, to Americans):

J. Allen Hynek
James E. McDonald
Peter A. Sturrock
David E. Pritchard
Clyde Tombaugh
Bruce Maccabee
Michael D. Swords
Stanton T. Friedman
Thornton W. Page
Gordon David Thayer
Jacques Vallee
Walter N. Webb
Joachim P. Kuettner

By the way, I defy you to name a single scientist-skeptic who
EVEN begins to match Hynek's and McDonald's investigative
experience.

Ufology's one refereed scientific periodical, CUFOS' Journal of
UFO Studies, has published a number of pieces by physical
scientists who take the phenomenon seriously and whose worldview
is not so severely crabbed as yours. The Journal of Scientific
Exploration is another place where formal scientific writing

 >For example Robert Bartholomew, whose writings you have praised,
 >holds exactly the same views as myself, ie that there is nothing
 >physical to study.

Well, then I guess the question is closed. You two physical
scientists surely can tell us everything we need to know about
the physical aspects of the UFO phenomenon.

Since you keep reminding us that you have a Ph.D. in social
science (of a kind anyway; I don't mean this as an insult, since
I respect your interest, which I share, in folklore, but you
know well, of course, that folklore remains something of a
marginal discipline, sort of like ufology [okay, a little
humorous hyperbole there], within academia), I might note here
that CUFOS scientific director Mark Rodeghier has a Ph.D. in
sociology. His Ph.D. dissertation (at the University of
Illinois, Chicago) deals with the nonscientific considerations
that have led most scientists not to take up the questions
raised by the UFO phenomenon.

Besides having a more sophisticated knowledge of how real-world
science works than you seem to possess, Mark has an
undergraduate degree in the physical sciences (astrophysics,
specifically). We should hope for more ufologists trained in
both physical and social sciences.

 >Jerry you keep asking why anyone should take what I say
 >seriously, but you persist in replying in detail to all my
 >points.

 >To put it another way, why would anyone take you seriously?

Apparently because I keep winning the argument. You can't seem
to mount a credible defense of a position which, to all
appearances, is scientifically naive, logically flawed, and
curiously ahistorical.  All you manage to convey is your deep
faith in disbelief tradition, which, I must tell you, is not
enough.

A little unsolicited advice: Nobody disputes that the social
aspects of UFO history, reporting, and debate are worthy
subjects for inquiry in themselves. There is certainly a role
for social science here. That, however, is not the only role.
You recycle the false and disingenuous argument that I oppose
social-science approaches - absurd on its face, since most of
my UFO Encyclopedia is a social history of the controversy --
  while in the next breath insisting (as above) that no other
approach is productive. If I were you, I'd focus on those
matters on which you can claim expertise, and resist the
temptation to make broader pronouncements on areas of ufology
(as well as the sociology of science) which you don't know so
much about.


Jerry Clark

* Its membership consisted of Jerald M. Bidwell, Martin Marietta
Company; Glenn A. Cato, TRW Systems Group; Barnard N. Charles,
of Aerospace Corporation; Murray Dryer, U.S. Environmental
Science Services Adminstration (ESSA, now National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration); Howard Edwards, Georgia Institute
of Technology; Paul MacCready, Meteorology Research; Andrew J.
Masley, Douglas Missile and Space Systems Division; Robert
Rados, Goddard Space Flight Center; and Donald M. Swingle, U.S.
Army Electronics Command.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 10

              Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' -

From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 14:06:18 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 16:44:21 -0500
Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' -


 >From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 14:23:20 -0800
 >Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough'

 >>From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 18:50:14 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough'

 ><snip>

 >>I've heard two interviews, by Errol's Sunday night counterpart
 >>Richard Syrett, of Dr. Peter Lindemann, a researcher of what are
 >>somewhat mis-named "free energy" devices. According to Dr.
 >>Lindemann, more than one "free energy" device is under
 >>development with an eye towards the commercial market.

<snip>

 >Please forgive me, but .. rubbish!

I forgive you, but I also have a crow dinner in the freezer
waiting for you, when "free" energy disclosure happens! ;-)


Eleanor White








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 10

                          Secrecy News -- 02/10/03

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@fas.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 14:19:59 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 16:46:19 -0500
Subject: Secrecy News -- 02/10/03


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
Volume 2003, Issue No. 12
February 10, 2003


**      FOIA LAWSUIT SEEKS USS LIBERTY DOCS
**      WILLINGNESS TO INFORM ON COWORKERS STUDIED
**      SECRECY AND JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS
**      IN THE NEWS
**      DARPA SPONSORS UNMANNED CAR RACE


FOIA LAWSUIT SEEKS USS LIBERTY DOCS

A new Freedom of Information Act lawsuit seeks the disclosure of
the missing documentary pieces of the puzzle surrounding the
attack on the American intelligence vessel U.S.S. Liberty by
Israeli forces during the Six Day War on June 8, 1967, in which
34 U.S. sailors were killed.

"There was no apparent provocation" for the attack, according to
the National Security Agency (NSA), "and the reason for the
attack has never been fully resolved, although Israel described
it as an identification error and sent restitution for the
damage and loss of life."

The predominant view is that the Israeli strike on the Liberty
was in fact a case of mistaken identity and operational error,
rather than a knowing and willful attack on the United States.

But Liberty survivors such as Capt. James Ennes have argued that
the attack, which took place on a clear day against a nearly
unarmed ship over a period of several hours, must have been
deliberate. Yet a credible motive for such a deliberate assault
has been lacking.

Author James Bamford, in his best-selling book "Body of
Secrets," proposed that Israel attempted to destroy the Liberty
in order to cover up an alleged massacre of Egyptian prisoners
of war that was supposedly taking place nearby. But this
presumes incongruously that Israel would commit a massacre
against its (American) ally in order to conceal another massacre
against its (Egyptian) enemy. No historian of the war accepts
such an analysis.

However, Bamford also brought to public attention the fact that
there was a previously undisclosed NSA recording of the attack,
acquired by an EC-121M electronic surveillance aircraft flying
overhead, and that this recording remained classified.

Now a FOIA lawsuit has been filed in the Southern District of
Florida to try to compel the NSA to declassify and release the
recording, along with related materials concerning the Liberty.

The suit has been brought by A. Jay Cristol, author of "The
Liberty Incident: The 1967 Israeli Attack on the U.S. Navy Spy
Ship" (Brassey's, 2002), which appears to be the most
comprehensive and thoroughly documented independent study of the
Liberty case. The author, who is himself a former naval aviator
and federal judge, concluded, in a nutshell, that the attack on
the Liberty was a horrific accident.

In his FOIA lawsuit, Cristol observes that he has already had
access to the substance of the recorded intercepts, which he
obtained from the Israeli Air Force, and that he has published
annotated translations of them in his book. Therefore, since
they are already in the public domain, he argues, the NSA has no
grounds to maintain their classification.

The text of Cristol's FOIA complaint, filed 21 January 2003, is
available here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/foia/cristol.html

Information about his book, as well as related documentary
resources, may be found here:

http://www.thelibertyincident.com/index.htm


WILLINGNESS TO INFORM ON COWORKERS STUDIED

Federal regulations require employees to "report" on their
coworkers, notifying authorities if their behavior raises
security concerns.

But "despite formal policies, very few reports are made,"
according to a new study performed for the Defense Department.
Why?

"One of the reasons that supervisors and employees gave for
seldom reporting is that they personally could not see the
precise connection -- the nexus -- between certain behaviors and
national security. They said that they do not know where to draw
the line between egregious security-related behaviors and gray-
area suitability or personal behaviors...."

"There will always be some tension between the rules associated
with supervisor and coworker reporting and cultural values not
to inform on colleagues," according to the report.

See "Improving Supervisor and Coworker Reporting of Information
of Security Concern," by Suzanne Wood and Joanne Marshall-Mies,
published by the Department of Defense Personnel Security
Research Center, January 2003:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/dod/reporting.pdf


SECRECY AND JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS

The Bush Administration's handling of the nomination of Miguel
Estrada to be a D.C. Circuit Judge is yet another example of the
Administration's high-handedness and pervasive secrecy,
according to Congressional Democrats who oppose the nomination.

"The stonewalling on the Estrada nomination is part of a larger
systematic effort by this administration to disable the Senate,
to govern in secret, to advance the interests of big business
over the public interests," said Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) on
February 6. See:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2003/s020603.html


IN THE NEWS

An internal Justice Department draft of possible follow-on
legislation to the USA Patriot Act would significantly expand
federal surveillance authorities while curtailing public
disclosure of information. The draft, which has not been
introduced in Congress, was obtained by the Center for Public
Integrity and released on February 7. An HTML version is posted
here:

  http://www.dailyrotten.com/source-docs/patriot2draft.html

In an effort to assuage, or perhaps derail, bipartisan concerns
about the scope and intent of the Total Information Awareness
program, the Defense Department announced the establishment of
two advisory committees to help provide oversight of the
controversial data mining program. See:

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb2003/b02072003_bt060-03.html

A Washington Post editorial stressed the importance of
correcting the over-broad exemption to the Freedom of
Information Act that was hastily included in last year's
Homeland Security Act. The Post cited a superior Senate
alternative co-authored by Senators Bennett and Leahy, but
neglected to mention the third co-author, Sen. Carl Levin, who
recently elicited a commitment from Homeland Security Secretary
Tom Ridge to help correct the problem (SNews, February 4). See
"Fix This Loophole," February 10:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49618-2003Feb9.html


DARPA SPONSORS UNMANNED CAR RACE

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) will
sponsor an unusual kind of contest next year, in which unmanned
autonomous vehicles will race from Los Angeles to Las Vegas.

"The purpose of the race is to encourage the accelerated
development of autonomous vehicle technologies that could be
applied to military requirements," according to an announcement
on the DARPA web site.

A one million dollar cash prize will be awarded to the winner.

"Vehicles must be unmanned (no humans or other biological
entities onboard) and autonomous. They must not be remotely
driven," the notice states. Furthermore, "No classified data or
devices can be used by a team during or in preparation for this
race."

The web site includes a FAQ that answers key questions such as
"Can my vehicle attack other vehicles?"

See DARPA's "Grand Challenge" web site here:

http://www.darpa.mil/grandchallenge/index.htm


_______________________________________________
Secrecy News is written by Steven Aftergood and published by the
Federation of American Scientists.

To SUBSCRIBE to Secrecy News, send email to
secrecy_news-request@lists.fas.org
with "subscribe" in the body of the message.

OR email your request to saftergood@fas.org

Secrecy News is archived at:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/index.html

_______________________
Steven Aftergood
Project on Government Secrecy
Federation of American Scientists
web:  www.fas.org/sgp/index.html
email: saftergood@fas.org
voice: (202) 454-4691







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 10

                      Re: Secret Shuttle Device Sought

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 14:38:00 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 16:49:20 -0500
Subject: Re: Secret Shuttle Device Sought


 >From: James Oberg <jamesoberg@houston.rr.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 18:54:04 -0600
 >Subject: Re: Secret Shuttle Device Sought

 >>From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>To: <- UFO UpDates Subscribers ->
 >>Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 12:37:20 -0500
 >>Subject: Secret Shuttle Device Sought

 ><snip>

 >>Hmmm..... The "Houston, we have a bogey..." box?

 >>ebk

Mr Oberg,

You wrote:

 >No, the shuttle's spam/virus filter to prevent unauthorized
 >commanding from would-be cyber-saboteurs.

I thought the nature of that box was supposed to be a 'secret'.
Now that you've violated security, will the Feds be sending you
on an all-expenses paid vacation to that Canadian concentration
camp where all the gubbamint blabber-mouths are sequestered?

or...

How much is NASA paying you 'this time' to tell us* that?

*Us = The 'common folk' -the 'masses' who are prone to panic.
AKA, the Great Unwashed. Those who are undeserving of being told
the truth because 'we', (cue in Jack Nicholson's voice) "can't
handle the truth." ;)

 >I hope it's OK with you guys to install such a device? <grin>

You are most welcome to install a device anywhere you wish. I
just hope it's okay for you to talk about it. I'd hate to hear
that you are being swapped for packs of 'Kool's' among the
affection starved, long-term inmates of some hellish penal
institution. And all because you felt compelled to let us all in
on the big secret.

What a guy.

Concerned for your continued status as a 'free' man,


John Velez
US Citizen

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

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/petition








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 10

              Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' -

From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 14:54:21 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 16:50:49 -0500
Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' -


 >From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 19:29:41 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough'

 >>From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 11:09:39 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough'

<snip>

 >Anyone who operates this way is hard to believe. My own guess is
 >that Greer shines his flashlights at the sky and imagines he
 >sees lights blinking back. That would be easy to do on a really
 >bright starry night, if you really want to believe that aliens
 >are signalling to you. Of course, I could easily be wrong; this
 >is just a theory. But whatever the truth may be behind these
 >claims of flashlight communication, Greer wouldn't exactly be
 >the first person to tell the world about some dramatic UFO event
 >that never really happened.


I've heard here and there, mostly on various overnight talk
shows, (_not_ always 'Art Bell',) people other than Dr. Greer
claiming to blink their flashlights then get a copy of their
blinking back from a UFO.  Similarly, witnessed cases as one
where a lady 'demonstrated' she was in telepathic contact by
sending a telepathic request to 'do something', whereupon the
UFO was seen to shine an array of very bright beams.

I read one case where a UFO blocked the road in front of an
ambulance, and when the ambulance switched on it's emergency
beacons, the UFO disappeared.  That shows that lights from us
are noticed at least, doesn't it?

Have you, (or other Listers) heard about similar cases which
were followed up and no reason exists to doubt the report?


Eleanor White








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 10

              Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' -

From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 15:04:27 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 16:55:46 -0500
Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' -


 >From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 19:29:41 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough'

<snip>

 >Anyone who operates this way is hard to believe. My own guess is
 >that Greer shines his flashlights at the sky and imagines he
 >sees lights blinking back. That would be easy to do on a really
 >bright starry night, if you really want to believe that aliens
 >are signalling to you. Of course, I could easily be wrong; this
 >is just a theory. But whatever the truth may be behind these
 >claims of flashlight communication, Greer wouldn't exactly be
 >the first person to tell the world about some dramatic UFO event
 >that never really happened.

I agree, but the concept of flashing lights in the sky to
attract UFOs is one that predates Greer's involvement in the
genre. Richard Haine's "Close Encounters Of The Fifth Kind"
discusses this facet of ufology (among others) and some may find
it of interest. It should be noted that Dr. Greer contacted a
MUFON group in the northwest and would guarantee that UFOs would
be attracted to their lights. Unfortunately, a rather large sum
of money was requested before they would travel there to help in
attracting the visitors. Needless to say, the event never took
place.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 10

               Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 14:07:22 -0600
Fwd Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 16:58:12 -0500
Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Clark


 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 00:46:43 +0000
 >Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?


John,

 >I am simply reminded of your adamant refusal to admit that there
 >are any possible grounds for doubting the Authorised Version of
 >the Trindade case. Possibly my earlier List discussions on this
 >topic were conducted with the other Jerome Clark!

Yeah, well, if you had better arguments, there'd be no
confusion. Since I have personally debunked somel classic cases
and written skeptically about others, I simply don't take you
seriously on this point, and I suspect you weren't all that
serious in the first place. I don't ordinarily associate you
with a rich sense of humor, but in this case I'll assume you
were joking.

 >I would be interested to know if Macdonald [sic] included
 >psychologists, psychiatrists, and sociologists amongst his
 >relevant experts. I genuinely only ask because I want to know.

Still can't spell the guy's name right, can you, John? It's
McDonald.

 >I was not aware that I was making any slur on Macdonald [sic]. I was
 >expressing concern at the way that his research is often
 >presented in arguments today as the incontrovertable last word
 >on the subject.

My point, which you seem to have missed, is that McDonald's work
is well worth taking seriously. There is a reason informed
American ufologists hold it in such high regard, and why it is
perfectly possible to do so without judging the man "prophet-
like." Pelicanists seem happy to quote "authorities" who know
infinitely less about the dynamics of UFO- sighting and -
reporting than McDonald did, or the arcana of the phenomenon. If
you're looking for "prophets," it's these guys who qualify,
since they're not working from evidence, experience, or any
knowledge to speak of.

 >>>>>Let's see. We get one anecdote, from which you draw a sweeping,
 >>>>empirically unjustified, and finally absurd conclusion which you
 >>>>are able to mount no serious argument for or defense of, only
 >>>>ever more fervent assertion. And then you insist that it's up to
 >>>>_us_ to disprove it?

 >>>An anecdote, Jerry? Like the hundreds of anecdotes that make up
 >>>your encyclopedias? Is this a new conjugation?

 >>Now, do I have this right? Anecdotal testimony about debunked cases
 >>is okay, but anecdotal testimony to apparently unexplainable anomalies
 >>is worthless? Got it.

 >No Jerry, as usual you haven't got it right. Andy Roberts
 >presents a case which he and Dave Clark investigated at great
 >length, and in the teeth of some considerable opposition from
 >other ufologists. You will, of course, have recognised this as
 >the Cracoe Fell Case, which appeard in his book "The UFOs that
 >never were", and before that was summarised in Magonia. When he
 >cites this investigation in an argument, you dismiss it as
 >"anecdotal evidence". I was merely pointing out that this case
 >is no different from the hundreds of cases you describe in your
 >various books, asking if they also counted as "anecdotes". If
 >not, why not?

I think you've missed the point by approximately a mile, at a
charitable estimate. I do plead somewhat guilty here. I probably
have not made myself clear and may have assumed implicitly that
you'd grasp my reference. For that lack of clarity, I apologize.

Let me put it this way: There are all sorts of well-investigated
cases. Apparently, if we may judge from the polemics of the UFO
controversy over the decades, only those that result in
identifications are not mere "anecdotes." In fact, in the end
all cases, investigated or otherwise, are anecdotes. They are
stories told orally or in print. It is a standard skeptical
argument, repeated until its advocates are blue in the face,
that anecdotal testimony is worthless. This argument is used
even against cases that have been well investigated.

If the case Clarke and Roberts investigated is an anecdote, as
it is, then anecdotal testimony does have meaning. We can indeed
learn things from it, with all due caution and qualification.
That being the case, anecdotal testimony can indeed tell us
something about the anomalous nature of UFO cases as well as
about the nonanomalous nature of IFOs. You can't have it both
ways. In fact, or at least reasonable inference, we can expect
to learn from anecdotal testimony that some objects perceived as
conventional (in, for example, the early stage of hypothesis-
  escalation) were really something else, apparently
unconventional. Perceptual errors presumably should be able to
work both ways, making UFOs of IFOs and IFOs of UFOs. This is
inherent, as I've just said, in the repeatedly demonstrated
experience of "escalation of hypotheses." Social pressure and
fear of ridicule, if anything, lead more to rejection of
anomalous observation than to its opposite. They can make us see
something genuinely out of the ordinary and convince us of the
contrary -- as I know, by the way, from personal experience
(though not with an ostensible UFO, but something fully as
peculiar).

 >>>Certainly people do have radical misperceptions about a variety
 >>>of anomalies, including a wide range of paranormal phenomena.

 >>Now reread that sentence. I was specifically _not_ talking about
 >>"a wide range of paranormal phenomena," but about an unusual
 >>natural phenomenon which science, after long skepticism, has
 >>finally mostly come to accept, based on eyewitness testimony
 >>from credible witnesses.*

 >Well, you actually said "say, ball lighting sightings", the
 >"say" suggesting that this was only one option amongst others
 >that you could have thought of.

Do I detect just a hint of disingenuousness here?

 >You might have said "say,
 >ghosts", or "say, the Loch Ness Monster", or "say, the Surrey
 >Puma", or "say, apparitions of the Virgin Mary". These are some
 >of the "other ostensible anomalies" which people might have
 >radical misperceptions about. But you want to stick to ball-
 >lighting. I think there are other, more interesting, phenomena.

Again, you're trying to change the subject and again
demonstrating why pelicanist approaches are so wholly captive to
disbelief tradition. Any meaningful discussion about alleged RMP
has to focus on misperceptions of phenomena whose true nature
and configuration are not open to dispute and in which it is
possible to say with certainty, without getting embroiled in
endless other unresolved controversy, what was in fact seen .
All you're doing is recycling the tedious, circular argument
that since we "know" paranormal phenomena (or other
extraordinary-seeming anomalies) don't exist, according to you,
then perception dramatically to the contrary _has_ to be RMP.
Talk about an unfalsifiable hypothesis.


 >Thank you for the rant. Let me go over this a stage at a time.
 >There are a number of controversial and ambiguous phenomena
 >which people report encountering from time to time. Despite the
 >number of such accounts, final proof of such things remains
 >tantalisingly out of reach. This might be because the phenomena
 >itself

"Phenomena itself" [sic]? It appears that your grammar is as
sloppy as your thinking. "Phenomenon" is singular; "phenomena"
is plural. "Phenomena itself" is every bit as grammatical as
"UFOs itself."

 >has some quality - elusiveness, ephemerality, location -
 >which has so far allowed it to avoid being conclusively
 >explained, except by those people who have already made their
 >minds up on the topic on the existing evidence. They may have
 >concluded that such reports represent evidence for
 >extraterrestrial craft, survival of bodily death, previously
 >unrecognised animals, the incarnation of the Mother of God, etc.

 >Another possible explantion for those phenomena's (NB: I am
 >referring to a number of different phenomena, so the plural is
 >justified) elusiveness is that the reports are
 >misinterpretations of other, more mundane, events. Now where I
 >think you are getting the wrong end of the stick (and I think
 >perhaps Andy has been a little unclear himself) is that a
 >"radical misperception" is not a separate phenomena

"A separate phenomena" [sic]? "Phenomena's" [sic]? This is
getting downright strange. I see "phenomenon" and "phenomena"
confused all the time by individuals whom, till now, I would
have judged less literate than John Rimmer, but I must say
"phenomena's" is a new one to me.

 >with quite
 >different characteristics from any other type of
 >misrepresentation. It is merely one which falls towards the
 >extreme end of a spectrum of misinterpretion. It is quite
 >possible that many parts of an experient's account are quite
 >accurate, or only mildly misrepresented, but that one particular
 >part of it is so far removed from the original stimulus that it
 >makes the interpretation of *all* the reported data very
 >difficult. And if one is determined to incorporate the most
 >radical element in one's explanation, can make interpretation
 >impossible.

 >I think the point is that radical misperception does not, of
 >itself, "explain" a case, but it provides false data which
 >prevents a case being explained in any other way except invoking
 >previously unknown forces, e.g. extraterrestrial spaceships,
 >other dimensions, etc.

And how do we know the data to be false? Because they point in
an anomalous direction. This is, again, a circular argument in
service not to understanding but only to disbelief tradition.

May I suggest, instead, as I have argued in print often, a
suspension of judgment, an agnosticism about the ultimate
meaning of these things? What we get here is the implication
that one misperception is pretty much the same as another, and
all they need have in common is an ostensibly anomalous claim at
their core. I maintain that a confusion of Venus with a UFO is
quite another order of magnitude from, say, a multi-witness,
daylight CE3. In the latter instance, except under the most
extreme and extraordinary circumstances, RMP would strike most
as fantastic and deeply improbable, hoax (or, more rarely,
hallucination) far more in line with what nearly everybody else
would regard as recognizable human expression or experience. In
this sense, though it pains me to say it, Phil Klass makes a
whole lot more sense than you do.

 >>That's why I asked where the
 >>evidence is of RMP of ball lightning. Predictably, you
 >>immediately changed the subject to the paranormal.

 >I am not an expert on ball lighting, but I do know that in the
 >past many scientists *have* expressed the view that ball-
 >lighting was a result of misinterpretations, radical or
 >otherwise.

Yes, this view was expressed by the BL equivalent of
pelicanists, and they turned out to be wrong about BL's
existence. I think you've just made my point.

 >>Beyond that: Neoskeptics' obsession with the useless phrase
 >>"flying saucer" would be puzzling if its point were not clear:
 >>to denigrate the phenomenon in question. Flying saucer, as I've
 >>already had occasion to observe, was a tongue-in-cheek term
 >>invented by a journalist in late June 1947. It was a cute catch
 >>phrase, and no more. It should have been forgotten long ago.

 >However it wasn't and it has become generally accepted as an
 >alternative term for "UFO". I suggested that in popular usage it
 >has a meaning which leans more towards expressing an
 >extraterrestrial origin than the more neutral "UFO". However
 >"UFO" has been so misused that it is now seen as an explanation
 >rather that a descriptor, (how many times has one been asked "do
 >you believe in UFOs" Of course we damn well do!) that the more
 >honest tern "flying saucer" might be more generally used.
 >Stanton friedman and others on this list seem to have no problem
 >with it.

I will let Stan Friedman speak for himself. I must say, however,
that it is amusing, after all the trashing of Stan over the
years in Magonia and other pelicanist literature, you are now
citing him as someone whose judgments are worth heeding. Just
this morning I was reading a Magonia review in which the writer
quoted with chortling approval a Canadian debunker's malicious
public putdown of Friedman.

My argument for the reasonableness of "UFO" remains. I am
certain that with rare exception List readers see the matter as
I do. "UFO" represents a suspension of judgment about a
sighting's ultimate nature and does not commit the evaluator to
any particular judgment, which may eventually prove to be
unwarranted and premature, beyond the one that no persuasive
conventional explanation has yet been uncovered. Anyone who
talks about "flying saucers" is claiming more certainty than in
fact we possess, which is the one thing that hard- core
pelicanists and serious believers have in common. If your
argument is to be taken at face value, why not do away with
"flying saucer" altogether and just refer to "spaceships" or
"etherians" or "psychic projections" or "Lemurian vimanas" or
whatever? Even on this level, "flying saucer" is a useless
phrase.

In any event, I am happy to be neither pelicanist nor believer.
At this stage, it strikes me as the only defensible place to be.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 10

                  Re: Secret Shuttle Device Sought - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 16:50:41 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 17:00:41 -0500
Subject: Re: Secret Shuttle Device Sought - Ledger


Like photographing a "black box" would make a damn bit of
difference. Overkill-as usual.

Jim Oberg says that it's to prevent command overides to the OBC
system-which makes perfect sense to me. Just think of the mayhem
that could be created.

A tight-beamed tranmission to the shuttle with a hacker, hacking
into the OBC and a disgruntled and disgraced astronaut with some
terrible agenda.

Sounds like a book in there to me.

Now why didn't NASA just say that-unless Jim wasn't supposed to
let that out and now he has to kill us all.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 10

                  Re: Another Abduction Question - Hamilton

From: Bill Hamilton <skyman22@fastmail.fm>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 12:52:31 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 17:01:48 -0500
Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question - Hamilton


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 01:31:05 EST
 >Subject: Another Abduction Question

 >As many Listers know Eleanor asked a simple question as to how
 >many abductions have taken place. This was responded to by
 >myself and others on the here.

 >Let me float an additional question.

 >How many abductions have occured in which the person abducted
 >actually remembers what happened without undergoing any form of
 >hypnosis, regression or otherwise?

According to what I have heard Budd Hopkins state in one
lecture, about 30% of the total of his cases.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 10

                   Re: Another Abduction Question - Sandow

From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 16:00:03 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 17:03:17 -0500
Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question - Sandow


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 01:31:05 EST
 >Subject: Another Abduction Questionr

 >As many Listers know Eleanor asked a simple question as to how
 >many abductions have taken place. This was responded to by
 >myself and others on the here.

 >Let me float an additional question.

 >How many abductions have occured in which the person abducted
 >actually remembers what happened without undergoing any form of
 >hypnosis, regression or otherwise?


The figure often given is 25%.

But the question is really more complicated. Almost every
abductee remembers something consciously. Or at least the ones
serious researchers study do. Some remember more than others. So
the real question is how much does the average abductee remember
- and whether there are specific parts of the abduction scenario
_only_ remembered under hypnosis. Eddie Bullard has done some
work on this. And John Velez, I believe, can offer some insights
from his own experience.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 10

               Re: Secret Shuttle Device Sought - Peterborough

From: Kelly Peterborough <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 16:36:46 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 17:06:51 -0500
Subject: Re: Secret Shuttle Device Sought - Peterborough


 >From: James Oberg <jamesoberg@houston.rr.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 18:54:04 -0600
 >Subject: Re: Secret Shuttle Device Sought

 >>From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>To: <- UFO UpDates Subscribers ->
 >>Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 12:37:20 -0500
 >>Subject: Secret Shuttle Device Sought

 ><snip>

 >>Hmmm..... The "Houston, we have a bogey..." box?

 >>ebk

 >No, the shuttle's spam/virus filter to prevent unauthorized
 >commanding from would-be cyber-saboteurs.

 >I hope it's OK with you guys to install such a device? <grin>

Hi James,

When the Columbia disaster happened I was watching CBC
Newsworld, a 24-hour news channel here in Canada, and they had
managed to get Dr. Roberta Bondar, a Canadian astronaut, on the
program to discuss what was happening.

She was absolutely wonderful under the circumstances - extremely
articulate and yet very caring about the fate of the astronauts
on the Columbia. At this point, NASA had been saying, over and
over, that there was a contingency and that communications had
been lost with the shuttle.

Dr. Bondar reviewed the tapes with the interviewer and basically
said that there had been a catastrophic explosion and that the
crew had been lost. The interviewer asked if there was any hope
of any survivors. She talked about the shuttle and about the
space suits the astronauts wore, and about the height where the
explosion had taken place, and said no. The interviewer said
something to the effect that there was no hope for any survivors
and she replied that humans always need hope, and shrugged. It
was clear that she knew there was no chance for any survivors -
  and so did anyone watching the tapes, even a layperson like me.

Then they cut away to do a voice interview with James Oberg.
Perhaps being unaware of what Dr. Bondar said, you (forgive me
if there is another James Oberg) kept up the NASA line and said
how some of the astronauts might have survived.

I found the whole segment quite disconcerting. It was like you
were arguing against both what was obvious and science! So, I
was wondering if you said all that because you really believed
it, or because it was something NASA wanted you to say, or if
you didn't want to step out of line with what NASA was saying
until they gave an approved statement? I'm curious about the
politics behind it, if you are allowed to speak about it.


Cheers!

Kelly







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 10

                    Re: Another Abduction Question - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 21:43:26 +0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 17:08:52 -0500
Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question - Hall


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 01:31:05 EST
 >Subject: Another Abduction Question

 >As many Listers know Eleanor asked a simple question as to how
 >many abductions have taken place. This was responded to by
 >myself and others on the here.

 >Let me float an additional question.

 >How many abductions have occured in which the person abducted
 >actually remembers what happened without undergoing any form of
 >hypnosis, regression or otherwise?


Robert,

Speaking anecdotally based on my sample of about 150 "clients,"
I would say that conscious recall is very common. (See also my
abduction case catalogue in The UFO Evidence, Volume II, which
includes instances of conscious recall.) This was true in the
majority of the people I worked with, except that it is not
quite that simple an either-or situation.

More often than not, the memories begin with some combination of
troubling dreams, flashbacks (a la Viet Nam veterans), and
partial recall of seeing classic alien-like eyes or faces. In
some cases the conscious recall is substantial.

Usually the recall is initially fragmentary, and progresses
gradually(even without hypnosis). I don't use hypnosis, and
while working with one abductee by simply providing her a
"sympathetic ear" and relaxed environment, she suddenly had much
more complete recall in the midst of our conversation, and was
quite surprised and startled by it.

Altogther, the way it unfolds is highly reminiscent of post-
traumatic stress disorder, repressed memories due to trauma (or
to alien manipulations), and it all begins to bubble up for
those who are sufficiently disturbed, upset, and curious to
understand what is happening. Others who find it all too
frightening to deal with lapse back into self-imposed repression
of memory as a defensive measure. That's my take on it.

  - 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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 10

              Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' -

From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 13:52:07 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 17:10:32 -0500
Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' -


 >From: Tom Bowden <tomrbowden@yahoo.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 11:58:54 -0800 (PST)
 >Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough'

 >>From: Paul Kimball <Kimballwood@aol.com>
 >>Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 17:33:43 EST
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough'

 >>>From: Dave Haith <visions@ntlworld.com>
 >>>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 12:15:19 -0000
 >>>Subject: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough'

 ><snip>

 >Paul, Dave, Wendy, and all who follow this thread,

 >We can easily sort this out with a "wait and see" approach. Dr.
 >Greer says he is having this invention analyzed and verified by
 >three independent groups of researchers, presumably university
 >science departments. Since Dr. Greer is so big on disclosure, he
 >would have to make this matter public, and the results thereof
 >would also have to be publicized.

 >This will either make or break Greer's SEAS initiative. If he
 >honestly discloses the outcome of the independent validation,
 >whether negative or positive, then his credibility will be
 >enhanced. If the disclosure is not forthcoming, but turns into
 >some sort of shell game, then the conclusion will be obvious to
 >everyone.


Hello Tom:

I can't disagree with your fair-minded approach.

But, my next question is, how long will we have to wait?

So far, I don't see a name for the inventor of the 'free energy
breakthru' (FEB), nor the names, affiliations and qualifications
of the three independent groups of researchers, nor any time
frame for further disclosure. Suppose we don't hear any more for
months, years ... maybe never.

In the meantime, Greer could at least disclose some names,
likely dates etc. Withholding these telling facts would not bode
well... even if virtually nobody is surprised. We should not
have to presume that university science departments are
involved, its up to Greer to clarify that.

What I fear, is that some new Greer claim, or findings, or
project will eclipse this one, until yet another 'free-energy'
device slinks into the woodwork, untested by creditable
scientists.

Yeah I know. Mobil/Exxon/Shell/Standard Oil bought it up and
buried it.

Does anybody have a good URL for _progress_ on the FEB matter?
Hopefully, they might display updates from time to time. Those
might be fun to watch, unless they fade, fade away too, like the
Ghost of Interstellar Ether.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 10

               Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough -

From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 16:55:36 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 17:12:47 -0500
Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough -


 >From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 00:38:27 -0500
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough

 >>From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 11:09:39 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough'

 >>>From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net>
 >>>To: UFO Updates <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 08:10:25 -0700
 >>>Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough'

<snip>

 >On the other hand...

 >Charging people hundreds of dollars to stand around in cow
 >pastures waving flashlights around in hopes of vectoring in a
 >UFO is just an old fashioned rip off. As stated in the
 >dictionary definition, "A fraudulent business scheme; a
 >swindle." If all anyone had to do to vector in a UFO was to wave
 >a flashlight around, then we could all simply open a window,
 >wave a flashlight around, and expect to have a field day
 >photographing and video taping UFOs. From the comfort of home...
 >and for free!

 >We should separate the two issues (UFOs responding to signals
 >and what Greer 'sells') and deal with them each according to its
 >merits. In Greer's case, the very stern criticism he's getting
 >is just what the 'doctor ordered' and no more than he deserves.

 >Regards,
 >
 >John Velez

Hi, John -

If people are willing to pay the $400, and we know Dr. Greer has
a great many projects and tasks on the go which need funding, I
don't see that as a scam, as long as he doesn't _guarantee_
success then fails to deliver. Personally, I wouldn't pay a
dime, but that still doesn't make it a scam. A little tacky,
maybe, scam, no.

The arguments about Dr. Greer's being "showy" don't make it a
scam either. The UFO issue is so hugely important that it's
great to see different researchers trying different approaches
and doing whatever they believe it takes to get the disclosure
job done. As is often heard Errol's Strange Days Indeed program,
there are _many_ and _current_ events happening all the time.
Pressure on the world's governments and scientific institutions
is needed to bring about disclosure. Grabbing public attention
is a valid way to apply pressure. Being "showy" is sometimes
needed to grab public attention.

Additionally, we know that UFO occupants use telepathy, from
abductee reports. We know that they are highly selective and
pursue certain people for whatever their purposes are. I don't
think it's unreasonable to expect that only certain individuals
may be able to initiate flashlight contact.

I would hope that more people who find themselves looking at a
UFO and with a flashlight will give it a try.


Eleanor White








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 10

                     Arizona Valley Has Its Own Area 51

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 17:17:49 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 17:17:49 -0500
Subject: Arizona Valley Has Its Own Area 51

http://www.arizonarepublic.com/arizona/articles/0209clay09.html

Valley has its own Area 51

By Clay Thompson
VALLEY 101
Feb. 9, 2003

Today's question:

My friends and I often mountain-bike in the Dreamy Draw area.
Recently one of the guys started talking about how a UFO crashed
there in 1947 and was buried under the Dreamy Draw Dam. What's
up with that?


Well, I guess it depends on if you believe in UFOs or not. If
you don't believe in UFOs, then this story is just hooey. If you
do believe in UFOs, then the Dreamy Draw Dam was built to cover
one up.

Personally, I'm not sure what I think about UFOs and ETs and all
that stuff. They don't seem very likely, but on the other hand,
it would explain a lot of my masters' behavior. And clothes.
They just haven't learned our Earth ways yet.

But I digress.

The Dreamy Draw UFO story, as you might expect, has several
variations. One has it that in 1947, about three months after
the famous UFO incident in Roswell, N.M., a UFO crashed
somewhere in the Dreamy Draw area. Another version has the
spaceship setting down in that area but actually crashing about
10 miles away near a Cave Creek landfill.

Supposedly, the remains of its two passengers, described as
about 4=BD feet tall, were recovered. They were kept in some guy's
freezer for a while and then taken away by the military.

And supposedly the reason the Army Corps of Engineers built the
Dreamy Draw Dam was not for flood control, as you might suppose,
but to bury the UFO. Do you know where the Dreamy Draw Dam is?
If you're going north of the Squaw Peak Parkway, it's off to
your right a bit above Northern Avenue.

I asked Ted Kester, who is in charge of the city's mountain
preserves in that part of town, about this, and he said he'd
heard the legend but couldn't recall anyone ever asking about
it. So it's not exactly a mecca for ufologists.

You can find some stuff, not much, on the Internet about this
matter, and it was mentioned in a 1952 book, Behind the Flying
Saucers by Frank Scully.

I checked the newspaper files and didn't find too much on the
subject. It probably was hushed up by my masters on orders from
Uranus.

Reach Thompson at clay.thompson@arizonarepublic.com or (602) 444-8612.


[UFO UpDates thanks www.http://anomalist.com for the lead]






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 10

               Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Clarke

From: David Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 22:01:10 -0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 17:19:01 -0500
Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Clarke


 >From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 15:21:59 -0800
 >Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >>At the risk of alienating some people, I rather like the term
 >'flying saucers'. <snip>

 >This will sound silly, but I have a nostalgic attachment for
 >flying saucers, especially those which do not mimic well known
 >astronomical objects at all.

Larry,

The only people 'alienated' (no pun intended) are the confused
and disingenuous.

As I've pointed out elsewhere, Flying Saucer is a perfectly
acceptable, descriptive phrase which is part of the English
language (I've based my use on John Ayto's entry in the OED's
20th Century Words).

It means, quite simply, "a disc- or saucer shaped object
reported as appearing in the sky and alleged to come from outer
space." If you want to include cigars as well, then how about
'motherships', isn't that how Adamski described them?

To suggest, as some have tried and failed, that the very use of
the phrase denigrates witnesses is risible. It demonstrates how
precious some people about this subject, to extent they try to
control even the language used to contextualise it.

As John Rimmer points out all UFOs by definition are potentially
identifiable at some stage. If they are identified as ET
spaceships, then we are talking about flying saucers again. As
this seems to be what most people are interested in, why not cut
to the quick?

It seems to me that one of the few people prepared to stand up
and be counted is Stan Friedman, who seems to have no problem
with flying saucers and ET spaceships. How refreshing that is.

I might vehemently disagree with him, but at least we can agree
to define what it is we are arguing about.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 10

                  Re: Secret Shuttle Device Sought - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 18:07:10 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 17:21:33 -0500
Subject: Re: Secret Shuttle Device Sought - Ledger


 >From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 14:38:00 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Secret Shuttle Device Sought

 >>From: James Oberg <jamesoberg@houston.rr.com>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 18:54:04 -0600
 >>Subject: Re: Secret Shuttle Device Sought

<snip>

John Velez wrote:

 >I thought the nature of that box was supposed to be a 'secret'.
 >Now that you've violated security, will the Feds be sending you
 >on an all-expenses paid vacation to that Canadian concentration
 >camp where all the gubbamint blabber-mouths are sequestered?

Yeah, you wish John. They don't just take anybody in our prisons
up here. There's a waiting list you know.


 >I'd hate to hear that you are being swapped for packs of
 >'Kool's' among the affection starved, long-term inmates of some
 >hellish penal institution. And all because you felt compelled to
 >let us all in on the big secret.

He'd be swapped for packs of Peter Jacksonsor fine Cuban
cigars. They are legal up here.

 >John Velez
 >US Citizen


Don Ledger
Canadian Taxpayer







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 10

                 Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Reason

From: Catherine Reason <CathyM@ukf.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 22:36:14 -0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 17:25:54 -0500
Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Reason


 >From: David Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 17:13:24 -0000
 >Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

It does seem that whenever I write on this List, I find myself
getting involved in other people's conversations. I know I
should at least wait until Jerry Clark has replied to this
himself before I start jumping in, but there are some very
interesting issues here I would like to address and I may be
pressed for time tomorrow.

Jerry had written:

 >>Science's neglect of a particular matter does
 >>not necessarily mean that the matter at issue will never be
 >>taken up, or that it is without potential scientific interest
 >>or validity.

Dave replied:

 >I have no argument with this. But despite 55 years of saucer-
 > ology, science at large has steadfastly been unimpressed by the
 >evidence that UFOlogists have been able to muster.

 >When and if they do we can have a sensible debate on this
 >subject. It is not my responsibility to convince a sceptical
 >scientific community, as I'm not making any claims.

 >It's up to _you_ and your friends to convince science that
 >ufological "data" should be taken seriously.

 >It's no use blaming the fact that they haven't so far on the
 >shortcomings of scientific philosophy and methodology. If the
 >evidence for any form of exotic origin for flying saucers is as
 >compelling as you, Dick and Stan et al are telling us they would
 >be clambering to look at it, in view of the opportunities for
 >grants and career enhancement.

Now I wonder, is this actually true? How do we know?

Dave, you've said that it's the human dimension to the UFO
phenomenon that interests you. I agree, it interests me too, but
I'm wondering why in that case you seem to have left out of
consideration the whole question of academic politics, belief
systems and peer pressure.

What actually is the threshold of evidence beyond which the
"mainstream" academic community might be expected to regard an
exotic dimension to the UFO phenomenon as likely or proven? Is
that threshold static or (as I would expect) dynamic?

For example, let's say some sample of material were to be tested
in a hypothetical laboratory, and that sample were to be judged
be neither natural nor terrestrial in origin. What would happen
then? Well, I predict that one of two things would probably
happen. The most likely, I would expect, is that the evidence
threshold would simply change. This is exactly what the Kuhnian
model of scientific progression would predict, that the first
response would be to try to assimilate the new evidence into the
existing paradigm. (You can see this exact process in operation
at the moment in the theoretical modelling of solar system
formation, in the light of recent discoveries that most
currently known extrasolar systems are unlike our own.)  Some
theoretical contrivance would be produced whereby the "non-
terrestrial, non-natural" evaluation would be superseded in the
light of subsequent analysis - and you know, this new
theoretical contrivance might well be correct. But the important
thing is that it would probably happen whether it was correct or
not - especially since the "non-terrestrial, non-natural"
evaluation is a null proposition and it's ultimately impossible
to "prove" a negative such as this.

The second possibility is that the offending data will simply
"disappear" - not in any sinister sense, but just in the sense
that it will be systematically ignored. In my experience, that
is exactly how academia treats offending data that can't be
assimilated into the existing paradigm, but on the other hand
isn't world-shattering enough to blow the existing paradigm
apart.

Since I don't have any kind of background in UFO studies, I'll
illustrate with some other examples I happen to know rather
better.

In 1974, Carl Sagan published book called "Broca's Brain" which
contained an essay entitled "The Amniotic Universe". In this
essay, Carl Sagan declared his support for the perinatal recall
theory of Near Death Experiences - the hypothesis that NDEs were
memories of the actual experience of birth. But what's
particularly striking is this paragraph from right near
beginning of the essay:

"It is difficult to see why evolution should have selected
brains which are predisposed to such experiences, since no-one
seems to die or fail to reproduce for want of mystic fervor.
Might these drug-inducible experiences as well as the near-death
epiphany be due merely to some evolutionarily neutral wiring
defect in the brain which, by accident, occasionally brings
forth altered perceptions of the world? That possibility, it
seems to me, is extremely implausible, and perhaps no more than
a desperate rationalist attempt to avoid a serious encounter
with the mystical."

Now, as we know, the perinatal recall theory has since been
falsified. And what has replaced it, in consciousness studies?
None other than exactly the kind of neurological theory which
Carl Sagan, in 1974, specifically described as "extremely
implausible". In other words, the threshold has changed. What
was formally implausible is now, apparently, acceptable.

The current theory was developed by Susan Blackmore in the
1980s, and although I call it a theory, it's really only half a
theory with a good deal of speculation tacked on about how the
brain "constructs models of reality" (a classic example of
content-free psychobabble). The theoretical component has been
around for at least 15 years, and so it came as something of a
surprise to me when I read it to see that it is readily
falsifiable by anyone with even a passing knowledge of cortical
visual processing. Not only that, but exactly the same cortical
model - with a considerably more sophisticated
neurophysiological interpretation - has been used by Sacks and
Edelman to account for a completely different phenomon - the
migraine scotoma. (The model is described in recent editions of
Sacks' book "Migraine".) The neurophysiological prediction
matches the phenomenology of the migraine scotoma perfectly, and
it would be hard to imagine something less like the classical
NDE.

And yet, Blackmore's theory has been around for 15+ years and
she is still promoting it. And in that time the theory must have
been encountered and read by many hundreds of people who must
surely have been more than qualified to see the flaws in it
(they have to do with the response properties of cells in visual
cortex).

Just to give an example - Blackmore states that the NDE "tunnel"
will appear white, because all cells in visual cortex are firing
simultaneously and all colors will thus add up to white. The
problem is, this summation process actually works by means of an
inhibitory mechanism - when all colors are present
simultaneously they mutually suppress each other, leaving only
the white "brightness" cells still active. Yet the core of
Blackmore's theory is that the inhibitory connections between
will cease to operate, so this summation process simply cannot
work.

So how is it that the theory is still around? (I saw Dr
Blackmore pushing it again on TV earlier this week.) Inevitably
one has to speculate somewhat, but I can only see that it has
something to do with academic peer pressure and the tendency of
academic orthodoxies to be self-perpetuating - in this case, the
rationalist orthodoxy which Carl Sagan was referring to above.
No-one falsifies the model because it is not in anyone's
interest to falsify it.

You don't even need to go into vaguely "supernatural" areas in
order to encounter problems of this kind - there are plenty of
examples in "mainstream" science - the phenomenology of
conscious experience, for example. After over 100 years of
looking, still no-one has even a halfway credible theory to
account for how conscious experience emanates from the brain.
You might well ask, by analogy with UFOs, in that case why does
anyone still bother looking? Presumably because the alternative
would entail abandoning the academic orthodoxy of materialism.
The philosophical argument rages on and the scientists? They
just ignore it - exactly as predicted.

Or the quantum measurement problem. Numerous attempts at
resolving this have been produced over the last half-century -
  but read Jeffrey Barrett's account ""The Quantum Mechanics of
Minds and Worlds" (OUP 1999) to see just how serious the
problems with some of these are - and then take a look how some
of the current literature on the QM measurement problem manages
to overlook even quite fundamental - and more to the point,
quite obvious - flaws by means of selective blindness and
wishful thinking. The "decoherence" approach, for example - the
flaw in which can be written out on half a page in plain English
- yet I've lost count of the number of times I've seen this
approach cited, round and round like some kind of academic urban
myth.

 >As yet it appears that _only_ the psychologists and sociologists
 >and folklorists have paid any attention. That speaks for itself.

Dave, if you're a folklorist, you of all people should know that
facts like these never speak for themselves - they are always
subject to processing and interpretation.

You've talked about the importance of critical analysis, and I
agree with you. But critical analysis is a tool, and like any
other tool it can be both used and abused. In the case of
critical analysis, the way one abuses it is by using it
selectively. There's no point applying critical analysis to some
subject group of UFO investigators unless you also apply it to
the wider academic context in which they - and you, and me -
  operate. Academic politics are not confined to UFOlogy or the
paranormal, and the ways in which UFO investigators behave are
not necessarily any different from the ways academics in general
behave once academic factions start to develop.

There is a quite obvious reason why social scientists have a
vested interest in studying the paranormal - by doing so they
can help to support the orthodox paradigm and thereby help to
secure their own status within the academic community. It also
pays social scientists to be visibly skeptical of the
paranormal, for the same reason that recent converts to
Christianity are far more likely to be regular churchgoers -
  they have far more to prove because their own status as
accepted members of the orthodoxy is still very much in doubt.
Whether this is the real reason, or the whole story, doesn't
matter - it's a possibility that has to be taken into account.

As an aside, and on the question of how people's reactions can
be revealing - I do find it interesting that whenever I try to
pin down exactly what the psychosocial hypothesis is, or what
radical misperception is, the only response is either a flurry
of obfuscation or a deafening silence.

Cathy

[Catherine Reason]







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 10

                John Mack "We Must Become Galactic Citizens"

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 17:31:41 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 17:31:41 -0500
Subject: John Mack "We Must Become Galactic Citizens"

http://www.mohavedailynews.com/archives/index.inn?loc=detail&doc=/2003/February/
08-1376-news3.txt

February 08, 2003

UFO convention speaker says we must become 'galactic citizens'

By Kay Jenney

The Daily News

LAUGHLIN - Shakespeare's conundrum "to be, or not to be?" is
still being pondered in various ways. One of the leading
researchers in the field of extraordinary experiences announced
a new way of perceiving reality Thursday at the 12th Annual
International UFO Congress Convention and Film Festival held at
the Flamingo Hotel and Casino.

Dr. John Mack began his journey delving into human consciousness
as a professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and now
through his years of research on a number of nontraditional
subjects, foresees changes on the horizon for all societies.

"There will be a restructuring of reality. It's arrogant to put
it in a box," Mack said.

Mack has investigated Unidentified Flying Object (UFOs) and
subsequent reports of alien abductions, near death experiences,
spiritual/mystical aberrations, organ transplant memory,
magnetic shifts, zero energy power sources, cold fusion, spirit
visitation and more. These studies, he said has led him to
conclude the extraordinary experiences of individuals will lead
to changes in how the world population views reality. Mack
called it a "world view shift in consciousness."

Mack said there will be changes across the board in every aspect
of society.

"All institutions will be affected," Mack said.

He said the mental health profession will view extraordinary
experiences not as pathological conditions, but rather as a
starting point for personal growth and learning.
Philosophically, people will understand the universe as one
teeming with life forms, some seen, some unseen Mack said.

"It's arrogant to believe human beings are the pinnacle of
success," Mack said. He said people will understand the oneness
of the world while appreciating the differences.

Science, Mack said, will study subjects now considered taboo. He
said politics will be changed most of all. Mack said the economy
will move away from a war-based economy. He suggested the
military should be used to build infrastructure instead of
making war.

"We need leadership that thinks beyond borders," Mack said.
"Nationalism in its malignant form would become unthinkable."
Mack said keeping political power meant keeping an enemy in
front of the subjects at all times. If the people question that,
they are accused of lack of patriotism.

"Does that sound familiar?" Mack asked.

Mack said people who have experienced alien abductions
understand his views, "They get this," Mack said. He said "we
must become galactic citizens and so far we have not done very
well.

"There must be councils (of extraterrestrial aliens) trying to
figure out what to do with us without exterminating us. They've
been very tolerant," Mack said.

First-time visitor to a UFO convention, Paul Harrison of North
Carolina, said he is a skeptic.

He said he only came to this conference because his son, who he
said is a government agent "is into this stuff" and urged him to
attend.


[UFO UpDates thanks www.http://anomalist.com for the lead]







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 10

                       Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Mott

From: Wm. Michael Mott <mottimorph@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 16:21:06 -0600
Fwd Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 17:47:59 -0500
Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Mott


 >From: Tom Bowden <tomrbowden@yahoo.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 12:44:32 -0800 (PST)
 >Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs

 >>From: Wm. Michael Mott <mottimorph@earthlink.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 22:16:23 -0600
 >>Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs

 ><snip>

 >>A UFO is an unidentified flying object which has been identified
 >>as a possible or actual alien spacecraft. Such objects include
 >>meteors, disintegrating satellites, flocks of birds, aircraft,
 >>lights, weather balloons, and just about anything moving within
 >>the visible band of electromagnetism. So far, however, nothing
 >>has been positively identified as an alien spacecraft in a way
 >>required by common sense and science. That is, there has been no
 >>recurring identical UFO experience and there is no physical
 >>evidence in support of either a UFO flyby or landing.

 >So far I have tried to stay out of this absurd debate, but you
 >are dead wrong with your definition of "unidentified flying
 >object". Your definition might be presumed by the uneducated,
 >but it is not a valid definition for working in the field.

<snip>

Tom,

Please note that this is _not my definition_ of anything.

An ill-informed quotation concerning ley lines, taken from the
"skeptic's encyclopedia" or some such rot, was posted as a trite
reply in the thread, so I simply cut and pasted only a _portion_
of the definition of UFO from _the same website_, i.e., the same
"authoritative" source.

The point was the innate absurdity, pomposity, and inaccuracy of
many of the so-called "definitions" at that site.

Your point is actually in _total agreement with my own_. I do
_not_ subscribe to the "ET hypothesis" of UFOs, and if fact it
is full of holes, inconsistencies, and so on. Not to mention
flaws of logic.

--Mike








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 10

                 Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Clarke

From: David Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 22:38:01 -0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 17:52:36 -0500
Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Clarke


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 13:02:10 -0600
 >Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

 >>From: David Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 17:13:24 -0000
 >>Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

 >Let's change the subject and take up something of interest to
 >people on this List, namely UFOs. Where UFOs are concerned,
 >science has not been "unimpressed." With an honorable few
 >exceptions, science has ignored the UFO question, and few
 >scientists know anything about the subject.

Jerry,

No wonder you want to change the subject, because you know your
argument has failed at the first hurdle.You are not a scientist,
and yet presume to speak on behalf of scientists, and expect to
be taken seriously.

Anyone who works in an academic environment, whether that be
physical or social science based, knows that for a new phenomena
to be accepted, it must be completely and convincingly
demonstrated.

The existence of, for the sake of argument, "exotic UFOs" has
not been completely and convincingly demonstrated.

And it is simply untrue to suggest that scientists who have
looked at the "evidence" have been impressed.

Sure, scientists such as Hynek and McDonald et al have taken an
interest, but they were not able to convince their peers, which
is how science works. McDonald's peer, Dr David Atlas, does not
share or accept his conclusions concerning radar reports of
UFOs. Atlas's name is curiously absent from your list, no doubt
because he wasn't "impressed."

Also missing from your list was Professor R.V. Jones who was
deeply involved in the the study of the foo-fighters, ghost
rockets and flying saucers, long before most of your list took
an interest. He too was not 'impressed', but remained fascinated
by the social and pychological impact of belief in the subject
up until his death in 1997. Jones was a physical scientist of
great distinction, but recognised there was more to the saucers
than simply physics.

 >>To put it another way, why would anyone take you seriously?

 >Apparently because I keep winning the argument. You can't seem
 >to mount a credible defense of a position which, to all
 >appearances, is scientifically naive, logically flawed, and
 >curiously ahistorical. All you manage to convey is your deep
 >faith in disbelief tradition, which, I must tell you, is not
 >enough.

Nonsense.

As I have demonstrated, it is simply untrue that all physical
scientists who have studied this subject have been impressed by
the evidence. Your central thesis is a straw man.

Best,

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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 10

                     Re: Signal Detection Theory - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 22:53:30 +0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 18:49:35 -0500
Subject: Re: Signal Detection Theory - Hall


 >From: Andy Roberts <aj.roberts@blueyonder.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 18:22:56 -0000
 >Subject: Re: Signal Detection Theory

 >>From: Catherine Reason <CathyM@ukf.net>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 19:16:33 -0000
 >>Subject: Re: Signal Detection Theory

 >Cathy wrote:

 >>This illustrates how dangerous it is to make inferences about
 >>the reliability of some detection procedure simply on the basis
 >>of the number of false positives it generates, without taking
 >>into account the relative frequencies of the events it detects.
 >>This applies just as much to UFO investigators as it does to our
 >>detector of spinning saucers.

 >Er, no, Cathy - for the simple reason that it is _humans_ who
 >are doing the saucer 'detecting' and the human instrument is
 >subject to many variables which make it an inexact recording
 >device.


Andy,

This is such a classic example of skeptibunker irrationality
that I cannot refrain from commenting. Humans make errors,
therefore... What? This is a serious question at the core of your
argument.

Therefore, you never go to doctors, dentists, lawyers, etc.,
because humans are prone to errors? Therefore _no_ human
testimony is sufficiently reliable to warrant serious attention?

Therefore (a la Colon Bennett) there can be no objective truth?
Scientific inquiry is not worth the effort, given human
fallibility? What exactly are you suggesting here?


  - 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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 10

               Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 17:08:56 -0600
Fwd Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 18:54:43 -0500
Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Clark


 >From: David Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 22:01:10 -0000
 >Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >>From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 15:21:59 -0800
 >>Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >>>At the risk of alienating some people, I rather like the term
 >>'flying saucers'. <snip>

 >>This will sound silly, but I have a nostalgic attachment for
 >>flying saucers, especially those which do not mimic well known
 >>astronomical objects at all.

 >The only people 'alienated' (no pun intended) are the confused
 >and disingenuous.

 >As I've pointed out elsewhere, Flying Saucer is a perfectly
 >acceptable, descriptive phrase which is part of the English
 >language (I've based my use on John Ayto's entry in the OED's
 >20th Century Words).

What exactly, Dave, does it describe?

 >It means, quite simply, "a disc- or saucer shaped object
 >reported as appearing in the sky and alleged to come from outer
 >space." If you want to include cigars as well, then how about
 >'motherships', isn't that how Adamski described them?

Ah, the game is up. As I observed in an earlier rejoinder to
this obsession of yours, all you're seeking to do is to
denigrate the UFO phenomenon and to equate it with the silliest
aspects of the social response, in particular the contactee
movement. This is the laziest kind of rhetorical strategy, and
embarrassingly unimpressive. And it will leave all those
witnesses - most of whom express no opinion or have no idea of
what the phenomenon they saw was, much less where it came from -
  - with not a word to say. It's a way of shutting down testimony
to anomalous observations that the MIB can only envy.

At least now, on the up side, I concede that you're no longer
being disingenuous. But following your logic and granting your
own intolerance of uncertainty - in your simplistic reading
there are no UFOs but only, on one side, certain delusions (your
view) or equally certain otherwordly machines (saucerians and
contactees' view) on the other - why not dispense with "flying
saucer" altogether?

After all, since the phrase has a precise meaning which renders
the adjective "unidentified" obsolete, why not insist that those
who disagree with you now refer to all UFOs as "spaceships"?  Or
"thoughtforms"? Or "etheric craft from other vibrations"? Or
"Nazi rockets from the hollow earth"? Perhaps we can insist on
even more specificity than that, e.g., "Martian Module",
"Saturnian Shuttle", "Ashtarian Aerospace Craft"? This last
strikes me as a particularly rewarding pursuit. Let us reorient
ufology - excuse me, "saucerology" - toward the documenting of
those sightings representing observations of the fleet of the
Ashtar Command. After all, as any number of psychic channelers
have assured us, Ashtar and his starship troopers are far and
away the most important Space Brothers visiting us.

Since you have no tolerance for the neutral term "UFO", it would
seem that those who are neither debunkers nor believers - in
other words, those who, given the host of ambiguities and gaps
in our knowledge, prefer to suspend judgment about the ultimate
nature of the phenomenon, and who know the difference between
concrete knowledge and tentative hypothesis - have no role to
play in this discussion.

I do, however, look forward to the coming exchange between you
and the contactee/saucerian movement. My psychic prediction is
that it will go nowhere, but it'll be worthwhile for the rest of
us to watch, if only to provide an object lesson in the dangers
of claiming a firm hold on truth when, in reality, truth remains
elusive.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 10

              Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' -

From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 15:14:22 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 18:56:56 -0500
Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' -


 >From: Bill Hamilton <skyman22@fastmail.fm>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 07:09:06 -0800
 >Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough'

<snip>

 >Free energy is called by many names, such as renewable energy,
 >alternative energy, or non-conventional energy, to list a few.
 >Examples of free energy technologies include a wind generator on
 >a remote homestead, or a solar panel on the International Space
 >Station. But this is only the tip of the iceberg.

 >Free energy also includes amazing technologies like a car
 >powered by a water fuel cell, a battery charger powered by the
 >earth, or a home furnace powered by permanent magnets.. The best
 >free energy systems deliver energy at no on-going cost to the
 >user, without detrimental effects to the environment, and at
 >extremely low costs for the maintenance of the equipment.

<snip>


Hello Bill:

Can you tell us any more about the home furnace powered by
permanent magnets? I hadn't heard of that. Is there a URL we can
refer to?


Thanks

- Larry








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 10

              Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' -

From: John Meloney <betsyross@fcgnetworks.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 19:07:37 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 20:46:14 -0500
Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' -


 >From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 15:14:22 -0800
 >Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough'

 >>From: Bill Hamilton <skyman22@fastmail.fm>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 07:09:06 -0800
 >>Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough'

 ><snip>

 >>Free energy is called by many names, such as renewable energy,
 >>alternative energy, or non-conventional energy, to list a few.
 >>Examples of free energy technologies include a wind generator on
 >>a remote homestead, or a solar panel on the International Space
 >>Station. But this is only the tip of the iceberg.

 >>Free energy also includes amazing technologies like a car
 >>powered by a water fuel cell, a battery charger powered by the
 >>earth, or a home furnace powered by permanent magnets.. The best
 >>free energy systems deliver energy at no on-going cost to the
 >>user, without detrimental effects to the environment, and at
 >>extremely low costs for the maintenance of the equipment.

 ><snip>

 >Can you tell us any more about the home furnace powered by
 >permanent magnets? I hadn't heard of that. Is there a URL we can
 >refer to?


For information on free furnace power go to:

http:/www.FTN.info/Johnmeloney

I have ordered mine.


John







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 10

                  Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 18:13:49 -0600
Fwd Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 20:53:37 -0500
Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Clark


 >From: David Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 22:38:01 -0000
 >Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham


 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 13:02:10 -0600
 >>Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

 >>>From: David Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
 >>>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 17:13:24 -0000
 >>>Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

 >>Let's change the subject and take up something of interest to
 >>people on this List, namely UFOs. Where UFOs are concerned,
 >>science has not been "unimpressed." With an honorable few
 >>exceptions, science has ignored the UFO question, and few
 >>scientists know anything about the subject.

 >No wonder you want to change the subject, because you know your
 >argument has failed at the first hurdle.You are not a scientist,
 >and yet presume to speak on behalf of scientists, and expect to
 >be taken seriously.

Well, Dave, at least I know the difference between UFOs and
flying saucers, and between a coherent argument and a clumsy
rhetorical strategy such as yours.

  I don't speak for scientists who have investigated and
documented the UFO phenomenon. I don't have to. They have spoken
and written eloquently for themselves, to telling silence from
scientists who profess to be skeptical but who haven't done
their homework. What I do is draw attention to the open-minded
physical scientists' existence, while you have pretended that
they don't exist.

 >Anyone who works in an academic environment, whether that be
 >physical or social science based, knows that for a new phenomena
 >[sic] to be accepted, it must be completely and convincingly
 >demonstrated.

What is this with you guys and your grammatical confusion
between "phenomenon" and "phenomena"? Let me repeat what I told
John Rimmer earlier today: The first is singular, the latter
plural. There is no such animal as "a phenomena." If we're going
to debate, let's at least agree to a mutual respect for correct
English usage.

If your academic friends want to "completely and convincingly
demonstrate" the existence or nonexistence of UFOs, then they
should investigate the question and devote the sorts of
resources to it that they do to any other question to which they
seek a serious answer. At the very least, they should actively
encourage academic journals to seek out and publish refereed
papers, and remove the aura of ridicule and professional peril
that keep their fellow academics from pursuing scholarly inquiry
from anything other than an antagonistic, disbelief-tradition
perspective.

(Of course, even a disbelief-tradition perspective won't stop
the disdain, as Robert Low found out when he consulted with
other academics and scientists about the potential University of
Colorado study. He was warned that the university should stay
away from UFOs because even to consider the _possibility_ of
their existence was unacceptable. Colorado took the project
eventually because it needed the money, but his colleagues'
warning about involvement in UFO study was what lay behind the
notorious "trick" memo.)

Until your academic friends engage in or encourage real
research, they have nothing to say on the subject. Academics are
not high priests who have no obligation to seek out empirical
knowledge.

 >The existence of, for the sake of argument, "exotic UFOs" has
 >not been completely and convincingly demonstrated.

See above. Until real science is done in a systematic way on the
UFO question, real science has nothing to say on the matter. To
the limited extent that real science has been done, it has
produced some evidence that at the very least is intriguing, and
indicative that a lot more work needs to be done. Unless you
believe, as apparently you do, that science's long neglect of
the phenomenon is all the justification we need for its further
neglect, or that all we need to establish the nonexistence of
UFOs is to hold the issue in disdain.

 >And it is simply untrue to suggest that scientists who have
 >looked at the "evidence" have been impressed.

 >Sure, scientists such as Hynek and McDonald et al have taken an
 >interest, but they were not able to convince their peers, which
 >is how science works.

That has nothing to do with whether they were right or wrong.
That remains for a future generation, which will take up their
challenge to do actual formal, properly funded scientific
investigation (as opposed to mere ex cathedra pronouncement) on
the phenomenon, to determine.

Moreover, the post-Blue Book Hynek and McDonald were working
without any institutional backing, any funding to speak of, and
on their own time. Is this how conclusive scientific proof is
arrived at in the modern world? My word. Don't you know your
history of science? Or even its practice? When UFOs are
researched as other questions of scientific concern are
researched, _then_ let's talk about what science "knows" about
the phenomenon.

 >McDonald's peer, Dr David Atlas, does not
 >share or accept his conclusions concerning radar reports of
 >UFOs. Atlas's name is curiously absent from your list, no doubt
 >because he wasn't "impressed."

Your point being? On how many matters, in any discipline, is
there unanimity of scientific opinion? The simple fact remains:
Overwhelmingly, scientists who have conducted a serious look at
the evidence have been impressed. Even you won't deny that.

 >From time to time, scientists have been brought on in brief
consulting roles in the rare UFO projects and made
pronouncements which, right or wrong, represented a decidedly
limited view. Other scientists who have looked at the radar data
have indeed been impressed. Let's hope more and more look at the
data and ignore your belief that the issue is settled in the
negative. The truth, Dave, emerges over time, from rigorous
investigation and searching debate. That's how science is
supposed to work. Scientists disagree all the time; that
disagreement does not in and of itself make the subject of
debate an illegitimate one. If it did, virtually all science
would be illegitimate.

Let us also remember that scientific certainties are overturned
regularly. What one generation "knows" to be true or not true in
science is not what the next "knows." Science is an evolving
process of discovery, not a set of absolutes. Knowledge is
uncertain and tentative, and it changes all the time. Allen
Hynek used to remark that it would be useful to remember that
there will be a 30th-Century science and it won't be much like
ours.

In the case of the UFO phenomenon, though, those with the most
knowledge of, and experience with, it have been intrigued rather
more often than not. There is a direct correlation between
ignorance and skepticism among scientists who pronounce on the
subject. That doesn't mean that UFOs are, in your phrase,
"flying saucers" necessarily, but it certainly suggests that
science has some work to do on a potentially fascinating matter
which could take it, and us, in some surprising directions.

 >Also missing from your list was Professor R.V. Jones who was
 >deeply involved in the the study of the foo-fighters, ghost
 >rockets and flying saucers, long before most of your list took
 >an interest. He too was not 'impressed', but remained fascinated
 >by the social and pychological impact of belief in the subject
 >up until his death in 1997. Jones was a physical scientist of
 >great distinction, but recognised there was more to the saucers
 >than simply physics.

Jones's involvement was early in the game, his involvement
nothing like that of scientists who studied the phenomenon in
depth over time, his conclusions at odds with those of other
perceptual and social scientists who have examined the data.
That doesn't mean that, even with his limited involvement, he
had nothing to contribute, only that his is hardly the final
word. As these things go, Jones is a pretty minor figure in the
UFO debate, and a distinctly minority voice.

As near as I can figure, you want to claim the phenomenon for
your own narrow professional specialty and wish not to share it
with others who might have a wider perspective - not to mention
training in disciplines in which you are unversed - with which
to judge it.

On the physical aspects of the UFO phenomenon, I'd take Allen
Hynek, Jim McDonald, Peter Sturrock, or any number of others
over you any day. Stick to folklore, don't try to speak for
physical scientists, and maybe within that narrow speciality of
yours, you'll come up with something useful to the rest of us.
Good luck, and I mean that sincerely.


Cordially,

Jerry Clark








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 10

                      Re: Analogical Ufology - Tonnies

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 16:33:18 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 20:55:38 -0500
Subject: Re: Analogical Ufology - Tonnies


 >From: Colin Bennett <colin@bennettc25.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 12:50:55 -0000
 >Subject: Analogical Ufology

<snip>

 >The first law of postmodernism in this sense is that what we
 >experience as fact is a more like a management of wonders than
 >anything else. All is wonder, but some wonders have a better PR
 >than others and manage to fight their way forward to the high
 >performance frontier of that conscious acceptance which we
 >equate to the "real". Thus we have the truth of performance
 >rather than the truth of fact, a play in which the "real" as
 >perceived in but one performance vector.

Bingo.

The same idea is applied to the Face on Mars and the ubiquitous
"alien head" icon in the following excerpt from my forthcoming
book:

There is another way an extraterrestrial civilization bent on
posterity could achieve a kind of ersatz immortality. The new
science of the "meme," or idea, views information itself as a
form of life. Like their carbon-based genetic counterparts,
memes are constantly waging war for dominance, forming alliances
with other memes (when necessary) and subject to mass
extinction. Our environment is inundated with memes of all
kinds, all struggling to survive.

Advertising concepts, political catch-phrases, outre ideas and
"common knowledge" alike are composed of an ever-changing tissue
of memes. Words themselves can be memes. When William S.
Burroughs stated that "language is a virus," he probably didn't
realize how prescient he was.

Inventions such as radio, television and the Internet have given
memes a Darwinian playing field without boundaries. Web-surfers
can easily find the informational grottos where rogue memes bide
their time and insert themselves into new frameworks that
promise longer life. You're no longer surfing the Web; the Web
is surfing you, scouring your mind for new and better footholds.

Suppose the "alien ruins on Mars" meme is in danger of
obsolescence. After all, it's been ground through the
microcultural mill since Richard Hoagland brought it to wide
attention in the mid-80s. It's in dire need of a fresh
substrate.

So the "alien ruins on Mars" meme links up with the "NASA
coverup" meme. This is more interesting. It's multifaceted, with
room to play. Even better, it spawns new memes: within a few
generations we have a "NASA coverup of alien ruins on Mars built
by Gray aliens who created the human race by genetic
engineering" meme.

Unlike genes, memes occupy an abstract realm. The Internet
strengthens the foundation of the meme-ecology, allowing
veritable epidemics of "rogue" information to traverse the
planet in moments. This is the battleground of dissidents like
Hoagland and lumbering, pre-digital behemoths like JPL. "Edge"
speculators have learned that good ideas can benefit from a
strategic cladding of imaginative hype. Alarmist pronouncements
are the very stuff of microcultural online campaigns, which
realize that what the opposition lacks in speed and finesse, it
can make up for in raw, unmitigated Authority.

The parallels to military electronic warfare and signal jamming
are far from trivial. Memes advocating artificiality on Mars are
countered by flat denials. The two memes clash and, like
collided subatomic particles emitting a quark, yield a third,
more exotic meme. This is where the Mars/NASA coverup was born,
entrenched in the bunkers of the primeval Internet. Call it
"memespace."

Sites devoted to Cydonia and alien artifacts are ripe with memes
that would have likely died off without the Internet's supple
breeding ground. And they have a tendency to expand, like all
life, into the mainstream. Their power shouldn't be
underestimated. NASA's reimaging of Cydonia is due directly to
the power of the "ruins on Mars" meme, which blossomed into a
full-blow infection (even getting sympathetic page-space in a
book on skepticism by Carl Sagan).

The down-side of this meme-ecology is overburden. Armchair
theorists plug too many arcane ideas into the same contextual
matrix only to have it fall crashing to their feet and jeered. A
concept taken too far off the edge self-destructs, sometimes
doing irreparable damage to its constituent memes. The debunking
community characteristically relies on just such ludicrous
chimeras to downplay sincere interest in resolving the Cydonia
issue.

The "Skeptical Inquirer," newsletter for members of the
Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the
Paranormal, even went beyond citing nonsensical claims in its
effort to erase Cydonia from memespace: it simply made up the
notion that "believers" in the Face considered it the work of
human time travelers from our future (!).

I can honestly say that I've never encountered this particular
theory outside the pages of the "Skeptical Enquirer." Not only
does it probably exceed the creative prowess of most gung-ho
Cydonia "believers," but its implicit assumptions are just too
unwieldy. As an exercise in meme theory, it falls disastrously
short. It fails to achieve escape velocity. It's lifeless . . .
and a dead meme is no good at all.

There is no absolute fossil record of dead Mars memes, only a
scattering of texts. Some memes only appear dead while in
reality they are hibernating. The dubious "glass tubes," for
instance, breathed life into the positively ancient memes
spawned by Percival Lowell. Within hours of Hoagland publishing
the so-called "glass tube" on his site, the halcyon days of
Mars-as-a-dying-desert-planet were revived and updated for the
early 21st century, streamlined tunnels taking the place of
Lowell's earthen canals and massive, eroded pyramids substituted
for Edgar Rice Burroughs' gleaming cities.

As long as there have been ideas and minds to appreciate them,
we have had a sort of cyberspace, a moderately consensual
infosphere that is as much a part of life on Earth as the ozone
layer or plate tectonics. The Internet hasn't "created" the
Cydonia controversy except in the most abstruse postmodern
sense. It has, however, hastened the exchange of ideas at a
remarkable rate. Perhaps most notably, it has served as a haven
and breeding ground for weird, unpopular ideas that might have
otherwise outlived their welcome and disappeared into our
cultural recycle bin.

The Face on Mars, as image and metaphor, is wildly powerful, but
it has yet to eclipse the dominant "extraterrestrial" archetype:
the ubiquitous "alien head" that entered the idea pool upon
publication of Whitley Strieber's "Communion" in 1987. The alien
portrait on the cover quickly became synonymous with aliens and
close encounters, and was eventually minimalized into a tapered
oval with black ellipses for eyes and a straight line for a
mouth (thanks, in large part, to the work of underground
cartoonist Bill Barker).

Today, the "alien head" icon is as pervasive as Nike's "swoosh"
or Tommy Hilfiger's patriotically colored "T." It's emblematic
of the unknown. By rendering it into a caricature, vendors of
the "intelligent extraterrestrial" meme have fostered a
communion the likes of which Strieber couldn't have possibly
guessed.

Alien iconography inundates popular culture. Even children (who
have never heard of Betty and Barney Hill, let alone new-wave
abduction researchers such as Harvard's Dr. John Mack)
immediately recognize the minimal "alien head" as something
strange and portentous . . . as well as imminently stylish. It's
no coincidence that the characters in recent video games and
animated television series bear an uncomfortable resemblance to
the "alien" a la Strieber and Barker. From Japanese anime to the
Powerpuff Girls, the consummately "cute," bug-eyed motif has
played a quiet but important role in demystifying what was once
unthinkable. Like a fish with embryonic gills, the alien meme
has crawled ashore and flourished, populating the zeitgeist with
consumer-friendly weirdness.

With the very notion of extraterrestrial contact in place as a
consumer touchstone, there seems little need for elaborate
external indoctrination schemes and "time release aspirin"
disclosure. Ironically, profound ideas fare best in an
information society when trivialized; what they lose in impact,
they make up for in numbers. Hence the ever-imminent
"disclosure" of extraterrestrial reality familiar to politically
aware anomalists will certainly fail. "Disclosure" is not a
singular event orchestrated by Men in Black; it's a process as
tenacious and unstoppable as thermodynamics.

If the Face is a message left by a nonhuman intelligence, then
it wouldn't be surprising to see the same sort of infiltration
achieved by the "alien head." But whereas the alien archetype is
amenable to creative tinkering (toy stores and T-shirts boast
varieties of both "cute" alien visitors and menacing abductors),
the Face is more Gothic, like something glimpsed in a half-
remembered dream. Will it remain a cult superstar confined to
the Net and UFO/New Age literature, or will it achieve a life of
its own?

Devout Face enthusiasts still cling to the famous low-resolution
Viking frame as their rallying banner despite better images
taken by the Mars Global Surveyor. This isn't because the Face
is less interesting or provocative when seen in high resolution,
but because it presents too much information to process upon
casual inspection. The shadowy Viking frame has an unmatched
mystique, whereas the "new" Face reveals inevitable geological
blemishes.

Viewed as an ideological product, the "new" Face doesn't sell
because it lacks the smooth lines and suggestive shadow of its
precursor. Seeing the Face up close produces viewer anxiety, as
demonstrated by the NASA scientist who literally covered his
eyes with his hands rather than see the Face and wrestle with
its implications.

Inevitably, there have been attempts to fuse the classic alien
face with the Face on Mars. Several speculators noted that if
the 2001 image of the Face is placed upside-down, the depressed
portion that comprises the "mouth" can be construed -- albeit
vaguely -- as large "eyes." After some Photoshop retouching and
"reconstruction," the Face reveals a completely spurious quasi-
resemblance to Whitley Strieber's famous "Gray."

As pure idea, the implications are attractive: it combines the
close encounter enigma with the anomalies on Mars in a single
reductionist masterstroke. It produces fixating images of a
wasted world once inhabited by spindly, big-eyed "Grays" who now
haunt our lonely night roads and bedrooms in service to some
incomprehensible dream.

The deliberately upturned Face and its proposed resemblance to a
Gray alien is quintessential cyberspace reality manipulation.
Malin Space Science Systems' online Mars catalogue and tools
such as Photoshop, coupled with free, instantaneous electronic
publishing, equate to epic metafictions altogether stranger than
any role-playing game. On a computer screen, at least, the Solar
System can be shifted and reformed at the speed of thought. The
sheer frequency of "false returns" on the Mars anomaly radar can
render Cydonia-watchers into slack-jawed savants, clicking madly
in an attempt to extricate themselves from labyrinths of their
own collective design.




=====
 >Mac Tonnies
macbot@yahoo.com

MTVI: http://www.mactonnies.com
Transcelestial Ontology, Posthumanism and Theoretical Ufology

Blog: http://posthumanblues.blogspot.com (updated daily)






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 10

               Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Christensen

From: Wendy Christensen <christensen@catlas.mv.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 19:49:58 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 20:57:32 -0500
Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Christensen


 >From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 19:21:48 -0400
 >Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

Don opined...

 >Engineers and technical specialists as well are curios.

Yup - and I have a curio cabinet full of 'em - jostling for
position with all my ceramic cats, of course.....

To get back on track, though... if 25-30 percent of abductees
have some spontaneous, conscious recall of their abductions,
does that not speak rather ill of the aliens' ability to force
forgetfullness? And if, indeed, they have been abducting humans
for hundreds or even thousands of years, what does that say
about their ability to "get better" at this task? Their ability
to "understand" human minds/memories? What might it mean that
they haven't managed to figure us out yet? Might this be a
weakness that could be exploited?

Or... might such a statistic say that it isn't the aliens
forcing amnesia, but something in the human brain or psyche that
suppreses the memories of the experience(s) in many - but not
all - abduction cases? What might this mean for the theory of
"recovered memory?" What is there about an abductee, or about
the nature of his experience, that might let (or make) him
remember an abduction, when another abductee, or a person with a
different type of experience, might not?

Baby jaguars want to know!


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 10

                   Re: Validating The Ramey Memo - Morton

From: Dave Morton <Marspyrs@aol.co>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 19:53:53 EST
Fwd Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 21:00:13 -0500
Subject: Re: Validating The Ramey Memo - Morton


 >From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 09:58:47 EST
 >Subject: Re: Validating The Ramey Memo

Kevin and All Interested Parties -

<snip>

 >Jim has offered, off-line to Rudiak, SPSS analysis sheets so he
 >could verify the SDs and ANOVA results were now correct. Ruidak
 >never wrote back. For Morton, Jim clarified how Letters to the
 >Editor work, because one of Morton's more recent posts gave the
 >impression that he assumed those preparing such letters were in
 >fact asking the Editor questions about the study and that this
 >approach allowed authors to dodge having to answer for
 >themselves. Jim's e-mail corrected this assumption, and Morton
 >merely acknowledged that, yes, he understood how the process
 >worked and that he understood that that point was obscured in
 >his posts. He has not corrected, in later posts, the implicit
 >assumption his message gives, which was that Letters to the
 >Editor are meaningless exercises.

Answering for my own references:

There is nothing to correct. I believe that Letters to the
Editor of JSE would be a meaningless excercise, despite the
potential participation of the author(s) over a period of
several months. It would be excrutiatingly slow, the letter
might not be posted in full (and it would be a long letter!),
etc. Addtionally, it's akin to asking the fox to guard the
henhouse: If a good ole boy environment exists at JSE and other
peer-reviewed journals with regard to reviewing papers - and I
suspect it does - then such an effort would be meaningless.

I say, stand up and face the music right here. Don't run away to
the hallowed walls of ivy; this is the razorblade of life we're
all briefly sliding down. I'm asking very simple questions which
can be easily answered, for your peers to read your answers. I
don't want to wait months for a reply, months for another reply,
etc. We can mail a summary to the Editor of JSE with our
questions and your answers, and he can post the Q&A
simultaneously in the next issue. I await your answers here and
now.

<snip>

 >Even the line,
 >"Victims of the wreck" was not universally understood. Some
 >could not read it at all and others claimed it said,
 >"Remains..." If the key word is remains, then the context is
 >altered.

I couldn't read it either on the Friedman scan. On hi-res
enlargements of the print, I can easily read "and the victims of
the w???k" . I have several examples on my PC which I've created
myself by varying the contrast and using various filters, etc.
Rudiak's site also contains excellent examples.

<snip>

 >Third, if it is a military teletype, then there are problems
 >that have not been addressed. For example, in that era, military
 >teletypes rarely had punctuation marks on them and the vast
 >majority of those messages used PD for period and CMA for comma,
 >yet in none of the various interpretations do any of those sorts
 >of things appear. This is not a fatal flaw because I can find a
 >few, though rare, examples that suggest that some teletype
 >messages used regular punctuation.

It appears to be not a "normal", military teletype message for
just that reason, unless stateside Commands, communicating HQ to
HQ converted to a more complete fontset by mid 1947. That would
also require a change in the paper tape machines to encode and
read additional characters, due to extensions of the code itself
- unless the paper tape machines were initially bypassed until
all HQs were capable.

If it's a copy for submission to the Comm department, it would
make sense to use all caps, and let the Comm operator convert
punctuation to their teletype equivalents (QUOTE, PD, CMA).
Also, it's in clear text - not encrypted, unless what we see is
the clear text message prior to encryption (Ramey would not have
and would not need an encrypted copy: It would be useless).
Regardless, Ramey is holding a telegram or telex or cablegram or
draft or whatever it is, and some words and punctuation marks
are clearly legible using a good, hi-res print - even using the
version you used for your experiment.

The photo is authentic. The document is authentic, ie, it can be
seen. We just want to know what that document says. If it's
Ramey's grocery list, so be it. It it's a memo Ramey wrote to a
"virgin", so be it. If it's a memo he wrote or received about
Mozart's use of "violins" in his earlier liturgical works, as
contrasted with the subtle, mournful shading he achieved with
his use of basset-horns in the Introit of the Requiem (K.626),
or how he bailed the sick Michael Hayden out of trouble by
writing a violin/viola duo for him, so be it. Perhaps it
involved a discussion of the "Confutatis" from the Requiem, and
its strident and jagged violin parts, licking at the feet of the
confounded wicked ones with flames of woe. Or perhaps a memo
about the violins in Mozart's "Musical Joke" (Ein musicalischer
Spass, K.522), where the monotonous, uninspired and hilarious
music spews out in predictable but clumsy and perfectly crafted
fashion.

Who knows what's on that document? We just want to read it.....

 >There are no examples of military jargon in the various
 >interpretations. Dave Rudiak has said we must assume proper
 >grammar and spelling and that the memo will conform to standard
 >English. I have just spent several days in military briefings
 >and have to say that sometimes they became so jargon happy that
 >I couldn't follow what was being said. Yet, in this military
 >memo we have no jargon and we have no designations of military
 >organizations. I find this a little strange... again not a fatal
 >flaw, but one that raises a red flag for me (though a very small
 >one).

I'm aware of several: B29-ST, FWAAF, A1/8TH ARMYAMHC.

<snip>

 >And to return to "victims of the wreck" I might point out here
 >that, in our investigation, no one interpreted the line in that
 >way. If it is as clear as these investigators believe, then
 >someone outside the Roswell research community should have seen
 >it independently. That no one did should be viewed as a
 >significant revelation but certainly not one that invalidates
 >the work done by others.

I couldn't read it either on the raw Friedman scan. On hi-res
enlargements of the print, I can easily read "and the victims of
the w???k" . I have several examples on my PC which I've created
myself by varying the contrast and using various filters, etc.
Rudiak's site also contains excellent examples.

 >In fact, if the interpretation of the memo is as self-evident as
 >the researchers have claimed, then shouldn't some of those in
 >our sample have spotted those words and if they didn't, why
 >didn't they?

The Friedman scan of the negative, while an excellent and very
important beginning, is not the end of the legibility story. The
word "victims" on the unenhanced version is almost impossible to
read, and on the 50% vertically stretched and contrast enhanced
version, is still not all that easy. Rudiak covered that point
in a previous post.

 >Jim has offered, off-line, to provide data to both Rudiak and
 >Morton, but, for the most part, they have failed to respond.
 >Instead, we are attacked for "spin" and for dodging the
 >questions. Well, our methodology is laid out in the article, we
 >have answered, in public, the criticisms of our article, and Jim
 >has made the reasonable request that we engage in this debate in
 >JSE. Why is it that they refuse?

Unless I missed an email, I haven't received any offers from Jim
to provide me with any data offline.

But feel free to post your numbers publicly, or send them to me
privately with a subject line such as this:

"Dave, Here are the Roswell stats you requested".

I posted a form on UpDates, a few days ago, which you or Jim
could fill out, listing the stats for the Exclusive words found.
The completed form could be reposted to Updates.

I have no idea why you don't do this, unless the numbers don't
exist, or they're too embarrassing to post. Either way, you
should retract one of your paper's central conclusions: That the
beliefs of the investigator may "taint" the interpretation of
the Ramey memo, and that "ufologists are probably among the
least effective people to be trying to decipher the document."

Considering the fact that your experiment ran for only 14-20
minutes per subject (on average), and that the subjects were
simply "taking a test" - not publishing results for the world to
see, and that the Friedman scan of the negative is rather poor
compared to a hi-res, 600dpi scan of the photograph (no offense
to Stan intended), and that that the "Roswell" group worked the
longest on the problem and found the most "common words" ("FORT
WORTH, TEX." etc) - found also by the Atomics and Controls - I
would say that those who are motivated by the subject matter
stand the best chance of working the longest and trying the
hardest to decipher the memo, and achieving good, fair, and
accurate results. And the more informed they are on Roswell, the
better chance their attempts will eventually succeed in a trial-
and-error process, similar to working a crossword puzzle.
There's no evidence to the contrary. If you have some evidence,
show us.

Here's the form, again:

Please fill in the blanks, below.

Words Exclusive to Groups
-------------------------
Word        # of Times Reported (n)
----------- -------------------------

Remains     ____
Fundamental ____
Crash       ____
UFO         ____

Glasses     ____
Morning     ____
Meaning     ____
Flash       ____
Atomic      ____
Laboratory  ____

Flew        ____


.........
Post the stats, and I'll be happy to mail them to the JSE Editor
in the form of a question with your answer. You can email the
Editor to confirm your concurrance, etc, etc, and ensure that
what is printed is what we both said. I would email and snail-
mail a CC of the letter to you and Jim.
.........

And remember: "Inventing" a few words here and there as a trial-
and-error effort would be normal for anyone to do, and not
worthy of condemnation. That effort would only apply to inky
smears and letters very difficult to read. After a while, the
person may change their mind and try a different word. This
takes time. But the word must fit the letters, make sense, etc.

But all guesses must flow from the certainty of the reading
of a few, key words, particularly:

1. victims  (probably not "virgins" or "violins").
2. "disc".

The most important word in the memo is "victims". The 2nd
most important word is "disc". Both words can easily be read
using a hi-res scan, contrast enhanced. From those 2 words, the
entire context of the memo follows, subject to interpretation,
of course.

"Victims" and "Disc": Those are the foundation.

Once we have those 2 words, "weather balloons" in the same memo
is also explosive! And "weather balloons" is not too difficult
to read!

However, even if no more words could be read beyond "victims"
and "disc" - even if the rest of the entire memo were nothing
more than inky smears - those 2 words are a smoking gun. Add the
words "weather ballons" - also not too difficult to read - even
some of the Atomics and Controls could read those words on a
scanned negative - and you have a shot akin to "the shot heard
round the world".


Dave Morton








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 10

              Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' -

From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 17:22:38 -0800
Fwd Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 21:01:36 -0500
Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' -


 >From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 14:06:18 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough'

 >>From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 14:23:20 -0800
 >>Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough'

 >>>From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 18:50:14 -0500
 >>>Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough'

 >><snip>

 >>>I've heard two interviews, by Errol's Sunday night counterpart
 >>>Richard Syrett, of Dr. Peter Lindemann, a researcher of what are
 >>>somewhat mis-named "free energy" devices. According to Dr.
 >>>Lindemann, more than one "free energy" device is under
 >>>development with an eye towards the commercial market.

 ><snip>

 >>Please forgive me, but .. rubbish!

 >I forgive you, but I also have a crow dinner in the freezer
 >waiting for you, when "free" energy disclosure happens! ;-)



Hello again Eleanor:

There seem to be two threads here.

One is Dr. Greer's garage inventor with a device you can hold in
one hand, and which provides a nice 120 VAC with something like
500 Watts power output, soon to be tested by three (count them,
he didn't name them) teams of experts.

The other thread is 'free' energy of all sorts. Even that needs
some simple qualification.

The Sun provides free energy, in the sense that nobody has to
pay for it. I have no issue with that, and hope we make full use
of it. Sun driven weather fills our dams, again for free, all we
pay for are the dams, their maintenance, transmission lines etc.
and the ecological considerations.

What I rail at are the former (Greer & company) types with what
appear to be perpetual motion machines. If that's what you mean,
and I hope it is not, then you better keep that crow in the deep
freeze, not the cheese compartment.

Somewhere in between, are speculations about Zero Point Energy
(ZPE) and similar studies, which may or may not provide 'free
energy'. Even if not, and I suspect not, those studies may well
lead to something better. I wish them all the luck in the world.

For a thoughtful, perhaps sympathetic treatment of ZPE and such,
Dr. Bernard Haisch has a page worth reading here:

http://www.calphysics.org/articles/merc2000b.html

You might note that so far, nobody has devised a way to get out
more _useful_ energy than goes in.

I will have to read Dr. Peter Lindemann to see what he has to
say. Maybe its something interesting, I certainly hope so for
several reasons. Do you have a particular URL we can all click
on?



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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 11

                            Written In The Stars

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 04:26:36 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 04:26:36 -0500
Subject: Written In The Stars

http://publishersweekly.reviewsnews.com/index.asp?layout=3Darticle&articleid=
=3DCA276166&publication=3Dpublishersweekly

Religion Publishing

02/10/2003


Written In The Stars
by
Juli Cragg Hilliard

Claims of cloning have made UFO religions big news, and a raft
of scholarly books is poised to ride the waves

The sky and beyond evokes wonders and mysteries and, now,
sadness with the deaths of the seven Columbia astronauts. The
space program seeks knowledge of the stars and other planets
from a scientific point of view, but some religions follow
beliefs they claim were communicated directly by residents of
other worlds. Earthbound scholars scrutinize those groups.

Susan Palmer's journey as an observer of the Raelian Movement
began when she met members at a 1987 psychic fair in Montreal.
The men in the group wore white turtlenecks, swastika-style
medallions and the long hair that they believe empowers them to
communicate telepathically with extraterrestrials. The Raelians
invited her to participate in a raffle. A guide would come to
the winner's home to show a video. Sure enough, Palmer "won."

This 15-year connection puts Palmer, who teaches religion at
Dawson College in Montreal, in the forefront of scholars who
study the Raelians. In January, as the world awaited proof that
the Raelians had cloned five humans, she was finishing her Alien
Apocalypse: A Sociological Study of the Raelian Movement, which
Rutgers University Press plans to publish in early 2004. The
book is one of a fleet of new or forthcoming titles by scholars
about various UFO religions. Some academics are publishing
anthologies with material on the Raelians. One who infiltrated
Heaven's Gate in the mid-1970s is preparing to write a book
about the group that extinguished itself in 1997 with the mass
suicide of 39 members who hoped to catch a ride to heaven on a
spaceship. A researcher who has followed the Unarius Academy of
Science since 1986 is revising her manuscript about that UFO
religion, which is awaiting arrival of the "space brothers."

These scholarly investigators track the beliefs and activities
of UFO sects whether the groups make headlines or not, but when
events do bring media coverage, the academics provide expert
insight. Relatively few in number, they often contribute to each
other's books. The new titles may bring attention and status to
a realm of sociological inquiry usually considered a subgroup
within the study of new religious movements. "I think we're
right on the verge of seeing that field emerge when all these
books come out," says James R. Lewis, a scholar of alternative
religions. Raelians Among Us

The Raelians are the world's largest UFO organization, claiming
55,000 members in 84 countries. But when Susan Palmer first met
them, they were "just a dinky little group," she recalls. "I
realized it was a free love group because they had all this
nudity in their magazines. And they preached how you became more
intelligent if you had more sex with more people." She said
leader Ra=EBl (formerly Claude Vorilhon, a French sports
journalist) initially formed a ufology club centered on his own
"contactee" experience but uninterested in other peoples', and
then made it a religion. Palmer believes Ra=EBl is convinced he
really met extraterrestrial beings.

As do other scholars who spoke with PW, Palmer considers the
Raelians capable of producing clones, as they have claimed to
wide media coverage. Still, the cloning is a new twist for the
Raelians, she said, and essentially represents turning humans
into extraterrestrials. "Cloning a baby is putting the emphasis
on human beings as becoming immortal gods like the aliens." She
regards the Raelian Movement as authoritarian, with six levels
of "guides," or leaders, and intolerance for internal dissent.
Though Ra=EBl teaches that there is no god or soul, Palmer said
the Raelians, with their awe of the aliens, have what must be
considered a religious experience. At meetings she has attended,
Raelians claimed to have had telepathic conversations with
aliens and "felt their love," Palmer said. "But I've never felt
their love," she added. Palmer's students enjoy the appearances
Raelians make in her classes each term. But movement members
"dumped" her after she was interviewed for a March 2002 Los
Angeles Timesarticle she said criticized the Raelians. Recently,
however, Raelians visited a class she teaches on cults and new
religious movements.

"She's had really very unprecedented access to them," said
Kristi Long, social sciences and religion editor at Rutgers
University Press. Long said that Palmer's Alien Apocalypse will
be marketed both for general readers and for college classes.
While journalists have done most of the writing about UFO
religions, Long said, Palmer's background gives her more
sophisticated insight into the ways new religions develop
sociologically and change over time, and Palmer explores what
that tells us about how society works. The Gods Land

Psychoanalyst Carl Jung was intrigued by UFOs in the 1950s and
described flying saucers as "technological angels." In 1956,
three scholars_Leon Festinger, Henry Riecken and Stanley
Schachter_published the now classic When Prophecy Fails (Harper
& Row), about a group led by a woman in Illinois who claimed to
receive messages about the world's end from aliens via automatic
writing. Scientist Jacques Vallee's Messengers of Deception: UFO
Contacts and Cults (And/Or Press, 1979), written for a general
audience, warned that some UFO religions were dangerous. Aside
from these books, scholars have only recently studied UFOs and
religion from a sociological standpoint.

James R. Lewis, who teaches religious studies at the University
of Wisconsin- Stevens Point, was working in 1992 on a
publication he had founded, Syzygy: Journal of Alternative
Religion and Culture. Over three or four issues, he had
collected a number of articles on UFO groups, and he realized
the collection would make an interesting anthology. With Lewis
as editor, State University of New York Press in 1995 published
The Gods Have Landed: New Religions from Other Worlds, which
Lewis describes as the first serious book about UFO sects. It
included a chapter from Palmer about the Raelians, one from
Robert Balch about what would become Heaven's Gate, and one co-
written by Diana Tumminia about the Unarius Academy of Science.

The Gods Have Landed sold, Lewis said, but the study of UFO
religions didn't gain notability until the Heaven's Gate
suicides two years later. Since then, scholars have written
journal articles and made conference presentations every year on
UFO religions. "Right now, we've reached kind of a critical mass
where we have a number of books moving toward publication,"
Lewis said. He has edited or written 21 books, of which all the
general-reference books contain some information on UFO
religions.

A UFO religions anthology he is editing for Syracuse University
Press is provisionally entitled Alien Gods: Religious Dimensions
of the UFO Phenomenon (2004). It includes chapters on the
Raelians by Palmer and her Dawson College colleague Bryan
Sentes; by Christopher Helland, a doctoral candidate at the
University of Toronto's Centre for the Study of Religion; and by
George Chryssides, a senior lecturer in religious studies at the
University of Wolverhampton in England. Lewis is also editor of
Encyclopedic Sourcebook of UFO Religions (Prometheus Books; Jan.
2003)_for which Palmer wrote about the Raelians_and Legitimating
New Religions (Rutgers; Dec. 2003), with Ra=EBl planned for the
cover. A World of UFO Religions

Christopher Partridge, who teaches theology at Chester College,
a college of the University of Liverpool, told PW that while a
lot of books about UFO religions tend to be written from an
Anglo-American perspective, he wanted to show a broader picture.
UFO Religions_which he is editing and Routledge has scheduled
for June release_includes a Finnish scholar's look at UFO
traditions in Finland, an Australian academic's examination of
cargo cults and a German researcher's discussion of UFO faiths
in Germany. Wolverhampton's Chryssides contributes a chapter on
the Raelian Movement, while Lewis writes about Heaven's Gate.
Partridge provides a chapter on understanding UFO religions and
"abduction spiritualities."

In UFO Religions, Daniel Wojcik, who teaches English and
folklore studies at the University of Oregon in Eugene,
discusses the apocalyptic and millenarian aspects of American
UFOism. The University Press of Mississippi plans in early 2004
to publish Wojcik's UFO Visionary Art: Flying Saucer Technology
and Creations of Ionel Talpazan. The book profiles Talpazan, a
self-taught artist who depicts UFO images, Wojcik said, and
considers how UFO art "often addresses universal religious
concerns." These include "the origins of humanity, the reasons
for evil and suffering, the promise of worldly transformation
and a golden age, guidance and salvation offered by otherworldly
beings who function as 'technological angels.' "

Are UFO accounts around the world echoing one another? Said
Partridge, "They seem to be. That's my impression. There does
seem to be a certain commonality to it." How much of this is due
to the globalization of Western influences_seen in everything
from fashions to fast food to television_is difficult to say.
Partridge also is editing The Encyclopedia of New Religions
(Lion Publishing; Jan. 2004), which will include information
about UFO religions. Knocking at Heaven's Gate

In 1975, Robert Balch, a sociology professor at the University
of Montana in Missoula, encountered a tiny group then receiving
heavy news coverage. About 20 people in what was known as Human
Individual Metamorphosis had suddenly vanished from Oregon. Then
some of the missing showed up near Missoula and held a meeting
to attract followers. Balch, who happened to be on a leave of
absence, infiltrated what eventually became Heaven's Gate. This
summer, he expects to start writing a book based on 28 years of
studying the group and interviewing the few surviving members,
ex-members, parents and other relatives.

"Nobody else has really studied Heaven's Gate firsthand," said
Balch. Aside from a small cluster of "pop" titles right after
the suicides, Balch said scholarly articles or book chapters are
all that have been published. Most writings about Heaven's Gate
rely on what Balch and David Taylor, then a graduate sociology
student who had also infiltrated the group, had published
together, including a 1976 cover story for Psychology Today.

When Balch went to that first meeting, he introduced himself as
a sociologist and asked about the possibility of hanging around.
"They thought the spaceships were going to come along in just a
matter of days," he recalled. Members of what Balch would label
the "Bo and Peep UFO Cult" were trying to overcome their human
habits, and thus were minimizing contact with the outside world.
Balch had to join the group to find out what was going on
inside, although he left a couple of months later, when his
leave of absence was up. Over the years, he interviewed ex-
members and parents of members.

In 1994, two people showed up at his university office, wearing
close-cut hair and unisex clothing. "That was a look that was
new to me," Balch said. "I thought_this is stereotyping for you_
'These are cult people.' " At this point they called their group
Total Overcomers Anonymous. They'd sought him out because they
knew he had written about their group. Later, they returned with
two or three other members. They interviewed him for a
documentary they were making about themselves that never was
finished. They needed to do some computer work, and Balch let
them use a departmental computer. "Then they disappeared, and
the next thing I heard about them was when the suicides
happened." Waiting for 'Space Brothers'

Diana Tumminia, a professor of sociology at California State
University in Sacramento, began studying the Unarius Academy of
Science as a graduate student in 1986, and made it the basis of
her 1995 doctoral dissertation at the University of California-
Los Angeles. She attended Unarius classes on topics she
described as "pseudoscientific mythology," such as dreams, the
Martian wars and life on Atlantis. Now she is revising a
manuscript about the group. "It's a local phenomenon. If you're
in San Diego, Unarius is sort of a fun-loving, good-hearted
oddity," said Tumminia. "No one takes them seriously, but their
presence in San Diego is sort of historic."

The Unarius Academy claims to communicate by telepathy with
space beings that are beneficent, like angels, and are to guide
humankind into a new era of peace and prosperity. Tumminia's
book examines the ability of the group to keep faith despite
failed prophecies about the landing of the "space brothers." The
believers "always came up with an explanation," she said. "This
is what we in sociology call unfalsifiable knowledge." So, she
said, when 2001 came and went without the expected landing of
the space brothers, the believers blamed the September 11
attacks and Earth's warlike status.

Tumminia waited to write her book, which she intends to finish
by June, until after the prophesied time came and went to see
how the Unarians would explain the nonappearance. She calls the
book When Prophecy Never Fails, and uses newer sociological
theories to examine, as did the venerable When Prophecy Fails,
why people believe in a prophecy that continues to disappoint.
The Lure of the Edge

Plenty of people who claim to have had UFO experiences don't
join organizations. "My book is about all those people who don't
join contactee groups, " said Brenda Denzler, author of The Lure
of the Edge: Scientific Passions, Religious Beliefs, and the
Pursuit of UFOs (University of California Press, 2001), which is
scheduled to come out in paperback in June.

Denzler said that while people who join the tightly knit UFO
religions tend to be drawn by the message the leader imparts
from extraterrestrials, those in what she describes as "the
larger UFO community"_though they may be interested in others'
experiences_have their own sightings and encounters to
contemplate. Denzler has a doctorate in religious studies from
Duke University and is conducting the Abduction Millennium
Project, a long-term study of UFO experiences and experiencers.
Many abductees or "experiencers" feel they have received
messages, she said, but most do not go out to preach and
publish, gain a public, or become leaders of UFO groups.

What attracts adherents to UFO religions? Lewis said some
followers seek a clear-cut creed in an era when many religious
denominations have been "watered down." Moreover, he said, new
religions_small in size_reproduce some characteristics of
traditional community, offering a shared view of the world, a
similar set of values, a sense of people taking care of one
another. UFO religions, in particular, supply "an aura of the
scientific"_something modern.

The authors of these new books also tackle this question: What
is the truth behind stories of abductions and other encounters
with space aliens? "I think that there's some phenomenon that
can't be explained by conventional modes of explanation. Whether
those are vehicles piloted by extraterrestrials, I don't know,"
Lewis said. "I think that there are a certain number of real
experiences." He thinks some of the sightings might be of
experimental craft launched by the government, or that some
other sort of spiritual phenomenon is interpreted as UFOs. Or
maybe aliens really are observing us.

"This is really an important part of the American landscape
today," said Prometheus publisher Paul Kurtz, who is publishing
Lewis's Encyclopedic Sourcebook of UFO Religions. Kurtz chairs
the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the
Paranormal and is a philosophy professor at the State University
of New York in Buffalo. He said the Encyclopedic Sourcebookwould
be marketed for the general educated reader and for scholars and
scientists. "Who's not intrigued by these accounts of UFO
visitations?" Kurtz asked. "We're trying to unravel it. What
does this mean? Are there creatures from outer space trying to
abduct people or is there something far more profound here?"


What Do They Believe?

The Raelian Movement. French sports journalist Claude Vorilhon,
now known as Ra=EBl, founded the Raelian Movement after what he
describes as an encounter in 1973 in Clermont-Ferrand, France,
with aliens called the Elohim. The movement describes itself as
an atheist, spiritual, nonprofit organization, and says
extraterrestrial scientists created life on Earth from their own
genetic material. The Raelians say they are working to build an
embassy in Jerusalem to greet people from space.

Heaven's Gate. Marshall Herff Applewhite, known as Bo or Do, and
Bonnie Lu Nettles, known as Peep or Ti, in 1975 founded a group
that, at different stages, was called Human Individual
Metamorphosis and Total Overcomers Anonymous. Members expected
to ascend to heaven in a spacecraft. The group adopted the name
Heaven's Gate only shortly before the 1997 mass suicide of 39
members in Rancho Santa Fe, near San Diego. They believed the
Hale-Bopp comet signalled that the spacecraft was about to
arrive.

Unarius Academy of Science. Ernest L. Norman, also known as the
Archangel Raphael, and Ruth E. Norman, known as the Archangel
Uriel, founded the Unarius Academy of Science in 1954 in Los
Angeles. He died in 1971; she died in 1993. Unarius, an acronym
for Universal Articulate Interdimensional Understanding of
Science, is "dedicated to exploring the frontiers of science and
expanding our awareness and connection with galactic
intelligence," the Unarians say.

This information includes material from the Religious Movements
Homepage, maintained at the University of Virginia, and from the
UFO groups' Web sites.


[UFO UpDates thanks www.http://anomalist.com for the lead]








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 11

                            Sibrel The Lunar-Tic

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 04:29:37 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 04:29:37 -0500
Subject: Sibrel The Lunar-Tic

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/09/magazine/09MOON.html

February 9, 2003

Lunar-tics
By Jack Hitt

There's going to be a comedic section here," Bart Sibrel says.
"Some man-on-the-street kind of interviews that I did." He hits
the fast-forward control to race through a rough cut of his new
documentary. Sibrel's studio, located along a strip of
storefront recording joints and one-room editing suites known as
Nashville's Music Row, is actually his tiny two-room apartment,
crammed with mixers and Apple computers. On a Sony Trinitron,
the video screeches to a halt and then rolls on some average
folks exercising their First Amendment right to express
heartfelt opinions on both sides of a debate.

One American says, "Yes, I think we walked on the moon."

Another American offers balance: "Jury's still out in my
opinion."

Sibrel cranks up the background music he has selected, and the
familiar voice of R.E.M.'s Michael Stipe brings it on home: If
you believed they put a man on the moon, man on the moon. If you
believe there's nothing up my sleeve, then nothing is cool.

Sibrel is part of a new generation of conspiracy mega-theorists.
They don't toy with the small stuff. Ever since the passing of
that sweet, simpler time - when the Trilateral Commission
ordered the hit on John Kennedy and the Queen of England managed
the drug cartels - the narratives of big suspicion have been
distorted by the same force that has reshaped our partisan
politics, action movies and morning TV talk shows: outrage
inflation. To be noticed now, a theory must be of a scope only
Stephen Hawking could measure, and it must be promulgated by an
amiable spokesman who can deftly juggle often absurd
contradictions. Sibrel is not your father's conspiracy theorist
- some grumpy autodidact with a self-published book raging at
the gates of the establishment. Sibrel came of age in the post-
  Watergate era. He has absorbed the real lesson of the last two
decades: push for belief in ever bolder and more unlikely ideas.
Plus, he knows how to make decent television.

Sibrel's first documentary, "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way
to the Moon," is a 47-minute feature contending that what people
saw on their television screens that famous July night in 1969
was in fact filmed on a back lot. (Sibrel says he believes that
it was probably directed by Stanley Kubrick and shot at Area 51
in Nevada.)

Sibrel introduces his thesis with a lighthearted visual montage
of real rockets, entertainingly blowing up. As Dinah Washington
performs her 1962 hit "Destination Moon" ("Come and take a trip
on my rocket ship, we'll have a lovely afternoon"), one rocket
after another fires off, then hooks right back around to plunge
nose first into the launching pad and explode in a spectacular
ball of fire. ("Kiss the world goodbye, and away we'll fly,
destination Moon.")

Statistics are vague, but somewhere between 6 and 10 percent of
Americans say they don't believe astronauts ever landed on the
moon. That percentage is growing, in part because conspiracy
theorists now have easy access to media tools - jump cuts,
dissolves, special effects, studio-quality voice-over, zippy
credits - that bolster their theories with something they've
never had before: the elegant formatting of television truth.

The megatheories provide huge umbrella explanations of the world
around us. The black-helicopter/New World Order videos that
began popping up after the collapse of Communism still sell
well. "The Bible Code," which argues that events in the past and
the future were encrypted 3,000 years ago in Holy Scripture, is
again a best seller in its sequel edition. Sibrel is a smaller-
scale challenger, but his sales are growing; so far he has moved
20,000 copies of his first film, all through the Internet.

To the generations raised after the moon shot, Sibrel's
questions do tease one's curiosity: Why is there no crater
beneath the lunar landing module, even through it could
allegedly fire 10,000 pounds of thrust? Since the only light
source on the moon was the sun, why do the astronauts' shadows
tilt in toward each other in some photographs, instead of
running parallel? Why is the flag waving in the breeze on an
airless moon, and why are there no stars in the dark space sky?

NASA has been confounded by these questions, though not because
the agency is unable to answer them. Rather, the old science
geeks believe it is beneath their SAT scores to respond at all.
As James Oberg, a noted space writer, recalls: "NASA put out
this press release in 2001 that said something like: 'There's a
debate about whether we went to the moon. We did.' End of press
release. They are hampered by their own conceit." While NASA may
have the facts on their side, in terms of understanding how the
contemporary media work, the space agency is light years behind
Bart Sibrel.

The nasa.gov Web site, for example, refuses to debunk hoaxers
directly. Rather the tone is often one of child's play,
including suggested classroom exercises to demonstrate rumor-
  mongering and truth demolition: "Hoax Cuisine! The Proof is in
the Pudding! - Students can make a delicious hoax right in the
classroom! Chocolate pudding, chocolate crumbs, gummy worms . .
. is it something from the fishing-supply store or the kitchen?"


  Such countertactics were shown to be especially outmatched when
Fox Television first ran its own moon-hoax documentary in
February 2001, based in large measure on Sibrel's work. By last
summer, people at NASA finally decided to meet the propaganda
head on and hired Oberg to develop a counterconspiracy media
strategy. Ultimately his task was to publish his work in order
to reassert control over the story and to prove once again that,
yes, Virginia, there is a Neil Armstrong.

But not long after Oberg was hired, NASA was embarrassed by
press reports of the assignment and panicked at the thought of
being seen as surrendering intellectual equivalence to the
hoaxers. "We canceled the program," a spokesman, Bob Jacobs,
told me. "There is no book deal. We are not taking on the
hoaxers." Oberg was fired, and NASA returned to its old posture
of benign neglect.

"I'm writing the book anyway, and now commercial publishers are
interested," Oberg said from his home. "We live in a time
teeming with conspiracy theories, and people, especially
teachers, have little to help train students in critical
thinking." Oberg is driven, in part, by the achievement of
Sibrel's documentary. With its British-accented narrator,
winking Letterman sensibility and occasionally ominous tone, the
documentary is technically masterly at undoing the truth of the
past. "It's the best piece of propaganda since Leni
Riefenstahl's 'Triumph of the Will,"' Oberg says.


Over a lunch of fried chicken and gator tails, Sibrel explained
to me that his interest in the moon dates to his childhood, when
his father received Apollo photographs courtesy of the Air
Force. "I had those pictures all over my bedroom walls," Sibrel
said. "My father was an electronic warfare officer. He
programmed the nuclear bomb on board a B-52, like in the movie
'Dr. Strangelove."'

When he was 14, Sibrel said, he first saw the moon-hoax idea
mentioned on TV, and his faith in NASA developed its first
cracks. "I went into my bedroom and looked at the pictures again
and wondered," he recalled.

His doubt remained on low boil for a decade, until his mid-20's,
when, Sibrel said, "I found out Neil Armstrong had never given a
single one-on-one interview." He grew more suspicious.

At that point, Sibrel said: "I believed there was a 25-percent
chance we didn't go to the moon. It was a gradual thing."
Sibrel's got his credibility chops down. No flash-of-light
epiphany for him; his change of heart was slow, in the way of
science, occurring after the labored accretion of evidence. As
he fit the pieces together, Sibrel began to tell and retell
himself this new version of history enough times that he came to
seriously doubt that men had landed on the moon.

His new understanding emerged against the backdrop of an era of
perpetual scandal in Washington. Each administration seemed
destined to have one. Watergate, Billygate, Iran-contra,
B.C.C.I., Monica - each usually attended by failed cover-ups. By
the time of the frenetic scandal- and rumor-mongering of
Clinton's second term (sex, perjury, job-fixing, land deals,
missing records, murder, mayhem, drug dealing - have I left
anything out?), Sibrel had broken on through to the other side.
He'd embraced the paradox that beats at the heart of all
government conspiracy theories: in order to cover up their
incompetence, the feds had to be extraordinarily competent.
There is only one achievement more technically complex than a
real moon landing: a fake one.

What drove him to this new level of understanding, Sibrel said,
was not simply the mounting evidence. It was Jesus. Just before
his lunar revelation, Sibrel explained, he had been carrying on
a chaotic life of wenching and drugging. He gave up his party
days, broke off a relationship devoted to "fornication" and
became friends with the Lord. It made perfect sense that the new
clarity with which he saw his own life might also be good for
the nation. Then and there, all the pieces of the hoax finally
added up. The greatest achievement of a great nation was a
debauched lie. America was what Sibrel had once been: a wretched
sinner.

"I remember that I cried and cried," Sibrel said of his new
faith (moon-hoax, that is). "And I thought, Oh, the wickedness
of humanity."

The standard moon-hoax theory goes something like this: Unable
to get to the moon and desperate to win the cold war, President
Nixon approved a fake moon landing to frighten the Russians.
Sibrel's version borrows a great deal from his predecessors,
"lay scientists" like Ralph Rene, a garage inventor who taught
himself physics. Rene's book, "NASA Mooned America," collected
the disparate evidence in a single place. He himself leaned on
the work of Bill Kaysing, whose book is punlessly titled "We
Never Went to the Moon."

Although many contemporary moon-hoax theorists simply repackage
the old evidence, Sibrel has made what he considers one great
contribution to the gathering file. After soliciting boxes of
old film images from NASA, he found that the agency had
accidentally sent one in which the opening frame warned: "not
for general public distribution."

"It was like finding the Zapruder film," Sibrel said with a
smile. His entire documentary is built around a couple of
moments in this tape, framed with eerie music and a narrator's
voice dripping with Bill O'Reilly incredulity. In one scene,
Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins, the Apollo 11
crew that first went to the moon, practice a midflight talk with
the public while voices from Houston offer pointers. Seeing it
might remind most of us of NASA's obsession in those days with
practicing everything, every action from boarding the capsule to
getting out after splashdown. But if you're inclined, here's
what you see: actors being coached through their lines.

And there's more. On this tape there is a short scene in which
the astronauts have turned out all the lights in the cabin and
put the camera up against a porthole to shoot the famous image
of our blue-green spheroid floating serenely in black space. At
one point, an arm moves in front of the camera.

"What is that?" Sibrel asked. "The arm of God?" Others might
simply conclude that the camera was just not snug against the
window and an astronaut's arm passed in front of it, but Sibrel
says he believes the explanation is more complex - that because
the rocket never left low earth orbit, the astronauts must have
placed in the porthole a transparency of a floating earth. If
you're confused, don't worry. I never understood what he was
saying, and I think that's the point.

Just as the magic bullet in the Kennedy assassination relies
upon the vagaries of trajectory ballistics, there's just enough
fuzziness and talk of "perspective theory" that after a day of
crunching evidence you can find yourself stumbling out into the
bright sunshine of Nashville, thinking, "Maybe the jury is still
out."

There are now several Internet sites unaffiliated with NASA that
struggle to answer the questions raised by the new conspiracy
theorists. One, called badastronomy.com, is run by Phil Plait,
an astronomer with Sonoma State University in California. If you
get him on the telephone and ask him to run through the paces of
the evidence, the weariness in his voice is audible.

No landing crater? "The module came in slow and sideways to
touch down with not much more pressure per square inch than you
create jumping up in the air and landing in your shoes. Sure, it
can fire 10,000 pounds of thrust. And your car can go 75 miles
per hour, but not in the driveway."

Nonparallel shadows: "Ever seen parallel railroad tracks out to
the horizon?"

Waving flag: "No, a flag wrinkled from three days of being
packed tight, hanging from a horizontal rod like a bunched-up
curtain."

No stars: "Go out tonight and take a picture of a friend beneath
a bright streetlight. Then look for the stars."

Obviously, the process of chipping away at something as iconic
as the moon shot can't be done alone. It requires the assistance
of other news media. Just as Matt Drudge published every
possible rumor about Bill Clinton, permitting the half-baked
ones to seep upward by a kind of capillary effect into, say, the
pages of Newsweek, the Fox documentary "Conspiracy Theory: Did
We Land on the Moon?" borrowed heavily from Sibrel's work,
smoothing away the uglier, more libelous stuff and leaving only
the fancy edits and the questions about fluttering flags. "The
Fox show did incredible damage," Plait said. "After it aired, a
new kind of doubt was created. I had a geology major at my
college tell me she was no longer sure that all the pictures
were real."

In Sibrel's second documentary, he expands on his previous work
by borrowing a mainstream tactic: the ambush interview. With
cameras rolling, he has confronted nine astronauts, shoved a
Bible at each one and challenged them to swear to God that they
had been to the moon. Although some of the astronauts in fact
did take the oath, Sibrel doesn't like to talk about them. Like
any good TV producer, he knows where the action is.

Wheeling around in his editing chair, Sibrel asked, "Do you want
to see Buzz Aldrin punching me in the nose, Ed Mitchell kicking
me in the butt or John Young threatening to hit me in the face?"

Aldrin's right hook to the nose is particularly impressive.
Outside a hotel, Sibrel suddenly appears in front of the second
man to walk on the moon and badgers him with the Bible. Aldrin
recognizes him, and it's no surprise: earlier in the year,
Sibrel had conned Aldrin into a regular interview. On that first
occasion, when Aldrin figured out the documentary's angle, he
ripped off his microphone and provided Sibrel with a quick
overview of his theories: "I think you're full of [astronaut
jargon deleted]," Aldrin explained.

On this second encounter, Aldrin tried to brush Sibrel aside
several times. When that failed, the astronaut launched his fist
in a graceful parabola that landed, without any guidance from
Houston, right between Sibrel's eyes.


Sibrel's efforts to embarrass Neil Armstrong, on the other hand,
are revealing in a different way. When Sibrel confronts him on
camera at a corporate board meeting, Armstrong is visibly shaken
and awkwardly nervous.

"Notice Neil Armstrong is shaking like a leaf?" Sibrel said,
then added: "Isn't it curious that in the 30-plus years since
Apollo 11, Neil Armstrong hasn't given a single one-on-one on-
  camera interview? Not one. Not to Barbara Walters, Walter
Cronkite. Not one interview."

Makes you kind of wonder, doesn't it?

Later on, I saw another clip of Armstrong. It was from a 1999
appearance at the White House, on the 30th anniversary of the
moon shot. He is speaking while a room full of children listen.
He was just as nervous as he was in the other clip. But it's not
a furtive awkwardness; rather, it's something far more rare.
Watching him, among schoolchildren, I recognized something you
no longer see on television. Neil Armstrong is shy.

Seeing that familiar face again transported me back to that July
night when he walked on the moon. Todd Poore and I, both 12
years old, got to stay up late, and my family's snowy black-and-
  white Motorola was wheeled into my bedroom for the occasion. We
were all young then, television included.

But we're all grown up now, and we all know what judicious
editing, special effects and a smart selection of music will do
to that Armstrong clip. We will see what Sibrel sees: a feeble
man quaking in the face of an unholy truth.

All religious conversion is about coming to believe what once
seemed impossible, and the greater the distance between the old
degraded story and born-again revision, the more credible the
teller of tales. Now this mode of revelation has visited our
politics. It's no coincidence that the on-camera purveyors of an
evangotainment tape insinuating that Clinton slaughtered eight
people were Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. Sibrel's story is
just another variation of this, another story of our national
wretchedness.

To NASA, Sibrel is a media leech, gaining attention by faking
the fakery. But to others, he's making reality TV exposing the
greatest lie since Eve explained her new diet plan to Yahweh. As
public policy, the conversion format may never take hold in
Washington. But beneath the mainstream radar, it's fueling a new
kind of acceptable anti-Americanism. It is a secular faith that
believes the country's true self has been bloated by taking
pride in lies. Its credo holds that America must be humbled by
the facts of its weakness before its actual greatness can be
revealed. Only once we confess that we never went to the moon
will we truly be able to get there.


Jack Hitt is a contributing writer for the magazine. His last
article was a profile of the Christopher Columbus revisionist
Gavin Menzies.


Copyright 2003 The New York Times 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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 11

                 Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Bennett

From: Colin Bennett <colin@bennettc25.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 02:06:09 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 04:39:45 -0500
Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Bennett


 >From: David Clarke cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 17:51:20 -0000
 >Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Clarke

 >The exchanges on this list over the past few days have
 >underlined what a waste of time formal 'Ufology' is. Jerry
 >suggests I should try something else, but the reality is that my
 >interests in the supernatural field have always ranged far wider
 >than the narrowly defined definition that you place on 'UFOs.'

 >Colin Bennett is correct about the tired old 'corporate Ufology'
 >on display here. To paraphrase Richard Ashcroft, Ufology don't
 >work.

 >It requires radical deconstruction and critical analysis, but
 >its high priests won't like the result. I'm off to read some
 >Derrida.


First a friendly warning to all List Bears: this is the dark
side of the UFO UpDates List, the side of Web Town the Factual
Prussians, Iron Masters, and Stalinist steam footplate men and
1950s scientists and your mother warned you about. Proceed with
caution!

Well now the Bad Man is most pleased that Dr. David Clarke has
agreed with him that the old corporate Ufology is dead and that
postmodernism may be the future for what I have termed the New
Ufology. I knew this boy had a bright future, and now he says
he has gone off to read Derrida. I think I should tell him that
Derrida is the deep end, and should he disappear off the face of
the Earth (as many Derrida fans have done previously) we will at
least know where to look. Jerry suggests that he should try
something else. Well Bears, Dave has done just that! I myself
have always valued Jerry's advice, and to this end perhaps he
might like to give similar advice to other List Bears opposed to
David's view. Here in the rainforest we need all the recruits we
can get.

But why should anyone like to leave scientific Ufology in any
case? It is the best elitist show on Earth. Even most of my
enemies have brains as big as the planet Mars, but it is truly
marvelous to watch hidden secret glade full of an almost extinct
species flapping their obsolete and redundant wings and speiling
a litany about facts and fictions, certainties and accuracies
and lies from truth, and illusions compared to something they
call "reality" ( =3D God of the old time) Recently, some Listers
have been having good sadistic baiting fun with poor old Greer,
and yet they didn't raise a wink when a "respectable" shrink
came on the List recently and said that he had a "reality test"
for abductees! I wrote back and told him that he should make it
into a pack and sell it in car showrooms.

By the way Dave, it is satire that winds up all these out-of-
date American scientists. Smashing blows are OK, but they are
not used to being satirised. British satire "Private Eye" cold-
steel style sends them all up like Roman candles. They have no
equivalent in their culture, and they are used to mass
conformist respect fom saluting campus legions all trying hard
for little-box jobs, methinks. Stanton can stand satire to a
certain degree (witness his video) but none of the others can. I
am trying to get backers for a West End show called Factspeil,
but with the international situation as uncertain as it is
concerning bottoms on seats, it is going to be difficult. But
this scientific Ufology lot should really be on stage, they
really should. I hope no powerful media honcho steals this idea
from me before I can get it into action.

Perhaps now Dave has seen the postmodern light, my own much-
abused ideas on postmodernism as discussed on this List (and for
which I paid in blood on this List, and have lost List friends
on this List, and have been quarantined by a ring-around group
on this List), are taking root. Dick, your sleepless nights are
now explained. It's you next! (Dick doesn't reply. Pouting,
silent in a corner) Dick will be overjoyed to know that am a
writing a postmodern treatment of Ruppelt (An American
Demonology) at the moment, and if David instead of wasting his
time baiting Jerry Clark (who is no ironmaster, more a reforming
open-minded liberal to my mind) concentrates on combining a
postmodern element with his knowledge of folklore with the
research skills he has shown in Out of the Shadows then we might
have a possibility of another Passport to Magonia.

Clarke has shown that he is capable of both change and learning,
which is more than the stick-in-the-mud scientific iron masters
have shown.

(Wendy scowls, furious at her own self-imposed Bad Man
Quarantine Rule)

I went into the likely death of corporate Ufology in some detail
in previous posts, and I have founded what is now called the New
Ufology. I am not going to repeat it all here again, suffice it
to say that the absolute fact versus the absolute fiction game
is finished. Postmodernism reveals that they are both
approximations (like Plato's shadows). The simple-minded binary
differential of yes/no real/unreal can no longer stand as a
paradigm of either moral or intellectual operation in an age in
which most think they are strung between James Bond and Sharon
Stone. (Colin's getting out of date himself here a little here,
methinks!)

Put in the simplest possible way, the postmodern approach to
analysis is the analogue to replacing Newtonian billiard ball
atoms with quantum states. In postmodernism, we replace
objective facts with information arrays. An example is my
present feature High Moon running in the current Fortean Times
on Oberg and NASA. It shows that we can deconstruct "fact", and
that postmodernism is user-friendly.

With deconstruction techniques, we can see the internal
structure of "fact" just as Planck and Einstein opened up the
interior of the atom and showed the atom to be much more complex
(and indeed deeply mysterious) than was ever thought by hard-
atom Victorian deterministic science. Postmodernists see that
"fact" is not a discrete structure at all, and hence a whole new
world opens with regard to cultural agendas within psychology,
philosophy, and indeed science. The face of Garbo, the steam
train, the aeroplane, Babbage's Difference Machine, Faraday's
hand-wound coils, Lodges coherer, or the abacus and Latitude and
Longitude all can be deconstructed to show that they are
analogues of one another's differentiated information states,
being, sets and signs, symbols and in many cases, pure psycho-
social constructs.

As I have said in a recent post, the problem with corporate
Ufology as David calls it is because it is locked into very old-
fashioned binary theory. If Ufology does not change this
approach it will wither on the vine and be in danger of dying as
a minority culture because of the refusal to adapt to new
intellectual horizons long accepted by almost every university
in the world. That's an old story in cultures far older than
Ufology. There must be evolution in concept and experience
otherwise cultures go into stasis and the wheel remains to be
invented, as it were. Ufology will go into shock, and repeat
endless cycle, like a poor old caged bear in badly maintained
zoo.

I have said several times on this List that the idea behind the
phrase "separate the facts from the fictions" is a worn clich=E9
derived from of an old industrial metaphor. It worked very well
in its day, but the industrial age is over. We know longer
"manufacture" in the old "objective" sense. What we do create (a
better word than "manufacture") is powerful images, which are
virtual things. People no longer live in the cottage reality of
a world in which doctors cure (they do not) policemen arrest
criminals (they do not) and scientists discover "eternal truths"
(they do not), and so on and so on. These old screens of the
world of appearances are all down long ago. They went with the
assassinations, with Vietnam, Nixon, Watergate, and in Britain
the Gladstonian Reforms and the old Factories Acts.

Old-style Ufology is as out of date as belief in the Official
Reality as a measure of anything at all. We live in a system of
lies, ego-projections, national fantasies, and deceptive social
screens. To believe in "objective facts" and finite closed-loop
explanations is a belief that relates to the America of Norman
Rockwell's paintings of corner-shops and wishing wells, Bebe
Daniels and Ben Lyon, and in Britain, the Bastardy Clauses in
the old Poor Law, or BBC Radio's 4's teddy bears of 1867 and
curious garden sheds of 1900 and frozen to death. Just as modern
politics is almost completely about public relations, science is
more about wonder-management than "objective truth". Postmodern
deconstruction shows that scientific agendas are as much about
images and symbol-manipulation as in anything in Disneyland.
This is postmodernism in political action, and its largely
unacknowledged founder was Charles Fort. It tears off the
performance masks of deep background and shows "fact" is a
cultural screen and science and authority are the same
institution largely concerned with social control and
manipulation than "objective" research. People no longer have
heads containing bridges, buildings, large-scale industrial
projects, facts and "concrete" certainties; they live in a
virtual world of the soap operas, they think they are Michael
Jackson or James Bond. Trying to see the UK in terms of "fact"
is to accept the brochure reality of the Changing of the Guard
at Buckingham Palace as meaning anything at all. This is soap
opera for the masses as major sectors of science are pure soap
opera for yuppies.

I use the phrase "separate the facts from the fictions" as much
as anybody else uses it of course, but I am coming to understand
that it is a knee-jerk response from an element of self that is
being gradually cast off like the skin of a snake. Like old
soldiers, ideas don't die they just fade away. This idea
"separate the facts from the fictions" is no longer satisfactory
as an approach to experience and observation in a society and
culture that has almost completely transferred its axis to
image, media, advertising, mass-suggestion and role-playing, and
(yes, David!) continuous-creation folklore.

An obviously aging Ufology must at least take a look at the
equations of Fortean postmodernism if only because to some
degree almost every other major cerebral sector has embraced
postmodernism generations past!

The Ufological lock is the binary equation. As I have said in
previous posts, Ufology has a four-body problem that the binary
equation cannot solve given present conditions. The four bodies
are Corso, MJ12, The Ramey Memorandum, and the Grey Area
Syndrome, as outlined in my previous post. As I have said, we
have here four live information-animals, viral forms that can
only be described by postmodern equations.

I am preparing posts on these matters, though I suppose I will
be laughed at again and again and dismissed by iron masters all
of whom stick to straight corporate science as their way of
interpreting the UFO phenomenon. But what "science" do they
represent? On the evidence they give, I hear no mention on this
List of a science that is desperately trying to up-date itself
in terms of innate postmodern ideas within Chaos, Complexity,
Quantum theory, or even good old Relativity, and now even
minimal teleportation has been carried out, for Christ's sake!!
I mean whither "hard nuts and bolts" within that little
spectrum, what, Bruce?

Postmodernism is about information flow and media, symbols and
advertisements, qualities, textures, and maps of symbiotic
information flow; "facts" are no longer "hard" and "truth" is no
longer "painful". Postmodernism expresses a complete new view no
less of matter and identity, personality, perception, and
intelligence. It sees everything as information: a spanner, a
nut and bolt is a text. Corso for example, and the trouble he
caused is a drama of holistic elements, not "truths" versus
"falsehoods".

Now the holistic idea is most valuable if only because it
enables us to integrate the objections say to Corso with Coors's
book itself. They both form a super text of which the book may
be but one vector. Once things are seen in this way, we get rid
of all these troublesome antagonisms and separations that waste
energies arguing about rights and wrongs, energies that in the
end cancel one another out. In this sense, The Day After Roswell
tells us more about society than any conventional work that may
have more "literary" value. These works might be written by most
profound and sober serious objectivists intent in expressing old
analogue truths about "fact versus fiction", but that is a
phrase, which along with most "scientific" UFO books should be
made into suicide pills for geriatric elephants.

This is what "holistic" means.

Now in_.

Sorry List Bears, some people have arrived. They are all drunk.
I have to go and calm them all down. Some indeed, are elephants
on the verge of death.

That's better. I have had a two-foot by two-foot notice made
that I put up like a road warning on such occasions. It says,
"Randle/Friedman dialogues being worked upon". And that usually
does the trick, if only because most walking-wounded as I call
them have heard of either of them. Good. That's done it.

I am now working in the kitchen with the dogs and cats around me.

_the postmodern sense, or instance claims can mutate as well as
cells. As categories of information, claims are live information
in themselves. They breed and clone very rapidly. As David
Clarke will confirm, a claim, no matter how fantastic
automatically enters the cultural Petri dish. Now all this is
very important and it points towards a possible solution of the
fantastic claim (or Corso) problem as part of the four-body
problem I have outlined in previous posts. Mechanistic corporate
Ufology does not understand the function of the fantastic claim.

This is just one of its problems.

A recent example. Typically, there are those on this List who at
the moment are being rather fascist, condescending, and rather
cruel towards the poor half-mad Greer. Laughing as only the
petite-bourgeois can laugh in their proud and haughty (and over-
protected) way at eccentrics, the fantastic claim is not seen as
a vector within the reality set with the "real" as yet another
vector.

In other words they do not see that the Trickster (see George
Hansen's book) is not redundant noise, but a vital transforming
element that the reality Set needs for mutation into the next
stage of expanded metaphor. Fantastic claims such as those made
by Corso (leaning upon the poor devil heavily as an example),
mean that he is reading a sub text to the whole text that
scientific rationalism cannot read. If we require to know what
such a subtext is, then Loren Coleman's recent post gives us a
perfect example of such a sub text. In postmodern terms, the
deviant act or false stage in reasoning or analysis becomes an
essential part of the reasoning process itself. We must imagine
the models, the prototypes, otherwise nothing happens at all.

Sorry again, Bears. I'll have to throw some guests out. You see
folks my place is something like a permanent Portobello Road
disco drop-in if you know what I mean. There are things here
from beyond Starsky and Hutch, and younger escapees that
unfortunately we have to throw back to their Probation Officers
and Social Workers (but we never throw them back to shrinks. As
almost all of them claim, Shrinks are Nazis & Needles big time).
To see what the young and the lost go through keeps you alive
and young. It also stops the self-satisfaction of indulging in
sneering self-satisfied anger at the half-mad Greer, the
confused Corso and the deceived Adamski. The pompous effrontery
of the affluent and the successful, the over-protected and the
under-educated in this respect is shameful. I do not think that
there is a better demonstration that science cannot possibly
form a liberal education proper. The limited view of Literature,
metaphysics, philosophy and technological History alone
expressed by scientists on this List is enough to make a third-
rate night school bimbo fall off her blessed chair holding her
sides in mirth. If postmodernism has to teach us anything at all
it is the moral lesson that such rejected people as Corso are
part of the rainforest of the mind that the applied sciences
would burn out of us. These people are the subtext. They are the
higher disturbance. If we cannot read the trail of their
disturbance we are all dead. Here now I say, concrete cubes in a
city of zombies.

David is a young man. He is strong enough to have made a giant
leap over the electrified wire which surround the prisons of
skepticism and materialist science. He is perhaps one of the
first great escapees of the 21st century.

He should be bloody well congratulated.
Welcome David, to the rainforest.
The place is far more interesting than the Matrix.

A lurch. A crash from the sleeping area. A young female form
staggers to the lavatory after nearly tripping over a large-
  format edition of Josephus' Jewish Wars. She's a dropped-out
scientist actually. Escaped from Cambridge where the evil
bastards tried to make her do unspeakable to things to cats.

The snoring things I have to step over in the morning, well you
wouldn't believe, you really would not. Some say that the House
of Panzerben is not a place for a philosopher, but I say the
Front Line (as they call this district) is the only place for
the cerebral. The punch-ups alone keep a true philosopher alive.

But I digress.

Where was I?

What a philosopher has to do these days!

Something about -- yes, how all this going to apply to practical
research?

Postmodernism as the New Ufology suggests a UFO set: that there
will be a hoaxer, that there will be evidence lost etc. Here are
some well-known elements of the set:

The sighting
The hoaxer
The destruction of evidence
Authority
Technological component
Men in black
(and many other components too numerous to list here and now)

This is a set of what postmodernism calls signs. The vitally
important consideration here is that postmodernism demonstrates
that these set elements are linked, not separately "objective"
but functions of the set-event complex! In other words the
hoaxer (say) must occur along with (at some stage) the attempted
destruction of the evidence etc etc. The dynamics of the set are
such that the George Hansen's Trickster (say) is generated on
cue by the prevailing condition and requirements of the set
dynamics.

We have here a monad of a new kind of event-complex in the
world. It is the information equivalent to the live cell. The
UFO genetic structure has been found.

I intend to make this set-calculus the corner stone of the New
Ufology. If Mac Tonnies can connect it to his theories about
mimes, and David Clarke can connect it to dynamic folklore ideas
of Jacques Vallee, we may begin at last to get somewhere.
Integrate this theory with the field reports, and we will have
founding of the New Ufology. All we will need is a christening
cursing by the iron masters, steam footplate men, cat torturers,
factual Prussians, and the Nazi shrinks trying to get in on the
act, and we'll be on our way.

With that thought, I am going out to get some fish and chips.

I'll be back

Colin (Bad Man) Bennett



PS These are notes of a work in progress. Many of these ideas
are undeveloped, merely sketched. Please let's all do something
creative thinking about all this. I don't want plebian anti-
intellectualism and anti-modernism screaming at me, and I don't
want any hysterical women fainting at the sight of my long words
and men feeling intellectually under-endowed by ridiculing my
capacity for abstract thought. I haven't got time for abuse and
put-downs any more. This is not a time for ego. We need
collective Ufological Zionism, that's what we need. At the
moment, the iron masters are all floating around like quacking
ducks on a pond.

And I want creative criticism, America, not kicking, please. The
last kicking I got resulted in a 700-line List post from me and
according to reports, the person involved has never been the
same since. Since none of you appear to have the guts or courage
or balls to break out of the boy-scout lock that has been put
upon you and reply to my posts, I trust you will all revel in
the gross cowardice you have revealed to the world. America, are
Chicken, or what? Is that the nation of the Alamo and Okinawa in
your pocket, or aren't you pleased to see me? Laugh? I nearly
died

And by the way, iron masters, your security/quarantine system
leaks like a sieve -- I can read you like a Baghdad phone call.
What a life! And I don't want to hear American Barbie-doll
violins about me being an over-educated cheeky and insulting
anarcho-imperialist ponce of the Mother Country (hello, Jan,
Wendy, et al), who is too clever for his own good. Apart from
the ponce bit, that is far too accurate a description of my good
self for comfort.

We been through all this, dear children, and it has to stop.
Some heads needed banging together, some cobwebs blowing away,
and as much as I enjoyed doing that, it is now over, I have
other things to do, and I don't give a five-barred gate about
the old hands calling me everything from a pig to a dog. They
can giggle and laugh all the way to the funeral of the Old
Ufology.

Ufology must be dragged screaming and kicking into the 21st
century or it will die buried by filing cabinets and a "science"
that has not got beyond 1950.

I have had my fish and chips now, my American wife has ordered a
pizza, after suggesting one or two of the phrases that appear
above. The bohemians have gone quiet, murmuring about Iraq,
computers, Milton's Paradise Lost, and somebody called Allah. I
think he's the guy who sweeps up in the local Woolworths.

Some hours later. The heroes and heroines, the bohemians and the
21st century walking-wounded are snoring on the floor, the cats
are snoring on top of these metaphysical soldiers, and the
snoring dogs are distributed amongst all dreaming forms. I think
I will brew some cocoa and have another session with the
Randle/Friedman dialogues and try and integrate them into the
New Ufology.

Oh boy, have I got something coming for this pair. If they don't
think they are postmodernists, they will do after my next series
of posts, I can tell you that.

And Wendy and Dick et al, you're not supposed to be reading
this, so change channels, please!

We'll know if you're watching, now!

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

Read Panzerben's Combat Diaries on http://www.thewhyfiles.co.uk
7000 hits per day.
Politics of the Imagination given Anomalist Award for Best Biography
2002
High Moon feature on Oberg and NASA running now in current
Fortean Times 138







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 11

                       Re: Whiteman AFB Case? - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 18:21:29 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 04:59:28 -0500
Subject: Re: Whiteman AFB Case? - Hatch


 >From: Albert Rosales <Garuda79@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 12:58:04 EST
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Subject: Whiteman AFB Case?

 >Hello everyone, I am looking for information on a UFO landing
 >trace case were an occupant was seen, in May 1966 in Whiteman
 >AFB Missouri, can anyone help?


Hello Albert:

I have no cases listed for 'Whiteman AFB' per se. Its possible
the record was mis/dis/de listed because the report was sent to
that AFB instead of the actual sighting location. That is a
major problem here, especially during the Bluebook era.

What I _do_ have for Missouri in 1966 follows:

1966/4/1  2350h d=12  94:25W  39:14:40N NAM USA MSO
LIBERTY,MO:NLTS/FIELD:HIDE WHEN TRAIN PASSES+RETURN:
MANLIKE SHADOWS:ODD VOICES
/r8 VALLEE,Jacques: PASSPORT TO MAGONIA. Case #747

1966/8/1  0030h d=4  93:17W  37:13N NAM USA MSO
SPRINGFIELD,MO:3 GIRLS:6'OVOID RATTLES:LANDS/3min:
FIG.SEEN:GRASS MATTED:MARKS (on ground?)
/r180 PHILLIPS,Ted/CUFOS: PHYSICAL TRACES: Pg.43

1966/11/22  1000h  93:50W  36:35N  NAM USA MSO
ROARING RIVER ST.PARK,MO:DISK RISES/VLY:HUM HEARD:
TENT+TREETOP BURNT:2 FOTOS
/r180 PHILLIPS,Ted/CUFOS: PHYSICAL TRACES: Pg.44

The Springfield, MO listing sounds sufficiently similar, but
none of these took place in May as far as I could ever tell.
Whiteman AFB is two miles south of Knob Noster in Johnson
County, MO, 65 miles SE of Kansas City... I would guesstimate
93:35W - 38:46N, which does not match the cases listed above.

What is your source?  Maybe there are further clues there.


Sorry

- Larry







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 11

              Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' -

From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 18:49:51 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 05:36:04 -0500
Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' -


 >From: John Meloney <betsyross@fcgnetworks.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 19:07:37 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough'

 >>From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 15:14:22 -0800
 >>Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough'

 >>>From: Bill Hamilton <skyman22@fastmail.fm>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 07:09:06 -0800
 >>>Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough'

<snip>

 >>>Free energy also includes amazing technologies like a car
 >>>powered by a water fuel cell, a battery charger powered by the
 >>>earth, or a home furnace powered by permanent magnets.. The best
 >>>free energy systems deliver energy at no on-going cost to the
 >>>user, without detrimental effects to the environment, and at
 >>>extremely low costs for the maintenance of the equipment.

 >><snip>

 >>Can you tell us any more about the home furnace powered by
 >>permanent magnets? I hadn't heard of that. Is there a URL we can
 >>refer to? -LH

 >For information on free furnace power go to:

 >http:/www.FTN.info/Johnmeloney

 >I have ordered mine.


Hello John:

The link above was missing a slash, so I manually fixed that and
got here:

http://www.FTN.info/mainsite/welcome.asp

...instead of your personal page .../Johnmeloney.

They had lots of products, but I could not find the 'Home
Furnace Powered by Permanent Magnets'.

There were other fun things, like:

* Magnet Balls to replace laundry soap;
   "Never use detergents again!",

* Car Mileage Conversion; "double or triple your
  auto gas mileage" .. replaces much/most of the fuel
  with water to " reduce fuel consumption by 200%-350% .."

* Eco Fan: A stove fan that makes its own free
  electricity. $100.

My heating bills are way up and my curiosity aroused. I'm most
interested in the Permanent Magnet powered Home Furnace. I hope
you didn't pay too much for the product.

Any assistance much appreciated.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 11

                  [canufo] Duncan, British Columbia Report

From: Brian Vike <hbccufo@telus.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 19:31:34 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 05:49:34 -0500
Subject: [canufo] Duncan, British Columbia Report


Duncan, British Columbia

Date:  February 10, 2003
Time:  6:00 p.m.

A witness called this evening - using the new Toll Free Hotline
from Duncan, B.C. - to report he was walking his dog in the park
when he saw a circular object with what he described as a ring
of fire around it. I asked how far away the object was, he said
maybe 4 to 6 blocks away up in the sky. He also said the ring
which surrounded the object would twirl around the main body and
there were a number of colors coming from it, such as blue,
green, etc.....

He said it moved up and down, and when it got close to the cloud
cover it would change to all the different colors, but when it
dropped back down to a lower level the color changed to orange.
He said the object seemed to take its time moving up and down,
the ring still circling the main body of whatever it was. There
was no sound heard from the object.

He said his dog was going completely nuts and actually took a
bite at his foot, it was so frightened.

The witness was phoning from a friend's home and the dog was
still acting up.

I asked if he could give me a rough idea of how big this thing
was, he replied that it was approx: the size of a dinner plate
from the distance of 4 to 6 blocks from his location.

The sighting lasted for about 5 minutes, before it disappeared.

While we were on the phone he gave out a loud cry and said there
was a bright white streak of light from where the object had
been. He also said a short trail of colors was coming off it as
it disappeared. (If this had anything to do with the object or
not, hard to say).

Brian Vike (Yogi)
Independent UFO Field
Investigator/Researcher

HBCC UFO Research
Box 1091
Houston, B.C.
Canada
VOJ-1ZO

Editor: Canadian Communicator (Paranormal Magazine)
Paranormal Magazine
Phone/Fax - 1-250-845-2189
Toll Free Canadian UFO Hotline: 1-866-262-1989
Email - hbccufo@telus.net
hbccufo@yahoo.com
http://www.geocities.com/hbccufo/home.html








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 11

               Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 22:03:27 -0600
Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 05:55:48 -0500
Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Clark


 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 00:10:45 +0000
 >Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 14:07:22 -0600
 >>Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >>>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 00:46:43 +0000
 >>>Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >Since the Trindade debate petered on on the list, we have
 >received lots of interesting material from South American
 >ufologists. Maybe if the exciting new evidence you have promised
 >us ever sees the light of day, we may want to publish this as
 >well.

Yup. The other day I received a very pleasant note from a
Brazilian skeptic who has worked on the incident and who
concedes that a convincing case against the authenticity of the
photos has yet to be made. I am not holding my breath.

 >Nor, I note, can your friend Stanton Friedman, who spells it
 >MacDonald. Our Man in the Glens with the Haggis and Single Malt
 >tells me that historically all these versions are
 >interchangable, and it was only in the last hundred years or so
 >that people started getting pedantic about Mc, Mac or M'. A
 >historical variation of Rimmer is Rymer. You may wish to start
 >using this to avoid jokes from scatologically-minded eleven year
 >olds.

How you get from a discussion of "Mc, Mac, or M" to the 11-
year-old sense of humor is a mystery in itself. I think I'll
let this one pass and move on to some adult conversation.

 >Convenient, isn't it, that you throw in a quibble about
 >spelling, and then somehow forget to answer the question:

 >>>I would be interested to know if Macdonald [sic] included
 >>>psychologists, psychiatrists, and sociologists amongst his
 >>>relevant experts. I genuinely only ask because I want to know.

McDonald - please note spelling - worked mostly on his own,
though he had a broad range of informal informants and
consultants in a variety of disciplines, as his massive
correspondence and notes from phone interviews indicate. These
included psychologists and social scientists. Next time, by the
way, you cite a psychologist, social scientist, or folklorist on
the UFO phenomenon, do we get to ask you if he or she was
working with an atmospheric physicist? Just curious.

 >>>I was not aware that I was making any slur on Macdonald [sic]. I was
 >>>expressing concern at the way that his research is often
 >>>presented in arguments today as the incontrovertable last word
 >>>on the subject.

Everybody, including every scientist, is wrong sometimes. Nobody
thinks McDonald is infallible. He was wrong, for example, about
the Mantell case. But he was on the whole an immensely
impressive guy, surely as sharp, informed, and tireless an
investigator/analyst as this field has seen, at least in my (not
inconsiderable, if I say so myself) observation. I confess that
I have not seen his like on your side of the water, and
certainly not among psychosocialites. It's too bad that you
didn't have the opportunity to acquaint yourself with his work.
Quite an eye-opener. Till that week in Tucson in August 1997,
even I did not fully appreciate what he had managed to
accomplish.

 >>>Let me put it this way: There are all sorts of well-investigated
 >>cases. Apparently, if we may judge from the polemics of the UFO
 >>controversy over the decades, only those that result in
 >>identifications are not mere "anecdotes." In fact, in the end
 >>all cases, investigated or otherwise, are anecdotes. They are
 >>stories told orally or in print. It is a standard skeptical
 >>argument, repeated until its advocates are blue in the face,
 >>that anecdotal testimony is worthless. This argument is used
 >>even against cases that have been well investigated.

 >>If the case Clarke and Roberts investigated is an anecdote, as
 >>it is, then anecdotal testimony does have meaning. We can indeed
 >>learn things from it, with all due caution and qualification.
 >>That being the case, anecdotal testimony can indeed tell us
 >>something about the anomalous nature of UFO cases as well as
 >>about the nonanomalous nature of IFOs. You can't have it both
 >>ways. In fact, or at least reasonable inference, we can expect
 >>to learn from anecdotal testimony that some objects perceived as
 >>conventional (in, for example, the early stage of hypothesis-
 >>escalation) were really something else, apparently
 >>unconventional.

 >So you are admitting that the cases in your encyclopaedias are
 >as anecdotal as Roberts and Clarke's investigation of the Cracoe
 >Fell Case,

Huh? What's this "admitting" stuff? Far from "admitting" - which
implies some kind of red-faced confession - I was making a point
of which this obvious truth was at the center. Did I lose you
somewhere?

 >which is what I was saying all along. I wonder then
 >why you were so dismissive about the "anecdotal" nature of the
 >case when Roberts first raised it?

I wasn't "dismissive" in the sense you seem to be suggesting
here. What I was critical of, as you'll see if you would bother
to read more carefully what I wrote carefully, was the way
Roberts and Clarke drew a wild and sweeping conclusion which
they implied was valid for _all_ reports. Or do you think theirs
was a valid argument? I sure hope that, like me, you are
"dismissive" of such absurd conclusion-jumping.

 >Anecdotal evidence does have
 >meaning, and the value that can be placed on it depends on the
 >depth and rigour of the investigation that backs it up. I
 >presume you have not read anything about Cracoe, so have no idea
 >of the thoroughness of R & C's investigation.

You make my point. Thoroughly investigated cases that end in an
unexplained anomaly don't carry any weight with you (they're
just there, I guess, to fool credulous American ufologists), but
their opposites - the ones that come to prosaic solutions - do.
That's what I've been saying all along. At least we agree that
anecdotal evidence does have meaning. It's just that I try to
apply the lessons equally.

 >>Perceptual errors presumably should be able to
 >>work both ways, making UFOs of IFOs and IFOs of UFOs. This is
 >>inherent, as I've just said, in the repeatedly demonstrated
 >>experience of "escalation of hypotheses." Social pressure and
 >>fear of ridicule, if anything, lead more to rejection of
 >>anomalous observation than to its opposite. They can make us see
 >>something genuinely out of the ordinary and convince us of the
 >>contrary - as I know, by the way, from personal experience
 >>(though not with an ostensible UFO, but something fully as
 >>peculiar).

 >I would have thought this was beyond question.

Good. I'm glad we agree. I hope we will see this matter
discussed in depth in a future Magonia article.

 >>>>>Certainly people do have radical misperceptions about a variety
 >>>>>of anomalies, including a wide range of paranormal phenomena.

 >>>>Now reread that sentence. I was specifically _not_ talking about
 >>>>"a wide range of paranormal phenomena," but about an unusual
 >>>>natural phenomenon which science, after long skepticism, has
 >>>>finally mostly come to accept, based on eyewitness testimony
 >>>>from credible witnesses.*

 >>>Well, you actually said "say, ball lighting sightings", the
 >>>"say" suggesting that this was only one option amongst others
 >>>that you could have thought of.

 >>Do I detect just a hint of disingenuousness here?

 >Only is as much as everybody who disagrees with you gets accused
 >of "ingenuousness" sooner or later. We must add it to Jerry
 >Clark Bingo! What did you mean by "say, ball lightning
 >sightings", if not implying that this was just one of a number
 >of possibilities. Or does grammatical nit-picking onl work one
 >way?

Are you suggesting here that BL is still as controversial and
reality-questioned as, say, lake monsters? If you had been
reading rather more closely than you were, you would have taken
"say" to refer to any other rare, ephemeral, natural phenomenon
whose existence (or at least presence in a heretofore unexpected
place) was once doubted and/or dismissed but is now generally
accepted. For your own purposes, however, you decided to jump to
lake monsters, ghosts, BVMs, and the like. It is apparent that
you're more comfortable swimming in murky than in clear water.

I doubt that any other reader who was paying attention had any
difficulty understanding why I was insisting that RPM hypotheses
be tested against a known phenomenon rather than an unknown one.
This removes the subjective element of disbelief tradition from
the equation and leads us to information and discovery that
don't carry with them the baggage of controversies about
anomalies and the paranormal.

 >>>You might have said "say,
 >>>ghosts", or "say, the Loch Ness Monster", or "say, the Surrey
 >>>Puma", or "say, apparitions of the Virgin Mary". These are some
 >>>of the "other ostensible anomalies" which people might have
 >>>radical misperceptions about. But you want to stick to ball-
 >>>lighting. I think there are other, more interesting, phenomena.

 >>Again, you're trying to change the subject and again
 >>demonstrating why pelicanist approaches are so wholly captive to
 >>disbelief tradition. Any meaningful discussion about alleged RMP
 >>has to focus on misperceptions of phenomena whose true nature
 >>and configuration are not open to dispute and in which it is
 >>possible to say with certainty, without getting embroiled in
 >>endless other unresolved controversy, what was in fact seen .

 >What are you saying here? In what way do these other phenomena
 >differ from UFOs in terms of their perception by experients? Are
 >you implying that there are no known mundane phenomena which
 >might not be misinterpreted as a ghost, Nessie, yeti, or BVM?
 >Why is it not possible to have meaningful discussions on this?

Because, it is plain, you are determined not to have one. Surely
no other reader who is paying attention has failed to grasp the
elemental point that RMP theories must be tested against a known
phenomenon, not one which is unknown, controversial, and of
uncertain epistemological status, shape, and configuration.

How you get to this bizarre business about my allegedly not
believing there are "known mundane phenomena" sometimes
misinterpreted as extraordinary anomalies is, again, beyond me,
unless you are, as I suspect, tossing another red herring into
the rhetorical stream.. Let me repeat:

Show me documented examples in which RMP (whatever that is; its
meaning seems as elusive as the phenomena it seeks to explain)
occurs on a regular basis with a known phenomenon - BL or its
equivalent, something rare, ephemeral, appearing suddenly to a
shocked witness or witnesses, attested to (mostly) in oral
testimony - and we can start to talk. Till then, RMP is an
unhelpful concept, really little more than a tautology, at least
as you guys are expressing it.

 >>>Thank you for the rant. Let me go over this a stage at a time.
 >>>There are a number of controversial and ambiguous phenomena
 >>>which people report encountering from time to time. Despite the
 >>>number of such accounts, final proof of such things remains
 >>>tantalisingly out of reach. This might be because the phenomena
 >>>itself....

 >>>I think the point is that radical misperception does not, of
 >>>itself, "explain" a case, but it provides false data which
 >>>prevents a case being explained in any other way except invoking
 >>>previously unknown forces, e.g. extraterrestrial spaceships,
 >>>other dimensions, etc.

 >>And how do we know the data to be false? Because they point in
 >>an anomalous direction. This is, again, a circular argument in
 >>service not to understanding but only to disbelief tradition.

 >Obviously, we don't know the data is false, that is why we are
 >trying to incorporate it as part of an overall explanation for
 >the case. We may feel that we have successfully "solved" the
 >case, either as a mundane occurence, or as an extraordinary
 >event.

You can't just state RMP; you have to demonstrate it. You can't
apply it simply so that what otherwise is unexplained becomes
"explained" and domesticates an apparent anomaly, rendering it
harmless enough not to frighten the most timid psychosocialite.
That's why I keep insisting that you have to measure it against
a known quantity, such as ball lightning. A speculative
phenomenon employed to "explain" a speculative phenomenon is the
numerical equivalent of zero. That, by the way, is also why I
reject the term "flying saucer," which does precisely the same
thing. Maybe now I'm beginning to understand why you advocate
its use.

The more I hear you try to define what you're talking about when
you mention RMP and its application, the more nebulous the whole
business becomes. And might I add extraordinary?

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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 11

             Re: Camera Catching Shuttle 'Zap' Had Own Glitch -

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 23:03:30 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 05:57:59 -0500
Subject: Re: Camera Catching Shuttle 'Zap' Had Own Glitch -


 >From: Kelly Peterborough <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 21:59:51 -0500
 >Subject: Camera Catching Shuttle 'Zap' Had Own Glitch


 >Source: WorldNet Daily

 >http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article. asp?ARTICLE_ID=30904

 >Thursday, February 6, 2003

 >Catastrophe In The Sky

 >Camera catching shuttle 'zap' had own glitch

 >Nikon admits digital devices sometimes show purple aberrations

 >By Joe Kovacs

 >C. 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

 >As interest skyrockets in an unreleased photograph purporting to
 >show the space shuttle Columbia being "zapped" by some kind of
 >purple electrical phenomenon, WorldNetDaily has learned that the
 >digital camera model which took the picture has been known to
 >have its own color glitches.

 >Nikon 880 digital camera

 >The Nikon 880 occasionally produces a purple fringe around the
 >edges of some photographs, said a top Nikon official.

 >"It was a complaint [we heard from users]," said Michael Rubin,
 >senior product manager for Nikon Inc. "Sometimes you see it,
 >sometimes you don't."

 >The issue of the camera's reliability has been raised since an
 >amateur astronomer using an 880 claims to have captured a
 >mysterious image of a bright, multi-colored flash surrounding
 >the orbiter shortly before it disintegrated Saturday morning.


Amusing to see the argument over the value of this picture
devolving to whether or not the color is correct. It would seem
to me that regardless of the color, it is the presence of an
image of "something else" besides the Shuttle which is of
critical importance.

Granted, if the true color happens to be purple (purple is not
an artifact of the camera) then this lends weight to the
electrical discharge hypothesis since glowing nitrogen (caused
to glow by an electrical discharge) is purplish. However, the
color of a lightning bolt can also verge on white.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 11

                   Re: Another Abduction Question - Velez

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 23:13:01 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 05:59:11 -0500
Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question - Velez


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 01:31:05 EST
 >Subject: Another Abduction Question

 >As many Listers know Eleanor asked a simple question as to how
 >many abductions have taken place. This was responded to by
 >myself and others on the here.

 >Let me float an additional question.

 >How many abductions have occured in which the person abducted
 >actually remembers what happened without undergoing any form of
 >hypnosis, regression or otherwise?


Hi Robert,

I have heard Budd put the number at +/-25% - of the cases he has
investigated. In terms of 'actual numbers' a good guess would be
200+ cases or thereabouts.

Regards,

John Velez,
Speaking as; the former webmaster of Budd Hopkins' Intruders
Foundation website.

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

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/petition








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 11

                   Re: Another Abduction Question - Velez

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 23:19:32 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 06:05:41 -0500
Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question - Velez


 >From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 16:00:03 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question

 >>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 01:31:05 EST
 >>Subject: Another Abduction Questionr

 >>As many Listers know Eleanor asked a simple question as to how
 >>many abductions have taken place. This was responded to by
 >>myself and others on the here.

 >>Let me float an additional question.

 >>How many abductions have occured in which the person abducted
 >>actually remembers what happened without undergoing any form of
 >>hypnosis, regression or otherwise?

 >The figure often given is 25%.

 >But the question is really more complicated. Almost every
 >abductee remembers something consciously. Or at least the ones
 >serious researchers study do. Some remember more than others. So
 >the real question is how much does the average abductee remember
 >- and whether there are specific parts of the abduction scenario
 >_only_ remembered under hypnosis. Eddie Bullard has done some
 >work on this. And John Velez, I believe, can offer some insights
 >from his own experience.


Hi Greg,

It's tough to say what the overall 'percentage' of my memories
is in terms of 'how much' is consciously recalled. It depends on
the specific incident we may be discussing. I recall more about
some incidents that have taken place, 'consciously' than I do
about others. I am defining 'conscious' as being wide awake and
alert when an incident happened. Events that I recall clearly.
Events that are _burned_ into memory.

In my own case, the hypnosis served to fill in 'gaps' in my own
conscious recollections. For example, I was able to to recall
consciously how some abduction events started, but not how they
ended. Or vice-versa. There were a couple of incidents where I
clearly recall the beginning and how it ended but not the middle
part. One of the most compelling of those incidents was when; I
was confronted by a 'UFO' in uncomfortably close proximity, I
ran, I experienced 12 hours of 'missing time' and where the
results of the encounter landed me in a hospital emergency room
the following morning. You don't forget stuff like that. Ever. I
didn't always blame it on 'aliens' but I always knew that it had
'happened' to me. Without doubt.

As to 'how much' is consciously recalled by others  I cannot
say. I can only speak for myself. I can 'second' the number that
Greg provided because I have heard Budd use the same number
himself when referring to his own caseload. It is a good
qualifier though when considering the merit of a case for
further investigation. What the actual number of consciously
recalled events is, is anybody's guess.

I will say this, it is one of the very first questions that I
ask of anyone who writes to me about their own experiences. It
is important to know whether they are relating consciously
recalled events or something that they 'dreamed' or that
'happened' while they were asleep/unconscious.


Regards,

John Velez

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

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/petition








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 11

              Declassification Review/Release Request 02-10-03

From: Larry W. Bryant <overtci@cavtel.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 23:52:41 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 06:10:46 -0500
Subject: Declassification Review/Release Request 02-10-03


To: president@whitehouse.gov, inquire@nara.gov
Cc: counsel@nara.gov

TO: Archivist of the United States
     U. S. National Archives and Records Administration
     ATTN: Records-declassification Authority
     8601 Adelphi Road
     College Park, MD 20740-6001

FROM: Larry W. Bryant
     3518 Martha Custis Drive
     Alexandria, VA 22302

DATE: February 10, 2003

Referring to my as-yet-unanswered letter to you of Jan. 1, 2003
(subject as above - by which I request your agency's release of
the entire contents of a censored OSD memorandum dated July 22,
1949), I now apply that same request and rationale to the
enclosed "TOP SECRET," 4-page letter of Feb. 24, 1949, sent by
the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission's intelligence director
(Walter F. Colby) to CIA director Admiral R. H. Hillenkoetter.
The letter's discussion of a CIA-recommended change in the AEC
membership status in the Intelligence Advisory Committee has
about 40 lines of typescript redacted, beginning with the third
paragraph. You'll note that on page 1 appears the handwritten
notation "Reclassified by AEC memo 1/12/55." Accordingly, I also
ask that your declassification review/release include that memo.

On the premise that your characteristic delay in processing such
requests as this can be mitigated by my casting this request as
a formal, written freedom-of-information request, I hereby so
cast it -- reminding you of the response-time requirements of
the U. S. Freedom of Information Act.


LARRY W. BRYANT
Director, Washington, D.C., Office of
Citizens Against UFO Secrecy


Copies furnished to:

Mark S. Zaid, Esq. (Washington, D.C.)

Chairman, U. S. Senate Committee on Intelligence

Peter Robbins, Editor-in-Chief, http://www.ufocity.com

P.S.: By snail-mail, I'm sending to you a signed printout of this
e-formatted request.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 11

               Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough -

From: Paul Kimball <Kimballwood@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 00:33:02 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 06:13:13 -0500
Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough -


 >From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 16:55:36 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough

 >>From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >>Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 00:38:27 -0500
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough

 >>>From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 11:09:39 -0500
 >>>Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough'

 >>>>From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net>
 >>>>To: UFO Updates <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>>Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 08:10:25 -0700
 >>>>Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough'

<snip>

 >If people are willing to pay the $400, and we know Dr. Greer has
 >a great many projects and tasks on the go which need funding, I
 >don't see that as a scam, as long as he doesn't _guarantee_
 >success then fails to deliver. Personally, I wouldn't pay a
 >dime, but that still doesn't make it a scam. A little tacky,
 >maybe, scam, no.

 >The arguments about Dr. Greer's being "showy" don't make it a
 >scam either. The UFO issue is so hugely important that it's
 >great to see different researchers trying different approaches
 >and doing whatever they believe it takes to get the disclosure
 >job done. As is often heard Errol's Strange Days Indeed program,
 >there are _many_ and _current_ events happening all the time.
 >Pressure on the world's governments and scientific institutions
 >is needed to bring about disclosure. Grabbing public attention
 >is a valid way to apply pressure. Being "showy" is sometimes
 >needed to grab public attention.

Ahh... the old 'the ends justify the means' defence. One of the
last places of refuge for the scoundrel.

If being 'showy' is sometimes needed, how would you feel about
getting Stan Friedman, Dick Hall, Don Ledger, Kevin Randle, and
Jerry Clark (five researchers I respect, picked absolutely at
random), having them dress up in little green alien outfits
while picketing the White House? It certainly wouldn't be
science (although, for the debunkers, no doubt worth a good
laugh). I'm sure it wuld get plenty of press coverage, but not
the kind ufology needs. It would also be no different, in
principle, than the activities engaged in by Greer, with the
exception that at least the aforementioned five wouldn't be
fleecing people out of their hard earned cash in the process.

 >Additionally, we know that UFO occupants use telepathy, from
 >abductee reports. We know that they are highly selective and
 >pursue certain people for whatever their purposes are. I don't
 >think it's unreasonable to expect that only certain individuals
 >may be able to initiate flashlight contact.

'We know' UFO occupants use telepathy? Some may believe, others
may maintain, and more may suspect, but we are a long way from
'knowing' anything about this aspect of the abduction
phenomenon. Accordingly, expecting that only certain individuals
may be able to inititate flashlight contact, while a convenient
explanation, is nothing more than idle - and perhaps wishful -
speculation.

It does set Dr. Greer up as a priest-like figure however - 'the
aliens can only be contacted through me, etc. etc.' which seems
to fit his MO.

 >I would hope that more people who find themselves looking at a
 >UFO and with a flashlight will give it a try.

Assuming abduction reports are true, the absolute last thing I
would do if I saw a UFO would be to signal it with a flashlight!


Best regards,

Paul Kimball
www.redstarfilm.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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 11

              Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' -

From: Paul Kimball <Kimballwood@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 00:45:20 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 06:14:46 -0500
Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' -


 >From: Tom Bowden <tomrbowden@yahoo.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 11:58:54 -0800 (PST)
 >Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough'


 >>From: Paul Kimball <Kimballwood@aol.com>
 >>Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 17:33:43 EST
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough'

 >>>From: Dave Haith <visions@ntlworld.com>
 >>>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 12:15:19 -0000
 >>>Subject: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough'

 >Paul, Dave, Wendy, and all who follow this thread,

 >We can easily sort this out with a "wait and see" approach. Dr.
 >Greer says he is having this invention analyzed and verified by
 >three independent groups of researchers, presumably university
 >science departments. Since Dr. Greer is so big on disclosure, he
 >would have to make this matter public, and the results thereof
 >would also have to be publicized.

 >This will either make or break Greer's SEAS initiative. If he
 >honestly discloses the outcome of the independent validation,
 >whether negative or positive, then his credibility will be
 >enhanced. If the disclosure is not forthcoming, but turns into
 >some sort of shell game, then the conclusion will be obvious to
 >everyone.


 >Tom Bowden

Tom:

Quite sensible. I'll go you one better, however.

The reference to 'shell game' gives me an idea. Why doesn't
Greer, or someone on his behalf, offer to take bets (US$100
would be fine), at 3 to 1 odds (I think I'm being pretty
generous here, given his 'reputation'), that he will produce
verifiable evidence about the free-energy systems of which he
speaks, within a year?

I'd be the first one to take the bet - although not, I suspect,
the last. I'd be happy to donate the profits to some UFO
research organization.

It would just be nice to see Greer put up or shut up. It would
also be great to see someone taking money from him for a change.

Best regards,

Paul Kimball
www.redstarfilm.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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 11

                      Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Bowden

From: Tom Bowden <tomrbowden@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 00:29:02 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 06:21:23 -0500
Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Bowden


 >From: Roy Hale <roy.hale@ntlworld.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 18:35:06 -0000
 >Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs


Roy,

You missed something in your reading of Hynek. His definition
would be essentially the same as mine. The ETH is a hypothesis.
It is not the definition of the term "UFO" or unidentified
flying object.


Tom B.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 11

                    Re: Signal Detection Theory - Reason

From: Catherine Reason <CathyM@ukf.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 09:11:27 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 06:23:10 -0500
Subject: Re: Signal Detection Theory - Reason


 >From: Andy Roberts <aj.roberts@blueyonder.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 18:22:56 -0000
 >Subject: Re: Signal Detection Theory

 >Cathy wrote:

 >>This illustrates how dangerous it is to make inferences about
 >>the reliability of some detection procedure simply on the basis
 >>of the number of false positives it generates, without taking
 >>into account the relative frequencies of the events it detects.
 >>This applies just as much to UFO investigators as it does to
 >>our detector of spinning saucers.

Andy replied:

 >Er, no, Cathy - for the simple reason that it is _humans_ who
 >are doing the saucer 'detecting' and the human instrument is
 >subject to many variables which make it an inexact recording
 >device.

Um, yes, Andy. All instruments, human or otherwise, are
potentially subject to many variables, but that doesn't make
them immune to the laws of probability.


Cathy

[Catherine Reason]

I'm looking
I'm not buying
  - Stereophonics

Don't believe half of what you see
And none of what you hear
  - Lou Reed








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 11

              Re: A UFO Case From Nearly A Century Ago - Olmos

From: Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos <ballesterolmos@yahoo.es>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 09:46:18 +0100 (CET)
Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 06:24:58 -0500
Subject: Re: A UFO Case From Nearly A Century Ago - Olmos


 >From: Tom Bowden <tomrbowden@yahoo.com>
 >Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 21:47:17 -0800 (PST)
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Subject: A UFO Case From Nearly A Century Ago

 >In 1904 and 1905, many travellers in the countryside near
 >Dayton, Ohio, reported sightings of a strange flying machine.
 >Some of them took photographs. Some of them signed sworn
 >statements as to what they had witnessed. Despite these
 >eyewitness accounts, editorials in the New York Times and in
 >Scientific American maintained that all of these people were
 >either mistaken, were suffering from delusions, or were involved
 >in an elaborate hoax.


Anyone of our US colleagues willing to search in newspaper
morgues of the epoch and look for these alleged photographic
records of aerial flying machines over Ohio, 1904-1905? Can Mr
Bowden to provide any more accurate reference or clue to help
the search?

I believe that, if existing, those cases should be found and
documented.

Any volunteers?

V-J









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 11

                      Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Bowden

From: Tom Bowden <tomrbowden@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 01:00:06 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 06:27:46 -0500
Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs - Bowden


 >From: Wm. Michael Mott <mottimorph@earthlink.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 16:21:06 -0600
 >Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs

 >>From: Tom Bowden <tomrbowden@yahoo.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 12:44:32 -0800 (PST)
 >>Subject: Re: Flight-Paths Of UFOs

 >Please note that this is _not my definition_ of
 >anything.

 >An ill-informed quotation concerning ley lines, taken from the
 >"skeptic's encyclopedia" or some such rot, was posted as a trite
 >reply in the thread, so I simply cut and pasted only a _portion_
 >of the definition of UFO from _the same website_, i.e., the same
 >"authoritative" source.


My apologies. There were no quotes around the passage, and it
was not attributed to someone else, so I didn't understand that
it was not your opinion. Glad to hear it is not.


Tom B.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 11

               Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Reason

From: Catherine Reason <CathyM@ukf.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 09:43:47 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 06:30:45 -0500
Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Reason


 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 00:56:04 +0000
 >Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

<snip>

 >But the "folk explanation" is also part of what we are studying.
 >The "folk experience" is something that cannot be experienced by
 >the investigators. When an experient gives their account of an
 >event to an investigator their "explanation" is seamlessly
 >incorporated into their description. So in the case I cited, the
 >person in question gave a dramatic and lucid account of her car
 >being pursued by a large object which was very close to her.
 >This was how she "explained" the event, and there was no
 >indication in her description of her experience that what she
 >saw was in fact a quarter of a million miles away. A mis-
 >percaption of that order surely must merit the description
 >"radical"?

Ok, John, I'd like to ask you this directly.

In the case above, did you give the witness a football and ask
them to hold it at a distance which matched the appearance of
the object in the sky? Or did they offer the description
unsolicited?

What is supposed to be the mystery here beyond a straightforward
size/distance illusion seen from a moving vehicle? (An object
the size of a car a few hundred meters away will subtend roughly
the same angle as the Moon.)

Similarly, in the Cracoe Fell case you mention (I hadn't heard
of it, but that's nothing new) is there anything about this case
which is inconsistent with binding failure/segmentation
ambiguity as an explanation? (Reflections are particularly prone
to binding failure, that's why amateur artists find it so hard
to draw them. And there is a well-known popular example of
segmentation ambiguity - the vase illusion.)

I'm not suggesting for a moment that the _investigations_ of
these cases were at all obvious or easy, just that the
perceptual mechanisms involved don't so far appear to be
anything out of the ordinary.

The problem is, I am getting the definite feeling that some of
those people who are talking about "radical misperception" don't
actually know all that much about perception, and that they are
seeing mysteries where there are none.


Cathy

[Catherine Reason]


I'm looking
I'm not buying
  - Stereophonics

Don't believe half of what you see
And none of what you hear
  - Lou Reed








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 11

                 Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Clarke

From: David Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 09:26:27 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 06:33:35 -0500
Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Clarke


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 18:13:49 -0600
 >Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

 >>From: David Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 22:38:01 -0000
 >>Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

 >>Also missing from your list was Professor R.V. Jones who was
 >>deeply involved in the the study of the foo-fighters, ghost
 >>rockets and flying saucers, long before most of your list took
 >>an interest.

 >Jones's involvement was early in the game, his involvement
 >nothing like that of scientists who studied the phenomenon in
 >depth over time, his conclusions at odds with those of other
 >perceptual and social scientists who have examined the data.
 >That doesn't mean that, even with his limited involvement, he
 >had nothing to contribute, only that his is hardly the final
 >word. As these things go, Jones is a pretty minor figure in the
 >UFO debate, and a distinctly minority voice.

Jerry,

You speak with such certainty about Jones, yet know little or
nothing about his deep involvement in the UFO debate, which says
a lot about how seriously we should take the remainder of your
response.

Thanks to co-operation of his son Robert, Andy and I were the
first researchers to gain access to Jones' private papers,
during the time they were being catalogued for preservation at
the Churchill Archives Centre at the University of Cambridge.

The papers demonstrate a private interest in the subject of
aerial phenomena that stretched from the mid-1930s until 1997,
not to mention his official involvement as head of Scientific
Intelligence at Air Ministry 1941-46, head of scientific
intelligence and chair of the Flying Saucer Working Party, MoD,
1952-53 and advisor to MoD on UFO policy, 1960s.

"a pretty minor figure in the UFO debate, and a distinctly
minority voice" ! Hardly. No doubt if he had been "impressed" by
the evidence you would be loudly trumpeting his statements in
your selective lists of interested scientists. Because he
didn't, you have to suggest he was "a minor figure" and a
"minority voice."

Rather than being a "minority voice", Jones was expressing the
views of his peers, among whom he was greatly respected. He did
not dismiss flying saucers as being as no scientific interest,
but rather said:

"My own position [is] that if at any time in the last 20 years I
had to take a vital decision one way or the other according to
whether I thought that flying saucers were fact or fantasy,
Russian or extraterrestrial, I would have taken that decision on
the assumption that they were either a fantasy or an incorrect
identification of a rare and unrecognised phenomenon; and while
I commend any genuine search for new phenomena, little short of
a tangible relic would dispel my scepticism of flying saucers."

 >As near as I can figure, you want to claim the phenomenon for
 >your own narrow professional specialty and wish not to share it
 >with others who might have a wider perspective - not to mention
 >training in disciplines in which you are unversed - with which
 >to judge it.

I think that's a radical misperception. I agree with you that
the study of this phenomenon should be multi-disciplinary, but
you are suggesting that physical scientists have a "wider
perspective" than do social scientists. This is nonsense. As
R.V. Jones points out, without a tangible relic or some other
form of testable evidence to examine, physical scientists are
left with nothing to work from. In that way they are tripped up
by their own narrow professional speciality.

I've no wish to claim the phenomenon for folklore, because it
properly belongs to a whole range of disciplines. I comment on
those aspects of the phenomenon that I perceive to fall within
the parameters of folklore and contemporary legend. One of the
physical scientists on your list, Jacques Vallee, once famously
said that flying saucers were "folklore in the making."

 >On the physical aspects of the UFO phenomenon, I'd take Allen
 >Hynek, Jim McDonald, Peter Sturrock, or any number of others
 >over you any day. Stick to folklore, don't try to speak for
 >physical scientists, and maybe within that narrow speciality of
 >yours, you'll come up with something useful to the rest of us.
 >Good luck, and I mean that sincerely.

The panel that Peter Sturrock chaired in 1997 concluded that "at
least some of the phenomena are not easily explainable"
(agreed), but in those of incidents involving some form of
physical evidence, there was "clear recognition of the dangers
of relying wholly on the testimony of witnesses and of the
importance of physical measurements for distinguishing among
hypotheses" (which is precisely the point we have been arguing!)

The panel was "not convinced that any of the evidence involved
currently unknown physical processes or pointed to the
involvement of an extraterrestrial intelligence..[and] .It
appears that most current UFO investigations are carried out at
a level of rigor that is not consistent with prevailing
standards of scientific research."

After reviewing the conclusions of the Condon committee,
Sturrock and his panel of scientists agreed that "nothing has
come from the study of UFOs in the past 21 years that has added
to scientific knowledge." The caveat added to this was that
"there always exists the possibility that investigation of an
unexplained phenomenon may lead to an advance in scientific
knowledge."

Who could argue with that? No one, and especially not a
folklorist.

Best,

Dave Clarke
Not a Unclear Physicist








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 11

              Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' -

From: Joe McGonagle <joe@ufology.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 10:52:15 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 06:41:42 -0500
Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' -


 >From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 13:41:09 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough'

 >>From: Joe McGonagle <joe@ufology.org.uk>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 17:27:05 -0000
 >>Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough'

 ><snip>

 >>If Dr. Greer is serious about the above, why does he not
 >>approach the police or the F.B.I.? Surely they can't all be
 >>involved in the Military-Industrial Jasonite Masonic Alien
 >>Bilderburg conspiracy, can they? (I hope I didn't miss any
 >>there!).

 >Hey Joe, where you goin wit dat gunin yoe han?

 >You've missed two 'biggies'... the Illuminati and the Vatican!
 >Now that you've drawn public attention to their world domination
 >schemes, I fear that members of the Illuminati will contract
 >Vatican 'hit squads,' cold-blooded, killer priests, to rain .45 cal.
 >hell-fire down on your chatty, blasphemous head.

Darn it, someone noticed! Now my cover as the Roman Catholic
Chaplain to the Illuminati is blown! Maybe the Methodist
resistance will offer me shelter?

<snip>

 >>Also, isn't it his civic duty to report a crime of murder to the
 >>authorities, especially one or more which he can prove "in a a
 >>court of law"? Here in the UK it is an offence not to do so.

 >Greer is probably blathering about (and pluralizing) the death
 >of Tesla. The gubbamint did move in pretty quickly after he
 >expired and secured all of his notes and logs/diaries. To this
 >day, none of that material has seen the light of day. Makes you
 >wonder what's in there. It is that 'slight nod' towards the
 >truth in Greer's statements that seduces a few people who only
 >half-know what they think they know. To them, Greer makes sense.
 >But, being a half-wit _is_ a prerequisite!

Whether or not the unspecified victim(s) of the "murder" include
Tesla, he stated that he has sufficient evidence to prove the
murder(s) in a court of law. If so, why doesn't he? Maybe he was
exaggerating a teeny bit.....

If he is asked the reasons why he does not take the allegations
to court via the authorities, he can either bolster his position
with a valid reason, or fob his devotees off with some lame
excuse. If the latter, perhaps some of them will start to
realise how unreliable his statements are.

 >Let's wait and see. If Greer 'saves the world' I'll be the first
 >to liberally sprinkle salt on my hat and eat it in Macy's window
 >at high noon. Until then... we wait.

 >>If there are any of his sympathisers on-list please ask him the
 >>above questions, I would be very interested to see his response.

 >Be careful what you ask for Joe... you just might get it! And
 >then, Ghod help us all! ;)

I may be inviting the wrath of Greer, but I mean it... if he can
prove what he said in a court of law, I am interested to know
why he doesn't do so. Perhaps he doesn't think it important (if
so, why did he mention it?), or maybe he is unwilling to take a
bullet himself, contrary to another dramatic statement from the
same interview.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 11

             Re: Looking For Hong Kong Club President - Chamish

From: Barry Chamish <chamish@netvision.net.il>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 13:09:26 +0200
Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 06:44:12 -0500
Subject: Re: Looking For Hong Kong Club President - Chamish


 >From: Barry Chamish <chamish@netvision.net.il>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 01:53:24 +0200
 >Subject: Looking For Hong Kong Club President

 >[Barry needs a valid address for Moon Fong in Hong Kong.
 > Do any readers have info? --ebk]

 >..... we met in Laughlin, NV in 1999 and you invited me
 >to speak to your club in Hong Kong.

 >In March, I am going on a speaking tour of Australia and am
 >returning via Hong Kong. Would you like to meet? Let me know.


Found her.

Thanks.


Barry








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 11

               Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough -

From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 06:22:15 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 06:46:42 -0500
Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough -


 >From: Paul Kimball <Kimballwood@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 00:33:02 EST
 >Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough

<snip>

 >Assuming abduction reports are true, the absolute last thing I
 >would do if I saw a UFO would be to signal it with a flashlight!

I think that assumes that one views the experience as a
'negative'. Dr. Greer has explained that, like our pets, we
have to accept visits to the Vet. as something that is really for
our own good.

I guess he's talked to them about it and 'knows'.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 11

                             NASA's New Mission

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 08:33:14 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 08:33:14 -0500
Subject: NASA's New Mission

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/nasa.html

[Start Quotation]

NASA's New Mission

To understand and protect our home planet
To explore the universe and search for life
To inspire the next generation of explorers
...as only NASA can.

[End Quotation]







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 11

                          Bush Backs Alien Evidence

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 08:36:47 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 08:36:47 -0500
Subject: Bush Backs Alien Evidence

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_746860.html?menu=

Story filed: 16:29 Monday 3rd February 2003


Bush Backs Alien Evidence

George W Bush says there is mounting evidence to suggest there
is alien life on other planets.

The US President used his budget document to declare that there
may be "space aliens" to be discovered.

A passage entitled, "Where are the Real Space Aliens?", states
that important scientific research over the last 10 years
indicates that proof of "habitable worlds" in outer space is
becoming more of a reality.

Evidence for the current or previous existence of large bodies
of water, an essential element for life, has already been found
on Mars and on Jupiter's moons.

Astronomers are also discovering planets outside of our solar
system, including around 90 stars with at least one planet
orbiting them.

The document says: "Perhaps the notion that 'there's something
out there' is closer to reality than we have imagined."


Copyright 2003 Ananova Ltd.


[UFO UpDates thanks Tim Edwards for the lead]








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 11

                 Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Tonnies

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 07:15:51 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 16:00:00 -0500
Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Tonnies


 >From: Colin Bennett <colin@bennettc25.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 02:06:09 -0000
 >Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

<snip>

Colin wrote: "If Mac Tonnies can connect it to his theories
about mimes..."

If this isn't a candidate for the UFO UpDates Hall of Memorable
Typos, I don't know what is.



=====
 >Mac Tonnies
macbot@yahoo.com

MTVI: http://www.mactonnies.com
Transcelestial Ontology, Posthumanism and Theoretical Ufology

Blog: http://posthumanblues.blogspot.com (updated daily)








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 11

                 Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 11:46:11 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 16:34:16 -0500
Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Ledger


 >From: David Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 10:39:22 -0000
 >Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

 >>From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 19:21:48 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

 >>>From: David Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk To:
 >>><ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003
 >>>20:02:03 -0000 Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

 >>>OK, but you have not answered my question. What exactly
 >>>do you believe, in the context of flying saucers/UFOs the
 >>> Government are covering up?

 >>However what makes me believe they have more information
 >>than they are sharing is their determination to shut some
 >>people up. If you read Dark Object you will see where there
 >>we were stymied by DND on several occasions when they
 >>warned witnesses not to appear in a documentary in one case
 >>and talk about what they had seen on the bottom in two
 >>another cases. Getting simple government files

 >>from 30 years ago result in being ignored even under the
 >>Access

 >>to Information Act here in Canada. Example, RCNavy ship
 >>movements around the dates of the incident in '67. Even
 >>Coast Guard logs become unavailable.

 >Don,

 >There are often quite straightforward reasons why files are
 >with-held or lost, more to do with bureaucrasy and
 >incompetence than conspiracy. I work part-time in a
 >Government environment, and am amazed at how few records are
 >kept on a day-to-day level, never mind after 30 years.
 >Important documents are shredded, dumped and erased every
 >day, usually to save space or to cover up embarrassment.
 >Someone who comes along after 30 years and tries to discover
 >what really happened is always going to face problems. If you
 >suspect a conspiracy, you will find what you are looking for.
 >Dosen't mean to say there *is* a conspiracy.

Dave,

Well I don't work part time for the Government, I work full time
and have done so for 33 years. And they cover stuff up all the
time. At least you admit there are possibilities of
conspiracies.

 >>>This conversation is just getting interesting. We've
 >>>established that you do routinely explain cases yourself,
 >>>but like to launch in head-first every time you think we
 >>>in the UK are explaining too many for your liking.

 >>That's not what this is about. Stay focused David. It's
 >>about your Fortean Times article and your seeming inability
 >>to stay focused on your investigation but instead insulting
 >>others who investigate the phenomenon, through your use of
 >>derogatory terms. No matter how you slice it, introducing
 >>Cassie's unfounded remark into your text did nothing to
 >>further your case but served to insult me and others like
 >>me. It's for that which I took you to task.

 >Derogatory terms like flying saucer? Get real, Don. Since I
 >mentioned that dreaded phrase its use on this list has gone
 >from strength to strength. People like it, and I predict the
 >revival will continue.

There you are sliding away again to defend yourself. It's not
dreaded, I just know what you are doing. It's a belittling
tactic, like smirking in print. I'm sure I could probably find a
few such terms to explain certain phenomenon in the fairy and
troll world, but why would I bother doing that? What would it
accomplish?

And since you brought up Larry Hatch, he's probably just getting
on your good side because of your beer. He likes to leave his
options open.

How ever if it turns your crank to use "flying saucer", then go
for it. I had more of a problem with your professional, Dr.
Cassie.

 >As for Cassie, his views on the subject are as worthy of
 >reportage as anyone else who has spent time investigating the
 >phenomenon on a professional level. They are not
 >"unfounded", they are based on two years making field visits
 >to witnesses, sifting through MoD files and consulting with a
 >range of experts who were available to him at that time.

Ah blather, Dave. He probably spent more time at the officers
mess swapping war stories than actually getting his hands dirty
and risking the embarrassment of investigating UFOs. Psychology
was even less an exact science than it is today with less
restrictions on the use of private medical information. As soon
as he said, what he said, his usefulness as a psychologist
ended. Face it Dave, would you want your psychologist publicly
ridiculing some group program you were involved in? How would
you handle his remarks if they were directed at people who said
they saw fairies and ghosts and/or investigated them? Would you
still think him the pillar of science you tote him as now? I
don't think so.

Who says his views are worthy - you are just to wiggle out of
your insulting remarks and the fact that you couldn't stay on
the straight and narrow in your Fortean piece. You had to be
derogatory, not because you are an interested investigator of
the phenomenon, looking for answers, but because you are a
debunker. Wiggle all you want Dave, you are not fooling anybody
except perhaps yourself.

 >That you interpret them as an "insult" is your own problem, a
 >sympton of how precious you are about your subject.

Precious-Jesus, where do you get this stuff from? Some UFO
debunking handbook? You obviously don't know me. My kids and
grandchildren are precious to me. This is just interesting and a
hazard to aviation.

No, it's your problem too as the insulter. When you do this you
don't present in a reasoned way but in an defensive,
unscientific way. Your supposed to be neutral. Let the chips
fall as they may. If the rank and file buys your arguments then
you have a winner. If they start chipping away at your argument,
finding fault then you go back and have another look, tighten it
up. If the "argument" has merit, it will get adopted, but if you
come up with some of the nonsense that James Easton, for
instance, has regarding some of his "solved" cases you have to
expect flak.

 >If you ever have some time spare when not leafing through
 >your Air Force documents, try some background reading on
 >those reports of elves, fairies and things that go bump in
 >the night that you mentioned in earlier post. As you live in
 >Canada, there should be no lack of material, and lots of
 >first-hand stories by credible people who have had
 >"experiences." I predict that if you took a sideways look at
 >the UFO phenomenon, within the context of other anomalous
 >phenomena, you would return to the field with a much broader
 >and more imaginative grounding that you have at the moment.

I'm not interested in fairies and elves Dave. I have a real good
grounding in aviation and technology, with training in the field
of radar as well. That's where my expertise lies. I suspect that
if one gets into the abduction side of the phenomenon, that
perhaps fairies, elves, trolls and such might be to their times
as the grays are to today's. But I haven't heard any of the
military people I've talked to mention fairies, elves or trolls
and you don't see many of them hanging out at 100 or 45,000
feet.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 11

             Re: Camera Catching Shuttle 'Zap' Had Own Glitch -

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 12:18:06 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 16:40:52 -0500
Subject: Re: Camera Catching Shuttle 'Zap' Had Own Glitch -


 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates b- Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 23:03:30 -0500
 >Subject: Camera Catching Shuttle 'Zap' Had Own Glitch

 >Amusing to see the argument over the value of this picture
 >devolving to whether or not the color is correct. It would
 >seem to me that regardless of the color, it is the presence
 >of an image of "something else" besides the Shuttle which is
 >of critical importance.

 >Granted, if the true color happens to be purple (purple is
 >not an artifact of the camera) then this lends weight to the
 >electrical discharge hypothesis since glowing nitrogen
 >(caused to glow by an electrical discharge) is purplish.
 >However, the color of a lightning bolt can also verge on
 >white.

Hi Bruce,

I've posited that one or both of the left main gear blew when
the plasma hit them. the sensors indicate rising temps there
before failure. These tires are pressurized with nitrogen to
about 300PSI at sealevel. I'm not saying that the wing might not
have gone anyway, but that it might have been hastened by the
tire[s] blowing and either causing geardoor blowdown or blowing
off that section of panel above the gear bay. Either way that
would introduce the plasma directly into the wing and the main
spar behind the wheels to which they are fixed.

Now you add purple to the mix when nitrogen is electrically
charged. Interesting. Nikon says they get purple scintillation
on the edges of the frame, incidentally.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 11

                 Re: A UFO Case From Nearly A Century Ago -

From: Colin Stevenson <colin@c2k2.fsworld.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 17:08:00 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 17:32:18 -0500
Subject: Re: A UFO Case From Nearly A Century Ago -


 >From: Tom Bowden <tomrbowden@yahoo.com>
 >Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 21:47:17 -0800 (PST)
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Subject: A UFO Case From Nearly A Century Ago

 >To those who believe there is no UFO sighting which cannot be
 >explained as a known object or phenomenon within the bounds of
 >our _current_ accepted scientific knowledge, I submit the
 >following historic "flap" of UFO sightings.

 >In 1904 and 1905, many travellers in the countryside near
 >Dayton, Ohio, reported sightings of a strange flying machine.
 >Some of them took photographs. Some of them signed sworn
 >statements as to what they had witnessed. Despite these
 >eyewitness accounts, editorials in the New York Times and in
 >Scientific American maintained that all of these people were
 >either mistaken, were suffering from delusions, or were involved
 >in an elaborate hoax. After all, everyone knew that no heavier-
 >than-air craft could actually fly. Such a thing would defy the
 >laws of physics!

 >Many scientists continued to maintain that these so-called
 >flying machines were a physical impossibility until finally, in
 >1908, President Theodore Roosevelt ordered a demonstration of
 >the Wright Brothers' invention at Ft. Myers, Virginia, where the
 >reality of flight by heavier-than-air craft was proven once and
 >for all.

 >QED. The counterpoint to scientific pedantism.


Hi Tom

I will second that with the fact that Leonardo's design for a
flying machine based on his observation of bird flight has
recently been made to his 1800's design and flown very
successfully in the UK (shown on TV last night 10th Feb 2003
channel 4, 9pm) very near to where I live in Derbyshire. So the
heretics may want to be a little more understanding and have a
more open mind on possibilities they think can't be so. lf
Leonardo had made and flown it the Wright brothers would not be
in Earth history at all.

Personally I have had a little to do with free energy and orgone
and though it is a fickle beasty it does work (well most of the
time). Hopefully the Greer machine or electronic has been
executed by someone who knows their onions more so than us other
experimental folk around the world. The thing I am worried
about with Greers baby is that it may cause deadly DOR by
misplacement or OR. We shall see later, and I look forward to
the video or whatever they can do for us all.

By the way - here in the UK they have almost proved ghosts to be
a reality up in Scotland recently so it wont be long before ET
is also proved in my opinion that is if the ET hair DNA
analysis, ET severed finger DNA analysis and the DNA analysis of
the ET prints on the mirror are not good enough for scientists -
  maybe they say its an as yet undiscoverred earth animal? The
Yeti maybe or maybe even a rare breed of Pelican :-)


Kind wishes to all

Colin Stevenson








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 11

                    Re: Signal Detection Theory - Roberts

From: Andy Roberts <aj.roberts@blueyonder.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 18:14:33 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 17:53:31 -0500
Subject: Re: Signal Detection Theory - Roberts


 >From: Catherine Reason <CathyM@ukf.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 09:11:27 -0000
 >Subject: Re: Signal Detection Theory

Cathy wrote:

 >Um, yes, Andy. All instruments, human or otherwise, are
 >potentially subject to many variables, but that doesn't make
 >them immune to the laws of probability.

It certainly doesn't Cathy. And in fact the radical
misperception theory which Jerry Clark has so much trouble
grasping, proves that perfectly, ie all the probability of all
sightings of 'exotic' 'craft' (or whatever your buzz word is)
being resolved as IFOs is extremely high. That is, unfortunately
for Colin and Jerry a fact.

I'd love to join in further on this whole debate but I have much
bigger fish to fry this week that Jerry's minnow. But I'm afraid
Jerry, Don and Dock etc have not once managed to disprove
anything about RMP. When any of them - or any of you - can show
the scpetics just one, just one case which started off as a UFO
sighting but which was resolved into something more than that
then they may have the basis of another theory. for now, rather
sadly, all they have is a serious derise to be fuzzy and to
perpetuate mystery. There is quite enough mystery in the world
and the simple fact of our existence without having to invent
more. RMP is a proven and demonstrable event- a fact if you
like. Jerry's wooly arguments only say 'people unexplained
things that we can't always identify' - and that's exactly _all_
it says.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 11

             Re: Re: [canufo] Duncan, British Columbia Report -

From: Ray Stanford <dinotracker@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 13:39:39 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 18:28:43 -0500
Subject: Re: Re: [canufo] Duncan, British Columbia Report -


 >From: Brian Vike <hbccufo@telus.net>
 >To: <canufo@yahoogroups.com>
 >Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 19:31:34 -0800
 >Subject: [canufo] Duncan, British Columbia

 >A witness called this evening - using the new Toll Free Hotline
 >from Duncan, B.C. - to report he was walking his dog in the park
 >when he saw a circular object with what he described as a ring
 >of fire around it...He also said the ring
 >which surrounded the object would twirl around the main body...

 >He said it moved up and down, and when it got close to the cloud
 >cover it would change to all the different colors, but when it
 >dropped back down to a lower level the color changed to orange...
 >the ring still circling the main body of whatever it was.

That description is fascinating to me because almost precisely
or precisely forty-six years ago (1957), in the wild and
venturesome days of my youth (but I was NOT on any drugs even
though in Peru), the following event occurred:

LOCATION: South America, Peru, state of San Martin.

ENVIRONMENT: Bright, sunny, mid-afternoon (It was Summer,
because we were south of the equator.), elevation about 3,000
feet above sea level, on the Rio Mayo, a far-western tributary
of the Amazon River.

WITNESSES: Douglas Sharon (from Toronto, Canada) and Ray
Stanford (that's me, from Texas, USA), along with possibly one
or two others whose identities I do not recall.

SIGHTING DURATION: Realistically, perhaps fifteen to twenty
seconds, but it seemed longer, in the excitement.

OBJECT DESCRIPTION: An incredibly black, very sharply-outlined
DOMED DISC with sloped upper flange, with a ring of deep orange
(or orange-red) 'flame' (possible plasma) fairly slowly
'ROTATING' (perhaps one revolution took 2 to 2.5 seconds) around
and just off and out-from the object's rim. As seen from about a
45 degree angle from 'below' and to the object's south, the
direction of rotation of this orange 'flame' ring was
unambiguously counter-clockwise.

OBJECT SIZE: Actual size was, of course, unknown, but because
its image in the sky would have subtended somewhat over an inch
(about 1.3 cm) on a ruler held at arm's length (say 2.5 to 3
degrees, or up to six full-moon diameters), and because of the
clarity (suggesting it was fairly close), I guessed it might
have been very roughly twenty-five to thirty feet in diameter.

SOUND: None heard, even in that jungle quietness.

OBJECT ANGULAR VELOCITY: Average is estimated at 5.5 to 7
degrees per second, and the object was observed through roughly
110 degrees of arc path.

OBJECT COURSE: Approximately west-to-east while descending to a
seeming landing to the north-east of us and on the opposite
(east) side of the Rio Mayo, slowing somewhat and altering its
course to more vertical just before descending on the far side
of the river.

DISAPPEARANCE: It disappeared behind a wall and trees during
descent east of the river. We had no way to safely cross the
river to reach the possible landing area, and although we
watched for a while, intermittently, we did not get a chance to
see the object depart the area, but we presumed it eventually
did.

COMMENTS: The blackness of this distinctly outlined object was
absolutely bizarre. It was as if all (or most) light were being
absorbed by the black surface. The sun was NOT in the direction
of the object, so we were not seeing the object as black due to
some silhouette type effect. Years later, I sometimes tend to
think of that light-absorbing surface as almost an 'event
horizon' of some sort. No windows or openings of any kind were
visible. The deep, orange-red, vermilion-colored 'flame' seemed
to exude from the very edge of the disc, but the 'flame' may not
have begun visibility until perhaps a short distance out from
that very distinct rim edge.

The shapes in the ring of 'flames' were themselves very sharply
outlined! That, too, seemed inexplicable to me.

I was eighteen years of age at the time, but after forty-six
years, memory of this bizarre object and its very pretty orange
ring of 'fire' is almost as clear as ever, and I have a drawing
of it in my file, made soon afterward. I felt ashamed that I had
not had a camera with me, but at age eighteen, one tends to live
more for the moment and sometimes does not think ahead very far.

This was an observation, however, that helped convince me to
turn to cameras, magnetometers, gravimeters, spectroscopy, etc.
to study UFO phenomena, because it was obvious that we were
seeing some physics that only instrumented studies could record
and help understand.

To see what this kind of observation had caused me to have done
by eighteen years later (at age 36, in 1975), click on:

<http://www.nicap.org/madar/psi.htm>

To see some of the results of that instrument effort,
STAY TUNED to the NICAP web site. The best is yet to come.

So important are documented instrument-obtained records of UFO
images and effects that I would no longer normally bother
talking publicly about something I saw (but did not record with
some kind of 'objective' instrument), except that I am struck by
how amazingly like the Peruvian observation the Canadian one may
have been (although the Canadian observation was not in
daylight, but the Peruvian one was). By sheer coincidence, the
Canadian observation might even have occurred 46 ago to-the-day
(But, I'm not absolutely sure of the exact day, and not that it
really matters). Also, by pure coincidence, the other in-Peru
witness whose name I remember was, himself, a Canadian (not that
it matters).

At best, the 'synchronicity' (I use the word loosely, of
course.) only means that 'God' has a sense of humor! :)

More likely or most certainly, the coincidences mean nothing,
unless one is into 'synchronicities'.

Since this comes from someone thoroughly dedicated to
instrumented UFO monitoring since 1964, please forgive the
anecdotal account. Instrumented studies of UFOs are the only way
to thoroughly penetrate the mystery to the satisfaction of
physical science, but reasonably reliable anecdotal accounts
have value in the overall study, so let's not toss out the baby
with the bath.

I hope readers find this observation at least a fraction as
fascinating as did we. It made us wonder what the heck 'they'
might be doing landing down there in the Peruvian 'jungle'. Of
course, 'they' might have wondered the same about us,IF 'they'
somehow knew we were watching.

In a few days, events became such that I began to wonder why the
heck I was down there. A bit wiser and weary, I retreated home
to Texas, vowing to carry a camera, but never to return to Peru.

Ray Stanford







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 11

               Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Shough

From: Martin Shough <mshough@parcellular.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 21:59:09 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 18:33:06 -0500
Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Shough


 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 00:46:43 +0000
 >Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 10:42:53 -0600
 >>Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

<snip>

 >>>Certainly people do have radical misperceptions about a variety
 >>>of anomalies, including a wide range of paranormal phenomena.

 >>Now reread that sentence. I was specifically _not_ talking about
 >>"a wide range of paranormal phenomena," but about an unusual
 >>natural phenomenon which science, after long skepticism, has
 >>finally mostly come to accept, based on eyewitness testimony
 >>from credible witnesses.*

 >Well, you actually said "say, ball lighting sightings", the
 >"say" suggesting that this was only one option amongst others
 >that you could have thought of. You might have said "say,
 >ghosts", or "say, the Loch Ness Monster", or "say, the Surrey
 >Puma", or "say, apparitions of the Virgin Mary". These are some
 >of the "other ostensible anomalies" which people might have
 >radical misperceptions about. But you want to stick to ball-
 >lighting. I think there are other, more interesting, phenomena.


John

Excuse me for butting in here (belatedly) but I think you're
missing the point of Jerry's argument in this instance. The
particular qualities of ball lightning that make it interesting
as a case-law precedent are that it is a phenomenon which has
only ever existed as product of witness reportage, that it was
once plausibly argued away on that basis, and that it is now
plausibly embraced on that same basis.

It's a fascinating instance of the sort of dynamical social
process that Cathy Reason was talking about. It is a process
which is to a surprising degree inert with respect to 'truth'
and 'falsehood' and highly reactive to normative social
pressures of one polarity or another.

This is very evident in the history of ball lightning, and the
'UFO' data are much more highly reactive even than that,
although in many ways the parallels are extremely close - so
close that I dare say it would be difficult to define either
phenomenon (using the word in a value - and theory-neutral way)
so as to clearly exclude the other. But a socially real
distinction exists.

This is very largely a theory-driven distinction rather than an
evidential one.

In a sense, the familiarity of novel plasma theories beginning
in the 1950's acted to select out post facto a certain subclass
of aerial anomalies without much attention being paid to those
erstwhile Very Important issues of epistemological principle
being guiltily compromised in the process. It was still the same
'data' - but it acquired a different status in the socially-
  constructed 'reality' that we inhabit for quite pragmatic
reasons. No one captured a kugelblitz or got unimpeachable
photos or instrument readings - all the photos had long ago been
thoroughly impeached.

What changed was not in the world but in us. And this
'fundamental sociological fact' - that reality, as Berger and
Luckman classically pointed out, is sociologically defined, is
the vitally interesting and vitally important common foundation
of what might seem - to a superficial eye - to be
irreconcileable perspectives.

I think Dave Clarke and Cathy Reason are both looking in the
same direction, albeit only out of the corner of one eye.

It might be very useful to formalise the problem a little from
the point of view of the sociology of knowledge, so as to try to
construct a neutral platform on which all parties might be
willing to trust their weight instead of the ramshackle
epistemological structure from which everyone presently jumps
various suicidal conclusions.


Martin Shough








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 11

              EW: Shuttle Study Groups & Digital Camera Glitch

From: Kurt Jonach - The Electric Warrior
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 14:11:01 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 18:37:16 -0500
Subject: EW: Shuttle Study Groups & Digital Camera Glitch


EW Readers: The SF Chronicle coverage of the Columbia "lightning
strike" photo is gaining national attention. Some have asked
about a possible camera glitch. The WND article is cited herein.
At this time, the photographer has not publicly released the
photo.

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

The Electric Warrior : Web Log February 11, 2003
http://www.electricwarrior.com/

--------------------------------------------------
 >> SHUTTLE STUDY GROUPS & DIGITAL CAMERA GLITCH
space exploration

photo: Red Sprite
http://www.electricwarrior.com/img/RedSprite.jpg

(The Electric Warrior) - An unusual purple lightning bolt that
can be seen in a photograph of Shuttle Columbia has gained
national attention and also sparked discussion about rare forms
high-altitude lightning.

NASA investigators have set up a panel of both government and
private experts to study the San Francisco photograph. Another
panel is studying input from a network of powerful Air Force
telescopes and radar stations. The Space Agency has pooled data
from a variety of sources including private citizens and secret
government cameras in an effort to create a time-line of events
leading up to the Columbia disaster.

A NASA official has said the "lightning strike" photo is being
studied to see what it means. The digital camera that took the
photo is known to have its own color glitches. Nikon told
WorldNetDaily that unless they examine the camera it would be
speculation to say whether the anomalous purple light had
anything to do with a defect in the device.

--------------------------------------------------
RELATED RESOURCES

*** SF CHRONICLE ***

11-Feb-03
NASA studying Columbia photos
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/02/11/MN150539.DTL

SAN FRANCISCO (Chronicle) - NASA investigators of the Columbia
space shuttle disaster have set up a study group to analyze a
photograph, taken by an amateur astronomer from a San Francisco
hillside, that appears to show a bolt of electricity striking
the doomed orbiter as it streaked across Northern
California...If the San Francisco photograph does indeed depict
a bolt of electricity in the ionosphere, the "infrasonic"
sensors in Colorado might be able to detect the faint
thunderclap that accompanied it.

*** SPY PLANES & HIGH ALTITUDE LIGHTNING ***

11-Feb-03
Spy telescopes, radar could help shuttle probe
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/02/11/shuttle.eyesonspace.ap/index.html

NATIONAL (CNN/AP) - NASA officials said Monday that they have
asked the Air Force Space Command to review all data that might
contain information about the shuttle's last flight. The effort
has already uncovered an observation made by ground-based radar
suggesting that an object may have hit or broken off the shuttle
on day two of its 16-day mission.

10-Feb-03
Shuttle mystery in the `ignorosphere'
http://www.msnbc.com/news/870915.asp

SAN JOSE, CA (MSNBC/AP) - Scientists are just starting to
understand phenomena in the upper atmosphere. "The research
we've been able to do has made us realize it's even weirder than
we thought," Lyons said. "There may be other things that happen
up there that we just don't know about. Maybe we just
encountered a new phenomenon the hard way."

*** DIGITAL CAMERA GLITCH ***

06-Feb-03
Camera catching shuttle 'zap' had own glitch
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30904

INTERNET (WorldNetDaily) - Nikon admits digital devices
sometimes show purple aberrations. The Nikon 880 occasionally
produces a purple fringe around the edges of some photographs,
said a top Nikon official.

--------------------------------------------------
THE ELECTRIC WARRIOR
February 11, 2003
Silicon Valley, CA
http://www.electricwarrior.com

Graphics & Gonzo

--------------------------------------------------
Photo courtesy of NASA

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

http://www.electricwarrior.com

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

eWarrior@electricwarrior.com







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 11

                     Re: Signal Detection Theory - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 17:16:13 -0600
Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 18:39:43 -0500
Subject: Re: Signal Detection Theory - Clark


 >From: Andy Roberts <aj.roberts@blueyonder.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 18:14:33 -0000
 >Subject: Re: Signal Detection Theory

 >>From: Catherine Reason <CathyM@ukf.net>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 09:11:27 -0000
 >>Subject: Re: Signal Detection Theory

 >>Um, yes, Andy. All instruments, human or otherwise, are
 >>potentially subject to many variables, but that doesn't make
 >>them immune to the laws of probability.

 >It certainly doesn't Cathy. And in fact the radical
 >misperception theory which Jerry Clark has so much trouble
 >grasping, proves that perfectly, ie all the probability of all
 >sightings of 'exotic' 'craft' (or whatever your buzz word is)
 >being resolved as IFOs is extremely high. That is, unfortunately
 >for Colin and Jerry a fact.

When all else fails, as it has for Andy, he follows the
predictable course of eschewing rational argument and restating
his faith as loudly and belligerently as possible. This on the
mistaken belief that the rest of us will radically misperceive
what he's up to and fail to notice his inability to engage in
meaningful debate or defense of his extraordinary claims. I
think we now have all the information we need to judge the
cogency of those claims.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 12

                    Huge Increase In Canadian UFO Reports

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 13:00:49 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 13:00:49 -0500
Subject: Huge Increase In Canadian UFO Reports


News Release: 12 February 2003

Study Finds Huge Increase in UFO Reports in Canada in 2002

A new study by an independent research group has found that more
people are seeing UFOs in Canada. The group collected UFO
reports from private, public and government sources.

UFO sightings continue to be reported in significant numbers
each year, says Chris Rutkowski, research co-ordinator for the
study. People still report observing unusual objects in the
sky, and some of these objects do not have obvious explanations.
Many witnesses are pilots, police and other individuals with
reasonably good observing capabilities and good judgement.
Although most reported UFOs are simply lights in the night sky,
he says a significant number are objects with definite shapes
observed within the witnesses frame of reference.

Other findings of the study:

* There were 483 reported sightings of UFOs in Canada in 2002
    - at least one sighting a day.

* There were about 29 per cent more UFO reports in 2002 than
   2001. The number of UFO reports per year in Canada has
   increased almost 250 per cent since 1998.

* In 2002, more UFOs were reported in the late summer than any
   other time of the year, but February also had an unexpectedly
   large peak in UFO report numbers.

* In 2002, about 18 per cent of all UFO reports were
   unexplained. This percentage of unknowns falls to about
   7 per cent when only high*quality cases are considered.

* Most UFO sightings have two witnesses.

* The typical UFO sighting lasted approximately 15 minutes in
   2002.

Rutkowski cautions, a popular opinion to the contrary, there is
yet to be any incontrovertible evidence that some UFO cases
involve extraterrestrial contact. However, the continued
reporting of UFOs by the public suggests a need for further
examination of the phenomenon by social, medical and/or physical
scientists. This research can give scientists the raw data
needed to properly evaluate this popular social phenomenon that
is so pervasive throughout our culture.

The study is available online at:

www.geocities.com/aristotl.geo

For further information, contact:

Chris Rutkowski
e-mail: rutkows@cc.umanitoba.ca

Note: A toll-free telephone number to report
UFO sightings in Canada has recently become operational.

This UFO Hotline is: 1-866-262-1989







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 12

              Re: A UFO Case From Nearly A Century Ago - Warren

From: Frank Warren <frank-warren@pacbell.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 15:34:43 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 15:36:12 -0500
Subject: Re: A UFO Case From Nearly A Century Ago - Warren


 >From: Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos <ballesterolmos@yahoo.es>
 >Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 09:46:18 +0100 (CET)
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Subject: Re: A UFO Case From Nearly A Century Ago

 >>From: Tom Bowden <tomrbowden@yahoo.com>
 >>Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 21:47:17 -0800 (PST)
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Subject: A UFO Case From Nearly A Century Ago

 >>In 1904 and 1905, many travellers in the countryside near
 >>Dayton, Ohio, reported sightings of a strange flying machine.
 >>Some of them took photographs. Some of them signed sworn
 >>statements as to what they had witnessed. Despite these
 >>eyewitness accounts, editorials in the New York Times and in
 >>Scientific American maintained that all of these people were
 >>either mistaken, were suffering from delusions, or were involved
 >>in an elaborate hoax.

 >Anyone of our US colleagues willing to search in newspaper
 >morgues of the epoch and look for these alleged photographic
 >records of aerial flying machines over Ohio, 1904-1905? Can Mr
 >Bowden to provide any more accurate reference or clue to help
 >the search?

 >I believe that, if existing, those cases should be found and
 >documented.

 >Any volunteers?

 >V-J

Tom & V-J



Perhaps this will explain those sightings:

Source:USAF Museum Centennila of Flight Pre-WWI History

Early in 1904 the Wrights constructed another plane and engine,
and resumed their private flying experiments in Huffman's
pasture near Simms Station, about eight miles from Dayton.
During these flights the Wrights continued to gain knowledge
about flying. They constructed a derrick catapult for getting
the plane off the ground faster and made a number of changes in
the machine itself, and by the end of the year had made two
flights of five-minutes' duration each. In May 1905 they began
assembling another airplane, all new with the exception of the
engine and the propeller-driving mechanism. On 5 October the new
plane made a flight of 24.2 miles in 38 minutes 3 seconds.

Up to this time little or no attempt had been made by the
Wrights to keep their operations secret. In fact it would have
been impossible to do so since an interurban car line and two
highways passed the field they used for flying; certainly, their
flights were witnessed by some of their close friends and by
farmers living nearby. The Wrights had even invited the
newspapers to send out reporters to watch them fly on 23 May
1904.About 12 newspapermen came but atmospheric conditions
prevented flying. The newspapermen were invited back the next
day and given an invitation to come anytime in the future that
suited them, and two or three did return on the 24th. This time
the plane rose five or six feet from the ground and traveled
about 60 feet before it came down with only three cylinders
working. The reporters (who, incidentally, never returned)
evidently were disappointed, because the articles they wrote
about the flight were unimpressive and varied considerably in
content. In October 1905 the flights were discontinued for
almost three years because the Wrights had not received their
patent and they thought it prudent to stop before the details of
the machine's construction became popular knowledge.


Regards,

Frank









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 12

                        Liverpool 01-16-03 UFO Video

From: Eric Morris <bufosc@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 23:59:31 +0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 15:39:36 -0500
Subject: Liverpool 01-16-03 UFO Video


A packed crowd of nearly fifty people sat and watched the most
compelling piece of UFO video footage ever to be shot in the UK.

Many sceptics slapped BUFOSC's Eric Morris on the back and
stated  'You have the real smokin gun evidence of UFOs invading
our skies.'

Several left very shocked after only coming to be sceptical and
to see just a few lights in the sky, however what they observed
was very different.

Shown on video projection for the first time the footage Morris
took on 16th January 2003 there are certainly three circular
discs in the sky, one chasing an aircraft into the John Lennon
Airport at 11:50am (One of Lennon's songs called 'Nobody Told Me'
had the lyrics "there's UFOs over New York and I ain't too
surprised".) Well there were UFOs over Liverpool on January
16th and BUFOSC have them exclusively on VHS tape.

BUFOSC have always been on the look out for video shots and
photos, well aware that certain entities are trying to catch
them out(see the Knutsford Incident March 1999). Well there is
no denying this footage it was taken by Morris carrying out
field investigations into cases from that area on January 3rd
and 7th (and other dates).

It is believed this really is the evidence UFO groups have been
after for so long.Enquiries have gone to the Ministry of Defence
and other external agencies and we are holding our first
Conference on May 10th 2003 at the Waterloo Community Centre in
Runcorn to mark this special occasion.

All enquiries referrig to this footage should be made through
this address but in 2003 BUFOSC have just hit the Lottery
Jackpot in UFO footage, a long time coming but well worth
waiting for, every single day since 1978.

"What we have on tape here is Priceless" said Morris and we are
not releasing the tape until scrupulous investigations into it
have been made.

However at this moment in time BUFOSC hold the most important
piece of UFO video footage you will ever see.

Eric Morris
Press Statement
11.02.03.










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 12

                   Re: Another Abduction Question - Sandow

From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 20:10:48 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 15:42:07 -0500
Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question - Sandow


 >From: Luis R. Gonzalez <lrgm@arrakis.es>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 19:00:58 +0100
 >Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question

 >Conscious recall of going inside a UFO, etc. is not so common,
 >we could even argue about Travis Walton case.

 >Looking thru my listings, we got the Salzburg 1951 case
 >(anonimous witness), Antonio Vilas Boas, and then many tales
 >more on the contactee side, but nothing really valuable up to
 >the 70s


Might not be common in whatever literature you've read, but it's
reasonably common among abductees I've talked to.

I can't quantify "reasonably common." But I believe that Eddie
Bullard, in his paper on hypnosis and abductions, didn't list
memories of being in the UFO among the recollections that seem
to depend on hypnosis.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 12

               Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 22:29:07 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 15:43:57 -0500
Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Ledger


 >From: Andy Roberts <aj.roberts@blueyonder.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 18:30:50 -0000
 >Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >The defenders of mystery will never accept RMP even when it is
 >proven by case after case. Ah, they say, but what about the
 >cases that _aren't_ resolved. Yeah, well, what about them?

It hasn't been proven case after case. There are now millions. A
half dozen doesn't support a theory. You will have to go the
extra mile. I'm afraid your just saying it first doesn't make it
so Andy.

 >But it doesn't alter the facts above, or that RMP is _the_ only
 >workable, demonstrable theory for UFO sightings.

You really are putting yourself out on a limb aren't you.
Imagine, after all these years of study, little old you has come
up with the answer.

Shut down the list Errol. Burn your files boys and girls - we
can all go home. Thank God that's over with.


CAVU

Don Ledger









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 12

                     Great Los Angeles Air Raid Relived

From: Grant Cameron <presidentialufo@presidency.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 23:45:57 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 15:53:34 -0500
Subject: Great Los Angeles Air Raid Relived


Source: The Daily Breeze -  Torrance, California

http://www.dailybreeze.com/content/bln/nmlivinghist9.html

Wednesday, February 12, 2003

SP military museum relives 1942 Great Los Angeles Air Raid

By Dennis Johnson
DAILY BREEZE

Just as they likely did early Feb. 25, 1942, armed guards stood
watch Saturday over Fort MacArthur's Battery Osgood-Farley in
San Pedro.

An MP manned the guard shack at the entrance to the modern-day
military museum, while two others walked the rampart above the
massive concrete installation. A World War II-era searchlight
stood at the ready below.

Dorothea Evans remembers back to that day when Los Angeles went
into self-defense mode, sure the Japanese were looking for a new
target, three months after they attacked Pearl Harbor.

As a teenager living in Los Angeles, she remembers hearing the
sirens and looking outside to see spotlights throwing their
beams miles into the sky while the big guns boomed, raining flak
down on cars, people and buildings.

"I took one look at it and fainted I'm embarrassed to say," said
Evans on Saturday. "It was a tad too realistic for me."

What Evans remembered was the Great Los Angeles Air Raid of
1942, when unidentified flying objects caused the entire city to
go on alert while coastal defense guns fired 1,440 anti-aircraft
rounds into the air. The raid resulted in three deaths,
attributed to traffic accidents, but no enemy craft were ever
found.

What helped her were volunteers at the Fort MacArthur Military
Museum's monthly living history program, an event aimed at
drawing real historical events out of the books and into the
here and now.

Through authentic period clothing and restored military items,
the program can present the information to people in a
performance art-like setting, said Steve Nelson, the museum's
director. The idea is based on more famous living history
installations such as Colonial Williamsburg or the Plimoth
Plantation.

"There certainly is no reason we can't create the different eras
represented by this hill," he said. "We want to be on the
leading edge by taking the last century and bringing it to life
for the current generation."

For example, next month's event on the Nike Missile program will
include information on the Cold War and the Cuban Missile
Crisis, he said. Nelson hopes that the museum and Fort MacArthur
will one day be viewed as less of a park and more of a
historical site.

Find out more: For more information about Fort MacArthur
Military Museum's monthly living history program,
call 310-548-2631 or log on to, www.ftmac.org.

"The right to speak, and the right to print, without the right
to know, are pretty empty." Harold Cross -the father of the
Freedom of Information Act.

--







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 12

                 Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Bennett

From: Colin Bennett <colin@bennettc25.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 10:57:05 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 15:57:58 -0500
Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Bennett


 >From: David Clarke cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 10:39:22 -0000
 >Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

 >>From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 19:21:48 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

 >>>From: Andy Roberts aj.roberts@blueyonder.co.uk
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 18:14:33 -0000
 >>>Subject: Re: Signal Detection Theory - Roberts

 >>>>From: Mac Tonnies macbot@yahoo.com
 >>>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>>Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 07:15:51 -0800 (PST)
 >>>>Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Tonnies

Hi List Bears,

For some months I have been arguing for a more postmodern
approach to many matters discussed on this List. This discussion
between Don and David affords another example of how a
postmodernist approach can bridge gaps, and will be of interest
to David as he says he is now interested in postmodernism.

As a deconstructed text, the aeroplane is pure folklore. It
represents wonder, sex, glamour, power, the thrill of danger,
adventure, and high endeavour. It combines technological
intrigues with state of the art science. It is thrilling
entertainment, power, adventure and mystery. It represents the
mystique of applied national, political, psychological, and
social symbols. The airplane itself arose from all kinds of
mythology and folklore of the past 2000 years. Therefore when we
call it merely a hunk of metal, period, we are merely changing
the frame of reference in order to perform a certain kind of
mental navigation suitable to certain specialized tasks,
missions, and roles. This doesn't prove the optional folklore
texts "untrue" or "false but shows that they are symbols of a
natural scaling down. In turn, instrumentation itself can be
revealed to be part of a living drama of ideas. Now here is a
perfect example of what I termed management of wonders in a
previous post. David will agree that folklore is the last thing
you want to be in your mind if you are a jet pilot about to
approach Mach 3. Therefore the pilot will automatically scale
down all the previously mentioned texts as far as he can and
think about a mere "hunk of metal" if he thinks about anything
such at all. This scaling is an old tribal vanishing technique.
It enables a bridge to be built between those information states
called fact and fiction and creates whole new ideas of different
states of Matter and Mind.

In this sense what we do is load and upload programs.

In fear and trembling I suggest this idea of programmatic
concept scaling might also be a possible approach to a solution
of Andy/Jerry problem. If instead of a state of mystery versus a
state of no mystery, we postulate a managed scaling of mystery
within different kinds of experience, then we might begin to get
somewhere.

I can tell all parties here assemble that within Literature,
Philosophy, and Arts departments of colleges and universities in
which I lecture from time to time, the fact-versus-fiction mode
has long gone. The arguments between Jerry and Andy about the
"factual" real and the unreal would be laughed out of court in a
seminar or tutorial these days. As I have said in previous
posts, it is a bit of a cheek for List Ufologists to sneer at
postmodernism. Postmodernism is successful and accepted by
academic institutions world-wide, and corporate Ufology is not
successful, it is failing, and is not accepted by academic
institutions. This situation is so bad that not a single paper
on postmodernism has appeared in Jerry's influential
International UFO Reporter. I here and now publically submit
this post as a paper to that Journal, and dare them to publish
and be damned, or reject it. Then we will know where things
stand.

I do this because I feel unless corporate Ufology updates itself
and brings in new systems of up-to-date ideas, it will go into a
museum and be a mere curiosity whilst Fort's "damned" things
themselves still swoop and dive over our heads, laughing at our
baffled loin-cloth assumptions and our cargo-cult ideas about
mechanistic "factual objectivity".

 >>>And in fact the radical
 >>>misperception theory which Jerry Clark has so much trouble
 >>>grasping, proves that perfectly, ie all the probability of all
 >>>sightings of 'exotic' 'craft' (or whatever your buzz word is)
 >>>being resolved as IFOs is extremely high. That is, unfortunately
 >>>for Colin and Jerry a fact.

The trouble is that I have the same problem with the concept of
fact as Andy does with the concept of mystery. We are both
analogical twins. He demystifies mystery to show that there is
nothing there in his opinion, I in turn, as a mirror image,
demystify fact to show that when deconstructed, "fact" is the
entry to as many mysteries as you like.

In Ufological discussions there is of course a factor hardly
present in any other discussions. This is the difference between
those who have had a sighting and those who have not. I have had
a spectacular sighting and I have lost time. When this happens
to Andy, he knows my telephone number is in the London Telephone
Directory. I will help reprogramme his software and adjust his
framework of reference.

I would like to suggest respectfully (the Bad Man is in a good
mood this morning) that Andy and Jerry are not right or wrong,
but completely out of date in this respect. To bring themselves
up to date they might consider the postmodern view that they are
both uploading and downloading advertising programs. (shriek on
cue from Andy, frown from Jerry, pout and smirk from Dick, who
has take a vow of silence as regards Bad Man posts).

Both Andy and Jerry are trying to out-advertise one another.
Both are carefully managing information fields rather than
demonstrating "fact" versus "fiction"

This is the modern view of mind as media, and this view is going
to make a big impact on newly merging views of Artificial
Intelligence alone. Of course, I myself slip into the shrieking
fact/fiction mode as much as anyone else because like Andy and
Jerry part of me lives in the 19th century. But I realize what
is happening here, and others do not.

Now this revealing of the psychological scaling down of
different scripts and texts by postmodernist techniques solves a
problem that has bedeviled science and Ufology both. It breaks
the wretched real/unreal false/true binary lock. It introduces
that gray-area Fuzziness which Western science is so uncertain
about. Yes, Fuzzy neuron-states and switches have been
constructed by the Japanese in particular, but they have hardly
entered the metaphors of Western science (and especially this
List), which still prefers to stick to the prim roots of late
Victorian trading class deterministic materialism where
Newtonian atoms still bounce against one another, and absolute
states of the true and the false are the only two possible
"objective" states of matter. Unbelievable that we can assume
such simplicity is Nature's axis of operation!

Postmodernism introduces us to Complexity in fact, language, and
belief. Its influence regarding what we do, who are, and where
we are going has been most profound. Theoretical Ufology is
nowhere near doing such a thing. In a postmodern sense, use an
electronic multimeter, and the whole and entire history of ideas
of the 19th century tumbles into action no less. Read the scale
of such a "measuring rod" as Einstein call such things, and we
think and act then within the resulting measurement texts as the
19th century thought and acted. Thus the idea of finite life
within the old terms is meaningless. Postmodernism shows us that
personality is not finite but historical. It offers new holistic
horizons in anomaly-sympathetic psyciatric practice alone, and
shows that we live instantaneously within many generations of
time and culture.

As I have said, such common List views of materialist science
went out of discussions of literary criticism, art, philosophy
and psychology generations ago. Intellectually, corporate
Ufology is desperately obsolete.

Therefore Ufology is out on a dangerous limb. It is stuck on the
railway lines of the 19th century. It can make no progress
because it refuses to adapt and change. When that happens in
Nature, we all know what the result, be we Andy or Jerry, David
or Don, or even Dick.

As I have pointed out in previous posts, we should see that
Andy's need to disbelieve and deny is a function of the UFO Set.
It has to occur alongside the Men in Black, the destruction of
evidence, the cover up by authority et al. As I have said in
previous posts, this information Set is the UFO gene. We have to
see the UFO in terms of this new kind of Matrix-like event
structure, of which the MJ12 spectra may be a part of some
previously inconceivable world-structure. As a species, we are
evolving far more rapidly than we would ever think.

Postmodernism reveals this rich mysterious complexity within
"fact", which, like linear time, poses as a simple finite "hard"
wired thing. Both poses or "acts" are equally rich cultural
camouflage.Thus can postmodernism penetrate game plans in
Nature, communities, and in individual Minds.

Thus we can see language, and texts, advertisements and agendas
in just about everything, and see the rites of mental passage
between mythological journeys of initiation. These are the
subtexts relating matter, experience and belief. If we cannot
read their trail, our culture will die of what Norman Mailer
called a massive failure of nerve, and break both its head and
its teeth on objective empirical materialism.

These are powerful old magics, and role of science to act as
their psychic manager according to which theory of description
allows us to get stay sane and get some sleep at night. I hope
these few suggestions will help bridge the gap between the views
of David and Don, Jerry and Andy, but I don't suppose it will.

 >>>Colin wrote: "If Mac Tonnies can connect it to his theories
 >>>about mimes..."

 >>>If this isn't a candidate for the UFO UpDates Hall of Memorable
 >>>Typos, I don't know what is.


Sorry about the typo, Mac! It must have given the postmodern
debunkers a night to remember amongst the other nights I have
given them to remember.

David, I say again, your inspired leap over the electrified
barbed wire into postmodern freedom will prove to be one of the
great existential escapes of the 21st century.

But will Andy run for the wire before it is too late?

What will the next episode bring in this List, which is
undoubtedly the great moral comedy of our Age? Sheridan,
Boswell, and Dr. Johnson alone would love it

I'm going out now to buy a loaf and some socks.

Believe it or not List Bears, as I step over the sleeping forms
of no less than three 21st century fallen heroes (two with
Ph.Ds), I see now less, dear List philosophers, than a Scorpion
light tank pass the window, no less.

I have seen some things pass this window straight out of Dante's
Portobello inferno, but I have not seen a light tank before. The
Portobello Road might be a very rough place on occasion, but its
need for light tanks is unusual, even on Saturday nights down on
the old plantation.

One young woman Ph.D wakes, astonished to see the tank. The dogs
stare equally astonished. Perhaps Allah, like Beckett's Godot,
has finally arrived.

Never has Divine Philosophy been so pregnant with expectation,
good List Bears.

I'll be back.(at least I hope so!)

Colin (Bad Man) Bennett

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

Feature article High Moon on Oberg and NASA running now in
current Fortean Times 168


Wendy and Dick, you're not supposed to be watching this, so
change channels now, please! You know your mums warned you about
the wrong side of List town.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 12

               Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Shough

From: Martin Shough <mshough@parcellular.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 11:32:10 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 15:59:15 -0500
Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Shough


 >From: Andy Roberts <aj.roberts@blueyonder.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 18:30:50 -0000
 >Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >>From: Catherine Reason <CathyM@ukf.net>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 09:43:47 -0000
 >>Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >The defenders of mystery will never accept RMP even when it is
 >proven by case after case. Ah, they say, but what about the
 >cases that _aren't_ resolved. Yeah, well, what about them? The
 >Cracoe case went unsolved for ten years or so despite several
 >UFO organisations spending literally thousands of pounds and
 >hundreds of man hours on the case, not to mention involving
 >scientific analysis (if Philip Mantle were available at the
 >moment he'd back this up as this case featured large in his
 >life). It was procliamed as being one of the best cases ever in
 >the UK and clear evidence of aliens etc etc

 >Er, until it was resolved. Then for some reason few people ever
 >spoke of it again. The spell was broken and the mystery mongers
 >went on to the next absoluteley best ever case. And so the cycle
 >continues, over and over. Jerry and Don are _part_ of this
 >cycle, they can't see how it works, trapped forever in a miasma
 >of mystery. We'll still be having this debate with them in 50
 >years if they haven't croaked.

Hi Andy,

Depressingly your prediction is probably accurate. There's a lot
of truth in what you say, but is it the whole truth? I suspect
that the list of 'definitively explained' cases will also
continue to pile up  at the front even as it frays out into
uncertainty at the back. Both the 'explained' and 'unexplained'
lists contain classic exemplars which change with time. With all
this churning going on it is not easy to keep a meaningful
score, and both sides can point to particular cases on the other
which have been lofted as trophies for a while but then turned
into what fairy gold usually turns into.

Of course classic 'knowns' are much less vulnerable to this
process. I don't think anyone could dispute that the
'unexplained' list is more unstable and has a much higher decay
rate than the 'explained' list. There are probably many more
unknowns turning into knowns than vice versa, and each such
transmutation has a whole lot more force because a satisfyingly
definitive resolution as a 'known' is possible in principle,
whilst a satisfyingly definitive resolution of a case as an
'unknown' is _not_ possible in principle.

An unknown is an unknown is an unknown, and belongs, by its very
nature, together with those ambiguous quasi-knowns that
recirculate in the wake of the growing body of knowns. But this
speaks to the dynamics of our process of 'knowing' rather than
to some objective property of the events. From this sort of
mixed statistical population it is very difficult to draw
reliable conclusions about what it really contains. A defensible
inference would be: "If there are 'genuinely new empirical
phenomena' (to use Hynek's phrase) then my experience suggests
that they must be rare". But to say that

 >RMP is _the_ only workable, demonstrable theory
 >for UFO sightings

is simplistic. It may be strictly true in the pragmatic sense
that misperception is the only theory which ever achieves an
across-the- board consensus, but this is a semantic nicety which
can't be made a reliable basis for knowledge. It arises because
one cannot 'identify' an event as 'unidentified'. This is about
classification of experience.

The world which we experience must be conceded to contain the
possibility of 'new empirical phenomena', and _allowing_ for
this is what a category of 'unknowns' should be for. The fact
that proving novelty in any given case is not guaranteed _ever_
to be possible does not mean that a category of 'unknowns' ought
to be entirely discounted on the grounds that 'RMP' achieves a
workable consensus in some cases, any more than because 'weather
balloon' achieves a consensus in some cases.

 >But, as I keep saying - if you can show us
 >another cause for _any_ of them please let us know. But it's not
 >happening guys, is it?

If our condition for taking 'unknowns' seriously is that we have
to be able to conclusively categorise them as 'knowns' of some
kind - which is the paradoxical implication of the above - then
we make it very difficult to discover any 'genuinely new
empirical phenomena'. We are requiring that we know the answer
before we are allowed to ask the question. Again this is a
limitation we risk imposing on our socialised process of
'knowing', which may not properly reflect any such limitation
either on human experience or on 'empirical phenomena'.

I'm sure you're right that if one doesn't recognise the self-
referent circularity in the way one reinforces ones own reality
then one risks being 'trapped forever in a miasma of mystery'.
It seems to me that the proper core function of ufology is
exactly what the likes of yourself and Dave Clarke have been
doing for years, which is to dig out and correlate objective
information, as carefully and as intelligently as possible, on
behalf of some _future_ that may be capable of discerning what
is or is not of relevance to this or that discipline. That
future capability may not come from within ufology at all.

Martin Shough








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 12

               Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Shough

From: Martin Shough <mshough@parcellular.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 15:54:23 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 16:04:14 -0500
Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Shough


 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 00:10:45 +0000
 >Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 14:07:22 -0600
 >>Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >>Still can't spell the guy's name right, can you, John? It's
 >>McDonald.

 >Nor, I note, can your friend Stanton Friedman, who spells it
 >MacDonald. Our Man in the Glens with the Haggis and Single Malt
 >tells me that historically all these versions are
 >interchangable, and it was only in the last hundred years or so
 >that people started getting pedantic about Mc, Mac or M'.

As one who bides north of the border (an adoptive Scot and all
the more vehement for that), and raises an eyebrow at occasional
mentions of 'English sceptics' and so forth (Hume was a Scot)
allow me to point out that the 'Mac' is the Scottish form, 'Mc'
the Irish form. The distinction may seem pedantry to the likes
of you and me, but rest assured that inattention to detail which
can be passed over as a trifle on this List becomes a matter of
honour in a highland bar at 12:30 on a Friday night!


Martin Shough







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 12

                        Inexplicata: UFOs Over Japan

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 10:56:50 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 16:20:57 -0500
Subject: Inexplicata: UFOs Over Japan


INEXPLICATA
The Journal of Hispanic Ufology
February 12, 2003

UFOs in the Land of the Rising Sun
by
Scott Corrales
(C)1993. Instiute of Hispanic Ufology


While seldom mentioned in UFO chronicles, Japan has been a major
theatre of operations for the phenomenon over the past three
decades, and boasts prehistoric lore that links it closely to
the possible presence of ancient astronauts.

The most significant postwar sighting turned out to be
singularly dramatic: a luminous object, dangling in the air from
an enormous, darkened craft, was witnessed by many observers
over Tokyo Bay in the summer of 1952. The objects were also
picked up by radar, prompting jet fighters to scramble to
intercept. The huge aerial contraption proceeded to elude the
military aircraft with maneuvers never thought possible before.
In the early days of the Cold War, with the Korean conflict
still brewing on the other side of the Sea of Japan, the thought
of a surprise attack by unknown Soviet technology was fresh in
every strategist' mind.

But it wasn't until 22 years later, in June 1974, that an
interceptor--an F4 Phantom--would lock on to its mysterious
quarry and experience the nearest of close encounters: a head-on
collision with a UFO.

Originally under the impression that the signal on the screen
was a notoriously errant Soviet Bear bomber, the fighter's crew
was surprised to see that their target was a 40-foot wide disc
with square portholes that could have been viewports or
exhausts. When the Phantom trained its weapons on the object,
the intruder hurtled toward it, smashing the fighter's nose and
causing the pilot and weapons officer to eject. The latter died
in the collision, and the Japanese government remained silent
about the event, never acknowledging if the UFO had fallen to
the ground during the "accident". The Phantom's loss was tersely
attributed to "a collision with an unknown object at 30,000
feet."

The Japanese Air Force's tight-lipped silence was triggered,
perhaps by the number of sightings that had already been
reported by civillians. Four months prior to the Phantom
incident, a young woman, Akiko Nakayama, had come into contact
with three strange creatures in a rice paddy in the village of
Hoshimachi. The alien trio re-entered a glowing orange vehicle
that took to the night skies in a matter of seconds, rejoining
what was a veritable armada of UFOs slowly crossing the skies
over Japan. Magazines devoted to the subject of UFOs in both
Japan and the U.S. made much of the fact that Ms. Nakayama's
sighting had taken place not too far from the site of the
unique, mysterious prehistoric statue of the Inu-Ningen, the
"man-dog" that has been taken by many to be a depiction of a
prehistoric, nonhuman visitor to our world. This large,
perplexing statue, along with the small Dogu statues (helmeted
figures that suggest respirators and air hoses) have defied all
rational explanation.

In February 1975, near the town of Kofu, two boys walked around
a grounded UFO which bore distinctive "oriental characters" on
its hull (reminiscent, perhaps, of the Oriental script on the
object recovered in Kecksburg, PA in 1965). The youngsters
reported seeing "a ladder emerge from the craft" and a Klaatu-
esque, silver-clad entity descend toward them. In what can best
be described as a case of "unrequited contact", the boys broke
and ran from the spot in abject terror. One of the children's
parents was later able to confirm having seen an unusual craft
rising skywards from the direction in which the boys had run.But
by September of that very same year, UFOs would be seen by
everyone living in western Japan, prompting a deluge of phone
calls to the authorities. A Japan Air Lines DC-8 was "tailed" by
an unknown device for twenty minutes until it landed safely at a
local airport.

The sightings were building up to a climax: in 1976, fifty
witnesses beheld a golden UFO in the early morning hours of
October 17th. The scintillating disk remained suspended in mid-
air for ten minutes, prompting the air traffic controllers at
Akita Airport to warn all approaching planes of the potential
obstacle. The crowd of witnesses included members of the
Japanese media, who had been filming a documentary on pilot
instruction at the airport. Earlier in the year, a dark UFO had
hovered directly over the Imperial Palace in Tokyo, its
maneuvers witnessed by agents of the National Police from their
office building.

The increasing frequency of the sightings became such that in
1977, the country's first official investigation of the
phenomenon was launched under the auspices of the Japanese Air
Force, with inconclusive results.

The phenomenon did not wait around for the government findings
either: strange globes of light were seen flying around Mount
Senohara in 1982, and two years later, the crew of a passenger
jet reported seeing what first appeared to be the mushroom cloud
following a nuclear detonation, rising to a height of sixty
thousand feet and expanding to a diameter of a hundred miles
before dissolving altogether. No explanation was offered for
this event. UFOs are not the only enigma bewildering the
Japanese. In the summer of 1986, a circular, levelled "crop
circle" was discovered in Yamagata, constituting the first
instance of this mystery's appearance in Japan.

Like the United States, Japan has either the fortune or ill luck
of being located next to one of the dozen or so anomalous areas
that surround the planet. The Devil's Triangle, the Pacific
Ocean's equivalent of the Bermuda Triangle, which extends from
the Japanese archipelago to the Marianas, covering an area of
tremendously deep marine trenches and underwater volcanoes.
Aside from the legendary number of disappearances recorded as
having taken place in or near the site, frequent UFO sightings
have also been reported, suggesting the possibility of a natural
aberration that serves as a materialization spot for the
phenomenon.

The crew of the Kitsukawa Maru reported, in April 1952, an
encounter with a pair of wingless, silver disks that plunged
into the ocean off the port bow. The ship's captain promptly
noted the event, which occured at the edge of the nineteen
thousand foot deep trench surrounding Japan. In 1967, a number
of U.S. fighters were sent after a formation of UFOs off
Okinawa, which had been picked up on radar.

There have been indications that the Japanese government is
possibly ready to re-open its investigations into the UFO
enigma: at the  International UFO and Space Symposium, held in
Hakui City in the fall of 1991, then prime minister Toshiki
Kaifu expressed an opinion that "it was time to take the UFO
situation seriously." Time will tell if his suggestion will be
taken with equal seriousness.

# # # #







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 12

                          Secrecy News -- 02/12/03

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@fas.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 12:02:42 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 16:26:00 -0500
Subject: Secrecy News -- 02/12/03


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
Volume 2003, Issue No. 13
February 12, 2003
Lincoln's -- and Darwin's -- 194th birthday


**      ONLINE ACCESS TO CRS REPORTS SOUGHT
**      PATRIOT II PROPOSAL DRAWS CRITICISM
**      WORLDWIDE THREAT BRIEFING
**      SCIENTIFIC DATA SHARING ERODES


ONLINE ACCESS TO CRS REPORTS SOUGHT

A bipartisan resolution to provide internet access to reports
of the Congressional Research Service (CRS) was introduced on
February 11 by Senators John McCain, Patrick Leahy, Joseph
Lieberman, and Tom Harkin.

"The American public paid over $81 million to fund CRS's
operations in fiscal year 2002 alone," noted Senator McCain.
"The informational reports covered by this resolution are not
confidential or classified, and the public deserves to have
access to them."

At Congressional direction, CRS has for years resisted
allowing direct public access to its research reports,
arguing not very persuasively that such access could interfere
with the performance of its mission.  Nevertheless, CRS
reports are readily available to Washington insiders and are
even marketed by some private publishers.  Many of the most
significant CRS reports have been put online independently by
non-governmental organizations.

"The goal of our bipartisan legislation is to allow every
citizen the same access to the wealth of CRS information as
a Member of Congress enjoys today," said Senator Leahy.  "CRS
performs invaluable research and produces first-rate reports
on hundreds of topics. American taxpayers have every right to
have direct access to these wonderful resources."

See the introduction of Senate Joint Resolution 54 on access to
CRS products here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2003/sr54.html

The debate on this issue, which has persisted for several years
now, is immensely flattering to CRS.

"The Congressional Research Service has a well-known reputation
for producing high-quality reports and information briefs that
are unbiased, concise and accurate," said Senator Leahy.

But they also tend to be derivative, equivocal, and even-handed
to the point of incoherence.  Issues that do not lend
themselves to concise summaries or split-the-difference
conclusions, or that depend upon original investigation of
remote sources, tend to get short shrift.  And the
methodological conceit of non-partisanship means that CRS
reports often lack the penetrating insights of the best
opinion journalism and partisan analysis.

Still, many CRS publications serve as fine introductions to
complex issues and reliable guides to longstanding debates.
It is remarkable that public access to them should even be
in question.

The Project on Government Oversight published a new report
this week that was cited by Senator Leahy. See "Congressional
Research Service Products:  Taxpayers Should Have Easy
Access":

http://www.pogo.org/p/government/go-030201-crs.html

Some recent CRS reports of note include these:

"Iraq: Potential U.S. Military Operations," by Steve Bowman,
January 13, 2003:

http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL31701.pdf

"Iraq: Divergent Views on Military Action," by Alfred Prados,
updated January 31, 2003:

  http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RS21325.pdf

"Nuclear Earth Penetrator Weapons," by Jonathan Medalia,
updated January 27, 2003:

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/crs/RS20834.pdf


PATRIOT II PROPOSAL DRAWS CRITICISM

The reaction this week to word that the Justice Department is
developing follow-on legislation to the Patriot Act that would
further expand law enforcement surveillance and other
authorities was almost universally critical, on both
substantive and procedural grounds.

"If there is going to be a sequel to the USA PATRIOT Act, the
process of writing it should be open and accountable.  It
should not be shrouded in secrecy, steeped in unilateralism or
tinged with partisanship," said Sen. Patrick Leahy in a press
statement.  "The early signals from the Administration about
its intentions for this bill are ominous, and I hope Justice
Department officials will change the way they are handling
this."  See:

http://www.senate.gov/~leahy/press/200302/021003.html

The package of Justice Department proposals does contain some
positive features, the Washington Post noticed.  For example,
the draft Section 108 would enable the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court of Review (FISCR) to appoint an attorney to
represent a point of view opposing that of the Justice
Department.  The record of last September's FISCR hearing was
defective, Secrecy News complained on February 6, precisely
because it lacked such an opposing view.  Apparently, the
Justice Department independently reached the same conclusion.

On the whole, however, the draft legislation would give the
government "more power unilaterally to exempt people from
the protections of the justice system and place them in a
kind of alternative legal world. Congress should be pushing in
the opposite direction," the Post editorialized.

See "Patriot Act: The Sequel," Washington Post, February 12:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59690-2003Feb11.html


WORLDWIDE THREAT BRIEFING

The leaders of the U.S. intelligence community presented their
annual worldwide threat briefing to the Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence on February 11.

They offered a digest of U.S. intelligence views on a host of
global security issues, beginning with what was described as
an imminent threat of terrorist attack -- "plots timed to
occur as early as the end of the Hajj, which occurs late this
week," as Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet put
it.

See the prepared testimony of DCI Tenet, FBI Director Mueller,
Defense Intelligence Agency Director Adm. Jacoby, and State
Department INR Director Carl Ford here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2003_hr/index.html#threat


SCIENTIFIC DATA SHARING ERODES

Research scientists have an ethical obligation to share the
scientific data that underlies their published research.  But
increasingly, that obligation has been neglected or violated,
according to a new National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report.

The sources of this deviation notably include "the commercial
and other interests of authors in their research data and
materials."  In other words, publication of data is
subordinated to proprietary interests in the commercialization
of research.  Other factors are the "growing role of large
datasets in biology" and "the cost and time involved in
producing some data and materials."

The NAS report proposes a set of principles that it says should
inform community standards on data sharing, beginning with the
foundational principle that "in exchange for the credit and
acknowledgment that come with publishing in a peer-reviewed
journal, authors are expected to provide the information
essential to their published findings."

See "Sharing Publication-Related Data and Materials:
Responsibilities of Authorship in the Life Sciences" from the
Academy's Board on Life Sciences, 2003:

  http://www.nap.edu/books/0309088593/html/


_______________________________________________
Secrecy News is written by Steven Aftergood and published by the
Federation of American Scientists.

To SUBSCRIBE to Secrecy News, send email to

secrecy_news-request@lists.fas.org

with "subscribe" in the body of the message.

OR email your request to saftergood@fas.org

Secrecy News is archived at:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/index.html

_______________________
Steven Aftergood
Project on Government Secrecy
Federation of American Scientists
web:    www.fas.org/sgp/index.html
email:  saftergood@fas.org
voice:  (202) 454-4691







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 12

              Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' -

From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 13:31:45 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 16:29:31 -0500
Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' -


 >From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 13:52:07 -0800
 >Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough'

<snip>

 >Does anybody have a good URL for _progress_ on the FEB matter?
 >Hopefully, they might display updates from time to time. Those
 >might be fun to watch, unless they fade, fade away too, like the
 >Ghost of Interstellar Ether.


Well, Larry,

http://www.lutec.com.au

...doesn't have much about progress, though he does have a nice
photo of his "free" energy motor/generator there.

His contact info is from his site:

Mail:

Post Office Box 2288
Cairns, Queensland, 4870
Australia.

Email:

info@lutec.com.au

** Any chance Victor Viggiani might be sufficiently interested
to pop in and chat with the inventor? His site suggests he is
open to have his device viewed.


Eleanor White







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 12

                   Re: Validating The Ramey Memo - Rudiak

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 10:39:44 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 16:34:24 -0500
Subject: Re: Validating The Ramey Memo - Rudiak


 >From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 09:58:47 EST
 >Subject: Re: Validating The Ramey Memo - Randle

 >That said, let's address some of the things that seem to plague
 >the thinking of a few on this List. First, as both Jim Houran
 >and I have attempted to make clear, the original score sheets
 >for our experiment were inadvertently destroyed. This is a
 >regrettable error.

I would say it was more than a "regrettable error." It was
catastrophic to your paper. You needed to redo the experiment at
that point, not write up a paper claiming you found an effect
with _no numbers_ to back up the conclusion.

The fact that you submitted the paper without these numbers,
also proves that you never had them to begin with when you wrote
the paper. So why was the paper submitted in the first place?

 >Once our article was submitted, the point was
 >questioned by a referee and he found that our data and our
 >answers to be satisfactory. In other words, he did not see this
 >as a fatal error. Had the raw data entered into the computer
 >database been inadequate or unavailable, then we would have had
 >to recreate the experiment, but those judging the situation
 >didn't believe that necessary.

Since this very missing data is absolutely essential for
validating your primary conclusion, it is indeed "fatal" that it
doesn't exist. Not only should you have never submitted the
paper without it, it should have triggered an automatic
rejection by the peer reviewers when you couldn't provide it.

That it passed peer review is only a condemnation of the JSE
peer review process, not a validation of your article. I have
never in my life seen a peer reviewed article in a scientific
journal missing the very data it needs to support its
conclusion. This is not science.

 >Second, neither Jim nor I have been attempting to avoid this
 >discussion.

So why wouldn't you provide the critical numbers that Dave
Morton and I have been asking for? In your last post you claimed
that it wasn't "exactly" true that the data was missing, that it
was still in the computer data base, but here is another post by
you and still no numbers. And in this post you are back to
stating that the score sheets were thrown out, therefore no
numbers. However you want to spin this, there are no numbers
forthcoming and probably never will be any numbers.

 >Jim believed then, and believes now, that part of
 >the debate should take place in the pages of JSE because it
 >would be of benefit to science and to Ufology,

It is not to the benefit of science and Ufology to arrive at a
conclusion with nothing to back it up. JSE already flubbed the
science part in accepting the paper without the data. That only
one of the standard three peer reviewers even noticed the
critical data missing shows that the other two probably didn't
even read the paper. That the third passed the paper even
without the data suggests a "good ole boy" favoritism at work.

Will the numbers magically materialize if the debate takes place
in the pages of JSE? How do I know that JSE won't engage in a
little ass-covering by refusing to publish my complaints or
editing them down to nothing and letting you have the last word?

 > if such was done.
 >Again, this is not an attempt to avoid the dialogue, just an
 >attempt to open it to a wider audience. Members on this List who
 >have published in a refereed journal should understand this.

I understand that it would take months for a letter to appear in
JSE, perhaps as long as 6 to 9 months (standard lead-time for
science journals). In the meantime, there would be no
discussion. And if I feel that author response was inadequate,
then there is another 6 to 9 month delay before the next
published discussion. I hardly call that dialogue.

I do think this is nothing but a feeble excuse to avoid
discussion right now on Updates before other peers, where there
can be a daily back and forth dialogue.

This all comes down to where are the numbers? If you don't have
them, then there is nothing to discuss, other than you
withdrawing your fatally flawed paper and starting over again.

 >Jim has offered, off-line to Rudiak, SPSS analysis sheets so he
 >could verify the SDs and ANOVA results were now correct. Ruidak
 >never wrote back.

False. I did write back 3 days ago (Feb. 8). Houran had e-mailed
me and acknowledged that your standard deviations were
completely wrong, as I pointed out here on Updates. The results
he offered to send me had to do with the SD's, not with the
critical data concerning the "exclusive words" that I have been
asking for now for over two weeks.

I pointed out that the core issue remains those missing numbers
that you still have not or cannot provide. Do you have a
printout of those numbers?

 > For Morton, Jim clarified how Letters to the
 >Editor work, because one of Morton's more recent posts gave the
 >impression that he assumed those preparing such letters were in
 >fact asking the Editor questions about the study and that this
 >approach allowed authors to dodge having to answer for
 >themselves. Jim's e-mail corrected this assumption, and Morton
 >merely acknowledged that, yes, he understood how the process
 >worked and that he understood that that point was obscured in
 >his posts. He has not corrected, in later posts, the implicit
 >assumption his message gives, which was that Letters to the
 >Editor are meaningless exercises.

For over 2 weeks, both you and Jim Houran have repeatedly dodged
producing the numbers to back up your main conclusion. It is
quite obvious that they will never materialize.

Suppose letters were written to the Editor and published? What
is going to be any different about the situation? As authors,
you get the final say, and I have no doubt that your response
will be the usual doubletalk and evasion we've seen here
displayed on Updates, and still no answers because you have
none.

 >Finally, I would like to point out that, in writing the article,
 >we did not spin it, leave out relevant data, or engage in
 >careful selection of the data included.


The absolutely essential data needed to back up your "expected"
finding of a " significant" "priming effect" isn't there. The
data that you did publish instead showed a highly significant
improvement in reading of the "common" words by the Roswell
group, demonstrating the obvious advantages of knowing correct
context. But there was zero discussion of this, even though it
glaringly obvious and begs discussion.

There was also zero discussion of the commonalities in readings
amongst the early Ramey memo readers, such as "victims of the
wreck" and "the disc/disk". Instead you devoted nearly 5 pages
to selected quotes and statements suggesting that there was zero
agreement and everybody was just seeing "faces in the clouds",
just imagining things, carrying out personal agendas, etc.

 >We did try to provide an
 >historical context for the attempts to read the memo, including
 >the situation as it existed in 1947 when J. Bond Johnson took
 >the photograph. We noted that there had been several individuals
 >and teams working to understand what was written there and that
 >there was little in the way of initial agreement.

There is not a single sentence in your entire paper noting the
significant points of agreement. E.g., "To the delight of many
Roswell supporters, other investigators also reported seeing
letters, words, and images, as suggested by Johnson and his
team. The problem was that many of those doing the work were not
seeing the same things as Johnson claimed."

That's the closest you ever come to saying that there was any
sort of agreement, but you never discuss what the words of
agreement are. That is definitely an omission, and a deliberate
and misleading one. That's what I mean by spin or propaganda.
This should have been a key part of the paper.

 > Even the line,
 >"Victims of the wreck" was not universally understood.
  Your "Table 1" lists comparison readings from 5 different
people, and the text has Johnson and his RPIT team's reading. 5
out of 6 agree on "victims". 4 out of 6 agree on "victims of the
wreck." In fact, the same table lists "victims of the wreck" as
being a consensus reading.

I know of no branch of human knowledge, even hardcore science,
that makes demands for "universal" agreement on interpretations
of data. This is yet another example of how you frequently spin
the material. It is also yet another example of how you choose
to raise the bar of evidence to impossibly high levels when it
suits your purposes.

 >Some could not read it at all and others claimed it said,
 >"Remains..." If the key word is remains, then the context is altered.

Maybe you should read your own paper Kevin. You don't seem to be
very familiar with the contents. One, not "some" people thought
it was "remains". Everybody else agreed on "victims."

The same person who read "remains" also tried to squeeze the 8-
  letter word "material" into the 5 letter word that 4 of the 5
others read as "wreck." This is a good indication that maybe
this person's readings shouldn't be taken too seriously, since
he was trying to pound a large square peg into a small round
hole.

It also suggests to me that this person may have been working
from a lower resolution image of the message. "VICTIMS" can look
a little bit like "remains" if you work from lower resolution,
unenhanced images, and don't realize that everything is in all
caps and evenly spaced. That is the situation you put your own
subjects in by giving them the unenhanced Friedman scan, as
depicted in my graphic:

www.roswellproof.com/randle_houran_demo.html

When you enhance the images by increasing contrast and
stretching the letters vertically to more normal proportions,
add in the expected letter positions (indicated by tic marks in
my graphic), and know that everything is in caps, then it is
quite obvious that the word isn't "remains". There is no way,
e.g., that the first 3 letters could be "rem".

Another comparison graphic can be found at:

www.roswellproof.com/victim_compare.html

This shows "VICTIM" compared against "REMAINS" and "FINDING" as
alternates, using various high-resolution, enhanced scans. I
would say, and I think the vast majority of people would agree,
that there is no way that either "remains" or "finding" match
the actual word.

I would also like to point out, yet one more time, that
"VICTIMS" is not an arbitrary word. When you compare the
enhanced images against the actual telex font, the first letter
can only be a "Y" or a "V". To my eye, the first letter by
itself looks slightly more like a "Y" than a "V". But if you do
a very broad word search (see www.onelook.com ) using YI??I??,
only three hits come back: yi jing (AKA I Ching), yiddish,
yipping. Does anybody seriously think any of these choices
belong there?

The same story occurs when searching VI??I?S. There are only 8
hits, my often used example, with other words like VIOLINS,
VIRGINS, etc. The only word that makes sense in context is
VICTIMS.

Even if you expand the search using VI??I??, there are only 73
possibilities, wonderful extra "matches" like "vitriol",
"vizzini", "viatico", "vialing", etc. If you go through the
list, the only remotely possibly plausible extra word that might
make any sense is "viewing". The phrase becomes "the viewing of
the wreck", which might make sense in isolation, but makes no
sense whatsoever in the context of the complete sentence: "the
viewing of the wreck you forwarded to the ?????? at Fort Worth,
Tex." How do you forward a viewing?

Again, I reemphasize, VICTIMS is not an arbitrary word. It is
the only one that could possibly fit there. This has nothing to
do with "wishful thinking" or agendas or various people being
aware of the work of others. The same argument, incidentally,
also applies to the keyword "DISC", another consensus word.
These words are literally forced by the clarity of certain
letters, the limited number of matches, and the correct context,
which you instead refer to as "confounding."

 >I'm going to make several additional comments here. First, I
 >wonder just how independent that original research is.

Oddly, this question rarely seemed to concern you when you
relied on witness testimony to built your theories of the
Roswell case. Of course, debunkers routinely seize on this
argument to dismiss testimony. People already knew about alien
bodies, etc., from reading the books, magazine articles, etc.,
therefore the are just bandwagon witnesses, etc., etc. Now you
are adopting this same line of argumentation against the Ramey
memo.

Did everybody know about "VICTIMS"? Of course we did. Does this
mean everybody is jumping on a bandwagon? No, people are
reporting what they think they see. In the case of words like
"VICTIMS" and "DISC" it is more than that, because letter
clarity, the English language, and context make those words
uniquely correct.

 >Neil Morris, I believe, was the first to publish his analysis,
 >and he might have been the first to mention "victims",

No, it wasn't Neil. That was Johnson's RPIT group that first
read "victims" there. Credit for first picking out the word may
go to Ron Regehr. Johnson first announced the reading on
Updates:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/1998/sep/m24-017.shtml

 >though with no
 >great confidence. So, did David and the others, knowing of
 >Neal's work, validate what it said? Did David know of Neal and
 >his original interpretation?

Anybody on UpDates who read Johnson's initial post, including
you, should know that they were reading "victims" there. That
word above all others piqued everybody's interest. That you
don't know even this is yet one more indication of how
inaccurate your whole treatment of the Ramey message has been.

I have long suspected that your hostility towards the Ramey
memo, sometimes bordering on the irrational, has a lot to do
with your hated nemesis, J. Bond Johnson, being the one to
rekindle interest in reading the message, and doing a lot of
grandstanding and spinning of his own in the process. Bringing
down the Ramey memo is a way of spiting Johnson.

 >Second, David Rudiak seems to object to our report that J. Bond
 >Johnson carried the document into General Ramey. That Johnson
 >made the claim, later that he said that he just handed the
 >document to Ramey which had been on his desk, is an important
 >point. If Johnson brought it with him, then it certainly relates
 >to the Roswell events, but it has no real importance because it
 >would be a teletype message from the wire services and not a
 >classified document created inside the military.

It is rather astonishing that Kevin Randle, of all people, would
resort to citing J.B. Johnson's ever-changing and increasingly
elaborate story of what happened in Ramey's office. This is the
same man who also claimed that he was left alone in Ramey's
office and then personally opened the wrapped packages of debris
and spread them out on the floor. Kevin Randle thought this
story preposterous, as do I, and added a comment to the effect
of "Did you also rifle through Ramey's desk while you were at
it?"

This is also the same man who for the last dozen years has
accused Kevin Randle of lying about the contents of his first
interviews in 1989 and 1990, even somehow "editing" the tapes to
completely alter what Johnson had said to Randle. I e-mailed
Kevin and asked him if he would send copies of the taped
interviews, which he did immediately, along with relevant
written correspondence. Listening to the tapes, it was quickly
evident that Johnson was lying. Kevin hadn't misquoted him and
did not misrepresent what he had said. It was Johnson who later
changed his story.

In case anyone thinks I'm just a Kevin Randle basher, I finally
got fed up with Johnson's accusations, and wrote a lengthy
defense of Kevin here on Updates:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2000/apr/m29-
028.shtml

Incidentally, Johnson in an interview with Dennis Balthaser,
stated he was just speculating about handing Ramey an AP
dispatch:

JBJ: "Yes, that was an early speculation of mine that I might
have handed Ramey the copy of the AP "flash" my editor had given
me regarding the Roswell crash craft being flown to Fort Worth.
Obviously I was in error in that speculation."

This interview dates from April 2001 and can be read at:

http://www.truthseekeratroswell.com/interview_James_Bond_Johnson
.html

In fairness, Kevin mentions Johnson's inconsistent story and his
recanting of his speculation in the Balthaser interview. My
point is, why bother to even devote any space to it in a science
paper when the evidence is so obviously poor? It's not even
worth mentioning.

But let's ignore Johnson for the moment and concentrate on the
hypothesis that this was actually a civilian telegram. Portions
of these wire service bulletins ended up as wire service stories
in various papers, with the editors doing some "cut and paste"
jobs, but retaining most of the original wording. We can see
that, e.g., in the early United Press stories when we compare
them with the originals retained by Roswell radio announcer
Frank Joyce. And we have a pretty good idea of what AP wrote,
even though we don't have the originals, because the Daily
Illini newspaper wrote a summary chronology of how AP reported
the story on the newswire. Links to all of these can be found
at:

www.roswellproof.com/press_coverage.html

The point here is, there are no wire service stories that have
wording even remotely resembling what is present in the Ramey
memo. The burden is on Kevin Randle if he wants to claim
otherwise.

There are also other details that contradict the civilian
telegram hypothesis. The signature line is only 5 or 6 letters
and lacks the usual date sign-off (V7/8) and the transmitter
code. Often the time of transmittal is found here as well. But
not in this case.

Then there is the problem of trying to make sense of phrases
like "the victims of the wreck YOU forwarded to ...Fort Worth,
Tex." Even if this were "the remains of the wreck", why would
this be followed by "YOU forwarded?" What one would expect would
instead be "THEY forwarded," i.e., it would be reported in the
third person if this were a civilian telegram. No news reporter
forwarded any remains or anything else to Fort Worth.

 >Third, if it is a military teletype, then there are problems
 >that have not been addressed. For example, in that era, military
 >teletypes rarely had punctuation marks on them and the vast
 >majority of those messages used PD for period and CMA for comma,
 >yet in none of the various interpretations do any of those sorts
 >of things appear.

This is old, spurious argument of yours that should have dropped
long ago. Yet here it is again, and also in your JSE paper along
with Johnson handing Ramey the message.

The reason none of the interpretations read PD or CMA is simply
because they aren't there. That this message uses ordinary
punctuation is very easily seen, e.g. at the end of the end of
the first paragraph with the words "FORT WORTH, TEX." This has
the expected comma between the city and state and the expected
period at the end of the sentence and abbreviated word.
Literally everybody sees this.

I pointed this out to Kevin in e-mail at least 2 years ago, when
his argument then was that since nobody was seeing PD or CMA
here, that the readings must be wrong. As I recall, he admitted
that the ordinary punctuation was there when I pointed it out. I
also stated that there were many examples of military telexes
which use ordinary punctuation. He agreed.

In his paper, he changed the argument. Because it uses ordinary
punctuation, Kevin now argued that this _must_ be a civilian
telegram:

"Indeed, our participants also interpreted some marks to be
formal punctuation. ***Thus, it would seem that we are not
dealing with a military memo.***"

This is just more illogical spin. Note the hidden assumption. He
has changed _most_ military memos using nonstandard punctuation
into _all_ memos.

I pulled out Timothy Good's "Above Top Secret", flipped to the
Appendices and quickly found several military telexes using
standard English punctuation and only one that used the CMA and
PD. For those of you with the book, check out pages 468-469
(1975 North American Defense Command), pp. 493-494 (1954 USAF
Intelligence Report), pp. 497-500 (1976 Defense Intelligence
Agency), pp. 501-502 (1978 DIA report), pp. 503-504 (1980 DIA
report), p. 528 (1980 AFOSI document). The only example in
Good's book of nonstandard PD/CMA punctuation is on p. 488 (1953
USAF Intelligence report). Obviously, standard English
punctuation in these military communications is not all that
uncommon after all.

Brad Sparks provided the following relevant information to me in
a recent e-mail:

"Let me point out something that may help: The CMA and PD
spelled out words for punctuation were used for RADIO voice and
radiotelegraph Morse Code messages where it was thought the
chances of mishearing the punctuation was too great. It was
generally NOT used for telexes."

Kevin Randle's argument that this _must_ be a civilian telex
because it uses standard punctuation is complete nonsense. It is
yet another example of how he is obviously trying to debunk this
document using false, illogical argumentation.

 > This is not a fatal flaw because I can find a
 >few, though rare, examples that suggest that some teletype
 >messages used regular punctuation.

They aren't particularly rare, and you have no basis to claim
that Ramey's message literally _must_ be a civilian telex.

 >There are no examples of military jargon in the various
 >interpretations.

False. You are at least 2 years out of date on this and it also
completely contradicts what you said in your paper:

"Rudiak stated that he has found jargon words, acronyms and
abbreviations, and unexpected punctuation in the document and
these have been stumbling blocks."

Now this has suddenly evolved to no military jargon?

I am reading abbreviations and jargon terms like AF (Air Field),
HQ 8th, HQAAF, FWAAF, A1-8th, B29 ST, C47, PR (Press Release),
D???RAWIN, CIC, ARMY???? and maybe 1 or 2 others. Some of these
have been difficult to read, and assuming initially that they
standard English words was a stumbling block. So?

 >Dave Rudiak has said we must assume proper
 >grammar and spelling and that the memo will conform to standard
 >English.

I never said any such thing. This is just more spin on your
part. I said I operated under the assumption that there was a
_minimum_ of jargon, not that there was no jargon at all (which
would be foolish to assume), and that I would usually try to
find an English word first before resorting to consideration of
jargon.

 >I have just spent several days in military briefings
 >and have to say that sometimes they became so jargon happy that
 >I couldn't follow what was being said.

Part of Brad Sparks e-mail to me about 10 days ago had the
following interesting commentary concerning this point:

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

I read lots of messages from General to General and would have
thought it was common knowledge among those spending any time
with large numbers of military messages. The generals back then
usually knew each other personally. But I also have rarely
observed a general using jargon in any letter or message they
personally wrote -- in contradistinction to those prepared by
staffers for generals' signatures.

For example here is a recently released personal telex TOP
SECRET Priority OPERATIONAL IMMEDIATE to Gen Curtis LeMay,
CINCSAC, from Gen. James Walsh commander 7th Air Division at
Lakenheath on nuclear weapons accident on July 27, 1956:

"Aircraft then exploded, showering burning fuel over all. Crew
perished. ... Preliminary exam by bomb disposal officer says a
miracle that one Mark Six with exposed detonators sheared didn't
go off."

Look at all the informal talk, non-jargon: What military jargon
is it's " a miracle"? A Mk-6 nuke didn't "go off" (instead of
"detonate" or "explode" or whatever jargonese).

More complete version in all caps, I don't feel like making more
readable:

PERSONAL FOR CINC LEMAY FROM WALSH. MORE TO MY PHONE CALL. HAVE
JUST COME FROM WRECKAGE OF B-47 WHICH PLOUGHED INTO AN IGLOO IN
LAKENHEATH ADS. THE B-47 TORE APART THE IGLOO AND KNOCKED ABOUT
3 MARK SIXES. A/C THEN EXPLODED SHOWERING BURNING FUEL OVER ALL.
CREW PERISHED , MOST OF A/C WRECKAGE PIVOTED ON IGLOO AND CAME
TO REST WITH A/C NOSE JUST BEYOND IGLOO BANK WHICH KEPT MAIN
FUEL FIRE OUTSIDE SMASHED IGLOO. PRELIMINARY EXAM BY BOMB
DISPOSAL OFFICER SAYS A MIRACLE THAT ONE MARK SIX WITH EXPOSED
DETONATORS DIDN'T GO OFF. FIRE FIGHTERS EXTINGUISHED FIRE AROUND
MARK SIXES FAST. PLAN INVESTIGATION TO WARRANT DECORATING
FIREMEN.

The only "jargon" is just CINC, B-47, A/C for "aircraft," etc.,
but what else would he say???? The B-47 WAS a B-47. What else
should he have called it?

It certainly doesn't read like McNamara 60's gobbledygook. Now
that's "jargon"!

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

I am likewise reading this as a telex from Ramey to Vandenberg,
or general to general. According to Sparks, these high level,
personal communications tend to be low in jargon, which is also
how I read the Ramey telegram. It appears to have slightly more
jargon than the Walsh/LeMay example above, but not a lot. I have
no doubt that there are numerous exceptions to this "rule," but
the point is that it is typical for jargon to be low in such
communications and my assumption of little jargon was probably a
good one.

 >Yet, in this military
 >memo we have no jargon and we have no designations of military
 >organizations. I find this a little strange... again not a fatal
 >flaw, but one that raises a red flag for me (though a very small
 >one).

Again, this is false. There is some jargon, but not a tremendous
amount of it that I can see. There are also references to
military organizations, perhaps three to the 8th AAF or Fort
Worth AAF ("HQ 8th", FWAAF, and "A1-8th Army????"), perhaps one
to headquarters of the AAF ("HQAAF"), and perhaps another one to
Wright Air Field ("Wright AF").

 >David points out that we concentrated only on the differences,
 >but not on the commonality. The problem is, we saw little
 >commonality in the various interpretations of the memo. One
 >named location in the memo was translated as Magdalena, Roswell,
 >or Carlsbad by various researchers and was unidentified in our
 >experiment. Well, all three interpretations can't be right, yet
 >each has it's advocate and each is positive that he is right and
 >the others are wrong.

It is very obvious that Magdalena can't be right, because it is
2 letters too long. Carlsbad can't be right because it is one
letter too long.

But Kevin's example is yet another diversionary side-show. The
real issue are critical words and phrases like "the victims of
the wreck" and "the 'disc'" on which there _was_ consensus. This
was _never_ discussed by Randle and Houran, yet it is of extreme
importance. It demolishes any balloon theory, finally documents
the recovery of bodies at Roswell, and has Ramey using the word
"disc" to describe the crash object.

Other points of convergence were words and phrases like "you
forwarded to the ?????? at Fort Worth, Tex.", "meaning of story
and", "weather balloons", "land", "crews". Altogether, the
various groups reached consensus on about a third of the words
in the most visible portion of the message. Surely this also
merited some discussion, instead of being flippantly dismissed
as having "little commonality."

A number of these words (like "weather balloons") also formed
the "common" words seen by people in their various experimental
conditions, something else that should have been very clearly
pointed out.

 >We have the same problem with the name at the bottom. It is said
 >to be either Ramey or Temple, with a variation that it is
 >RRamey. One researcher thought that Temple was the internal
 >code name for J. Edgar Hoover and tried to verify this with the
 >FBI. I applaud his effort. The FBI would neither confirm nor
 >deny which was no help to us.

Again, this is a comparative sideshow. The important words are
"victims" and "disc", and there is no discussion that they were
definitely consensus words. There were other consensus words
like "Fort Worth, Tex.", "meaning of story", "weather balloons",
"land" and "crews." By themselves, they do not tell us the
overall contents of the message, other than it is definitely
about Roswell. However, the importance of "the victims of the
wreck" is so obvious, it is inexplicable that this was never
discussed. There was a discussion of casualties, and this was
obviously no balloon crash.

As to Ramey being the signer of the letter, this is consistent
with the second letter in the name pretty clearly being an "A"
in high resolution and when enhanced. It is also self-consistent
with the message being directed to "Vandenberg" at "HQAAF" in
"Washington", was "From: HQ 8th (AAF)", and starts out with
"FWAAF acknowledges."

The confusion in the number of letters in the signature I think
stems from handwriting beneath the signature line slanting up
and crossing over the end of the signature

I might mention that with Ramey holding the message, we have a
50/50 chance from the beginning of this being from Ramey. We
also know from newspaper stories that Ramey was, in fact, in
direct communication by phone with Vandenberg at the Pentagon
during this exact same time period. And finally, we know of
nobody named "Temple" who was in any way involved with Roswell
or anything else on this day.

The point is, it is possible to look at the evidence
collectively and arrive at a likely determination of who signed
this message.

 >They also complain about our bias, but we attempted to avoid
 >that by reporting on the facts of the case.

It is definitely a "fact of the case" that there was highly
significant agreement on key portions of the message. But you
never discussed this, spending a great deal of time instead
pointing out the disagreements.

 > They have ignored
 >our conclusions which we boldly stated,

Nonsense. We didn't "ignore" your conclusions. We pointed out
that you have no data to back up your primary conclusion that
people's readings were badly tainted by the context, or as
stated in your abstract:

"Many participants indeed claimed to be able to read the
document, although their subsequent solutions appeared to follow
directly from the experimental suggestions."

Here's another statement of this in a letter of response in JSE,
Winter 2002 (Vol. 16, # 4):

"[This] does not change the conclusion of our research....
Specifically, the interpretation of the message appears to
follow directly from the expectations of those who are
attempting to read it."

Here it is again in the introduction of your paper, in which you
state your "expected" results:

"We _expected_ that each suggestion condition would elicit
_significant_ differences in the participants' interpretations."

Followed in the results section by:

"The findings generally supported our expectations..."

But where is the data that there were indeed "significant
differences" in interpretations? It doesn't exist. Instead you
admit that it was thrown out, and obviously thrown out before
you ever wrote the paper and submitted it, or the numbers would
be there in the summary table.

In place of hard numbers, you instead provide a few anecdotal
examples of context "primed" words. But if these are the only
examples you could come up with, then the so-called priming
amounted to only a tiny percent of the words. And a number of
these context "exclusive" words were very neutral and had no
obvious relation to context, or were also read in a different
context. E.g., "meaning", a very neutral word, you listed as a
word "exclusive" to the "atomic testing" context, yet it was a
consensus word of the original Roswell researchers reading it
from a Roswell context. Anecdotal evidence like this
demonstrates nothing, especially backed up by no hard data. It
doesn't belong in a science paper, and certainly shouldn't form
the backbone of the main conclusion of the paper.

Your other "bold conclusion" was that there was some agreement
on certain words like "weather balloons" and "Fort Worth, Tex".
These did have actual numbers telling us how many people saw
them in the various conditions.

However you weren't so "bold" as to note that the first Roswell
readers also saw these words, instead of spending page after
page claiming everybody was seeing only what they wanted to see.

Also you weren't so "bold" in discussing the highly obvious fact
that your data showed the Roswell group being far more likely to
pick out these words than people in the other two conditions.
Why was this omitted? Either it was incompetence--you and Houran
couldn't see the obvious right under your nose. Or it was
deliberate, because it ran counter to your ongoing claim that
context is "confounding" and makes readings "unreliable" (to use
Houran's words).

 > which suggest that those
 >attempting to read the memo in our experiment did, in fact, in
 >all three conditions, agree on the interpretation of some of the
 >words. This tells us that some of the memo can be read. Instead,
 >they choose to concentrate on what they consider the negatives.

"Negatives" like you not discussing that these were also
consensus words of the original Roswell readers, or the fact
that they also agreed on critical words like "the victims of the
wreck" and "the disc." Negatives like you not discussing the
obvious enhancement in reading "common" words by those knowing
the correct context. Negatives like pointing out that you didn't
provide your readers with optimized images, burdening them with
the task of both reading and enhancing their own images. Yes,
there are many, many serious negatives in this paper.

 >And to return to "victims of the wreck" I might point out here
 >that, in our investigation, no one interpreted the line in that
 >way.

Do you suppose maybe this had something to do with the subjects
being asked to read poorer quality, non-enhanced images? Or the
fact that you asked them to look at the entire message instead
of focusing in on certain portions? Again, to see what the
readers were confronting, see:

www.roswellproof.com/randle_houran_compare.html

Not providing the readers ahead of time with the best available
enhanced images is just plain bad experimental design. Oops,
there I go again concentrating on the negatives and failing to
mention the "positives", like your main conclusion without any
supporting data.

 >If it is as clear as these investigators believe, then
 >someone outside the Roswell research community should have seen
 >it independently. That no one did should be viewed as a
 >significant revelation but certainly not one that invalidates
 >the work done by others.

Try redoing the experiment (which you should have done anyway without data)
with top-quality, enhanced images and key in the readers to this section,
and I have little doubt that some people will start picking out the phrase,
at least the word "victims."

 >In fact, if the interpretation of the memo is as self-evident as
 >the researchers have claimed, then shouldn't some of those in
 >our sample have spotted those words and if they didn't, why
 >didn't they?

Subjects starting out with crappy images, double-tasking the subjects (both
reading and image enhancement), asking them to look at everything instead
of focusing on certain sections, little time spent per subject, obviously
little motivation by most of the subjects, and 2/3rd's not knowing the
correct context. Do you suppose that might have had something to do with it?

 >Jim has offered, off-line, to provide data to both Rudiak and
 >Morton, but, for the most part, they have failed to respond.

Neither you or Houran has ever offered to provide us with the
data that backs up your primary conclusion of a "significant"
priming effect. Everything else is mostly a sideshow. After more
than 2 weeks, we are still asking for this data, and getting
nothing but doubletalk and evasion.

 >Instead, we are attacked for "spin" and for dodging the
 >questions.

By all appearances, that is _exactly_ what you are doing, even
right now.

 >Well, our methodology is laid out in the article, we
 >have answered, in public, the criticisms of our article, and Jim
 >has made the reasonable request that we engage in this debate in
 >JSE. Why is it that they refuse?

Just more spin and dodging. You have never properly addressed
the various criticisms of your article.

But this can all be boiled down to one key issue: you don't have
any data to back up your main conclusion. The only refusals I
see are by you and Houran to provide it. Without that data, you
didn't really have a publishable paper, even though the sleeping
peer reviewers at JSE let it by.

We could take it to JSE, but how will this produce the missing
data when you claim it was tossed out and can't produce it for
us here? Or will it suddenly magically appear to support your
conclusion in your letter of response in JSE, even though it was
not presented in your original paper?

You are like the prosecuting attorney who has lost the forensic
evidence. What does the prosecutor tell the judge? "Trust me. We
really did have the fingerprints and the murder weapon to prove
guilt, but the janitor threw them out. But let's proceed with
the trial anyway, your Honor. You can instruct the jury that the
word of the prosecutor is good enough."

Instead the judge would declare a mistrial and tell the
prosecutor not to come back without the evidence in hand. What
we have here is the scientific equivalent of a mistrial--a
conclusion with no data. And the peer reviewers, as judge,
should have rejected the paper.

The only sensible thing to do at this point is to admit the
paper is fatally flawed, withdraw the paper, and rerun the
experiment, instead of charging ahead with a brand new
experiment with completely ignorant readers, using your first
study as a justification. The problem is, you never showed that
context significantly affected readings, except in a positive
way. Instead, the negative data was allegedly tossed, your
primary claim remains unsupported, and this is hardly the solid
foundation for a new study.

Withdrawing your paper and repeating the experiment will also
get Dave Morton and me off your back and start restoring your
credibility, which very sadly has gone into a deep tail-spin
recently. I also hope you go back to your forte of digging up
good evidence and leave the debunking to the debunkers.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 12

               Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 08:08:08 +0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 16:35:34 -0500
Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Rimmer


 >From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 12:04:06 -0800
 >Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >I can't speak for others, but the Cracoe Fell matter has been on
 >my Discredited Sightings web page for months or years now.

 >http://www.larryhatch.net/DISCRED.html

 >You can find it by date. I dismissed it with a single line:
 >(which folds over here)

 >!1981/03/16 CRACOE FELL, England: Honest cops tricked by sun's
 >reflection on hillside quartz.

 >Its a dead issue. I see no good reason to dredge it up, unless
 >one wants to generalize about unrelated sightings.

So solved, resolved, sorted. It wasn't a flying saucers (oops!)
therefore it's no further interest to anyone and we can't learn
anything from it.

Somehow the phrase "that tells us more about you, Larry, than it
does about the Cracoe case" comes to mind.

--
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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 12

               Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough -

From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 14:28:24 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 16:37:30 -0500
Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough -


 >From: Paul Kimball <Kimballwood@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 00:33:02 EST
 >Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough

 >>From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 16:55:36 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough

<snip>

 >>Being "showy" is sometimes
 >>needed to grab public attention.

 >If being 'showy' is sometimes needed, how would you feel about
 >getting Stan Friedman, Dick Hall, Don Ledger, Kevin Randle, and
 >Jerry Clark (five researchers I respect, picked absolutely at
 >random), having them dress up in little green alien outfits
 >while picketing the White House? It certainly wouldn't be
 >science (although, for the debunkers, no doubt worth a good
 >laugh). I'm sure it wuld get plenty of press coverage, but not
 >the kind ufology needs. It would also be no different, in
 >principle, than the activities engaged in by Greer, with the
 >exception that at least the aforementioned five wouldn't be
 >fleecing people out of their hard earned cash in the process.

Putting on a press conference with government employees as
witnesses is showy in a very positive way, as I see it.

 >>Additionally, we know that UFO occupants use telepathy,

 >'We know' UFO occupants use telepathy? Some may believe, others
 >may maintain, and more may suspect, but we are a long way from
 >'knowing' anything about this aspect of the abduction
 >phenomenon. Accordingly, expecting that only certain individuals
 >may be able to inititate flashlight contact, while a convenient
 >explanation, is nothing more than idle - and perhaps wishful -
 >speculation.

The sum total of all telepathy reports I've heard about or
read, over the past half century, is good enough to colloquially
say "we know", in my opinion. If someone declares they have
received a telepathic message, I don't leap to deny it. I have no
grounds to deny it.

Telepathy on less important everyday matters doesn't happen
every day, but it happens often enough and to enough people that
the term telepathy was coined to cover the phenomenon.

 >It does set Dr. Greer up as a priest-like figure however - 'the
 >aliens can only be contacted through me, etc. etc.' which seems
 >to fit his MO.

Sorry, I never said he's priest like. Just that he is trying to
bring about UFO disclosure, and perhaps "free" energy
disclosure, in innovative ways.

 >>I would hope that more people who find themselves looking at a
 >>UFO and with a flashlight will give it a try.

 >Assuming abduction reports are true, the absolute last thing I
 >would do if I saw a UFO would be to signal it with a flashlight!

Well, it's a case of nothing ventured, nothing gained. Each such
success is a little more evidence which can attract the
necessary public attention, and makes it a little harder for
government to keep saying there is nothing to UFO sightings and
abductions.

I don't like the idea of being abducted either, but I would not
hesitate if I found myself in a position to try flashlight
communication.

I say kudos to those who try and succeed.


Eleanor White








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 12

                 Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Clarke

From: David  Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 19:56:59 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 16:41:05 -0500
Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Clarke


 >From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 11:46:11 -0400
 >Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

 >>From: David Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 10:39:22 -0000
 >>Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham

 >How ever if it turns your crank to use "flying saucer", then go
 >for it. I had more of a problem with your professional, Dr.
 >Cassie. He probably spent more time at the officers
 >mess swapping war stories than actually getting his hands dirty
 >and risking the embarrassment of investigating UFOs.

Don,

How do you investigate something that behaves like a will o'the
wisp?  You can't, therefore all you have are the people who make
the reports; that's the problem faced by all scientific and
Government investigations of these phenomena.

Cassie is far more open-minded about the possibility
of 'exotic flying saucers' than you give him credit for. In one
field investigation report from 1967, he spent some time
speculating about the possibility of an optical illusion, only to
conclude "...if his experience can't be explained in some
such way, then maybe he saw an extra-terrestrial object
[E.T.O]."

Maybe Cassie was smirking when he wrote those words -  your
remote-viewing ability might come in handy here - but he was
immediately 'ticked off' by a colleague who wrote in a margin:
"We [intelligence] think that the  probability of there being an
E.T.O. is of a very low order."

Who says debunkers never criticise other debunkers?

 >Face it Dave, would you want your psychologist publicly
 >ridiculing some group program you were involved in? How would
 >you handle his remarks if they were directed at people who said
 >they saw fairies and ghosts and/or investigated them? Would you
 >still think him the pillar of science you tote him as now? I
 >don't think so.

I draw upon the advice of psychologists and sociologists
routinely, and I've yet to meet one who "publicly ridicules"
those who claim to have had unusual experiences.You seem to be
under the impression that the very act of scrutinising the
people who make reports, by definition implies they are crazy or
deluded. Psychology has a role to play in understanding
anomalous personal experiences, as does a whole range of other
"ologies." It doesn't have all the answers, but neither do you,
or you wouldn't still be searching for them.

 >You had to be
 >derogatory, not because you are an interested investigator of
 >the phenomenon, looking for answers, but because you are a
 >debunker. Wiggle all you want Dave, you are not fooling anybody
 >except perhaps yourself.

I don't need to fool anyone, my approach to the subject has
always been up-front. If you don't like what I say, don't
read it.

 >I haven't heard any of the
 >military people I've talked to mention fairies, elves or trolls
 >and you don't see many of them hanging out at 100 or 45,000
 >feet.

I take it you have never heard of the gremlins?

Best,

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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 12

                         EBE-ET Bulletin Next Issue

From: Thiago Luiz Ticchetti <thiagolt@opengate.com.br>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 18:13:00 -0300
Fwd Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 16:43:57 -0500
Subject: EBE-ET Bulletin Next Issue


Hello List,

We would like to remind you that the next issue of the EBE-ET
International Bulletin will be published in the last week of
March. The contents:

- Trindade Island Case: The Truth

- The History of UFO Crashes in Brazil

- Brazilian Air Force Have Documents About UFOs

- Alien Abduction in the Goias State.

And remember: the subscription is free! Just send an e-mail
to:

ebe-et@ebe-et.com.br

The EBE-ET is the unique UFO bulletin that brings to you all the
news from Brazil, in English! Be updated! Do not miss a issue!

Thank you very much.

Thiago Luiz Ticchetti
Vice-Presidente Entidade Brasileira de Estudos Extraterrestres (EBE-ET/RAB)
International Coordinator UFO Magazine Brazil

www.ebe-et.com.br










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 12

              Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Roberts

From: Andy Roberts <aj.roberts@blueyonder.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 21:04:35 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 16:48:38 -0500
Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Roberts


 >From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 22:29:07 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

Don wrote:

 >It hasn't been proven case after case. There are now millions. A
 >half dozen doesn't support a theory. You will have to go the
 >extra mile. I'm afraid your just saying it first doesn't make it
 >so Andy.

The theory is proven time and time again Don, and, as I keep
asking, has anyone got a better one which is proven. No answers
yet I'm afraid.

 >You really are putting yourself out on a limb aren't you.
 >Imagine, after all these years of study, little old you has come
 >up with the answer.

No, the answer is just _there_ Don. No-one 'came up' with it. It
just works that's all, unless...well, see above.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 12

               Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 15:20:22 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 16:50:16 -0500
Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Clark


 >From: Martin Shough <mshough@parcellular.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 15:54:23 -0000
 >Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 00:10:45 +0000
 >>Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >>Nor, I note, can your friend Stanton Friedman, who spells it
 >>MacDonald. Our Man in the Glens with the Haggis and Single Malt
 >>tells me that historically all these versions are
 >>interchangable, and it was only in the last hundred years or so
 >>that people started getting pedantic about Mc, Mac or M'.

 >As one who bides north of the border (an adoptive Scot and all
 >the more vehement for that), and raises an eyebrow at occasional
 >mentions of 'English sceptics' and so forth (Hume was a Scot)
 >allow me to point out that the 'Mac' is the Scottish form, 'Mc'
 >the Irish form. The distinction may seem pedantry to the likes
 >of you and me, but rest assured that inattention to detail which
 >can be passed over as a trifle on this List becomes a matter of
 >honour in a highland bar at 12:30 on a Friday night!

Well, I guess I know which bars I'll be staying out on Friday
nights!

Seriously, in line with what you say above, it's worth
mentioning that James McDonald was an Irish-American.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 12

                 Re: Liverpool 01-16-03 UFO Video - Roberts

From: Andy Roberts <aj.roberts@blueyonder.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 21:21:28 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 16:53:19 -0500
Subject: Re: Liverpool 01-16-03 UFO Video - Roberts


 >From: Eric Morris <bufosc@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 23:59:31 +0000
 >Subject: Liverpool 01-16-03 UFO Video

Oh dear!

Ericthe pressreleasemeister wrote:

 >A packed crowd of nearly fifty people sat and watched the most
 >compelling piece of UFO video footage ever to be shot in the UK.

Only fifty? For such valuable information. Surely not.
Compelling? Exactly how compelling - more so than say, the
Peter Day footage for instance?

 >Many sceptics slapped BUFOSC's Eric Morris on the back and
 >stated  'You have the real smokin gun evidence of UFOs invading
 >our skies.'

Which sceptics _exactly_  Eric, like, er, their names please.
And did they really say 'smokin gun' (without the 'g' at the
end?). And did they _really_ slap you on the back?

 >Several left very shocked after only coming to be sceptical and
 >to see just a few lights in the sky, however what they observed
 >was very different.

Who exactly left 'very shocked' - what are their names and on
what streets do they live? Surely you have a duty to public
safety not to shock people and then let them drive home? Frankly
I'm shocked.

 >Shown on video projection for the first time the footage Morris
 >took on 16th January 2003 there are certainly three circular
 >discs in the sky, one chasing an aircraft into the John Lennon
 >Airport at 11:50am (One of Lennon's songs called 'Nobody Told Me'
 >had the lyrics "there's UFOs over New York and I ain't too
 >surprised".) Well there were UFOs over Liverpool on January
 >16th and BUFOSC have them exclusively on VHS tape.

And no-one saw them but Eric and his lonely video camera. How
queer. Being near an airport an' all.

 >BUFOSC have always been on the look out for video shots and
 >photos, well aware that certain entities are trying to catch
 >them out(see the Knutsford Incident March 1999).

That'll me be me Eric, watching you. If this footage is as good
as the summer fayre balloon your chum videod last time then we
wait with bated breath for Bush and Blair to cease saddling up
and to discuss your sighting.

 >Well there is
 >no denying this footage it was taken by Morris carrying out
 >field investigations into cases from that area on January 3rd
 >and 7th (and other dates).

Isn't it just a tad 'odd' that all Eric's fantastic video evidence
takes place very near where he lives? Are the ufonauts watching
_him_?

 >It is believed

By who? And why?

 >this really is the evidence

Of what?

 >UFO groups have been
 >after for so long.Enquiries have gone to the Ministry of Defence
 >and other external agencies and we are holding our first
 >Conference on May 10th 2003 at the Waterloo Community Centre in
 >Runcorn to mark this special occasion.

Has anyone on this List been to Runcorn? It's a strange place.
But has one of the UKs few contactee stories based there from
the mid 1950s. He took some photos as well.

 >All enquiries referrig to this footage should be made through
 >this address but in 2003 BUFOSC have just hit the Lottery
 >Jackpot in UFO footage, a long time coming but well worth
 >waiting for,

Well, I'm enquiring with the above questions Eric - got any
answers or are you waiting for a cheque-book laden journalist
perhaps?

 >every single day since 1978.

The relevance of which is what?

 >"What we have on tape here is Priceless"

Ahh, I knew money would be mentioned somewhere. Let's
see how 'priceless' it is if a media source wants to use it!

 >said Morris and we are
 >not releasing the tape until scrupulous investigations into it
 >have been made.

Hope they're better than the unscrupulous nature of the investigations
into the previous 'best ever' UFO video mentioned earlier.
And what happened to the UKs best ever UFO crash you were
hawking only a few weeks ago?

 >However at this moment in time BUFOSC hold the most important
 >piece of UFO video footage you will ever see.

Pah!

Seen (or not seen) it all before Eric. My prophecy is for
another 'best ever' UFO case from Cheshire in, say, two months
time - probably around Easter. Unless, of course, you move.

I could liken this incident to the strange case of Russ Kellett.
Famous throughout Yorkshire UFO circles, when he lived in
Bradford 'best ever' footage was shot all around Bradford.
Then he moved to Filey (on the east coast) and bugger me if
the east coast papers aren't full of 'best ever' footage shot
by Russ there. Strangely 'best ever' footage seems to have stopped
appearing for the cameras round Bradford!


Ah well. There y'go.

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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 12

                Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 21:46:59 +0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 16:55:13 -0500
Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Hall


 >From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 22:29:07 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >>From: Andy Roberts <aj.roberts@blueyonder.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 18:30:50 -0000
 >>Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >>The defenders of mystery will never accept RMP even when it is
 >>proven by case after case. Ah, they say, but what about the
 >>cases that _aren't_ resolved. Yeah, well, what about them?

 >It hasn't been proven case after case. There are now millions. A
 >half dozen doesn't support a theory. You will have to go the
 >extra mile. I'm afraid your just saying it first doesn't make it
 >so Andy.

 >>But it doesn't alter the facts above, or that RMP is _the_ only
 >>workable, demonstrable theory for UFO sightings.

 >You really are putting yourself out on a limb aren't you.
 >Imagine, after all these years of study, little old you has come
 >up with the answer.

 >Shut down the list Errol. Burn your files boys and girls - we
 >can all go home. Thank God that's over with.

 >CAVU

 >Don Ledger

Yes, kudos to Andy Roberts who has managed to find the "only"
answer for UFOs. Not sure what he means by a "workable,
demonstrable theory" though. Theories are theories, not final
answers. Now that he has solved it for us, I can retire. I also
recommend that his armchair be enshrined in the British Museum.

- 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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 12

                       UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 8 Number 7

From: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 20:43:57 +0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 17:04:53 -0500
Subject: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 8 Number 7


Posted on behalf of Joseph Trainor.

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

  UFO ROUNDUP
Volume 8, Number 7
February 12, 2003
Editor: Joseph Trainor

http://www.ufoinfo.com/roundup/

COLUMBIA DESTROYED BY WEIRD ENERGY BOLT?

"Top investigators of the Columbia space shuttle disaster are
analyzing a startling photograph--snapped by an amateur
astronomer from a San Francisco hillside--that appears to show a
purplish electrical bolt striking the craft as it streaked
across the California sky" seven minutes before the shuttle
plunged to Earth in eastern Texas.

"The digital image is one of five snapped by the shuttle buff at
roughly 5:53 a.m. (Pacific or California time, which is 7:53
a.m. Central or Texas time--J.T.) as sensors on the doomed
orbiter began showing the first indications of trouble. Seven
minutes later, the craft broke up in flames over Texas. The
photographer requested that his name not be used and said he
would not release the image until NASA people had time to
examine it."

"Although there can be possible benign explanations for the
image--such as a barely perceptible jiggle of the camera as it
took the time exposures--NASA's zeal to examine the photo
demonstrates the lengths to which the agency is going to tap the
resources of ordinary Americans in solving the puzzle."

"Late Tuesday (February 5, 2003) NASA dispatched Tammy Jernigan,
now a manager at the Lawrence Livermore Laboratories, to the San
Francisco home of the astronomer to examine his digital images
and to take the camera straight to Mountain View, where it was
to be transported by NASA T-38 jet to Houston..."

"A Chronicle reporter was present when the astronaut (Ms.
Jernigan--J.T.) arrived. First seeing the image on a large
computer screen, she had one word: 'Wow!'"

"Jernigan, who is no longer working for NASA, quizzed the
photographer on the aperture of the camera, the direction he
faced, and the estimated exposure time--about four to six
seconds--on the automatic Nikon 880 camera. It was mounted on a
tripod, and the shutter was triggered manually."

"In the central shot, a glowing purple rope of light corkscrews
down the (shuttle's) plasma trail, appears to pass behind it,
then cuts sharply towards it from below. As it merges with the
plasma trail, the streak itself brightens for a distance, then
fades."

"'It certainly appears very anomalous,' said Jernigan, 'We sure
will be interested in taking a very hard look at this.'"

"Jernigan flew five shuttle missions herself during the 1990s,
including three in Columbia. On her first flight, the pilot of
the craft was Rick Husband, who was at the controls when
Columbia perished."

"'He was one of the finest people I could ever hope to know,'
said Jernigan."

"It was an astounding day for the San Francisco photographer,
who said he had not had any success in reaching NASA through the
published telephone hot lines. He ultimately reached
investigators through a connection with a relative who attends
the same church as former astronaut Jack Lousma, who flew 24
million miles (in orbit) in the Skylab 3 mission in 1973. Lousma
put him in direct touch with Ralph Roe Jr., chief engineer for
the shuttle program at the Johnson Space Flight Center in
Houston."

"After a series of telephone conversations Tuesday afternoon,
the photographer had a veteran shuttle mission specialist
(Jernigan) knocking at his door by dinnertime. Within hours, he
was left with a receipt, and his camera was on its way to
Houston."

However, James E. Oberg, a 22-year veteran of NASA's Mission
Control and the NBC News analyst on this story, pointed out that
the Nikon 880 is notorious for creating "streaks" in its digital
photos and the bolt might simply be a "computer glitch." (See
the San Francisco Chronicle for February 6, 2003, "S.F. man's
astounding photo." Many thanks to Steve Wilson Sr., for
forwarding this newspaper article, and to Jim Oberg for the
additional commentary.)


RADAR TRACKED UNKNOWN OBJECT BEHIND COLUMBIA

"NASA officials confirmed Sunday (February 9, 2003) that
military radar at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida spotted a
mysterious object near Columbia while the shuttle orbited the
Earth. But investigators don't know whether the object was a
small meteorite or something that came from the shuttle itself."

"The tracking radar spotted the object (Friday) January 17
(2003), one day and 20 minutes into Columbia's mission. The
object moved away from the shuttle at 10 miles per hour (16
kilometers per hour) and fell into the Earth's atmosphere two
days after the radar spotted it."

"A NASA spokesman said he didn't know how near the object
approached the spacecraft or why the radar was aimed at the
shuttle. (Good question!--J.T.)

Nor does NASA know how big the object was, only that it's at
least the size of a softball. The radar can only detect debris
that size and larger."

"Some suspect the radar image is from Columbia dumping excess
water. That's a routine maneuver during shuttle missions.
Usually, the water falls in small crystals, but at least once
before, it formed a block of ice."

"Investigators were also trying to decipher an image an Air
Force camera took of Columbia as it crossed New Mexico--hundreds
of miles before the shuttle fell to pieces. The grainy picture
seems to show a jagged edge on the front of the shuttle's left
wing, in contrast to the smooth curve of the front of the right
wing."

"Some engineers interpret the picture as evidence that the front
edge of the left wing had broken up. That would cause serious
problems in maneuvering the shuttle."

James E. Oberg, a 22-year veteran of NASA Mission Control,
stated, "You can't see the actual object; it's in the dark. You
can only see the glowing plasma sheath around it, caused by its
high-speed passage. The actual size of the object, as the size
of a meteorite compared to the meteor images they create, is
much smaller. Because it (the mystery object) falls back so
quickly, my assessment is that it is very 'undense,' much like a
tile.'" (See USA Today for February 10, 2003, "Searchers find
shuttle landing gear hatch," page 11A. Many thanks to Jim Oberg
for the NASA commentary.)


SHUTTLE DEBRIS FOUND IN TEXAS AND CALIFORNIA


"NASA has recovered a two-foot (0.6 meter) long piece of
Columbia's wing near Fort Worth (Texas), a find officials hope
can help turn the investigation in the space shuttle crash."

"The 26 to 27-inch (65 to 68 centimeter) piece of wing was found
near the western edge" of the 100-mile (160-kilometer) long
debris zone, which stretches eastward into Louisiana, and "where
pieces of the shuttle have been found. By Friday evening
(February 7, 2003) NASA officials said they were unsure which
wing the black, carbon-composite section came from, but the
answer is certain to have a bearing on how useful it proves to
be."

The piece, designed to withstand scorching temperatures on the
leading edge of the wing, was taken to a Texas military base for
further examination.

The location of the discovery was not released because officials
hope to find more critical debris at the site."

In California, where strange light flashes were photographed by
on-the-ground amateur and professional astronomers in San
Francisco, Sacramento, Bishop and at the Lick Observatory in San
Jose, anomalous debris was found in the state's high desert.

"A resident of Joshua Tree (population 4,027) in the high desert
of southeastern California reported finding a piece of debris on
a driveway that that might have come from the disintegrating
space shuttle Columbia."

"The San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department does not believe
it came from the shuttle. But the Sheriff's Department contacted
NASA about the debris. The Sheriff's Department is holding a
four-inch-square object, described as looking like a piece of
exposed film. It has foil-like material on one side and apparent
burn marks."

"A small piece of something was found in a Target parking lot in
Sacramento," the state capital, "and siezed by the sheriff's
department, Sgt. Lou Fatur said."

"'We got notified from the CHP (California Highway Patrol--J.T.)
to keep an eye out. We're just kind of following what they're
doing,' Fatur said."

"At Soquel (population 5,081), on the north end of Monterey Bay,
a state parks official told police of an object on the beach and
tagged it for NASA, a Santa Cruz County emergency dispatcher
said."

"NASA asked state park rangers to hold the object--an aluminum
cylinder just over one foot (0.4 meters) long with inch markings
on it--until space agency officials could retrieve it Wednesday
morning (February 6, 2003), state parks spokesman Steve Capps
said."

"Video taken from the Lick Observatory in San Jose also showed
flashes of light and what appeared to be parts breaking off the
shuttle. It was taken by amateur astronomer Rick Baldridge."

James E. Oberg, a 22-year veteran of NASA Mssion Control, had
this comment: "Several reports of 'finds' of funny-looking junk
have come in from California. So far, according to my
information, none have proven to be from Columbia." (See the
Chicago Tribune for February 8, 2003, "Chunk of shuttle's wing
found in Texas," page 5; and the Los Angeles Times for February
7, 2003. Many thanks to Steve Wilson Sr. and Loren Coleman for
these newspaper articles, and to Jim Oberg for the commentary.)


STRANGE SECRETS OF THE SPACE SHUTTLE COLUMBIA

Since the Colombia disaster, all sorts of strange, odd and
downright spooky links and coincidences have emerged. Many have
been listed or discussed on the Internet.

Christian seer Tom Gaston used the Bible Code to check out the
name Columbia. He claims to have found predictions of the space
disaster in the Old Testament, notably Song of Songs 8:6 and
Esther 2:12.

"I have already found a (Bible) code for the space shuttle,"
Gaston reported, "The code: Crew, 16 days, which is the amount
of days they were in space. Code: the fracture, the first day,
the wing, followed by the defect, the defect, the inferno,
spaceship returning to Earth, the seven dead, burning,
Holocaust."

Curiously, the shuttle Columbia was carrying Holocaust
memoribilia when the disaster happened. According to an Israeli
news source, Arutz Sheva, "Yet maybe the strangest irony of all
was that the Holocaust became a motif of the mission. (Israeli
astronaut Col. Ilan) Ramon, whose mother beat the odds to
survive Auschwitz, took with him on Columbia a drawing depicting
the earth as seen from space, sketched by a 14-year-old boy,
Peter Ginz, who didn't survive the Nazi death camp."

Ramon also carried a small Torah scroll which had been hidden in
the Auschwitz-Birkenau camp and used on the Sabbath by Jewish
prisoners.

Before the flight, Ramon told news reporters, "I carry on the
suffering of the Holocaust generation. I'm kind of proof that
despite all the horror they went through, we're going forward."
(Editor's Comment: Maybe Col. Ramon should have waited until he
was safely back on the ground before making that statement.)

Cryptozoologist Loren Coleman explored strange Fortean lexilinks
(odd word links and coincidences--J.T.) in the shuttle disaster.
He wrote, "In the wake of the pattern, I asked if the debris
distribution from the space shuttle Columbia, with the first
Israeli on board, raining down on Palestine, Texas, some Fortean
'name game' coincidences were being revealed."

"On February 3, 2003, reports from Texas talked of (shuttle)
debris being found near Venus, Texas, 'and in a tree in Joshua,
Texas.'"

"Now, on February 5, news services were saying the search for
debris was spreading westward, because a piece of what appeared
to be charred Columbia debris had been found in the driveway of
a home in Joshua Tree, California." (See the related news story
earlier in this issue--J.T.)

"Joshua Tree National Monument is an oft-discussed 'power point'
in the occult community," Loren added, "Country rock musician
Gram (short for Ingram ) Parsons' death on September 19, 1973
took place at the nearby Joshua Tree Inn. (Parsons was famed for
his music with Emmylou Harris, the Byrds and the Flying Burrito
Brothers--L.C.) His death is legendary in music and magick
because of what happened after he died."

"While Parsons' body was waiting at the Los Angeles
International Airport to be flown back to New Orleans, his road
manager, Phil Clark Kaufman, and a friend, Michael Martin,
borrowed a broken-down hearse and drove it to LAX (the airport)
to steal the body. Kaufman (who had produced the album Lie for
Charles Manson--L.C.) and Martin took Parsons' body out into the
Joshua Tree desert and burned/charred it." (Editor's Comment:
Here's another lexilink. The name Parsons could also refer to
Jack D. Parsons, pioneering rocket scientist, friend of Robert
H. Goddard and disciple of Aleister Crowley, who helped launch
the USA's space program in the 1950s. Jack Parsons is infamous
for a lot of things, notably a certain black magickal ritual in
Pasadena, California in 1952, which is not discussed in polite
society. But this one is my favorite: Jack got drunk in
Tularosa, New Mexico one night and told the bartender: "Listen,
fella, I've burned up more alcohol in five seconds than you've
sold across this bar in twenty years!")

If you suffer from triskadeiphobia (fear of the number 13--
J.T.), you might want to skip employment at NASA. "The number
13, and the month of January, take on a tragic significance in
NASA's manned space program."

"Consider these haunting facts:"

"The doomed Columbia mission was launched January 16 (2003) as
the 113th space shuttle mission."

"After several delays, the space shuttle Challenger finally
lifted off January 28, 1986 at 11:38 a.m. One minute and 13
seconds into the flight, Challenger exploded, killing all seven
astronauts" on board, including Christa McAuliffe, the first
teacher in space. (In numerology, 11:38 a.m. works out to 1 plus
1 plus 3 plus 8 equals 13--J.T.)

"Apollo 13 lifted off at (gulp!) 13:13 Houston time, April 11,
1970. Two days later, on April 13, it had a near-fatal explosion
onboard caused by a fault in electrical circuit 13."

And in 1952, the movie Abbott and Costello Go to Mars premiered.
In the film, comedians Bud Abbott and Lou Costello accidentally
launch themselves into space aboard a "rocket ship." By some
eerie coincidence, the ship first lands in central Louisiana,
where the easternmost debris from the shuttle Columbia fell to
Earth.

Believing they are really on Mars, Bud and Lou put on space
suits and venture forth. Of course, they've landed on Mardi Gras
Tuesday, so they encounter lots of people in fantastic costumes,
whom they believe to be aliens. Nor are the locals alarmed when
they see the pair, figuring they're just dressed up for the
festivities as "spacemen." After some comical misadventures, Bud
and Lou blast off again. This time, though, they have two
escaped convicts on board, and their spaceship heads for Venus.

Oh, yes, and the name of the "rocket ship" in Abbott and
Costello Go to Mars?

Why...the Columbia. (See the tabloid Globe for February 18,
2003, "The Unlucky 13s," page 21. Also many thanks to Loren
Coleman, Steve Wilson Sr., and others for the trivia.)


BIG UFO FLOTILLA RETURNS TO MEXICO'S YUCATAN

On Wednesday, January 29, 2003, at 11 p.m., witnesses in
Progreso, a seaport town on the northern coast of Mexico's
Yucatan peninsula, saw another large flotilla of spherical
silver metallic UFOs hovering just south of the community.

"The sighting was reported along the Merida-to-Progreso highway,
this time in the vicinity of the Flamboyanes subdivision," 5
kilometers (3 miles) south of Progreso."

"Sra. Maria Barrera, 42, who witnessed the earlier flyover of 40
metallic UFOs on January 17, 2003, has seen the phenomenon once
more but this time in greater numbers."

On Wednesday, January 29, 2003, "80 spheres, double the number
of the previous incident, were seen. On this occasion, the event
lasted between 15 and 20 minutes, and the spectacle was also
seen by dozens of civilian vehicles which pulled over to watch
the phenomenon, among them an official vehicle of Mexico's
Federal Election Comission."

Sra. Barrera "states that she looked carefully at the spheres as
they made figure-like shapes in the air, first a rhomboid and
then an arrow. The apparent diameter of the spheres, explained
Sra. Barrera, was between 30 and 40 centimeters (12 to 16
inches)" at arm's length. The sky was clear over the Yucatan
that night." (Muchas gracias a Scott Corrales y David Triay
Lucatero del Centro de Analisis de Fenomenos Espaciales (CAFE)
para eso informe.)


UFOs REMAIN ACTIVE IN SOUTH AMERICA

UFO sightings remain at an all-time high in the countries of
South America.

In Brazil, on Monday, February 3, 2003, "a local radio station
in Atibaia," in the state of Bahia, "reported that at 2:30 a.m.,
there was an electrical power blackout throughout the city.
Several witnesses went out in the street and saw two bright UFOs
zigzagging through the sky. The UFOs were spherical in shape.
Locally, silver UFOs have been seen repeatedly in the mountains
near Itapetinga," also in Bahia state.

"One witness in Atibaia, who asked not to be identified, saw the
UFOs from the balcony of his apartment building."

"The radio announcer said that, while zigzagging, the UFOs were
festooned with bright lights colored blue, green and yellow, and
others also saw them. Light from the two UFOs faintly
illuminated the darkened streets of the city."

Itapetinga is located 200 kilometers (120 miles) southwest of
Salvador, the state capital, and about 500 kilometers (300
miles) north-northeast of Rio de Janeiro.

In Peru, "an unidentified flying object was was reported on
Monday, January 13, 2003 over the" city of Pucallpa, located on
the Rio Ucayali in La Selva, the tropical jungles of eastern
Peru.

"The witness was a functionary of Aeropantanal, a private
(airline) corporation."

"Alberto Santiva Panduro, a functionary of the airline, claims
having seen the UFO in the morning when the skies were
'completely clear.'"

"He added that the unknown object was headed southward" over the
trackless rain forests, "adding that during the same week, he
had seen another similar object in the northern reaches of the
Peruvian community."

Pucallpa is located about 600 kilometers (360 miles) northeast
of Lima, the capital of Peru. (Muchas gracias a Scott Corrales y
Guillermo D. Gimenez para eso informe.)


SOLITARY UFO TRAILS A CAR IN NORTHERN INDIA

On Sunday, January 26, 2003, a car left Chandigarh, a city in
northern India's Himachal Pradesh state, bound for the hill
resort of Simla in the Himalayas.

"The witnesses said they were driving on a two-lane road in the
Himalayas," south of Simla, "when they observed a strange object
approaching from the east at a very high altitude. The UFO 'left
a strange contrail' in the blue mountain sky."

"For over three hours, the UFO remained at the same point in the
sky in relation to the automobile. Then it suddenly zipped away
over the high snow-covered mountains and out of sight of the
witnesses."

Chandigarh is located about 250 kilometers (150 miles) north of
New Delhi, the capital of India. (See NotiOVNI for February 2,
2003. Many thanks to Prasant Solomon of UFO India and Daniel
Munoz for this news story.)


Well, that's it for this week. Conflicting reports about the
shuttle Columbia are still pouring in. The focus of the
investigation sometimes seems to be changing on a daily basis.
But we'll be back with more on the Columbia, plus the usual UFO,
Fortean and paranormal news from around the planet Earth,
brought to you by "the paper that goes home--UFO Roundup." See
you then.


UFO ROUNDUP: Copyright 2003 by Masinaigan Productions, all
rights reserved. Readers may post news items from UFO Roundup on
their websites or in news groups provided that they credit the
newsletter and its editor by name and list the date of issue in
which the item first appeared.

E-Mail Reports to: Joseph Trainor <Masinaigan@aol.com>
or use the Sighting Report Form at:

http://www.ufoinfo.com/forms/form_sighting.htm

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Website comments: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>

UFOINFO: http://www.ufoinfo.com

Official Archives of UFO Roundup, AUFORN Australian
UFO Reports and Experiences, UFO + PSI Magazine, plus
archives of Filer's Files, Oz Files, UFO News UK and
UFO Sightings Italia.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
UFO Roundup is only sent to subscribers.
If you wish to unsubscribe or feel you have received
the bulletin in error, please write to:

  <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>

With the subject: Unsubscribe UFO Roundup.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 13

                2002 Canadian UFO Sightings Increase Sharply

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 06:06:09 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 06:06:09 -0500
Subject: 2002 Canadian UFO Sightings Increase Sharply

http://www.canada.com/ottawa/story.asp?id=DD611CE1-FFBE-4EB6-975A-288756936970

UFO sightings increase sharply in 2002 and once again B.C. leads
Canada

Scott Edmonds
Canadian Press

Wednesday, February 12, 2003


WINNIPEG (CP) - From white cylinders in British Columbia to an
object with windows and flashing lights near Inkerman, N.B.,
last year was a banner one for sightings of unidentified flying
objects over Canada.

"In 2002 we had the largest number of separate events for a
single year in the history of collecting UFO data for Canada,"
Chris Rutkowski of Ufology Research of Manitoba said Wednesday.
"We have some extraordinary cases in Canada last year reported
literally from one end of the country to the other." Since 1989
his group has been compiling reports from across Canada.

There were 483 UFO sightings reported in 2002 - almost 30 per
cent more than in 2001 and a 250 per cent increase since 1998.

That's a record if 1993 is excluded when one celestial fireball
contributed to a high of 489 reports that year, explained
Rutkowski, who added that 154 of them were easily explained
because of the fireball.

"Overall it's fascinating to see that the number of cases in
Canada rose so dramatically last year," he said.

There is no easy explanation for the increase, he added.

Rutkowski said one of the strangest unexplained sightings
occurred in January 2002 near the tiny community of Inkerman,
N.B.

"A large object with flashing lights and brightly lit windows
flew slowly and fairly silently over a highway," he said.

"A couple stopped their car and watched it as it moved down
behind some trees."

It was one of the sightings he looked into personally.

Overall, British Columbia was once again the place to be in 2002
to see a UFO. The province produced 176 sightings, more than
Ontario and Quebec combined and up from 123 in 2001.

B.C.'s numbers represent a third of all UFO sightings in Canada.
Rutkowski said part of the reason is likely due to two UFO
organizations in the province which have done a good job
encouraging reports, although he suggested that doesn't tell the
whole story.

"I don't think that the increase can be ascribed completely to
the fact people are looking up a little more or know where to
report."

Many of the reports from British Columbia come from the north of
the province, not the densely populated south.

"In the Yukon there (also) still seems to be an extraordinarily
high number of cases," he noted.

The Yukon produced 20 reports last year and has consistently
produced about that many or more since 1998.

Ontario produced 128 reports last year, Alberta 51, Manitoba 36,
Quebec 34, Nova Scotia 23, Saskatchewan 6, New Brunswick 4,
Newfoundland 3 and Nunavut 2. Prince Edward Island and the
Northwest Territories were UFO-free zones in 2002.

In general, more UFOs were reported in late summer than any
other time of the year, although February also produced a peak.

About 18 per cent of all UFO reports remained unexplained but
only about seven per cent were what researchers consider high-
quality cases. Most sightings involved at least two witnesses
and lasted approximately 15 minutes.

Rutkowski and the other researchers who helped compile the
report don't draw any conclusions from the sightings and don't
suggest alien spacecraft are visiting planet Earth.

"As with previous studies, the 2002 Canadian UFO survey does not
offer any positive proof that UFOs are either alien spacecraft
or a specific natural phenomenon," notes the report.

"However, it does show that some phenomenon, which is often
called a UFO, is continually being observed by witnesses."

-

(CP) - Here's a list of some unidentified flying objects sighted
by Canadians in 2002:

Jan. 12, 2002, 9:40 p.m., Inkerman, N.B. - A couple in a car
watch a large object with flashing lights and brightly lit
windows fly slowly and silently over a highway. Dozens report
sightings about the same time.

-

March 28, 2002, 10:30 p.m., Hamilton, B.C. - A pale-coloured
light rises from a mountain, then disappears. It repeats this
performance several times.

-

April 7, 2002, 1:57 a.m., Hudson's Bay, Nunavut - The aircrew of
a cargo plane watch a small light grow in size to become a
jagged ball, then fizzle out.

-

May 7, 2002, 11:23 p.m., Winnipeg - A fuzzy patch of light is
seen and photographed near the Big Dipper by an experienced
astronomer and physicist. It was not a comet, cloud, or any
other known phenomenon.

-

May 26, 2002, 11:44 p.m., Winnipeg - Three people watch a dark
object with three red circles on its underside silently glide
across the sky.

-

July 28, 2002, 10:00 p.m., Smithers, B.C. - A barrel-shaped
silver object flies across the sky towards the southwest.

-

Aug. 13, 2002, 1:00 a.m., Waterville, N.S. -Twelve witnesses
watch two luminous silver objects fly silently over an RV park,
then one of the objects angles sharply away and is lost to
sight.

-

Aug. 13, 2002, 2:15 a.m., Cow Bay, N.S. - A huge, slow-moving
black triangular object appears to block out the sky. Inquiries
with radar operators confirm a large unknown object had flown
over the area at that time.

-

Aug. 23, 2002, 7:00 p.m., Houston, B.C. - A shiny white
cylindrical object flies overhead and is videotaped.

-

Sept. 1, 2002, 8:47 p.m., Molega Lake, N.S. - Two witnesses
watch an object with rectangular slit-like lights and a large
red flashing light fly slowly eastward.

-

Sept. 22, 2002, 3:13 p.m.,Vancouver - A small orange object
moves slowly in the sky, changes direction and shape, and is
observed for hours by more than a dozen people.

-

Oct. 22, 2002, 10:25 p.m., Granisle, B.C. - An orange disc-
shaped object hovers over a mine, then slowly rises and flies
north until it's out of sight.


Copyright 2003 The Canadian Press








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 13

              Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' -

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 22:19:19 +0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 06:47:02 -0500
Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' -


 >From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 14:42:08 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough'

 >>From: Paul Kimball <Kimballwood@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 00:45:20 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough'

 >>It would just be nice to see Greer put up or shut up. It would
 >>also be great to see someone taking money from him for a change.

 >Managing a roster of over 400 government witnesses, in something
 >as historic and emotion-charged and seriously risky as UFO
 >disclosure, must be one of the diciest projects anyone could
 >undertake. Particularly in the post 9/11 environment, in which
 >new laws like the Homeland Security Act and USA PATRIOT act,
 >version I and the leaked version II. Such laws can, if the
 >authority interpreting them decides to, tag any criminal offence
 >as 'terrorism' with all of the extra-Constitutional penalties
 >that go with such a label.

 >Remember that the "free" press and Congress totally dropped the
 >ball on UFO disclosure, apparently as a result of 9/11. That was
 >not Dr. Greer's fault.

 >He's using "free" energy to hopefully (and logically, IMO) to
 >'do an end run' around the stone wall erected by the press and
 >government. These are not simple tasks.

 >I'm sure Dr. Greer would like to end the suspense too, but all
 >who challenge government authority right now are walking a
 >tightrope.

 >Eleanor White

Eleanor,

I have bitten my tongue and refrained from responding to your
many adulatory postings about Greer, but this one reached my gag
reflex threshhold. The evidence indicating that Greer is a
hustler and a con-man is rather overwhelming. I will not bother
repeating it all here because you obviously are impervious to
facts when they contradict what you want to believe.

 From my own direct, first-hand knowledge and experience and
based on what a number of his _former_ supporters have said to
me, the man is a slick con-artist. He stole our (Fund for UFO
Research) material and claimed it as his own; it took a
threatened lawsuit for him to back off from that. As others have
noted, he accepts large sums of money from gullible people who
want to make alien contact, and takes them out on "field trips"
which are yet to produce a single, documented encounter as a
result of his flashlight waving. What a naive concept to begin
with!

I have had members of these "field trips" tell me what a joke it
turned out to be. I even received a phone call from one of his
former employees who became totally disillusioned when she
discovered him manipulating the books for his own profit. It
goes on and on and on.....

Many or most of his "400 military witnesses" were already on
record or had been interviewed by others (including us), but he
claimed them as his own. Some of them are demonstrable liars,
which is very unfortunate for the legitimate witnesses among
them. But the fault lies with Greer for never bothering to vett
potential witnesses at all. Very recently I heard from a
prominent person who confided in me that a few years ago,
Congressional hearings on UFOs were shaping up and might well
have taken place, but Greer showed up with his dog and pony show
and undermined the whole thing.

And give me a break on "free energy." There ain't no free lunch,
and Greer is simply following a long tradition of prior con-men
in touting such wishful thinking. He is clever about tapping
into human desires, and human gullibilities.

Others (not me) have commented on Greer's diabolical timing in
these matters and even suggested that his charade smacks of
disinformation. I don't know about that, but I do know from
direct contact with the man and direct knowledge of his
nefarious activities that he has set back any possibility of
Congressional hearings rather than advancing the possibility.

And 9/11 has nothing to do with it.


  - 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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 13

              Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Roberts

From: Andy Roberts <aj.roberts@blueyonder.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 22:20:35 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 06:48:55 -0500
Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Roberts


 >From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 12:04:06 -0800
 >Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

Larry wrote:

 >I can't speak for others, but the Cracoe Fell matter has been on
 >my Discredited Sightings web page for months or years now.

Rimmer got to you first Larry but do you or any other Listers
_really_ think that when a complex 'best ever' case is solved it
can just be disgarded? Now that would make an interesting
discussion.

At what point exactly does a 'best ever' case stop being
relevant? When cracks appear? Or when it is finally resolved?
And where does its 'mystery' go, and why is it less important
after than before?

Less a case of misperception here than several cases of pissed
deception. Bottoms up Larry!


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 13

                   Re: Another Abduction Question - White

From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 18:18:05 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 06:50:46 -0500
Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question - White


 >From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 02:09:25 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question

<snip>

 >One such memory involves a procedure where 'something' that
 >resembled a man-sized praying mantis shoved a rod/probe up
 >my nose. I felt pain and pressure as it pushed the object deep
 >into my head. As if it wasn't terrifying enough, what really rattled
 >me and sticks out in memory is the dull crunching sound I 'heard'
 >inside my head as the probe (obviously) penetrated a sinus
 >cavity or bone. That memory replayed in my head for weeks after
 >the incident. BTW, there was dried blood on my face the next
 >morning from the same nostril that I recalled the 'thing' had
 >shoved the probe into.

<snip>

Not trying to pry, and no need to reply if you don't feel
comfortable John, but I'm curious about whether you've ever had
a face or skull x-ray which showed anything unusual?

And a comment that popped up as I looked at your Abduction
Information Center's Implants page:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/aic/pa.htm

I'm wondering if the reason the implants don't look like what we
might expect "implants" to look like (i.e. miniature circuitry)
is that the implant-ers disguise them to look like lumps of
ordinary stuff.

The book "Psychic Discoveries Behind the Iron Curtain", by Lynn
Schroeder and Sheila Ostrander, who visited Iron Curtain people
who were psychic notables, describes what are called
"psychotronic generators" which were lumps of ordinary material
yet had extraordinary properties. Materials like wood and
various metals.

These were invented by Czech industrialist Robert Pavlita, and
once "charged" psychically, could cause unusual things to happen
in their vicinity.

The "psychotronic generator" the authors were given to inspect
had the ability to attract as if magnetic objects which were
_not_ magnetic. A daisy chain of paper fragments was mentioned.

But it was not static electricity, because the attraction worked
equally well under water.

So it might be that an ET implant maker could get a considerable
amount of functionality into a seemingly simple, inert lump of
metal, using something like Pavlita's discovery.

And perhaps NIDS would do well to look up today's Pavilta family
who may be able to shed some light on these "lumps" of implanted
material.


Eleanor White








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 13

               Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 00:15:11 +0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 06:52:36 -0500
Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Rimmer


 >From: Martin Shough <mshough@parcellular.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 21:59:09 -0000
 >Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >Excuse me for butting in here (belatedly) but I think you're
 >missing the point of Jerry's argument in this instance. The
 >particular qualities of ball lightning that make it interesting
 >as a case-law precedent are that it is a phenomenon which has
 >only ever existed as product of witness reportage, that it was
 >once plausibly argued away on that basis, and that it is now
 >plausibly embraced on that same basis.

 >It's a fascinating instance of the sort of dynamical social
 >process that Cathy Reason was talking about. It is a process
 >which is to a surprising degree inert with respect to 'truth'
 >and 'falsehood' and highly reactive to normative social
 >pressures of one polarity or another.

 >This is very evident in the history of ball lightning, and the
 >'UFO' data are much more highly reactive even than that,
 >although in many ways the parallels are extremely close - so
 >close that I dare say it would be difficult to define either
 >phenomenon (using the word in a value - and theory-neutral way)
 >so as to clearly exclude the other. But a socially real
 >distinction exists.

 >This is very largely a theory-driven distinction rather than an

 >In a sense, the familiarity of novel plasma theories beginning
 >in the 1950's acted to select out post facto a certain subclass
 >of aerial anomalies without much attention being paid to those
 >erstwhile Very Important issues of epistemological principle
 >being guiltily compromised in the process. It was still the same
 >'data' - but it acquired a different status in the socially-
 > constructed 'reality' that we inhabit for quite pragmatic
 >reasons. No one captured a kugelblitz or got unimpeachable
 >photos or instrument readings - all the photos had long ago been
 >thoroughly impeached.

This is very interesting. It seems from what you are saying here
that science began to select data which fitted into a theory
after it gained general acceptance. This is an interesting
social phenomenon, and obviously has relevance to a wider range
of socially acceptable anomalies. The way in which normal human
behaviour is medicalised through the creation of "syndromes" for
instance. Has anybody written any sort of "social history" of
ball-lightning?

 >From your first paragraph, where you say "it is a phenomenon
which has only ever existed as product of witness reportage,
that it was once plausibly argued away on that basis, and that
it is now plausibly embraced on that same basis", there would
seem to be very little difference between BL and UFOs.
Misinterpretations, radical or otherwise, may well be as
significant a part of BL sightings as they are of UFO reports.
However, as science has established a comfortable
phenomenological niche for such reports, perhaps the impetus to
identify and eliminate misinterpretations from the data base is
not as strong amongst BL researchers?

If BL, like UFOs, only exists via eyewitness reports, it seems
to me that the general scientific acceptnce it has received,
vis-a-vis UFO reports, is probably unjustified, and perhaps here
is an area where some IFOs might be re-classified as UFOs with
sufficient investigation.


--
John Rimmer
Magonia Magazine
www.magonia.demon.co.uk/arc/00/newmag.htm








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 13

               Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 00:32:54 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 07:01:56 -0500
Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Hatch


 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 08:08:08 +0000
 >Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >>From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 12:04:06 -0800
 >>Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >>I can't speak for others, but the Cracoe Fell matter has been on
 >>my Discredited Sightings web page for months or years now.

 >>http://www.larryhatch.net/DISCRED.html

 >>You can find it by date. I dismissed it with a single line:
 >>(which folds over here)

 >>!1981/03/16 CRACOE FELL, England: Honest cops tricked by sun's
 >>reflection on hillside quartz.

 >>Its a dead issue. I see no good reason to dredge it up, unless
 >>one wants to generalize about unrelated sightings.

 >So solved, resolved, sorted. It wasn't a flying saucers (oops!)
 >therefore it's no further interest to anyone and we can't learn
 >anything from it.

 >Somehow the phrase "that tells us more about you, Larry, than it
 >does about the Cracoe case" comes to mind.


Oh my, John!

I never meant to imply we cannot learn something from a long-
standing misidentification like Cracoe Fell! Of course we can.
If nothing else, it could help prevent the same mistakes in
other instances.

Cracoe Fell is a dead issue for the purposes of my database! As
much as I welcome IFOs, I do _not_ catalog them. If one of my
listings is convincingly discredited, I pull the plug on it. I'm
the one who must be 'convinced' or strongly persuaded of course.
[ Certain Yorkshire ales help. ]

If its a long-standing stinkeroo, or well publicized, I may put
it up on my discredited page (URL above) to save myself and
others useless work and wasted time.

My main implication was that we should avoid saying something
like " See this bogus sighting? Well, they're all like that. "

I like the term 'flying saucers' out of nostalgia mainly. Used
inappropriately, it can easily be seen as a simple term of
derision... sort of like 'LGM'.



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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 13

              Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' -

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 08:42:33 -0600
Fwd Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 13:29:35 -0500
Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' -


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 22:19:19 +0000
 >Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough'

 >>From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 14:42:08 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough'

 >>>From: Paul Kimball <Kimballwood@aol.com>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 00:45:20 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough'


 >I have bitten my tongue and refrained from responding to your
 >many adulatory postings about Greer, but this one reached my gag
 >reflex threshhold. The evidence indicating that Greer is a
 >hustler and a con-man is rather overwhelming. I will not bother
 >repeating it all here because you obviously are impervious to
 >facts when they contradict what you want to believe.

 >From my own direct, first-hand knowledge and experience and
 >based on what a number of his _former_ supporters have said to
 >me, the man is a slick con-artist. He stole our (Fund for UFO
 >Research) material and claimed it as his own; it took a
 >threatened lawsuit for him to back off from that. As others have
 >noted, he accepts large sums of money from gullible people who
 >want to make alien contact, and takes them out on "field trips"
 >which are yet to produce a single, documented encounter as a
 >result of his flashlight waving. What a naive concept to begin
 >with!

Dick is right on target. Greer is bad news on just about every
level. In all my years in this field, I can think of only a
handful of people - I'm sure Dick would have no trouble catching
my references here - who have exploited ufology for such
morbidly self-serving purposes.

I first met Greer in (if memory serves) May 1992, when I had
occasion to be in his vicinity for several days. Till then, he
was barely a name to me. The most charitable thing I can think
to say about him is that he did not impress me as serious. I
thought, though, that he was just another pan flash, like so
many others, and soon would be gone. How wrong I was. In the
years since then, it's all been downhill, at an ever
accelerating rate.

An eye-opening, devastating (and, one might add, hilariously
funny) profile of Greer appears as Chapter 5 ("Somebody Up There
Likes Me") of Alex Heard's Apocalypse Pretty Soon: Travels in
End-Time America (1999). For anyone who might be taken in by
Greer's narcissistic nonsense, it's a powerful and effective
antidote.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 13

               Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Reason

From: Catherine Reason <CathyM@ukf.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 16:58:22 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 13:33:09 -0500
Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Reason


 >From: Andy Roberts <aj.roberts@blueyonder.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 18:30:50 -0000
 >Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

Hello Andy

 >Well I'm afarid it does rather show how little people know about
 >this most instructive case, which was the one which 'converted'
 >me into a supporter of RMP. I'll try and dig out a longer piece
 >on it for anyone who is interested but the salient points were:

Thank you for this information. I think there's enough here to
confrm that this is almost certainly an example of binding
failure (explanation given below for the benefit of anyone who
doesnt know what that is).

 >* Police officer lives in same police house for two years,
 >looking at exactly the same view _every_ day

As I mentioned here last year, in figure/ground segmentation,
the "ground" is often suppressed out of conscious awareness
(there are neurophysiological correlates of this suppression).
Many people cannot accurately recall the contents of their own
dining room, for example, even when they've been living there
for many years.

Visual attention is a statistical process, in the sense that the
element of a visual field which becomes the focus of attention
is determined by many different factors, such as type and number
of distractor features, brightness contrast, incongruity of
texture etc. If for some reason a particular feature or group of
features becomes the focus of attention in its own right, then
it may be segmented from the background rather than being bound
to the background object to which it properly belongs.

This "segmentation ambiguity" is demonstrated by the vase
illusion - this is an image in which two dark-colored regions
are separated by a light-colored region. Depending on how the
visual system segments the image, one either perceives the light
region as a vase in front of a dark background, or two dark-
colored faces in profile against a light background. (Note that
this illusion does not involve binding errors, however.)

The ability of the visual system to segment out figures from a
complex background is called "field independence" by
psychologists, and there is a psychometric instrument, the
"Embedded Figures" test, which is supposed to measure how good
people are at doing this. Interestingly, in order to get a high
score on this test, one has to override the natural binding
tendency of the visual system. It is not clear (at least to me)
that this is always necessarily a good thing, and it's certainly
the sort of thing which can increase the probability of binding
failure.

 >* His colleage was also ultra-familiar with this view

 >* Ditto his wife

 >* They had never seen anything unusual in the view

Presumably the view would normally have been processed by the
visual system as a background scene.

 >* On _one day_ only they notice a bright light, later described
 >by them as a UFO, 'hovering' against the cliff face, with
 >three or four 'ball's' underneath it. It is described as being
 >so bright it appeared that halogen lamps were used

Yes, this sounds like a textbook example of "pop-out".

The bright feature segmented itself out of the visual field and
thereby appeared as an "object" in its own right.

 >* They watched it for over an hour - taking numerous photographs

Well, there would be no reason for them to realize their mistake,
necessarily.

 >* A jet flew over it and they believed it was being investigated

Example of illusory correlation (not strictly a perceptual
phenomenon, though).

 >* Other witnesses (after it had made the media big time) claimed
 >to have seen this _very_ object flying in the air above the
 >fell

This is a bit more complicated, although still nothing unusual,
it's more a sociodynamic process rather than a perceptual one.

Cultures, by the nature of things, define anomalous events out
of existence, so that individual experiences of the anomalous
become culturally invisible. Once some anomalous event is
reported, then it is to some extent culturally acknowledged and
that provides a kind of "license" for other anomalous
experiences also to become culturally visible. The problem is
that in order to take advantage of this "license", all
subsequent events have to conform to the script for which the
license has been given.

Amy Hebert gave an illustration recently of how this process can
operate in abduction support groups, and I've seen it myself in
support groups for abuse survivors.

 >* They appeared on national TV trying to convince people of what
 >they had seen

Well why not, since they had (in a perceptual sense) actually
seen it.

 >* What they had seen was a light reflection

Reflections are quite "high-level" features - the low level,
hardwired visual processes know nothing about them. This is why
amateur artists find it so hard to draw reflections - if you
aren't very careful, they tend to look like objects rather than
features of other objects. In fact, we don't really know exactly
how the visual system deals with reflections - though it may be
that many low-definition reflections are suppressed by the
visual system as noise.

 >* This same reflection was there _every_ day and still is

But was and is, presumably, bound into the background and
segmented out.

 >* It was no brighter on the day it was a 'UFO' than on many
 >other days

The visual system is deterministic, but not mechanical.

 >* The police officers had looked at it _every_ day for two years
 >and for years afterwards. Yet on _one_ day only it 'became' a
 >UFO. And it did that via RMP.

I'm afraid I'm not convinced that we need to invoke concepts
such as "RMP". Straightforward binding/segmentation failure
would seem to be quite adequate.

 >* This case is _extremely_ well documented for those who
 >believe it to be an 'anecdote'

 >* There are many other similar cases of RMP - many of them even
 >more complicated, ie The Berwyn Mountain Case (which has been
 >in IUR) and the Rendlesham Case (which has been everywhere)

 >The defenders of mystery will never accept RMP even when it is
 >proven by case after case. Ah, they say, but what about the
 >cases that _aren't_ resolved. Yeah, well, what about them? The
 >Cracoe case went unsolved for ten years or so despite several
 >UFO organisations spending literally thousands of pounds and
 >hundreds of man hours on the case, not to mention involving
 >scientific analysis (if Philip Mantle were available at the
 >moment he'd back this up as this case featured large in his
 >life). It was procliamed as being one of the best cases ever in
 >the UK and clear evidence of aliens etc etc

 >Er, until it was resolved. Then for some reason few people ever
 >spoke of it again. The spell was broken and the mystery mongers
 >went on to the next absoluteley best ever case. And so the cycle
 >continues, over and over. Jerry and Don are _part_ of this
 >cycle, they can't see how it works, trapped forever in a miasma
 >of mystery. We'll still be having this debate with them in 50
 >years if they haven't croaked. But it doesn't alter the facts
 >above, or that RMP is _the_ only workable, demonstrable theory
 >for UFO sightings. But, as I keep saying - if you can show us
 >another cause for _any_ of them please let us know. But it's not
 >happening guys, is it?

Is this true? Let's ask them - Jerry and Don, is it true that
you have neglected this case since it was resolved? I can see
how that would be understandable in a political sense (and all
academia is politics at some level or other) but scientifically
it would hardly appear satisfactory. Usually if some
investigation procedure generates a false positive such as this,
one would want to examine the procedure to find out how and
where it went wrong. Perhaps a database of false positives would
be a good idea?

Cathy

[Catherine Reason]

PS - Binding is the process by which the visual system assigns
properties of the visual field to the objects they belong to,
and segmentation the process by which objects are separated from
each other. For example, the door, windows and roof of the house
next door must be bound together as properties of the house, but
separated (segmented) from the car parked out in front.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 13

                   Re: Liverpool 01-16-03 UFO Video - King

From: Tom King <tomking2030@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 16:50:11 +0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 13:38:42 -0500
Subject: Re: Liverpool 01-16-03 UFO Video - King


 >From: Andy Roberts <aj.roberts@blueyonder.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 21:21:28 -0000
 >Subject: Re: Liverpool 01-16-03 UFO Video

 >>From: Eric Morris <bufosc@hotmail.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 23:59:31 +0000
 >>Subject: Liverpool 01-16-03 UFO Video

<snip>

 >>BUFOSC have always been on the look out for video shots and
 >>photos, well aware that certain entities are trying to catch
 >>them out(see the Knutsford Incident March 1999).

 >That'll me be me Eric, watching you. If this footage is as good
 >as the summer fayre balloon your chum videod last time then we
 >wait with bated breath for Bush and Blair to cease saddling up
 >and to discuss your sighting.

<snip>

 >>UFO groups have been
 >>after for so long.Enquiries have gone to the Ministry of Defence
 >>and other external agencies and we are holding our first
 >>Conference on May 10th 2003 at the Waterloo Community Centre in
 >>Runcorn to mark this special occasion.

 >Has anyone on this List been to Runcorn? It's a strange place.
 >But has one of the UKs few contactee stories based there from
 >the mid 1950s. He took some photos as well.

 >>All enquiries referrig to this footage should be made through
 >>this address but in 2003 BUFOSC have just hit the Lottery
 >>Jackpot in UFO footage, a long time coming but well worth
 >>waiting for,

<snip>

Here we go again with another British UFO researcher claiming
"the best UFO footage ever"! Correct me if I'm wrong but the
last time this best footage by Eric Morris was spammed all over
the net it was just a balloon wasn't it? Or is this new balloon
footage? The terms used reveal alot about the motives of the
researcher. "Lottery Jackpot in UFO footage" and "priceless".

I've been researching UFO video for many years now. When you
meet someone who has taped a possible UFO there are two typical
responses they exhibit.

1. They don't know what they recorded and give the footage away
to anyone who will research it. 2. They think they recorded a
UFO and copyright it, get an attorney, and few ever see the
footage. Usually it collects dust and biodegrades.

I ask the UpDates List which category do you think Eric's
footage falls into?

I've seen many times the videographer mental state contaminated
by the UFO researcher. Researchers tell them, their footage is
worth $1,000,000 to tv shows, or the government will break into
their house, or don't ever work with the following list of
people. Frankly I haven't seen anything out of the UK in years
that is a UFO on video. I've seen alot of balloon videos and
clusters of balloons tied together. The problem here is lack of
optical power to resolve what the cameraman is seeing. Also the
lack of education by video analysts to properly judge balloons
from alleged UFOs. Most of these self-proclaimed video experts
aren't skywatchers and don't field test cameras against known
objects.

The difference between me and 'some' of these British Ufologists
is I post the clips online for everyone to judge for free. I
don't Spam the net with news I found a Gold Mine of UFO footage.
Then use it as a self-aggrandizing promotional tool for an
upcoming conference that you must pay for in order to view the
footage.

I think the British have some house cleaning to do in their own
backyard because I don't want to see another "best UFO footage"
threads with balloons in the sky. Can anyone direct me to a URL
with good footage from the UK in the last 5 years? A URL with
actual material to study not a club you join or a conference I
must go to.


Tom King
www.ufovideo.com









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 13

             Re: Filer's Files #7/UFO Seen Near Shuttle - Velez

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 02:57:34 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 13:41:39 -0500
Subject: Re: Filer's Files #7/UFO Seen Near Shuttle - Velez


 >FILER'S FILES #7 -- 2003 Skywatch Investigations.
 >George A. Filer,  Director Mutual UFO Network Eastern
 >February 12, 2003,   Majorstar@aol.com  Webmaster: Chuck
 >Warren -- My website is at:  Filers Files
 >Sponsored by:  Filer.unfranchise.com

 >UFO SEEN NEAR SHUTTLE AS SIGHTINGS INCREASE WORLDWIDE.

<snip>

 >DID A MYSTERIOUS UFO CAUSE THE SHUTTLE DISASTER?

 >TEXAS -- The Space Shuttle Columbia disintegrated in flames
 >over Texas on February 1, 2002, after it was hit by a
 >mysterious purple or green streak or object that is shown
 >hitting the Columbia.

!@#$%^&*!!!

I was waiting for this! I just knew that some ass with too much
time on his hands and the sensitivity of a bag of hammers would
get around to blaming a "UFO" for the shuttle disaster.

George... I am surprised and more than a little disappointed
that this insensitive piece of poorly timed, speculative crap,
made it into this months UFO "reports."

How did it get past you?

Freedom of speech issues aside, I for one wouldn't have minded
if you'd edited this one out and spared us. Whoever the blooming
idiot is that suggested it in the first place should be isolated
in case his/her profound stupidity turns out to be contagious.

Let's all mourn the loss of those hero's and allow the surviving
family members to do likewise. Without fueling an Internet circus.
Some respect and dignity for the grieving is called for.


John Velez

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

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/petition








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 13

                  Re: Another Abduction Question - Gonzalez

From: Luis R. Gonzalez <lrgm@arrakis.es>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 16:35:48 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 13:52:36 -0500
Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question - Gonzalez


 >From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 20:10:48 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question

 >Might not be common in whatever literature you've read, but it's
 >reasonably common among abductees I've talked to.

Well, even here in Spain I have been able to obtain all the main
works about abductions from Hopkins, Jacobs, Klass, Rimmer or
Schnabel to abductees like Karla Turner or Katharina Wilson.

Unfortunately, I have been unable to talk with any abductee.
They are very scarce in Europe (and much more in Spain), you
know.

For instance, I have just finished David Hufford's The Terror
That Comes In The Night.

His reading has given me an idea. One of the reasons he believe
that the Old Hag had an "objective component" was because the
percipients described it _in_ their familiar surroundings.

Let's put that upside down. What if the "Old Hag" is just the
less extreme of a psychological condition which can easily go
outside the familiar surroundings and show the same symptons
(paralysis, menacing figures...) in non-familiar surrounding
such as the alleged interior of a UFO?

Worth pondering, at least IMHO.

Budd Hopkins himself named the Abduction Phenomenon as an
"invisible epidemic" precisely because he advocated that its
victims did not have conscious recall. Of course, after somebody
has gone under hypnosis and have become convinced that he/she is
being abducted periodically, how reliable are his/her "conscious
memories" from then onwards?


Luis R. Gonz=E1lez








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 13

                  Re: Another Abduction Question - Gonzalez

From: Luis R. Gonzalez <lrgm@arrakis.es>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 16:47:49 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 13:54:25 -0500
Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question - Gonzalez


 >From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 02:09:25 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question

 >On-List or anywhere in 'public' I only speak of the incidents
 >that I recall clearly, and that I _know_ happened because I had
 >to live through them. Some of those incidents involve multiple
 >witnesses. Myself and many others I have interacted with do
 >consciously recall incidents 'on-board' UFOs. I don't discuss
 >them publicly because memory of the incidents may be incomplete,
 >or happened at night, _after_ I had gone to sleep. One such
 >memory involves a procedure where 'something' that resembled a
 >man-sized praying mantis shoved a rod/probe up my nose. I felt
 >pain and pressure as it pushed the object deep into my head. As
 >if it wasn't terrifying enough, what really rattled me and
 >sticks out in memory is the dull crunching sound I 'heard'
 >inside my head as the probe (obviously) penetrated a sinus
 >cavity or bone. That memory replayed in my head for weeks after
 >the incident. BTW, there was dried blood on my face the next
 >morning from the same nostril that I recalled the 'thing' had
 >shoved the probe into.

Just one question. Did you remember if the rod/probe was covered
in blood when extracted? Surely, you should have had a big
hemorrhage then.

<snip>

 >Yes, I recall 'on-board' incidents.

I suppose your recalled 'on-board' incidents looked as real as
that giant insect you saw one day in the streets of New York.
John, I am not saying that you are lying or anything similar,
only that your concious 'recalls' do not seem reliable always,
IMHO.

<snip>

 >As Budd has stated on many occasions; ufologists didn't even
 >acknowledge that UFOs might have an 'inside' until the 60's.

Well, one of those who did believe UFOs had an 'inside' was
Project VISIT, 25 years ago. They worked hard to obtain
scientific and engineering data about the internal systems of
UFOs from abductees... We are still waiting.


Luis R. Gonzalez Manso








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 13

                      Re: Inexplicata: UFOs Over Japan

From: Gary Anthony <mithrand@mithrand.karoo.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 17:13:51 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 13:57:39 -0500
Subject: Re: Inexplicata: UFOs Over Japan


 >From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@earthlink.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Subject: Inexplicata: UFOs Over Japan
 >Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 10:56:50 -0500

<snip>

 >In February 1975, near the town of Kofu, two boys walked around
 >a grounded UFO which bore distinctive "oriental characters" on
 >its hull (reminiscent, perhaps, of the Oriental script on the
 >object recovered in Kecksburg, PA in 1965). The youngsters
 >reported seeing "a ladder emerge from the craft" and a Klaatu-
 >esque, silver-clad entity descend toward them. In what can best
 >be described as a case of "unrequited contact", the boys broke
 >and ran from the spot in abject terror. One of the children's
 >parents was later able to confirm having seen an unusual craft
 >rising skywards from the direction in which the boys had run.But
 >by September of that very same year, UFOs would be seen by
 >everyone living in western Japan, prompting a deluge of phone
 >calls to the authorities. A Japan Air Lines DC-8 was "tailed" by
 >an unknown device for twenty minutes until it landed safely at a
 >local airport.

Hi Scott, List,

Scott if the characters referred to in your article from the
Kofu UFO are those depicted in L.H. Stringfield's book sketch
and photo, I can inform they are not literally Oriental script
of any kind, ancient or modern, nor are the Kecksburg characters
from the samples provided to the semiotics project by Stan
Gordon.

Though perhaps to some western eyes, both could be forgiven for
looking like Chinese or Japanese characters, especially in the
case of the former. Hope this helps.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 13

               Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Shough

From: Martin Shough <mshough@parcellular.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 17:18:58 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 14:09:28 -0500
Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Shough


 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 00:15:11 +0000
 >Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >>From: Martin Shough <mshough@parcellular.fsnet.co.uk>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 21:59:09 -0000
 >>Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >>Excuse me for butting in here (belatedly) but I think you're
 >>missing the point of Jerry's argument in this instance. The
 >>particular qualities of ball lightning that make it interesting
 >>as a case-law precedent are that it is a phenomenon which has
 >>only ever existed as product of witness reportage, that it was
 >>once plausibly argued away on that basis, and that it is now
 >>plausibly embraced on that same basis.

 >>It's a fascinating instance of the sort of dynamical social
 >>process that Cathy Reason was talking about. It is a process
 >>which is to a surprising degree inert with respect to 'truth'
 >>and 'falsehood' and highly reactive to normative social
 >>pressures of one polarity or another.

 >>This is very evident in the history of ball lightning, and the
 >>'UFO' data are much more highly reactive even than that,
 >>although in many ways the parallels are extremely close - so
 >>close that I dare say it would be difficult to define either
 >>phenomenon (using the word in a value - and theory-neutral way)
 >>so as to clearly exclude the other. But a socially real
 >>distinction exists.

 >>This is very largely a theory-driven distinction rather than an

 >>In a sense, the familiarity of novel plasma theories beginning
 >>in the 1950's acted to select out post facto a certain subclass
 >>of aerial anomalies without much attention being paid to those
 >>erstwhile Very Important issues of epistemological principle
 >>being guiltily compromised in the process. It was still the same
 >>'data' - but it acquired a different status in the socially-
 >>constructed 'reality' that we inhabit for quite pragmatic
 >>reasons. No one captured a kugelblitz or got unimpeachable
 >>photos or instrument readings - all the photos had long ago been
 >>thoroughly impeached.

 >This is very interesting. It seems from what you are saying here
 >that science began to select data which fitted into a theory
 >after it gained general acceptance. This is an interesting
 >social phenomenon, and obviously has relevance to a wider range
 >of socially acceptable anomalies. The way in which normal human
 >behaviour is medicalised through the creation of "syndromes" for
 >instance. Has anybody written any sort of "social history" of
 >ball-lightning?

Apart from my own unpublished and probably unpublishable
musings, no, I'm not aware of it - but it should be done.

 >From your first paragraph, where you say "it is a phenomenon
 >which has only ever existed as a product of witness reportage,
 >that it was once plausibly argued away on that basis, and that
 >it is now plausibly embraced on that same basis", there would
 >seem to be very little difference between BL and UFOs.

There _ought_ not to be a difference. But there is. The
difference is that calling a phenomenon "ball lightning" does
wonders for witness credibility. When scientists cite dramatic
tales of ball lightning they don't apply forensic chain-of-
evidence rules with the same pedantic rigor that they are wont
to apply in the case of UFO reports. This is not because the
eye-witness evidence they're citing is of a different character;
it's because the existence of a consensus allows them to lighten
up and start to _think_positively_ instead of curling up and
thinking negatively of what they stand to lose.

 >Misinterpretations, radical or otherwise, may well be as
 >significant a part of BL sightings as they are of UFO reports.
 >However, as science has established a comfortable
 >phenomenological niche for such reports, perhaps the impetus to
 >identify and eliminate misinterpretations from the data base is
 >not as strong amongst BL researchers?

This is logical. You're probably right, and it would be
interesting to suggest to BL physicists that they should study
UFO research with a view to sharpening up their attitude to
their data. What, I wonder, would they take from it? What would
they make of the polarisation of  psycho-social and
physicalistic assumptions in this field? Would they be persuaded
that the new physics they've begun to invent to explain BL was
unnecessary? Would they conclude that if only they'd known about
the Radical Misperception theory earlier then they needn't have
bothered?

I don't think so because they and RMP are old 'friends'. They've
grown apart from it, and are embarrassed by that immature
liaison. BL physicists don't really like to be reminded of the
fact that RMP was the default position of science with respect
to BL ever since it was first recognised as 'a phenomenon'.

Had we been having this debate a century ago, or less, your
position - which I take to be that there is a genuine
atmospheric phenomenon called BL whose database may be corrupted
with misperceptions - would have been heretically avant garde.
Then, there was no BL _at all_ in the view of the orthodoxy of
the day,  and all reports of it were explained away by a
Victorian equivalent of the RMP theory. I suppose you would have
been a sort of Jerry Clarke of the day, sighing at the
conservatism of Professors Rimmer and Roberts.

This obviously doesn't prove anything about the nature of UFO
reports. I offer it as something to reflect on concerning the
nature of our own attitudes to them.

 >If BL, like UFOs, only exists via eyewitness reports, it seems
 >to me that the general scientific acceptnce it has received,
 >vis-a-vis UFO reports, is probably unjustified, and perhaps here
 >is an area where some IFOs might be re-classified as UFOs with
 >sufficient investigation.

But who is the arbiter of what is unjustified? The scientists
who have (finally) begun to define a half-way-plausible physical
model for BL are not going to say that their work has been
unjustified are they? The acceptance of BL will be justified in
practice by its results. If you are proposing that we should
'call their bluff' then we are into an interesting game indeed.

_IF_ we should succeed in convincing them that their report data
are substantially equivalent in character to UFO report data,
then which outcome is more likely: - that they should capitulate
and concede that they've been building maser-soliton theory,
radio-frequency focusing theory, closed-loop em plasma
confinement theory and all the rest on a foundation of fantasy
for fifty years? Or that they should say: "Well, hell! Give me
another look at those UFO data"? That acceptance would then in
practice be justified - or not - by its results.

On methodology in science Percy Bridgeman wrote:

"The only possible attitude to the facts of experience as it
unrolls is one of acceptance. . . . In particular, since there
is no means by which we can foresee the future we cannot tell in
advance whether any mental device or invention will be
successful in meeting new situations, and the only possible way
of finding out is to try it."

This is what happened with BL. Cerrillo in the '40s then Kapitsa
in the '50s, then others, began to explore the 'what if?'
question. They 'tried out' the idea that at least some witnesses
were describing something real and novel and came up with
sketches of theories. Some of their peers then started to get
the idea that maybe physics could model BL after all, and that's
how the stories changed from old-wives' tales to reports. All of
a sudden, what had previously been 'impossible' now became a fit
subject for research grants. Serious analysis was begun on
collections of BL tales - the _same_ tales, not new and
instrumentally validated ones.

Do you know that until laboratory experiments with artificial
'proper BL' started to have success towards the end of the
_last_ century one of the key data-sets of the theoreticians was
the famous 'rain barrell observation'? This wasn't an experiment
in a refereed journal but was a letter from a Mr. Morris of
Ross-on-Wye that appeared in the Daily Mail in about 1933! I
still get a shiver of delicious irony from reading Altschuler's
calculation of the singly-ionised electron density of a
lightning ball in the Condon Report, (based on the "singular"
quantitative evidence that Mr. Morris's rain barrel boiled for
"about 20 minutes" and that the BL was "the size of an orange").
No one at the Plasma UFO Conference seemed concerned that Mr.
Morris may not have known a tangerine from a pomegranate or that
his heirloom fob-watch might have stopped; but, of course, all
the UFO cases considered "contained insufficient data for a
definitive scientific conclusion".

Are the BL theoreticians wrong? Is there no 'new empirical
phenomenon' called BL? Or did they make a good judgement call on
"insufficient data" and thereby _generate_  a scientific
conclusion whose definitiveness is self-justifying? If they are
right then the past rejection of BL was an exaggerated inference
from natural caution that we need to understand if we are not to
be condemned to repeat it.

Consider these statements culled at random -

John Lowke, Plasma physics CSIRO (Australia):

"Although there is at least one textbook on lightning that
questions the existence of ball lightning and I have never seen
the phenomenon personally, I feel that there is no question that
ball lightning exists. I have talked to six eyewitnesses of the
phenomena and think there is no reasonable doubt as to the
authenticity of their observations. Furthermore, the reports are
all remarkably similar and have common features with the
hundreds of observations that appear in the literature...
There have been hundreds of papers, and at least three books,
discussing ball lightning. Most theories raise more questions
than they claim to solve...There is no generally accepted theory
of ball lightning."

Martin Uman, U. Florida:

"Ball lightning is a well-documented phenomenon in the sense
that it has been seen and consistently described by people in
all walks of life since the time of the ancient Greeks. There is
no accepted theory for what causes it."

Peter Handel, U. Missouri:

"According to statistical investigations carried out by J. R.
McNally in 1960 (J. R. McNally, "Preliminary Report on Ball
Lightning" in Proceedings of the Second Annual Meeting of the
Division of Plasma Physics of the American Physical Society,
Gatlinburg, No. 2AD5 [1960], Paper J-15, pp. 1AD25), ball
lightning has been seen by 5 percent of the population of the
earth. ...Ball lightning was seen and described since antiquity,
often by groups of people, and recorded in many places....[It]
never occurs on sharp mountain peaks, high-rise buildings and
other high points that attract lightning and that are used for
lightning research by specialists in atmospheric electricity.
(Lightning researcher Karl Berger told me he spent his life
registering and measuring hundreds of thousands of lightning
discharges hitting his laboratory on top of Mount Salvatore in
Lugano, Italy, without getting a trace of ball lightning.) The
inability to observe ball lightning in such settings has led to
widespread frustration and even skepticism about the reality of
the phenomenon....Ball lightning thus keeps its secrets: it
visits the farmer and avoids the scientist!"

lots more - "BL has been seen too often by trained observers
to be classed with flying saucers", etc., anyone can fill in their
own list of favourites here...

Any reader of the UFO literature will recognise these sorts of
statements. They are typical of those which sceptical scientists
often scorn as naivety and special pleading when attached to UFO
reports. And they _are_naive_ - they aren't the language of
sophisticated postmodern ironical deconstruction. But BL physics
shows that they can get the job done. Some "UFOs" (appropriately
defined) might be just as interesting, just as mundane (meaning
reductively/analytically-real objective correlatives of observer
sensa). The only way to find out is to find out.

At this point one thinks: "Well, sure, but how come we aren't
finding out already? If it only took a few theorists in the case
of BL, what's holding up the bus for UFOs?"

Maybe some things are just hard.


Martin Shough







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 13

               Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 13:34:36 -0600
Fwd Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 16:49:15 -0500
Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Clark



 >From: Catherine Reason <CathyM@ukf.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 16:58:22 -0000
 >Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >>From: Andy Roberts <aj.roberts@blueyonder.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 18:30:50 -0000
 >>Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?


Hi, Cathy,

 >Cultures, by the nature of things, define anomalous events out
 >of existence, so that individual experiences of the anomalous
 >become culturally invisible.

I know that from a series of extraordinary encounters my wife
and I had (not, however, with a UFO) several years ago. The
degree to which we went to assign a misperception explanation to
these experiences, before finally and reluctantly conceding that
none of them worked, astounds me. Someday, when I've sorted this
all out in my head, I may write about it.

There is nothing wrong with skeptical checks, obviously
(everyone should exercise them), but clinging to them even when
they no longer had any utility told us, and particularly me, how
I had fallen victim to the sort of unreflecting disbelief
tradition that has so marred and distorted our understanding of
anomalous experience, and made intelligent assessment so
difficult.

By the way, have you ever read David Hufford's The Terror That
Comes in the Night (University of Pennsylvania Press, 1982)? I
think this is the best book ever written on anomalous experience
and society. Its empirically based conclusions about
misperception in these experiences is, er, radically unlike Andy
Roberts's. Like David Clarke, Hufford is a folklorist, but
unlike Clarke, he's also a medical scientist, so he has training
in both soft and hard science. The book is still in print in a
paperback edition. Like a good broom, it sweeps the rubbish out
of the room.

(Confession of possible conflict of interest: Hufford has
generous things to say about my UFO Encyclopedia. Modesty
discourages me from quoting them, but they're on the back cover
of the second edition if you're interested.)

 >>Er, until it was resolved. Then for some reason few people ever
 >>spoke of it again. The spell was broken and the mystery mongers
 >>went on to the next absoluteley best ever case. And so the cycle
 >>continues, over and over. Jerry and Don are _part_ of this
 >>cycle, they can't see how it works, trapped forever in a miasma
 >>of mystery. We'll still be having this debate with them in 50
 >>years if they haven't croaked. But it doesn't alter the facts
 >>above, or that RMP is _the_ only workable, demonstrable theory
 >>for UFO sightings. But, as I keep saying - if you can show us
 >>another cause for _any_ of them please let us know. But it's not
 >>happening guys, is it?

 >Is this true? Let's ask them - Jerry and Don, is it true that
 >you have neglected this case since it was resolved? I can see
 >how that would be understandable in a political sense (and all
 >academia is politics at some level or other) but scientifically
 >it would hardly appear satisfactory. Usually if some
 >investigation procedure generates a false positive such as this,
 >one would want to examine the procedure to find out how and
 >where it went wrong. Perhaps a database of false positives would
 >be a good idea?

Cathy, you've fallen victim to patented Robertsian bloviation. I
have never written about this case, never claimed it is about
anything other than ordinary misperception.  Everybody has a
story about somebody's being fooled by a misperception, and
every serious observer of the phenomenon does not need Andy to
tell him or her about it.

Apparently, to Andy, the only issues of importance are the ones
he chooses to take up, however inadequately. I am told,
incidentally, by a highly informed source that Andy's account of
this incident - and its reception by less UFOphobic British
colleagues - needs to be read with at least a pinch of salt.
Andy's account of how this happened, how ufologists dealt with
it, and what its significance is turns out, no surprise, not to
be the only and final word. His habit of, er, exaggeration has
already been apparent to anybody who has follow his List
postings on this and other matters.

Basically, where Don and I are concerned, Andy is just making it
up. We've both debunked our share of cases (in my own history,
at least one that had for a time attained classic status, but now
  - owing to my research - is universally recognized as a hoax).
Neither of us has remotely invested in mystery what Andy has
in RMP - which, as your own observations indicate, he can
neither demonstrate nor define convincingly or clearly - and
neither of us is making wild, sweeping statements about UFOs
and IFOs, appreciating rather better than Andy how complicated
these things turn out to be. I'm sure that off-List the guy has his
virtues, but I am just as certain that no one has ever accused him
of being a nuanced thinker. The very concept of subtlety in any
area, intellectual or otherwise, seems, er, alien to him.

For a real, as opposed to a pretend, perspective on what I think
and do not think about the UFO phenomenon, I urge you to check
out my UFO Encyclopedia (second edition particularly) or the
abridged trade-paper version, published as The UFO Book. I
suppose I must add that the subtitle, "Encyclopedia of the
Extraterrestrial," was my publisher's, not mine. I was given no
say in the matter.  I wanted the subtitle to be "Encyclopedia of
the Unidentified," though even that isn't quite accurate, since
the book has its share of "Identified" as well.

Incidentally, being in a generous mood today, let me recommend
Clarke and Roberts's book Out of the Shadows, which seems quite
informative and well-researched. It certainly has a commendable
amount of new information in it.

Cordially,

Jerry Clark







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 13

               Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 14:06:48 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 16:41:55 -0500
Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Ledger


 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 00:15:11 +0000
 >Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >>From: Martin Shough <mshough@parcellular.fsnet.co.uk>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 21:59:09 -0000
 >>Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

<snip>

 >This is very interesting. It seems from what you are saying
 >here that science began to select data which fitted into a
 >theory after it gained general acceptance. This is an
 >interesting social phenomenon, and obviously has relevance to a
 >wider range of socially acceptable anomalies. The way in which
 >normal human behaviour is medicalised through the creation of
 >"syndromes" for instance. Has anybody written any sort of
 >"social history" of ball-lightning?

 >From your first paragraph, where you say "it is a phenomenon
 >which has only ever existed as product of witness reportage,
 >that it was once plausibly argued away on that basis, and that
 >it is now plausibly embraced on that same basis", there would
 >seem to be very little difference between BL and UFOs.
 >Misinterpretations, radical or otherwise, may well be as
 >significant a part of BL sightings as they are of UFO reports.
 >However, as science has established a comfortable
 >phenomenological niche for such reports, perhaps the impetus to
 >identify and eliminate misinterpretations from the data base is
 >not as strong amongst BL researchers?

 >If BL, like UFOs, only exists via eyewitness reports, it seems
 >to me that the general scientific acceptnce it has received,
 >vis-a-vis UFO reports, is probably unjustified, and perhaps here
 >is an area where some IFOs might be re-classified as UFOs with
 >sufficient investigation.


Hi John and Martin,

To add to the confusion. Several months ago I had occasion to
give an impromptu talk about UFOs to a group of about 30 pilots
during the course of a 3 day Fly-In in Eastern Canada. After the
talk was over an acquaintance of mine came over a told me about
an experience he had in 1959 while flying as PIC in a Dakota [C-
47 or DC-3] and inbound to a new RCAF airfield in Alberta, RCAF
Cold Lake. Today extensive testing is carried out there by NATO
forces. The Cruise missile was tested there.

They were returning from a funeral type flight where they had
delivered the body of a test pilot to Edmonton, Alta. for
burial.

Besides the pilot Bob and his co-pilot there were 7 passengers
in the Dakaota - all RCAF personnel.

They were 22 miles DME out from Cold Lake at 5,500 feet on a
nice clear day with some puffball CU developing as forecast at
10,000 feet, when Bob said this huge, black cloud suddenly
appeared several miles in front of them and at their altitude.
There was no vertical development as you would expect in a black
thundercloud, it was just this big, squat, fat thing that was
very dark and menacing looking. Bob was in the middle of
communications with Cold Lake tower when they lost contact with
them. Since he was on an IFR [Instrument Flight Rules] flight
plan and no way wanted to fly through what he figured was some
new-born thundercloud he wanted desperately to get through to
Cold Lake to change their IFR flightplan so as to deviate and go
around the thing. At this point they were too far to the north
to contact any other military field to attempt a flight plan
change.

He was just about to make a decision to bust the IFR flight
plan, go around this cloud and report it after the fact [a big
deal] or turn back when both he and the CP spotted a brilliant
yellow/white ball that seemed to have popped out of the black
cloud and that at first seemed to remain stationary but got
progressively bigger. Over several seconds they realized that
since it was not moving in the windscreen and was getting bigger
it was coming toward them.

Previously Bob had handed control of the aircraft over to the CP
while he attempted to re-establish radio contact and get their
flightplan changed.

The bright ball came at them so fast they had no time to decide
whether to dive or bank away from the thing but suddenly it was
filling the whole windscreen. Bob said he threw his arms up in
front of his eyes and dove backwards through the door into the
aisle. he said he got up off the floor and stared around at the
passengers who he said probably thought he'd gone "nuts" since
they were unaware if the drama unfolding up front.

He went quickly back onto the flight deck [which on a Dak means
he got back into his seat] and saw that his CP was riveted to
the control column and slowly letting his breath out and
swearing in four languages - with feeling. Since the CP was in
control, he couldn't dive into the aisle way like Bob did.

Bob said the CP told him the ball of light had swung upwards and
to the right at the last second and went over the aircraft's
cockpit on the starboard side.

I asked Bob how big was it. He said before he dove he figured it
was about 10 feet in diameter but the CP was thinking it was
maybe twenty feet when it went over him.

I asked Bob what he thought it was. He said he figured some form
of ball lightning since it seemed to come out of the cloud.

The cloud incidentally just disappeared within 30 seconds of the
near collision. Their radio came back on with the tower
demanding to know why they hadn't been responding to their calls
[a big deal when you are IFR] and they continued into Cold Lake
without having to deviate from their IFR flight plan.

Did you report it?

Nope! Just the radio loss and the thundercloud.

"Didn't want that getting around the "mess"" He said.

Bob was filling in as PIC that day. He flew Daks in Korea and
off and on when needed. Also Sea Furies, Grumman Avengers,
Goblins and Vampires,  DC-6s, F-104s, VooDoos, F-86 Sabres,
Grumman S-2Fs [carrier landings] C-130 Hercs and even had stick
time on American B-52s [a NORAD thing he says dismissively].
He's in his early 70s now an flies a little homebuilt aircraft-
  a Cygnet powered by a Volkswagen engine. He was in the Canadian
airforce for 35 years and was an exchange officer to the USN in
Pensecola. Fl.

So here we have what could have been a UFO coming out of the
preverbal cloud, being explained away as ball lightning. Two
unproved phenomenon, with one being used to explain away the
other. Crossover phenomenon or the same thing?

There's more detail but what is above gets the gist across.

FYI


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 13

               Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 16:38:40 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 17:01:52 -0500
Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Ledger


 >From: Catherine Reason <CathyM@ukf.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 16:58:22 -0000
 >Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >>From: Andy Roberts <aj.roberts@blueyonder.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 18:30:50 -0000
 >>Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >>* There are many other similar cases of RMP - many of them even
 >>more complicated, ie The Berwyn Mountain Case (which has been
 >>in IUR) and the Rendlesham Case (which has been everywhere)

 >>The defenders of mystery will never accept RMP even when it is
 >>proven by case after case. Ah, they say, but what about the
 >>cases that _aren't_ resolved. Yeah, well, what about them? The
 >>Cracoe case went unsolved for ten years or so despite several
 >>UFO organisations spending literally thousands of pounds and
 >>hundreds of man hours on the case, not to mention involving
 >>scientific analysis (if Philip Mantle were available at the
 >>moment he'd back this up as this case featured large in his
 >>life). It was procliamed as being one of the best cases ever in
 >>the UK and clear evidence of aliens etc etc

 >>Er, until it was resolved. Then for some reason few people ever
 >>spoke of it again. The spell was broken and the mystery mongers
 >>went on to the next absoluteley best ever case. And so the cycle
 >>continues, over and over. Jerry and Don are _part_ of this
 >>cycle, they can't see how it works, trapped forever in a miasma
 >>of mystery. We'll still be having this debate with them in 50
 >>years if they haven't croaked. But it doesn't alter the facts
 >>above, or that RMP is _the_ only workable, demonstrable theory
 >>for UFO sightings. But, as I keep saying - if you can show us
 >>another cause for _any_ of them please let us know. But it's not
 >>happening guys, is it?

 >Is this true? Let's ask them - Jerry and Don, is it true that
 >you have neglected this case since it was resolved? I can see
 >how that would be understandable in a political sense (and all
 >academia is politics at some level or other) but scientifically
 >it would hardly appear satisfactory. Usually if some
 >investigation procedure generates a false positive such as this,
 >one would want to examine the procedure to find out how and
 >where it went wrong. Perhaps a database of false positives would
 >be a good idea?


You know Cathy, I could throw this back at Andy by asking him
about the Smith Brothers case or the Albert Fulton case or the
Shearwater UFO chase case, but that would be unfair because Andy
doesn't know anything about these cases, never heard of them.
It's the same with me Cathy, I'd never heard of the Cracoe Fell
case until Andy and David brought it up-so it would have been
hard for me to neglect it.

We all have our little areas of operation, mine is the Maritime
Provinces and Newfoundland/Labrador - an area roughly the size
of the United Kingdom, the Neatherlands, France and Spain
combined - here in Canada and specifically Nova Scotia.

So the answer is no I didn't ignore the case because it was
solved and then moved onto the next best case. I'd never heard
of it.

In any event the case would probably have been outside my
curiosity perimeter.

There are certain cases that make it above the horizon and just
about everyone interested hears about them. Most don't get a
hearing. I'm really not sure why Andy would say this because he
knows this as well as I do.

Hope this helps.

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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 13

                   Re: Another Abduction Question - Velez

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 16:16:39 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 17:03:40 -0500
Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question - Velez


 >From: Luis R. Gonzalez <lrgm@arrakis.es>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 16:47:49 +0100
 >Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question

 >>From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 02:09:25 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question

 >>On-List or anywhere in 'public' I only speak of the incidents
 >>that I recall clearly, and that I _know_ happened because I had
 >>to live through them. Some of those incidents involve multiple
 >>witnesses. Myself and many others I have interacted with do
 >>consciously recall incidents 'on-board' UFOs. I don't discuss
 >>them publicly because memory of the incidents may be incomplete,
 >>or happened at night, _after_ I had gone to sleep. One such
 >>memory involves a procedure where 'something' that resembled a
 >>man-sized praying mantis shoved a rod/probe up my nose. I felt
 >>pain and pressure as it pushed the object deep into my head. As
 >>if it wasn't terrifying enough, what really rattled me and
 >>sticks out in memory is the dull crunching sound I 'heard'
 >>inside my head as the probe (obviously) penetrated a sinus
 >>cavity or bone. That memory replayed in my head for weeks after
 >>the incident. BTW, there was dried blood on my face the next
 >>morning from the same nostril that I recalled the 'thing' had
 >>shoved the probe into.

 >Just one question. Did you remember if the rod/probe was covered
 >in blood when extracted? Surely, you should have had a big
 >hemorrhage then.

I closed my eyes when he started pushing that 'thing' into my
nose. I was scared half to death and it _hurt._ Right after I
heard the 'crunch' sound inside my head (of bone or cartilage or
whatever) there was a flash of intense white light. I then woke
up and discovered the dried blood on my face. There was no
'active' bleeding going on when I awoke. The blood stream on my
face was tacky, almost dry. I would hope that

My own 'speculation':

If this procedure is being performed regularly on people, it
would make sense for them to close or cauterize the wound in
order to prevent people from bleeding to death internally,
suffering a stroke from a stray blood-clot or drowning in their
own blood while asleep or unconscious. In fact, doctors have
found evidence of a 'surgical' procedure that was performed
inside of my sinuses/head. See next.

A few years after this 'probe' incident was when the UFO
encounter that I have already described in other posts to the
list, transpired. I had to go to an emergency room for treatment
the next morning. The attending ER physician and an ear, nose
and throat specialist _both_ saw evidence of "surgery" inside my
head/sinuses. (Their term not mine, they were the ones who both
asked me about the "surgery" I had had in my head.) "Surgery"
which I have _never_ had. In fact, I was as upset by that
assertion as I was about the swollen eye and severe nose-bleed
that brought me to them in the first place.

Louis...

This is not a 'masturbatory' exercise for me. What I have been
through is frightening, has altered the course of my entire
life, and is something I am very serious about. I am convinced
that what is happening is a physical, nuts and bolts, blood and
bone reality that needs to be acknowledged and investigated
until some reliable answers are obtained.

The threat and implications of this phenomenon are staggering.
People better wake up... and soon. Condescension and giggling
are extremely inappropriate responses to something that could be
knocking on -their door- next.

 ><snip>

 >>Yes, I recall 'on-board' incidents.

 >I suppose your recalled 'on-board' incidents looked as real as
 >that giant insect you saw one day in the streets of New York.
 >John, I am not saying that you are lying or anything similar,
 >only that your concious 'recalls' do not seem reliable always,
 >IMHO.

Hey man, the good news is; I don't particularly care if you or
any one else "believes" me or not. :)

I am _responsibly_ reporting what has happened to me as clearly,
honestly and openly as I possibly can. My conscience dictates
that I do so. I have been compelled and counselled by people who
I trust and look up to that I should 'report.' And I have been
doing just that for seven years. I will continue to do so until
an independent, multi-disciplinary team of professionals,
scientists, academics is assembled and an investigation into
this phenomenon is commenced. Until they nail my coffin shut if
I have to. Even then my voice will reach out from beyond the
grave via this public record that we're all leaving behind.

What people do afterwards with the reports and information I
provide is entirely up to them and it is their own business.
Believe, don't believe, I don't give a rats ass. I'm not looking
for "believers." What is important to me is; that they _think_
about the phenomenon. That people become aware that 'some' of
the reports of UFO abduction are coming from ordinary but
perfectly credible and reliable, family oriented, working people
just like themselves. That they begin to realize that "all"
abductees are not 'air-heads' or 'nutcases' or 'starved for
attention' and 'trying to get on TV'.

If what we suspect is happening is true... then this is very
serious business and should be treated that way. I'm no sloucher
or BS artist Louis. I'm the 'real thing.' There are reasons why
Budd Hopkins took me with him everywhere he spoke for over 5
years. My family's case is not a 'weak' or easily dismissed
one. I'm glad that you're not calling me a liar, and if you
'think' that I am not "reliable," (without having conducted a
background check on me or my 'credibility' or my 'character' as
Budd Hopkins did,) then there isn't much that I can do about it.
You are entitled to your opinion - even if it isn't based on
first hand knowledge.

You can't win 'em all as they say. ;)

 ><snip>

 >>As Budd has stated on many occasions; ufologists didn't even
 >>acknowledge that UFOs might have an 'inside' until the 60's.

 >Well, one of those who did believe UFOs had an 'inside' was
 >Project VISIT, 25 years ago. They worked hard to obtain
 >scientific and engineering data about the internal systems of
 >UFOs from abductees... We are still waiting.

I'm not familiar with "Project VISIT." Could you elaborate for
the benefit of those of us who do not know what it is?


Regards,

John Velez _Abductee_

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

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/petition







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 13

                     Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 15:49:26 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 16:56:28 -0500
Subject: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?


 >From: Andy Roberts <aj.roberts@blueyonder.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 21:04:35 -0000
 >Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >>From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 22:29:07 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >>It hasn't been proven case after case. There are now millions. A
 >>half dozen doesn't support a theory. You will have to go the
 >>extra mile. I'm afraid your just saying it first doesn't make it
 >>so Andy.

 >The theory is proven time and time again Don, and, as I keep
asking, has anyone got a better one which is proven. No answers
yet I'm afraid.

 >>You really are putting yourself out on a limb aren't you.
 >>Imagine, after all these years of study, little old you has come
 >>up with the answer.

 >No, the answer is just _there_ Don. No-one 'came up' with it.
 >It just works that's all, unless... well, see above.

So far, Andy, what I've seen you refer to is a narrow segment of
the phenomenon. Lights at night for example [though I'm not sure
the lighthouse explanation will fly as a good resolve on the
Rendlesham incident] but what happens in the UK is not as well
known to me.

In the last 8 months I have been saddled with reports of huge
objects in the sky. In one case [see IUR] I was able to get a
rough estimate of the baseline size of this thing [thanks to
radar conformation of altitude] of more than a kilometer on a
side. How do you use the  theory of radical misperception on
this one? Or the case I had from '87 in broad daylight of a
football field sized object over a small village here in NS-
  reported by a retired Canadian Army major who was then a
Captain, the object which was also witnessed by his driver. They
were actually up on a hill looking down on the top of the thing.

How about the many photographs, radar traces etc.?


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 14

                     Strange Indiana Sightings Reported

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 00:44:57 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 00:44:57 -0500
Subject: Strange Indiana Sightings Reported

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=1078&dept_id=151030&newsid=7044344&PAG=46
1&rfi=9

February 13, 2003

Strange Sightings Reported

John Phillips

I was out shoveling the driveway Tuesday evening when I heard a
strange noise, a noise kind of like what the refrigerator makes
when it turns itself on - a drone.

It was blowing and cold and the lights were making tricks. My
eyes were watering, so I can't be sure, but I thought I saw a
large, oval-shaped object with greenish lights around its
midsection come down in the field across the way. And then I
couldn't see it.

I went into the house, got my flashlight and went back out into
the night to investigate.

I had my gum boots on, but it was still hard going in the snow.
By the time I got to where I thought I saw the thing come down,
there was nothing there - nothing, that is, but a large
depression in the snow where something heavy and ovoid had just
been.

I hustled back to the house to get my camera, but the wind was
howling and the snow was drifting and by the time I got back to
that spot in the field, it had already almost entirely
disappeared. Photos would show nothing, and I would be a fool to
mention to anyone that I had apparently seen a UFO.

Which is all just a bunch of baloney, of course. I made it up,
yeah, I did.

But it's a strange world, folks, and a lot of strange reports,
press releases and such, come to us in the newsroom.

One such report, from Stan Gordon of Greensburg, found its way
to my desk for some reason.

Gordon, a self-described researcher/investigator of UFOs, says
that 2002 was an active year for UFO sightings and strange
encounters across Pennsylvania.

According to Gordon's report, "Close observations of strange
flying objects, reported encounters with mysterious creatures
such as Bigfoot and giant birds, strange footprints and sounds,
and odd ground markings were some of the oddities reported."

He says that some of the cases reported last year could be
explained as bright meteors, automated searchlight displays and
even the northern lights, but that also some strange incidents
couldn't be explained.

A couple of those incidents were from our area.

On April 15, 2002, Gordon reports, two people traveling on Route
286 near Clarksburg observed an elongated object about the size
of a passenger bus hovering at treetop level. The silent
object's body appeared to be extremely wide, and it had a very
bright light at the front.

In Derry Township (Westmoreland County) in September, members of
a family reported observing a Bigfoot creature on two different
occasions in a heavily wooded area.

On the afternoon of Sept. 27, a driver was traveling on a back
road and heard a noise from the woods. The driver reportedly
stopped the vehicle, thinking that some deer were approaching.

Not so, as you may have guessed. "At a distance of about 145
feet, the witness observed a tall man-like creature covered with
long brown hair and arms that hung down to the knees.

"The creature was estimated to be about 8 feet tall and took
long steps as it crossed a field. The driver watched as the
creature crossed over a barbed-wire fence with no hesitation or
break in stride."

Gordon says he measured the fence and the top was 44 inches off
the ground.

According to Gordon, Pennsylvania has a long history of
observations of strange animals, including Bigfoot, the
Thunderbird (a giant bird), the eastern cougar, and the black
panther. (We always heard about a black panther when we were
kids, but we never knew anyone who saw one.)

Anyway, with the weather so bad and such, we might as well be
out looking for Bigfoot. If you find him (or her) Gordon wants
you to give him a call at (724) 838-7768 or e-mail him at
paufo@westol.com.

In the meantime, here's a news item that'll perk you up - Friday
the 13th fell on a Thursday this month. Hoo hah!

(John Phillips is a Gazette assistant editor. He can be e-mailed
at jphil@indianagazette.net.)

C. Indiana Printing & Publishing Co. 2003







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 14

                   Re: Another Abduction Question - White

From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 18:25:54 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 00:49:52 -0500
Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question - White


 >From: Luis R. Gonzalez <lrgm@arrakis.es>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 16:47:49 +0100
 >Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question

 >>From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 02:09:25 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question

 >>Yes, I recall 'on-board' incidents.

 >I suppose your recalled 'on-board' incidents looked as real as
 >that giant insect you saw one day in the streets of New York.
 >John, I am not saying that you are lying or anything similar,
 >only that your concious 'recalls' do not seem reliable always,
 >IMHO.

When someone reports an on-board experience which seems bizarre
by every day life standards, what logical reason is there to
doubt the person making the report?

With no other evidence either pro or con, I give such reports an
exactly 50% chance of being either true or false. Further
reports and other evidence from the same or other abductees
causes the probability to go up or down from the original 50%.

I don't see how anyone can simply wave away experience reports
because they don't happen in our current-day Earth society
environment.


Eleanor White







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 14

              Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' -

From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 18:01:39 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 00:47:11 -0500
Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough' -


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 22:19:19 +0000
 >Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough'

 >>From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 14:42:08 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough'

 >>>From: Paul Kimball <Kimballwood@aol.com>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 00:45:20 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: Greer Interview 'Free Energy Breakthrough'

 >>>It would just be nice to see Greer put up or shut up. It would
 >>>also be great to see someone taking money from him for a change.

<snip>

 >Eleanor,

 >I have bitten my tongue and refrained from responding to your
 >many adulatory postings about Greer, but this one reached my gag
 >reflex threshhold. The evidence indicating that Greer is a
 >hustler and a con-man is rather overwhelming. I will not bother
 >repeating it all here because you obviously are impervious to
 >facts when they contradict what you want to believe.

No ... I didn't have the information you report in your post
before now.

And as to "free" energy, if UFOs are ET craft, then they likely
have a virtually inexhaustible source of energy to do what they
do. I'm simply predicting it is just a matter of time before we
in the unclassified world have such an energy source too.

Rather than wave "free" energy away, I know it will come sooner
or later, so every current inventor has the chance to make the
final breakthrough. I treat them with the same respect as
inventors in any other field, and don't label them frauds just
because the field they are working in happens to be "free"
energy. I see no logical reason to, any more than I would label
someone 'crazy' because they research UFOs.


Eleanor White







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 14

                     Report From Laughlin UFO Conference

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@privat.dk>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 05:44:03 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 00:58:53 -0500
Subject: Report From Laughlin UFO Conference


Source: Las Vegas Mercury

http://www.lasvegasmercury.com/2003/MERC-Feb-13-Thu-2003/20669749.html

Stig

***

Thursday, February 13, 2003

Copyright Las Vegas Mercury

Hey, what's that!?

True believers mingle with scientists at annual UFO convention

By Heidi Walters

**

LAUGHLIN - Last week, hundreds of people descended into Laughlin
for the week-long 12th annual UFO Congress Convention & Film
Festival at the Flamingo. I parachuted in for a day of it - and
found myself to be the alien, not at all conversant in the
common language of this crowd. New World Order. Abductions.
Grays. Budd Hopkins. Star people (identifiable, among other
traits, by their "compelling eyes" and "personal charisma"). Re-
  ensoulment.

But that didn't matter. I came away with an understanding that
could have come from any modern-day human gathering in this time
of pending war, environmental disaster and planet overload: a
sense, that is, of the hopeful, sad and troubled depths within
the human psyche, and of the emotional, mental and physical
creativity with which humans attempt to clamber from those
depths.

Inside one colorful room filled with booths - crystals, kitschy
big-eyed knickknacks, emu oil lotions (the latest alternative
beauty trend, it seems), books, documentaries - a woman at one
booth was telling a man about "a kind of fog" and what it's like
to emerge from it at last, and the guy responded, "Mother's
gonna take care of it, one way or another. Either nuclear war
or... And if it's gonna happen, it's gonna come down this year -
  Pow!"

At another booth, Conrad DeFlon was setting up guru Budd
Hopkins' books and tapes. DeFlon, a soft-spoken, been-through-
  the-wringer-of-depression man of about 40, had the semi-wild
aspect of a coyote and the sweetness of the humbly saved. He
said he remembered reading Hopkins' book Intruders and how he
flashbacked to when he was 17 and on a fishing trip with buddies
in the Eastern Sierra. There, apparently, he stepped out of the
cabin one night "to take a whiz," stepped back inside, and his
buddies told him he'd been gone for more than an hour. It was a
case of missing time - something other abductees, he said, have
reported. Eventually, dogged by anxiety for years, he called up
Hopkins and said, "Either I'm flipping out, or I was abducted by
aliens." When Hopkins hypnotized him, DeFlon described a time
when he was 3 years old and a frog-like being came to him. And
then he described what he saw on that fishing trip: "It was half
a dozen of these `Grays' [the quintessential alien with the two-
  globed big head and odd eyes, described by many abductees
across the world], and they told me their species could no
longer reproduce. And then I had an orgasm - the leader said, 'I
did that to you.' They were taking my sperm."

It's a common theme among abductees, DeFlon said.

Then I met David Liebehart, a portrait artist who works at La
Brea Tar Pits in Los Angeles. When he was in high school, he
said, in 1968, he was taken aboard a UFO. "They took hair and
skin samples. I was raised in a Christian Science Church - and
you can put that in your article. I still have an implant in my
arm, but because of Christian Science I haven't had it removed.
... I'm related to the Wright brothers on my dad's side. My
grandmother told me the Wrights got the idea [to build an
airplane] from aliens. The government used to throw aliens in
with the slaves and American Indians."

Talking to people, looking about this room, reading titles - it
was easy to feel overwhelmed by craziness and conspiracy
theories: Electricity, the Coming Revolution in Medicine. The
Secrets of the Federal Reserve. A Writ for Martyrs. Wisdom of
the Rays. Mind Stalking: UFOs, Implants & the Psychotronic
Agenda of the New World Order. The Crystal People. "Astro-
  carto-graphy relocation map - $205 - Map your future. Do not
relocate without it!" "A channeling event: What really happened
to space shuttle Columbia?" "The Government's Cosmic Cover-up."

Inside a more serious room, the reknowned Dr. John Mack was
speaking. Mack is a Pulitzer Prize-winning author and professor
of psychiatry at the Harvard Medical School. He founded the
Department of Psychiatry at the Cambridge Hospital, and in 1983
founded the Center for Psychology & Social Change. But when he
started taking alien abductees seriously, he was nudged out of
the main academic arena. Mack said they were missing the point,
which has nothing to do with literal truth but everything to do
with philosophy. It's important to "legitimize experience," he
said. We are, he said, in an anomolous age in which, unlike in
past cultures and present-day aboriginal societies, we have
adopted a purely materialistic world view that is "soulless and
unconscious."

He talked about the need for a "re-ensoulment of the universe."

"The abductees, they get this - that we all will become one with
nature," he said. "It's only in the past 200-300 years that the
gods have been so totally banished."

If the world regained its "soul," he said, "we would be unable
to treat the earth the way we do, because it would violate some
sacred relationship."

He said great changes could come to human cultures "if we come
to see UFO phenomena as having a relationship to other anomalies
[such as] crop circles, near-death experiences, precognition,
spiritual healing, apparitions of the Blessed Virgin - or
whoever that woman is that so many people see - and organ
transplants, when a person experiences personality traits of a
person from whom the organ was taken."

The mental health field would change, he said. "Many of the
conditions that are now diagnosed and given pathological labels
will be honored, will be considered part of the human
condition."

Plus, studies of parapsychology and such would finally get some
funding, he said. The problem now, he said, is the experiences
that abductees and others have related to such phenomena cannot
be proved. And the problem with that is the assumption that we
need proof in order for an experience to have real meaning. "In
the emerging world view, fact and metaphor can be one. The inner
world, the subjective world, would become as much if not a
greater subject for us to take on and understand."

The speaker after Mack had much less comforting news for the
attendees. An expert in "non-lethal weaponry" - a discipline
that got him ridiculed in a Scientific American article - John
Alexander cautioned those with "very emotional views" that they
wouldn't like what he had to say.

Alexander, a longtime military man, at one time had the
opportunity to interview "all the heads of the [federal] letter
agencies" and he concluded that, institutionally, the government
just doesn't care enough about UFO- related phenomena to pursue
it. This, even though some had actually had UFO-like
experiences. "The good news is, the government's been telling
the truth about UFOs," he said. That's also the bad news, he
added. "The reality is, nobody cares."

But 7 percent of the population says it's seen UFOs, he said.

"My view has been, there is a very substantial amount of
evidence that says these phenomena are real," Alexander said. "I
have personally seen a number of phenomena. These are white
crows - it only takes one white crow to prove that not all crows
are black. If you find one anomaly, there must be exceptions to
the rule. We definitely have exceptions, so we study it -
  because it will lead to a deeper understanding of the
universe." While he takes a purely scientific, curiosity
approach to the study, he says about 98 percent of the people at
the conference are true believers. "For them it's like coming
home," he said. "These people take it a whole step further. It
becomes a whole cosmology. It's very like religion, and that's
why it's very emotional."

For Philip and Kay Hart, from a town in England "not far from
Stonehenge," that's okay. They're not into the crystals and
kitsch, but they do believe there's something out there.

"I think everybody's just looking for something beyond this
life," Kay said. "And we hope it's positive."

And maybe it can even come to our rescue. "Everyone's afraid
[the U.S.-Iraq situation] is going to escalate, that it's the
beginning of Armageddon. I think it's a possibility. I think
there's some hope there's an intelligence beyond us that can
stop the war."

**

Copyright Las Vegas Mercury, 2001 - 2002

Stephens Media Group







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 14

                  FOIA Request To Chief Of Naval Operations

From: Larry W. Bryant <overtci@cavtel.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 18:46:43 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 00:52:05 -0500
Subject: FOIA Request To Chief Of Naval Operations


[LWB mea culpa: UFOlogist-linguist Richard W. Heiden has pointed
out my imprecise use of the expression "deja vu" in my header
for the recently posted contents of an FOIA response from the U.
S. National Security Agency. Since the term denotes a SENSE of
one's already having seen a yet-to-be experienced event or
scene, it shouldn't be applied to an actually occurred action.
The better wording for the header, then, would be another
(overworked?) French-derived term: "UFOpolitik Redux."]

TO: Chief of Naval Operations
     Headquarters, U. S. Department of the Navy
     ATTN: Freedom of Information Manager
     The Pentagon
     Washington, DC 20350

FROM: Larry W. Bryant
       3518 Martha Custis Drive
       Alexandria, VA 22302

DATE: February 13, 2003

This freedom-of-information request seeks from you a copy of the
latest edition of OPNAV Notice 3820 of Sept. 26, 1952 (which
governs Navy processing of UFO/"flying saucer"-encounter reports
solicited/received from U. S. Navy personnel); as well as a copy
of all current Navy instructions/directions/notices that happen
to augment and/or supersede that notice.

Since I make this request on behalf of the public's interest in
knowing and evaluating how your department seeks out, processes,
transmits, records, categorizes, assesses, and shares official
UFO-encounter reports, I ask that you waive all records-search
fees incident to your fulfilling it.

Please note that I'm snail-mailing to you a signed printout of
this e-formatted letter.


LARRY W. BRYANT
Director, Washington, D.C., Office of
Citizens Against UFO Secrecy

Copies furnished to:

Mark S. Zaid, Esq. (Washington, D.C.)

Chairman, U. S. Senate Committee on Intelligence

Chairman, Subcommittee on Government Information, Management, and
Technology -- U. S. House of Representatives

Peter Robbins, Editor-in-Chief, http://www.ufocity.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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 14

              Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 18:51:01 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 00:54:18 -0500
Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Maccabee


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 17:08:56 -0600
 >Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >>From: David Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 22:01:10 -0000
 >>Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

<snip>

 >After all, since the phrase has a precise meaning which renders
 >the adjective "unidentified" obsolete, why not insist that those
 >who disagree with you now refer to all UFOs as "spaceships"?  Or
">thoughtforms"? Or "etheric craft from other vibrations"? Or
 >"Nazi rockets from the hollow earth"? Perhaps we can insist on
 >even more specificity than that, e.g., "Martian Module",
 >"Saturnian Shuttle", "Ashtarian Aerospace Craft"? This last
 >strikes me as a particularly rewarding pursuit. Let us reorient
 >ufology - excuse me, "saucerology" - toward the documenting of
 >those sightings representing observations of the fleet of the
 >Ashtar Command. After all, as any number of psychic channelers
 >have assured us, Ashtar and his starship troopers are far and
 >away the most important Space Brothers visiting us.

I certainly learned my lesson from the "Space Brothers"! (I'm
lucky to still be around!)

You _Don't Mess with Ashtar_!

To see what I was "told" by Ashtar, go to:

http://brumac.8k.com







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 14

               IFO Imagery [was: Liverpool 01-16-03 UFO Video]

From: Amy Hebert <yellowrose129@attbi.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 01:41:17 -0600
Fwd Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 07:39:03 -0500
Subject: IFO Imagery [was: Liverpool 01-16-03 UFO Video]


 >From: Tom King <tomking2030@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 16:50:11 +0000
 >Subject: Re: Liverpool 01-16-03 UFO Video

 >>From: Andy Roberts <aj.roberts@blueyonder.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 21:21:28 -0000
 >>Subject: Re: Liverpool 01-16-03 UFO Video

 >>>From: Eric Morris <bufosc@hotmail.com>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 23:59:31 +0000
 >>>Subject: Liverpool 01-16-03 UFO Video

 ><snip>

 >The problem here is lack of
 >optical power to resolve what the cameraman is seeing. Also the
 >lack of education by video analysts to properly judge balloons
 >from alleged UFOs. Most of these self-proclaimed video experts
 >aren't skywatchers and don't field test cameras against known
 >objects.

Amen!

Well said, Tom.

You and I both collect images of known flying objects (or
Identified Flying Objects, IFOs) for comparison purposes and
post them on the internet for others to use as a research and
investigative tool. However, there is still much work to be done
in this area.

I will soon purchase a digital video camera and other equipment
and begin filming and photographing birds, bugs, debris, lens
flare and conventional aircraft in flight to add to my IFO
Database:

http://ifo.s5.com

Through my studies of IFOs, I have found there is a great lack
of digital images of known objects in flight for comparison
purposes. I would like to encourage others interested in
contributing to their own IFO databases and who may have digital
cameras (especially digital video cameras) to join us in this
type of research.

If you have a digital camera (video and/or still), go outside at
any hour of the day or night and film or photograph flying
objects you have first clearly identified and then review the
results. Identified Flying Objects often take on all kinds of
shapes, sizes, colors, etc. when filmed or "frozen in time" in
images produced through photography. Digital photography seems
to add even more distortion of distant images which has led to
many bogus UFO photo's and footage being posted all over the
internet.

Again, if we are ever going to separate the wheat (UFOs) from
the chaff (IFOs), we must make every effort to first isolate
and identify the variables.


A. Hebert







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 14

               Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 00:00:33 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 07:41:57 -0500
Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Hatch


 >From: Andy Roberts <aj.roberts@blueyonder.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 22:20:35 -0000
 >Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >>From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 12:04:06 -0800
 >>Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >Larry wrote:

 >>I can't speak for others, but the Cracoe Fell matter has been on
 >>my Discredited Sightings web page for months or years now.

 >Rimmer got to you first Larry but do you or any other Listers
 >_really_ think that when a complex 'best ever' case is solved it
 >can just be disgarded? Now that would make an interesting
 >discussion.

 >At what point exactly does a 'best ever' case stop being
 >relevant? When cracks appear? Or when it is finally resolved?
 >And where does its 'mystery' go, and why is it less important
 >after than before?

 >Less a case of misperception here than several cases of pissed
 >deception. Bottoms up Larry!

 >Happy Trails

 >Andy


Hello Andy:

I hope I [burp!] clarified that with my answer to John Rimmer.

As for Cracoe Fell being called the 'best ever' case, I
certainly never thought so. In fact I did have it listed in the
*U* Database, possibly from some old issue of the Apro Bulletin,
that deriving from some account in the UK.

Checking back early versions of *U*, by early 1999 I had noted
that it was discredited as a reflection of an outcropping of
quartz (or whatever) on a hill. In that version, I reduced the
strangeness rating to near bottom (1 on a scale of 0- 15), mind
you that was 4 years ago.

So who _did_ call this the 'best case', specifically the best
photographic case? The YUFOS group in Yorkshire apparently.
That's what I learned from a Google search, where I found a page
you wrote.

As for the importance of Cracoe Fell in the public
(mis)perception of UFO matters, I made several Google searches
for comparison.

In each case, I noted the place name as an exact quote
(some place names are multiple words) .. together with
the single word UFO. Here are the results, the number
of web pages Google found.

"Roswell" + UFO          : 85,900 (apprx)
"Rendlesham: + UFO       :  4,150   "
"Trans-en-Provence" + UFO:    460
  (same count, with-or-without dashes)
"Redwood City" + UFO     :    595
"Cracoe Fell"  + UFO     :      5 (five)

Redwood City, where I live, had 119 times as many
UFO related hits as Cracoe Fell.

Of those five (5) Cracoe pages, the first one was mine; my list
of Discredited Sightings.

http://www.larryhatch.net/DISCRED.html

The other four, (your name comes up repeatedly BTW) all
discredited the same Cracoe sighting.  _None_ of them support
Cracoe as a 'real' UFO, let alone a best case.

I'm babysitting some 17,940 UFO sightings here, not just one or
two.  Another photographic case from California, this one a
hoax, is about to get delisted (and roasted a bit) on this end.
  I must attend to that now.

I think Cracoe is instructive as a clear and somewhat surprising
case of misperception, but I cannot devote much time to it.



Best wishes

- Larry Hatch






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 14

                 Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Bennett

From: Colin Bennett <colin@bennettc25.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 10:36:27 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 10:43:23 -0500
Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Bennett


 >From: Andy Roberts <aj.roberts@blueyonder.co.uk>
 >Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 22:16:54 -0000
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Subject: Re: New Documentary On Rendlesham - Roberts

The Strange Case of Clarke's Credentials, or Dave's Reverse Jump
This the first of the Bad Man's Epistle to Andy Roberts
(Which will replace the Epistles of St. Paul to the Corinthians)

Dearly Beloved,

Andy, I don't know whether I have proved your case for you as
you say. But more on this later as there is now a much more
important consideration afoot.

Any Lurker or List Bear opening this post entitled New
Documentary on Rendlesham Forest and finding David in reverse
motion perched atop his vaulting pole in philosophical stasis
above 100,000 volts of prison razor wire will be astonished,
surely, beyond all compass.

This, Andy, is a true Zen crisis. I think there should have been
a warning notice gone out before you suggested that your co-
writer's new found postmodern credentials are suspect. David's
plight is now perilous. He could go into withdrawal after your
statement. He might have to go into philosophical detox. Or he
might be stuck up there forever, like the mythological figures
described by Keats in Ode on a Grecian, not knowing which way to
jump. This scene would make an interesting mural for the foyer
of a List HQ building. I don't think I have ever been so
intrigued by a sight since I came across  the Ken Dodd Karaoke
Memorial Home strung between the Last Chance Deport of the
Brentford Salvation Army and the ruins of the Henry Macclesfield
Bingo Parlour.

David's miraculous condition up there suspended must be the most
important theological issue since the Diet of Worms. If Dave is
a Catholic the Vatican must be informed immediately, and when he
gets down he will have to be extensively examined for marks of
devilish intercourse. His Sainthood might have to be seriously
considered. In which case he should inform his dear mother
immediately.

It could be miraculous, of course. In case a Special Ecumanical
Council might ahve to be called. The Great Treatises of St
Cyprian and St Cyril may have to be consulted, as well as hose
of Tertullian and Juston Martyr. He will certainly have to be
re-baptised.

Anthing is possible. There could be cures if you know what I
mean. There could be walking stick, crutches and spectacles
thrown beneath David's vaulting pole, With cures, anything could
happen, Andy, even your powerful nuclear Protestantism could see
the Light of St. Jerome.

But to put theology in more modern terms, if only for my
constantly baffled Americans, always it seems aghast at the
concepts of the old pre-Opra theology.

I think Andy, you have proved my postmodern case for me. Now
David's new postmodern credentials are not false, but in the
region between fact and fiction I so often talk about. Put it
this way. One man says he has seen a fairy. Another says they
don't exist. The fairy is a locus sculptured by the subtraction
of the two beliefs, the result of which is never quite zero.
There is always a little bit of belief-protein left with which
the weave the next universe in line. Thus David's gray-area
credentials enter the region of the UFO. Dave says he has
jumped, but Andy says not really. Dave's jump therefore as a
concept now enters the transient virtual region in which the
fairy and the UFO live. Like James Oberg's would be NASA
commission, Dave's magnificent escape (or would-be escape, or
partial escape) now lives in the virtual region consisting of
both matter and symbol, the ghost and the flesh.

Dave himself might like to describe what it is like to live in
this region. It must be rather like those early space
experiments where weight loss was experienced for about half a
minute in a diving aeroplane.

Andy I am worried about you, your reasoning is getting
dangerously near the postmodern region. You are either in love,
or about to become a modern, if not yet a postmodern. Take the
intermediate modern option first, otherwise like David you might
be frozen in philosophical limbo. Fast time travel can affect
you like a diver getting the bends through coming up too quickly
if you know what I mean. There's plenty to think about whilst
meditating in the cultural Decompression Chamber (good title for
my next novel, what?) No, I'll get rid of the word "cultural" my
novelist American wife doesn't like it) novel, yes? A theme for
mediation would be that Postmodernism and love are the same
thing. The ironmaster steam footplatemen and factual Prussians
  and document gurus and factspeil hogmeisters of the Silence
Group do not realise this in their lust for me. Alas, I am
spoken for.

The only question that remains is what will your postmodern
cursing be like, Andy?  We had your pre-postmodern cursing, and
that was biblical enough.

I am worried about you on another count. I see you are now
writing with wit and clarity and humour. This will never do,
Andy. You will scare these Americans to death. You have got to
remember they are very young, and the young take themselves very
seriously indeed. Look what happened to me through doing this.
These straight American palefaces can't stand parody. They've
not come across it before. They're not old enough for such
things. They cast me out into the rainforest from where I make
guerilla raids and enter their subversive dreams.

So I warn you. You might be trying to reverse the Stalinist
factspeil of most List 1950s scientists (this being boring
enough to stop hordes of charging rhinos in the track, and cause
werewolves to roll over and die of grief), but it will do you no
good with the factual saluting-campus-hordes factual-research
pre-quantum hogmeisters, I warn you. Old native British wit like
yours sends these Yanks up like Bing Crosby memorial candles in
a Dean Martin chapel of Remembrance.

I am somewhat surprised to find their kitchen tops are as clean
as their annuli. From the films, I thought they were all
groovers and swingers and ravers and gone cats. Instead I find a
bunch of effing solicitors. I definitely landed on the wrong
List here. (stop that sneering, Dick).They're all dope with
enough manic seriousness to kill buffalo on sight. It must
something in the coca-cola, or all that Disneyland TV. I can't
wait for the next profound point in line, which will be as funny
as an old East German tractor factory. So keep using metaphor,
images, jokes and symbols Andy, and you will get the ultimate
"these are not serious and sincere people" List badge to wear. I
wear mine in my underpants at the side of my Phone-Around and
the Boycott the Bad Man campaign ribbon and pictures of Rosa
Kleb and Herr Ulbricht, who are probably watching right now on
the banned rainforest frequency.

Lord bless us there's camouflaged lorries full of soldiers with
machine guns outside now, and Vera's gone mad again. And just
when I was about to take and Sally to detox. You are a
professional carer Andy, I am only a part-time amateur, but you
know the feeling.

I have had everything outside my window. I have had shootings,
suicides, a bus blown up by the IRA, and once a troupe of
miserable circus elephants drenched with rain. And once my
manservant, the Seething Elmon (so called because he has a
permanent bad temper) got hot Indian hot bread and cartons of
Pig N' Chicken safely through a Queers for Peace riot. He sat
down in fear and trembling and had to have a hot cup of tea
after that.

Oh my God, Sally's just run off. She'll have to be kept from the
soldiers, or we'll have terrible trouble.

I'm going out now to get a pack of pork sausages, try and find
Sally and see if Alla's arrived, whoever he be. I can't wait to
see him. I hear he's from the Middlesborough Tabernacle up your
neck of the woods, Andy, by the way. And I hear that your good
self, he's quite a card is Allah. If I see him, I'll try and get
him to joint the List. He'd make a good Factspeil New Ufology
band with Herr Ulbricht, Toxic Shock, Rosa Kleb doing the
vocals, and the Brentford Polonius on drums. Call themselves The
Solutions, and they could be the future of Rock n'Roll, (West
Indian) d'yah nah wat ah min, Andy?

I'll be back

Colin (Bad Man) Bennett

***************************************
See the Bad Man's Combat Diaries at:

http://www.thewhyfiles.co.uk

His Politics of the Imagination given the Anomalist Best
Biography of the Year Award.

His Feature High Moon on Oberg and NASA now running in Fortean
Times 168 (yes, the Bad Man can be serious and sensible, but
only for money!)






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 14

                        Turkish Sighting On 12-01-02

From: Dave Acres <dacres@austarnet.com.au>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 03:11:47 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 10:45:12 -0500
Subject: Turkish Sighting On 12-01-02


Hi Errol & List,

Found a couple of interesting links I thought some readers may
be interested in. Here's one:

UFO hits the meteor that would wreck havoc on Earth

A Meteor that entered into the atmosphere and that would
possible wreck havoc on Earth was broken into pieces by UFO
before it hit

http://www.para-normal.com/nuke/html/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=34







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 15

                  Re: Another Abduction Question - Gonzalez

From: Luis R. Gonzalez <lrgm@arrakis.es>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 11:38:40 +0100
Fwd Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 10:08:18 -0500
Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question - Gonzalez


 >From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 17:31:44 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question

 >>From: Luis R. Gonzalez <lrgm@arrakis.es>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 16:35:48 +0100
 >>Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question

 >>Well, even here in Spain I have been able to obtain all the main
 >>works about abductions from Hopkins, Jacobs, Klass, Rimmer or
 >>Schnabel to abductees like Karla Turner or Katharina Wilson.

 >I hope you've also read the proceedings of the 1992 conference
 >at MIT, along Eddie Bullard's 1987 study and his many abduction
 >papers.

Yes I have, from cover to cover... and did not find them convincing.
For instance, Bullard famous finding about an abduction sequence
was stadistically wrong. I give here a short extract of my conclusion
(hurriedly translated into English, excuse me):

 >From the total of 302 incidents, only 195 include two or more
 >episodes. From that total, 165 present them in the same order,
 >and 27 others offer only one alteration.

 >He considers that from chance only you will expect no more that 12
 >cases among the 136 cases with more than three episodes. It looks
 >irrefutable.

Not so. Bullard takes a simplistic strategy pointing that to
order 3 elements (Capture, Exam, Return) there are 6
possibilities (CER, CRE, ECR, ERC, REC, RCE) , but only one
(CER) is correct. But, how many of those hypothetic possibilites
would appear really in a witness account?... One, and only one
(nobody will Return before being Captured, etc.). No surprise
here.

Yes, before you say it, there is a contradiction with the above
paragraph. So, the same analysis was expanded to 4 elements,
with similar results. I can provide the complete review (in
Spanish) to anybody interested.

 >But the published literature isn't enough. In my
 >opinion, it doesn't tell you enough about what abductees are
 >really like. The reality is both more strange and more grounded
 >in everyday life than you'd guess from reading all these books.

Back to square one! Well, after reading a lot of first-hand
abductees stories, I agree, the abduction as given a sense to
everything that happen in their lifes. All and everything is
interpreted under its light. Maybe if they were able to do just
the opposite...

 >>Unfortunately, I have been unable to talk with any abductee.
 >>They are very scarce in Europe (and much more in Spain), you
 >>know.

 >I'm not going to be sarcastic, the way you are, and suggest your
 >work is worthless, unless you go to Britain or America and meet
 >some abductees. Or that you find some abductees in Europe. They
 >exist, even if they aren't as public as they  might be
 >elsewhere.

I was not being sarcastic (intending to wound anybody), just as
you try to disqualify me wondering if I was familiar with the
literature, I was just pointing to a fact you should take into
account. Misteriously, aliens seem to have America in their
viewfinder (Sorry, but I cannot escape the similarities with the
inminent war).

Sure, there are abductees in Europe... and even in Spain. Do you
want a short resum=E9?

June 9, 1975 (the very first one) - Canary Islands. Several
members of a contactee group go to an arranged meeting (by
ouija) and later discover 2 hours of missing time. Under
hipnosis, they recall an abduction.

Feb 1978 - Medinaceli. The famous "Julio F." case. The witness
was discovered (and first hipnotized) by none other that Mr.
Jordan Pe=F1a (confessed creator of the UMMO hoax) so its reality
is very suspicious.

Dec 18, 1978 - Guadalajara. A truck driver was invited on board
a UFO where he spent 3 hours speaking (by telepaty) with 16 men.
One of them was his clone! Conscious recall. Considered a hoax
by the more serious investigators.

I can continue, but will mention just the most widely known,
Prospera Munoz. My collegue Jose Ruesga has concluded (after a
ten years long investigation in very close friendship) that all
was a psychological reaction to personal and familiar problems.
I refer you to our bulletin "Cuadernos de Ufolog=EDa" (in
Spanish). I can provide the exact reference if anybody is
interested.

 >But I do think that
 >until you talk to abductees, your work is in some ways
 >incomplete.

I completely agree. But incomplete does not means wrong.

 >>His reading has given me an idea. One of the reasons he believe
 >>that the Old Hag had an "objective component" was because the
 >>percipients described it _in_ their familiar surroundings.

 >>Let's put that upside down. What if the "Old Hag" is just the
 >>less extreme of a psychological condition which can easily go
 >>outside the familiar surroundings and show the same symptons
 >>(paralysis, menacing figures...) in non-familiar surrounding
 >>such as the alleged interior of a UFO?

 >>Worth pondering, at least IMHO.

 >It's pretty easy to make up any psychological condition you
 >want. But does it actually exist? Hufford's work is very
 >careful. He only theorizes on the basis of real, substantial
 >data.

The only real and substantial data collected by Hufford are
anecdotes of his witnesses. In basis to their similarities and
to the fact that they describe the incidents inside familiar
surroundings, he theorizes there must be a common cause. He did
_not_ eliminates a psycho/physiological one. In fact, the sleep
paralysis he discusses seems to fit quite good.

What I suggested is that Hufford (if only because the abduction
phenomena had not arised by then) did not consider the
possibility that his "Old Hag" phenomenon was just part of a
continuum, just as the UFO phenomenon is part of a continuum
with BVM apparitons, ghosts, etc. (Hilary Evans wrote about all
this better that whatever I can say here)

 >>Budd Hopkins himself named the Abduction Phenomenon as an
 >>"invisible epidemic" precisely because he advocated that its
 >>victims did not have conscious recall. Of course, after somebody
 >>has gone under hypnosis and have become convinced that he/she is
 >>being abducted periodically, how reliable are his/her "conscious
 >>memories" from then onwards?

 >There you go. Jumping to conclusions, once again. Abductees
 >report these conscious memories before they're ever hypnotized.

Sorry, no. At least, Hopkins' abductees in his first book didn
not. Yes, there are people who say they have conscious recall
about part or the whole incident (Vilas Boas was the very first
example) but we should exam each case individually, and do not
mix these kind of incidents (quite similar to the contactee
stories, in general) with those who did not remember anything
alien until they went under hypnosis.

(snip)

 >There's also Eddie Bullard's statistical study of which memories
 >abductees have consciously, and which characteristically only
 >emerge under hypnosis. I think it was published in IUR.

Gotcha! I seem to have missed this one. Can anybody provide a
reference? My condolences, I am very sorry about your fire,
Greg, just to think something similar could happen to my library
give me the creeps!


Luis R. Gonzalez







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 15

                  Re: Another Abduction Question - Gonzalez

From: Luis R. Gonzalez <lrgm@arrakis.es>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 13:11:46 +0100
Fwd Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 10:12:54 -0500
Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question - Gonzalez


 >From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 18:25:54 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question

 >>From: Luis R. Gonzalez <lrgm@arrakis.es>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 16:47:49 +0100
 >>Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question

 >>>From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 02:09:25 -0500
 >>>Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question

<snip>

 >When someone reports an on-board experience which seems bizarre
 >by every day life standards, what logical reason is there to
 >doubt the person making the report?

 >With no other evidence either pro or con, I give such reports an
 >exactly 50% chance of being either true or false. Further
 >reports and other evidence from the same or other abductees
 >causes the probability to go up or down from the original 50%.

 >I don't see how anyone can simply wave away experience reports
 >because they don't happen in our current-day Earth society
 >environment.


Once again, I usually do _not_ doubt the person, only the
reality of his/her experiences and/or conclusions about them.

Why? Precisely because they don't happen in our current-day
environment and some details are even impossible by our known
Physics (going thru walls, levitating, even telepaty).

And yes, I may admit we do not know all about Physics, but I am
sure that everything we will learn in the future, will _never_
contradicts what we already know. And remember, those
conclusions had already been corroborated by uncountless
experiments and the everyday workings of our modern technology,
in contrast with abductee's stories, whose lack of coherence is
staggering.

I will never tire to repeat that if all those people were
counting the same story, they will be much more believable.


Yours,

Luis R. Gonzalez







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 15

                             Discredited Canards

From: Luis R. Gonzalez <lrgm@arrakis.es>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 14:14:41 +0100
Fwd Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 10:14:24 -0500
Subject: Discredited Canards


I have just read Jerome Clark's review of Pflock & Moseley's
"Shockingly Close to the Truth!" in IUR Spirng 2002 (I am quite
behind my reading list :-))

Of course, I have not been surprised and every one is entitled
to his opinion, but I cannot leave the following sentence
unattended:

"(Moseley) repeats them with no hint of critical reservation,
right down to the repeatedly discredited canard that Linda's
story echoes the plot of a 1989 science-fiction novel"

Who has "repeatedly discredited" that "canard"? Sorry, the
similarities are _not_ a canard, they are a _fact_ and they are
there for anybody to ponder. The real question is their
significance. I have asked about it several times in this List
and I am still waiting for a panel of literary judges to decide
if the undeniable similarities are trivial or not.

Must I repeat them again, for anybody in this non-unbiased List
to opine?


Luis R. Gonzalez Manso







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 15

                  Re: Another Abduction Question - Gonzalez

From: Luis R. Gonzalez <lrgm@arrakis.es>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 14:42:30 +0100
Fwd Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 10:16:36 -0500
Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question - Gonzalez


 >From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 16:16:39 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question

 >>From: Luis R. Gonzalez <lrgm@arrakis.es>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 16:47:49 +0100
 >>Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question

 >>>From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 02:09:25 -0500
 >>>Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question

First at all, it seems that I have to justify my skepticism. I
do believe that you, John, are being sincere in what you say, in
your feelings about your situation, how it has changed your
life, etc..

But the scene you present (and share with many others) is so
contrary to normal life and physics, and you (speaking in
plural) offer so little unambiguous evidence that I maintain
that the conclusions you have reached are unwarranted.

 >>>On-List or anywhere in 'public' I only speak of the incidents
 >>>that I recall clearly, and that I _know_ happened because I had
 >>>to live through them. Some of those incidents involve multiple
 >>>witnesses. Myself and many others I have interacted with do
 >>>consciously recall incidents 'on-board' UFOs. I don't discuss
 >>>them publicly because memory of the incidents may be incomplete,
 >>>or happened at night, _after_ I had gone to sleep. One such
 >>>memory involves a procedure where 'something' that resembled a
 >>>man-sized praying mantis shoved a rod/probe up my nose. I felt
 >>>pain and pressure as it pushed the object deep into my head. As
 >>>if it wasn't terrifying enough, what really rattled me and
 >>>sticks out in memory is the dull crunching sound I 'heard'
 >>>inside my head as the probe (obviously) penetrated a sinus
 >>>cavity or bone. That memory replayed in my head for weeks after
 >>>the incident. BTW, there was dried blood on my face the next
 >>>morning from the same nostril that I recalled the 'thing' had
 >>>shoved the probe into.

 >>Just one question. Did you remember if the rod/probe was covered
 >>in blood when extracted? Surely, you should have had a big
 >>hemorrhage then.

 >I closed my eyes when he started pushing that 'thing' into my
 >nose. I was scared half to death and it _hurt._ Right after I
 >heard the 'crunch' sound inside my head (of bone or cartilage or
 >whatever) there was a flash of intense white light. I then woke
 >up and discovered the dried blood on my face. There was no
 >'active' bleeding going on when I awoke. The blood stream on my
 >face was tacky, almost dry. I would hope that

 >My own 'speculation':

 >If this procedure is being performed regularly on people, it
 >would make sense for them to close or cauterize the wound in
 >order to prevent people from bleeding to death internally,
 >suffering a stroke from a stray blood-clot or drowning in their
 >own blood while asleep or unconscious. In fact, doctors have
 >found evidence of a 'surgical' procedure that was performed
 >inside of my sinuses/head. See next.

Well, considering how often the abductees talk about nasal
hemorrhagues (not dry residues as you, but flowing blood), your
suggested procedure is not standarized (as usual with everything
in this phenomena)..

 >A few years after this 'probe' incident was when the UFO
 >encounter that I have already described in other posts to the
 >list, transpired. I had to go to an emergency room for treatment
 >the next morning. The attending ER physician and an ear, nose
 >and throat specialist _both_ saw evidence of "surgery" inside my
 >head/sinuses. (Their term not mine, they were the ones who both
 >asked me about the "surgery" I had had in my head.) "Surgery"
 >which I have _never_ had. In fact, I was as upset by that
 >assertion as I was about the swollen eye and severe nose-bleed
 >that brought me to them in the first place.

You have mentioned several times how two specialists saw
evidence of "surgery" inside your sinuses. Well, I would like
(and you should look for) a more precise conclusion with
arguments. I can only suppose that they found some scarred
tissue (size, form?) but that, in itself, not necessarily imply
an operation.

A precision, please. Reading Brookesmith's version of your
incident, he presents your _conscious recall_ as obtained under
hypnosis several years after the UFO incident. More precisely,
he wrote that the incident of the probe was_precisely_ what
happened that fateful 1979 night.

According to your words, the incident of the probe refers
necessarily to a different abduction.

 >Louis...

 >This is not a 'masturbatory' exercise for me. What I have been
 >through is frightening, has altered the course of my entire
 >life, and is something I am very serious about. I am convinced
 >that what is happening is a physical, nuts and bolts, blood and
 >bone reality that needs to be acknowledged and investigated
 >until some reliable answers are obtained.

 >The threat and implications of this phenomenon are staggering.
 >People better wake up... and soon. Condescension and giggling
 >are extremely inappropriate responses to something that could be
 >knocking on -their door- next.

 >><snip>

 >>>Yes, I recall 'on-board' incidents.

 >>I suppose your recalled 'on-board' incidents looked as real as
 >>that giant insect you saw one day in the streets of New York.
 >>John, I am not saying that you are lying or anything similar,
 >>only that your concious 'recalls' do not seem reliable always,
 >>IMHO.

 >Hey man, the good news is; I don't particularly care if you or
 >any one else "believes" me or not. :)

You do not care about being believed, but do insist that we
should act as if what you believe were real. Contradictory.

 >I am _responsibly_ reporting what has happened to me as clearly,
 >honestly and openly as I possibly can. My conscience dictates
 >that I do so. I have been compelled and counselled by people who
 >I trust and look up to that I should 'report.' And I have been
 >doing just that for seven years. I will continue to do so until
 >an independent, multi-disciplinary team of professionals,
 >scientists, academics is assembled and an investigation into
 >this phenomenon is commenced. Until they nail my coffin shut if
 >I have to. Even then my voice will reach out from beyond the
 >grave via this public record that we're all leaving behind.

Precisely because you _very responsibly_ report everything that
has happened to you in all its incongruity (not like some
researchers who report only what coincides with their own ideas)
we notice it.

I was very precise. I do _not_ "think" you are "not reliable". I
_do_ think your memories are "not reliable", in the sense they
do not refer to an objective, material reality.

An aside. Can you tell us how many separate abductions do you
recall (conscious or unconsciously)? When was the last?

Excuse me for insisting, but referring to your consciously
experienced (not recalled) sighting in broad daylight and in
full view of several hundred people and occupied vehicles (who
did not view anything) in New York's 42nd Street of a five
stories tall insectoid creature, you must admit that was a
physical impossibility. Biological speaking there can no exist
such a big creature with such a spindly extremities.

<snip>

 >I'm not familiar with "Project VISIT." Could you elaborate for
 >the benefit of those of us who do not know what it is?

Sorry, there is no much to elaborate about. The current MUFON's
Director (sorry, I do not remember his name) exposed its goals
(as commented) in a MUFON Symposium around 1978, and I never
heard about VISIT again, until recently that they wrote they are
still at it.

This is a cuestion that goes in another thread. What happens
when the researchers do not find whatever they were looking for?
For instance, your own Dust Bunny test (in which I gladly
participate). Several years later, nothing has been written
about the conclusions. Surely, they did not find anything
strange (contrary to Dr. Levengood who said he had), another
matters pressed and so, why bother to report a failure? If only,
because the lack of negative report will allow them to continue
believing that their positive findings were significant.

Another example, on a more pedestrian way, inspired by recent
media news about a man who stabbed his wife, allegedly during a
nightmare. Why, John, had you discarded the possibility that
those nasal hemorrhagues were due just to a (involuntary and
even unconscious, of course) jab by your wife because you were
snoring?  :-))

Yours,

Luis R. Gonzalez







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 15

             Interpreting Paranormal Experiences Through Physics

From: Jeff Behnke <jeff@paranormalnews.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 09:56:30 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 10:20:18 -0500
Subject: Interpreting Paranormal Experiences Through Physics


Source: http://www.paranormalnews.com/article.asp?ArticleID=539


Elaine Bickle, Geologist and author of 'Voices or Echoes?' held
a chat with us on Thursday, February 13th, to discuss her new
autobiographical e-book, which is aimed to educate people to use
science instead of superstition when interpreting anomalous
events in their own lives.

Her e-book details many of her own experiences, such as
experiencing the same day twice, waking up in bizarre places
covered in blood, speaking to her dead grandfather, and holding
conversations with her deceased twin who died at birth. The
following is the transcript, edited slightly for clarity:


ParanormalNews: Could you tell us more about yourself and why
you decided to write 'Voices or Echoes?'

Elaine Bickle: I am a retired geologist. I decided to write
Voices or Echoes? because my position in the sciences will no
longer affected by writing it. Many people keep their paranormal
experiences to themselves until retirement. Maybe if enough of
us "come out" people won't have to do that in the future.

ParanormalNews: Have you witnessed other people within
professional fields who have planned on coming out after
retirement as well?

Elaine Bickle: I worked for NASA as a research assistant when I
was in graduate school. The lies told to the public are
overwhelming! Richard Hoagland tried to tell the truth about
some things and his pass to the base was taken away. I saw data
come in from Voyager that showed two kind of chlorophyll on
Europa, The next day NASA said it was all faulty data. I've
heard some of the people saying they will tell all this when
they retire.

ParanormalNews: when you say Hoagland's pass to the base was
taken away, what specifically do you mean?

Elaine Bickle: He wasn't allowed on the property at Kennedy
space center or Houston.

ParanormalNews: Were you at NASA while Hoagland was?

Elaine Bickle: No. I was at a separate NASA funded research lab.
We were mapping ancient rivers and lakes on Mars. The water is
frozen now, but the erosion patterns are still there.

ParanormalNews: How does the NASA power structure work? Covering
up data does seem to be something that would be difficult to do
with such a large amount of people working for them. Especially
for an organization that considers its work scientifically
based.

Elaine Bickle: It is done by mostly keeping military people
around and by having the people sign secrecy papers. It is hard
to keep things a secret, but nobody believes people when they
say NASA is lying.

ParanormalNews: How familiar are you with the inner workings of
NASA when it comes to these military people? Do they have direct
access to everything going on and call all the shots?

Elaine Bickle: Yes. I'm not privy to the inner workings except
through the grapevine. Hoagland did get some of his data from
someone at the "TOP" who secretly unscrambled the radio
broadcasts from the space shuttle so people all over the world
would pick it up. It's just that when someone does that, no one
believes the data is real.

ParanormalNews: Are there other instances when NASA's employees
have tried to release information and were removed from NASA?
Does everyone sign papers to keep them quiet about what they
witness?

Elaine Bickle: I don't know about everyone. They tried to get me
to sign papers, but I wouldn't. I heard many of the military
guys arguing over sending civilians up in the space shuttle
because they couldn't trust them not to tell what they saw up
there. When the shuttle blew up with a civilian on board, I was
not surprised.

ParanormalNews: What are your opinions about NASA's
investigations into the Challenger tragedy, knowing what you do
about the organization?

Elaine Bickle: They knew it would blow up. They admitted that. I
think it was a warning to other civilians.

ParanormalNews: So after a lifetime of being told to put a sock
in it while you're on the job and in the field, where has this
left you?

Elaine Bickle: Ready to take them all on! It's time that people
realize these things go on. I'm talking not only about NASA, but
paranormal events in people's lives.

ParanormalNews: Which you have had in your own life. Could you
describe a few? I know you go into more detail in your book, but
gives us a few examples.

Elaine Bickle: There have been two instances when I have
awakened in remote areas sick, dirty and my lower body covered
in blood. Before these events, I would wake up at home with a
bruised and swollen navel. Once, I found human internal tissues
in my navel. I have had time anomaly events. I once went through
the same day twice. Not the same events, just the same date.

ParanormalNews: What are your own interpretations of why these
events occur to you?

Elaine Bickle: I can explain the time anomaly events by using
quantum physics. The other events happen because I am the
subject of someone's experiment.

ParanormalNews: Are the time anomaly events any different than
deja vu? Which as far as I know, no one has had a good
explanation of why the feeling occurs.

Elaine Bickle: The answer to that is a bit complicated. The
universes next to ours have time going in the opposite direction
to ours. That means that their past is our future. Our universes
are phasing into each other all the time. So we are getting
"memories" going in two directions.

ParanormalNews: Like when a drop of water hits a pond, the waves
go in two directions?

Elaine Bickle: That is the basic premise of quantum mechanics,
but it's more like crossed telephone wires. The Elaine in the
next universe was born from the grave and has already lived my
future. If I phase into her, then I can predict the future and
have repeated memories when I do something for the first time,
but she has already done it in her universe.

ParanormalNews: how would you cross the telephone wires, so to
speak? Why would universes phase into one another?

Elaine Bickle: It's called an Einstein-Rosen bridge. These
things connect universes through black holes. Fred Alan Wolf and
other physicists think that we can also phase in and out of an
adjacent universe by many other means.

ParanormalNews: how does the 19 1/2 degree theory fit into the
time anomaly events which occur in your own life? I know
Hoagland's an avid 19 1/2 degree researcher, but I am guessing
that the significance of the hypothesis escapes most.

Elaine Bickle: The vortex that occurs on a 3-d sphere rotating
in hyperspace could be a conduit to other dimensions or parallel
universes. All his research has been born out. A steel ball that
is spun will go higher into the air and stay aloft longer than a
non-rotating ball. Hoagland thinks this may be the secret to
their transportation between dimensions.

ParanormalNews: Which is where you could bridge across universes
located in other dimensions?

Elaine Bickle: Yes. Or use it to flash in and out of hyperspace
like UFOs seem to do.

ParanormalNews: How do you equate apparitions of deceased
people, the feeling that something is behind you or in the room
with you--or in your case, the visitations by your grandfather--
  to unknown physical laws?

Elaine Bickle: Many ghosts are found in man made structures
containing metal or rocks with metal. These magnetic anomalies
could detain the electrical energy from a dead person or trap
the "ghost" from the next universe.

ParanormalNews: How about 'orbs' that supposedly appear in homes
and areas which are said to be haunted? the same electrical
energies?

Elaine Bickle: Maybe, or magnetic anomalies like I found in the
Puget Sound area.

ParanormalNews: Sightings of the Mothman? Bigfoot? How far does
your definition of the paranormal go? How much is covered by
these unknown physical laws?

Elaine Bickle: Good question. If these being are from other
dimensions or other universes and are just visiting, that would
explain a lot. The laws aren't really unknown, just unlearned by
most people.

ParanormalNews: Are you by any chance writing these concepts
down in a kind of Para-Physics handbook yet? How much would you
say is covered in Voices or Echoes when it comes to your ideas?

Elaine Bickle: I tried to be brief in my book because it is an
e-book right now. If it comes out in print, I'll probably add
more to it. I did cover all the main ideas. I didn't always go
into detail.

ParanormalNews: According to your book, you've had a pretty
strict upbringing. Could you describe some of it and how it has
affected your own perceptions?

Elaine Bickle: My family were fundamentalists. They taught me
that everything was the female's fault because she gave the
apple to Adam. I knew that was poppycock when I was very young.
I didn't swallow the things I was told because they were so
outlandish. This caused me to become an outcast. I am so
thankful for that. I broke away and became educated. This was
not allowed. It was considered Devil worship to get an
education. The pulpit can't hold educated people captive.

ParanormalNews: How have they held people captive and what would
your recommended response to someone going through the same
thing be?

Elaine Bickle: GET OUT! Don't let them fool you. They don't want
to know the facts, but if you do, go for it! They hold people
captive by scaring them with devils and demons. Uneducated
people don't know any better.

ParanormalNews: And in the modern day, there's an equation
relating ufos and abduction experience to devils and demons as
well. How would you respond to this?

Elaine Bickle: UFOs and abduction experiences are reported by 22
million people across the planet. We can't all be "Bad" people.
Most of these things can be explained by using quantum physics.
It is just that most people aren't familiar with physics and
don't know the paranormal is just physics people don't
understand.

ParanormalNews: Most people say that science is a reaction
against the superstition of the past, which the paranormal has
currently been pigeon-holed into. How are your own hypotheses
into the paranormal trying to break this tradition?

Elaine Bickle: My hypothesis is that scientists are avoiding
paranormal subjects because the answers are in hyperspace and
people tend to deitize (is that a word?) anything they can't see
or understand. I am trying to change that by teaching people
that the paranormal is just physics we need to investigate
further.

ParanormalNews: And the experiments that are being done with
you. Why? Does someone want you to stop equating the paranormal
to unknown physical laws?

Elaine Bickle: I can't form an opinion without more data. I
think I have been an experimental subject since I was a child.
Whenever we had to write an essay and we weren't given a
specific subject, I would always write about being in someone's
experiment. I've always felt that. When I was in junior high,
several of the girls started breaking out after we were given
shots by the county health department. Only girls seemed to be
affected. A nurse came out to the school and told us that there
was a rent in the atmosphere between Atlanta and Dallas and was
causing the rashes. In the 90's the government was caught
experimenting on several groups of people in the south.

ParanormalNews: Your e-book has a lot of autobiographical
material in it about how your life events have affected your
views. What would you want someone to get from it after they
finish?

Elaine Bickle: What I want people to get out of my book is to
learn! Find out what is going on don't be ashamed to come
forward with your stories.

ParanormalNews: You've obviously read a lot of material being
printed about the paranormal. What would your opinions be on the
field, if you could call it a field of research? Whose would you
recommend for further reading?

Elaine Bickle: First of all, I suggest not reading until after
you have had an experience. IF you read about liver cancer long
enough, you'll develop the symptoms. What I suggest in my
"surviving the paranormal" section of my book is to learn as
much science as possible. Then read only reputable authors who
aren't trying to make a buck from people's misfortunes.

ParanormalNews: Is there anything else you'd like to add before
we let you go tonight?

Elaine Bickle: I can only tell people to learn and keep on
learning. And I thank you, Jeff, for allowing me to take up this
much of your time.

ParanormalNews: And to everyone else, thanks for reading!

She can be reached at: sfmeister@harborside.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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 15

                         Dear (Lowly) Konstituent...

From: Larry W. Bryant <overtci@cavtel.net>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 20:23:20 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 10:52:50 -0500
Subject: Dear (Lowly) Konstituent...


To readers following the saga of Congress's missed opportunity
to help resolve the worldwide government coverup of the UFO
experience, I offer yet another piece of this political puzzle -
  a response from Va. Sen. George Allen to my recent complaint
about the U. S. Bureau of Land Management's censoring of the
exact location of the University of New Mexico-conducted
excavation of the Roswell crash's 'skip site':


Thank you for your recent communication. I welcome this
opportunity to be of assistance.

In am sending your letter to the United States Department of
the Interior for their consideration and I have asked them to
keep me informed of their progress.

As we strive to protect our nation's cherished freedoms while
embracing new opportunities for all Americans, please know that
I consider it a high honor and privilege to work for you in the
United States Senate. Please let me know if I can be of further
assistance to you on any other matter.

With warm regards, I remain . . .

Sincerely, George Allen."



Please note that, based on Ufological history, I harbor no
illusions as to what a lone senator can do toward ending the
Cosmic Watergate. Indeed, consider the content of the following
letter auto-penned by Rep. Jim Matheson to one of his
constituents in Utah:


"Thank you for your recent letter concerning the Disclosure
Project Press Event recently held in Washington, DC. I
appreciate you taking the time to bring this information to my
attention. I have received copies of many of the materials
presented at this briefing.

Please be assured that should legislation be presented in
Congress addressing these issues, I will keep your views in
mind.

Again, thank you for bringing this to my attention. Hearing
from you is important to me. Please do not hesitate to contact
me in the future on issues of importance to you.

Best wishes,


JIM MATHESON - Member of Congress."


When he saw the above slice of Form-speak, an investigative
researcher based in Wisconsin had this to say:


"There seems to be many ways of saying, 'Don't call us: we'll
call you.' In Hollywood, you know your project is dead in the
water when they say they'll call you and then they don't.
Congress has perfected a way of kissing people off and making it
sound like they're taking them seriously. [Some opportunists]
would use such letters as proof Congress is panting for more of
[their] rantings."






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 15

                CI: Space Exploration: The Next Fifteen Years

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 23:20:41 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 10:55:45 -0500
Subject: CI: Space Exploration: The Next Fifteen Years


Cydonian Imperative
2-25-03

Space Exploration: The Next Fifteen Years
by Mac Tonnies

See: http://www.mactonnies.com/cydonia.html (page 36)

Assuming NASA proceeds with an upgraded design to replace the
obsolete Space Shuttle fleet in the wake of the Columbia
disaster, it's likely the new spacecraft will be a close
relative of the X-37, pictured below.

[image]

Artist's conception of the X-37.

The X-37 concept (or a derivative thereof) is needed in order to
maintain a manned presence in Earth orbit. But can we continue
to justify manned spaceflight for the sake of manned
spaceflight?

While the ostensibly International Space Station (ISS) is
supposed to provide justification for orbital flights, the
catastophic demise of Columbia has framed national space
priorities in a stark new light. Space enthusiasts have long
since grown bored by endless shuttle "missions" that consist of
little more than going in circles. While the ISS is not
completely without promise, the current "exploration" paradigm
is incapable of utilizing it as anything more than a celestial
rest-stop. A new destination is needed.

[image]

Moon base constructed with existing technology.

A resurrected shuttle program based on new designs and
technologies should serve as the first stage in a new era of
exploration. For instance, the ISS could be used as a
construction platform for a long- overdue return to the Moon. It
is well within our ability--and budget--to construct a
permanently crewed lunar base while committing to a
multinational expedition to Mars within the next fifteen years.
Neither venture is exclusive. We can, and should, do both.

Turning our attention from the dreary familiarity of low Earth
orbit to the beckoning vistas of the Moon and beyond justifies
the expense of the ISS by turning it from an overpriced tourist
attraction to a vital staging base. At the same time, the need
to launch massive, expensive payloads from Earth is dramatically
curbed. Astronauts living on the Moon will be able to extract
water from ice deposits as well as grow their own food:
techniques that will prove invaluable as we extend our reach
into interplanetary space and onto the Martian surface.

[image]

Mars: the logical next step.

A new national space imperative must rise from the ashes of
Columbia and Challenger before it. Exploration of the Moon and
Mars is not a mere gesture; it is an evolutionary necessity, and
the United States stands poised to reap enormous benefit if only
we dare. If we don't, others certainly will; China, acutely
sensing the forgotten urgency of the U.S.-Soviet "Space Race,"
has set its sights on the Moon and has hatched ambitious schemes
for manned installations.

With nuclear space propulsion finally within our grasp courtesy
of Project Prometheus, we would be masochistic to deny ourselves
the new frontiers promised by the Moon and Mars. No more going
in circles and false romantics. Unless we act aggressively, we
will sacrifice the lessons implicit in Columbia's loss.

Let's keep going--in the spirit of peace and knowledge.

-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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 16

                          'From Elsewhere' (Review)

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 17:28:31 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 11:04:28 -0500
Subject: 'From Elsewhere' (Review)


FROM ELSEWHERE by Scott Mandelker
review by Mac Tonnies

for more: http://www.mactonnies.com/ufobooks.html

Do you feel "different"? Like you don't belong? Have you always
been an outsider or a loner? Do you daydream about places you've
never been or experience a heightened sensitivity to
environmental issues? If so, then you may be... "From
Elsewhere", according to author Scott Mandelker, who alleges
that not all aliens are of the short, big-headed variety. Some
of them look just like regular folks. And the clincher is that
you might be one of them and not even know it. No, this isn't
the plot of a Philip K. Dick novel. Mandelker is perfectly
serious about his subject matter, and writes about those who
think they are extraterrestrial "walk-ins" and "wanderers" with
candor, defining a loose-knit counterculture of humans convinced
of their extraterrestrial origin.

"From Elsewhere" is not a scientific book in any recognized
sense, so don't expect proof that aliens are among us.
Mandelker's perspective is similar to the intuitive New Age
epistemology embraced by John Mack in "Abduction" and "Passport
to the Cosmos." Proving one's ET ancestry is not only deemed
impossible but considered essentially pointless. Mandelker (who
comes out of the cosmic closet as a human-incarnated ET in the
book's concluding pages), emphasizes the role of "subjective
knowing"--an alienating concept, to be sure, but one that
supposed walk-ins and wanderers must deal with before tuning
into their authentic selves. "From Elsewhere" is an
unconvincing, if intriguing, cultural document that adds a new
dynamic to the controversial evidence of alien visitation.


=====
 >Mac Tonnies
macbot@yahoo.com

MTVI: http://www.mactonnies.com
Transcelestial Ontology, Posthumanism and Theoretical Ufology

Blog: http://posthumanblues.blogspot.com (updated daily)





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 16

                             Spin Doctors - PhD

From: Mark Chesney <mark_a_chesney@compuserve.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 23:39:45 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 11:11:12 -0500
Subject: Spin Doctors - PhD


Sounds a lot like the sort of spin a Roswell-type event would
require, does it not?

Source: The Independent - UK

http://www.independent.co.uk/

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

Armageddon Asteroids 'best Kept Secret'
15 February 2003


A scientific adviser to the United States government has
suggested that secrecy might be the best option if scientists
were ever to discover that a giant asteroid was on course to
collide with Earth.

In certain circumstances, nothing could be done to avoid such a
collision and ensuing destruction, and it would be best not to
tell the public anything, said Geoffrey Sommer, of the Rand
Corporation in Santa Monica, California.

"When a problem arises with high uncertainty, there is an
opportunity to spin the problem to avoid global panic. If you
can't do anything about a warning, then there is no point in
issuing a warning at all," Dr Sommer told the association
yesterday.

"If an extinction-type impact is inevitable, then ignorance for
the populace is bliss. As a matter of common sense, if you can't
intercept it and you can't move people out of the way in time,
there's nothing you can do in terms of reducing the costs of the
potential impact," he said.

"Overreaction not just by the public but by policy-makers
scurrying around before the thing actually hits because we can't
do anything about it anyway ... to a large extent you are better
off not adding to your social costs," said Dr Sommer, who is
also an adviser on terrorism.

The US National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Nasa) is
conducting a 25-year survey of the sky to find asteroids wider
than a kilometre which could have a devastating impact if they
collided with Earth.

So far they have determined the orbits of about 60 per cent of
these objects and none so far have a trajectory that threatens
the world within the next couple of centuries, said David
Morrison of Nasa's Ames laboratory in Moffat Field, California.

"There are, however, many things out there that we know nothing
about," he said.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 16

              Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Roberts

From: Andy Roberts <aj.roberts@blueyonder.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 16:45:07 -0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 23:35:34 -0500
Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Roberts


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 13:34:36 -0600
 >Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

Pilgrims,

 >Apparently, to Andy, the only issues of importance are the ones
 >he chooses to take up, however inadequately. I am told,
 >incidentally, by a highly informed source that Andy's account of
 >this incident - and its reception by less UFOphobic British
 >colleagues - needs to be read with at least a pinch of salt.

This is most interesting Jerry. I presume, that because you
chose not to name your 'source' we can takle the above as an
anecdote? However, let's probe deeper. There are probably only
about five or six people who can talk with any degree of
authority about the ins and outs of the Cracoe case; myself,
Young Clarke The Post Modernist, Graham (and possibly Mark
Birdsall) and Jenny Randles. Now I can't see Graham wasting his
time on this List, Mark is out of the scene, which leave Jenny -
  so it must be her. So - why not tell us what you've been told
and I'll happily post you (by airmail) all the necessary
documentation to put you out of your ill-informed, anecdotal,
misery.

Oh, and if you think the details of the Cracoe case are just
'ordinary' misperception then I think that says more about the
Jerry Clark approach to ufology than your entire posting history
on this List.

Elsewhere in one of your posts (and in one Cathy's) you also
trot out the tired old chestnut 'what about radar and
photographs'. There are no 'good' UFO photographs and I'm afraid
radar is not even worth considering, being yet another layer of
information to interpret. The radar specialsts (both operators
and technicians) that Dave Clarke and I have spoken to over the
past few years are not impressed by any 'UFO' sightings obtained
on radar as Out of the Shadows shows.

But Jerry, thanks for the kind words for OOTS - somewhat at odds
about what you say about our research on this List but then
we've come to expect the contradictory from you over the years.
I'd recommend it to anyone out there - probably the best UFO
book you'll have read from the UK in a very long time - take a
risk and buy it - I _guarantee_ you won't be disappointed!.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 16

                              College Programs?

From: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 19:11:31 +0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 23:44:32 -0500
Subject: College Programs?


Hello Errol and List members,

If anyone can help with the following request please e-mail me
via the list or privately and I will pass the info on.

---

 >Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 00:19:23 CST
 >From: *****
 >Subject: college programs
 >To: webmaster@ufoinfo.com

 >Hello-

 >My name is ******* ***** and I am a current student
 >at the University of DePaul in Chicago, IL.  I am
 >inquiring on behalf of my educational goals, and I was
 >interested in learning more about the paranormal and
 >UFO's.  I have been in pursuit of finding a collegiate
 >institution that offers a program specializing in such
 >an area as UFO's. Do you know of any specific schools
 >that offer an undergraduate program like this?

 >I appreciate your time and hope to hear back from you
 >soon.

---

Thanks,

John Hayes

webmaster@ufoinfo.com

UFOINFO:- http://www.ufoinfo.com

Official Archives for UFO Roundup, AUFORN Australian
UFO Reports and Experiences, UFO + PSI Magazine
plus archives of Filer's Files, Oz Files, UFO News UK
and UFO Sightings Italia.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 16

                          Creating False Memories?

From: Steven L. Wilson Sr <Ndunlks@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 15:51:48 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 23:47:05 -0500
Subject: Creating False Memories?



Public release date: 16-Feb-2003

Contact: Lori Brandt
lbrandt@uci.edu
949-824-5484
University of California - Irvine


 From kissing frogs to demonic possession, people are led to
believe they experienced the improbable



Pioneer in false memory research presents latest findings at
AAAS Symposium

Irvine, Calif. -- During a recent study of memory recall and the
use of suggestive interviewing, UC Irvine cognitive psychologist
Elizabeth Loftus successfully planted false memories in
volunteers of several study groups -- memories that included
such unlikely events as kissing frogs, shaking hands with Bugs
Bunny at Disneyland, and witnessing a demonic possession. Her
success at planting these memories challenge the argument that
suggestive interviewing may reliably prompt real memories
instead of planting false ones. A pioneer in false memory
research and Distinguished Professor of Social Ecology at UCI,
Loftus will present her latest research at the American
Association for the Advancement of Science Annual Meeting in
Denver at the "Remembering Traumatic Experiences in Childhood:
Reliability and Limitations of Memory" symposium beginning at
2:30 p.m. MST Sunday, Feb. 16. Loftus conducted her study by
having volunteers conduct a set of actions that mixed the common
place (flipping a coin) with the unusual and even bizarre
(crushing a Hershey's kiss with a dental floss container).
Later, her research team asked volunteers to imagine additional
actions they performed that day, such as kissing a frog. At a
future time, participants were asked to recall their actions on
that specific day[j1]. Ayanna Thomas, a doctoral student in
Loftus' research group, found that 15 percent of the study's
volunteers claimed they had actually performed some of the
actions they had only imagined. In another study, Loftus showed
how false memories can be planted with a visual. Loftus and her
colleagues exposed volunteers to a fake print advertisement
describing a visit to Disneyland where they would meet Bugs
Bunny. Later, 33 percent of these volunteers claimed they knew
or remembered the event happening to them. (Bugs Bunny is a
Warner Bros. character and has never appeared at Disneyland.)
The false memory rate was boosted when people were given
multiple exposures to the fake advertisement. In one study, 36
percent of those given three exposures said they met Bugs Bunny,
compared to only 9 percent in a control condition. Loftus'
collaborators on this study included Kathryn Braun-LaTour,
Melissa Grinley and Jacquie Pickrell. These studies continue
three decades of research by Loftus proving that memory is
highly susceptible to distortion and contamination. Her past
work has shown that people can be led to remember rather
familiar or common experiences, even when these experiences
likely had not occurred. Much of Loftus's work has focused on
false claims of repressed memories of sexual abuse. She also has
shown that eyewitness accounts, notably those given in court,
often are inaccurate. Loftus has served as an expert witness or
consultant on some of the nation's most high-profile trials,
including the McMartin Pre-school molestation case, the
"Hillside Strangler" case, the police officers involved in the
Rodney King beating and the Bosnian War Trials. Ranked among the
25 psychologists most frequently cited in introductory
psychology textbooks, Loftus is the author of "Eyewitness
Testimony," which won a National Media Award, and co-author of
the widely cited book, "The Myth of Repressed Memory." ###

A complete archive of press releases is available on the
World Wide Web at:

www.today.uci.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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 16

                           Free UFO Database File

From: Barry Taylor <stingray@nor.com.au>
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 13:54:48 +1100
Fwd Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 23:49:05 -0500
Subject: Free UFO Database File


Hello List Members,

Just wanting to inform you all that I have installed more new
pages on my UFO site.


Free UFO Database

I have created a UFO Database for Microsoft '97 Access. Also
converts in Access 2000 - 2002. This Database includes a very
comprehensive user friendly GUI specially designed for face-to-
face and over the phone live data entry.

The program includes access to the most necessary UFO sighting
report questions. (one form)

Abduction reporting details are recorded in a two form
comprehensive database toggled go-between with the click of the
mouse.

Help windows are included with more difficult questions to be
recorded, by single click opening.

Multiple choice answers already included or input your own.

Personal contact database, Plus, Phone book database also
included in this huge one database program especially designed
for the individual or Group who records UFO related reporting
and data research.

I offer you this database free.

The program unzips into a huge 32Mb working Database.


Go to this link to download the 1.11Mb db1.zip file:

http://home.manyrivers.aunz.com/stingray/dbase.htm


Other recently installed pages of interest are:

Mystery lawn track

http://home.manyrivers.aunz.com/stingray/lawn.htm

UFO "Flap" & other UFO photos

http://home.manyrivers.aunz.com/stingray/ozimage.htm

UFO Photo Archives

http://home.manyrivers.aunz.com/stingray/archives.htm

My photos & research into "Spirit Orbs"

http://home.manyrivers.aunz.com/stingray/spirit1.htm


Hope you enjoy surfing my research web site.

Barry Taylor



Personal UFO Web Site
http://home.manyrivers.aunz.com/stingray/

Original site - (Est.1996)
http://www.nor.com.au/users/stingray/







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 17

                            Laughlin UFO Congress

From: Philip Mantle <philipmantle@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 14:10:39 -0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 11:51:57 -0500
Subject: Laughlin UFO Congress


I know some of you on the List were somewhat critical of the
Laughlin, Nevada UFO Congress.

This was my first time as a speaker at the Congress and I must
say that the whole event was run very professionally. The
organisers and their staff were extremely friendly and very
helpful.

The speakers list was wide and varied with something for
everyone.

All of those that I spoke to seemed to enjoy the whole week
including the social events which were held on an evening.

I personally would recommend the Congress to anyone and the
similar event staged by UFO MAGAZINE (UK) in Leeds this coming
September.


Regards,

Philip Mantle.
E-mail: philipmantle@hotmail.com
www.beyondpublications.com






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 17

                    Alien 'Abductees' Show Real Symptoms

From: Philip Mantle <philipmantle@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 15:03:42 -0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 12:06:14 -0500
Subject: Alien 'Abductees' Show Real Symptoms


Source: BBC News - In Depth

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2003/denver_2003/2769875.stm


Monday, 17 February, 2003, 07:58 GMT

Alien 'Abductees' Show Real Symptoms
Many abductees share personality traits

By Jonathan Amos
BBC News Online science staff in Denver

People who claim to have been kidnapped by aliens have a
tendency to believe in fantasies and suffer disturbing
experiences in their sleep, scientists have found.

But the researchers say "abductees" also believe in their
experiences so deeply that they display real stress symptoms
similar to those of traumatised battlefield veterans.

The latest research on the "taken" phenomenon was unveiled at
the annual meeting of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science in Denver.

"This underscores the power of emotional belief," Professor
Richard McNally, from Harvard University, told the BBC.

I've had several encounters with alien craft and I've had an
alien implant removed from my body

'Abductee'

"If you genuinely believe you've been traumatised and recall
these memories, you'll show the same psycho-physiologic
emotional reactions as people who really have been traumatised."

A group of abductees told the BBC about their experiences on
Saturday. One of them said: "I've had several encounters with
alien craft and I've had an alien implant removed from my body."

New-age beliefs

It was typical of the stories they all had to relate. It is
thought there are about four million Americans who believe they
have been abducted by extraterrestrials.

Scientists believe this clearly is not true, so why do abductees
believe they have been taken?

Professor McNally has found that many of them share personality
traits and sleep disorders.

"Most of them had pre-existing new-age beliefs - they were into
bio-energetic therapies, past lives, astral projection, tarot
cards, and so on," he said.

"Second, they have episodes of apparent sleep paralysis
accompanied by hallucinations."

Lab experiments

These frightening experiences usually prompted the individuals
to visit therapists, who would frequently suggest alien
abduction as a cause - an explanation which the abductees
readily accepted, he said.

Professor McNally has come up with a rational explanation of
alien abduction experiences which was endorsed by other
psychologists in Denver. He said the individuals conformed to a
"common recipe".

But the researcher stressed that many of the people really did
believe what they were saying.

In laboratory experiments, individuals were asked to relate
their experiences. These stories were played back to them and
their physical responses recorded.

"When a Vietnam vet has his experiences played back to him in
the lab of some combat event, his heart rate goes up and you see
an increase in sweating. If you don't have post-traumatic stress
disorder, you don't react that way.

"The heart-rate responses and sweating responses were at least
as great in the alien abductees when they heard their memories
of being taken and molested by space aliens and subjected to
experiments as those of people with genuine traumatic events."







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 17

                      Re: Discredited Canards - Sandow

From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 10:58:59 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 12:08:00 -0500
Subject: Re: Discredited Canards - Sandow


 >From: Luis R. Gonzalez <lrgm@arrakis.es>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 14:14:41 +0100
 >Subject: Discredited Canards

 >I have just read Jerome Clark's review of Pflock & Moseley's
 >"Shockingly Close to the Truth!" in IUR Spirng 2002 (I am quite
 >behind my reading list :-))

 >Of course, I have not been surprised and every one is entitled
 >to his opinion, but I cannot leave the following sentence
 >unattended:

 >"(Moseley) repeats them with no hint of critical reservation,
 >right down to the repeatedly discredited canard that Linda's
 >story echoes the plot of a 1989 science-fiction novel"

 >Who has "repeatedly discredited" that "canard"? Sorry, the
 >similarities are _not_ a canard, they are a _fact_ and they are
 >there for anybody to ponder.

The science fiction book is "Nighteyes," by Garfield Reeves-
Stevens.

Would Luis care to tell us whether he himself has read it?


Greg Sandow






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 17

               Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 11:07:17 -0600
Fwd Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:09:46 -0500
Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Clark


 >From: Andy Roberts <aj.roberts@blueyonder.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 16:45:07 -0000
 >Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 13:34:36 -0600
 >>Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?


Patient and gentle listfolk:

 >Oh, and if you think the details of the Cracoe case are just
 >'ordinary' misperception then I think that says more about the
 >Jerry Clark approach to ufology than your entire posting history
 >on this List.

Nah, I don't think so. As Cathy has shown in her exchange with
you, your understanding of what science knows about
misperception is next to nonexistent, thus your continuing
effort to elevate ordinary misperception into RMP, which you
have never been able to define or demonstrate.

 >Elsewhere in one of your posts (and in one Cathy's) you also
 >trot out the tired old chestnut 'what about radar and
 >photographs'. There are no 'good' UFO photographs and I'm afraid
 >radar is not even worth considering, being yet another layer of
 >information to interpret. The radar specialsts (both operators
 >and technicians) that Dave Clarke and I have spoken to over the
 >past few years are not impressed by any 'UFO' sightings obtained
 >on radar as Out of the Shadows shows.

Well, I guess that settles it.

Seriously, folks, Andy just makes my point: that only his highly
slanted perspective, and that of persons who agree with him
absolutely, is worth heeding. I believe the psychiatric
diagnosis for this sort of solipsism is narcissism. Those
interested in more serious points of view may turn to the
relevant literature. Three examples off the top of my head:

For an extraordinary investigation into an enormously puzzling,
highly evidential radar/visual case, see Brad Sparks's entry on
the RB-47 case in my UFO Encyclopedia, 2nd Ed., pp. 761-90.
There is also Allan Hendry's in-depth investigation of the
Ocala, Florida, r/v case (pp. 681-82). For an excellent
photographic case, which has managed to resist decades' worth of
pelicanist deconstruction, see Bruce Maccabee's work on the
McMinville photo.  Informed Listfolk will have their own
favorite examples that will come to mind.

There is, of course, also the option of simply ignoring the
usual hot air wafting our way from Roberts's
cyberpsychosocialgeographical region.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 17

                   Re: Another Abduction Question - Sandow

From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 12:13:29 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:15:49 -0500
Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question - Sandow


 >From: Luis R. Gonzalez <lrgm@arrakis.es>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 11:38:40 +0100
 >Subject:  Re: Another Abduction Question

 >Yes I have, from cover to cover... and did not find them
 >convincing. For instance, Bullard famous finding about an
 >abduction sequence was stadistically wrong. I give here a
 >short extract of my conclusion (hurriedly translated into
 >English, excuse me):

 >>From the total of 302 incidents, only 195 include two or more
 >>episodes. From that total, 165 present them in the same order,
 >>and 27 others offer only one alteration.

 >>He considers that from chance only you will expect no more that 12
 >>cases among the 136 cases with more than three episodes. It looks
 >>irrefutable.

 >Not so. Bullard takes a simplistic strategy pointing that to
 >order 3 elements (Capture, Exam, Return) there are 6
 >possibilities (CER, CRE, ECR, ERC, REC, RCE) , but only one
 >(CER) is correct. But, how many of those hypothetic possibilites
 >would appear really in a witness account?... One, and only one
 >(nobody will Return before being Captured, etc.). No surprise
 >here.

 >Yes, before you say it, there is a contradiction with the above
 >paragraph. So, the same analysis was expanded to 4 elements,
 >with similar results. I can provide the complete review (in
 >Spanish) to anybody interested.

I thought Eddie wrote about a sequence of six elements. (I think
six is the right number.)

In any case, I regret that I don't read Spanish, and can't read
your full review. You've obviously thought about this very
seriously, and it's a shame I can't read what you wrote.

I'll forward your comments here to Eddie, and see what his
response might be. Maybe he reads Spanish, and would be willing
to read your complete review.

I do have to say, though, that this is just one aspect of
Eddie's work, and a very early part of it, at that. I've found
his later papers more interesting.

 >>But the published literature isn't enough. In my
 >>opinion, it doesn't tell you enough about what abductees are really
 >>like. The reality is both more strange and more grounded in everyday
 >>life than you'd guess from reading all these books.

 >Back to square one! Well, after reading a lot of first-hand
 >abductees stories, I agree, the abduction as given a sense to
 >everything that happen in their lifes. All and everything is
 >interpreted under its light. Maybe if they were able to do just
 >the opposite...

Well, this shows why it's good - in my opinion - to meet some
abductees. Most of those I've met don't do what Luis says - they
don't interpret their lives in light of what they think are
their abduction experiences. They come to a researcher like Budd
Hopkins with memories of experiences they can't understand. His
work with them helps them, they say, to understand those
experiences. But they generally don't take it further, at least
in my experience with them. They go on with their normal lives,
making the best of things as all of us do - without thinking
that their abductions give their lives any special meaning.

I don't think I'd have known this if I hadn't met abductees,
instead of just reading about them. The most misleading sources,
in many ways, are books written by the abductees themselves. Any
abductee motivated to write a book is more involved with the
subject - far more involved -- than most abductees I've met.

 >I was not being sarcastic (intending to wound anybody), just as
 >you try to disqualify me wondering if I was familiar with the
 >literature, I was just pointing to a fact you should take into
 >account. Misteriously, aliens seem to have America in their
 >viewfinder (Sorry, but I cannot escape the similarities with the
 >inminent war).

Can't blame you for drawing a parallel. Americans (as I think
our present political leadership shows) have their own view of
the world, and don't pay proper attention to what people in
other countries think.

 >Sure, there are abductees in Europe... and even in Spain. Do you
 >want a short resum=E9?

 >June 9, 1975 (the very first one) - Canary Islands. Several
 >members of a contactee group go to an arranged meeting (by
 >ouija) and later discover 2 hours of missing time. Under
 >hipnosis, they recall an abduction.

 >Feb 1978 - Medinaceli. The famous "Julio F." case. The witness
 >was discovered (and first hipnotized) by none other that Mr.
 >Jordan Pe=F1a (confessed creator of the UMMO hoax) so its reality
 >is very suspicious.

 >Dec 18, 1978 - Guadalajara. A truck driver was invited on board
 >a UFO where he spent 3 hours speaking (by telepaty) with 16 men.
 >One of them was his clone! Conscious recall. Considered a hoax
 >by the more serious investigators.

 >I can continue, but will mention just the most widely known,
 >Prospera Munoz. My collegue Jose Ruesga has concluded (after a
 >ten years long investigation in very close friendship) that all
 >was a psychological reaction to personal and familiar problems.
 >I refer you to our bulletin "Cuadernos de Ufolog=EDa" (in
 >Spanish). I can provide the exact reference if anybody is
 >interested.

I meant that there are abductees whose cases haven't been
published, and whose experiences are like the ones Budd Hopkins
and David Jacobs describe in their books. I know this from
talking with Budd and Dave, who've encountered abductees from
other countrries. I myself have known a couple from Israel, and
I've seen a video of Budd Hopkins and John Mack hypnotizing an
abductee from Turkey.

 >>But I do think that
 >>until you talk to abductees, your work is in some ways incomplete.

 >I completely agree. But incomplete does not means wrong.

In this case, I think it comes close to that. I can only repeat
what I've said several times. After I spent a lot of time with
abductees, I felt that no abduction book I read - including
those by people like Budd, who are my friends - really conveyed
every essential part of the story.

 >>It's pretty easy to make up any psychological condition you
 >want. But
 >>does it actually exist? Hufford's work is very careful. He only
 >>theorizes on the basis of real, substantial data.

 >The only real and substantial data collected by Hufford are
 >anecdotes of his witnesses. In basis to their similarities and
 >to the fact that they describe the incidents inside familiar
 >surroundings, he theorizes there must be a common cause. He did
 >_not_ eliminates a psycho/physiological one. In fact, the sleep
 >paralysis he discusses seems to fit quite good.

 >What I suggested is that Hufford (if only because the abduction
 >phenomena had not arised by then) did not consider the
 >possibility that his "Old Hag" phenomenon was just part of a
 >continuum, just as the UFO phenomenon is part of a continuum
 >with BVM apparitons, ghosts, etc. (Hilary Evans wrote about all
 >this better that whatever I can say here)


One of the most admirable things about Hufford is how careful
he is with hypotheses. In fact, if I remember correctly (I don't
have access to his book right now), the main point of his book
about the "Old Hag" is to carefully compare theories about the
phenomenon to the actual data.

Hilary's work is very striking, and important. But there's also
a certain "Wow" element to it - in the sense that he looks at
all these phenomena, and says, "Just look at what the human mind
can come up with!" He doesn't try (because it's not his purpose)
to form any detailed psychological hypothesis about how these
many phenomena are related.

Hufford, I think, would insist on studying such a theory in
detail. If he considered it the way he considered the theories
about the "Old Hag," he'd want to know exactly what this
"continuum" was, and how, exactly, we know that the phenomena
that are supposed to be part of it are actually related. He'd
want to look at each phenomenon independently, just as carefully
as he studied the "Old Hag," and show in each case how the
phenomenon was part of the supposed continuum.

In fact, he does something similar with abductions, in his
remarks at the MIT abduction conference. He's pretty scathing to
abduction researchers, for, in his view, forming the theory that
abductions are physically real long before the data is strong
enough to show that. I think, though it's only my guess, that
he'd be just as scathing toward the idea that all these many
phenomena are related.

 >>>Budd Hopkins himself named the Abduction Phenomenon as an
 >>>"invisible epidemic" precisely because he advocated that its
 >>>victims did not have conscious recall. Of course, after
 >>>somebody has gone under hypnosis and have become convinced
 >>>that he/she is being abducted periodically, how reliable are
 >>>his/her "conscious memories" from then onwards?

 >>There you go. Jumping to conclusions, once again. Abductees report
 >>these conscious memories before they're ever hypnotized.

 >Sorry, no. At least, Hopkins' abductees in his first book didn
 >not. Yes, there are people who say they have conscious recall
 >about part or the whole incident (Vilas Boas was the very first
 >example) but we should exam each case individually, and do not
 >mix these kind of incidents (quite similar to the contactee
 >stories, in general) with those who did not remember anything
 >alien until they went under hypnosis.

I don't think abductees with conscious recall sound much like
contactees. They don't tend to remember actual contact - the
aliens speaking to them, telling them things. They remember very
impersonal procedures.

But again I think we're seeing here the dangers of relying only
on the literature, and not on first-hand contact with abductees,
and with abduction researchers. Budd's first book was written
many, many years ago. His views of the phenomenon have changed.
If you talk to abductees, you find that nearly all of them have
some conscious memories. You can't take a group of real
abductees, and separate them into two subgroups, those with
conscious memories, and those who don't have them. Instead,
you'd have to group people on a spectrum, according to how many
conscious memories they had, and what they said they remember.
Plenty of abductees have conscious memories of aliens. Eddie
Bullard has shown that the stories retrieved under hypnosis
aren't notably different from the stories told from conscious
memories.


 >>There's also Eddie Bullard's statistical study of which memories
 >>abductees have consciously, and which characteristically only emerge
 >>under hypnosis. I think it was published in IUR.

 >Gotcha! I seem to have missed this one. Can anybody provide a
 >reference? My condolences, I am very sorry about your fire,
 >Greg, just to think something similar could happen to my library
 >give me the creeps!

Thanks, Luis. It's a pretty horrible experience. I may be
luckier than I think - a salvage crew went through the house
and removed everything they thought could be saved. Some of my
stuff was in boxes I hadn't unpacked yet (we'd gotten the house
not too long ago). So I don't know for sure what was saved and
what wasn't. My wife wasn't so lucky. She knows where a lot of
her archives were, and could see that they burned.

Maybe Jerry Clark can supply the Bullard reference.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 17

                   Re: Another Abduction Question - White

From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:00:18 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:24:27 -0500
Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question - White


 >From: Luis R. Gonzalez <lrgm@arrakis.es>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 13:11:46 +0100
 >Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question

<snip>

 >Once again, I usually do _not_ doubt the person, only the
 >reality of his/her experiences and/or conclusions about them.

That is a classic response from psychiatrists, which is double
speak. There is no difference, IMO.

 >Why? Precisely because they don't happen in our current-day
 >environment and some details are even impossible by our known
 >Physics (going thru walls, levitating, even telepaty).

Hold on, please. Name one law of physics that bars such things
from being possible using that portion of physics humanity has
yet to discover.

 >And yes, I may admit we do not know all about Physics, but I am
 >sure that everything we will learn in the future, will _never_
 >contradicts what we already know.

<snip>

I'm sure that levitation, going through walls, and telepathy do
_not_ contradict _any_ laws of physics. Because we do not yet
know all there is to physics, these things only appear to
contradict whate we observe.


Eleanor White







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 17

              Re: CI: Space Exploration: The Next Fifteen Years

From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:17:46 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 15:42:08 -0500
Subject: Re: CI: Space Exploration: The Next Fifteen Years


 >From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 23:20:41 -0800 (PST)
 >Subject: CI: Space Exploration: The Next Fifteen Years

 >Cydonian Imperative
 >2-25-03

 >Space Exploration: The Next Fifteen Years
 >by Mac Tonnies

 >See: http://www.mactonnies.com/cydonia.html (page 36)

<snip>

 >While the ostensibly International Space Station (ISS) is
 >supposed to provide justification for orbital flights, the
 >catastophic demise of Columbia has framed national space
 >priorities in a stark new light. Space enthusiasts have long
 >since grown bored by endless shuttle "missions" that consist of
 >little more than going in circles. While the ISS is not
 >completely without promise, the current "exploration" paradigm
 >is incapable of utilizing it as anything more than a celestial
 >rest-stop. A new destination is needed.

Say, anyone good enough at calculating orbits to know if it is
possible to insert a space station into an orbit around _both_
the Earth and Moon?  I strongly suspect that is possible.

_That_ would be a humdinger of a reason to keep exploring "near
space".


Eleanor White





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 17

                     Re: Discredited Canards - Gonzalez

From: Luis R. Gonzalez <lrgm@arrakis.es>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 19:29:55 +0100
Fwd Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 15:44:51 -0500
Subject: Re: Discredited Canards - Gonzalez


 >From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 10:58:59 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Discredited Canards

 >From: Luis R. Gonzalez <lrgm@arrakis.es>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 14:14:41 +0100
 >Subject: Discredited Canards

 >I have just read Jerome Clark's review of Pflock & Moseley's
 >"Shockingly Close to the Truth!" in IUR Spirng 2002 (I am quite
 >behind my reading list :-))

 >Of course, I have not been surprised and every one is entitled
 >to his opinion, but I cannot leave the following sentence
 >unattended:

 >"(Moseley) repeats them with no hint of critical reservation,
 >right down to the repeatedly discredited canard that Linda's
 >story echoes the plot of a 1989 science-fiction novel"

 >Who has "repeatedly discredited" that "canard"? Sorry, the
 >similarities are _not_ a canard, they are a _fact_ and they are
 >there for anybody to ponder.

 >The science fiction book is "Nighteyes," by Garfield Reeves-
 >Stevens.

 >Would Luis care to tell us whether he himself has read it?

Greg,

Your memory is failing you. I re-post something I wrote here
almost 3 years ago!

-----


From: Luis R. Gonz=E1lez Manso <lrgm@arrakis.es>
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 20:42:11 +0200
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 20:24:28 -0400
Subject: Re: 'Linda' Case Footnote - Manso


 >From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >Subject: Re: 'Linda' Case Footnote
 >Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 11:08:28 -0400


 >No way! I've read the novel, and its alleged similarities with
 >the Linda case are a complete and total myth, promulgated by
 >George Hansen, Joseph Stefula, and Richard Butler in their
 >notorious "white paper" on the case.

<snip>

 >The other alleged similarities are just as dissimilar.

Sorry, Greg, I have also read the novel and I disagree. I kindly
refer you to my post last July that (curiously) nobody
commented on. I will quote the main point again:

The three main points in Linda Cortile's abduction (a) abductee
speaking alien tongue, b) abductee working with the aliens, c)
sexual bonding since childhood between pairs of abductees) were
written several months before the alleged abduction. This is, at
least, a clear evidence of a sociological influence or, in the
worst scenario, proof of a hoax.

Let me put it more clearly. The most amazing point made in
Hopkins' book, the cornerstone of Linda Cortile's case, was how
the aliens had orchestrated the lifes of two abductees in order
to reunite them one night in lower Manhattan for an apocalyptic
message. The main surprise of Nighteyes' plot (besides the
aliens being humans) is when two apparently independent
abductees met again, in order to become the founders of a future
race. How can anybody miss the paralelism?

Any comments?

-----



Still waiting!!

Luis R. Gonzalez Manso






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 17

               Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 14:46:06 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 15:48:14 -0500
Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Ledger


 >From: Andy Roberts <aj.roberts@blueyonder.co.uk>To: UFO
 >UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>Date:
 >Sun, 16 Feb 2003 16:45:07 -0000 Subject: Re: Radical Or
 >Ordinary Misperception?

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 13:34:36 -0600
 >>Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >>Apparently, to Andy, the only issues of importance are the
 >>ones he chooses to take up, however inadequately. I am
 >>told, incidentally, by a highly informed source that Andy's
 >>account of this incident - and its reception by less
 >>UFOphobic British colleagues - needs to be read with at
 >>least a pinch of salt.

 >This is most interesting Jerry. I presume, that because you
 >chose not to name your 'source' we can takle the above as an
 >anecdote? However, let's probe deeper. There are probably
 >only about five or six people who can talk with any degree of
 >authority about the ins and outs of the Cracoe case; myself,
 >Young Clarke The Post Modernist, Graham (and possibly Mark
 >Birdsall) and Jenny Randles. Now I can't see Graham wasting
 >his time on this List, Mark is out of the scene, which leave
 >Jenny - so it must be her. So - why not tell us what you've
 >been told and I'll happily post you (by airmail) all the
 >necessary documentation to put you out of your ill-informed,
 >anecdotal, misery.

 >Oh, and if you think the details of the Cracoe case are just
 >'ordinary' misperception then I think that says more about
 >the Jerry Clark approach to ufology than your entire posting
 >history on this List.

 >Elsewhere in one of your posts (and in one Cathy's) you also
 >trot out the tired old chestnut 'what about radar and
 >photographs'. There are no 'good' UFO photographs and I'm
 >afraid radar is not even worth considering, being yet another
 >layer of information to interpret. The radar specialsts (both
 >operators and technicians) that Dave Clarke and I have spoken
 >to over the past few years are not impressed by any 'UFO'
 >sightings obtained on radar as Out of the Shadows shows.

 >But Jerry, thanks for the kind words for OOTS - somewhat at
 >odds about what you say about our research on this List but
 >then we've come to expect the contradictory from you over the
 >years. I'd recommend it to anyone out there - probably the
 >best UFO book you'll have read from the UK in a very long
 >time - take a risk and buy it - I _guarantee_ you won't be
 >disappointed!.



Hi Jerry,

It seems Andy pretty much researches by decree and cliche rather
than any serious attempt at exploration. Imagine, another "tired
old chestnut". What techs was he talking to? What photographs
are not genuine? That's only supposition on his part, not fact.

Blowing off hundreds if not thousands of good radar reports
because they talked to a few techs and operators means nothing.

I'll put my faith in the likes of Bruce Maccabee where
photographs are concerned not Andy's decree. I'll take the word
of those that have had good radar anomalies over those afraid to
speak of them to Andy and David. I would have expected better
than this from Andy, but his lackadaisical attitude of late is
getting just a little too "take my word for it". It's more
rhetoric than substance. Sorry, but I can't take his word for
any of it. His approach to the phenomenon is too narrow.


Best,

Don






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 17

                  Re: Another Abduction Question - Gonzalez

From: Luis R. Gonzalez <lrgm@arrakis.es>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 20:51:47 +0100
Fwd Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 15:50:22 -0500
Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question - Gonzalez


 >From: Luis R. Gonzalez <lrgm@arrakis.es>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 11:38:40 +0100
 >Subject:  Re: Another Abduction Question

 >>From the total of 302 incidents, only 195 include two or more
 >>episodes. From that total, 165 present them in the same order,
 >>and 27 others offer only one alteration.

<snip>

I thought Eddie wrote about a sequence of six elements. (I think
six is the right number.)

He spoke of 8 elements
Capture
Examination
Conference
Tour
Otherworldly Journey
Theophany
Return
Aftermath

This is what I wrote about (again, a hurried translation, excuse
me):

Upon a total of 227 useful incidents, only 136 included more
than 2 episode and (p. 50) only 113 include the exam. The main
sympton of abductions appeared in less than half of the cases!
The conference is mentioned in only 79 cases. The Otherworldly
Journey had values still acceptables (54 cases) but the Tour (16
cases) and the Theophany (6 cases) do not seem to justify its
clasification as independent incidents. If that was acceptable,
there is at least another episode with a similar incidence:
plain sex (a choking way to hybridate, from our modern
technological point of view).

 >In any case, I regret that I don't read Spanish, and can't read
 >your full review. You've obviously thought about this very
 >seriously, and it's a shame I can't read what you wrote.

 >I'll forward your comments here to Eddie, and see what his
 >response might be. Maybe he reads Spanish, and would be willing
 >to read your complete review.

If he is really interested, I may even try to translate it into
English!

 >I do have to say, though, that this is just one aspect of
 >Eddie's work, and a very early part of it, at that. I've found
 >his later papers more interesting.

Always a way-out! After years proclaming Bullard's work as a
preminent example of good work, it has lost interest... Not so
to me. It gives an interesting overview of the genesis of the
Abduction phenomena, even if many had read too much in it!

 >>But the published literature isn't enough. In my
 >>opinion, it doesn't tell you enough about what abductees are really
 >>like. The reality is both more strange and more grounded in everyday
 >>life than you'd guess from reading all these books.

 >Back to square one! Well, after reading a lot of first-hand
 >abductees stories, I agree, the abduction as given a sense to
 >everything that happen in their lifes. All and everything is
 >interpreted under its light. Maybe if they were able to do just
 >the opposite...

<snip>

 >The most misleading sources,
 >in many ways, are books written by the abductees themselves. Any
 >abductee motivated to write a book is more involved with the
 >subject - far more involved -- than most abductees I've met.

Good for them! Maybe they somehow realize that the ETH
interpretation is not right, and keep on living.

<snip>

 >In this case, I think it comes close to that. I can only repeat
 >what I've said several times. After I spent a lot of time with
 >abductees, I felt that no abduction book I read - including
 >those by people like Budd, who are my friends - really conveyed
 >every essential part of the story.

Well, here is an opportunity for you. Write that book.

 >One of the most admirable things about Hufford is how careful
 >he is with hypotheses. In fact, if I remember correctly (I don't
 >have access to his book right now), the main point of his book
 >about the "Old Hag" is to carefully compare theories about the
 >phenomenon to the actual data.

Not exactly. He defined a "straw man", and then proceeds to take
him to pieces. He defined the "cultural hypothesis" as saying
that all those incidents have not any real basis, they were all
a "cultural artifact" and went on in saying that, as the people
who describe them to him have never heard about the "old Hag"
before, the "cultural hypothesis" was insatisfactory. But there
exist a "cultural hypothesis" that do admit a real basis for the
experience: sleep paralysis

 >Hufford, I think, would insist on studying such a theory in
 >detail. If he considered it the way he considered the theories
 >about the "Old Hag," he'd want to know exactly what this
 >"continuum" was, and how, exactly, we know that the phenomena
 >that are supposed to be part of it are actually related. He'd
 >want to look at each phenomenon independently, just as carefully
 >as he studied the "Old Hag," and show in each case how the
 >phenomenon was part of the supposed continuum.

That is exactly what I ask, an impartial appraisal. This is my
quest. Any other volunteer?

<snip>

 >I don't think abductees with conscious recall sound much like
 >contactees. They don't tend to remember actual contact - the
 >aliens speaking to them, telling them things. They remember very
 >impersonal procedures.

Examples, please. Published examples, of course.

<snip>

 >If you talk to abductees, you find that nearly all of them have
 >some conscious memories.

Well, I did try (for instance with Mr. Velez). But if you dare
to question the reality of their memories, somehow the exchange
broke. Any volunteers?


Luis R. Gonzalez Manso







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 17

                  Re: Another Abduction Question - Tonnies

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 12:09:50 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 15:51:48 -0500
Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question - Tonnies


 >From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:00:18 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question

<snip>

 >I'm sure that levitation, going through walls, and telepathy do
 >_not_ contradict _any_ laws of physics. Because we do not yet
 >know all there is to physics, these things only appear to
 >contradict whate we observe.

The more I read about nanotechnology, the more I'm reminded of
ufonaut technology.  "Utility fog" is one example of a
technology that could be used for levitation and walking through
"solid" matter.

This is interesting from a historical perspective.  "Aliens"
used to show abductees and witnesses cool gadgets like holograms
and, in the case of Betty Hill, amniocentesis.  Now they're
showing us _new_ cool "gadgets" we haven't yet invented or
perfected.

You have to wonder: Is this part of "their" plan?

=====

Mac Tonnies
macbot@yahoo.com

MTVI: http://www.mactonnies.com
Transcelestial Ontology, Posthumanism and Theoretical Ufology

Blog: http://posthumanblues.blogspot.com (updated daily)







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 17

                  Re: Another Abduction Question - Balaskas

From: Nick Balaskas <Nikolaos@YorkU.CA>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 15:58:17 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
Fwd Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 16:48:28 -0500
Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question - Balaskas


 >From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:00:18 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question

 >>From: Luis R. Gonzalez <lrgm@arrakis.es>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 13:11:46 +0100
 >>Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question

<snip>

 >>Once again, I usually do _not_ doubt the person, only the
 >>reality of his/her experiences and/or conclusions about them.

<snip>

 >>Why? Precisely because they don't happen in our current-day
 >>environment and some details are even impossible by our known
 >>Physics (going thru walls, levitating, even telepaty).

 >Hold on, please. Name one law of physics that bars such things
 >from being possible using that portion of physics humanity has
 >yet to discover.

 >>And yes, I may admit we do not know all about Physics, but I am
 >>sure that everything we will learn in the future, will _never_
 >>contradicts what we already know.

<snip>

 >I'm sure that levitation, going through walls, and telepathy do
 >_not_ contradict _any_ laws of physics. Because we do not yet
 >know all there is to physics, these things only appear to
 >contradict whate we observe.

Hi everyone!

I have to agree with Eleanor instead of Luis on this one and I
think the late Carl Sagan would agree too. In UFO Magazine's
(UK) 'Letter of the Month' feature (see page 79, January 2003
issue), R. C. Stone of Normandy, France quotes the following
from Sagan's book 'Cosmos' (page 263):

"If a fourth-dimensional creature existed it could, in our
three- dimensional universe, appear and dematerialise at will,
change shape remarkably, pluck us out of our locked rooms and
make us appear from nowhere."

We often hear statements such as "According to science the Bible
account of creation cannot be true." but as our knowledge grows,
science evolves too. What was considered to be scientific and
true in an earlier generation is no longer accepted as true in a
later one. For this reason, one cannot use science as an
absolute standard to judge what can and cannot be. By continuing
to study all such abductions cases instead of discounting them,
we are in fact contributing to human scientific knowledge of the
21st century.

Besides, the physics of the second half of the 20th century
accepted a multiple-dimensional reality for our universe to best
explain certain puzzling observations we could not understand
otherwise. Interestingly, Canadian flying saucer researcher
Wilbert B. Smith who wrote 'The New Science' with the help of
the "Boys Topside", and also the Bible, both make references to
12 dimensions of reality too.


Nick Balaskas







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 17

                       France's Velasco, CNES & SEPRA

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 21:38:07 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 21:38:07 -0500
Subject: France's Velasco, CNES & SEPRA

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/features/story.jsp?story=3D378557

Do aliens really exist?
Just ask France's official UFO hunters

By Adam Sage

Flying saucers and alien spacecraft have long been favourites of
film and TV producers, but Jean-Jacques Velasco believes that
not all UFO sightings can be dismissed as products of over-
active imaginations

On a cold Monday morning 22 years ago, Jean-Jacques Velasco was
sitting in his office when a gendarme rang to tell him about a
strange incident. Renato Nicolai, a retired technician, had been
working in his garden in Trans-en-Provence, near Nice, when he
saw a dark, round object come down from the sky, settle on the
ground and take off again, the gendarme said. Over the years,
Velasco has heard many such stories, and disproved most of them.
But this one was different - this one was credible, he believes.
Something seems to have landed in Trans-en-Provence, he says,
and that something has never been identified.

But who is Velasco? Another crackpot determined to find a flying
saucer? No, he is a scientist working for the state-run National
French Centre for Space Studies (CNES), where he heads a
department responsible for analysing what are commonly called
unidentified flying objects (UFOs) but what are officially known
as unidentified aerospace phenomena (UAP).

A neatly-dressed, bespectacled man, Velasco talks with the
careful precision of an academic who is keen to be understood.
He is not saying that he has come across visitors from another
planet; he is saying merely that events occur for which science
has yet to find an explanation, and which merit further inquiry.

Velasco's department was set up in 1977, the year that Close
Encounters of the Third Kind was released amid a global UFO
fever. Across the world people thought they saw strange figures,
flying saucers and bright lights.

But there were few serious attempts to probe the issue. The CNES
set up the Service for Expert Appraisal of Atmospheric Re-entry
Phenomena (SEPRA). Based in Toulouse, the department is as
pedantic as its title sounds: the staff are state-employed
scientists, shaped by a prudent, rigorous and somewhat
bureaucratic culture. In France such bureaucracy can often be
cumbersome and painfully rigid. Yet in this domain at least,
this rigidity offers a guarantee of impartiality that is rare as
far as UFOs are concerned.

Last year, when the CNES was told to reduce its 1.3 billion
budget, the organisation's president, Alain Bensoussan, ordered
an audit into SEPRA's work. A wide range of French scientists
was asked whether it was worth continuing research; almost all
said yes.

One reason is because, unlike most other UFO-hunters, SEPRA's
staff are neither seeking publicity nor peddling an obscure
belief in extraterrestrial civilisation. They say they do not
know whether extraterrestrial beings exist or not, and look
disparaging when you ask them to voice their hunches on the
question.

They do not have hunches, only statistics. Yet the statistics
that Velasco has made public are eloquent. Since, 1977, SEPRA
has received some 6,000 reports of alleged UFO sightings. Of
these, 110 are from civil or military aircraft crew, and the
rest from ordinary French people who have almost invariably
contacted their local gendarmerie.

In 21.3% of cases there is a clear, indisputable and banal
explanation: a firework display, a novel lighting system
involving a luminous balloon, a cloud above the Pyrenees that is
shaped like a flying saucer. In 24.9% there is a probable
explanation, and in 41.3% the information is too vague to be of
use. But in 12.5 per cent of cases about 750 sightings since
1977 the evidence is detailed and inexplicable, and is thus
categorised as an unidentified phenomenon.

Most alleged UFOs are spotted by the sober and sensible, says
Velasco. "In all our statistics on the people who see these
phenomena only one in 1,000 is not credible because of alcohol.
People go to gendarmerie spontaneously; mainly because they want
to know what they have seen."

Yet a witness's good faith is not enough, and the story must be
corroborated. Consider, for instance, a case reported in 1994,
when the crew of an Air France flight from Nice to London saw a
dark, 300-metre long object over the Paris region. The object
disappeared before the aircraft had got near it, and the flight
continued without difficulty. A few days later Velasco travelled
from his office in Toulouse to the military aviation control
centre outside Paris, where he was given a read-out of the radar
information from the day in question. It revealed that an
unknown object had indeed flown over the French capital.

Consider, too, the Trans-en- Provence case. Velasco went through
the usual checks with the gendarme. Was there evidence? The
apparent answer was yes, as there were marks in the grass where
the object had supposedly landed.

Velasco drove to Trans-en-Provence and took ground samples.
These showed that the area had been heated to between 300=BAC and
600=BAC, that it had been compressed by something weighing up to a
tonne and that the plants there had been affected by a strong
electromagnetic field. Velasco concluded that Nicolai had indeed
witnessed a strange happening. So should we conclude that little
green men were taking a look at Provence from their spaceship?
Velasco dismisses such ideas.

"We cannot say whether there is a link between the question of
extraterrestrial life and that of non-identified aerospace
phenomena," he says. "But we can show that UFOs exist. The
problem is interpreting them, and I hope that scientists, and
other people, look at this question more seriously."






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 17

                      Re: Discredited Canards - Sandow

From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 16:11:45 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 21:42:15 -0500
Subject: Re: Discredited Canards - Sandow


 >From: Luis R. Gonzalez <lrgm@arrakis.es>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 19:29:55 +0100
 >Subject: Re: Discredited Canards

 >>The science fiction book is "Nighteyes," by Garfield Reeves-
 >>Stevens.

 >>Would Luis care to tell us whether he himself has read it?

 >Greg,

 >Your memory is failing you. I re-post something I wrote here
 >almost 3 years ago!

<snip>

Yes, my memory failed me. I congratulate you on having such a
fine archive, with posts you wrote so long ago.

I believe I'm the one who discredited the alleged connection
between this book and the Linda case. I did it in my 1997 study
of the case for IUR. That study is available on my UFO website,
at www.gregsandow.com/ufo.

 >The three main points in Linda Cortile's abduction (a) abductee
 >speaking alien tongue, b) abductee working with the aliens, c)
 >sexual bonding since childhood between pairs of abductees) were
 >written several months before the alleged abduction. This is, at
 >least, a clear evidence of a sociological influence or, in the
 >worst scenario, proof of a hoax.

 >Let me put it more clearly. The most amazing point made in
 >Hopkins' book, the cornerstone of Linda Cortile's case, was how
 >the aliens had orchestrated the lifes of two abductees in order
 >to reunite them one night in lower Manhattan for an apocalyptic
 >message. The main surprise of Nighteyes' plot (besides the
 >aliens being humans) is when two apparently independent
 >abductees met again, in order to become the founders of a future
 >race. How can anybody miss the paralelism?

I thought everyone agreed that the most amazing - and most
distinctive - point in the case was the witnessed abduction. UFO
hovers over New York apartment building... Linda is floated up
into the UFO... people watched that happening.

There's nothing like that in the book. There's one brief
description of a UFO high over a New York apartment building,
but it's flying away, not hovering. And the only people who see
it are people who've just finished a pitched battle with the
aliens, using guns. Obviously there's nothing like that in the
Linda case.

The dissimilarities between the book and the case far outweigh
any similarities. The things Luis cites are reasonably familiar
science fiction motifs. Some of them go right back to (just to
cite one place) Robert Heinlein's fine old novel, The Puppet
Masters. There you have humans working with aliens, and people
with childhood contact with aliens. You wouldn't have to read
the book Luis talks about to come up with things like that.

The book has a particular flavor. The case has a very different
flavor. The book recounts many events. The case does the same,
but they're completely different events. You can pick out of
this anything you want, just as you could say that ducks and
humans must be the same species, because they both walk on two
legs. I'd need more to say that the two things are similar -
  some accumulation of large points and random details, that
together show a detailed and specific influence.

Here's what I wrote about it in my IUR piece. I wasn't
responding to Luis' points, which I didn't know about at the
time (or maybe he hadn't made them). I was responding to the
somewhat famous "white paper" about the case, by Joseph J.
Stefula, Richard D. Butler, and George P. Hansen:

In conversation, Hansen told me that, back in 1989, some of
Hopkins's abductees had read a now-forgotten science fiction
thriller, Nighteyes, by Garfield Reeves-Stevens. This novel, he,
Stefula, and Butler charge in their report, has similarities to
the "Linda" case, similarities that are "sufficiently numerous
to lead us to suspect that the novel served as the basis for
Linda's story." They list the parallels in tabular form,
beginning with these:

* Linda was abducted into a UFO hovering over her high-rise
apartment building in New York City. Sarah [a character in the
book] was abducted into a UFO hovering over her high-rise
apartment building in New York City.

*Dan and Richard initially claimed to have been on a stakeout
and were involved in a UFO abduction in during early morning
hours. Early in Nighteyes two government agents were on a
stakeout and became involved in a UFO abduction during early
morning hours.

*Linda was kidnapped and thrown into a car by Richard and Dan.
Wendy was kidnapped and thrown into a van by Derek and Merril.
[These, of course, are other characters in the book.]

By the time they're finished, the three find 15 alleged
resemblances, some of which, I have to say, are pretty
frivolous. "Linda claimed to have been under surveillance by
someone in a van. Vans were used for surveillance in Nighteyes."
Stop the presses! "Before her kidnapping, Linda contacted Budd
Hopkins about her abduction. Before her kidnapping, Wendy
contacted Charles Edward Starr [a UFO researcher in the book]
about her abduction." As if this weren't simply art imitating
life. Don't many abductees seek out abduction investigators?

  Some parallels, though, do seem impressive - until, that is,
you read the book. Take the kidnapping. What Stefula et al don't
mention is that Derek and Merril - a renegade intelligence agent
and a newspaper reporter, by the way, not two active
intelligence agents like Richard and Dan - were really
kidnapping the abduction researcher, Charles Edward Starr, whom
they thought knew more about the aliens than he'd said in
public. Wendy, an abduction-prone teenager, was snatched by
accident, along with her father, because both of them happened
to be standing next to Starr. Does this sound even remotely like
the "Linda" case? (Starr, by the way, does indeed know more than
he's letting on. He's in league with the aliens, yet another
difference from the Cortile affair - unless, of course, Budd
Hopkins has sinister allegiances that he's hiding from us.)

The stakeout, too, has no resemblance to the case. It takes
place on a California beach, and the agents - who end up
fighting with the aliens -- are watching someone from their own
agency. But to see how fanciful these supposed similarities
really are, just look at the first one, which - once you read
the book - turns out to be a mighty stretch, verging on a
fabrication. There simply is no scene in Nighteyes where a UFO
hovers over any building in New York.

The closest thing to it - and maybe this was what Stefula et al
were referring to; Hansen, when I spoke to him, wasn't sure - is
an episode in an Upper West Side penthouse, where Stephen,
Sarah's husband, lives. He and Sarah have been separated, but
the trauma of Sarah's and Wendy's abductions has brought the
family back together. But just as the three are relaxing in the
penthouse, savoring their renewed attachment, the aliens strike!
The nasty little buggers come right down through the ceiling.
Stephen somehow fights them off, but when the smoke clears,
Sarah is missing. Stephen races to the roof, where he finds his
faithful bodyguard dying of wounds sustained in a gun battle
with the aliens. A UFO, with Sarah aboard, is disappearing in
the sky above.

This doesn't come within miles of Linda Cortile's story; the
tone, atmosphere, and details are entirely wrong. The most
crucial event is entirely missing; even if the UFO had been
hovering, nobody observed it, which (as the title of Hopkins's
book tells us) is the central fact of the "Linda" case. But
then, as I've said, there's nothing in the novel to tell us that
the UFO did hover. It might have, while the aliens came through
the ceiling. But it also might have landed on the roof, or, for
all we know, flown off to Manhattan's only drive-through
McDonald's (at 10th Avenue and 34th Street), so the pilots could
have a snack while their commando team dispatched the pesky
humans.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 17

              Re: CI: Space Exploration: The Next Fifteen Years

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:16:02 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 21:44:02 -0500
Subject: Re: CI: Space Exploration: The Next Fifteen Years


 >From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:17:46 -0500
 >Subject: Re: CI: Space Exploration: The Next Fifteen Years

<snip>

 >Say, anyone good enough at calculating orbits to
 >know if it is
 >possible to insert a space station into an orbit
 >around _both_
 >the Earth and Moon?  I strongly suspect that is
 >possible.

 >_That_ would be a humdinger of a reason to keep
 >exploring "near
 >space".

Or, rather, _colonizing_ near space a la Gerard K. O'Neill's
"L5" program.  If you haven't read "The High Frontier," do so.
It's all about exploiting near-Earth space.

=====
Mac Tonnies
macbot@yahoo.com

MTVI: http://www.mactonnies.com
Transcelestial Ontology, Posthumanism and Theoretical Ufology

Blog: http://posthumanblues.blogspot.com (updated daily)





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 17

              Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Roberts

From: Andy Roberts <aj.roberts@blueyonder.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 21:43:28 -0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 21:46:25 -0500
Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Roberts


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 11:07:17 -0600
 >Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

Oh Dear!

Jerry wrote, regarding Cracoe Fell and things:

 >Nah, I don't think so. As Cathy has shown in her exchange with
 >you, your understanding of what science knows about
 >misperception is next to nonexistent, thus your continuing
 >effort to elevate ordinary misperception into RMP, which you
 >have never been able to define or demonstrate.

Firstly Jerry, your neat but highly visible side-stepping of
dealing with Cracoe only serves to amuse. Your deafening silence
indicates your anecdotal source was in fact Jenny. I'm afraid
Jenny was a bystander to much of the Cracoe charade and is
highly confused about some of the key elements. However, as she,
I and Dave wrote a book in which there was a chapter about
Cracoe, and as she agreed with the contents of that chapter I
can only assume she's teasing you, as we all are!

I've more than adequately described, with examples, of what RMP
is and I didn't even have to talk the sociolical gobblydygook
Cathy feels it necessary to retreat into. Your continued panic
on this list when anyone explains how to resolve cases, or how
cases have been resolved tells us more about you than (cont.
page 23 Jerry Clarke Bingo Weakly & Gazette).

 >Seriously, folks, Andy just makes my point:

Bingo!

 >slanted perspective, and that of persons who agree with him
 >absolutely, is worth heeding. I believe the psychiatric
 >diagnosis for this sort of solipsism is narcissism. Those
 >interested in more serious points of view may turn to the
 >relevant literature. Three examples off the top of my head:

Yes, yes Jerry - why not discuss cases eh? With the Cracoe case
I've been quoting you the 'relevant literature'. Problem is it's
from the UK where ufologists do their R&I properly and it is
thus ignored by Mystery Inc. in downtown whereveryoulivesville.

 >For an extraordinary investigation into an enormously puzzling,
 >highly evidential radar/visual case, see Brad Sparks's entry on
 >the RB-47 case in my UFO Encyclopedia, 2nd Ed., pp. 761-90.
 >There is also Allan Hendry's in-depth investigation of the
 >Ocala, Florida, r/v case (pp. 681-82).

So that's all of two cases - which have proved what exactly?
That a mystery still exists? Maybe. But set against the huge
flaws inherent in (especially early) radar (and where are the
modern radar cases eh Jerry?) I don't think we should set too
much store in those particular examples Jerry. Show me a radar
case which has proved something truly exotic was the cause, then
you'll be talking sense.

 >For an excellent
 >photographic case, which has managed to resist decades' worth of
 >pelicanist deconstruction, see Bruce Maccabee's work on the
 >McMinville photo.  Informed Listfolk will have their own
 >favorite examples that will come to mind.

McMinville! Your avin' a laff incha? There has been just as much
work published on why McMinville may be something and nothing as
anything published by a self-proclaimed abudctee on why it may
be anything.

Indeed, there are many well respected ufologists who have their
doubts about the case and only a short while ago Jan Aldrich was
on the P54 list with:

 >I visited McMinnville and met with the editor of the
 >McMinnville newspaper.  We talked about the photograph
 >for over an hour.  I don't agree with the idea that Paul Trent
 >was not smart enough to hoax such
 >a photograph, but whether he did or not is a different story.
 >The editor who had been the reporter who worked on the
 >story at the time was evasive on this aspect.

'Anecdotes' perhaps, but anecdotes which Jan feels may add (or
subtract) to the McMinville Mystery. There's nothing set in
stone about McMinville, nothing at all Jerry. Can you _really_
not do better than that after all this time? Just out of
interest, if you _really_ feel there might be _something_ to
McMinville what are your suggestions? If it's 'real' (sorry
Colin) then it's not atmospheric, astronomical or man made.
Would you agree Jerry? What do _you_ personally reckon it is
Jerry. Take a guess, we'll indulge you. List folk - expect
incoming of the most evasive and mystery promoting kind.

 >There is, of course, also the option of simply ignoring the
 >usual hot air wafting our way from Roberts's
 >cyberpsychosocialgeographical region.

There is. But you seem unable to do so Jerry. And as I've said
before, as long as you're wasting your time arguing the
inevitable with me you aren't out in the real world inflicting
your mystery befuddled world view on others. You'll come round
to my way of thinking in the end. It will just be less
profitable for you is all.

Now, when you're ready to fess up with your problems about
Cracoe, do tell and as previously noted I'll be happy to provide
you with full, and I do mean _full_ documentation, with
references, video etc. Perhaps you'll save us the anecdote next
time and give us the, uh, 'beef'.


Happy Trails
Andy
Amused in Brighouse





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 17

                             Binding References

From: Catherine Reason <CathyM@ukf.net>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 23:43:54 -0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 21:47:26 -0500
Subject: Binding References



For anyone who's interested, here are some articles on visual
binding/segmentation in pdf format, available on the internet:

Lecture in theoretical neuroscience - "The Binding Problem" by
Jan Scholz

Go to:

http://www-lehre.inf.uos.de/~bwagense/theo_NS/Binding_Problem.pdf


Adina L Roskies "The Binding Problem" - Neuron vol 24  pp7-9
(September 1999)

Go to:

http://web.mit.edu.adinad/www/misc/publications

and select "binding.pdf"


M Usher and N Donnelly

"Visual Synchrony Affects Binding in Segmentation and
Perception"

Nature 394 (July 9 1998) pp179-182

Go to:

http://www.psyc.bbk.ac.uk/people/academic/usher_m/visualsynchr.ht
ml

and select "full text"


Cathy

[Catherine Reason]







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 17

                   Re: Another Abduction Question - Velez

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 20:26:58 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 21:48:56 -0500
Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question - Velez


 >From: Luis R. Gonzalez <lrgm@arrakis.es>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 14:42:30 +0100
 >Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question


Hola Luis,

You write:

 >First at all, it seems that I have to justify my skepticism. I
 >do believe that you, John, are being sincere in what you say, in
 >your feelings about your situation, how it has changed your
 >life, etc..

 >But the scene you present (and share with many others) is so
 >contrary to normal life and physics, and you (speaking in
 >plural) offer so little unambiguous evidence that I maintain
 >that the conclusions you have reached are unwarranted.

And here we are again. As I mentioned in my last post to you, my
'objective' is to raise awareness about this phenomenon and
'hopefully' to start people thinking about it seriously. (As
opposed to thinking it's all a joke or made up and dismissing
all the reports out of hand.)

I am pleased when I see bright, thoughtful people such as
yourself taking the time to try to 'think' their way through
this maze. It isn't easy and is quite possibly one of the
toughest 'conundrums' (nut to crack) in modern times. I think
it's great when 'alternative' explanations are explored, I just
haven't found one yet that explains what I have experienced in
my life with the same degree of dead-on accuracy as the
UFO/abduction scenario.

The UFO/abduction scenario not only 'fits' the experiences to a
tee, but the details of the many reports that have been gathered
by Budd and others, match my own stroke for stroke. Mind you
that I knew absolutely nothing about the body of material about
ufology, UFOs, aliens or abductions before 1993. The year I read
"Missing Time."

If and when an alternative 'explanation' comes along that fits
the experiences and addresses _all_ of the attendant details as
well as the 'abduction' scenario does, I will be the first to
cluck about it. That hasn't happened yet. In fact, no one has
even come close.

You included.

Luis, because what I am reporting does not fit into what is
known or accepted by modern physics, or your 'world view'
doesn't mean that I _must be_ misinterpreting, or that I have
drawn the wrong conclusions about what has happened. You're a
fairly bright guy, have you ever considered the fact that we may
be dealing with 'something' that is so far in advance of what we
know at the present time, that it only sounds "impossible."

A part of being open-minded is being open to new information.
New data that may not jibe or fit in with what is currently
known or accepted. To some degree we are required to be able to
'think outside the box' from time to time. Especially when we
are confronted with something as radically removed from the
known as UFO occupant abductions.

We've had this same conversation before. At least three times
that I can recall. We always reach a stalemate when you begin to
tell me that I am not correctly interpreting events that I had
to live through. It's fine for you or anyone else to consider
alternative explanations... as long as you don't try to tell me
that I didn't see what I saw (in many instances along with
others) or that I am misinterpreting something that I _know_
happened. Again, because _I_was_there_ and it _happened_to_me.

I'm not going through this again. I don't mind answering
questions about anything I have reported in public. I always
accommodate you and respond to your questions regarding my
experiences. But, I draw the line at you or anyone else sitting
in judgement of them/me. Or trying to tell me that I didn't see
what I saw, that it -has to be- misinterpretation,
hallucination, or whatever only because it may not fit in with
your world view or knowledge about what is possible in the
universe, or not.

Greg has engaged you on a parallel thread about abduction. I
will leave you to him. Greg knows more about abduction research
than I do, and he has enough first hand knowledge and experience
with the abductees to handle any questions you may have about
it. Greg is one of a very few who can expound on the subject
competently and accurately. He has carte-blanc to speak for me
in regard to the abduction phenomenon.

If I can provide you with any more details regarding my own
experiences I will be happy to do so. "Debate" them... no. I
_know_ what happened to me thank you very much.  I don't need
any 'help' interpreting them. How sure are _you_ that you are
'interpreting' the details of abduction reports accurately? How
sure are you that you're even on the right track?

Just one more:

 >Another example, on a more pedestrian way, inspired by recent
 >media news about a man who stabbed his wife, allegedly during a
 >nightmare. Why, John, had you discarded the possibility that
 >those nasal hemorrhagues were due just to a (involuntary and
 >even unconscious, of course) jab by your wife because you were
 >snoring.

This has to be one of the lamest and most absurd explanations
I've ever heard. What did she jab me inside the sinuses with
Luis? A pencil? A chop stick? Her finger? Accidentally? Give me
a break man.

Are you married? I have been married for 34 years. In all my 54
years of life I have never heard of anybody being jabbed inside the
nose by their partner with an implement of any kind. Have _you_
ever heard of such a ludicrous thing? Lorraina Bobbit maybe, but
then we're talking about a location a lot lower in the male anatomy
than the nose!  Ouch!  Can you say, "Bye, bye huevos!"  ;)

Keep it real, man. Or else, why bother?

Regards,

John Velez... passing the pill to Mr. Sandow. Take it to the hole
Greg.  :)

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

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/petition







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 17

              Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 21:08:35 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 21:50:54 -0500
Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Maccabee


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 11:07:17 -0600
 >Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >>From: Andy Roberts <aj.roberts@blueyonder.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 16:45:07 -0000
 >>Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

<snip>

 >>Elsewhere in one of your posts (and in one Cathy's) you also
 >>trot out the tired old chestnut 'what about radar and
 >>photographs'. There are no 'good' UFO photographs and I'm afraid
 >>radar is not even worth considering, being yet another layer of
 >>information to interpret. The radar specialsts (both operators
 >>and technicians) that Dave Clarke and I have spoken to over the
 >>past few years are not impressed by any 'UFO' sightings obtained
 >>on radar as Out of the Shadows shows.

 >Well, I guess that settles it.

 >Seriously, folks, Andy just makes my point: that only his highly
 >slanted perspective, and that of persons who agree with him
 >absolutely, is worth heeding. I believe the psychiatric
 >diagnosis for this sort of solipsism is narcissism. Those
i>nterested in more serious points of view may turn to the
 >relevant literature. Three examples off the top of my head:

 >For an extraordinary investigation into an enormously puzzling,
 >highly evidential radar/visual case, see Brad Sparks's entry on
 >the RB-47 case in my UFO Encyclopedia, 2nd Ed., pp. 761-90.
 >There is also Allan Hendry's in-depth investigation of the
 >Ocala, Florida, r/v case (pp. 681-82). For an excellent
 >photographic case, which has managed to resist decades' worth
of >pelicanist deconstruction, see Bruce Maccabee's work on the
 >McMinville photo.  Informed Listfolk will have their own
 >favorite examples that will come to mind.

Regarding radar and photo I would also like to point out the New
Zealand sightings of Dec. 31, 1978 which involved multiple
witnesses (air crew and news crew), audio tape and movie made on
the plane during the sightings and audio tape of the radar
control center at Wellington.

This also involves ground radar and airplane radar. Ground radar
targets in several cases were perfectly coincident with
sightings of lights in the same direction as the radar, there
being no known sources of light in the directions (from the
plane) indicated by the ground radar.

Then there is the Japan Airlines 1628 series of sightings with
ground radar and airplane radar. These are discussed at my web
site:

http://brumac.8k.com

Look for New Zealand and look for JAL 1628






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 17

               EW: Shuttle Sparks Electro-Physics & Explosions

From: Kurt Jonach - The Electric Warrior
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 18:32:43 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 21:53:46 -0500
Subject: EW: Shuttle Sparks Electro-Physics & Explosions


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

The Electric Warrior : Web Log February 17, 2003
http://www.electricwarrior.com/

--------------------------------------------------
 >> SHUTTLE SPARKS ELECTRO-PHYSICS. EXPLOSIONS RECORDED
space exploration

photo: Red Sprite
http://www.electricwarrior.com/img/RedSprite.jpg

(The Electric Warrior) - An unusual purple lightning bolt seen
in a San Francisco photograph of Shuttle Columbia has gained
national attention and also sparked discussion about rare forms
high-altitude lightning. A network of sensitive listening
devices recorded subsonic explosions during the shuttle's re-
entry which could shed light on the Columbia disaster. Another
photograph captured by the US Air Force Research Laboratory as
the shuttle passed over New Mexico is also being studied.

A purple corkscrew lightning bolt can reportedly be seen in a
photograph taken by a Bay Area shuttle buff on the morning of
the Columbia accident. NASA experts are examining digital
photographs which await public release by a photographer who at
this time remains anonymous.

Strange flashes of colored lightning with names like Red Sprites
and Blue Jets are a recent scientific discovery that continue to
intrigue scientists. One peculiar thing about the Blue Jets
phenomenon is that their discharge travels away from Earth, up
from a stormy cloud bank toward the ionosphere. The Sprites leap
down from above.

SUBSONIC EXPLOSIONS RECORDED

Researchers at a scientific conference in Denver, Colorado have
confirmed the intercept of inaudible "infrasound" signals during
the shuttle's reentry on February 1. Infrasound sensor arrays
have been used to study the mysterious electrical discharges in
the upper atmosphere. People cannot hear infrasound, but they
can feel it from audio systems with the bass turned up.

The Toledo Blade reports that the Columbia recordings have been
sent to NASA for analysis. An expert with National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said "We've been asked not to
discuss the results publicly, and we will honor that request."
Some believe the recordings could shed light on the theory that
a Blue Jet knocked Columbia out of the sky.

An expert in high-atmospheric physics at Los Alamos National
Laboratories in New Mexico has said it is not likely that the
electrical phenomenon had anything to do with the Columbia
accident, but it needs to be studied. "I'm highly skeptical they
could have had anything to do with Columbia's demise," he told
the San Francisco Chronicle. "But somebody needs to see how they
interact with spacecraft."

SHUTTLE STUDY GROUPS. DIGITAL CAMERA GLITCH

NASA investigators have set up a panel of both government and
private experts to study the San Francisco photograph. Another
panel is studying input from a network of powerful Air Force
telescopes and radar stations. The Space Agency has pooled data
from a variety of sources including private citizens and secret
government cameras in an effort to create a time-line of events
leading up to the Columbia disaster.

A NASA official has said the "lightning strike" photo is being
studied to see what it means. The digital camera that took the
photo is known to have its own color glitches. Nikon told
WorldNetDaily that unless they examine the camera it would be
speculation to say whether the anomalous purple light had
anything to do with a defect in the device.

--------------------------------------------------
RELATED RESOURCES

16-Feb-03
Listening devices record explosions from dying shuttle
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artikkel?Avis=TO&Dato030216&Kategori=NE
WS08&Lopenr=102160051&Ref=AR

DENVER, CO (Toledo Blade) - A little-known network of listening
devices, used partly to detect rogue nuclear tests, overheard
Columbia's death, recording explosions as the space shuttle
broke apart 39 miles above the Earth. Government researchers
gathered at a scientific conference here confirmed intercept of
the so-called "infrasound" signals during the shuttle's fateful
reentry on February 1.

11-Feb-03
NASA studying Columbia photos
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/02/11/MN150539.DTL

SAN FRANCISCO (Chronicle) - NASA investigators of the Columbia
space shuttle disaster have set up a study group to analyze a
photograph, taken by an amateur astronomer from a San Francisco
hillside, that appears to show a bolt of electricity striking
the doomed orbiter as it streaked across Northern
California...If the San Francisco photograph does indeed depict
a bolt of electricity in the ionosphere, the "infrasonic"
sensors in Colorado might be able to detect the faint
thunderclap that accompanied it.

11-Feb-03
Spy telescopes, radar could help shuttle probe
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/02/11/shuttle.eyesonspace.ap/index.html

NATIONAL (CNN/AP) - NASA officials said Monday that they have
asked the Air Force Space Command to review all data that might
contain information about the shuttle's last flight. The effort
has already uncovered an observation made by ground- based radar
suggesting that an object may have hit or broken off the shuttle
on day two of its 16-day mission.

--------------------------------------------------
THE ELECTRIC WARRIOR
February 17, 2003
Silicon Valley, CA
http://www.electricwarrior.com

Graphics & Gonzo

--------------------------------------------------
Photo courtesy of NASA

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

http://www.electricwarrior.com

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

eWarrior@electricwarrior.com







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 17

               Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 21:19:01 -0600
Fwd Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 22:23:47 -0500
Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Clark


 >From: Andy Roberts <aj.roberts@blueyonder.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 21:43:28 -0000
 >Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 11:07:17 -0600
 >>Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?


Andy and patient, gentle Listfolk:

 >>Nah, I don't think so. As Cathy has shown in her exchange with
 >>you, your understanding of what science knows about
 >>misperception is next to nonexistent, thus your continuing
 >>effort to elevate ordinary misperception into RMP, which you
 >>have never been able to define or demonstrate.

 >I've more than adequately described, with examples, of what RMP
 >is and I didn't even have to talk the sociolical gobblydygook
 >Cathy feels it necessary to retreat into. Your continued panic
 >on this list when anyone explains how to resolve cases, or how
 >cases have been resolved tells us more about you than (cont.
 >page 23 Jerry Clarke Bingo Weakly & Gazette).

(1) Andy calls the science of perceptual studies, with which
Cathy Reason, as we have seen, is infinitely more familiar than
he, mere "gobblydygook" which those who actually know the
subject "feel it necessary to retreat into." Is, then, there any
reason to take anything more that Andy says seriously? It is
safe to say that Andy has no problem with ignorance and anti-
intellectualism, if either serves the purpose he badly needs it
to serve at any given moment.

(2) He apparently has morphed Dave Clarke and Jerry Clark, an
odd fusion if I do say so. There is no "Jerry Clarke" on this
list, to my knowledge. Or any "Dave Clark," as far as I know.

 >>slanted perspective, and that of persons who agree with him
 >>absolutely, is worth heeding. I believe the psychiatric
 >>diagnosis for this sort of solipsism is narcissism. Those
 >>interested in more serious points of view may turn to the
 >>relevant literature. Three examples off the top of my head:

 >Yes, yes Jerry - why not discuss cases eh? With the Cracoe case
 >I've been quoting you the 'relevant literature'. Problem is it's
 >from the UK where ufologists do their R&I properly and it is
 >thus ignored by Mystery Inc. in downtown whereveryoulivesville.

Whatever.

 >>For an extraordinary investigation into an enormously puzzling,
 >>highly evidential radar/visual case, see Brad Sparks's entry on
 >>the RB-47 case in my UFO Encyclopedia, 2nd Ed., pp. 761-90.
 >>There is also Allan Hendry's in-depth investigation of the
 >>Ocala, Florida, r/v case (pp. 681-82).

 >So that's all of two cases - which have proved what exactly?
 >That a mystery still exists? Maybe. But set against the huge
 >flaws inherent in (especially early) radar (and where are the
 >modern radar cases eh Jerry?) I don't think we should set too
 >much store in those particular examples Jerry. Show me a radar
 >case which has proved something truly exotic was the cause, then
 >you'll be talking sense.

Try the RB-47 case for starters. From the above, it is safe to
infer that you haven't read Brad Sparks's paper on the case and
haven't a clue as to what's in it. You're merely expending the
cyber-equivalent of hot air. Nothing new blowing in that wind,
I'm afraid.

 >>For an excellent
 >>photographic case, which has managed to resist decades' worth of
 >>pelicanist deconstruction, see Bruce Maccabee's work on the
 >>McMin[n]ville photo. Informed Listfolk will have their own
 >>favorite examples that will come to mind.

 >McMin[n]ville! Your avin' a laff incha? There has been just as much
 >work published on why McMinville may be something and nothing as
 >anything published by a self-proclaimed abudctee on why it may
 >be anything.

Take it up with those who've actually researched the case, like
Brad Sparks and Bruce Maccabee, who know some things you don't
and who did more than simply show up for an hour's worth of idle
chatter with a journalist. I look forward to the exchange. Maybe
you'll do as well in it you did when Cathy Reason tried to talk,
er, reason with you. When Sparks and Maccabee bring physics and
optics into the discussion, you can call it "gooblydygook" --
  which could become as all-purpose a phrase as "radical
misperception." Congrats, guy.

To the rest of you patient and gentle Listfolk, I apologize for
the time and bandwidth wasted. Still, one has to feel for poor
Andy. We rude colonials just don't know our place, do we? Could
Andy be the Yorkshire Colonel Blimp?


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 18

               UK Jedi Official Religion Of More Than 390,000

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@privat.dk>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 05:22:20 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 09:28:09 -0500
Subject: UK Jedi Official Religion Of More Than 390,000


Source: The Register (UK)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/29331.html

Stig

***

Jedis reach the stars in UK census

By Tim Richardson

Posted: 14/02/2003 at 11:36 GMT

**

More than 390,000 people in the UK claim to follow the Jedi way,
according to the 2001 Census.

The figures revealed that 0.7 per cent of the UK population gave
their official religion as Jedi, following a massive campaign to
try and get it recognised.

At the time the issue caused a jolly great deal of fuss as
deadly serious civil servants tried to comprehend the wave of
interest. Even now, officials are describing the inclusion of
Jedi as a religion as "not a serious answer". Of course, they
won't be saying that when some "death star" parks itself in the
Earth's orbit.

Anyhow, Jedi hotspots in the UK include Brighton and Hove
(6,480), Manchester (5,476) and Wandsworth (5,024).

The "Force" does not appear to be strong in Merthyr Tydfil,
Blaenau Gwent and Wear Valley. =AE

Related Story:

In Jedi We Trust Jedi Knights achieve official recognition as a
religion UK Jedi get green light May the false declaration be
with you







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 18

                       Re: Binding References - Velez

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 03:02:43 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 09:32:05 -0500
Subject: Re: Binding References - Velez


 >From: Catherine Reason <CathyM@ukf.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 23:43:54 -0000
 >Subject: Binding References

 >For anyone who's interested, here are some articles on visual
 >binding/segmentation in pdf format, available on the internet:

 >Lecture in theoretical neuroscience - "The Binding Problem" by
 >Jan Scholz

 >Go to:

 >http://www-lehre.inf.uos.de/~bwagense/theo_NS/Binding_Problem.pdf

 >Adina L Roskies "The Binding Problem" - Neuron vol 24  pp7-9
 >(September 1999)

 >Go to:

 >http://web.mit.edu.adinad/www/misc/publications

 >and select "binding.pdf"

 >M Usher and N Donnelly

 >"Visual Synchrony Affects Binding in Segmentation and
 >Perception"

 >Nature 394 (July 9 1998) pp179-182

 >Go to:

 >http://www.psyc.bbk.ac.uk/people/academic/usher_m/visualsynchr.html

 >and select "full text"


Hi Catherine,

'Kind of' related...

I have often wondered what kind of effect the act of seeing
something completely new, a complete unknown, (such as a UFO)
has on the brain. Established cognitive pathways and
interpretive mechanisms must fail at some point in their
attempts to identify/ label/categorize, what is being observed.
Possibly creating new pathways and connections in the brain even
as the event unfolds. That it disorients established routines in
cognitive operations is beyond question. Ask any witness. An
event with the impact of a UFO encounter must engender _radical_
changes and regrouping within the cognitive system's status quo.

I have, in the past, heard of studies that dealt with
investigating the physical/chemical effects of trauma on the
brain. A UFO sighting, especially one that is close-up, or seems
focused on the witness/observer, (aside from being a cognitive
issue) is very much an intellectually and emotionally violent,
traumatic event. Threatening even. In terms of the level of
shock that 'can be' experienced either during or after the fact,
my thought is; that it is up there with severe trauma -in terms
of being a potential catalyst for dynamic, maybe even radical,
alterations within the brain's established cognitive routines.

Not to mention the wanton shattering of ones comforting/
stabilizing world view. I have often compared the effect of a
UFO sighting (on a person) with the emotional and psychological
process that one goes through when dealing with the death of
someone close. Only in this case, the individual is mourning the
loss of his old, known and stable (pre-experience, life-altering
event) self.

Such an experience can become a dividing line in ones life.
There is the old, 'pre-experience' self and the new
reconstituted self. The 'new' self being the result of all the
shattered pieces coming back together again in a 'new'
configuration. One that now includes/integrates/ accommodates
the new experience.

My comments are based purely on self-observation. Someone with
your knowledge of the subject will no doubt have something
valuable to offer. I'd appreciate any feedback/info you may be
able to provide.


Regards,

John Velez, changed man

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

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/petition







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 18

               Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Reason

From: Catherine Reason <CathyM@ukf.net>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 10:11:35 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 09:36:27 -0500
Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Reason


 >From: Andy Roberts <aj.roberts@blueyonder.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 21:43:28 -0000
 >Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >I've more than adequately described, with examples, of what RMP
 >is and I didn't even have to talk the sociolical gobblydygook
 >Cathy feels it necessary to retreat into.

Andy,

I'm not too bothered by the stuff about "sociolical
gobledygook" - it's the sort of thing that gets said all the time
between experiemental scientists and theoreticians. I indulge in
the same sort of thing whenever I say that the number of
psychologists who know anything about perception dould squeeze
comfortably into a matchbox and still have room left over for a
small dog.

But I am rather disturbed by the implication that one can make
statements about the role and extent of misperception in UFO
reports without actually knowing anything about how the human
visual system actually works. The only definition of RMP that
I've so far seen from you is this one:

 >about the difference between radical and ordinary misperception.
 >The latter is when someone sees something out of context and
 >assumes it's something else - like if you see a hang glider at a
 >distance and wonder what that big bird is etc. The former is
 >when people see things out of context and believe them to be
 >objects for which there is as yet no proof of, ie 'UFO's (and
 >many others things).

By this definition, any misperception that is reported as a UFO
is a radical misperception, a definition that is so trivial as
to be tautological.

I simply don't understand how you can hope to distinguish
misperceptions that are possible from misperceptions that aren't
possible unless you have understand something about how the
human visual system actually operates. In the same way, I don't
understand how you can make generalizations about the role of
misperception in UFO reports without apparently knowing anything
about relative probabilities.

Every competent theoretical scientist would acknowledge the
absolute dependence of science on the work of experimenters -
which in the case of UFOlogy, must mean field investigators.
But by the same token, no competent field investigator should
expect to make theoretical generalizations from the data without
knowing anything about the relevant domains of theory.


Cathy

[Catherine Reason]








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 18

               Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Reason

From: Catherine Reason <CathyM@ukf.net>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 10:18:37 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 09:37:38 -0500
Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Reason


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 21:19:01 -0600
 >Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >(1) Andy calls the science of perceptual studies, with which
 >Cathy Reason, as we have seen, is infinitely more familiar than
 >he, mere "gobblydygook" which those who actually know the
 >subject "feel it necessary to retreat into." Is, then, there any
 >reason to take anything more that Andy says seriously? It is
 >safe to say that Andy has no problem with ignorance and anti-
 >intellectualism, if either serves the purpose he badly needs it
 >to serve at any given moment.

Jerry,

If it's all the same to you, I'd just as soon be left out of
this little dominance struggle you seem to be having with Andy.
While it's very nice (however inaccurate) to be described as
infinitely knowledgable, the realization that one is really just
being used as a blunt instrument to hit someone else over the
head with, does tend to neutralize that somewhat.

If we're going to talk about perception and misperception, then
that's ok, let's talk about perception and misperception. But
argument by authority has no place in science and I'd just as
soon not be used in someone else's game of "my authority is
bigger than your authority."

I wonder if I'm the only one, by the way, who thinks this whole
question of how many people knew about the Cracoe Fell case and
how long it remained unidentified, is something of a red
herring. What's surely interesting is that it presents an
opportunity for people to dry test their investigation
techniques, and discuss whether they would have been sufficient
to show this one up as an IFO.  In a truly experimental or
observational science, one would expect constant calibration and
re-calibration of one's investigative apparatus, to reduce the
number of false positives, as a matter of course.


Cathy

[Catherine Reason]







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 18

                  Re: EW: Shuttle Sparks Electro-Physics &

From: Dave Morton <Marspyrs@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 06:59:12 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 09:59:00 -0500
Subject: Re: EW: Shuttle Sparks Electro-Physics &


 >From: Kurt Jonach - The Electric Warrior
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 18:32:43 -0800 (PST)
 >Subject: EW: Shuttle Sparks Electro-Physics & Explosions


 >The Electric Warrior : Web Log February 17, 2003
 >http://www.electricwarrior.com/

<snip>

--------------------------------------------------
 >RELATED RESOURCES

 >16-Feb-03
 >Listening devices record explosions from dying shuttle
 >http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artikkel?Avis=TO&Dato030216&Kategori=
NEWS08&Lopenr=102160051&Ref=AR

[Search on keyword "Columbia"]

 >DENVER, CO (Toledo Blade) - A little-known network of listening
 >devices, used partly to detect rogue nuclear tests, overheard
 >Columbia's death, recording explosions as the space shuttle
 >broke apart 39 miles above the Earth. Government researchers
 >gathered at a scientific conference here confirmed intercept of
 >the so-called "infrasound" signals during the shuttle's fateful
 >reentry on February 1.

<snip>

Could this be the Son of Mogul - the super-secret Son of the
rubber-and-tinfoil super-secret Mogul? It sounds like we might
have a major leak in our "secrets" system - or isn't Son of
Mogul a secret?

What is this "space shuttle" debris they keep alluding to in
various articles, and why do they want it back?


Dave Morton






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 18

                             UFOs In Ancient Art

From: Diego Cuoghi <diego.cuoghi@tin.it>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 14:21:51 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 10:00:55 -0500
Subject: UFOs In Ancient Art


[Non-subscriber post]

I want to point out my web pages about "UFO in ancient art". I
think I found explanations for many of the famous UFO in art
cases: Uccello's Tebaide, Crivelli's Madonna and Annunciation,
Montalcino "sputnik" and many others:

http://www.sprezzatura.it/Arte/Arte_UFO.htm

Unfortunately the pages are in Italian with some sentences in
English, but I think the meaning is very clear.

In the last page I put the pictures I made two weeks ago in
Florence, at the "Madonna with Child and Little Saint John", one
of the most known UFO-paintings:

http://www.sprezzatura.it/Arte/Arte_UFO_5.htm

Yours sincerely

Diego Cuoghi

--
http://www.diegocuoghi.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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 18

                          Secrecy News -- 02/18/03

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@fas.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 08:53:11 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 10:03:36 -0500
Subject: Secrecy News -- 02/18/03


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
Volume 2003, Issue No. 15
February 18, 2003


**      SCIENCE JOURNALS WILL SCREEN PAPERS FOR HAZARDS
**      CONGRESS LIMITS FOIA ACCESS TO GUN DATA
**      RE-READING RICHARD SHELBY


SCIENCE JOURNALS WILL SCREEN PAPERS FOR HAZARDS

In a landmark statement, editors of numerous leading scientific
journals declared last weekend that they will screen scientific
papers for data that might pose a security threat, and that in
cases where the risk of publication outweighs the benefits, the
papers would be withheld or modified.

The Bush Administration had quietly pressured scientific groups
to visibly adopt a policy of self-regulation, or face the
possibility that Congress or the Administration would impose
restrictions on scientific publication.

"We recognize that the prospect of bioterrorism has raised
legitimate concerns about the potential abuse of published
information," according to the new statement, "but also
recognize that research in the very same fields will be critical
to society in meeting the challenges of defense."

"We recognize that on occasion an editor may conclude that the
potential harm of publication outweighs the potential scientific
benefits. Under such circumstances, the paper should be
modified, or not be published," the statement said.

Significantly, this voluntary approach would vest responsibility
in individual journal editors who would have to exercise their
own judgment. It would not concede to government officials any
authority to suppress or censor scientific research.

Nor does the statement specify what kind of information might be
properly withheld, noting that "we cannot now capture it with
lists or definitions."

The statement itself is an act of good citizenship, insofar as
it represents scientists and journal editors taking
responsibility for the consequences of their work. It is also
tactically wise, to the extent that it serves to forestall more
extreme official measures.

But otherwise, its significance is rather limited. For one
thing, there are likely to be few papers which pose risks that
so obviously outweigh the benefits as to render them clearly
unfit for publication. Furthermore, there are today innumerable
opportunities for global dissemination of scientific research
other than formal publication in prestigious scientific
journals. The big journals' policy of self-regulation can send a
signal of sensitivity and restraint to the scientific community
and the general public, but it is unlikely to be the last word
on this delicate subject.

The February 15 "Statement on Scientific Publication and
Security" was presented at the annual meeting of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science. The text, to be
published this week in Science, Nature, and the Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences, may be found here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2003/02/sci021503.html


CONGRESS LIMITS FOIA ACCESS TO GUN DATA

Members of Congress stealthily inserted a provision in last
week's mammoth omnibus appropriations bill to block Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) requests for certain information
regarding gun sellers and buyers that is archived in Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) databases. The move could
sharply curtail investigative reporting and other public
scrutiny of gun sales.

Federal courts have ruled that such data is subject to
disclosure under the FOIA. Most recently, a federal appeals
court ordered that the ATF was obliged to comply with a FOIA
request from the City of Chicago for the release of information
from its gun databases. The Bush Administration appealed the
decision to the Supreme Court, which is scheduled to hear the
case on March 4.

The new legislative provision, promoted by gun industry
lobbyists, seems designed to leapfrog the pending judicial
process and overturn the court rulings that granted access to
the gun data.

But if so, the provision may not achieve its intended goal.
Instead, the existing disclosure policy may actually be
reinforced by a clause that was added to the measure in
conference, which states that "records may continue to be
disclosed to the extent and in the manner that records... Have
been disclosed under [FOIA] prior to the date of the enactment
of this Act." At a minimum, this clumsily drafted provision is
likely to generate confusion as to its practical legal meaning.

The text of the new provision, section 644 of H.J.Res. 2, is
posted here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2003/atf-foia.html

It was first spotted by the Brady Campaign, a handgun control
advocacy group, which issued a February 13 press release,
"Special Interest Rider Makes Crime Gun Data Secret," here:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/press/release.asp?Record=451

It was reported in "Chicago gun plan hurt in House bill" by Lynn
Sweet, Chicago Sun-Times, February 14, here:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-cong14.html

Information on the ATF FOIA case that will be heard before the
Supreme Court next month may be found here:

  http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/amicus0203/


RE-READING RICHARD SHELBY

When the findings and recommendations of last year's
congressional joint inquiry into September 11 were published,
Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) independently issued a lengthy
statement of his own "additional views" on the subject.

The bulky document was largely overlooked at the time, except
for its potshots at CIA Director Tenet, and by now it has nearly
been forgotten. But Shelby's statement is littered with telling
observations and original insights, and no one with an interest
in intelligence policy should miss it.

Noting that "The CIA's Directorate of Operations usually refuses
even to let CIA analysts see its own operational cable traffic,"
Sen. Shelby establishes that dysfunctional information policies,
including inappropriate controls on information, are at the root
of much of what ails the U.S. intelligence bureaucracy.

"The fundamental intellectual assumptions that have guided our
Intelligence Community's approach to managing national security
information for half a century may be in some respects crucially
flawed," he writes.

Along the way, he challenges some longstanding practices that
are so deeply-rooted that no one normally thinks to question
them, such as the application of the "need to know" standard for
sharing information.

"It may not be true," Sen. Shelby proposes radically, "that
information-holders -- the traditional arbiters of who can see
'their' data -- are the entities best placed to determine
whether outsiders have any 'need to know' data in their
possession. Analysts who seek access to information, it turns
out, may well be the participants best equipped to determine
what their particular expertise and contextual understanding can
bring to the analysis of certain types of data."

But information sharing is not exactly the solution either,
"inasmuch as 'sharing' connotes ownership by the party that
decides to share it, an idea that is antithetical to truly
empowering analysts to connect all the right 'dots'."

As for intelligence reform, "hard-wiring the IC in order to
fight terrorists... is precisely the wrong answer, because such
an approach would surely leave us unprepared for the next major
threat, whatever it turns out to be." Rather, "we need an
Intelligence Community agile enough to evolve as threats evolve,
on a continuing basis."

The new regime also poses challenges for intelligence oversight,
he notes. "Since the Department of Justice has taken the
position that the intelligence oversight committees of Congress
should not be permitted to see any grand jury information, this
means that there is no oversight of what use is made of grand
jury material passed to the Intelligence Community.... The 108th
Congress would do well to consider the civil liberties
implications of passing grand jury information to the
Intelligence Community without effective oversight."

There is naturally much to argue over, and disagree with, in the
84 page report. But on balance, Sen. Shelby's report is among
the most thoughtful and the most rigorously argued congressional
writing on intelligence in many years.

Sen. Shelby's December 10, 2002, report on "September 11 and the
Imperative of Reform in the U.S. Intelligence Community" may be
found here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_rpt/shelby.html



_______________________________________________
Secrecy News is written by Steven Aftergood and published by the
Federation of American Scientists.

To SUBSCRIBE to Secrecy News, send email to
  secrecy_news-request@lists.fas.org
with "subscribe" in the body of the message.

OR email your request to saftergood@fas.org

Secrecy News is archived at:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/index.html

_______________________
Steven Aftergood
Project on Government Secrecy
Federation of American Scientists
web: www.fas.org/sgp/index.html
email: saftergood@fas.org
voice: (202) 454-4691







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 18

                   Lose Your Sense Of Reality In The Skies

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 10:24:00 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 10:24:00 -0500
Subject: Lose Your Sense Of Reality In The Skies

http://www.yorkweekly.com/news/02172003/col_grad/13356.htm

Monday, February 17, 2003

Lose Your Sense Of Reality In The Skies

By John Grady,

Stars shine so much brighter on a crystal-clear sub-zero winter
night, so alive. Makes me wonder what - or who - is out there.
With all this strife on Earth, I think I might like
extraterrestrial culture. Maybe there are some little, green
people who can whisk us off in a flying saucer to some warmer
world of happiness where there's no pain, hunger, disease or
war.

Turns out a lot of other people on this planet share such outer
space fantasies.

"The latest polls show more than 50 percent of Americans believe
there's life on other planets - we're in the majority now," says
Peter Geremia, who's been, since 1977, New Hampshire's director
of the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON). Even though he's researched
and documented hundreds of sightings, including some in the
Seacoast, he hasn't seen one himself - yet.

"I'd like to," he says.

So who makes up these Unidentified Flying Object culture groups?
Well, first, there are millions of casual believers.

The next group would be the believers, ranging from those who
read UFO magazines to persons who watch the skies or attend UFO
conventions. People actively involved in the search for evidence
are called Ufologists.

And we can't forget the disbelieving counterpart group involved
as "de-bunkers." The most deeply rooted are participants who
believe they're actually engaged with extraterrestrials in
cosmic activities - and, who knows, maybe they are.

One of these "participants" is Pamela Loffredo-Palmer, a psychic
medium and medical intuitive who lives in Lyman, Maine.

"I've dealt with many different types of extraterrestrials for
23 years. They've taught me to be fully aware, helped me to
understand my connections with eternity and the universe."

Star systems she's in contact with include the Pleiadien, Sirian
and Arcturian.

"It may sound strange to you, but I also have Arcturian
bloodlines," says Loffredo-Palmer, who believes DNA from other
planets was brought to earth. Many of her ideas and messages are
on her Web site:

www.starseedcentral.com

If you'd like to learn more, on April 6 she is giving a
mediumship and channeling presentation as part of a total
wellness expo at the Doubletree Hotel in Portland.

The MUFON organization focuses on physical evidence and
eyewitness reports. Geremia occasionally gives slide show
lectures detailing the organization's investigations. I saw him
at the library in Exeter, the town that was the scene of
"Incident at Exeter," the mid-1960s book written by John G.
Fuller about what would become a famous UFO sighting. He
followed up that bestseller with "Interrupted Journey," about
the 1961 abduction of Portsmouth residents Betty and Barney Hill
in the White Mountains, which also became an international
bestseller.

The place was packed with people of all ages and types. The
presentation at the standing-room-only event was very low-key
and factual. Geremia carefully explained each incident in terms
of what colors the lights were, how the object moved, etc.

It was remarkable how similar each different experience was:
lights moving silently, stopping and starting in the sky.
Geremia didn't attempt to explain what was going on.

"Why are they here?" asked one white-haired grandmotherly type,
who looked as if she had just left a cookie-baking project to
explore extraterrestrial life.

"I have no idea," said Geremia. "You're looking at a skeptic.
There's a lot of stuff mixed up with this that I don't buy, a
lot of people who lose their sense of reality - whooo, not for
me."

In fact, Geremia sees his role as more of a scientific
investigator and feels that activities by people in the
"participants" category undercut his work.

"The biggest problem for UFO sightings is getting those who see
them to sign on to a report. When people make claims with no
evidence, no basis in facts, it reduces our credibility and
makes those who do have an experience reluctant to come
forward."

Those interested in learning more or helping with investigations
are welcome, for more information, to check the Web site at:

www.nhmufon.com

MUFON UFO Journal is an international magazine devoted to the
investigation, study and research of UFOs.

Volunteers are also invited to help with a Search for
Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) project that uses giant
antennas (like the big one at Arecibo, Puerto Rico, that was in
the movie "Contact") to listen for radio signals from space. The
data is analyzed for signs that it might be from intelligent
extraterrestrials. The problem is there is too much data. Using
peer-to-peer technology, SETI@home connects computers around the
world across the Internet to boost processing power in the
search. You can participate; get more information at
SETI@home.com.

The possibility of life on other planets has captured humanity's
imagination for a long time. Jules Verne wrote "From the Earth
to the Moon" in 1865. H.G. Wells wrote "War of the Worlds" in
1898. Orson Welles used this book as the basis of a radio drama
that scared the wits out of people in 1938.

Thousands of people panicked, thinking Martians were actually
landing. It landed Welles not only in a lot of trouble but,
finally, in Hollywood.

Since then, our culture of aliens and UFOs has increased and
multiplied. From 1964's Grade B movie "Santa Claus Conquers the
Martians", through classics such as "Invasion of the Body
Snatchers", "ET - The Extraterrestrial", "Close Encounters of
the Third Kind", "Men in Black" to television's "X-Files," and
to Steven Spielberg's recent series "Taken on the Sci-Fi
Network," it's not hard to find alien beings - at least on
screens or pages. You can even play X-COM's UFO Defense game on
PlayStation and thwart predatory attacks by elusive aliens.

But some participant groups accuse Hollywood of injecting UFOs
with too much fear and danger. Many of these groups believe the
extraterrestrials are friendly and beneficent.

Most of these "space" cults are harmless. The Aetherius Society,
founded in England in 1955, believes the extraterrestrials are
visiting to help usher in a new age of peace and enlightenment
in our world.

Unarius, based in California, was founded in 1954 with a cosmic
link to the Space Brothers who, they say, are helping to expand
our awareness and connection with galactic intelligence.

The Raelian Movement, on the other hand, made recent headlines
by announcing the first clone of a human being. Founded in
France in 1973, the Raelians claim to have about 40,000 members
and believe humans were created by extraterrestrials who
mastered genetic engineering. Evidence, as always with these
groups, seems to be seriously lacking. But what if they are
starting to clone human beings? This technology exists and could
become a scary reality.

The world was really frightened in 1997 when 39 young men
between the ages of 18 and 24 were found dead in Rancho Santa
Fe, an upscale San Diego suburb. Members of the UFO cult
Heaven's Gate, their faces were covered with purple cloths. They
supposedly believed aliens from outer space "planted" humankind
on planet Earth and would come back in a spaceship to gather
them into the future. With the appearance of the Hale-Bopp
comet, they thought the time had come and made their move.

"They are the exceptions, not the rule," says Loffredo-Palmer
about cults like Heaven's Gate. "The beings I am in contact with
encourage me to take responsibility, they help me but they don't
tell me what to do. They are speaking through me. They bring
peace and hope into my life, faith in my own spirituality."

There are more stars in the universe than all the grains of sand
on all the world's beaches combined. Gazing up into the sky,
like an ocean full of twinkling stars, I can easily fantasize.
But I want to stay positive. No attacks by monsters.

Maybe I'll be drawn up in a column of white light and taken to
some sort of sultan's palace planet where all my wishes can come
true. Or, at least, maybe an almond-eyed visitor will arrive
with a cure for cancer for us. Who knows?

John Grady of Rye is a cultural astronaut willing to travel far
and wide to interpret alien and other experiences. He can be
reached at jgrady77@hotmail.com.


[UFO UpDates thanks www.http://anomalist.com for the lead]









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 18

              Re: Alien 'Abductees' Show Real Symptoms - Bueche

From: Will Bueche <willb3d@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 14:27:24 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 15:10:41 -0500
Subject: Re: Alien 'Abductees' Show Real Symptoms - Bueche



 >From: Philip Mantle <philipmantle@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 15:03:42 -0000
 >Subject: Alien 'Abductees' Show Real Symptoms

 >Source: BBC News - In Depth

 >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2003/denver_2003/2769875.stm

Last month it was Clancy's (McNally's junior partner)  "thematic
word list" experiment, and now McNally's own "physiological
response" study has finally come out (or at least he is speaking
about it, which must mean it has been accepted for publication
in a journal since he was staying mum about it for the past
year, until that came to pass). So again, as one who
participated in both of their studies as an experiencer subject,
I feel I have a responsibility to make a statement. I left this
one at the BBC site though I do not know that they'll print it:

As one of the participants in McNally's study, I've been aware
of his personal position on the subject of alien encounters for
some time now. As he is a decent fellow I do not hold it against
him that his personal opinion is that alien encounters do not
exist; such is entirely his right and it means little to me.

As one reads his study (or news articles about it), however, one
needs to be aware that McNally's personal opinion is not the
direct result of his results, which are remarkable. McNally's
study proved that the physiological responses of experiencers is
as authentic as the physiological response from people whose
experiences are not considered "unreal." That has significant
implications.

McNally has chosen the safest possible implication -- he chooses
to view these results as evidence of the "power of emotional
belief." However anyone can see that this is a conclusion which
can only be reached if one presumes that alien encounters have
not transpired, that they are unreal, and that they are
therefore a matter of belief. The study did not prove that alien
encounters were fantasy, on the contrary, it proved that the
physiological response was as authentic as the response from any
reality known to be true. The matter of reality remains
unresolved, even as we now have evidence that the impact they
leave upon people is significant.

Although I respect McNally for the research he has done, some of
his opinions professed in the article above are based on dubious
comparisons which I cannot hold in the same respect -- i.e., his
suggestion that because some aspects of alien encounters sound
somewhat similar to sleep paralysis and hypnogogic
hallucination, that that may be an explanation. No study leading
to that conclusion was performed, it is simply an idea no more
valid than the opinion of anyone else.

A second statement I take issue with is McNally's suggestion
that people who report alien encounters have unusual beliefs
about reality, which he says in the BBC article existed prior to
their encounters. There are two problems with that statement.
The first is simply a matter of fact, that I know that some of
his subjects developed new ideas about reality as an outcome of
being aware of their experiences. I must assume therefore that
when he said this, he was speaking generally (on average).

Even if he was speaking generally, a second problem with his
statement remains: Even if the majority of his subjects did
report unusual beliefs about reality prior to their becoming
aware of their alien encounter experiences, one needs to bear in
mind that adult experiencers have inevitably found to have had
experiences _since childhood_ which they may have disregarded at
the time (childhood experiences tending to have a different
quality than those in adult life). If experiences do begin in
childhood, then the development of novel ideas about reality may
well be the result of their early experiences, and do not
indicate a predisposition towards fantasy or whatever he was
implying when he noted that experiencers had unusual beliefs
about reality.

I hope that a critical reader will take into consideration the
details of this report, and understand the remarkable results of
his study are not diminished by the personal opinions of the
researcher.

For that reason, I hope this study gets widely reported on in
the MUFON Journal and so forth. I will be in touch with McNally
later this week to see if the study itself has been published.
has been published.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 18

                  Re: Alien 'Abductees' Show Real Symptoms

From: Will Bueche <willb3d@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 16:22:17 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 15:13:39 -0500
Subject: Re: Alien 'Abductees' Show Real Symptoms



 >From: Philip Mantle <philipmantle@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 15:03:42 -0000
 >Subject: Alien 'Abductees' Show Real Symptoms

 >Source: BBC News - In Depth

 >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2003/denver_2003/2769875.stm



A more extensive version of the earlier rebuttal, now with some
photographs of the study, is now online at:

http://centerchange.org/center/center_news.asp?id=158









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 18

                        Italian UFO Newsflash No. 384

From: Edoardo Russo <edoardo.russo@tiscali.it>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 16:24:13 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 17:40:20 -0500
Subject: Italian UFO Newsflash No. 384


ITALIAN UFO NEWSFLASH

ISSUE NO. 384 -  7 FEBRUARY 2003

by the Italian Center for UFO Studies
(Centro Italiano Studi Ufologici, CISU)

Contents:


- The UFOs Of The KGB
- Project 1954
- 2003 Hessdalen Campaign


THE UFOS OF THE KGB

Once again, sensational news reports have exploded in the
Italian mass media pertaining to the revelation of secret Soviet
documents on UFOs.

This time around, it's about the publication, beginning in
"Komsomolskaja Pravda" on 5 February, of the documents released
in 1991 by the KGB (the infamous Soviet agency for internal
security) to the astronaut Pavel Popovich, who had requested
them in his capacity as president of a UFO association: they
amount to a little more than 120 pages concerning 18 reports
about sightings, these having occurred in great part at military
bases and installations, or else at strategic locations in the
Soviet Union, between the years of 1982 and 1990.

On the heels of the newswires, great emphasis (and some
correspondences from Moscow) was given these documents by almost
all newspaper, radio and TV stations,  but practically in Italy
alone.

In reality, there was no "scoop," especially not in our country,
given that such documents had already been known and distributed
as early as 7 years ago. In particular, these were integrally
translated and published in 1995 as an appendix to Roberto
Pinotti's book, "UFO: Top Secret", whose author had obtained
them from Russian ufologist Boris Shurinov and then had even
turned them over to Italian political and military authorities.

[Komsomolskaja Pravda, 5 February; ANSA, 5 February; La Stampa
and other Italian dailies, 6 February; UFO-Italia, 5-6 February;
Chucara2000, 5-7 February; collaboration by Paolo Fiorino and
Gildo Person=E8]


PROJECT 1954

With the completion of the third volume of the Operazione
Origini ("Operation Origins") book series dedicated this time
around to the year of the "ghost rockets" (e.g., 1946), Giuseppe
Stilo has begun the work on his planned next tome concentrating
on the great wave of sightings in 1954.

In conjunction with these activities, the Italian Center for UFO
Studies (CISU) has proposed that foreign colleagues participate
in an international project of in-depth research, for the
purpose of sharing archival resources and study capacities by
each national organization and numerous scholars around the
world.

Thus was born "Project 1954", an Internet-based, coordinated
effort onto which fifty or so researchers from over twenty-five
countries have signed on, in the last few weeks. There are three
objectives in mind, each respectively focused on the following:
the heavy caseload of sightings from that year; the gathering
and systematic analysis of the documentation of that era; and
the re-examination of all studies and the subsequent body of
work relative to the subject.

[Communications by Giuseppe Stilo]


2003 HESSDALEN CAMPAIGN

The Italian Committee for Project Hessdalen (CIPH) has announced
the launch of its 2003 Campaign for the raising of funds
destined for research activities in the Norwegian valley where,
for years, systematic campaigns of instrumental observation have
been conducted on the renowned, recurring luminous phenomena.

But the CIPH program for 2003 does not limit itself to the
organization, financing and management of a mission in Norway,
where the Committee has sent researchers and technicians over
the last few years from both the CNR and other scientific
institutions.

Among the activities slated for this year, there are also the
following: the development and installation of instrumentation
equipment,  some specially designed,  and the transfer of
research bases (e.g., radio, radar, optic, witness-based) to
Italy, with a further improvement in both organizational and
economic quality, for which an appeal is thus being made for
contributions and donations.

Already available at the Committee's Website are various
articles and reports relative to the 2002 Mission, as well as
reference materials for participating in or contributing to
Project 2003.

[Press release by Renzo Cabassi; www.itacomm.net]


Collaborators on this edition were: Renzo Cabassi, Paolo
Fiorino, Gildo Person=E8 and Giuseppe Stilo.



- - -

This is the English translation of UFOTEL, a free phone/Internet
information service on UFOs edited weekly by  Edoardo Russo for
the Italian Center for UFO Studies (Centro Italiano Studi
Ufologici), available in Italian by calling +39-011-545294, or
by e-mail subscription, or on CISU website at:

http://www.arpnet.it/ufo/ultime.htm

UFOTEL is a supplement to "UFO - Rivista di
informazione ufologica", published by the Italian
Center for UFO Studies, registered at Tribunale
di Torino,  No. 3670, on 19 June 1986.
Director: Giovanni Settimo.
Publisher: Cooperativa UPIAR, Corso Vittorio
Emanuele 108, 10121 Turin, Italy

Translated from Italian to English by:
Gary J. Presto, Freelance Italian>English Translator & Proofreader
44 Bickford Ave., Apt. 2
Revere, MA 02151
USA

Tel.: ++1.781.485.1683
FAX: ++1.781.485.1684
E-mail: gpresto@attbi.com
Webpage: http://www.proz.com/translator/723



- - -

(c) 2003 by: CISU,
Corso Vittorio Emanuele 108,  10121 Torino, Italia

This newsletter (as a whole or in part) may be freely copied,
photocopied, reproduced, stored, distributed and retrieved, at
the only condition that Centro Italiano Studi Ufologici is
reported as the source.

You may get it directly via e-mail by subscribing
(just send a blank message to:
cisuflash-subscribe@yahoogroups.com)

The CISU is a no-profit association whose aims are:
- to promote the scientific study of UFO phenomena in Italy;
- to help circulate information about UFO phenomena and studies;
- to coordinate national activities of data collecting and studying.

You may reach Centro Italiano Studi Ufologici:
- by mail: CISU, Corso Vittorio Emanuele 108, 10121 Torino, Italia
- by phone: +39 (011) 30.78.63 (24 hours UFO Hotline)
- by fax: +39 (011) 54.50.33
- by Internet e-mail: cisu@ufo.it
- at the World Wide Web URL: http://www.cisu.org






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 18

               Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Clarke

From: David  Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 16:27:24 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 17:51:53 -0500
Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Clarke


 >From: Catherine Reason <CathyM@ukf.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 10:18:37 -0000
 >Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >I wonder if I'm the only one, by the way, who thinks this whole
 >question of how many people knew about the Cracoe Fell case and
 >how long it remained unidentified, is something of a red
 >herring. What's surely interesting is that it presents an
 >opportunity for people to dry test their investigation
 >techniques, and discuss whether they would have been sufficient
 >to show this one up as an IFO.  In a truly experimental or
 >observational science, one would expect constant calibration and
 >re-calibration of one's investigative apparatus, to reduce the
 >number of false positives, as a matter of course.

Hi Catherine,

Having been present 'in the flesh', rather than speaking from
the comfort of two decades and several thousand miles
separation, I think I am qualified to comment on the
'investigation' or lack of in the Cracoe Fell case.

You are wrong about how long the 'UFO' remaining unidentified
being a red herring - this is actually the most important aspect
of the saga.

In this particular case, the investigating group actually had in
their possession the evidence of a local farmer who lived beside
Cracoe Fell. He contacted his local newspaper, The Craven
Herald, when the photograph was originally published and said
they showed a light reflection on the rock, something that was
visible all year round but on some occasions brighter than
others.

The investigation group dismissed the farmer's evidence as
worthless and continued to promote the case as a genuine UFO -
  "a structured craft of unknown origin", hovering beside the
Fell. The story was published on pg 1 of the Yorkshire Post,
then appeared in the London tabloids and was well on the way to
becoming a "classic" case, alongside Rendlesham Forest and the
rest.

Here was a perfect opportunity to "dry test investigation
techniques", but in this case ufology woefully failed to ask
even the most basic questions.

If it was not for Andy Roberts' intervention, and some hard
footwork - this case would now be touted alongside McMinnville
and all the others as "the best evidence" for UFOs.

How short people's memories really are!

I remember Andy and another researcher Nigel Mortimer, virtually
camping out on those fells, hoping to reproduce the 'UFO' with a
camera - hardly the domain of 'the armchair ufologist.'  And
when the evidence was reproduced on film, and presented to the
group promoting the UFO claims, they simply could not accept the
facts. To the extent that Andy was physically assaulted by one
of the party who had arrived to examine the evidence!

For around five years they had promoted the case as the best yet
- producing special issues, and case histories, even using it as
the basis of public conferences. They had a vested interest in
the continuing mystery - and did not want the little party
spoilt by the likes of Andy Roberts and his pesky camera.

But after all the huffing and puffing, and tears before bedtime,
by 1986 when the group had 'seen the light' for themselves, they
reluctantly accepted that Andy was right all along.

The fantastic 'Cracoe Fell UFO' suddenly disappeared from the
magazine, and the people who were promoting it as 'the best case
yet' moved on to find another 'best case'. The case that had
generated thousands of words and polemic against those nasty
sceptics and debunkers was never mentioned again.

So when Jerry Clark claims that Andy is 'exaggerating' and
'making it up', my reaction is simply to fall about laughing.

I was there. I saw the whole performance, and watched in
amazement as - like a magic trick - the Cracoe Fell case
unravelled itself in front of my eyes. This, I thought at the
time, was Ufology in a microcosm.

Nearly two decades later, I now realise that we are just
watching the same magic trick being performed over and over
again, in ever more complicated circumstances.....


Best,

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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 18

                      Re: UFOs In Ancient Art - Tonnies

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 08:37:35 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 17:53:19 -0500
Subject: Re: UFOs In Ancient Art - Tonnies


 >From: Diego Cuoghi <diego.cuoghi@tin.it>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 14:21:51 +0100
 >Subject: UFOs In Ancient Art

<snip>

 >I want to point out my web pages about "UFO in ancient art". I
 >think I found explanations for many of the famous UFO in art
 >cases: Uccello's Tebaide, Crivelli's Madonna and Annunciation,
 >Montalcino "sputnik" and many others:

 >http://www.sprezzatura.it/Arte/Arte_UFO.htm

<snip>

Congratulations on what is obviously a very well-done site. I
just wish I spoke Italian so I could read more of the
explanations!

=====
 >Mac Tonnies
macbot@yahoo.com

MTVI: http://www.mactonnies.com
Transcelestial Ontology, Posthumanism and Theoretical Ufology

Blog: http://posthumanblues.blogspot.com (updated daily)







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 18

               Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 10:53:16 -0600
Fwd Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 17:55:07 -0500
Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Clark


 >From: Catherine Reason <CathyM@ukf.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 10:18:37 -0000
 >Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 21:19:01 -0600
 >>Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?


Cathy,

 >>(1) Andy calls the science of perceptual studies, with which
 >>Cathy Reason, as we have seen, is infinitely more familiar than
 >>he, mere "gobblydygook" which those who actually know the
 >>subject "feel it necessary to retreat into." Is, then, there any
 >>reason to take anything more that Andy says seriously? It is
 >>safe to say that Andy has no problem with ignorance and anti-
 >>intellectualism, if either serves the purpose he badly needs it
 >>to serve at any given moment.

 >If it's all the same to you, I'd just as soon be left out of
 >this little dominance struggle you seem to be having with Andy.

Sorry if you're taking this more seriously than it was intended.
  If so, I apologize.

I must point out, however, that this is nothing remotely so
heavy as a "dominance struggle", just a tongue-in-cheek
exchange. I don't take it all that seriously, and I hope you and
Andy don't, either.

I don't mind anybody's view of UFOs, over which reasonable
people can disagree. When somebody insists that his view is the
only one any rational person can hold, on the other hand, the
temptation to point out otherwise is irresistible. This isn't
really anything important enough to occasion anything more than
amusement on anybody's part. In short: Lighten up.


Cheers,

Jerry Clark






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 18

                    Re: Creating False Memories? - White

From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 12:31:47 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 18:01:41 -0500
Subject: Re: Creating False Memories? - White


Hi -

I thought I'd ask a colleague who works in the field of false
memories, and fighting disinformation about false memories, to
respond to the List, the recent email titled:  "Creating False
Memories?"

His reply was too detailed to submit in full to the List, but
for any who would like to read it, it is posted at this direct
link:

http://www.raven1.net/falsemem.txt

(A reference to CSICOP is made.)

The following article was submitted by anti-mind control and
anti-abuse, sexual, Satanic, ritual and otherwise, activist Neil
Brick.  Mr. Brick hosts an annual convention of practitioners
and victims in this field at Bradley Field, Hartford,
Connecticut.

Those who want to question or dialogue about this article should
correspond _directly_ with Neil Brick, at this email address:

SMARTNEWS@aol.com

I, Eleanor White, am not a practitioner or expert in this field
and will be unable to answer questions concerning this article:

================  Article Begins ====================

[This article has been excerpted due to the length of the
original]

Loftus, IMO, misapplies research from nontraumatic memory to
traumatic memory.  Both are stored differently in the brain.
Below please find data that shows ethical problems and backs up
the above point.

"Notably, a similar study (Pezdek, 1995) found that although 3
(15%) of 20 participants recalled a plausible false memory of
getting lost in a shopping mall, none of the participants
accepted an implausible false memory that they had received a
painful enema as a child from their parent."

"General, overstated claims about memory fallibility" don't take
into consideration "the complex interaction of variables that
affect memory performance."

Ottawa Recovered Memory Page:

http://www.carleton.ca/~whovdest/calof2.html

<snip>

For articles critiquing research by Elizabeth Loftus, see:

http://users.owt.com/crook/memory/

<snip>

"In further evidence of questionable activity by FMSF board
members, Notes from the Controversy (Treating Abuse Today, Nov./
December 1995, Jan./ Feb. 1996), discusses ethics complaints
filed with the American Psychological Association against
Elizabeth Loftus regarding her article "Remembering
Dangerously", which was published in a 1995 issue of Skeptical
Inquirer, a publication of the Committee for the Investigation
of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP)."

<snip>

quotes from: "Memory, Trauma Treatment, and the Law" by Brown,
Scheflin and Hammond," (ISBN 0-393-70254-5) W.W. Norton and Co.
New York and London, C 1998:

http://www.wwnorton.com

... Page 365-366. The book has excellent information about
memory studies and a chapter called "The False Logic of the
False Memory Controversy and the Irrational Element in
Scientific Research on Memory" (pg.  382)

<snip>

Although we acknowledge that inaccurate and mistaken memories
may occur, we must conclude that Loftus and Pickrell's mall
study does not support in any manner the notion that false
autobiographical memories of abuse in childhood can be implanted
by therapists

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








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 18

                  Re: Another Abduction Question - Gonzalez

From: Luis R. Gonzalez <lrgm@arrakis.es>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 16:44:29 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 18:06:10 -0500
Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question - Gonzalez


 >From: Nick Balaskas <Nikolaos@YorkU.CA>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 15:58:17 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
 >Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question

 >>From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:00:18 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question

<snip>

 >>Hold on, please. Name one law of physics that bars such things
 >>from being possible using that portion of physics humanity has
 >>yet to discover.

Well, by definition, if there is a portion of physics humanity
has yet to discover, we do _not_ know if it bars such thing from
being possible or not, doesn't we?

I always remember a short SF story about the scientific "cover
up" of their findings about hyperspace. It resulted that the
"light barrier" was even lower in that other Universe!

<snip>

 >Besides, the physics of the second half of the 20th century
 >accepted a multiple-dimensional reality for our universe to best
 >explain certain puzzling observations we could not understand
 >otherwise. Interestingly, Canadian flying saucer researcher
 >Wilbert B. Smith who wrote 'The New Science' with the help of
 >the "Boys Topside", and also the Bible, both make references to
 >12 dimensions of reality too.

Something similar said those glorious Ummites. Does the
similarities (even if the last time I look, string theories seem
to be a little bit discredit) mean that they are also real
aliens?

Good Doctor Asimov wrote about the why and wherefores of those
scientific limits much better than I can never try


Luis R. Gonz=E1lez Manso








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 18

             Re: Lose Your Sense Of Reality In The Skys - Warren

From: Frank Warren <frank-warren@pacbell.net>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 09:52:29 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 18:11:42 -0500
Subject: Re: Lose Your Sense Of Reality In The Skys - Warren


 >From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >To: <- UFO UpDates Subscribers ->
 >Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 10:24:00 -0500
 >Subject: UFO UpDate: Lose Your Sense Of Reality In The Skies


 >Source: The Portsmouth Herald - New Hampshire

 >http://www.yorkweekly.com/news/02172003/col_grad/13356.htm

 >Monday, February 17, 2003

 >Lose Your Sense Of Reality In The Skies

 >By John Grady,

<snip>

Hello Fellow Listerions,

Following Mr. Grady's article, I felt compelled to drop him a
line and comment on his descriptions of people involved in
Ufology:



Dear Mr. Grady,

I just finished reading your article titled, "Lose Your Sense Of
Reality In The Skies,"  and I felt motivated to comment on the
piece.

Quite often when a writer is tasked to engage a subject that he
or she is not familiar with, (and with time constraints in
mind), they of course draw on their own perceptions of said
subject. This is why your use of the term, "Unidentified Flying
Object culture groups" did not surprise me, as well as the use
of the word "believers." It  did, however, urge me to point out
a few things that may serve you in any future articles that you
write on the subject. (UFO's)

First, your description, "Unidentified Flying Object culture
groups" (from my perspective) tends to give the reader the
impression that people who have an interest in the subject of
UFO's, to what ever degree, are somehow different from "the rest
of us." Although you fell short of using the terms "cult" or
"sect" (thank you) I felt, as a reader, that "those people" have
a "unique perspective" unlike "the rest of us." Moreover,
combined with use of the term, "believer", this further
clarifies my observation.

As often seen with writers that aren't knowledgeable with the
topic (UFO's), they have a tendency to associate it with
subjects that have no "scientific basis," and speculation and
theorems are derived from lack of supporting scientific
evidence. Hence the terms "believe, believers, etc." Since you
have clearly defined "UFO's" (Unidentified Flying Objects) in
your article, to use the term "believers" is completely
erroneous and redundant. UFO's have been an accepted phenomenon,
to our government and military, as well as various scientists
for over fifty years; since before the Air Force coined the
term. To say, "believers in UFO'S," would be the same as saying,
"believers in the Empire State Building," neither makes any
sense.

In conclusion, there isn't/hasn't been any argument to the
existence of UFO's for quite some time; the "origin" of UFO's is
currently the great debate among many people in and out of
UFOlogy. This is where speculation and conjecture runs rampant.

In any event I thank you for the attention you devoted to the
subject.


Respectfully,

Frank Warren








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 18

                  Re: Another Abduction Question - Gonzalez

From: Luis R. Gonzalez <lrgm@arrakis.es>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 16:34:38 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 21:04:53 -0500
Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question - Gonzalez


 >From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 20:26:58 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question

OK, John. Once again, we have reached a stalemate. Let's agree
to disagree.

But before we continue with our lives, let's get some benefit
for the Truth, whatever it is. Can you clarify the diferences
between Brookesmith's version and yours?

I also note that you did not take the bait. Whatever happened to
the Dust Bunny experiment?


Yours,

Luis R. Gonz=E1lez Manso








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 18

                           Re: Nine Beeps - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 14:41:46 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 21:06:28 -0500
Subject: Re: Nine Beeps - Gates


 >From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 19:35:59 -0800 (PST)
 >Subject: Nine Beeps

 >Two weeks ago I woke and found that my digital answering machine
 >had recorded nine evenly spaced beeps. Somehow these were
 >recorded onto the memory chip without anyone calling; the phone
 >never rang.

 >The spooky part is that I intuitively knew there would be nine
 >of them before bothering to count them. The phone has never done
 >this before except once, months ago, and I erased the "message"
 >before bothering to count the mystery beeps. I don't know if
 >there were nine of them then or not, but I have a strong feeling
 >there were.

Hi Mac,

What about the theory that you were getting a coded msg from say
ET... Just don't follow the voices in your head..... :)

Actually, contact the manufacturer of the machine. You could
find that it is some kind of defect, or brought about by certain
circumstances.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 18

                       UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 8 Number 8

From: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 18:47:59 +0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 21:13:25 -0500
Subject: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 8 Number 8

Posted on behalf of Joseph Trainor.

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

       UFO ROUNDUP
Volume 8, Number 8
February 19, 2003
Editor: Joseph Trainor

http://www.ufoinfo.com/roundup/


COLUMBIA DISASTER CAUSE
IS STILL UNKNOWN

       The cause of the space shuttle Columbia's catastrophic
breakup during reentry into Earth's atmosphere on Saturday,
February 1, 2003, is still unknown, but the NASA inquiry
board is focusing attention on some probable scenarios.
       "A preliminary analysis concludes that searing-hot air
found its way into the shuttle Columbia's left wing before
the shuttle broke apart, NASA officials said Thursday,"
February 13, 2003.
       "Investigators still have to determine how the outside
of the shuttle was penetrated.  But temperature hikes shown
by sensors in the left wing mean that superheated air burned
or seeped through the shuttle's aluminum skin.  Any
intrusion by this superheated air, or 'plasma,' during
reentry would be catastrophic."
       "A cocoon of plasma envelops the shuttle when it
reenters the atmosphere.  The air measures 2,000 to 3,000
degrees (Fahrenheit).  The shuttle's outside is armored with
a heat shield.  But the inside can't withstand such heat.
The analysis makes it less likely that heating of the
shuttle's aluminum skin alone caused Columbia to be
destroyed, NASA spokesman James Hartsfield said."
       "Since the loss of Columbia and its seven-member crew
Feb. 1, engineers have sought to explain temperature rises
measured during the shuttle's last moments.  Sensors in or
near the shuttle's left wheel well showed rising
temperatures between 8:52 a.m. ET (Eastern time) and 8:59
a.m., when controllers lost contact."
(Editor's Note: At 5:52 a.m. Pacific time (8:52 a.m. Eastern
time), Columbia was flying over California when it was
apparently struck by some kind of energy bolt, a phenomenon
photographed by an amateur astronomer in San Francisco.  See
UFO Roundup, volume 8, number 7 for February 12, 2003, "
Columbia destroyed by weird energy bolt," page 1.)
       "'You'd have to have a breach and plasma flow...to
create that temperature trend,' Hartsfeld said."
       "Hartsfield cautioned that engineers must double-check
the analysis.  But they are studying how the plasma might
have flowed inside the left wing."
       "Possible breach points include:"
       "The front or 'leading' edge of the shuttle's left
wing.  Some experts have speculated that this area may have
been damaged when insulation from the shuttle's fuel tank
hit the wing during launch" on January 16, 2003.
       "An open landing-gear door or a leak in the door's
seal.  One sensor showed Columbia's left landing-gear was
down 26 seconds before contact with the shuttle was lost.
But two other sensors showed the gear hadn't deployed.  The
drag on the shuttle's left wing was lower than would be
expected if the gear had deployed, Hartsfield said."
       "About seven minutes before the shuttle lost contact at
8:59:32 a.m. ET (Eastern time), the first unusual sensor
reading appeared.  It showed increasing heat in a hydraulic
line near the left landing gear.  Other nearby hydraulic
temperature sensors quickly followed suit."
       "Though the temperature increases were not severe, NASA
concluded they could have come only from a break in the skin
on the left wing.  It appears that the break was relatively
small at first because the shuttle flew normally until just
before it broke up."
       "'It's really a function of how much plasma is getting
in,'" said Ashley Emery, an engneering professor at the
University of Washington state.
       "Over time, the plasma would create a bigger breach."
       "'Eventually, the hole gets bigger and bigger and it
gets critical--it starts to go really fast,' said John
Hansman, an aeronautics and astronautics professor at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology."
       While many at NASA dismissed the "weird energy bolt" as
a glitch in the amateur astronomers Nikon 880 digital
camera, some scientists wondered if the shuttle might have
been struck by little-known electrical phenomena of the high
atmosphere.
       "Red sprites are electrical discharges in the upper
atmosphere.  They occur over thunderclouds and have been
considered to pose less than a 1-in-100 risk to the shuttle.
Some rainstorm clouds did appear over northern California
during reentry last Saturday," February 1, 2003, but no
lightning was reported on the ground, says atmospheric
scientist Walter Lyons of FMA Research in Fort Collins,
Colorado."
       "Blue jets are upward lightning strikes.  In 1998,
Lyons and a team of scientists reported one that was sparked
by a meteor."
       "'The safety implications are just a gaping hole in our
knowledge,' he says."
       "Meanwhile, Lyons says, scientists are still
discovering unexplained phenomena" in the high atmosphere.
'We're nickle-and-diming to do our research,' he says, 'And
there is all sorts of electrical foolishness going on up
there that we still don't know anything about.'"  (See USA
Today for February 14, 2003, "Searing air got inside
shuttle," page 1A, and "Plasma breach doesn't answer shuttle
mystery," page 17A; for February 12, 2003, "Tapes show NASA
actions when Columbia was lost," page 4A; and February 7,
2003, "Upper atmosphere may hold clues in Columbia mystery,"
page 6A.  See also the Orlando, Fla. Sentinel for February
13, 2003, page 1.)


THREE MYSTERIOUS FREBALLS
SIGHTED IN WESTERN JAPAN

       "Observatories in western Japan were inundated by
telephone calls and emails reporting UFOs over the islands."
       "The massive sighting occurred at 8:30 p.m. on
Thursday, February 6, 2003, consisting of 'a huge ball of
fire' which traveled from west to east across the sky before
dividing itself into three fireballs of an equal smaller
size and then disappearing simultaneously."
       "According to dozens of witnesses, 'the strange object
was initially white but, after splitting into three, each
new object was a bright yellow and, a little later, a
brilliant red.'"
       "Scientist Shinya Narusawa of the Nishi Harima
Observatory in Hyogo prefecture, commented, 'We received
dozens of reports of a strange phenomenon over the city of
Tanegashima, in Nagasaki prefecture, and also in Fukuoka and
Kitakyushu.'"
       "Scientists speculated that it might be a very large
meteor that broke up as it entered Earth's atmosphere and
then plunged into the Pacific Ocean.  Japanese ufologists
promised 'a detailed investigation of the event.'"
       Tanegashima is on Japan's Kyushu Island, located about
600 kilometers (360 miles) southwest of Tokyo, that national
capital.  (See the Japanese newspaper Mainichi Shinbun for
February 7, 2003.  Many thanks to Angela Tarohachi for
forwarding this newspaper article.)


UFO FLAP REPORTED IN
NORTHERN PERU

       She's back!  Jelu, the wardrobe-challenged "space
princess" who occasionally pops up in South America, has a
new playground--the department (state) of Piura in northern
Peru.
       According to Giorgio Piacenza, UFO Roundup
correspondent in Peru, the network Television Panamericana -
Canal (Channel) 5 in Lima, the national capital, "aired a
15-minute special report on Sunday evening, February 2,
2003.  The towns of Chulucanas and Piura La Vieja in the
department of Piura in northern Peru have been having
recurring multiple-witness UFO events since October and
November 1999.  Some of these have been filmed and
videotaped."
       Television Panamericana broadcasted short clips from
half a dozen home videos, interspersing these with
interviews with UFO witnesses in Piura.  The videos showed
luminous UFOs at night.  But there were also daylight videos
of silver discs and spheres hovering over the oasis, the Rio
Chira, the Plaza Mayor in Piura La Vieja and the outlying
village of Tamarindo, before darting away at dazzling speed.
       The "Jelu sighting" was in Tangarara, between Piura La
Vieja and Sullana.  Eyewitnesses claim to have seen "a
beautiful woman with wild golden-streaked chestnut-colored
hair wearing a golden tanga (Brazilian string bikini--J.T.)
with little silver stars embroidered beneath the waistband."
The entity reportedly appeared when "strange flashing
colored lights appeared over the tile rooftops" of Sullana.
       Piura La Vieja is on the Panamerican Highway
approximately 476 kilometers (285 miles) north of Lima.
(Muchas gracias a Giorgio Piacenza y Monica Gaetano de Silva
para esos informes.)
(Editor's Comment: Jelu is the only ET I know who turns
alien invasion into a fashion statement.)


UFOs REAPPEAR IN NORTHERN
BRITISH COLUMBIA

       On Monday, February 3, 2003, at 8 a.m., a man working
at the Houston Forest Products lumber yard in Houston
(population 3,934), a town in Canada's northern British
Columbia province, had a UFO encounter.
       According to Canadian ufologist Brian Vike, Houston
Forest Products is one of the two large sawmills in the
town, and the witness "was operating a heavy machine in the
log yard when an 'extremely' bright yellow/orange light
caught his attention.  The light was coming from the north
side of Peacock Mountain, which is at the south end of the
company's property.  There was a low-lying fog in the valley
that morning.  After he saw the intense light, he saw what
he first thought was a helicopter but wondered why it had
such a bright light on it.  Then after a couple of seconds
went by, he thought it couldn't be a helicopter due to the
(large) size of it."
       "The UFO was two kilometers (1.2 miles) away on the
side of Peacock Mountain, either hovering or 'on the ground'
for approximately 40 seconds.  The witness said the colour
of the object was a light gray/white.  And the colour was
changing, almost as if it were translucent.  The craft was
oval in shape with this bright yellow/orange light dead
center at the bottom.  As the witness was watching it, it
rose up a little and flew to the south, heading for the top
of Peacock Mountain.  Before it even came close to the top
of the mountain, it completely disappeared, or, as they say,
'blinked out.'"
       Twelve hours later, at precisely 8:10 p.m., there was a
sighting at Canfor, the other large sawmill in Houston, B.C.
"A Canfor employee who runs a trackmobile at the sawmill was
moving around (wood) chip cars on company property.  He said
he climbed down off the machine he was operating and
switched over to another (rail) track, when an extremely
fast object, or for a better word, three bright, hazy,
blue/white lights came out of the north and disappeared to
the south.  The witness said, 'Everything happened too
fast,' and he could not make out any outline of what he was
seeing.  He said the three lights were in a trangular
formation.  He mentioned the lights were not that high above
him, but had to be high enough to clear the mountains to the
south of the Morice Valley, which are 2,000 to 3,000 feet
(600 to 900 meters) high."
       On Monday, February 10, 2003, a witness in Duncan, B.C.
(population 4,583) "was walking his dog in the park when he
observed a circular object with what he described as 'a ring
of fire' around it.  His dog was going completely nuts
(crazy) while the event was going on."
       Asked how far away the UFO was, the witness replied,
"'Maybe four to six city blocks away, up in the sky.'  He
also said the ring which surrounded the object would twirl
around the main body of it.  There were a number of colours
coming from it such as blue, green, etc.  It would move up
and down.  When it got down to the cloud cover, the colour
changed to an orange.  The chap also said that the object
seemed to take its time moving up and down.  The witness's
dog at the time actually took a bite at its owner's foot, as
it was frightened of what was going on.  There was no sound
heard from the object.  He estimated that the UFO 'was the
size of a dinner plate at four to six blocks away.'  The
sighting lasted for five minutes before the object
disappeared."  (Many thanks to Canadian ufologist Brian Vike
for these reports.)


HOVERING ORANGE FIREBALL
SEEN IN MANITOBA, CANADA

       On Wednesday, February 12, 2003, at 10:30 p.m., a woman
in Selkirk (population 9,885), a city in Canada's Manitoba
province "was at her son's house in East South Selkirk.  She
took the dog outside for a walk and, while looking up at the
stars, this witness noticed an orange-coloured ball with a
short tail.  The sighting lasted for approximately five to
six seconds."
       "She went on to say (that) right after watching it for
about four seconds, the one fireball broke into two.  It was
only a second or two after seeing it break up that both
objects disappeared."
       Selkirk is 20 miles (32 kilometers) north-northeast of
Winnipeg, the provincial capital.  (Many thanks to Canadian
ufologist Brian Vike for this report.)



READER FEEDBACK:

NO MEDIA MENTION OF SPACE
SHUTTLE COINCIDENCES

       Joan Clare writes, "Hello, Joe.  Yes, I have noticed
these coincidences (see UFO Roundup, volume 8, number 7 for
February 12, 2003, "Strange secrets of the space shuttle
Columbia," page 4).  I have also noticed the lack of comment
on same in the news media.  There are none so blind as those
who will not see."


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

UFO ROUNDUP: Copyright 2003 by Masinaigan Productions, all
rights reserved.  Readers may post news items from UFO
Roundup on their websites or in news groups provided that
they credit the newsletter and its editor by name and list
the date of issue in which the item first appeared.

E-Mail Reports to: Joseph Trainor <Masinaigan@aol.com>
or use the Sighting Report Form at:

http://www.ufoinfo.com/forms/form_sighting.htm

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Website comments: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>

UFOINFO: http://www.ufoinfo.com

Official Archives of UFO Roundup, AUFORN Australian
UFO Reports and Experiences, UFO + PSI Magazine, plus
archives of Filer's Files, Oz Files, UFO News UK and
UFO Sightings Italia.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
UFO Roundup is only sent to subscribers.
If you wish to unsubscribe or feel you have received
the bulletin in error, please write to:

   <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>

With the subject: Unsubscribe UFO Roundup.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 18

                      Unscripted Show Gets Legal Papers

From: Kelly Peterborough <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 16:28:43 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 21:16:32 -0500
Subject: Unscripted Show Gets Legal Papers

Source: The Los Angeles Times

http://www.latimes.com/la-fi-scifi17feb17,0,1971277.story


February 17, 2003

Unscripted Show Gets Legal Papers

An unwitting participant in 'Scare Tactics' sues, claiming real-
life trauma.

By Sallie Hofmeister, Times Staff Writer

The Sci-Fi Channel seems to have reached the outer limits of
"reality" TV.

A new show called "Scare Tactics," scheduled to premiere on the
Universal Studios-owned channel in April, is using hidden
cameras to film the reactions of unsuspecting witnesses to
horror and science-fiction-style scenarios such as haunted
houses and alien abductions.

The trouble is, one of the witnesses contends she suffered real-
life trauma from her experience and says she was hospitalized
several times as a result of a prank involving an
"extraterrestrial murderer."

The resulting lawsuit underscores the growing risks - and
expense - of television's genre du jour, particularly when these
unscripted programs involve everyday citizens who haven't signed
up for any role on the small screen.

In a lawsuit filed Friday in Los Angeles County Superior Court,
L.A. resident Kara Blanc claims she suffered emotional and
physical trauma when the cable channel and other co-conspirators
allegedly abducted her and forced her to witness a staged
homicide by an "alien" that she thought was real.

Blanc said she was led to believe by the organizers of the show,
some of them allegedly using fictitious names, that she had won
an invitation to an exclusive Hollywood party at a Southern
California desert resort. She said she was traumatized after the
car taking her to the party stalled along a remote stretch of
desert and she was told by the people accompanying her, who are
named in the suit as actors on the show, to run for her life
into a nearby canyon to escape harm by an alien attacker.

The Sci-Fi Channel could not be reached for comment. Lawyers
representing Blanc did not return a phone call Sunday.

Named as defendants in the case are the Sci-Fi Channel, two
actors who staged the prank and the two creators of the show,
Scott Hallock and Kevin Healey, and their production companies.
Hallock and Healey were executive producers of NBC's 2001 summer
staged-reality hit "Spy TV," which used hidden cameras to film
comical pranks.

"Scare Tactics," hosted by Shannen Doherty, former star of
"Beverly Hills 90210," is the Sci-Fi Channel's first program
using hidden cameras. The show is part of the network's strategy
to broaden its audience beyond the "Star Trek" crowd, building
off its recent success with "Taken," a miniseries by Steven
Spielberg that broke cable ratings records.

The lawsuit is one of a growing number of complaints filed
against networks and TV producers by consenting - and in this
case, non-consenting - contestants. TV networks have increased
their reliance on unscripted series such as "Fear Factor,"
"Survivor" and "Joe Millionaire" because they are cheaper to
produce than serial dramas and comedies. But the risks
associated with some of these reality programs are starting to
exact a toll, as insurance premiums rise and lawsuits
proliferate.

Shows involving hidden cameras present a particularly slippery
slope because contestants do not sign release forms consenting
to be part of a TV show. A fitness trainer, for instance, sued
the Pax Network after being tricked at an Arizona airport into
lying down on an X-ray conveyor belt for a security check before
boarding his plane. His leg jammed and was injured during the
process. He emerged from the machine to discover that he had
been filmed as part of an updated version of the 1960s TV show
"Candid Camera."

For her part, Blanc said she was hospitalized several times
because of the alien prank, missing work and incurring medical
costs for unspecified physical injuries and psychological
trauma. Her lawsuit charges the defendants with negligence,
invasion of privacy, assault, false imprisonment and fraudulent
misrepresentation. It also seeks to enjoin the defendants from
airing the videotapes in which Blanc said she was victimized.

Her lawsuit also requests that the court stop the producers from
engaging in "the unfair, unlawful and fraudulent business
practice of surreptitiously recording the traumatized reactions
of any other persons in the future."








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 18

                      Re: UFOs In Ancient Art - Murray

From: Marty Murray <mmurray31@cogeco.ca>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 18:14:23 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 21:21:08 -0500
Subject: Re: UFOs In Ancient Art - Murray


 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 08:37:35 -0800 (PST)
 >Subject: Re: UFOs In Ancient Art

 >>From: Diego Cuoghi <diego.cuoghi@tin.it>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 14:21:51 +0100
 >>Subject: UFOs In Ancient Art

<snip>

 >>I want to point out my web pages about "UFO in ancient art". I
 >>think I found explanations for many of the famous UFO in art
 >>cases: Uccello's Tebaide, Crivelli's Madonna and Annunciation,
 >>Montalcino "sputnik" and many others:

 >>http://www.sprezzatura.it/Arte/Arte_UFO.htm

<snip>

Mac Tonnies wrote:

 >Congratulations on what is obviously a very well-done site. I
 >just wish I spoke Italian so I could read more of the
 >explanations!

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

I agree, Diego. The site is excellent and you have done a very
good job. Like Mac, I wish I could read Italian. You must get
this all translated into English


Marty








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 19

                      Re: UFOs In Ancient Art - Bowden

From: Tom Bowden <tomrbowden@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 16:50:48 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 10:49:39 -0500
Subject: Re: UFOs In Ancient Art - Bowden


 >From: Diego Cuoghi <diego.cuoghi@tin.it>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 14:21:51 +0100
 >Subject: UFOs In Ancient Art

 >I want to point out my web pages about "UFO in ancient art". I
 >think I found explanations for many of the famous UFO in art
 >cases: Uccello's Tebaide, Crivelli's Madonna and Annunciation,
 >Montalcino "sputnik" and many others:

 >http://www.sprezzatura.it/Arte/Arte_UFO.htm

 >Unfortunately the pages are in Italian with some sentences in
 >English, but I think the meaning is very clear.

 >In the last page I put the pictures I made two weeks ago in
 >Florence, at the "Madonna with Child and Little Saint John", one
 >of the most known UFO-paintings:

 >http://www.sprezzatura.it/Arte/Arte_UFO_5.htm



Diego,

My impression after looking at the pictures is that it would
take a good deal of explanation to convince me that the objects
pictured were NOT UFOs of some type.

It would be greatly appreciated if your arguments could be
presented in English. The only Italian I know are the words to
some art songs I learned to sing many years ago, and that
vocabulary would hardly help me understand your arguments.

I am particularly intrigued by the work Annunciazione, by Carlo
Crivelli. It seems apparent to me that the artists was trying to
represent some sort of communication between the hovering object
and the woman kneeling in prayer. In this sense, the artist's
work would seem to transcend verbal descriptions. If one were to
offer an explanation that the hovering disc-shape object
represents God in this painting, this conclusion in and of
itself would be quite controversial.

Thank you for the very interesting post. I am hoping that some
reader might be willing to translate your paper into English for
us. If it were in Spanish, I would accept the challenge myself.


Sincerely,

Tom Bowden






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 19

               Re: Unscripted Show Gets Legal Papers - Kimball

From: Paul Kimball <Kimballwood@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 23:00:58 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 11:58:10 -0500
Subject: Re: Unscripted Show Gets Legal Papers - Kimball


 >From: Kelly Peterborough <kellymcg@attcanada.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 16:28:43 -0500
 >Subject: Unscripted Show Gets Legal Papers

 >Source: The Los Angeles Times

 >http://www.latimes.com/la-fi-scifi17feb17,0,1971277.story


 >February 17, 2003

 >Unscripted Show Gets Legal Papers

 >An unwitting participant in 'Scare Tactics' sues, claiming real-
 >life trauma.

 >By Sallie Hofmeister, Times Staff Writer

 >The Sci-Fi Channel seems to have reached the outer limits of
 >"reality" TV.

 >A new show called "Scare Tactics," scheduled to premiere on the
 >Universal Studios-owned channel in April, is using hidden
 >cameras to film the reactions of unsuspecting witnesses to
 >horror and science-fiction-style scenarios such as haunted
 >houses and alien abductions.

 >The trouble is, one of the witnesses contends she suffered real-
 >life trauma from her experience and says she was hospitalized
 >several times as a result of a prank involving an
 >"extraterrestrial murderer."

 >The resulting lawsuit underscores the growing risks - and
 >expense - of television's genre du jour, particularly when these
 >unscripted programs involve everyday citizens who haven't signed
 >up for any role on the small screen.

<snip>

If this report is true, the producers and the network should be
ashamed of themselves. I have no idea why we persist in calling
this type of programming 'reality' television, when it's
anything but. Shows like this give all of us who work in film
and television a bad name.

It may be un-cool, but give me Star Trek anyday, and leave the
'reality' to the evening news.


Paul Kimball

Redstar Films Limited






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 19

                   Re: Another Abduction Question - Velez

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 01:43:38 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 12:06:52 -0500
Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question - Velez

 >From: Luis R. Gonzalez <lrgm@arrakis.es>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 16:34:38 +0100
 >Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question

 >>From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 20:26:58 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question

Hola Luis,

 >OK, John. Once again, we have reached a stalemate. Let's agree
 >to disagree.

It's just that we've already been over this same ground, and
more than once. Agreeing to disagree is fine by me meng. I'll do
anything to avoid a rehash.  ;)

 >But before we continue with our lives, let's get some benefit
 >for the Truth, whatever it is. Can you clarify the diferences
 >between Brookesmith's version and yours?

I thought I did that in my last response to you. (!)  Oh well,
here's a more detailed response. I hope this answers your
inquiry.

1. Peter claimed that my abduction memories were derived from
the hypnosis sessions with Budd.

Not so. In fact the opposite is true. I went to Budd with a
_truckload_ (lifetime) of conscious recollections. I already
explained to you in my first response to you that there were
some events where I recalled how it started but not how it
ended. And vice versa.

The hypnosis was not 'random' in the sense that Budd was just
'fishing around' looking for experiences. We looked into very
specific UFO related events that I had reported to him. The
night I was confronted (and ran away from) a UFO, an incident
involving _hours_ of missing time, and which landed me in an
emergency room the following morning, is a prime example of the
kind of events that we used hypnosis to look into. The hypnosis
was a tool we used to take a very 'focused' look at specific
events. Again, 'events' that _I_ reported to him.

It was my conscious recollections that brought me to Budd.
Nobody suddenly decides, out of the blue,to contact an abduction
researcher and ask to be hypnotized and investigated. If there
were no pre-existing memories, nobody would be motivated to
contact an abduction investigator in the first place. Why would
anyone bother?

The whole premise behind Peter's 'theory' that abductees only
recall 'abductions' via/after hypnosis is flawed. It is the pre-
  existing set of recollections of -repeated- events involving
UFOs and non-human beings that motivates people to seek out
researchers. To seek out _help._

2. Peter failed to mention (at all) a very _long_ list of
physical manifestations/evidence that I shared with him.
Including _several_ UFO sightings involving multiple witnesses.

3. When Peter was travelling around conducting interviews for
the book, he already knew what tack he was going to take. It was
a case of making the facts fit his theory. Anything that didn't
'fit' was ignored, discarded, or simply omitted from his final
report.

 >I also note that you did not take the bait. Whatever happened
 >to the Dust Bunny experiment?

I have written _several_ posts explaining what happened. The
last and most recent was in response to Kevin Randle's inquiry.
Please, check the UpDates archive and spare me the task of
repeating myself/rewriting the whole thing.

The short version is; I cannot post a report I never received.


Regards,

John

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

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/petition








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 19

               Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 10:17:53 +0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 12:08:28 -0500
Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Rimmer


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 10:53:16 -0600
 >Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >>From: Catherine Reason <CathyM@ukf.net>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 10:18:37 -0000
 >>Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >>If it's all the same to you, I'd just as soon be left out of
 >>this little dominance struggle you seem to be having with Andy.

 >Sorry if you're taking this more seriously than it was intended.
 >If so, I apologize.

 >I must point out, however, that this is nothing remotely so
 >heavy as a "dominance struggle", just a tongue-in-cheek
 >exchange. I don't take it all that seriously, and I hope you and
 >Andy don't, either.

 >I don't mind anybody's view of UFOs, over which reasonable
 >people can disagree. When somebody insists that his view is the
 >only one any rational person can hold, on the other hand, the
 >temptation to point out otherwise is irresistible. This isn't
 >really anything important enough to occasion anything more than
 >amusement on anybody's part. In short: Lighten up.

This seems to be becoming a pattern with Jerry's posts. He gets
all aereated over some issue, then whenever he's challenged
claims that it was all a joke and we should "lighten up".
However, if anyone else (e.g. The Pelican) makes a joke about
him he suddenly seems to loose this great sense of humour.

Like Ms Reason, I certainly got the impression that he was very
determined indeed to challenge Andy Roberts's views on radical
misperception, but if it is, as he says, "a tongue in cheek
exchange", why should we take seriously anything he writes in
future? (copyright Jerry Clark Bingo, 1999-2003)


--
John Rimmer
Magonia Magazine
www.magonia.demon.co.uk/arc/00/newmag.htm








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 19

                  Re: EW: Shuttle Sparks Electro-Physics &

From: Colin Stevenson <colin@c2k2.fsworld.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 13:05:46 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 12:12:00 -0500
Subject: Re: EW: Shuttle Sparks Electro-Physics &


 >From: Dave Morton <Marspyrs@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 06:59:12 EST
 >Subject: Re: EW: Shuttle Sparks Electro-Physics & Explosions

 >>From: Kurt Jonach - The Electric Warrior
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 18:32:43 -0800 (PST)
 >>Subject: EW: Shuttle Sparks Electro-Physics & Explosions

 >>The Electric Warrior : Web Log February 17, 2003
 >>http://www.electricwarrior.com/

 ><snip>

 >>RELATED RESOURCES

 >>16-Feb-03
 >>Listening devices record explosions from dying shuttle

 >http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artikkel?Avis=TO&Dato030216&Kategori=
NEWS08&Lopenr=102160051&Ref=AR

 >[Search on keyword "Columbia"]

 >>DENVER, CO (Toledo Blade) - A little-known network of listening
 >>devices, used partly to detect rogue nuclear tests, overheard
 >>Columbia's death, recording explosions as the space shuttle
 >>broke apart 39 miles above the Earth. Government researchers
 >>gathered at a scientific conference here confirmed intercept of
 >>the so-called "infrasound" signals during the shuttle's fateful
 >>reentry on February 1.

 ><snip>

 >Could this be the Son of Mogul - the super-secret Son of the
 >rubber-and-tinfoil super-secret Mogul? It sounds like we might
 >have a major leak in our "secrets" system - or isn't Son of
 >Mogul a secret?

<snip>

Hi Dave and all

to add to your data base take a look at:

http://www.brojon.org/index.html

which I believe gives the real reason for the lightening effects
noticed on other posts and I can only wonder what 9 cycles per
second at high intensity does to us Humans who are 98 percent
water. Whales beach themselves, so.....

Also does this thing destroy UFO entry's or trap them here
(Disclosure Project appose the Star Wars thing). If the seas
are vibrating then the land is also so this could account for
the upsurge in geomagnetic IFO's we are seeing lately (the
fuzzy moving light balls and Orb's).


Colin Stevenson








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 19

                          Re: Nine Beeps - Tonnies

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 06:20:59 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 12:13:21 -0500
Subject: Re: Nine Beeps - Tonnies


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 14:41:46 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Nine Beeps

<snip>

 >Actually, contact the manufacturer of the machine. You could
 >find that it is some kind of defect, or brought about by certain
 >circumstances.

I wondered if it might be some sort of indicator but there's
nothing in the instruction book about anything vaguely like
that. I guess the next step is to contact the manufacturer.


=====
 >Mac Tonnies
macbot@yahoo.com

MTVI: http://www.mactonnies.com
Transcelestial Ontology, Posthumanism and Theoretical Ufology

Blog: http://posthumanblues.blogspot.com (updated daily)








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 19

               Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Reason

From: Catherine Reason <CathyM@ukf.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 15:57:01 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 12:15:44 -0500
Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Reason


 >From: David Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 16:27:24 -0000
 >Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

Hi David,

 >Having been present 'in the flesh', rather than speaking from
 >the comfort of two decades and several thousand miles
 >separation, I think I am qualified to comment on the
 >'investigation' or lack of in the Cracoe Fell case.

 >You are wrong about how long the 'UFO' remaining unidentified
 >being a red herring - this is actually the most important aspect
 >of the saga.

The problem is, it's all so subjective though, isn't it? How
important you actually think it is depends on who you are, where
you are, how close to the original case you were, and doubtless
all sorts of other factors such as what your prior belief
systems are, what peer group you happen to be in and what sort
of social pressures are acting on your cognitive processes.

The fact that I'd never heard of this case probably doesn't mean
very much, but the fact that Jerry and Don had apparently never
heard of it either probably does. In the end, it all boils down
to argument and subjective evaluation - this case might be
representative of UFOlogy in general, or it might be an example
of marginal or fringe behavior taken out of context. The fact
is, no-one really knows. It's exactly the same kind of thing
that happens in mainstream academia when someone asserts that
certain mistakes could never have happened at high-class
universities, or that certain papers would never have been
published in high-status journals.

But even if you were right and it were possible to demonstrate
that you were right "completely and convincingly" (to use your
own phrase) I still think it would be a red herring - see below.

 >In this particular case, the investigating group actually had in
 >their possession the evidence of a local farmer who lived beside
 >Cracoe Fell. He contacted his local newspaper, The Craven
 >Herald, when the photograph was originally published and said
 >they showed a light reflection on the rock, something that was
 >visible all year round but on some occasions brighter than
 >others.

 >The investigation group dismissed the farmer's evidence as
 >worthless and continued to promote the case as a genuine UFO -
 > "a structured craft of unknown origin", hovering beside the
 >Fell. The story was published on pg 1 of the Yorkshire Post,
 >then appeared in the London tabloids and was well on the way to
 >becoming a "classic" case, alongside Rendlesham Forest and the
 >rest.

Except that it never got there, did it? That's the problem. You
might be right, but it's all speculation because we'll never
know what would have happened if this case had stayed "in the
system". Perhaps it would have become a classic, perhaps on the
other hand if Andy hadn't solved it, someone else in the
increasing circle of people who were becoming aware of it would
have.

But even if it had become a classic, I still think that's a red
herring - see below.


 >Here was a perfect opportunity to "dry test investigation
 >techniques", but in this case ufology woefully failed to ask
 >even the most basic questions.

Apparently much of ufology had never even heard of it.

 >If it was not for Andy Roberts' intervention, and some hard
 >footwork - this case would now be touted alongside McMinnville
 >and all the others as "the best evidence" for UFOs.

Still speculation, though.

 >How short people's memories really are!

 >I remember Andy and another researcher Nigel Mortimer, virtually
 >camping out on those fells, hoping to reproduce the 'UFO' with a
 >camera - hardly the domain of 'the armchair ufologist.' And
 >when the evidence was reproduced on film, and presented to the
 >group promoting the UFO claims, they simply could not accept the
 >facts. To the extent that Andy was physically assaulted by one
 >of the party who had arrived to examine the evidence!

 >For around five years they had promoted the case as the best yet
 >- producing special issues, and case histories, even using it as
 >the basis of public conferences. They had a vested interest in
 >the continuing mystery - and did not want the little party
 >spoilt by the likes of Andy Roberts and his pesky camera.

Well, yes. Andy and Dave, welcome to the world of academia.

I remember saying a while ago on this List that Ufology
exhibited the same kind of politics and sociodynamics as
mainstream academia, but in a much more raw and undisguised
form. I haven't personally known a situation where academics
have resorted to physical force to protect their respective
intellectual icons, but I've known plenty of situations where a
screen of politeness and urbanity concealed a depth of vitriol
and viciousness to equal anything in UFOlogy.

Remember that academia works largely by consensus - there can be
disagreement, but usually there are strict limits set on exactly
what there can be disagreement about. Once academics start
trespassing on each other's fiefdoms, then factional infighting
sets in - communication decreases, confrontation increases, and
the result is a turf war over intellectual property. (Sound
familiar at all?)

 >But after all the huffing and puffing, and tears before bedtime,
 >by 1986 when the group had 'seen the light' for themselves, they
 >reluctantly accepted that Andy was right all along.

Been there, seen that, more times than I can count.

 >The fantastic 'Cracoe Fell UFO' suddenly disappeared from the
 >magazine, and the people who were promoting it as 'the best case
 >yet' moved on to find another 'best case'. The case that had
 >generated thousands of words and polemic against those nasty
 >sceptics and debunkers was never mentioned again.

 >So when Jerry Clark claims that Andy is 'exaggerating' and
 >'making it up', my reaction is simply to fall about laughing.

 >I was there. I saw the whole performance, and watched in
 >amazement as - like a magic trick - the Cracoe Fell case
 >unravelled itself in front of my eyes. This, I thought at the
 >time, was Ufology in a microcosm.

Maybe - but if so, it's also academia in a microcosm. If you
haven't seen it yet, you will - unless you spend your entire
academic life being obnoxiously docile and well-behaved. ;-)

 >Nearly two decades later, I now realise that we are just
 >watching the same magic trick being performed over and over
 >again, in ever more complicated circumstances.....

Now this is why I think it's all a red herring.

You might be right (although I very much doubt it) but, the
thing is, you haven't demonstrated it. In the end, what you've
given here is a subjective evaluation - which you're completely
entitled to, of course, but that's all it is. Even if you were
absolutely right about Cracoe Fell, and that could be shown
definitively, there is still a problem.

The problem is the one I mentioned a few days ago in my post
about the spinning saucers - it has to do with relative
probability. When you're looking for statistically rare events,
false positives - IFOs classified as UFOs, in this instance -
  are not just a risk, they're an inevitability.  For an event
with a frequency of one in a hundred occurrences, being detected
with 90% accuracy, you would expect to get on average eleven
times as many false positives as true positives. This is true
for all kinds of detectors and observers, including human ones -
  it makes no difference how the detector works since it's a
statement about outcomes, not internal workings.

Obviously the exact numbers vary depending on the frequency of
the event to be detected and the accuracy of the detector - and
there is another complication, which is that detectors almost
never have neat symmetrical properties in the way I've assumed.
In practice one can draw a curve, called the Receiver Operating
Characteristic or ROC, which defines how many false negatives a
given detector will produce for a given number of false
positives. The fewer false positives, the more false negatives,
and vice versa.


In other words it's a subjective judgement (again!) exactly how
one determines the accuracy of the detector.

But it amounts to the same thing - for nearly all realistic
situations, false positives are an inevitability, and for
statistically rare events, there will be more of them for a
given accuracy of detector. One can eliminate false positives
almost entirely, but at the cost of allowing an even larger
number of false negatives - or, of course, vice versa.

This isn't ivory tower stuff. It applies to real situations,
such as radiologists examining mammograms for breast-cancer
screening - which I myself have worked on. And the take-home
lesson is that you absolutely cannot deduce anything about the
frequency of statistically rare events from the number of false
positives alone - and that however we might sometimes feel we
can, it's an illusion (in fact, an example of a pattern-
  completion illusion, something the brain is especially prone
to).

There's another lesson in all this - and that is that individual
differences in the number of false positives generated by a
particular observer do not mean that some observers are
necessarily more accurate than others. It may be that they are
all equally accurate - in the sense of having more or less the
same ROC - but that each is using a different false
positive/false negative criterion. This is something to bear in
mind when we start cross-comparing investigators, be they
UFOlogists, radar technicians, academic consultants or whoever
else - any given investigator is only as reliable as the
assumptions they make.

One last thought - this excessive significance which is attached
to the issue of false positives is almost certainly affecting
the politics of the UFO problem in a fundamental way. Given the
amount of importance attached to even one example of a false
positive (IFO classified as UFO) the political incentive for
UFOlogists to brush the whole issue of false positives under the
carpet is obvious.

In other words, by attaching excessive significance to the
existence of false positives, you and Andy may be generating
exactly the kind of collective denial which you (and I) believe
is so damaging.


Cathy

[Catherine Reason]







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 19

                          Nine-Beep Mystery Solved?

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 07:47:59 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 12:17:15 -0500
Subject: Nine-Beep Mystery Solved?


Thanks for those of you who wrote to me privately to offer
possibilities for the weird nine beeps on my answering machine.

It turns out that some answering systems (even modern onces like
mine that tell you repeatedly in a human voice if your backup
battery is low) rely on some old-fashioned chips that emit nine
beeps as a periodic low-battery notification. This isn't
mentioned in the instructions - presumably because the
manufacturers aren't especially eager to tell you they're using
old, off-the-shelf parts.

=====
Mac Tonnies
macbot@yahoo.com

MTVI: http://www.mactonnies.com
Transcelestial Ontology, Posthumanism and Theoretical Ufology

Blog: http://posthumanblues.blogspot.com (updated daily)








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 19

                    Re: Another Abduction Question - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 15:57:22 +0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 12:19:30 -0500
Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question - Hall


 >From: Luis R. Gonzalez <lrgm@arrakis.es>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 16:44:29 +0100
 >Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question

 >>From: Nick Balaskas <Nikolaos@YorkU.CA>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 15:58:17 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
 >>Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question

 >>>Hold on, please. Name one law of physics that bars such things
 >>>from being possible using that portion of physics humanity has
 >>>yet to discover.

 >Well, by definition, if there is a portion of physics humanity
 >has yet to discover, we do _not_ know if it bars such thing from
 >being possible or not, doesn't we?

 >I always remember a short SF story about the scientific "cover
 >up" of their findings about hyperspace. It resulted that the
 >"light barrier" was even lower in that other Universe!

 >>Besides, the physics of the second half of the 20th century
 >>accepted a multiple-dimensional reality for our universe to best
 >>explain certain puzzling observations we could not understand
 >>otherwise. Interestingly, Canadian flying saucer researcher
 >>Wilbert B. Smith who wrote 'The New Science' with the help of
 >>the "Boys Topside", and also the Bible, both make references to
 >>12 dimensions of reality too.

 >Something similar said those glorious Ummites. Does the
 >similarities (even if the last time I look, string theories seem
 >to be a little bit discredit) mean that they are also real
 >aliens?

 >Good Doctor Asimov wrote about the why and wherefores of those
 >scientific limits much better than I can never try


Luis,

I am going to piggyback on this post to comment on something you
seem not to be considering in your various comments about the
Linda case. To Greg Sandow you even said that the fact that the
event was witnessed was not relevant! Surely that fact (if
valid) indicates an objective reality to the event.

However, my main point is this: Heinlein, Asimov, and the other
SF "greats" clearly represent some of our most creative and
imaginative writers (though I am personally not a big fan of
SF). A vast SF literature exists in which they have imagined and
written stories about almost anything imaginable that might be
possible and might actually occur eventually. Under these
circumstances, it would be very surprising if some (obviously
select and not broadly representative) elements of one or more
SF stories did _not_ resemble some elements of abductions. If
you pursue this logic, you can use resemblances to SF to
discredit just about any anomalous data in any area. A very
useful, but illogical, technique.


  - 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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 19

                              Balloons Not UFOs

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 11:50:16 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 12:21:13 -0500
Subject: Balloons Not UFOs


Dear Friends of INEXPLICATA,

Researcher Luis Eduardo Pacheco from Argentina has kindly given
us another "heads-up" regarding atmospheric balloon launches
which will undoubtedly unleash an entire wave of misidentified
UFOs.

"Aside from the Ultra Long Duration Balloon or ULDB," writes
Pacheco in his e-mail, "to be launched by NASA momentarily from
Alice Springs, and which will circumnnavigate the world barring
any unforeseen events, France's CNES is returning to South
America with its MIR balloons, the true "masters of deception"
when it comes to producing UFO reports."

"I do not yet have confirmed dates, but it is very likely that
this week will witness the launch of the first of these balloons
under the HIBISCUS program. Said initiative has the goal of
measuirng ozone concentrations in tropical regions and obtaining
data aimed at validating several instruments aboard the ENVISAT
satellite."

"The launch site," Pacheco continues, "shall be the same one
used in the 2001 campaign: the balloon launching field belonging
to the Instituto de Pesquisas Meteorologicas de la Universidade
Estadual Paulista  outside Bauru, Brazil. As you may recall,
between November 2000 and April 2001, the Southern Cone
experienced a veritable "flap" of sightings caused by these
devices.

"Historically, the MIR series has been responsible for several
famous cases of UFO misidentification, most notably the July 22,
1985 sightings in Zimbabwe (resulting in ZAF interceptors being
scrambled); August 17, 1985 (a mass sighting in Santiago de
Chile, related to the "Friendship Island" myth); and September
17, 1985 (a massive sighting over Buenos Aires Province)."

"It is therefore likely," he concludes, "that we will have UFO
sightings similar to the ones we experienced exactly two years
ago."

We wish to thank Mr. Pacheco for keeping us informed about these
developments, and for keeping an eye out for those pesky IFOs.


Scott Corrales
Institute of Hispanic Ufology
INEXPLICATA-The Journal of Hispanic Ufology








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 19

               Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 11:35:02 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 15:52:26 -0500
Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Clark


 >From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 10:17:53 +0000
 >Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 10:53:16 -0600
 >>Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >>>From: Catherine Reason <CathyM@ukf.net>
 >>>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 10:18:37 -0000
 >>>Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?


Sigh, John,

 >>I don't mind anybody's view of UFOs, over which reasonable
 >>people can disagree. When somebody insists that his view is the
 >>only one any rational person can hold, on the other hand, the
 >>temptation to point out otherwise is irresistible. This isn't
 >>really anything important enough to occasion anything more than
 >>amusement on anybody's part. In short: Lighten up.

 >This seems to be becoming a pattern with Jerry's posts. He gets
 >all aereated over some issue, then whenever he's challenged
 >claims that it was all a joke and we should "lighten up".
 >However, if anyone else (e.g. The Pelican) makes a joke about
 >him he suddenly seems to loose this great sense of humour.

I appreciate your endorsement of my sense of humor. The Pelican,
whose real name we all know, does "loose [my] great sense of
humor" on those occasions, admittedly sporadic, that I read him.
He does, as John indicates, make me laugh, though possibly not
for the reasons he intends.

Speaking of patterns:

I'm in the process of rebuilding my office, after moving. In the
refiling operation, I'm going through masses of material,
including issues of Magonia. It's become a running joke with me.
Virtually every issue of Magonia or its satellite bulletin I
pick up slams me. I'll bet my name appears more often in that
publication than anybody else's. The Magonia folk are positively
obsessed with me. I'm their own personal Great Satan
(admittedly, being an American, and an American ufologists
besides, helps here). I guess I should be flattered, and it
_does_ loose my sense of humor. But jeez, guys, get a life. And
a sense of humor and proportion while you're at it.

 >Like Ms Reason, I certainly got the impression that he was very
 >determined indeed to challenge Andy Roberts's views on radical
 >misperception, but if it is, as he says, "a tongue in cheek
 >exchange", why should we take seriously anything he writes in
 >future? (copyright Jerry Clark Bingo, 1999-2003)

Uh huh.


With amusement,

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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 19

               Re: Radical or Ordinary Misperception - Connors

From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 10:35:05 -0700
Fwd Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 15:54:29 -0500
Subject: Re: Radical or Ordinary Misperception - Connors


Blank I certainly cannot, in any manner (nor do I desire to do
so), compete with the cross and under currents of the no longer
thrilling and excruciating eternal thread of Radical or Ordinary
Misperception, but I can whisper that 2 new W. B. Smith lectures
have been located.

This brings to 6 the known W. B. Smith recordings.


Wendy Connors

There ya have it, but whadda ya got?








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 19

               Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Clarke

From: David Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 18:11:47 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 16:00:00 -0500
Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Clarke


 >From: Catherine Reason <CathyM@ukf.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 15:57:01 -0000
 >Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >>From: David Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 16:27:24 -0000
 >>Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

Hi Catherine,

 >The problem is, it's all so subjective though, isn't it? How
 >important you actually think it is depends on who you are, where
 >you are, how close to the original case you were, and doubtless
 >all sorts of other factors such as what your prior belief
 >systems are, what peer group you happen to be in and what sort
 >of social pressures are acting on your cognitive processes.

I most certainly agree with you - but you have fallen into the
same trap yourself, as follows:

 >The fact that I'd never heard of this case probably doesn't mean
 >very much, but the fact that Jerry and Don had apparently never
 >heard of it either probably does.

How subjective is that?

The fact that Jerry and Don, who live in North America, have
never heard of the Cracoe Fell case, which occurred in norther
England, settles it as far as you're concerned, in terms of its
importance.

Don admitted on this List a few days ago that he had only been
involved in the subject for around 10 years, so it's hardly
surprising he had never heard of a case that happened in the UK
in 1981.

This suggests that only those cases which North American
ufologists recognise are of any significance, and we only need
to hear what Don and Jerry says to settle this matter. I'm sure
they would like you to believe that is the case, BUT:

Let's go back in time 20 years and ask the same question, not
in North America, but in the UK. I can guarantee that just
about anyone who as remotely involved in the subject during
the subject during the 80s would have pointed to Cracoe as
one of the most evidential cases there was at that time, far
more so than Rendlesham Forest.

If Jenny Randles - probably the most active ufologist in the UK
at that time - had never heard of Cracoe, I might take your
subjective assertion seriously. But Jenny was deeply involved in
the case to the extent that she agreed it should take its place
alongside Berwyn and Rendlesham as a chapter in our book 'The
UFOs that Never Were' (London House 2000).

Acres of print was devoted to the case, and the fact that US
researchers know nothing simply underlines how insular UFOlogy
is in that country, and how different the subject (and its
study) is in every country and continent where it appears.

 >>Here was a perfect opportunity to "dry test investigation
 >>techniques", but in this case ufology woefully failed to ask
 >>even the most basic questions.

 >Apparently much of ufology had never even heard of it.

Apparently you are wrong! Subjectivity strikes again.

 >>I was there. I saw the whole performance, and watched in
 >>amazement as - like a magic trick - the Cracoe Fell case
 >>unravelled itself in front of my eyes. This, I thought at the
 >>time, was Ufology in a microcosm.

 >Maybe - but if so, it's also academia in a microcosm. If you
 >haven't seen it yet, you will - unless you spend your entire
 >academic life being obnoxiously docile and well-behaved. ;-)

On this we are in agreement. But Ufology does not, by and large,
behave like academia does. Stick around long enough and you will
find out for yourself.

 >>Nearly two decades later, I now realise that we are just
 >>watching the same magic trick being performed over and over
 >>again, in ever more complicated circumstances.....

 >Now this is why I think it's all a red herring.

 >You might be right (although I very much doubt it) but, the
 >thing is, you haven't demonstrated it. In the end, what you've
 >given here is a subjective evaluation - which you're completely
 >entitled to, of course, but that's all it is. Even if you were
 >absolutely right about Cracoe Fell, and that could be shown
 >definitively, there is still a problem.

Using this criteria all evaluations are subjective ones,
including your own, so where does this take us?.

 >One last thought - this excessive significance which is attached
 >to the issue of false positives is almost certainly affecting
 >the politics of the UFO problem in a fundamental way. Given the
 >amount of importance attached to even one example of a false
 >positive (IFO classified as UFO) the political incentive for
 >UFOlogists to brush the whole issue of false positives under the
 >carpet is obvious.

 >In other words, by attaching excessive significance to the
 >existence of false positives, you and Andy may be generating
 >exactly the kind of collective denial which you (and I) believe
 >is so damaging.

But equally, those who attach excessive significance to the
existence of 'UFOs' that have not been identified, provides a
incentive to brush the whole issue of your 'false positives'
under the carpet.

Collective denial also works in the other direction, as
witnessed in the exchanges we have seen on this List. Take your
pick, as your choice of direction will inevitably be a
subjective one.

This kind of approach is just guaranteed to send us around in
ever decreasing circles, I'm afraid.


Best,

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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 19

                  Re: Another Abduction Question - Tonnies

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 10:51:25 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 16:02:46 -0500
Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question - Tonnies


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 15:57:22 +0000
 >Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question

<snip>

 >However, my main point is this: Heinlein, Asimov, and the other
 >SF "greats" clearly represent some of our most creative and
 >imaginative writers (though I am personally not a big fan of
 >SF). A vast SF literature exists in which they have imagined and
 >written stories about almost anything imaginable that might be
 >possible and might actually occur eventually. Under these
 >circumstances, it would be very surprising if some (obviously
 >select and not broadly representative) elements of one or more
 >SF stories did _not_ resemble some elements of abductions. If
 >you pursue this logic, you can use resemblances to SF to
 >discredit just about any anomalous data in any area. A very
 >useful, but illogical, technique.

A couple years ago Mars researcher Richard Hoagland unearthed
View-Master reels about the Martian adventures of "Tom Corbett:
Space Cadet" and convinced many they reflected "inside
knowledge" because of their seeming realism!

Not to be outdone, I located an old paperback by Otto Binder
called "Puzzle of the Space Pyramids": specifically about
pyramids on Mars, etc. In my opinion, it was a more accurate
portral of contemporary Mars than "Corbett". And most
emphatically _not_ becuase of any sort of Martian "coverup."

=====

Mac Tonnies
macbot@yahoo.com

MTVI: http://www.mactonnies.com
Transcelestial Ontology, Posthumanism and Theoretical Ufology

Blog: http://posthumanblues.blogspot.com (updated daily)








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 19

                  Re: Another Abduction Question - Stanford

From: Ray Stanford <dinotracker@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 14:36:11 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 16:07:00 -0500
Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question - Stanford


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 15:57:22 +0000
 >Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question

 >However, my main point is this: Heinlein, Asimov, and the other
 >SF "greats" clearly represent some of our most creative and
 >imaginative writers (though I am personally not a big fan of
 >SF). A vast SF literature exists in which they have imagined and
 >written stories about almost anything imaginable that might be
 >possible and might actually occur eventually. Under these
 >circumstances, it would be very surprising if some (obviously
 >select and not broadly representative) elements of one or more
 >SF stories did _not_ resemble some elements of abductions. If
 >you pursue this logic, you can use resemblances to SF to
 >discredit just about any anomalous data in any area. A very
 >useful, but illogical, technique.

Excellent point, Richard, even though I personally have doubts
about the N.Y. case under discussion, after studying it
carefully.

Using the principle of 'reductio ad absurdum' to Luis R.
Gonzalez's methodology, we might conclude that the lunar
missions were hoaxes because Jules Verne prescientently, it
would seem, depicted a launch to the moon from Florida (in his
'From The Earth To The Moon'), from where the lunar missions
were launched.

:)

Ray Stanford








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 19

                      Re: UFOs In Ancient Art - Cuoghi

From: Diego Cuoghi <diego.cuoghi@tin.it>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 21:39:57 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 16:09:43 -0500
Subject: Re: UFOs In Ancient Art - Cuoghi


 >From: Tom Bowden <tomrbowden@yahoo.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 16:50:48 -0800 (PST)
 >Subject: Re: UFOs In Ancient Art

 >>From: Diego Cuoghi <diego.cuoghi@tin.it>

 >>I want to point out my web pages about "UFO in ancient art".
 >>http://www.sprezzatura.it/Arte/Arte_UFO.htm

 >>Unfortunately the pages are in Italian with some sentences in
 >>English, but I think the meaning is very clear.

 >It would be greatly appreciated if your arguments could be
 >presented in English.

My English is not good enough to translate all those pages. I'm
trying to find someone who can translate the text.

 >I am particularly intrigued by the work Annunciazione, by Carlo
 >Crivelli. It seems apparent to me that the artists was trying to
 >represent some sort of communication between the hovering object
 >and the woman kneeling in prayer.

That woman is the Virgin Mary who receives the God's Grace and
the Annunciation of the Conception of Jesus, as read in the
Gospel according to Luke:

"At that time the Angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of
Galilee, called Nazareth, to a virgin, espoused to a man whose
name was Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin's name
was Mary. And the Angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full
of grace: the Lord is with thee: Blessed art thou among women.
  Who having heard, was troubled at his saying: and thought
within herself what manner of salutation this should be. And the
Angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thous hast found grace
with God: behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt
bring forth a son, and thou shalt call His Name Jesus."

 >In this sense, the artist's
 >work would seem to transcend verbal descriptions.

Yes. But in many ancient paintings of the Annunciation you can
see golden words in the direction of the Virgin Mary. Example,
Simone Martini's Annunciation:

http://www.sprezzatura.it/Arte/Martini_Annunc_part.jpg

The rays are a most simbolic way to represent the God's Grace,
used in hundreds of religious paintings, not only Annunciations.
A very good book to understand the symbols of the religious art
is "Dictionary Of Subjects And Symbols In Art" by James Hall
(John Murray Ltd, London).

In the introduction of this book I read this paragraph by
Kenneth Clark (please forget my bad translation)

"In the today world people had lost the ability to recognize the
subjects of the ancient art and to comprehend their meanings.
Now few people read the Greek classics and relatively little
those that knew the Bible as their grandfathers had known it.
The aged persons today remain dismayed in seeing how many
Biblical references are by now incomprehensible to the new
generations."

Diego Cuoghi


--

http://www.diegocuoghi.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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 19

               Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 15:21:48 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 16:40:10 -0500
Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Clark


 >From: David Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 18:11:47 -0000
 >Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >>From: Catherine Reason <CathyM@ukf.net>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 15:57:01 -0000
 >>Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >>>From: David Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
 >>>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 16:27:24 -0000
 >>>Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >The fact that Jerry and Don, who live in North America, have
 >never heard of the Cracoe Fell case, which occurred in norther
 >England, settles it as far as you're concerned, in terms of its
 >importance.

What rubbish. I was reading about this case in Jenny Randles's
NUFON News back in the 1980s, where it was treated as a likely
to certain misidentification. C'mon, Dave. We're grown- ups
here.

 >This suggests that only those cases which North American
 >ufologists recognise are of any significance, and we only need
 >to hear what Don and Jerry says to settle this matter. I'm sure
 >they would like you to believe that is the case, BUT:

 >Let's go back in time 20 years and ask the same question, not
 >in North America, but in the UK. I can guarantee that just
 >about anyone who [w]as remotely involved in the subject during
 >the subject during the 80s would have pointed to Cracoe as
 >one of the most evidential cases there was at that time, far
 >more so than Rendlesham Forest.

That is an even bigger load of rubbish. Let's see your evidence.
I know the Birdsall brothers trumpeted this story, but the
original investigators, such as those associated with BUFORA,
had this figured out long before.

It's this sort of self-serving nonsense that makes the rest of
us profoundly skeptical of anything that comes out of you guys.
The sort of provincial ufology you represent does nobody,
including yourselves, any good.

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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 19

                          Filer's Files #8 -- 2003

From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 16:22:59 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 16:43:59 -0500
Subject: Filer's Files #8 -- 2003


FILER'S FILES #8 -- 2003 Skywatch Investigations.
George A. Filer, Director Mutual UFO Network Eastern
February 19, 2003,  Majorstar@aol.com Webmaster: Chuck
Warren -- My website is at: http://www.georgefiler.com
Sponsored by: http://www.filer.unfranchise.com

UFO SIGHTINGS CONTINUE HIGH

The purpose of these files is to report the UFO eyewitness and
photo/video evidence that occurs on a daily basis around the
world and in space. This report includes an: Budget suggests
aliens may be in outer space, Connecticut bright object spotted,
New York orange fireball, New Jersey flying triangle, Maryland
craft hovers over highway, Florida daylight teardrop craft,
Indiana bell with lights, Michigan flying triangle, Wisconsin
chevron, Colorado boomerang, Washington UFO sightings continue,
Canadian fighters chase UFOs, Brazil UFO causes blackout, UK
video best ever, Netherlands flashing object, Italy has enormous
cylinder, Hungary UFO causes engine to stop, and Australia flash
of light. Mars once was wet and warm.

BUDGET SUGGESTS ALIENS MAY BE IN OUTER SPACE

WASHINGTON -- Proof that life exists outside the boundaries of
Earth continues to elude scientists, but President Bush's budget
suggests that "space aliens" may be out there.  And it could
just be a matter of time before they are discovered. In a brief
passage titled "Where Are the Real Space Aliens?" Bush's budget
document released Monday says several important scientific
discoveries in the past decade indicate that "habitable worlds"
in outer space may be much more prevalent than once thought.
The finds include evidence of currently or previously existing
large bodies of water - a key ingredient of life as we know it -
on Mars and on Jupiter's moons.  Astronomers also are finding
planets outside the solar system, including about 90 stars with
at least one planet orbiting them.  "Perhaps the notion that
'there's something out there' is closer to reality than we have
imagined," the passage concludes. Thanks to Ms. Dru Sefton
Correspondent Newhouse News Service [
http://www.newhouse.com/sefton.html
]http://www.newhouse.com/sefton.html

STRANGE ELECTRIC-BLUE CLOUDS

NASA Science News reports: "Astronauts onboard the International
Space Station have been observing strange electric-blue clouds
that hover on the edge of space. Thin, wispy clouds, glowing
electric blue. Some scientists think they're seeded by space
dust. Others suspect they're a telltale sign of global warming.
They're called noctilucent or "night-shining" clouds (NLCs for
short). And whatever causes them, they're lovely. "Over the past
few weeks we've been enjoying outstanding views of these clouds
above the southern hemisphere," said space station astronaut Don
Pettit during a NASA TV broadcast last month. "We routinely see
them when we're flying over Australia and the tip of South
America." Sky watchers on Earth have seen them, too, glowing in
the night sky after sunset, although the view from Earth-orbit
is better. Pettit estimated the height of the noctilucent clouds
he saw at 80 to 100 km ... "literally on the fringes of
space."http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/18feb_nlc.htm?aol
19367

Editor's Note: The strange electric blue clouds indicate high
levels of electrical energy in space. UFOs are often seen near
power stations, over electrical transmission lines, over
thunderstorms and near these clouds. UFOs appear to generate
vast amounts of energy, but they may need to obtain extra fuel
from these various sources. Just prior to the Shuttle disaster
cameras captured a glowing purple rope of light that corkscrews
down the Shuttle's plasma trail, that appears to pass behind it,
then cuts sharply towards it from below.  Shuttle instruments
almost simultaneously were indicating much higher temperatures
at the bottom of the left wing. Similar light ropes have
destroyed US missiles in flight. I suggest that UFO expert John
Callahan, who was the former FAA Division Chief of Accidents and
Investigations be appointed to the NASA accident investigation
board for the Columbia. Anomalous plasmas, electrical energy are
often reported during various aircraft accidents such as TWA
Flight 800. The military continues to require their pilots to
report UFOs. Space Command continues to track uncorrelated
targets. UFOs may be an unknown natural phenomenon, but in my
opinion to ignore them is foolish.

CONNECTICUT BRIGHT OBJECT SPOTTED

STAMFORD -- The witness was warming up the car on a cold clear
night at 7:54 PM, on February-9, 2003, and he noticed a brightly
lit white object that was moving slowly north.  I thought it
might be a private, single engine plane but there was no sound
of prop or engine and the light was unlike any I have seen on
any aircraft.  After three seconds it disappeared.  I stood
outside of my car for a few more minutes to see if the object
would return but only a small jet with pulsing lights and a prop
aircraft flew over, but these were not the same object.  Thanks
to Peter Davenport [ http://www.ufocenter.com/ ]NUFORC

NEW YORK YELLOWISH ORANGE FIREBALL

BROOKLYN -- The witness woke up at 5:30 AM and looked out his
window on February 11, 2003, and saw a light like a star, but it
was too close to be a star and very bright.  The witness states.
"I immediately picked up my camera starting filming, and as I
zoomed in closer the object started to change size, its light
dimmed then got real bright.  I thought it could be a chopper
but then suddenly this thing had a shinning ring under it.  I
could see a shadow or something was flying around it with some
other form of lights.  It was near the Verrazano Bridge. Thanks
to Peter Davenport [ http://www.ufocenter.com/ ]NUFORC

NEW JERSEY TRIANGULAR SHAPED CRAFT LANDS

CHATHAM -- The witness and his friend were walking outside on
February 8, 2003, and they noticed a plane flying overhead at
9:15 PM, but didn't think much of it.  They went on the opposite
sides of the street to test how far their Walkie-talkies could
communicate.  The witness stated, "I looked up at the sky and
the lights reappeared, they were very close to me, and I saw
three lights in a triangle type shape and the craft was the same
color of the night." At this point I was ecstatic and I started
running towards my friend screaming and telling him to look at
the object. We saw it start to descend towards an abandoned
property that I believe was about a half mile away. It hovered
down unlike a plane. Also, the craft was silent. Thanks to Peter
Davenport [ http://www.ufocenter.com/ ]NUFORC

MARYLAND CRAFT HOVERING OVER HIGHWAY

BETHESDA/ROCKVILLE -- On January 21, 2003, at 10:55 PM, the
witness left work and was unlocking his car door and saw a craft
with three lights in a straight line with a blinking light
underneath. It was just hovering near the 495 Interstate
Highway. Then the craft started to float to the right for a bit
and then floated to the left. So I got in my car to see if I
could get closer to the craft. The witness reports, "When I got
to the main road I paused and saw it hover for a few more
seconds, and then it darted away from me at unbelievable speed."
Let me remind you that I did not hear any noises, and usually
when helicopters and planes are near, I can hear some noise.
Thanks to Peter Davenport [ http://www.ufocenter.com/ ]NUFORC

FLORIDA TEARDROP UFO SIGHTED

MIAMI -- The witness report he and his Dad were driving along
88th Street approaching 157 Avenue on February 6, 2003, at 7:51
PM when they looked to the right and noticed, in a near
distance, an oval like object hovering over some lights. He
states, "At first I thought it might be a blimp, but then I
started studying the object and noticed it had an oval shape,
but one end was not the same proportion, so it appeared as a
teardrop." Thanks to [ http://www.ufocenter.com/ ]NUFORC

OHIO LARGE ROUND ORANGE BALLS OF LIGHT

WASHINGTON COURT HOUSE -- A married couple left Jeffersonville
around 9 PM, on February 6, 2003, when a large, orange light
appeared in front of them. On the other side of Court House the
same light appeared for about four seconds, faded, then another
to the right quickly blinked then went out and the light on the
left lit up again. About three miles down the road the lights
came on again and they pulled over and saw four flying blinking
lights on what they thought were planes. They continued driving
and, "The lights were a single, strobe-like light on each one,
that would blink quickly, then would go off, and then blink
slowly." My husband noticed one going left, then stall, and
change direction quickly going back to the right." They moved
into pairs moving around in the sky going different speeds. They
seemed very far away which would make the speed even greater.
I've never seen a plane change direction, or speed like these
did. At Frankfort we got off to get a better look and two lights
lined up. The other two came in and joined the line in the
middle of these. Their lights rarely blinked and the two on the
outside began a patterned blink. As they flew away 8 to 10
separate lights in a row blinked. Thanks to Peter Davenport [
http://www.ufocenter.com/ ]NUFORC

INDIANA BELL WITH FOUR LIGHTS

CRAWFORDSVILLE -- On January 23, 2003, while traveling west at
65 mph on Interstate 74, the witness noticed three lights with
another above. They moved together until mile marker 29, when
the craft turned south and flew towards him. The observer
states, "This is when I could see a dark bell shape form between
the top light and the lower three lights. It continued toward my
truck until it was close enough that it was passing over me. I
looked and never spotted it again although I noticed another set
of lights about three miles away.  When these lights got about a
half mile north at less than 1000 feet off the ground, all their
lights went out for a second or two.  Then where the three
bottom lights had been there was a sequence of 5 or 6 strobe
lights from left to right, twice, then one bright flash from the
left end and right end lights.  Then nothing, it just wasn't
there. Thanks to Peter Davenport [ http://www.ufocenter.com/
]NUFORC

MICHIGAN FLYING TRIANGLE

WATERFORD -- The witness was looking out his bedroom window on
February 9, 2003, at 7:30 PM, and noticed three lights in a
triangle. He reports, "I could clearly see the outline of a dark
craft that was larger than a semi-truck that moved behind some
trees about fifty yards away." There were three steady dull
lights kind of like street lights several blocks away. After a
few seconds I got up and opened the front window and leaned out
from the waist up. There were a few planes in the distance and a
small jet like plane following the path of the flying triangle.
There were clouds in the sky to the southeast so I could no
longer see the craft. I am not sure what it was, but it was
large and ominous. Peter Davenport [ http://www.ufocenter.com/
]NUFORC

WISCONSIN CHEVRON

ALMA CENTER -- The witness was coming home from work at 6:45 PM,
on a very cold January 23, 2003, morning and noticed an object
flying toward him. The two previous mornings just before
sunrise, he had seen a brightly colored moving object off to the
west. This morning it was moving closer, appearing and
disappearing. He states, "It came to 100 feet from my car and
stopped, so I got out of my car and saw a green colored craft
with a large frosted white dome on top. It was hovering about 20
feet off the ground." "I could see movement in the dome shape
fixture on top, but only vague shapes were visible, but there
was very definitely something or someone in this object. I
couldn't believe it and drove off at high speed as I was very
scared," he said. The object made a swing above me and flew off
to the east. I know what I saw this morning and am very puzzled?

WEYAUWEGA -- On February 1, 2003, at dusk a father reports, "I
was filming my son sledding and he pointed up and we noticed
some lights coming in from the southwest, so I just pointed the
camera up and took some shots of an object that gave me the
impression of a balloon with some lights." They seemed to cycle
in all different patterns as the object passed almost directly
overhead and then headed south towards the train tracks. As the
object passed over, I could make out more of a disk shape than a
balloon shape. My son asked me over and over what it was and I
don't have a clue. Thanks to UFO Wisconsin [
http://www.ufowisconsin.com/ ]http://www.ufowisconsin.com/

COLORADO BOOMERANG

FRUITA --The witness was delivering pizza when he saw a
boomerang shaped craft that was maneuvering unlike an airplane
or a helicopter. It was covered in various colored lights, and
had numerous pinpoint lights. It sparkled like a diamond in the
light. He reports, "It moved in erratic and figure eight
patterns like no known aircraft." It hovered moving in erratic
patterns, and would move quickly below the line of sight like it
was landing, but then appeared again. The colored lights were
brilliant as were the sparkling pinpoint white lights. Airplanes
are unable to float in such patterns as this craft. I estimate
the body was between 30 to 50 feet in width. [
http://www.ufocenter.com/ ]NUFORC

CALIFORNIA THREE BRIGHT LIGHTS SEEN IN MANY TOWNS

CORNING -- Witnesses that included siblings, parents, and
grandparents from many different towns in the California Valley
saw three lights on January 25, 2003. We saw them at first
around 6:00 PM, as three circular lights flew in circles. The
two dimmer ones followed the brighter one going pretty fast.
They flew around until 9:30 PM, when the two brightest ones
disappeared. The dimmest one kept going for about ten more
minutes before disappearing. We know they weren't planes or
anything like that, because we went to different towns to make
sure and they were always there and we were too far away for
them to be search lights.

SHERMAN OAKS -- Two white-appearing, glowing orbs moved out of
the west to the east, on January 25, 2003, at 1:36 PM. They
moved slowly about 30,000 feet in parallel formation, then
stopped directly overhead. They changed color to red and back to
white for twenty minutes. Thanks to Peter Davenport [
http://www.ufocenter.com/ ]NUFORC

WASHINGTON SIGHTINGS CONTINUE

SEATTLE -- Mr. Robert B. Frost, a retired aerospace engineer
reports, "At 10:07 PM February 1, 2003, an anomalous signature
was recorded on a 3-axis magnetometer. The data was recorded at
a one-sample-per-second data rate, with a resolution of one
nano-Tesla(nT). The anomalous signature was sinusoidal, with a
duration of approximately 50 seconds. Peak to peak magnitude
values were: 32nT in X-axis, 40nT in Y-axis, and 11nT in Z-axis.
Comparisons were made with other manmade object signatures such
as automobiles, aircraft, and trains, none of which matched in
wave form, or approached peak to peak magnitude (being less
than), or duration (being shorter than). Short term transients
caused by solar wind activity are another potential source, but
has not been observed creating such symmetric sinusoidal
signatures. Solar wind induced variations tend to have more
irregular wave forms although peak to peak values of this
magnitude do occur." NUFORC reports, "We find the event to be of
interest because: 1) It appears to be grossly anomalous, and 2)
because the peculiar event occurred approximately 30 minutes
before two seemingly credible, and independent, reports of
sightings of a large disc-shaped object in the vicinity of
Spokane, WA. We invite comment on the event from any parties who
might be able to provide an explanation for such a large
magnetic anomaly. Thanks to Peter Davenport

SPOKANE -- Judge Ed writes that, "The strange activity of lights
and craft in the Palouse wheat country south of Spokane is
continuing." This activity began last February 2002 and has
continued on a cyclical basis since that time. I get the
definite impression that this activity has evolved during the
past year. Initially, most of the activity consisted of
iridescent balls of light, generally drifting in various
directions, as if looking for something. As time has progressed,
it seems that the activity has become much more directed and
businesslike. I also get the impression from the variety of
lights and craft that I observe, and the manner in which these
objects sometimes interact with each other, that there is more
than one entity or group involved, and that they do not
necessarily like each other.

It also appears that the objects have been modifying their
appearance and sound to imitate commercial air traffic. For
example, on a night two weeks ago, I videotaped an object flying
from the southeast to the northwest over my home and toward
Tower Mountain. As it flew over, it looked and sounded very much
like a large commercial jet. However, I then watched as it flew
near the radio towers -- stop -- reverse direction -- and slowly
descend into the tree tops on Tower Mountain! There is also an
object which periodically flies over with a distinctive sound
that still makes the hair on my arms raise up whenever I hear
it. The best way I can describe it is as a mixture of a jet
turbine sound, and what sound like rings of hard metal whirring,
spinning, and scraping against each other at a very rapid speed.
One night it flew over and a houseguest ran upstairs asking,
"What was that ?" It has a very strange mechanical sound unlike
any other aircraft that I have ever heard. The object also moves
quite slowly - I would estimate it is slower than a Cessna 150
at the same altitude, but it is definitely not a helicopter.

Recently, I, also, received a very interesting email from a
family that observed a large glowing ball of light in mid-
November, 2002, hovering near a lake in Northern Idaho. This
location is about 20 miles east of my home. The light was
described as huge and initially only about 1/4 mile away. It was
quite bright and giving off colors including reds, blues and
greens. The light followed the witness in her car for about 10
minutes before swiftly rising straight up, as if "pulled by a
string." I thought this report was significant because the
witness accurately described the iridescent glowing ball of
light that I still see from time to time.

I sometimes see these objects moving around the towers on Tower
Mountain. Several photos show movement around and below the
towers, clearly in violation of the 1000 foot minimum clearance
requirements of FAA regulation. The third photo is of an object
actually sitting down in the trees at the base of a tower. I
have previously observed a helicopter operating in this area
during the day, and I could clearly hear the chop of the rotors.
There was NO noise associated with this object, and the photo
was taken on a quiet, still evening. The fifth is simply a
brilliant object which suddenly rose up from the ground.

The first and second photos show the "flaring" of an object.  I
have repeatedly observed certain types of objects flare with
great intensity when they stop or change direction. I note that
this phenomena was described in a 1968 report published by the
Rand Corporation entitled UFOs - What To Do." When I read that
report, I was quite surprised to note the similarities. I
sometimes see more than one object in the sky at the same time,
and sometimes they fly toward each other as if they are
challenging each other, or "playing chicken." They looked like
they were going to crash into each other. The second to final
photo is a 5 second time exposure of two blinking objects. Note
the variety of colors on the one. Thanks to Ed estei@qwest.net.

Ed would like to be contacted by investigators in his area. Many
of the photos look like time exposures of aircraft or
helicopters, but many remain anomalous and unidentified. The
photos can be seen at #7 and #8 [
http://www.nationalufocenter.com/files/2002/index.php ]Filer's
Files UFO Center Views

CANADA ORANGE BALL FIGHTERS SCRAMBLED IN THE PAST

INDIAN MOUNTAIN, NB -- It was about 2:10 AM, on February 9,
2003, when my mother called me to look at something out the
window with my friend, who was also a witness to a hazy orange
glow. It was a round orange ball in the sky across the road
above the treeline. It was not a meteor, but it was bright and
light orange; and the edges were a red-orange and brighter. My
mother said, there was a half-ring of darker flickering 'fire'
on the left side. It was very smooth, with no metal sheen. It
was unlike most "UFO" sightings I've read about. It was
perfectly solid looking, emitting no glow. Through binoculars,
it was a definite sphere. Mom saw the moon nowhere near where
the orange circle was, high in the air, and white, to boot.

VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA -- Brian Vike had a phone call from
a retired pilot who had worked with NORAD and told Brian he knew
all about "Flying Saucers." He remembers clearly that he
scrambled fighters out of Comox on Vancouver Island in the late
50's, early 60s to intercept an Unidentified Flying Object. They
scrambled fighter interceptors because they were tracking
strange objects on radar making all kinds of radical maneuvers.
The media had been receiving telephone calls from the public who
were seeing UFOs so they decided to call the Comox base.

The Commander of the base called the pilot at his home, and
said, "Nothing unusual really happened last night" even though
media from Vancouver had been making a good number of calls to
the base. The pilot said, "I got the message loud and clear!"
"Three bags full, Yes Sir" ! So he kept his mouth shut. But
later on he talked with other fighter pilots who took photos of
the "flying saucers" as they flew beside the objects. Orders
came down from the Canadian DND to hand over the camera and
film. He also said this went on for years and one didn't talk
about it or your career was finished.


UFOs CAUSE ELECTRICAL BLACKOUT IN BRAZIL

ATIBAIA -- Investigator Joseph Trainor reports that on February
3, 2003, two silver-plated and spherical UFOs were seen during a
blackout over Atibaia, in the Brazilian State of Bay. The
sighting happened at 2:30 AM, and was announced by a local radio
station claiming the object was zigzagging in the night sky. The
UFO emitted shining multicolor lights that totally illuminated
the streets of the city. These craft have been seen repeatedly
in the mountains of Itapetinga. Thanks to Joseph Trainor UFO
Roundup http://www.ufoinfo.com/roundup/

GREAT BRITAIN UFO VIDEO CONSIDERED BEST IN HISTORY

LIVERPOOL -- Eric Morris has apparently taken superb video of
three discoidal UFOs near the Liverpool Airport on January 16,
2003. The British group BUFOSC is analyzing the video which is
thought to be the best video in the history of the field. The
video, made by Morris at 11:50 hours shows three discoidal UFOs
making evolutions of Liverpool Airport following an airplane on
the approach. Morris indicates that the video will not be
presented/displayed World-Wide until making a scrupulous and
exhaustive investigation. According to Morris, "This is the best
video evidence by BUFOSC and has the best documented UFO of
history. Thanks to bufosc@hotmail.com
http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2003/feb/m12-
003.shtml

NETHERLANDS YELLOW/GREEN FLASHING OBJECT IN THE SKY

RENKUM -- On February 10, 2003, when the witness heard a loud
bang and when he looked out of my window at 1:15 AM, he saw a
green/yellow flashing obstacle moving fast across the sky. He
double checked and the object was still there. It was a circle
which was flashing in the center of the sky. It moved very fast
front left to right and from up to down. It had a very odd
appearance and he never saw such a thing like this.

HUNGARY UFO CAUSES ENGINE TO STOP

BUDAPEST -- The witness observed a UFO at 9:10 PM, on February
9, 2003, that looked like a big circle. Some friends were
traveling in their car when this big flying object appeared
above them. He writes, "The engine of the car stopped, and we
couldn't hear any sounds, after two minutes there was a strong
light, and the object disappeared."

ITALY ENORMOUS CYLINDRICAL UFO IS SIGHTED

VENETO --Ufol=F3gico Center National of Italy reports a
cylindrical and luminous UFO was sighted between the localities
of Monselice and Stanghella, near Tribano. The UFO sighted
February 3, 2003, was of great dimensions and displayed a
cylindrical form with a metallic appearance. It had multicolored
lights and was moving in a north to south direction without
making any sound. Finally the UFO continued its quick movements
until disappearing over the horizon. Thanks to http://www.cun-
veneto.it/news/tribano200302.htm

AUSTRALIA FLYING TRIANGLE WITH CIRCULAR LIGHTS

BRISBANE -- Standing in my front yard on February 7, 2003, I
looked at the sky wondering if I would see a shooting star and a
moving object caught my eye at 10:45 PM. I observed three lights
in a perfect triangular formation change direction and move
quickly across the sky without making a sound. The lights were
dim but bright enough to watch as they disappeared over the
horizon. I've seen satellites and this object wasn't one. It
moved from just above the south western horizon to disappear
over the north eastern horizon within 30 seconds. The lights
were white in color but quite dull. Just before it disappeared,
the object came to a complete halt, remaining perfectly still
for about 10-15 seconds. My two dogs were locked up at the time,
but when I let them out into the back yard they whimpered and
barked at the sky. They have never done this previously.

MARS ONCE WAS WET AND WARM

DENVER -- Dr. James F. Kasting, a member of Penn State's NASA-
sponsored Astrobiology Research Center says, Mars had to be
continuously warmer to form Mars' deep valleys. Recent research
suggests that early Mars was cold most of the time and warmed up
only when asteroids impacted the planet. "I do not think this is
right," said Dr. Kasting, who spoke at the American Association
for the Advancement of Science meeting on February 14. "I do not
think there was enough time involved to form the types of
features that we see on the Martian landscape." The half-mile to
over a mile wide channel at the bottom of Nanedi Vallis is about
100 feet across," says Kasting. "It took millions of years of
constant running water to carve the Grand Canyon. It would take
a similar time on Mars." The Martian surface could have received
20-30 degrees Fahrenheit additional warming from the greenhouse
effect of carbon dioxide ice clouds. Researchers now think that
Mars has a supply of water, which is required for all
terrestrial life. Evidence of methanobacteria could be found in
subsurface fossils or, the bacteria could still be there today.
"What we need to do is go and take samples," said Kasting.
NASA's Mars Exploration Rover Mission, scheduled to launch later
this year, will have two fully capable robotic vehicles that
will sample soils looking for signs of life.

Los Alamos aboratory scientist Bill Feldman released the first
global map of hydrogen distribution identified by instruments
aboard NASA's Mars Odyssey spacecraft and offered estimates of
the water stored near the Martian surface. For nearly a year,
Los Alamos' neutron spectrometer has been mapping the hydrogen
content of the planet's surface by measuring changes in neutrons
given off by soil. "It's becoming increasingly clear that Mars
has enough water to support future human exploration," Feldman
said. "In fact, there's enough to cover the entire planet to a
depth of at least five inches, and we've only analyzed the top
few feet of soil." The vast water icecaps at the poles may be
the source. The thickness of the icecaps themselves may be
enough to bottle up geothermal heat from below, increasing the
temperature at the bottom and melting the bottom layer of the
icecaps, which then could feed a global water table. California
Institute of Technology planetary scientists studying new
satellite imagery, now think that the Martian polar ice caps are
made almost entirely of water ice with just a smattering of
frozen carbon dioxide, or "dry ice," at the surface. Thanks to
SpaceDaily. A color map is available at:
http://www.lanl.gov/worldview/news/pdf/MarsWater.pdf online.

Filer's Files for six years has been saying our observations
showed water movement on Mars.

LETTER ON HOW TO IMPROVE YOUR HEALTH

Ginnie Estary writes:. "After many years of trying to conceive
'just one more baby,' my husband and gave up and figured we were
blessed with two healthy children. We went about the business of
life and raised our two into fine young teens. We concentrated
on our careers and were very happy. About 3 years ago, my son
was struggling in school and was mentally defeated and was
diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) and prescribed
the drug Ritalin. After a while he showed classic signs of
Ritalin side effects, i.e. loss of appetite, sleeplessness, mood
swings.  A friend introduced me to the Isotonix line of
vitamins, mainly the OPC-3 and B-12. I began to wean my son from
Ritalin with great results. So great that I started my whole
family on these supplements.

I also began to take an active role in the health of my family,
being more aware of the stress of our work, exercising more,
creating a more healthy diet. Then one day last summer I was
about to celebrate my 40th birthday, and learned my pregnancy
test was an immediate positive. My first Dr.s' appointment, I
took my Isotonix line to him and told him I had problems taking
pills and wanted to continue on my vitamins. He looked at the
contents and told me they looked great! Each day I started off
with my Isotonix OPC-3, MultiTech, and Antioxidant. I took
Isochrome 3x a week for the chromium because gestational
diabetes runs high in my family. I also took the B-12, minerals
and calcium every night. I had a wonderful pregnancy. Never a
day of morning sickness, and only gained 13 lbs. and had a quick
and easy delivery of a healthy beautiful baby girl. I attribute
getting pregnant and continuing with a healthy pregnancy to the
Isotonix supplement line! Thanks to Ginnie Estary

SHOP AT THE MALL WITHOUT WALLS WITH 100 STORES

There is a store for your every special need, and you qualify as
a preferred customer by reading these files. Register as a
Preferred Customer and pick the store of your choice for special
discounts. Search for the Health and Nutrition Store. Isotonix
OPC-3. You can use Visa or MasterCard at: [
http://www.filer.unfranchise.com ]www.filer.unfranchise.com

WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW WHEN BUY OR SELL A HOME

Learn how you can obtain the best real estate agent for your
needs. To get a free copy of this report e-mail me at
Majorstar@aol.com

MUFON UFO JOURNAL -- For more detailed monthly investigative
reports subscribe to the MUFON JOURNAL. A MUFON membership
includes the Journal and costs only $35.00 per year. To join
MUFON or to report a UFO go to http://www.mufon.com/. To ask
questions contact MUFONHQ@aol.com or HQ@mufon.com. Mention that
I recommended you for membership.

Filer's Files is copyrighted 2003 by George A. Filer, all rights
reserved. Readers may post the COMPLETE files on their Web Sites
if they credit the newsletter and its editor by name and list
the date of issue. These reports and comments are not
necessarily the OFFICIAL MUFON viewpoint. Send your letters to
Majorstar@aol.com. Sending mail automatically grants permission
for us to publish and use your name. Please state if you wish to
keep your name, address, or story confidential. CAUTION, MOST OF
THESE ARE INITIAL REPORTS AND REQUIRE FURTHER INVESTIGATION.

Regards,

George Filer
http://www.georgefiler.com










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 19

             Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Dabrowski

From: Andrew Dabrowski <dabrowsa@indiana.edu>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 17:05:03 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 17:29:46 -0500
Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Dabrowski


 >From: Catherine Reason <CathyM@ukf.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 15:57:01 -0000
 >Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >>From: David Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 16:27:24 -0000
 >>Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >>You are wrong about how long the 'UFO' remaining unidentified
 >>being a red herring - this is actually the most important aspect
 >>of the saga.

 >The problem is, it's all so subjective though, isn't it? How
 >important you actually think it is depends on who you are, where
 >you are, how close to the original case you were, and doubtless
 >all sorts of other factors such as what your prior belief
 >systems are, what peer group you happen to be in and what sort
 >of social pressures are acting on your cognitive processes.

Catherine's post was excellent. There is a tremendous amount of
uncertainty and even unknowability in UFO research, and usually
when humans face uncertainty they insist on coming down on one
side or the other using subjective criteria (from personality
and life experience).

It's been kind of exasperating watching the exchange between
Andy Roberts and Jerome Clark. Both have made good points, but
neither can accept uncertainty, so they quickly reach an impasse
due to their differing temperaments.



-------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Dabrowski      |     Lueckenlos ist die Welt, doch
SE 117   5-5470       | zusammengehalten ... von den
Verschwundenen.
dabrowsa@indiana.edu  | Sie sind ueberall.    -Enzensberger






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 20

                      Re: UFOs In Ancient Art - Tonnies

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 14:27:13 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 10:38:09 -0500
Subject: Re: UFOs In Ancient Art - Tonnies


 >From: Diego Cuoghi <diego.cuoghi@tin.it>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 21:39:57 +0100
 >Subject: Re: UFOs In Ancient Art

<snip>

 >>I am particularly intrigued by the work Annunciazione, by Carlo
 >>Crivelli. It seems apparent to me that the artists was trying to
 >>represent some sort of communication between the hovering object
 >>and the woman kneeling in prayer.

 >That woman is the Virgin Mary who receives the God's Grace and
 >the Annunciation of the Conception of Jesus, as read in the
 >Gospel according to Luke:

 >"At that time the Angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of
 >Galilee, called Nazareth, to a virgin, espoused to a man whose
 >name was Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin's name
 >was Mary. And the Angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full
 >of grace: the Lord is with thee: Blessed art thou among women.
 >Who having heard, was troubled at his saying: and thought
 >within herself what manner of salutation this should be. And the
 >Angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thous hast found grace
 >with God: behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt
 >bring forth a son, and thou shalt call His Name Jesus."

 >>In this sense, the artist's work would seem to transcend
 >>verbal descriptions.

So the question to my mind is: Why a "flying disk"?

 >Yes. But in many ancient paintings of the Annunciation you can
 >see golden words in the direction of the Virgin Mary. Example,
 >Simone Martini's Annunciation:

http://www.sprezzatura.it/Arte/Martini_Annunc_part.jpg

 >The rays are a most simbolic way to represent the God's Grace,
 >used in hundreds of religious paintings, not only Annunciations.

But the rays are coming from a _flying disk_. That's a
conjoining of two disparate symbols. I can conceive of a Jungian
interpretation for this motif, but I still find this painting
anomalous.

Unless "flying disks" are an element of Christian iconography--
which, to my knowledge, they're not--I think their presence in
these paintings demand more than casual "symbolic" explanations.

=====
Mac Tonnies
macbot@yahoo.com

MTVI: http://www.mactonnies.com
Transcelestial Ontology, Posthumanism and Theoretical Ufology

Blog: http://posthumanblues.blogspot.com (updated daily)







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 20

               Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 18:59:46 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 10:42:15 -0500
Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Ledger


 >From: David Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 18:11:47 -0000
 >Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

Now you are playing games again, David.

 >Don admitted on this List a few days ago that he had only
 >been involved in the subject for around 10 years, so it's
 >hardly surprising he had never heard of a case that happened
 >in the UK in 1981.

First of all I didn't admit anything to you. In passing I
mentioned I'd been formally investigating UFOs for about ten
years, actually closer to 13 [and what's wrong with that?],
which does not deserve to be interpreted as if you'd found me
out somehow. _You_ didn't ask - I offered that information.

 >This suggests that only those cases which North American
 >ufologists recognise are of any significance, and we only
 >need to hear what Don and Jerry says to settle this matter.
 >I'm sure they would like you to believe that is the case,
 >BUT:

How am I supposed to investigate cases in the UK? How many have
you investigated over here? How many do you even know about in
Canada? That above statement is so foolish it's barely worth
responding to.

 >Let's go back in time 20 years and ask the same question, not
 >in North America, but in the UK. I can guarantee that just
 >about anyone who as remotely involved in the subject during
 >the subject during the 80s would have pointed to Cracoe as
 >one of the most evidential cases there was at that time, far
 >more so than Rendlesham Forest.

Well I for one would expect that it would be of concern to
investigators in the UK. Why should it affect me over here? And
why are you getting yourself into a "my Cracoe-Fell is better
than Jenny's Rendlesham Forest case" situation.

 >If Jenny Randles - probably the most active ufologist in the UK
 >at that time - had never heard of Cracoe, I might take your
 >subjective assertion seriously. But Jenny was deeply involved
 >in the case to the extent that she agreed it should take its
 >place alongside Berwyn and Rendlesham as a chapter in our
 >book 'The UFOs that Never Were' (London House 2000).

 >Acres of print was devoted to the case, and the fact that US
 >researchers know nothing simply underlines how insular
 >UFOlogy is in that country, and how different the subject
 >(and its study) is in every country and continent where it
 >appears.

You are leaving yourself wide open here David. Do you want me to
start asking you questions about Canadian cases you don't know
anything about? If you don't how come?

 >>>Here was a perfect opportunity to "dry test investigation
 >>>techniques", but in this case ufology woefully failed to
 >>>ask even the most basic questions.

Utter bull. Why, because you guys investigated it? I think you
over estimate yourselves.

 >>Apparently much of ufology had never even heard of it.

You got that right Cathy.

 >Apparently you are wrong! Subjectivity strikes again.

No, just your ego.

 >>>I was there. I saw the whole performance, and watched in
 >>>amazement as - like a magic trick - the Cracoe Fell case
 >>>unravelled itself in front of my eyes. This, I thought at
 >>>the time, was Ufology in a microcosm.

Don't forget your fairies and trolls.

 >>>Nearly two decades later, I now realise that we are just
 >>>watching the same magic trick being performed over and
 >>>over again, in ever more complicated circumstances.....

 >>Now this is why I think it's all a red herring.

David and Andy would have us believe that they have solved the
UFO phenomenon. All I'm hear about here, is one case.

Incidentally I mentioned in another post that I found it strange
that the Cracoe Fell "RMP" case [radical misperception of common
occurrences, where something seen or experienced perhaps daily
or in an ordinary sense, is suddenly noticed and perceived to be
extra-ordinary] was so hard to solve if it was right there in
front of everyone all those years. It was mentioned that it was
there for the two cops every day since they lived there and they
didn't see it. Nor apparently, did the investigators. Why was so
much time and energy wasted on a fixed light in the sky - or in
this case what apparently turned out to be the reflection off a
cliff face?

BTW - David what's your opinion on the Shearwater Naval Air
Station radar/aircraft/visual case of June 1950 here in Nova
Scotia?


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 20

               Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 17:25:23 -0600
Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 10:44:15 -0500
Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Clark


 >From: Andrew Dabrowski <dabrowsa@indiana.edu>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 17:05:03 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >kind of exasperating watching the exchange between
 >Andy Roberts and Jerome Clark. Both have made good points, but
 >neither can accept uncertainty, so they quickly reach an impasse
 >due to their differing temperaments.

Then you have read me entirely wrongly. My point _always_ has
been that we must learn to accept uncertainty. That is exactly
why I argue, against Roberts and Clarke, for the term "UFO,"
which acknowledges uncertainty, and against either "flying
saucer" or "radical misperception," both sweeping faith
statements for which nothing like the appropriate, question-
settling evidence has been demonstrated to date.

Everything I have written on anomalies has argued for tolerance
of ambiguity. (See, for one example, "From Mermaids to Little
Gray Men: The Prehistory of the UFO Abduction Phenomenon," The
Anomalist 9 [Spring 2000], pp. 11-31.) It's Clarke and Roberts's
insistence on certainy where it does not exist that I find
alternately amusing and exasperating. It certainly is wrong-
headed, and I think it is ultimately destructive to productive
inquiry.

I urge you to read my thoughts on these subjects beyond
ephemeral List postings. Along with my Anomalist essay, a good
place to start, if you wish, is the introductory essay to my
book Unexplained! (1999). It is an exposition on the uncertainty
of knowledge about anomalous experience. For example, there's
this:

"What all this [high-strangeness anomalous experience] means ...
is impossible to say, though we can be assured that this small
consideration will stop no committed debunker or true believer
from saying it anyway. The temptations to reductionism (the
witness was dreaming it) or occultism (it was a paranormal being
from the etheric realm) are hard to resist.... Human nature
abhors an explanatory vacuum. Real understanding, on the other
hand, demands intellectual modesty and patience, not to mention
a huge tolerance for ambiguity.

"... The sincerest testimony to the most bizarre event or
entity, even if we deem it accurately rendered, is not enough to
remake the world on its own.... Anomalies of the highest
strangeness dwell in a twilight zone of ambiguity. To say that
you have 'seen' one is not necessarily to say that the anomaly
lives on in the world when it is not briefly occupying your
vision and scaring the daylights out of you. We may experience
unbelievable things, but our experiences of them may tell us
nothing about them except that they can be experienced."

This, by the way, is why I also argue that where the UFO
phenomenon is concerned, the question of their epistemological
status is most conducive to potential resolution through
research into CE2s, radar/ visuals, instrumented observations,
and the like. I have also written that it may be that possibly
extraterrestrial visitation will turn out to be the cause of
such phenomena, but so far that is only a guess well short of
conclusive proof.

It is my view that aspects of experience exist for which we have
no adequate vocabulary, much less adequate understanding. Thus,
unless we start from the premise that we already know everything
that's interesting in the world, it is crucial that we maintain
a decent grasp of how far real knowledge takes us and where it
stops. In the latter space, we can only suspend any judgment
except a willingness to consider the possibility that
potentially interesting answers await us at the other end of the
questions. Other ways of expressing this: tolerance of
ambiguity, rejection of phony certainty, intellectual modesty,
genuine curiosity about those things we don't know right now but
might one day if we approach them in an honestly open-minded
spirit which leads us where the evidence goes.

In short, I think - hell, I know - you missed the whole point of
the exchange between Clarke and Roberts on one side and me on
the other. Perhaps you should read more carefully before making
diagnostic pronouncements on my (alleged) temperament. Let's
hear it for modesty and ambiguity over arrogance and false
knowledge.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 20

                Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 23:15:41 +0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 10:46:24 -0500
Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Hall


 >From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 15:09:15 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >>From: Catherine Reason <CathyM@ukf.net>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 15:57:01 -0000
 >>Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >>>From: David Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
 >>>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 16:27:24 -0000
 >>>Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >>>Having been present 'in the flesh', rather than speaking from
 >>>the comfort of two decades and several thousand miles
 >>>separation, I think I am qualified to comment on the
 >>>'investigation' or lack of in the Cracoe Fell case.

 >>>You are wrong about how long the 'UFO' remaining unidentified
 >>>being a red herring - this is actually the most important aspect
 >>>of the saga.

 >>The problem is, it's all so subjective though, isn't it? How
 >>important you actually think it is depends on who you are, where
 >>you are, how close to the original case you were, and doubtless
 >>all sorts of other factors such as what your prior belief
 >>systems are, what peer group you happen to be in and what sort
 >>of social pressures are acting on your cognitive processes.

 >Perhaps you or Andy could explain to me why this case was so
 >important to the investigators of the time. If the
 >"object/light" kept re-appearing in the same place over an
 >extended period of time - shouldn't this have tipped the
 >investigators and yourselves to the likelyhood of this being a
 >fixed source? Such sources are usually stars, planets, towers.
 >lighted buildings in raised elevations, etc.

 >Was it the fact because there were two policemen involved that
 >kept this case alive?

 >Also-how can you claim this was a "RMP" if it took so long for
 >you and Andy to first see the effect of the reflection that you
 >said was a common occurrance for the policeofficer[s] who lived
 >right there. Andy said he staked out the area for some time
 >without seeing anything. That doesn't sound very common to me.

 >How then does this square with your theory of these RMPs being
 >misidentification of the prosaic if it doesn't occur all that
 >frequently?


Don,

My sentiments exactly. As someone whose knowledge and experience
of UFOs predates most of the UK skeptibunkers, I never heard of
the damn case either.

Clarke (whom heretofore I had thought a relatively rational
skeptic) now cites this as an example of the "insularity" of
U.S. ufologists.

Where exactly was this case reported so that we should have been
aware of it?

Could it possibly be, as Don suggests, that immobile, fixed-
position UFOs have never impressed us very much, and only
debunkers consider such non-cases to be of equal potential
importance with cases containing far more perplexing
phenomenonolgy?


  - 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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 20

                Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 23:36:12 +0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 10:48:52 -0500
Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Hall


 >From: Andrew Dabrowski <dabrowsa@indiana.edu>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 17:05:03 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >>From: Catherine Reason <CathyM@ukf.net>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 15:57:01 -0000
 >>Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >>>From: David Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
 >>>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 16:27:24 -0000
 >>>Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >>>You are wrong about how long the 'UFO' remaining unidentified
 >>>being a red herring - this is actually the most important aspect
 >>>of the saga.

 >>The problem is, it's all so subjective though, isn't it? How
 >>important you actually think it is depends on who you are, where
 >>you are, how close to the original case you were, and doubtless
 >>all sorts of other factors such as what your prior belief
 >>systems are, what peer group you happen to be in and what sort
 >>of social pressures are acting on your cognitive processes.

 >Catherine's post was excellent. There is a tremendous amount of
 >uncertainty and even unknowability in UFO research, and usually
 >when humans face uncertainty they insist on coming down on one
 >side or the other using subjective criteria (from personality
 >and life experience).

 >It's been kind of exasperating watching the exchange between
 >Andy Roberts and Jerome Clark. Both have made good points, but
 >neither can accept uncertainty, so they quickly reach an impasse
 >due to their differing temperaments.

Andrew,

Thanks for your comments.

I have said this before, but I will say it again because I'm not
sure that I have been heard in regard to its relevance, and
maybe even high importance, to UFO research.

Although I am not a psychologist, I did work as Senior Abstracts
Editor for the American Psychological Association. During my
tenure there, I ran across the concept of "tolerance of
ambiguity" which has a corresponding test instrument. The gist
of it is that human beings score on a spectrum of being more or
less willing and able to leave puzzling data in a "gray box" (to
use Stan Friedman's terminology). Some can live with waiting for
more complete and conclusive data, while others feel compelled
to draw conclusions right now.

To me, the British skeptics (to be momentarily kind in my
labelling) represent low tolerance for ambiguity, while Jerry
Clark scores very high on the tolerance scale. This does not
necessarily mean that one side or the other is more "right" in
the final analysis. It only suggests that some people may be
more prone than others to drawing premature conclusions simply
because they can't deal with not having final answers.


  - 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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 20

                            Case MJ-12 - A Review

From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@rogers.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 19:54:47 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 10:52:07 -0500
Subject: Case MJ-12 - A Review


Thanks to the efforts of Peter Blinn on my website, the 9000
word text of my Review of Kevin Randle's Case MJ-12 is now on
my webpage at:

www.v-j-enterprises.com/sfpage.html

click on my picture.

The 8 pages of the Eisenhower Briefing Document which includes
the Truman Forrestal memo are in the 27 page printed version
offered previously to listerians for $3.00 from UFORI at POB
958, Houlton, ME 04730-0958 along with the Cutler-Twining memo
and two pages showing that two of the Tim Cooper documents are
emulations (and not genuine) as noted in my MUFON 2000 paper.

I will admit the 16 pages look a lot better than just a printed
version because Dave has managed to jazz them up with pictures
of the MJ-12 members. There are probably still some typos.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 20

               Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 00:06:38 +0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 11:04:38 -0500
Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Rimmer


As another example of the psychological and sociological motors
behind 'radical misperception' I offer this article from 1979 by
Jenny Randles, just added to the Magonia website archives, which
demonstrates how Venus becomes a landed space-ship.

www.magonia.demon.co.uk/arc/70/vendetta.htm

--
John Rimmer
Magonia Magazine
www.magonia.demon.co.uk/arc/00/newmag.htm








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 20

               Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Reason

From: Catherine Reason <CathyM@ukf.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 00:42:20 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 11:07:36 -0500
Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Reason


 >From: David Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 18:11:47 -0000
 >Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

Hi David,

 >I most certainly agree with you - but you have fallen into the
 >same trap yourself, as follows:

 >>The fact that I'd never heard of this case probably doesn't
 >>mean very much, but the fact that Jerry and Don had apparently
 >>never heard of it either probably does.

 >How subjective is that?

We risk arguing past each other here, David, because I think
we're talking at different levels of abstraction.

The fact that it's all subjective is exactly the point I was
trying to make - for example:

 >The fact that Jerry and Don, who live in North America, have
 >never heard of the Cracoe Fell case, which occurred in norther
 >England, settles it as far as you're concerned, in terms of its
 >importance.

No, it most certainly doesn't settle the question as far as I'm
concerned - but what it does illustrate is that philosophical
discussion can never solve an empirical problem.  No matter how
long you, I or anyone else here argued the point, we'd never
come to any conclusion because the whole thing rests on
subjective evaluation.

This is why scientists often have such deep distaste for
philosophical arguments, and insist on empirical, falsifiable
predictions.

 >Don admitted on this List a few days ago that he had only been
 >involved in the subject for around 10 years, so it's hardly
 >surprising he had never heard of a case that happened in the UK
 >in 1981.

Ok.

 >This suggests that only those cases which North American
 >ufologists recognise are of any significance, and we only need
 >to hear what Don and Jerry says to settle this matter. I'm sure
 >they would like you to believe that is the case, BUT:

 >Let's go back in time 20 years and ask the same question, not
 >in North America, but in the UK. I can guarantee that just
 >about anyone who as remotely involved in the subject during
 >the subject during the 80s would have pointed to Cracoe as
 >one of the most evidential cases there was at that time, far
 >more so than Rendlesham Forest.

Well, I went through some of my UFO books (I do have a few) and
couldn't find any mention of it, although some of them deal with
the UK and cover the 1980s, and several of them were written by
Jenny Randles.

(I just checked through one of them just now, and while I
couldn't say for sure that I didn't miss it somewhere, it
certainly wasn't listed in the index - unless it was referred to
by some other name.)

But once again, this isn't the point - you and I both know that
we could go on like this, maybe getting Don and Jerry to join in
a bit here and there, and never settle the question. Apparently
we both agree on this, so where's the problem?

 >If Jenny Randles - probably the most active ufologist in the UK
 >at that time - had never heard of Cracoe, I might take your
 >subjective assertion seriously. But Jenny was deeply involved in
 >the case to the extent that she agreed it should take its place
 >alongside Berwyn and Rendlesham as a chapter in our book 'The
 >UFOs that Never Were' (London House 2000).

Ok, but as above.

 >Acres of print was devoted to the case, and the fact that US
 >researchers know nothing simply underlines how insular UFOlogy
 >is in that country, and how different the subject (and its
 >study) is in every country and continent where it appears.

Maybe, maybe not.

 >>Apparently much of ufology had never even heard of it.

 >Apparently you are wrong! Subjectivity strikes again.

Absolutely. Are we at the same level of abstraction yet?

 >>Maybe - but if so, it's also academia in a microcosm. If you
 >>haven't seen it yet, you will - unless you spend your entire
 >>academic life being obnoxiously docile and well-behaved. ;-)

 >On this we are in agreement. But Ufology does not, by and large,
 >behave like academia does. Stick around long enough and you will
 >find out for yourself.

Well, nothing I've heard so far about the sociodynamics of
Ufology is substantively different from what I've seen in
academia.

You could be right of course, perhaps that will change with time
- but I'm not holding my breath. Bear in mind that I'm making
this evaluation, in part, on the basis of what advocates of the
PSH themselves say goes on in UFOlogy - as well as what I've
seen myself.


 >>You might be right (although I very much doubt it) but, the
 >>thing is, you haven't demonstrated it. In the end, what you've
 >>given here is a subjective evaluation - which you're completely
 >>entitled to, of course, but that's all it is. Even if you were
 >>absolutely right about Cracoe Fell, and that could be shown
 >>definitively, there is still a problem.

 >Using this criteria all evaluations are subjective ones,
 >including your own, so where does this take us?.

Hopefully, into falsifiable prediction, empirical testing,
Signal Detection Theory, probability and statistics, and the
science of visual perception.

Maybe I should say here that I'm a strict Bayesian and believe
in giving issues like subjective criteria and a priori
probability their due prominence. There's a whole literature,
not to mention several disciplines of study, so there should be
plenty to go on.

One thing that could be done, for example, is to test out
possible IFO explanations, to see if the transforms which would
be required to relate hypothetical stimuli to specific UFO
reports, can actually be supported by the visual system.

But this is all obvious isn't it David, why isn't this
happening?

 >>In other words, by attaching excessive significance to the
 >>existence of false positives, you and Andy may be generating
 >>exactly the kind of collective denial which you (and I) believe
 >>is so damaging.

 >But equally, those who attach excessive significance to the
 >existence of 'UFOs' that have not been identified, provides a
 >incentive to brush the whole issue of your 'false positives'
 >under the carpet.

I agree, but this is more likely to happen in a discipline which
is socially marginalized and in which a siege mentality has
developed. No discipline can really advance unless it has the
confidence to accept the possibility of mistakes.

In any case, it may not have been entirely clear what I meant by
attaching "excessive significance" to false positives. I was
referring specifically to the process of making inferences about
them which are not mathematically supportable. And that by the
way is not a subjective evaluation - it's a mathematical one,
involving terms which can be calculated or constrained
algebraically.

 >Collective denial also works in the other direction, as
 >witnessed in the exchanges we have seen on this List. Take your
 >pick, as your choice of direction will inevitably be a
 >subjective one.

Actually in this case, I think we are both talking about
collective denial in the same direction.

 >This kind of approach is just guaranteed to send us around in
 >ever decreasing circles, I'm afraid.

Exactly.

Cathy

[Catherine Reason]







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 20

             Shuttle Columbia: NASA Considers Electrical Damage

From: Kurt Jonach - The Electric Warrior
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 16:20:41 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 11:09:20 -0500
Subject: Shuttle Columbia: NASA Considers Electrical Damage


EW Readers, please refer to the Web site blog for a history of
links to core online articles related to this story.

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

The Electric Warrior : Web Log February 19, 2003
http://www.electricwarrior.com/

--------------------------------------------------
 >> SHUTTLE COLUMBIA: NASA CONSIDERS ELECTRICAL DAMAGE
space exploration

photo: Red Sprite
http://www.electricwarrior.com/img/RedSprite.jpg

(The Electric Warrior) - A weird purple lightning bolt seen in a
San Francisco photograph of Shuttle Columbia has gained national
attention and also sparked questions about rare forms high-
altitude lightning. The unreleased photograph may point to
damage involving electrically sensitive composite materials
built into the shuttle's left wing. It is known that a network
of sensitive listening devices recorded subsonic electrical
activity during the shuttle's reentry. Another photograph
captured by US Air Force spy cameras as the shuttle passed over
New Mexico is also being studied.

Little is known about electrical phenomena at high altitudes and
scientists are questioning whether they might have had something
to do with Columbia's demise. Strange flashes of colored
lightning with names like Red Sprites and Blue Jets are a recent
scientific discovery that continue to intrigue scientists. One
peculiar thing about Blue Jets is that their discharge travels
away from Earth, up from a stormy cloud bank toward the
ionosphere. Red Sprites leap down from above.

In what may turn out to be a tragic irony, the Mediterranean
Israeli Dust Experiment (MEIDEX) on board Columbia was equipped
to study these strange atmospheric events. In fact, the MEIDEX
camera recorded the first scientific image of a luminous red,
bagel-shaped, electrical phenomenon called an Elf.

NASA CONSIDERS ELECTRICAL DAMAGE

Determining whether or not some electrical event occurred may be
key to the Columbia investigation. Space.com reports that
reinforced carbon-carbon (RCC) composites used on the shuttle
wing are known to be susceptible to damage by electricity

NASA's shuttle program manager Ron Dittemore told Space.com he
is waiting for experts to tell him whether electricity had
anything to do with the shuttle's loss. "I really have no idea
whether we had any static electricity, whether or not we had any
electrical discharge. I don't know. We are asking experts in the
field of atmospheric science if those types of events are even
possible," Dittemore said.

So, we don't know whether composite materials were damaged by
electro-static discharge, weird lightning, or even whether an
electrical event occurred at all. But it is well known in the
aviation industry that materials used in the shuttle wing are
sensitive to damage by electricity, and the shuttle's left wing
is one focus of the ongoing investigation.

THE INFORMATION CURVE

The San Francisco photo may have a role to play in the Shuttle
Columbia story. NASA's shuttle investigation board now confirms
that Columbia began losing pieces over the California coast,
suggesting that the breakup began sooner than initially thought.
Their conclusion is based on observations by astronomers and
skywatchers on the West Coast.

The low-resolution photo of the shuttle's underside taken by
Cold War spy cameras apparently shows a damaged left wing,
trailing debris. The possibility of damage to electrically
sensitive composite material in the wing is being investigated,
but it is not known at this time whether audio recordings of
subsonic electrical explosions time-sync over California. The
purple corkscrew lightning bolt appearing in one out of five
digital photos might be a lucky shot, or a camera malfunction.

EW readers are ahead of the information curve, but are cautioned
against jumping to conclusions: It's true, the notorious
Lightning Bolt photo has yet to be seen, but bear in mind that
the photographer may have his own reasons for withholding the
photo. Pay attention to the way NASA has pulled in data from
government surveillance as well as the open invitation for the
public to upload relevant photos or digital video. This point-
and-click story is
developing under your very fingertips.

--------------------------------------------------
RELATED RESOURCES

19-Feb-03
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/sts107_theories_030219.html
How Columbia's Wing Might have Failed and Why

HOUSTON, TX (Space.com) - Among the theories his group will be
considering is one in which a reinforced carbon-carbon (RCC)
panel on the forward edge of Columbia's left wing was the first
major piece to break loose during re-entry as the shuttle
approached the California coast...As is well known in the
aviation industry and many golfers who use graphite clubs,
composites are extremely sensitive to electricity and react to
lightning strikes or static electricity discharges in a violent
manner.

--------------------------------------------------
THE ELECTRIC WARRIOR
February 19, 2003
Silicon Valley, CA
http://www.electricwarrior.com

Graphics & Gonzo

--------------------------------------------------
Photo courtesy of NASA

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

http://www.electricwarrior.com

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

eWarrior@electricwarrior.com









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 20

               Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Reason

From: Catherine Reason <CathyM@ukf.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 00:51:38 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 11:10:48 -0500
Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Reason


 >From: David Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 18:11:47 -0000
 >Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

Oops, sorry Dave - forgot to ask this:

 >On this we are in agreement. But Ufology does not, by and large,
 >behave like academia does. Stick around long enough and you will
 >find out for yourself.

Could you give me an example or two of how Ufology differs from
academia?

Just realized I'd left that out.

Cathy

[Catherine Reason]








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 20

                  Re: Another Abduction Question - Gonzalez

From: Luis R. Gonzalez <lrgm@arrakis.es>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 19:59:12 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 11:12:40 -0500
Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question - Gonzalez


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 15:57:22 +0000
 >Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question

 >>From: Luis R. Gonzalez <lrgm@arrakis.es>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 16:44:29 +0100
 >>Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question

 >>>From: Nick Balaskas <Nikolaos@YorkU.CA>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 15:58:17 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
 >>>Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question

 >>>>Hold on, please. Name one law of physics that bars such things
 >>>>from being possible using that portion of physics humanity has
 >>>>yet to discover.

 >>Well, by definition, if there is a portion of physics humanity
 >>has yet to discover, we do _not_ know if it bars such thing from
 >>being possible or not, doesn't we?

 >>I always remember a short SF story about the scientific "cover
 >>up" of their findings about hyperspace. It resulted that the
 >>"light barrier" was even lower in that other Universe!

 >>>Besides, the physics of the second half of the 20th century
 >>>accepted a multiple-dimensional reality for our universe to best
 >>>explain certain puzzling observations we could not understand
 >>>otherwise. Interestingly, Canadian flying saucer researcher
 >>>Wilbert B. Smith who wrote 'The New Science' with the help of
 >>>the "Boys Topside", and also the Bible, both make references to
 >>>12 dimensions of reality too.

 >>Something similar said those glorious Ummites. Does the
 >>similarities (even if the last time I look, string theories seem
 >>to be a little bit discredit) mean that they are also real
 >>aliens?

 >>Good Doctor Asimov wrote about the why and wherefores of those
 >>scientific limits much better than I can never try

 >I am going to piggyback on this post to comment on something you
 >seem not to be considering in your various comments about the
 >Linda case. To Greg Sandow you even said that the fact that the
 >event was witnessed was not relevant! Surely that fact (if
 >valid) indicates an objective reality to the event.

What I was trying to say was that whatever the reality or not of
Linda's abduction, it was _not_ relevant in a comparison between
two narratives.

 >However, my main point is this: Heinlein, Asimov, and the other
 >SF "greats" clearly represent some of our most creative and
 >imaginative writers (though I am personally not a big fan of
 >SF). A vast SF literature exists in which they have imagined and
 >written stories about almost anything imaginable that might be
 >possible and might actually occur eventually. Under these
 >circumstances, it would be very surprising if some (obviously
 >select and not broadly representative) elements of one or more
 >SF stories did _not_ resemble some elements of abductions. If
 >you pursue this logic, you can use resemblances to SF to
 >discredit just about any anomalous data in any area. A very
 >useful, but illogical, technique.

My mention was to Asimov's writings on science, no SF. But,
well, somehow my thesis is precisely that. What one SF writer
can imagine, another person (consciously or unconsciously) can
imagine too... believe it to be real and try (he/she him/herself
or any abductionist) to "sell" it as real!

Yours,

Luis R. Gonzalez Manso








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 20

                         UK UFO Causes Car Accidents

From: Loren Coleman <lcolema1@maine.rr.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 19:54:27 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 11:15:13 -0500
Subject: UK UFO Causes Car Accidents

Source: Inside-Scotland

http://www.inside-scotland.co.uk/lanarkshire/eknews/NEWS/19ufo.html.html

Lanarkshire Home
Wednesday, 19 February 2003
By Judith Tonner

UFO is spotted over Kingsgate Retail Park during morning rush-
hour

THE appearance of a UFO in the sky above Kingsgate Retail Park
last week caused spooked drivers to bump their cars.

Several people reported seeing a huge silver object in the area
as they drove past at around 8.45am last Wednesday.

Drivers were so distracted by the bizarre sighting that at least
two minor bumps were reported, as the attention of motorists
wandered from the more mundane forms of transport before them on
the road.

A local woman, who did not wish to be named, contacted the News
to describe the experience of a friend who was driving towards
the retail park at that time.

She said: =B3My friend saw something hovering, which was silver in
appearance and looked like the dishes you see on the side of
television transmitters.

=B3It was huge, and it was pulsating < he wasn=B9t the only one who
saw it, as you couldn=B9t have missed it.

=B3He saw it and just thought: OGood God=B9, and was really quite
shaken by the whole thing.

=B3Then the object just suddenly disappeared < it was so strange.

=B3My friend thinks the accidents at Kingsgate were a result of
other people seeing this thing as well.=B2

The sighting has also intrigued East Kilbride UFO Club, whose
members were warned in advance that they might be about to spot
something strange in the sky.

Colleagues in Cumbernauld had seen a similar object around half
an hour previously, and alerted their South Lanarkshire
counterparts that it appeared to be heading in their direction.

Lee Close, of the Anglo-Scottish UFO Research Agency, has been
investigating last week=B9s events in tandem with the local UFO
club.

He said: =B3This is the first time I=B9ve come across a UFO causing
a car crash, although I=B9m aware of it having happened in America
before.

=B3People in Scotland tend to think: Ooh, there=B9s something in the
sky=B9 and just carry on, so the fact that it=B9s caused two fender
benders is quite unusual.

=B3The fact that it=B9s in daylight interests us immensely too <
previously 95 per cent of sightings were at night, although
they=B9re now almost equal between day and night-time.=B2

Anyone who saw last week=B9s UFO or witnessed either of the two
reported vehicle bumps is asked to contact Lee on 07957 912500,
or Noel Wallace of East Kilbride UFO Club on 07941 157187, and
all information will be treated in the strictest confidence.









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 20

                   Re: Another Abduction Question - Bowden

From: Tom Bowden <tomrbowden@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 17:28:10 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 11:17:24 -0500
Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question - Bowden


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 15:57:22 +0000
 >Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question

 >>From: Luis R. Gonzalez <lrgm@arrakis.es>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 16:44:29 +0100
 >>Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question

 >>>From: Nick Balaskas <Nikolaos@YorkU.CA>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 15:58:17 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
 >>>Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question

<snip>

 >However, my main point is this: Heinlein, Asimov, and the other
 >SF "greats" clearly represent some of our most creative and
 >imaginative writers (though I am personally not a big fan of
 >SF). A vast SF literature exists in which they have imagined and
 >written stories about almost anything imaginable that might be
 >possible and might actually occur eventually. Under these
 >circumstances, it would be very surprising if some (obviously
 >select and not broadly representative) elements of one or more
 >SF stories did _not_ resemble some elements of abductions. If
 >you pursue this logic, you can use resemblances to SF to
 >discredit just about any anomalous data in any area. A very
 >useful, but illogical, technique.


I second Dick's point. Jules Verne wrote about a submarine
reminiscent of modern nuclear submarines. I guess this means
that sightings of nuclear submarines today are just the product
of an overactive imagination stimulated by reading "Twenty
Thousand Leagues Under the Sea", right?


Tom B.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 20

                     Whitley Strieber's Unknown Country

From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 01:39:51 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 11:20:19 -0500
Subject: Whitley Strieber's Unknown Country


Hello fellow Listerions,

I was reading some responses to the Mc Nally report (for which I
have no comment without analyzing the full study) and one link
surprisingly took me into the website of Whitley Strieber, the
profound horror and alien abduction author who magically brings
fantasy into his and your truth. Maybe I'm just dumb because I
did not go to 'The Secret School' but did they guide him to go
into horror writing? I'd also like to see his psychological
profile as a result of several tests. I am only speaking about
Whitley Strieber and not about other abductees/ experiencers.
There are many more questions than answers and to me the
phenomenon/experience is a confusing conundrum begging for
formal research.

But I digress. I found my self on Strieber's site and I saw a
link with an odd title "Does Saddam Have A Crashed UFO?" I went
into it and you can check it out at:

http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/?id=2351

Haw Haw! I'm in Europe and have not seen the American tabloids.
Are they printing any tales like this? This is a sub B grade
movie plot. If Ed Wood were still alive only he would direct it.

Did you get as far as the alien bioengineered giant scorpion
guard battalions? The USAF will quickly wipe them out. There is
another major problem. This story will quickly lose its suspense
because Saddam is soon going to be terminated. Some huckster
should have come up with this plot some years ago and tried to
pitch it to Tim Burton.

On the slim chance it may be true, Tim Burton and his camera
crew should be on the frontlines of the upcoming war in Iraq. I
would figure that the only aliens Saddam would work with would
be the "Mars Attacks!" types. :-)


Warm regards,

Josh










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 20

             Re: Whitley Strieber's Unknown Country - Goldstein

From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 01:47:18 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 11:28:02 -0500
Subject: Re: Whitley Strieber's Unknown Country - Goldstein


Hello Listeruans,

I may have had an indirect link on my last post.

Here is the direct link to Ann Strieber's story
"Does Saddam have A Crashed UFO?"

Josh

http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/?id=2351











   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 20

                   Re: Nine-Beep Mystery Solved? - Kaeser

From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 21:22:40 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 11:33:43 -0500
Subject: Re: Nine-Beep Mystery Solved? - Kaeser


 >From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 07:47:59 -0800 (PST)
 >Subject: Nine-Beep Mystery Solved?

 >Thanks for those of you who wrote to me privately to offer
 >possibilities for the weird nine beeps on my answering machine.

 >It turns out that some answering systems (even modern onces like
 >mine that tell you repeatedly in a human voice if your backup
 >battery is low) rely on some old-fashioned chips that emit nine
 >beeps as a periodic low-battery notification. This isn't
 >mentioned in the instructions - presumably because the
 >manufacturers aren't especially eager to tell you they're using
 >old, off-the-shelf parts.


While Intel continues to promote the Pentium 4 as the current
leader in computing technology, it should be noted that far more
8086 processors are still manufactured for use in all types of
appliances and other devices. Indeed, the intense long term
testing required before certain components are certified for
critical applications (such as the original Hubble space
telescope 'brain' and the Space Shuttle) means that many high
profile devices are no where near the cutting edge of
technology.

In the U.S. you may be reading this on a Pentium class computer,
but the refrigerator in your kitchen is problem using a
processor that was originally used in the IBM-XT. Just think
what a Pentium class food processor will be able to
accomplish..... <g>


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 20

                       Yes, It Is Flowing Mars Water!

From: Nick Balaskas <Nikolaos@YorkU.CA>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 21:32:41 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 11:36:32 -0500
Subject: Yes, It Is Flowing Mars Water!


Hi Everyone!

The latest images from the Mars Odyssey spacecraft have finally
convinced NASA what we armchair Mars experts had concluded from
the Mars Global Surveyor images three years earlier - there is
flowing water on the surface of Mars!

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/19feb_snow.htm?list100309

Now if those dark B&W patches that appear in certain moist
lowland regions are really green vegetation whose colours
continue to change with the Martian seasons as seen from even
amateur telescopes on Earth, then we should give credit to Dr.
Gilbert Levin and other Mars Viking Landers scientists for
successfully designing and correctly interpreting the results of
their experiment which directly detected life on Mars back in
1976.

http://www.space.com/news/spacehistory/viking_life_010728-1.html

Now that we know there is plenty of water on Mars for drinking,
washing, growing food and even to produce oxygen to breath and
fuel for heating, rocket propulsion and transportation (just
like the clean hydrogen powered cars President Bush hopes to
have us driving here on Earth in the near future), what are we
waiting for? Let's go visit our Martian cousins.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 20

                      Re: UFOs In Ancient Art - Hebert

From: Amy Hebert <yellowrose129@attbi.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 00:45:45 -0600
Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 11:53:55 -0500
Subject: Re: UFOs In Ancient Art - Hebert


 >From: Diego Cuoghi <diego.cuoghi@tin.it>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 21:39:57 +0100
 >Subject: Re: UFOs In Ancient Art

 >>From: Tom Bowden <tomrbowden@yahoo.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 16:50:48 -0800 (PST)
 >>Subject: Re: UFOs In Ancient Art

 >>>From: Diego Cuoghi <diego.cuoghi@tin.it>

 >>>I want to point out my web pages about "UFO in ancient art".
 >>>http://www.sprezzatura.it/Arte/Arte_UFO.htm

<snip>

 >In the introduction of this book I read this paragraph by
 >Kenneth Clark (please forget my bad translation)

<snip>

 >"In the today world people had lost the ability to recognize the
 >subjects of the ancient art and to comprehend their meanings.
 >Now few people read the Greek classics and relatively little
 >those that knew the Bible as their grandfathers had known it.
 >The aged persons today remain dismayed in seeing how many
 >Biblical references are by now incomprehensible to the new
 >generations."

Diego, your presentation is like a breath of fresh air in a room
filled with stale cigar smoke! Though I doubt few in the UFO
community will want to hear what you have to say, you have much
to say and much we need to hear.

Could you please describe, in any English you know, how you came
to do this study?

Please share more about your conclusions.

I hope you can translate your wonderful web site into English as
soon as possible. Your work is a great contribution to the study
of UFO's and related phenomena.


Thank you.

A. Hebert







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 20

               Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Clarke

From: David Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 08:16:18 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 11:56:00 -0500
Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Clarke


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 15:21:48 -0600
 >Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >>From: David Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 18:11:47 -0000
 >>Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >>The fact that Jerry and Don, who live in North America, have
 >>never heard of the Cracoe Fell case, which occurred in norther
 >>England, settles it as far as you're concerned, in terms of its
 >>importance.

 >What rubbish. I was reading about this case in Jenny Randles's
 >NUFON News back in the 1980s, where it was treated as a likely
 >to certain misidentification. C'mon, Dave. We're grown- ups
 >here.

Jerry,

Thanks for making my case for me - so you were aware of the case
after all! Fortunately NUFON News, along with Magonia and
Contact UK eventually erred on the side of caution after Andy
and Nigel presented their doubts.

What you probably didn't see is the amount of material that was
produced by the (former) Yorkshire UFO Society who were
promoting the case. It was the centrepiece of their lectures,
and Cracoe became a symbol of "the Yorkshire Dales UFO window".

Most importantly from the point of view of perception, many who
looked at the Cracoe UFO thought they could see "three balls of
light", which was supposedly typical of other sightings made in
the Window area. Misperception at work again... but clearly not
significant!

 >>Let's go back in time 20 years and ask the same question, not
 >>in North America, but in the UK. I can guarantee that just
 >>about anyone who [w]as remotely involved in the subject during
 >>the subject during the 80s would have pointed to Cracoe as
 >>one of the most evidential cases there was at that time, far
 >>more so than Rendlesham Forest.

 >That is an even bigger load of rubbish. Let's see your evidence.
 >I know the Birdsall brothers trumpeted this story, but the
 >original investigators, such as those associated with BUFORA,
 >had this figured out long before.

Jerry, you really ought to get your facts right before accusing
others of talking rubbish.

The original investigators were the Birdsall brothers and Tony
Dodd, who were the ones promoting the case as "a structured
craft of unknown origin."

It was Andy Roberts and Nigel Mortimer who re-investigated the
case on behalf of NUFON, not BUFORA, who never left their cosy
armchairs in London to visit the provinces. The most they did
was to send two sighting report forms for the witnesses to fill
in.

I repeat, if it was not for Andy and Nigel's investigation the
case would not have been resolved and would still be touted
today as one of the best photographic cases in the UK.

Some may disagree on my interpretation of what may
have happened without the resolution, but the history
of the case is fact.

 >It's this sort of self-serving nonsense that makes the rest of
 >us profoundly skeptical of anything that comes out of you guys.
 >The sort of provincial ufology you represent does nobody,
 >including yourselves, any good.

Ahh yes, provincial UFOlogy as opposed to corporate Ufology, in
which the latter is always superior, and never, ever self
serving!

Best,

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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 20

                       Study Explores 'False Memories'

From: Will Bueche <willb3d@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 09:42:25 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 11:58:42 -0500
Subject: Study Explores 'False Memories'

Source: The Harvard Crimson

http://www.thecrimson.com/printerfriendly.aspx?ref=272723


Thursday, February 20, 2003

Study Explores 'False Memories'
By Jeremy B. Reff
Contributing Writer

People who claim they were abducted by aliens show more intense
emotional reactions to their memories than some Vietnam War
veterans, according to a Harvard study released Sunday.

Most researchers hailed the findings as significant in the field
of recovered and false memories.

But a spokesperson for one controversial Harvard professor said
the study may demonstrate something more significant-that humans
may actually experience contact with a "third realm."

Professor John E. Mack, a psychiatry professor at Harvard
Medical School and a popular writer and commentator on
extraterrestrial activity, has disputed the notion that alien
abduction claims are fabricated. His spokesperson cites the
study as evidence.

Most experts, however, say the study's findings, presented by
Professor of Psychology Richard J. McNally at the annual meeting
of the American Association for the Advancement of Science
(AAAS), show that emotional trauma can stem from imagined
experiences.

"The core findings of this study underscore the power of
emotional belief. If you genuinely believe to have been
traumatized-even by an alien abduction, which we think is
clearly fanciful-you show the psycho-physiological profile of
those who have been," McNally said.

In his study, McNally read abduction accounts both to subjects
claiming to have been taken by aliens and to neutral controls,
and found significant physiological differences in the reactions
of the two groups.

The average increase in heart-rate of those who claimed
abduction was 7.8 beats-per-minute, compared with no significant
response from subjects in the control group. When Vietnam
veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder were
subjected to the same procedure, the average increase in heart-
  rate is 3.2 beats-per-minute, McNally said.

William J. Bueche, communications director for Mack's Center for
Psychology and Social Change, said the physiological reactions
may stem from contact with a spiritual reality that exists apart
from the material and the non-material.

Bueche said McNally's study is "a significant landmark in alien
encounter research."

He criticized McNally, however, for what he called his "leap of
faith."

"McNally assumes that the alien encounters are just beliefs, but
that's not clear-cut," Bueche said.

McNally said he and Mack agree that the subjects had intense
emotional experiences, and were not mentally ill; but he added
he was "very skeptical" of the abduction narratives themselves.

This disagreement over the reality of the abductions is not new.
In 1995, then-Dean of the Medical School Daniel C. Tosteson '44
took the rare step of publicly warning Mack about the manner in
which his research on alien abduction was affecting the academic
standards of the Medical School.

Mack was forced to withdraw Harvard affiliation from his center,
and asked by the Medical School to work with other researchers
who were not immediately sympathetic to his work.

Some scientists said Mack's research methods cast doubt on his
interpretation of McNally's study.

Arnold S. Relman, former editor of the New England Journal of
Medicine and chair of an ad-hoc committee at the Medical School
which investigated Mack's research, said Mack has "only gone
through the motions" of producing more objective research.

But Bueche said the accusations against Mack were "trivial" and
that since 1994, Mack had brought together researchers in
multiple disciplines, including McNally, to do research on alien
abduction.

Relman, however, said he has been "disappointed" with what he
called Mack's lack of objectivity.

"If I were dean, I might have said to him, 'John, for God's
sake, take a look at what you're doing, you're making a fool of
yourself, and if you believe that you're onto something of
fantastic import... get some help from your colleagues,'" Relman
said.


###









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 20

                          Secrecy News -- 02/20/03

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@fas.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 10:48:42 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 22:44:08 -0500
Subject: Secrecy News -- 02/20/03


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
Volume 2003, Issue No. 16
February 20, 2003


**      PENTAGON FORESEES EXPANDED POLYGRAPH TESTING
**      MILITANT SCHOLARS VS. LOS ALAMOS
**      SECRET EMPIRE: A HISTORY OF SPYSATS
**      CHINA: GUIDANCE ON PROTECTING CLASSIFIED INFO


PENTAGON FORESEES EXPANDED POLYGRAPH TESTING

Despite escalating criticism concerning the validity of
polygraph testing, the Defense Department may seek to increase
reliance on the polygraph as a security and counterintelligence
tool, according to a new report to Congress.

In 1991, Congress authorized the Pentagon to conduct no more
than 5,000 counterintelligence-scope polygraph (CSP) tests
annually (not including tests on intelligence agency personnel,
which are performed under the authority of the Director of
Central Intelligence).

But "since that time, the Department has identified additional
vulnerabilities and threats to classified information that did
not exist over a decade ago," according to the new report.

In particular, "the broad based use of information technology
systems, coupled with the development of information sharing
capabilities over the internet and through other electronic
media, require the updating of DoD information assurance
policies and practices to keep pace with this emerging threat."

"These enhanced security requirements may require a CSP
polygraph examination for access to DoD information systems."

Accordingly, "an increase in the CSP ceiling ... may be
requested from Congress," the report stated.

The Defense Department's "Annual Polygraph Report to Congress,
Fiscal Year 2002," contains recent program statistics, anecdotal
summaries of cases in which polygraph testing aided
investigators, and descriptions of current polygraph research
initiatives.  The report is available here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/polygraph/dod-2002.html

The new DoD report attempts to deflect an extremely critical
evaluation of polygraph testing that was published by the
National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of
Sciences in October 2002.

"It is important to note that the NRC report... concluded that
the polygraph technique is the best tool currently available to
detect deception and assess credibility," the Pentagon said.
  But this is quite disingenuous.

What the NRC report actually said, critic George Maschke of
Antipolygraph.org pointed out, is that "[s]ome potential
alternatives to the polygraph show promise, but none has yet
been shown to outperform the polygraph" (p. 8-4).  As for the
polygraph itself, "[t]here is essentially no evidence on the
incremental validity of polygraph testing, that is, its ability
to add predictive value to that which can be achieved by other
methods" (p. 8-2).

While the majority of persons who undergo polygraph testing do
so without incident, it is a career-ender for some and a deeply
disconcerting experience for quite a few others. And at least
some polygraph examiners apparently engage in occasional free-
lance interrogation of their own.

One recent applicant for employment at the CIA told Secrecy News
that his polygraph examination included the question "Do you
have friends in the media?"


MILITANT SCHOLARS VS. LOS ALAMOS

"As scholars have become more and more frustrated by the fact
that they cannot gain access to classified records, they have
become more and more militant," says Roger Meade, an archivist
at Los Alamos National Laboratory in a new paper.

As a custodian of classified records, Dr. Meade provides the
rarely publicized perspective of a "gatekeeper" on disputes over
declassification and public access to government information,
especially historical records on nuclear weapons programs.

Sometimes, he complains, "people such as myself are simply asked
to make declassification decisions personally -- in essence
asking us to break the law -- by simply giving out classified
records and information.  When this fails, personal threats are
made."

"I am routinely threatened with lawsuits.  A few years ago, a
group of historians petitioned the Laboratory Director to have
me fired -- as has more than one television producer. I have
been called a Communist -- and a fascist.  One person has even
threatened to burn down my house."

"What, then, is the prognosis of achieving a satisfactory
relationship between historians and Los Alamos?  The prognosis
is grim," he writes.

"While we are sympathetic to the desires and needs of historical
scholarship -- many of us are trained as historians and work as
advocates for historical scholarship -- we cannot act
arbitrarily, nor can we break the law. Scholars face no such
impediments and perhaps never ask the question of 'what public
interest is served if the secrets of atomic bombs are
published?'"

Dr. Meade's paper, entitled "History and Los Alamos -- Will
There Ever Be a Satisfactory Relationship?" was presented at the
annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement
of Science on February 15.  The text is available here by
courtesy of the author:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/meade.html

A radically contrasting point of view on the role and legitimacy
of nuclear secrecy is proposed by Howard Morland, the
protagonist of the 1979 Progressive lawsuit over publication of
"The H-Bomb Secret," and a nuclear abolitionist.

"Nuclear bomb secrets are a hoax, and... public understanding of
nuclear arsenals is a necessary step in the quest for nuclear
disarmament," according to Morland, who concedes that "This idea
was and remains a hard sell."

See "The Holocaust Bomb: a Question of Time," by Howard Morland,
updated and expanded in 2003, here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/morland.html


SECRET EMPIRE: A HISTORY OF SPYSATS

The development and emergence of satellite reconnaissance in the
1950s and 1960s, truly something new under the sun, is
chronicled in a new history by New York Times reporter and
editor Philip Taubman.

It is a remarkable story of technological audacity and
innovation that features a brilliant, idiosyncratic cast of
characters.  The outlines of the story, and a great many of the
details, have previously been told as historical
declassification has proceeded over the past several years. But
Taubman adds a new dimension through his interviews with many of
the principals.

"Secret Empire: Eisenhower, the CIA, and the Hidden Story of
America's Space Espionage" by Philip Taubman is to be published
by Simon & Schuster on March 12.  For more information see:

http://www.secretempirethebook.com/


CHINA: GUIDANCE ON PROTECTING CLASSIFIED INFO

One simply cannot be too careful when it comes to protecting
classified information, an article in Jiefangjun Bao, the
newspaper of China's People's Liberation Army, reminded readers
recently.

"'In guarding classified information, be cautious and cautious
yet again.' This is the highest standard and requirement for
classified work laid down by comrade Mao Zedong."

"In their daily lives of work and study, many comrades are grave
in their talk about classified work, but careless in their
actions. Often, when they are not careful, they breach rules
relating to classified work, creating the problem of leaked
classified information."

The article describes common infractions of good security
policy, and offers tips for improvement.

See "In Protecting Classified Information, Are You Capable of
Being Cautious and Cautious Yet Again?" by Meng Yan and Yin
Xinjian, published in Jiefangjun Bao (Beijing), January 28:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2003/02/jfjb012803.html


_______________________________________________
Secrecy News is written by Steven Aftergood and published by the
Federation of American Scientists.

To SUBSCRIBE to Secrecy News, send email to
   secrecy_news-request@lists.fas.org
with "subscribe" in the body of the message.

OR email your request to saftergood@fas.org

Secrecy News is archived at:
   http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/index.html

_______________________
Steven Aftergood
Project on Government Secrecy
Federation of American Scientists
web: www.fas.org/sgp/index.html
email:  saftergood@fas.org
voice:  (202) 454-4691







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 20

                    Re: Another Abduction Question - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 16:53:03 +0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 22:46:30 -0500
Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question - Hall


 >From: Luis R. Gonzalez <lrgm@arrakis.es>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 19:59:12 +0100
 >Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 15:57:22 +0000
 >>Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question

 >>>From: Luis R. Gonzalez <lrgm@arrakis.es>
 >>>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 16:44:29 +0100
 >>>Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question

<snip>

Richard Hall:

 >>I am going to piggyback on this post to comment on something you
 >>seem not to be considering in your various comments about the
 >>Linda case. To Greg Sandow you even said that the fact that the
 >>event was witnessed was not relevant! Surely that fact (if
 >>valid) indicates an objective reality to the event.

 >What I was trying to say was that whatever the reality or not of
 >Linda's abduction, it was _not_ relevant in a comparison between
 >two narratives.

 >>However, my main point is this: Heinlein, Asimov, and the other
 >>SF "greats" clearly represent some of our most creative and
 >>imaginative writers (though I am personally not a big fan of
 >>SF). A vast SF literature exists in which they have imagined and
 >>written stories about almost anything imaginable that might be
 >>possible and might actually occur eventually. Under these
 >>circumstances, it would be very surprising if some (obviously
 >>select and not broadly representative) elements of one or more
 >>SF stories did _not_ resemble some elements of abductions. If
 >>you pursue this logic, you can use resemblances to SF to
 >>discredit just about any anomalous data in any area. A very
 >>useful, but illogical, technique.

 >My mention was to Asimov's writings on science, no SF. But,
 >well, somehow my thesis is precisely that. What one SF writer
 >can imagine, another person (consciously or unconsciously) can
 >imagine too... believe it to be real and try (he/she him/herself
 >or any abductionist) to "sell" it as real!


Luis,

James McDonald once characterized the reasoning processes of
Phil Klass as "argument by concatenation."

You merely juxtapose two sets of things without making any clear
argument as to why they are or must be causally connected. This
statement only reiterates your belief and does not tell me any
reason why it must be the answer. In fact, you have not
responded to my argument that it would be surprising if such
similarities did not exist. Possibilities are only that, not
established facts.


  - 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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 20

               Re: Whitley Strieber's Unknown Country - Bueche

From: Will Bueche <willb3d@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 13:01:00 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 22:52:27 -0500
Subject: Re: Whitley Strieber's Unknown Country - Bueche


 >From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
 >Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 01:39:51 +0100
 >Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 11:20:19 -0500
 >Subject: Whitley Strieber's Unknown Country

<snip>

 >But I digress. I found my self on Strieber's site and I saw a
 >link with an odd title "Does Saddam Have A Crashed UFO?"
 >http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/?id=2351
<snip>

For the sake of politeness it is worth mentioning that this was
simply a "news of the weird" Pravda article (a newspaper which
some say was once a serious newspaper). Strieber's only comment
on the laughable story was "These sound like rumors started by
Saddam in order to scare people away from Qalaat-e-Julundi."!

And if you were serious about wanting to see Strieber's test
results from the eighties, they're here, but let's not get
sidetracked into that discussion:

http://www.unknowncountry.com/edge/articles/tests.phtml











   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 20

             Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Dabrowski

From: Andrew Dabrowski <dabrowsa@indiana.edu>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 13:10:28 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 22:54:34 -0500
Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Dabrowski


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 17:25:23 -0600
 >Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >>From: Andrew Dabrowski <dabrowsa@indiana.edu>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 17:05:03 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >>kind of exasperating watching the exchange between
 >>Andy Roberts and Jerome Clark. Both have made good points, but
 >>neither can accept uncertainty, so they quickly reach an impasse
 >>due to their differing temperaments.

 >Then you have read me entirely wrongly. My point _always_ has
 >been that we must learn to accept uncertainty. That is exactly
 >why I argue, against Roberts and Clarke, for the term "UFO,"
 >which acknowledges uncertainty, and against either "flying
 >saucer" or "radical misperception," both sweeping faith
 >statements for which nothing like the appropriate, question-
 >settling evidence has been demonstrated to date.

But you agree that "radical misperception" is a possible
explanation for many (even famous) cases, just that you find it
unlikely?

 >"What all this [high-strangeness anomalous experience] means ...
 >is impossible to say, though we can be assured that this small
 >consideration will stop no committed debunker or true believer
 >from saying it anyway. The temptations to reductionism (the
 >witness was dreaming it) or occultism (it was a paranormal being
 >from the etheric realm) are hard to resist.... Human nature
 >abhors an explanatory vacuum. Real understanding, on the other
 >hand, demands intellectual modesty and patience, not to mention
 >a huge tolerance for ambiguity.

Again, you agree that reductionism is a possible explanation for
many cases, but you find it unlikely to explain all?

That is my take on UFOs. I think there's a chance that every
report of the last 50 years will turn out to have a mundane
explanation. But I doubt it. Do we agree on this?




--
---------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Dabrowski      |     Lueckenlos ist die Welt, doch
SE 117   5-5470       | zusammengehalten ... von den
Verschwundenen.
dabrowsa@indiana.edu  | Sie sind ueberall.
-Enzensberger






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 20

               Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Clarke

From: David Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 18:23:45 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 22:57:46 -0500
Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Clarke


 >From: Catherine Reason <CathyM@ukf.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 00:51:38 -0000
 >Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >>From: David Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 18:11:47 -0000
 >>Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >>On this we are in agreement. But Ufology does not, by and large,
 >>behave like academia does. Stick around long enough and you will
 >>find out for yourself.

 >Could you give me an example or two of how Ufology differs from
 >academia?


Hi Catherine,

Thanks for the excellent response, I think you are right and
that we are saying exactly the same thing but from two
different standpoints. We are talking philosophy, which is miles
removed from the CE2s and Radar/Visuals we are assured is the
"real" Ufology, but when one examines these cases one finds that
'objective' facts are rare and are subject to all the levels of
subjective interpretation that you have pointed out so
eloquently.

As you say, we cannot avoid philosophy when discussing
something which science cannot capture or reproduce in the
laboratory, hence the value of Colin Bennett's recent
interventions!

Having read Jerry's most recent contribution, I also (gasp)
believe that far from being oceans apart in our approach, we
actually share much common ground. It is misunderstandings in
culture, language and attitude that lie behind the perceived
friction between us, rather than any lack of genuine curiosity
concerning 'unknowns.'

If we really want to take the study of this phenomena forward we
should be emphasising those aspects where we share common
ground, rather than fighting over the perceived differences.

Now to answer your question about the difference between Ufology
and academia, the best example I can give is as follows (it
might not be perfect, but it struck me as illustrative of the
difference in approach):

Take the recent claims by the Raelians that they had
successfully cloned a human. Now I'm not trying to compare the
Raelians with Ufologists, it is more the reaction of science to
the claim that I was interested in.

Sure there was scepticism, lots of it, but there was also
suspension of judgement in lieu of the production of evidence
that could be independently tested. That suggested to me that
science is always interested in examining claims of discoveries
or phenomena on the fringes of current knowledge, if those who
make the claims are prepared to submit their evidence to the
empirical demands that science always requires.

In this case the Raelians could not produce the evidence to back
up their claims, hence suspicions were confirmed. Science will
take no further interest until such evidence than be produced
and verified. Ufology simply does not work like this.

I think it was Ed Stewart who said that in Ufology nothing is
ever removed from the table - even the most discredited cases
remain part of the UFOlogical repertoire, and continue to be
recycled within the literature of the subject, further
emphasising (wrongly, in my opinion) its unattractiveness to
science. Jerry will intervene here and say this is nonsense, but
Jerry only represents one faction of 'Ufology', there are many
others with completely different interpretation of what
constitutes evidence and best cases. Who decides which faction
represents 'Ufology'?

Ufology reminds me of the game I used to enjoy on fairgrounds
where one used a large mallet to bash a toy figure on the head.
Once you have flattened it, an identical one pops up somewhere
else, followed by another, and another...

To confirm this just check how many times stories like the
Spitzbergen UFO crash and the Aurora Calfnapping Hoax turn up in
UpDates archives (the latter was still being promoted as genuine
in John Spencer's UFO Encyclopedia in 1987, years after Jerry
Clark debunked the story).

Therefore as I see it is a folly to even talk about "Ufology"
until someone establishes what one means by that phrase. This in
itself relates to my point about the differences between science
(which has an established framework) and 'Ufology' (which
doesn't even know what it is).

There is no Ufology as there is a psychology or a sociology
since there is no established, agreed or peer-reviewed body of
evidence that is accepted by *all* those who call themselves
Ufologists that could be adopted as the basis for an academic
discipline, not to mention an agreed methodology for study of a
phenomenon.

How does one define "Ufology" or Ufologist? How does one become
a Ufologist, and who decides whether one is qualified, and if
so, using whose criteria?

As I see it anyone can call themselves a Ufologist at the
moment, and anyone's beliefs and opinions about the subject are
as good as anyone's else's. Despite many attempts to establish
rules and codes of practice, there is no established basis for
what Ufology is, what it does, or what it hopes to achieve -
  hence the complete mess we see at present.

Having said that, I wish Jerry, Stan, Don and the rest all the
best of British luck in establishing Ufology as a discipline
that will take its place alongside all the other 'ologies.'

But the place to achieve that laudable aim is not by endless and
circular battles with wrongly perceived adversaries via e-mail,
but out in the real world, getting hands dirty in the field and
engaging with those who must be convinced if science is to take
them seriously.

Recently I asked Jerry Clark what efforts he was making to
persuade scientists to take those cases he felt were remarkable
seriously. We got David Hufford again then a list of scientists
(all American) who had made positive noises, the most recent of
which (Sturrock) basically repeated the conclusions made by
Condon over 30 years ago. Maybe that goes some way to answering
your question!

Sorry for the long and meandering answer, but I hope this has
been of some interest.


Best,

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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 20

               Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Clarke

From: David Clarke <cd292@crazydiamonds.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 18:28:39 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 23:00:21 -0500
Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Clarke


 >From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 15:09:15 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

Hi Don,

 >Perhaps you or Andy could explain to me why this case was so
 >important to the investigators of the time. If the
 >"object/light" kept re-appearing in the same place over an
 >extended period of time - shouldn't this have tipped the
 >investigators and yourselves to the likelyhood of this being a
 >fixed source? Such sources are usually stars, planets, towers.
 >lighted buildings in raised elevations, etc.

 >Was it the fact because there were two policemen involved that
 >kept this case alive?

 >Also-how can you claim this was a "RMP" if it took so long for
 >you and Andy to first see the effect of the reflection that you
 >said was a common occurrance for the policeofficer[s] who lived
 >right there. Andy said he staked out the area for some time
 >without seeing anything. That doesn't sound very common to me.

 >How then does this square with your theory of these RMPs being
 >misidentification of the prosaic if it doesn't occur all that
 >frequently?


Thanks for the interesting questions. As I don't have the time
to process several thousand words in reply, e-mail me offlist
with your snail mail address and I will happily supply you with
all the documentation you require.

Arguing about the minutae of cases of which we both admit we
have no direct knowledge is completely pointless.

Once you have read and digested the full investigation notes
then maybe we can have a conversation that doesn't degenerate
into name-calling.


Best,

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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 20

              Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Roberts

From: Andy Roberts <aj.roberts@blueyonder.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 19:08:58 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 23:02:18 -0500
Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Roberts


 >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 17:25:23 -0600
 >Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

Jerry wrote (in response to Andrew Dabrowski)

 >Then you have read me entirely wrongly.

I find it alarming just how many people manage to have read
Jerry wrongly. The List is littered with those bright ufologists
who manage to read the most complex books, case reports and
other written materials, yet seem to intellectually stumble when
confronted with anything Jerry writes! Amazing!

 >My point _always_ has
 >been that we must learn to accept uncertainty. That is exactly
 >why I argue, against Roberts and Clarke, for the term "UFO,"
 >which acknowledges uncertainty, and against either "flying
 >saucer" or "radical misperception," both sweeping faith
 >statements for which nothing like the appropriate, question-
 >settling evidence has been demonstrated to date.

Intriguing. Of course we look for certainty and hate
uncertainty. Surely this is what we are in this business for -
  we see people's experience which is uncertain and ambiguous and
seek to resolve that into certainty. This is _exactly_ the
spirit of scientific enquiry. Neither a love of uncertainty or
ambiguity will get us very far in this world, an _acceptance_ of
it, yes but in ufology these qualities are used to perpetuate
mystery.

Surely the object of case investigation is to resolve ambiguity
and uncertainty? If it's not could Jerry please tell us what we
are here for? The tendency of ufologists to discard the
usefulness of cases once they are resolved and to rush to the
next 'ambiguity' is rather odd. The secret to all cases appears
to lie in the uncertain and ambiguous cases already resolved.
This is predictive in that we can speculate that other complex,
ambiguos and certain cases will also be resolved into known
phenomena or objects. When just _one_ is resolved into something
more exotic then we can talk seriously about uncertainty and
ambiguity

 >In short, I think - hell, I know - you missed the whole point of
 >the exchange between Clarke and Roberts on one side and me on
 >the other. Perhaps you should read more carefully before making
 >diagnostic pronouncements on my (alleged) temperament. Let's
 >hear it for modesty and ambiguity over arrogance and false
 >knowledge.

Lordy! Now Jerry _knows_ you missed the point Andrew. His powers
of reading others' minds is really incredible. You've also just
become a victim of one of Jerry's other less savoury list
traits. That of belittling people who either don't agree with
his perfect knowledge and wisdom or who dare to think others may
actually have some valid points to make. And people wonder why
this list is only posted to by those with a strong constitution
or an axe to grind. Welcome to Updates Andrew!


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 20

              Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Roberts

From: Andy Roberts <aj.roberts@blueyonder.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 19:16:28 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 23:03:24 -0500
Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Roberts


 >From: Catherine Reason <CathyM@ukf.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 00:42:20 -0000
 >Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

Cathy wrote (in response to Dave Clarke),

 >Well, I went through some of my UFO books (I do have a few) and
 >couldn't find any mention of it, although some of them deal with
 >the UK and cover the 1980s, and several of them were written by
 >Jenny Randles.

Such is the interesting way with UFO cases. The complex cases of
radical misperception which resolve cases rarely make it to UFO
books. For the simple reason that solved cases don't sell books,
don't make interesting reading for the saucer-faithful and don't
make publishing house editors very happy. When I'm back at home
I'll post details of how the interested can obtain a copy of the
chapter on Cracoe I wrote for The UFOs That Never Were.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 20

              Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Roberts

From: Andy Roberts <aj.roberts@blueyonder.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 19:37:02 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 23:05:02 -0500
Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Roberts


 >From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 15:09:15 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

Don wrote (in response to Dave Clarke),

 >Perhaps you or Andy could explain to me why this case was so
 >important to the investigators of the time.

It was important because some of those involved firmly believed
that this area of the Dales was a base for 'structured craft of
unknown origin'. A 'big' photo case involving policemen added
weight to this theory. Its existence was used to bolster other
sightings in the area, and the case literally 'took off',
causing people to believe they had seen it flying in the sky
above them!

This, I must note, is a very simplified version of events, the
rest of which are entangled in the labyrinthine UK UFO politics
of the time.

 >If the
 >"object/light" kept re-appearing in the same place over an
 >extended period of time - shouldn't this have tipped the
 >investigators and yourselves to the likelyhood of this being a
 >fixed source? Such sources are usually stars, planets, towers.
 >lighted buildings in raised elevations, etc.

You need to read more about the case to undrerstand it Don, but
the investigators didn't 'see' the UFO anymore than the police
officers didn't 'see' it for the years preceding and postdating
the fateful day in 1981 when something, some trigger, flipped
them into 'UFO consciousness' which led to a complex rock
reflection became a UFO, a jet overhead was allegedly checking
it out and so on and so forth. The fact that it _was_ obvious is
the whole point. The fact that the original team walked all over
the hillside, and in fact actually stood on the UFO on more than
one occasion only serves to amplify the relevance of the case.
The expression 'not seeing the wood for the trees' was most apt
in this instance.

Furthermore the RMP was multiplied when the original
investigators began 'finding' evidnce which they believed
supported the existence of a craft behind the photograph.
Naturally felled and burnt trees became evidence of a craft
crashing through a forest. The alleged lack of wildlife, ditto.
Jets flying above them were evidence that they were being
watched because the military knew all about the UFO. And so on,
many, many more connections. And all from the RMP of a shiny
rock!

 >Was it the fact because there were two policemen involved that
 >kept this case alive?

See above.

 >Also-how can you claim this was a "RMP" if it took so long for
 >you and Andy to first see the effect of the reflection that you
 >said was a common occurrance for the policeofficer[s] who lived
 >right there. Andy said he staked out the area for some time
 >without seeing anything. That doesn't sound very common to me.

Because the illusion (and that's what it is) was hard to locate
in winter (when I was looking at it) and was covered in snow.
Also because the photos as used in the UFO literature and the
national media were extremely magnified to further give the
effect of it being a 'UFO'.

 >How then does this square with your theory of these RMPs being
 >misidentification of the prosaic if it doesn't occur all that
 >frequently?

If the site is not covered with snow I can show you it on any
day of the year. Sometimes it's spectacular, sometimes not so,
but it's always 'there'.

That this is the situation makes the Cracoe Fell case all the
more instructive.

Most UFO cases are transient events, misperceptions which are
only there for a short period of time. The mechanics of these
cases are often difficult to understand or prove. The Cracoe
Case is like a permanent object lesson in the fundamentals of
radical misperception, and as relevant a UK case as any 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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 20

                        UFO Feature in Maxim Magazine

From: Nick Pope <nick@popemod.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 23:26:46 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 23:06:03 -0500
Subject: UFO Feature in Maxim Magazine


The April issue of Maxim magazine is out now (yes really) and
contains a feature on UFOs and alien abductions, on pages 102 to
108.

An abductee talks about his experiences, and I talk about some
of my official research and investigation at the Ministry of
Defence.

Anyway, look out for the magazine with Caprice on the front!


Best wishes,

Nick Pope

http://www.nickpope.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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 20

                     Re: Case MJ-12 - A Review - Tonnies

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 17:00:15 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 23:07:25 -0500
Subject: Re: Case MJ-12 - A Review - Tonnies


 >From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@rogers.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 19:54:47 -0400
 >Subject: Case MJ-12 - A Review

 >Thanks to the efforts of Peter Blinn on my website, the 9000
 >word text of my Review of Kevin Randle's Case MJ-12 is now on
 >my webpage at:

 >www.v-j-enterprises.com/sfpage.html

 >click on my picture.

<snip>

Thanks, Stan and Peter! And I probably don't speak only for
myself.

=====
Mac Tonnies
macbot@yahoo.com

MTVI: http://www.mactonnies.com
Transcelestial Ontology, Posthumanism and Theoretical Ufology

Blog: http://posthumanblues.blogspot.com (updated daily)








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 20

                 Re: UFO Feature in Maxim Magazine - Tonnies

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 20:18:21 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 23:25:02 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO Feature in Maxim Magazine - Tonnies


 >From: Nick Pope <nick@popemod.freeserve.co.uk>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 23:26:46 -0000
 >Subject: UFO Feature in Maxim Magazine


 >The April issue of Maxim magazine is out now (yes really) and
 >contains a feature on UFOs and alien abductions, on pages 102 to
 >108.

 >An abductee talks about his experiences, and I talk about some
 >of my official research and investigation at the Ministry of
 >Defence.

I have an ugly feeling about this. "Maxim's" reason for existing
seems to be to make snide comments and scoffing E-Z to digest
satire for the masses... and publish pcitures of supermodels.

 >Anyway, look out for the magazine with Caprice on the front!

I rest my case.

But seriously, is this a good venue?  I'll keep an eye out...

=====
 >Mac Tonnies
macbot@yahoo.com

MTVI: http://www.mactonnies.com
Transcelestial Ontology, Posthumanism and Theoretical Ufology

Blog: http://posthumanblues.blogspot.com (updated daily)







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 20

                    UFO Experts On The Hunt For Sightings

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 23:31:35 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 23:31:35 -0500
Subject: UFO Experts On The Hunt For Sightings

http://www.inside-scotland.co.uk/lanarkshire/acadvertiser/NEWS/ufo-appeal.html.h
tml

Thursday, 20 February 2003

UFO Experts On The Hunt For Sightings

By John Hutcheson

Group want all flying saucer reports

UFO experts are desperate to speak to people in Airdrie who have
seen mysterious flying objects.

The Anglo-Scottish UFO Research Agency wants to track down
anyone who witnessed a strange shape in the sky above Airdrie
last June.

The Advertiser reported the occurrence at the time after
Cairnhill man Stephen Dymock pictured two flying objects - one
is a helicopter but the other is unknown.

Experts at ASUFORA have been studying the photograph and are
convinced that it shows a genuine UFO.

Investigator Lee Close now wants to speak to anyone who may also
have seen the flying object or has had similar experiences.

He said: "We are a Scottish organisation which attempts to
investigate and resolve instances of Unidentified Flying Objects
and related matters in and around Scotland.

"All information that is passed to us is kept in the strictest
confidence unless the contact explicitly states otherwise.

"The photo taken in Airdrie has not been doctored with and we
want to speak to anyone who might be able to help us investigate
further."

The photo was taken at about 10.30am on June 27, on a clear,
crisp summer morning above Strain Avenue, Cairnhill, in Airdrie.

The red helicopter is clearly visible as the lower of the two
objects - but photographer Stephen Dymock was at a loss to
explain what the other is.

He said at the time: "Reports on low budget airlines said that
some pilots are flying their aeroplanes too low over towns when
they are approaching the airport and, having seeing one of these
aeroplanes on the previous night, I decided to have a camera
ready for the next one.

"The following morning around 10.30am, I heard what sounded like
a low-flying aeroplane, so I got the camera ready but it was a
red helicopter. Since I had the camera in my hand I took a photo
anyway.

"When I looked at the LCD screen on the camera there were not
one but two objects in the sky."

Stephen then uploaded the image onto his PC and was startled to
see what appeared to be a UFO just above the helicopter.

Stephen added: "Some people might say I uploaded an image onto
the PC then put in the object. For that reason, I kept the image
on the camera to prove it was in the sky at the time and not a
fake or doctored photo.

"It's too big to be a bird. It's going up or down at an angle -
  I think up - so it's not a balloon and it's not another
aircraft.

If want to contact Lee, call him on 07957 912500 or visit the
group's website at www.asufora.com


[UFO UpDates thanks www.http://anomalist.com for the lead]








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 21

                      Re: UFOs In Ancient Art - Cuoghi

From: Diego Cuoghi <diegocuoghi@spamcop.net>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 15:04:05 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 09:50:26 -0500
Subject: Re: UFOs In Ancient Art - Cuoghi


 >From: Amy Hebert <yellowrose129@attbi.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 00:45:45 -0600
 >Subject: Re: UFOs In Ancient Art - Hebert

 >Diego, your presentation is like a breath of fresh air in a room
 >filled with stale cigar smoke! Though I doubt few in the UFO
 >community will want to hear what you have to say, you have much
 >to say and much we need to hear.

 >Could you please describe, in any English you know, how you came
 >to do this study?


I am an architect and I work also in art-history. My last
writing is about the recognizing of the subjects of two series
of mid-XVI Century frescoes of Nicolo Dell'Abate.

Six months ago I read, in a newsgroup, some messages about UFOs
in renaissance art and I was very surprised to see how almost
all the Christian symbology was completely misunderstood by the
people who wrote those messages and who realized web pages about
"UFOs in ancient art".

I began with a first page, then little by little, I added new
examples while I found other web pages with UFO-Art
reproductions.

Recently, I went in Florence to take some pictures of paintings
because many reproductions I found on the Web were very bad.
Next week I will return to the Accademia Gallery in Florence to
take a last picture of a painting very similar to the "Madonna
with Child and Saint Giovannino" in Palazzo Vecchio. It has the
same title and has, clearly visible, a dark object in the sky
behind Virgin Mary. It's the same angel as in many other
paintings with the same subject.

For this reason the last part (5) is still "under construction".

 >I hope you can translate your wonderful web site into English as
 >soon as possible. Your work is a great contribution to the study
 >of UFO's and related phenomena.

Thank you for the appreciation. I asked a cousin (who knows
english better than me) to translate the pages. I hope that in a
month I will have all the translations to make an English
version.


Diego Cuoghi

http://www.sprezzatura.it/Arte/Arte_UFO.htm
--






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 21

                              A Wee Bit Crazy?

From: Jeff Behnke <jeff@paranormalnews.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 09:34:11 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 09:58:08 -0500
Subject: A Wee Bit Crazy?


A Wee Bit Crazy?

"The Straits Times - It's called schizotypal - a 'lite' version
of a schizophrenic who feels his bizarre beliefs makes him
smarter than others. If you dress funny, talk funny, have no
friends, believe in ghosts and communicate with UFOs, science
finally has a name for you. You're a schizotypal. You're in a
classification all by yourself: You're a bit nutty, in other
words, but you manage to get by."

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/techscience/story/0,4386,172842,00.html

-----

When I first saw this article, I didn't really know what to
think. I saw it just after being frustrated going through
everything from Slate to MSNBC to CNN to Wired. Everybody was
making up words, and this was a new one. It kind of disturbed
me, seemed kind of moronic, and it made me wonder how strong of
a meme this would become. By saying, "Since you believe in
ghosts and UFOs you are schizotypal" seemed to be the same
tactics that the terrorists are using when they say, "By
attacking us you are attacking all Muslims."

Remember high-school days when you hated to be 'labeled'? You
kind of grew out of it after awhile, but I think this is because
your mind becomes kind of numbed to the amount of labeling that
goes on around you on a daily basis. It doesn't really stop. It
only gets worse as you slip into college and develop a
professional career out of labeling things based on your
selected profession. You can't really exist without labeling.
This is a mug. That is a pencil. You are a racist. I am a
heterosexual. This is a bicep. But unlike a bicep or a pencil,
being labeled a schizotypal, despite my graduating successfully
from high school and moving on into college and out into the
world, it still pissed me off. I didn't know whether to be angry
at the article, pissed at the newspaper, the University of
California, or Dr Adrian Raine.

But before flying off the handle and pulling out my logical hand
grenades, I went over the article a few more times and realized
something: we also have labels for people as well, don't we? If
someone is constantly coming up with reasons why something is
not a UFO, we call them a "debunker". If someone criticizes our
"open-mindedness" they are "close-minded". We are not
"enthusiasts", we are "researchers". We merely have hypotheses
based on facts gathered by our researchers who hunt down
witnesses and evidence. Not to be confused with those who merely
have beliefs based on opinions gathered by enthusiasts who hunt
down anyone who says they've spoken with God through a pink beam
of light coming in from a window in their bedroom last night
while experiencing sleep paralysis.

And after realizing this, I came to the conclusion that I
shouldn't be angry at the article published in the Straits Times
or Dr Adrian Raine, because it was just written by a close-
minded psycho-babbologist trying to obtain his tenure by
discouraging the truth to kiss up to the freemasonry leaders of
the U of C so he didn't have to do anything anymore, anyway.
And that made me feel better. A lot better. Now I can continue
on with my life the same way that I started when I ran into the
schizotypal meme in the first place: free to do what I want,
think what I want, and continue on the way I want. Let the
psychologists disbelieve! That's their job. But me, I'm just
gonna sit here and let myself schiz-out when I damn well please,
and I'm damn-well pleasing to do so right now. Besides, no one
listens to their therapist anyway.


Cheers,

Jeff Behnke






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 21

                       New International UFO Reporter

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 10:53:17 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 14:12:01 -0500
Subject: New International UFO Reporter


Listers,

I just received my IUR, Vol 27 number 3 Fall 2002.

The lead article is by Don Ledger on the Flying Triangles of
Nova Scotia in August of 2002. Interestingly we have a
possibility of a triangle having a per-side length of 3600 feet.
Don also examines some early sightings of FT's.

We have articles on Frank Kaufman reconsidered (this was well
hashed on the List); The 1946 Ghost Rocket Photo, Harvard's
Revenge Abduction Reports and False Memory, The U-2 Spy Plane
and Blue Book: Another Look, Sci-Fi and GWU, not to mention
letters and news.

All the articles are well done and thought provoking. I would
say that IUR is well worth the $25.00 per year subscription
price, especially for the quality of articles. Much research and
material you won't see on Lists.

For those who would like to get a subscription, or renew theirs
contact:

CUFOS
2457 West Peterson Ave
Chicago, IL 60659

or go to www.cufos.org


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 21

                       Re: A Wee Bit Crazy? - Connors

From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 09:14:43 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 14:13:56 -0500
Subject: Re: A Wee Bit Crazy? - Connors


 >From: Jeff Behnke <jeff@paranormalnews.com>
 >To: UFO Updates <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 09:34:11 -0500
 >Subject: A Wee Bit Crazy?


 >A Wee Bit Crazy?

 >"The Straits Times - It's called schizotypal - a 'lite' version
 >of a schizophrenic who feels his bizarre beliefs makes him
 >smarter than others. If you dress funny, talk funny, have no
 >friends, believe in ghosts and communicate with UFOs, science
 >finally has a name for you. You're a schizotypal. You're in a
 >classification all by yourself: You're a bit nutty, in other
 >words, but you manage to get by."


Jeff,

Well adjusted people, like yourself, just make me sick! <Huge
Grin> What right do debunkers have in deschizoing another
schizotypal person anyway? <G>

I say the whole thing schiztz. <G>


Wendy Connors

So, there ya have it, but whadda ya got?







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 21

                    Re: Creating False Memories? - Reason

From: Catherine Reason <CathyM@ukf.net>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 17:47:05 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 14:15:51 -0500
Subject: Re: Creating False Memories? - Reason


 >From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 12:31:47 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Creating False Memories?

 >Loftus, IMO, misapplies research from nontraumatic memory to
 >traumatic memory.  Both are stored differently in the brain.

As someone who has made something of a hobby out of
deconstructing the work of Elizabeth Loftus, I think the real
problem with this latest reported study of hers is a little more
subtle.

The problem as I see it, is that the theory being tested in
Loftus's research is so vaguely specified that it makes no clear
predictions about what sorts of generalizations about memory
(traumatic or otherwise) are permissible, and what sorts are
not.

There would seem to be no reason, for example, om the basis of
Loftus's logic, why one should not assume that someone who sees
a poster advertising a Godzilla movie is in danger of developing
a false memory of being attacked by a hundred-meter tall city-
devouring reptile.

There would appear to be something wrong with this.


Cathy

[Catherine Reason]







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 21

                      Re: A Wee Bit Crazy? - Stevenson

From: Colin Stevenson <colin@c2k2.fsworld.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 17:31:02 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 14:22:05 -0500
Subject: Re: A Wee Bit Crazy? - Stevenson


 >From: Jeff Behnke <jeff@paranormalnews.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 09:34:11 -0500
 >Subject: A Wee Bit Crazy

 >"The Straits Times - It's called schizotypal - a 'lite' version
 >of a schizophrenic who feels his bizarre beliefs makes him
 >smarter than others. If you dress funny, talk funny, have no
 >friends, believe in ghosts and communicate with UFOs, science
 >finally has a name for you. You're a schizotypal. You're in a
 >classification all by yourself: You're a bit nutty, in other
 >words, but you manage to get by."

 >http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/techscience/story/0,4386,172842,00.html

 >-----
 >When I first saw this article, I didn't really know what to
 >think.

<snip>

 >I came to the conclusion that I
 >shouldn't be angry at the article published in the Straits Times
 >or Dr Adrian Raine, because it was just written by a close-
 >minded psycho-babbologist trying to obtain his tenure by
 >discouraging the truth to kiss up to the freemasonry leaders of
 >the U of C so he didn't have to do anything anymore, anyway.
 >And that made me feel better. A lot better. Now I can continue
 >on with my life the same way that I started when I ran into the
 >schizotypal meme in the first place: free to do what I want,
 >think what I want, and continue on the way I want. Let the
 >psychologists disbelieve! That's their job. But me, I'm just
 >gonna sit here and let myself schiz-out when I damn well please,
 >and I'm damn-well pleasing to do so right now. Besides, no one
 >listens to their therapist anyway.

 >Cheers,

 >Jeff Behnke

Hi Jeff and all,

But the medications are far too expensive in my opinion and the
side effects from them are also hallucinations apparently (my
shrink says so). That man over there doing the shake, rock and
roll, tongue blobbing, violent psycotic outbust's with intent to
harm with a Machete doesn't think so though and neither do the
Electro Convulsive therapist's ( ? ). Maybe if ET didn't abduct
him and left him alone he may think differently.

What happenned to our rights to Human diversity here as outlined
by Darwin? The world would be in a sorry state if we all lived
in psycological conformist straight jackets gagged by our fears
to be 'different' and lived in Pidgin holes named and created by
others without the oppertunity to move into any of the others.

As to 'managing to get by'; never earned so much money in my
life, made so many more good friends including ET, increased my
IQ to 143 points ( MENSA tested but failed entrance ) after
failing my UK 11+ exams, developed a good sense of humour and
dress sense and rest very peacefully at night with a smaile on
my face. All after persuing my UFO interests after early
retirement.

Arn't all the psycology experts madder than their patients
anyway? They would have to be to do the job as it isn't exactly
a safe proffession attracting all those 'danger money' additions
to their pay packets. Carrying such a huge pay packet in their
pockets, you will agree, isn't exactly safe or sane. I take off
my conical aluminium hat to them with a big 'D' on the front
which is cramping my style in this corner of the room.

Mine's a half

Colin
:-)






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 21

                        Re: A Wee Bit Crazy? - Morton

From: Dave Morton <Marspyrs@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 12:40:30 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 14:24:01 -0500
Subject: Re: A Wee Bit Crazy? - Morton


 >From: Jeff Behnke <jeff@paranormalnews.com>
 >Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 09:34:11 -0500
 >Fwd Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 09:58:08 -0500
 >Subject: A Wee Bit Crazy?

 >A Wee Bit Crazy?

 >"The Straits Times - It's called schizotypal - a 'lite' version
 >of a schizophrenic who feels his bizarre beliefs makes him
 >smarter than others. If you dress funny, talk funny, have no
 >friends, believe in ghosts and communicate with UFOs, science
 >finally has a name for you. You're a schizotypal. You're in a
 >classification all by yourself: You're a bit nutty, in other
 >words, but you manage to get by."

 >http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/techscience/story/0,4386,172842,00.html

[Dr. Adrian Raine, UCLA]
-----

<snip>

 >And after realizing this, I came to the conclusion that I
 >shouldn't be angry at the article published in the Straits Times
 >or Dr Adrian Raine, because it was just written by a close-
 >minded psycho-babbologist trying to obtain his tenure by
 >discouraging the truth to kiss up to the freemasonry leaders of
 >the U of C so he didn't have to do anything anymore, anyway.
 >And that made me feel better. A lot better. Now I can continue
 >on with my life the same way that I started when I ran into the
 >schizotypal meme in the first place: free to do what I want,
 >think what I want, and continue on the way I want. Let the
 >psychologists disbelieve! That's their job. But me, I'm just
 >gonna sit here and let myself schiz-out when I damn well please,
 >and I'm damn-well pleasing to do so right now. Besides, no one
 >listens to their therapist anyway.

 >Cheers,

 >Jeff Behnke


Jeff -

I share your contempt for these morons.

For what it's worth, I've been reading a book about Ayn Rand by
Nathaniel Branden called "Judgement Day: My Years With Ayn
Rand". (Published in 1989. The 2nd edition in 1999 is titled
simply "My Years With Ayn Rand").

While Ayn Rand's philosophy isn't perfect, and she herself had
many faults, she was staunchly anti-communist, anti-fascist,
anti-dictatorship, pro-reason, and pro- individual rights. (Her
family had been victims of Communism in Russia, before she fled
the country).

Here's what happened to Branden's girlfriend at the hands of a
professor in 1951 at UCLA after she co-signed a letter Branden
wrote attacking the hypocrisy of American Communists:


"In the spring of 1951 Barbara took a course in political
philosophy from a Dr. Hans Meyerhoff, a Platonist and a
socialist...

[Meyerhoff met Ayn Rand at his request through Nathaniel and
Barbara, and his arguments were easily shredded by Rand in
one evening at her home. He never returned for another round,
although he had an open invitation from Ayn Rand.
Later, Nathaniel wrote a letter to the editor of the school's
newspaper attacking a pro-communist editorial, and asking
where the apologists were for the victims of Communism.
Barbara co-signed it. Meyerhoff responded by writing a
blistering, personal attack on the two, published in the
school's newspaper. Meyerhoff then started throwing out
snidely abusive remarks in class about Ayn Rand and anyone
who shared her ideas.]

...In class this day, Meyerhoff was decrying the "antisocial"
and "unprogressive" nature of this viewpoint [individual rights]
throwing little asides, as digs, at Barbara. After a while, no
longer able to remain silent, Barbara responded, "By what right?"
she demanded of Meyerhoff. "By what right do you seek to impose
on others, by physical coercion, your version of the good?"

I was auditing the class with her that particular day, intrigued
by the drama of their conflict, and I sat beside her delighting
in the sound of the trumpets. I loved confrontations of this
kind, and was good-naturedly envious that this one had to be
all Barbara's.

"My God," Meyerhoff began impatiently, "ever since Plato it's
been understood that--". Her voice rising, Barbara responded,
"Plato was an advocate of dictatorship! Do you deny that?"
Meyerhoff answered, not by talking about Plato or about ideas,
but by ridiculing Barbara's naivete, her narrow-mindedness,
her unmodern approach to life, and her strange choice of
friends.

[Later] She went to Meyerhoff's office to protest his behaviour.
His response was to observe that if she planned to take a
post-graduate degree in philosophy - this was her final
undergraduate year - she would be well-advised to seek out
some other university.

"I cannot see myself approving any thesis you might choose to
write," he told her with matter-of-fact candor. She had always
been an A student, and prior to Meyerhoff's meeting with Ayn
Rand she had received an A on her midterm in his course; but for
her final grade of the semester Meyerhoff gave her a C. What
astonished us was his lack of any effort to conceal his hatred."



Note the endless ad hominem attacks by Meyerhoff. Note his lack
of academic integrity and fairness. Note the fact that he
didn't attempt to carry on a civilized and intelligent discussion
with Barbara in class, but instead insulted her.

Note that he chose not to return for another debate with Ayn Rand
despite an open invitation to do so.

Another example of the corrupt, slow-witted, arrogant, rude,
tyrannical, cowardly professor of academia - at least, at
UCLA.

I would take Professor Raine's "schizotypal" description with
the same seriousness and importance I'd take from a mentally
retarded person or a con-artist, and ignore it as being
unimportant.

There's a lot of psycho-babbology out there, and probably
legions of Professor Raines desparately trying to shinny
up the pole of academic success any way they can.


Dave Morton







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 21

              Unknown Animal Devours Colt Near Salta Argentina

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 12:37:09 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 14:28:19 -0500
Subject: Unknown Animal Devours Colt Near Salta Argentina


SOURCE: El Tribuno Digital (Salta, Argentina)
DATE: Friday, February 21, 2003

***Rosario de la Frontera--Unknown Species Has Population On
Edge***

REMAINS OF A COLT DEVOURED BY LARGE ANIMAL HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED

**Authorities kick off investigation and are receiving accounts
from strange beast's witnesses**

By Juan Antonio Abarz=FAa - El Tribuno

The 31st Sheriff's Office at Rosario de la Frontera, kicked off
an investigation into the truth behind the existence of a
strange bipedal animal standing two meters tall, with a humanoid
appearance, accused of having devoured medium and large-sized
animals  and of attacking an undetermined number of people in
the forested area of Arroyo Salado, six kilometers east of the
city. According to witnesses, the beast had a hairy body, large
ears and eyes, powerful claws in its upper extremities, and
issued deafening howls.

"As an initial measure, we have started interviewing all those
who claim having seen or had an encounter with this specimen,"
said the officer-in-charge of the delegation, Rene Humberto
Tacacho. "We will later request instructions from higher
authorities, since if we are faced with an unknown species, the
most logical thing [to do] is to capture it alive for subsequent
study."

While new details about the case emerged yesterday, after first
becoming known for two years ago, when a pair of lovers at
Arroyo Salado claimed having been attacked by the unknown
creature, Jose Exequiel Alvarez, the local fire chief and member
of the "Juan Carlos Rivas" archaeological and paleontological
  group, made plaster casts of the prints found in the area and
found the bony remains of a colt, eventually devoured by the
beast.

"The bones were examined by veterinarian Luis Calder=F3n, who
confirmed they had been gnawed by an animal with sharp teeth,
powerful jaws and sharp incisors which even perforated the
horse's bones." Alvarez is preparing an expedition to capture
the specimen.

"The fact that El Tribuno is interested in the subject has
changed people's attitude: they are now more inclined to talk,
and I heard two astonishing stories: four young people who were
attacked at Arroyo Saldo and two teenagers who saw it running
along the river's edge, emitting deafening howls. We must solve
this scientific riddle somehow," he concluded.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D
Translation (C) 2003. Scott Corrales
Institute of Hispanic Ufology
Special thanks to Christian Hernan Quintero PLANETAUFO





   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 21

                 Re: Unknown Animal Devours Colt Near Salta

From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 12:58:13 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 16:00:05 -0500
Subject: Re: Unknown Animal Devours Colt Near Salta


 >From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@earthlink.net>
 >To: UFO Updates <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 12:37:09 -0500
 >Subject: Unknown Animal Devours Colt Near Salta Argentina

<snip>

That's nothing. I had a known animal... a St. Bernard that would
devour 12 Colt's at every opportunity. Of course he had to be
put into rehab for a while, after a spring break binge in Ft.
Lauderdale, but that's another story.


Wendy Connors

So, there ya have it, but whadda got?









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 21

                        Re: A Wee Bit Crazy? - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 16:04:29 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 16:06:48 -0500
Subject: Re: A Wee Bit Crazy? - Ledger


 >From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net>
 >To: UFO Updates <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 09:14:43 -0700
 >Subject: Re: A Wee Bit Crazy?

 >>From: Jeff Behnke <jeff@paranormalnews.com>
 >>To: UFO Updates <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 09:34:11 -0500
 >>Subject: A Wee Bit Crazy?

 >>A Wee Bit Crazy?

 >>"The Straits Times - It's called schizotypal - a 'lite' version
 >>of a schizophrenic who feels his bizarre beliefs makes him
 >>smarter than others. If you dress funny, talk funny, have no
 >>friends, believe in ghosts and communicate with UFOs, science
 >>finally has a name for you. You're a schizotypal. You're in a
 >>classification all by yourself: You're a bit nutty, in other
 >>words, but you manage to get by."

 >Well adjusted people, like yourself, just make me sick! <Huge
Grin>

 >What right do debunkers have in deschizoing another schizotypal
 >person anyway? <G>

 >I say the whole thing schiztz. <G>


Or as Ben Franklin said, "No matter where you go, there you
are".

At least I can now stop calling myself, a ufologist. My spell
checker thinks that should be urologist anyway.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 21

                        Re: A Wee Bit Crazy? - White

From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 15:19:27 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 16:10:46 -0500
Subject: Re: A Wee Bit Crazy? - White


 >From: Jeff Behnke <jeff@paranormalnews.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 09:34:11 -0500
 >Subject: A Wee Bit Crazy?

 >A Wee Bit Crazy?

 >"The Straits Times - It's called schizotypal - a 'lite' version
 >of a schizophrenic who feels his bizarre beliefs makes him
 >smarter than others. If you dress funny, talk funny, have no
 >friends, believe in ghosts and communicate with UFOs, science
 >finally has a name for you. You're a schizotypal. You're in a
 >classification all by yourself: You're a bit nutty, in other
 >words, but you manage to get by."

 >http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/techscience/story/0,4386,172842,00.html

<snip>

This is another classic case of psychiatry and psychology
presuming to know things they in fact have no expert knowledge
of.

Psychiatrists and psychologists have no training in UFOs or
ghosts, both of which have huge amounts of data; the reality of
the data itself cannot be denied.  Both keep on happening, and
both keep getting reported by people who are not mentally ill,
and both leave at least some _physical_ traces.

(Photos and videos, recorded sounds and electronic voice
phenomena, recorded electrical activity and temperature
perturbations at sites during hauntings, some physical contact
cases, and prounounced physical damage during poltergeist
events, for the ghostly side of things.)

A good mental health defence lawyer would be able to overcome
this sham "diagnosis" in court, and might stand a chance of
supporting a charge of malpractice and defamation of character.


Eleanor White







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 21

                        UFOs In Ancient Art - Taylor

From: Barry Taylor <stingray@nor.com.au>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 00:40:00 +1100
Fwd Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 17:11:04 -0500
Subject: UFOs In Ancient Art - Taylor


 >From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 14:27:13 -0800 (PST)
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Subject: Re: UFOs In Ancient Art

 >>From: Diego Cuoghi <diego.cuoghi@tin.it>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 21:39:57 +0100
 >>Subject: Re: UFOs In Ancient Art

<snip>

 >So the question to my mind is: Why a "flying disk"?
 >>Yes. But in many ancient paintings of the Annunciation you can
 >>see golden words in the direction of the Virgin Mary. Example,
 >>Simone Martini's Annunciation:

 >>http://www.sprezzatura.it/Arte/Martini_Annunc_part.jpg

 >>The rays are a most simbolic way to represent the God's Grace,
 >>used in hundreds of religious paintings, not only Annunciations.

 >But the rays are coming from a _flying disk_. That's a
 >conjoining of two disparate symbols. I can conceive of a Jungian
 >interpretation for this motif, but I still find this painting
 >anomalous.

 >Unless "flying disks" are an element of Christian iconography--
 >which, to my knowledge, they're not--I think their presence in
 >these paintings demand more than casual "symbolic" explanations.


Diego,

I too congratulate you on compilation of your web page. You must
have spent many hours sifting through 1,000's of images to
select these.

I understand that you wish to convey the idea that these
paintings actually depict religious events with total religious
interpretation.

Am I correct in thinking that you do not consider that the
paintings have any symbolic or direct relationship with UFOs as
we have interpreted in many of the images of this era?

It is quite obvious in some paintings, that the artist has gone
to great detail in painting aerial objects that can only be
interpreted as what we refer to as UFOs.

The Church was an authoritative entity during the 15th - 16th
century, secondary only to the Kings and head rulers of the day.
These artists would have been commissioned by the Church to
paint these UFO-type objects into the paintings. On completion,
the Kings or Church Heads would have to approve the paintings.

Pre-Reformation preaching may have mentioned these UFOs as
openly as described by Ezekiel. The Reformation saw removal of
the wall paintings within all British Churches. The Bible of old
was re-written, removing or re-interpretation of its contents.
Most likely removing any obvious description of UFOs and 'Sky
People'.

If you have any doubts about UFOs showing an interest in severe
human activities like the death of Christ and other significant
events that effects Humans, than I direct you to my web page
describing a few very personal experiences that I have
witnessed.

http://home.manyrivers.aunz.com/stingray/angel~01.htm

I can assure you, that UFOs have been seen, by myself and
witnesses with me, that have shown a direct interest in the
critically ill and dying Human Being.

UFO-type objects and illuminations have also been seen during
war.

I have no doubt that UFOs have shown themselves to those needing
assistance during critical times throughout history. This
includes the times of Christ, and periods in history when Man
(scribes) were authoring these events in the early Middle East,
to eventually be included in the Bible and other religious text.

In past ages, there was a direct UFO - Human relationship,
especially when in times of need and Human disaster. The same
still applies to-day.


Barry Taylor


Personal UFO Web Site
http://home.manyrivers.aunz.com/stingray/

Original site - (Est.1996)
http://www.nor.com.au/users/stingray/







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 21

               Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 22:04:41 +0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 18:41:38 -0500
Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Rimmer


 >From: Andy Roberts <aj.roberts@blueyonder.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 19:37:02 -0000
 >Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >>From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 15:09:15 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception?

 >Don wrote (in response to Dave Clarke),

 >>Perhaps you or Andy could explain to me why this case was so
 >>important to the investigators of the time.

 >It was important because some of those involved firmly believed
 >that this area of the Dales was a base for 'structured craft of
 >unknown origin'. A 'big' photo case involving policemen added
 >weight to this theory. Its existence was used to bolster other
 >sightings in the area, and the case literally 'took off',
 >causing people to believe they had seen it flying in the sky
 >above them!

 >This, I must note, is a very simplified version of events, the
 >rest of which are entangled in the labyrinthine UK UFO politics
 >of the time.

Oh dear, it looks as though I shall have to oil my typing
fingers and hammer away over the weekend to get David Clarke's
"Why Cracoe Fell" article from Magonia 26 (June 1987) up on the
Magonia website archive. Watch this space.

--
John Rimmer
Magonia Magazine
www.magonia.demon.co.uk/arc/00/newmag.htm






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 21

                      Re: UFOs In Ancient Art - Cuoghi

From: Diego Cuoghi <diegocuoghi@spamcop.net>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 23:50:53 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 18:45:29 -0500
Subject: Re: UFOs In Ancient Art - Cuoghi


 >From: Barry Taylor <stingray@nor.com.au>
 >To: UFO UpDates <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 00:40:00 +1100
 >Subject: Re: UFOs In Ancient Art - Taylor

 >Diego,

 >I too congratulate you on compilation of your web page.

Thank you

 >You must
 >have spent many hours sifting through 1,000's of images to
 >select these.

I own many art books because I studied art-history and I still
work in this field. Two weeks ago I was in Florence, at Uffizi
and Accademia Museums, and I will return there next week. All my
holidays are dedicated to european art cities and museums. Next
month I will fly to Paris to see art exhibitions.

Art is my strong interest, so when I read of 'UFOs in Art' I
cannot agree with those theories.

 >I understand that you wish to convey the idea that these
 >paintings actually depict religious events with total religious
 >interpretation.

Yes, it's what I want to show in my pages.

 >Am I correct in thinking that you do not consider that the
 >paintings have any symbolic or direct relationship with UFOs as
 >we have interpreted in many of the images of this era?

Yes. I do not believe that there's UFOs in renaissance art.

 >It is quite obvious in some paintings, that the artist has gone
 >to great detail in painting aerial objects that can only be
 >interpreted as what we refer to as UFOs.

For me it's not obvious that "details" are symbolic
representations of religious concepts: angels, rays of God's
grace, the Holy Ghost as a Dove, the Sun and the Moon... as read
in the Bible and other religious writings.

 >paint these UFO-type objects into the paintings. On completion,
 >the Kings or Church Heads would have to approve the paintings.

There are tons of documents, letters, diaries, contracts (there
were strong contracts between the artists and the purchasers) in
Italian historical archives. No one wrote about meanings, other
than religious and traditional, in paintings with holy subjects.

 >If you have any doubts about UFOs showing an interest in severe
 >human activities like the death of Christ and other significant
 >events that effects Humans..

I think religion is a very important aspect of the human history
but I am not religious... I do not believe in God.


Diego Cuoghi

--
http://www.diegocuoghi.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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 22

                       Re: A Wee Bit Crazy? - Kimball

From: Kimballwood@aol.com
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 20:06:31 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 03:02:10 -0500
Subject: Re: A Wee Bit Crazy? - Kimball


 >From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 15:19:27 -0500
 >Subject: Re: A Wee Bit Crazy?

 >>http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/techscience/story/0,4386,172842,00.html

<snip>

 >This is another classic case of psychiatry and psychology
 >presuming to know things they in fact have no expert knowledge
 >of.

 >Psychiatrists and psychologists have no training in UFOs or
 >ghosts, both of which have huge amounts of data; the reality of
 >the data itself cannot be denied.  Both keep on happening, and
 >both keep getting reported by people who are not mentally ill,
 >and both leave at least some _physical_ traces.

 >(Photos and videos, recorded sounds and electronic voice
 >phenomena, recorded electrical activity and temperature
 >perturbations at sites during hauntings, some physical contact
 >cases, and prounounced physical damage during poltergeist
 >events, for the ghostly side of things.)

 >A good mental health defence lawyer would be able to overcome
 >this sham "diagnosis" in court, and might stand a chance of
 >supporting a charge of malpractice and defamation of character.

Eleanor:

Malpractice? Defamation of Character?? Sheesh.

C'mon - have a sense of humour about this, and leave the
lawyering to the lawyers!

Best regards,

Paul Kimball
www.redstarfilm.com

P.S. The statement 'psychiatrists and psychologists have no
training in UFOs and ghosts' is a bit broad, don't you think? To
what kind of training are you referring, exactly? I thought most
ufologists were self-trained - concerned citizens looking for
the truth (something for which they are to be commended).
Surely, there must be at least one psychiatrist or psychologist
out there who qualifies?






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 22

                          John Alexander On Greer?

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 23:41:57 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 03:07:07 -0500
Subject: John Alexander On Greer?


 >From: Stephen G. Bassett <ParadigmRG@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 23:42:13 EST
 >Subject: PRG/X-PPAC/D2003/CH Update - 02-21-03

 >PRG
 >Paradigm Research Group

 >Update - February 21, 2003
 >[To the combined X-PPAC/PRG/D2003/CH mail lists.]


 >X-PPAC Congressional Alert

 >A new congressional alert relating to the Columbia tragedy has
 >been sent to the House and Senate. Excerpt:

 >"The cost of maintaining a truth embargo on the facts
 >surrounding an extraterrestrial presence continues to grow. If
 >safer means to place payloads into space lay ensconced within
 >the "black" world behind the national security curtain, this
 >cost now includes the lives of astronauts."

 >See: www.x-ppac.org/Alerts.html#2-20-03

 >Citizen Hearing

 >The Citizen Hearing concept received very positive reviews from
 >colleagues and supporters met during the recent 30-day driving
 >trip through California, Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico. PRG
 >will continue to build the structural base for this event by
 >seeking new sponsors, advisory board members, funding and the
 >participation of former members of Congress.


Hi Stephen,

First I'd like to say that I admire your energy and dedication.
You are one of the few who work diligently at raising public
awareness about a _major_ issue... UFOs. (Hold on to your panty-
hose, here comes the 'but'.  :)

"But" wouldn't your time, energy and resources be better spent
trying to accomplish the 'real thing' (congressional hearings)
as opposed to these 'mock' hearings? Why are we fed a steady
diet of reasons (excuses) why congressional hearings can't
happen? Instead of being encouraged to actively work/fight for
congressional hearings, we are asked to accept this diluted -
watered down- version.

We are being asked to endorse and support 'mock' hearings that
will 'essentially' only serve to consume valuable resources that
could be applied to much greater benefit for all realizing the
genuine article - 'actual' as opposed to 'mock' congressional
hearings.

Something that has not been properly addressed on this List, or
anywhere else for that matter, has to do with a statement made
by the former director of NIDS, John Alexander in regard to
Greer and the effect and timing his 'Disclosure Project'.

(I'm paraphrasing Alexander)

John Alexander intimated that plans to conduct congressional
hearings was not only in the works, but well under way until
Greer put on his three-ring-circus at The National Press Club.
According to John Alexander the whole process went to pot and
all plans for a congressional hearing was curtailed as a result.

What do you know about this? Is what Alexander tells us true?
Was there a pre-existing effort (prior to Greer's press club
presentation) to conduct congressional hearings? Were those
plans scrapped, as Alexander says, because of Greer?

Very important questions... even more, very serious allegations.
If Greer is responsible for single-handedly ruining any
prospects for congressional hearings, then that is something
that we _all_ need to know about.

It's also important to know what those original plans were and
if it's possible to breath new life into them. Until these
important questions are answered, it would be wise to hold off
squandering rare and hard to acquire resources on a 'mock'
hearing. Those same resources 'may be' applied to securing the
real thing. That is, if the possibility still exists.

Just one man's questions, and one man's opinion.

I await your response.

Regards from frozen N.Y.C.


John Velez
Wide-awake, concerned citizen.

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

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/petition







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 22

                    Re: Unknown Animal Devours Colt Near

From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 00:35:54 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 10:10:10 -0500
Subject: Re: Unknown Animal Devours Colt Near


 >From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net>
 >Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 12:58:13 -0700
 >To: UFO Updates <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Subject: Re: Unknown Animal Devours Colt Near Salta Argentina

 >>From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@earthlink.net>
 >>To: UFO Updates <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 12:37:09 -0500
 >>Subject: Unknown Animal Devours Colt Near Salta Argentina

 ><snip>

 >That's nothing. I had a known animal... a St. Bernard that would
 >devour 12 Colt's at every opportunity. Of course he had to be
 >put into rehab for a while, after a spring break binge in Ft.
 >Lauderdale, but that's another story.

 >Wendy Connors

 >So, there ya have it, but whadda got?


Hello Wendy:

I always liked St. Bernards, who doesn't? This one sounds rather
special, [burp!] Highly civilized, a real social animal.  I'm
sure you miss him immensely.


Best wishes

- Larry






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 22

                        Re: A Wee Bit Crazy? - Kaeser

From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 05:37:48 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 10:13:12 -0500
Subject: Re: A Wee Bit Crazy? - Kaeser


 >From: Kimballwood@aol.com
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 20:06:31 EST
 >Subject: Re: A Wee Bit Crazy?

 >>From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 15:19:27 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: A Wee Bit Crazy?

<snip>

 >>A good mental health defence lawyer would be able to overcome
 >>this sham "diagnosis" in court, and might stand a chance of
 >>supporting a charge of malpractice and defamation of character.

 >Eleanor:

 >Malpractice? Defamation of Character?? Sheesh.

 >C'mon - have a sense of humour about this, and leave the
 >lawyering to the lawyers!

 >Best regards,

 >Paul Kimball
 >www.redstarfilm.com

 >P.S. The statement 'psychiatrists and psychologists have no
 >training in UFOs and ghosts' is a bit broad, don't you think? To
 >what kind of training are you referring, exactly? I thought most
 >ufologists were self-trained - concerned citizens looking for
 >the truth (something for which they are to be commended).
 >Surely, there must be at least one psychiatrist or psychologist
 >out there who qualifies?

 >Paul

Hi Paul-

I guess I'd like to know who is going to judge the
qualifications, as well as how that's to be determined. It would
seem that both sides in this debate would certainly define those
qualifications in a vastly different manner.

Unfortunately, it is increasingly apparent that there is a
growing attitude that if they're not our friends, then they must
be our enemies.

We're talking about a simple article here, and a study that is
one of thousands that take place every year. Let's not give it
more importance in the grand scheme of things than it deserves.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 22

                        Re: A Wee Bit Crazy? - White

From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 06:41:48 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 10:15:44 -0500
Subject: Re: A Wee Bit Crazy? - White


 >From: Kimballwood@aol.com
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 20:06:31 EST
 >Subject: Re: A Wee Bit Crazy?

 >>From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 15:19:27 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: A Wee Bit Crazy?

 >>>http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/techscience/story/0,4386,172842,00.html

 ><snip>

 >>This is another classic case of psychiatry and psychology
 >>presuming to know things they in fact have no expert knowledge
 >>of.

 >Malpractice? Defamation of Character?? Sheesh.

 >C'mon - have a sense of humour about this, and leave the
 >lawyering to the lawyers!

 >Best regards,

 >Paul Kimball
 >www.redstarfilm.com

 >P.S. The statement 'psychiatrists and psychologists have no
 >training in UFOs and ghosts' is a bit broad, don't you think? To
 >what kind of training are you referring, exactly? I thought most
 >ufologists were self-trained - concerned citizens looking for
 >the truth (something for which they are to be commended).
 >Surely, there must be at least one psychiatrist or psychologist
 >out there who qualifies?

UFO and ghost studies are not part of their certification
process. If they were, there would be no such criteria stated
for being diagnosed "schizotypal". No one forced to examine the
data for such issues can deny the reality, even if they don't
conclude that the ET hypothesis is true.

As to lack of sense of humour, it may be laughable if you have
never known anyone who has been falsely imprisoned or shot up
with legalized torture drugs. It's not so funny for folks like
the thousands who were dosed with radioactive materials, for
example, by the United States government, now on the public
record.

Those victims suffered and died painfully as the almighty
psychiatric trade _and_government_officials_ forced them to
endure being publicly called "the crazies", as they suffered and
died from this. Ditto the MKULTRA victims, and ditto others who
at this moment suffer from covert illegal human experimentation.

Ask the next involuntary psychiatric patient you meet about
Thorazine or Haldol.

UFO researchers hate it when the media ridicules them - so I'm
suggesting here that they stop and think before heaping the same
nonsense on mis-diagnosed psychiatric patients.


Eleanor White







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 22

                    Re: John Alexander On Greer? - White

From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 07:01:31 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 10:18:08 -0500
Subject: Re: John Alexander On Greer? - White


 >From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 23:41:57 -0500
 >Subject: John Alexander On Greer?

 >>From: Stephen G. Bassett <ParadigmRG@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 23:42:13 EST
 >>Subject: PRG/X-PPAC/D2003/CH Update - 02-21-03

 >>PRG
 >>Paradigm Research Group

 >>Update - February 21, 2003
 >>[To the combined X-PPAC/PRG/D2003/CH mail lists.]

<snip>

 >"But" wouldn't your time, energy and resources be better spent
 >trying to accomplish the 'real thing' (congressional hearings)
 >as opposed to these 'mock' hearings? Why are we fed a steady
 >diet of reasons (excuses) why congressional hearings can't
 >happen?

<snip>

Half a century of this makes it clear that extremely influential
people, who remain anonymous, are actually running the United
States government. That's not a "conspiracy theory", it is an
observation, and obvious. The UFO issue is an issue that makes
this unarguably clear, possibly the best indication available.

 >Instead of being encouraged to actively work/fight for
 >congressional hearings, we are asked to accept this diluted -
 >watered down- version.

I suggest that this watered-down version is making the best of a
terrible situation, and deserves praise.

 >We are being asked to endorse and support 'mock' hearings that
 >will 'essentially' only serve to consume valuable resources that
 >could be applied to much greater benefit for all realizing the
 >genuine article - 'actual' as opposed to 'mock' congressional
 >hearings.

On the other hand, in view of the seamless stonewalling over the
past 50+ years, you could wait for the next millenium, possibly.

<snip>

 >(I'm paraphrasing Alexander)

 >John Alexander intimated that plans to conduct congressional
 >hearings was not only in the works, but well under way until
 >Greer put on his three-ring-circus at The National Press Club.
 >According to John Alexander the whole process went to pot and
 >all plans for a congressional hearing was curtailed as a result.

But what is the potential for John Alexander to be working for,
in fact, the anonymous group who have been keeping the lid on
UFO information for so long?

It is easy for observers to wave away the above suggestion
saying "conspiracy theory", but what makes it impossible?

Why is John Alexander's story given more credibility than all
the other nonsensical 'explanations' given for Roswell, for
example?

It's is safe and popular to wave away obvious possibilities with
the "conspiracy theory" put downs, as we hear from time to time
on the Strange Days Indeed radio show. But such a disparaging
term is not enough reason to fail to at least acknowledge a 50%
likelihood that Alexander may be ladling disinformation.


Eleanor White







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 22

                  Re: UFO Feature in Maxim Magazine - Pope

From: Nick Pope <nick@popemod.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 12:16:55 -0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 10:21:14 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO Feature in Maxim Magazine - Pope


 >From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 20:18:21 -0800 (PST)
 >Subject: Re: UFO Feature in Maxim Magazine

 >>From: Nick Pope <nick@popemod.freeserve.co.uk>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 23:26:46 -0000
 >>Subject: UFO Feature in Maxim Magazine

 >>The April issue of Maxim magazine is out now (yes really) and
 >>contains a feature on UFOs and alien abductions, on pages 102 to
 >>108.

 >>An abductee talks about his experiences, and I talk about some
 >>of my official research and investigation at the Ministry of
 >>Defence.

 >I have an ugly feeling about this. "Maxim's" reason for existing
 >seems to be to make snide comments and scoffing E-Z to digest
 >satire for the masses... and publish pcitures of supermodels.

 >>Anyway, look out for the magazine with Caprice on the front!

 >I rest my case.
 >But seriously, is this a good venue? I'll keep an eye out...

Mac is right, of course, about the magazine itself, and it won't
surprise people that the feature includes some light-hearted
comments and illustrations, and some inaccurate statistical
information that probably stems from a brief internet search
rather than any in-depth research. Such is the nature of the
beast. But the two interviews come out well, I think. Mine was
distilled from a half-hour telephone conversation with a Maxim
staffer, and with the exception of a couple of points which were
mistranscribed (e.g. an incorrect date) the comments attributed
to me are accurate.

I don't know what the abductee thinks of the feature. His
comments are in the form of a straight narrative, with no
questions or comments from the staff writer.

I see the value of such features as being generating interest
with people who know little or nothing about ufology, or giving
someone the confidence to report a UFO or abduction experience.
Maxim sells around 300,000 copies in the UK.


Best wishes,

Nick Pope






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 22

                   Letter From Monty Python's Terry Jones

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 10:52:54 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 10:52:54 -0500
Subject: Letter From Monty Python's Terry Jones


A letter to the London Observer from Monty Python's Terry Jones

Source: The Sunday Observer

http://www.observer.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,882459,00.html


Letter to the Observer
Sunday January 26, 2003
The Observer

I'm really excited by George Bush's latest reason for bombing
Iraq: he's running out of patience. And so am I! For some time
now I've been really pis*ed off with Mr Johnson, who lives a
couple of doors down the street.

Well, him and Mr Patel, who runs the health food shop. They both
give me queer looks, and I'm sure Mr Johnson is planning
something nasty, but so far I haven't been able to discover
what. I've been round to his place a few times to see what he's
up to, but he's got everything well hidden. That's how devious
he is. As for Mr Patel, don't ask me how I know, I just know -
from very good sources - that he is, in reality, a Mass
Murderer.

I have leafleted the street telling them that if we don't act
first, he'll pick us off one by one. Some of my neighbours say,
if I've got proof, why don't I go to the police? But that's
simply ridiculous. The police will say that they need evidence
of a crime with which to charge my neighbours. They'll come up
with endless red tape and quibbling about the rights and wrongs
of a pre-emptive strike and all the while Mr Johnson will be
finalising his plans to do terrible things to me, while Mr Patel
will be secretly murdering people. Since I'm the only one in the
street with a decent range of automatic firearms, I reckon it's
up to me to keep the peace. But until recently that's been a
little difficult. Now, however, George W. Bush has made it clear
that all I need to do is run out of patience, and then I can
wade in and do whatever I want!

And let's face it, Mr Bush's carefully thought-out policy
towards Iraq is the only way to bring about international peace
and security. The one certain way to stop Muslim fundamentalist
suicide bombers targeting the US or the UK is to bomb a few
Muslim countries that have never threatened us. That's why I
want to blow up Mr Johnson's garage and kill his wife and
children. Strike first! That'll teach him a lesson. Then he'll
leave us in peace and stop peering at me in that totally
unacceptable way. Mr Bush makes it clear that all he needs to
know before bombing Iraq is that Saddam is a really nasty man
and that he has weapons of mass destruction - even if no one can
find them. I'm certain I've just as much justification for
killing Mr Johnson's wife and children as Mr Bush has for
bombing Iraq.

Mr Bush's long-term aim is to make the world a safer place by
eliminating 'rogue states' and 'terrorism'. It's such a clever
long-term aim because how can you ever know when you've achieved
it? How will Mr Bush know when he's wiped out all terrorists?
When every single terrorist is dead? But then a terrorist is
only a terrorist once he's committed an act of terror. What
about would-be terrorists? These are the ones you really want to
eliminate, since most of the known terrorists, being suicide
bombers, have already eliminated themselves. Perhaps Mr Bush
needs to wipe out everyone who could possibly be a future
terrorist? Maybe he can't be sure he's achieved his objective
until every Muslim fundamentalist is dead? But then some
moderate Muslims might convert to fundamentalism.

Maybe the only really safe thing to do would be for Mr Bush to
eliminate all Muslims? It's the same in my street. Mr Johnson
and Mr Patel are just the tip of the iceberg. There are dozens
of other people in the street who I don't like and who - quite
frankly - look at me in odd ways. No one will be really safe
until I've wiped them all out. My wife says I might be going too
far but I tell her I'm simply using the same logic as the
President of the United States. That shuts her up.

Like Mr Bush, I've run out of patience, and if that's a good
enough reason for the President, it's good enough for me. I'm
going to give the whole street two weeks - no, 10 days - to come
out in the open and hand over all aliens and interplanetary
hijackers, galactic outlaws and interstellar terrorist
masterminds, and if they don't hand them over nicely and say
'Thank you', I'm going to bomb the entire street to kingdom
come. It's just as sane as what George W. Bush is proposing -
  and, in contrast to what he's intending, my policy will destroy
only one street.


--






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 22

                        Re: A Wee Bit Crazy? - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 07:29:32 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 10:54:38 -0500
Subject: Re: A Wee Bit Crazy? - Hatch


 >From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 05:37:48 -0500
 >Subject: Re: A Wee Bit Crazy?

 >>From: Kimballwood@aol.com
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 20:06:31 EST
 >>Subject: Re: A Wee Bit Crazy?

 >>>From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 15:19:27 -0500
 >>>Subject: Re: A Wee Bit Crazy?

 ><snip>

 >>>A good mental health defence lawyer would be able to overcome
 >>>this sham "diagnosis" in court, and might stand a chance of
 >>>supporting a charge of malpractice and defamation of character.

 >>Eleanor:

 >>Malpractice? Defamation of Character?? Sheesh.

 >>C'mon - have a sense of humour about this, and leave the
 >>lawyering to the lawyers!

 >>Best regards,

 >>Paul Kimball
 >>www.redstarfilm.com

 >>P.S. The statement 'psychiatrists and psychologists have no
 >>training in UFOs and ghosts' is a bit broad, don't you think? To
 >>what kind of training are you referring, exactly? I thought most
 >>ufologists were self-trained - concerned citizens looking for
 >>the truth (something for which they are to be commended).
 >>Surely, there must be at least one psychiatrist or psychologist
 >>out there who qualifies?

 >I guess I'd like to know who is going to judge the
 >qualifications, as well as how that's to be determined. It would
 >seem that both sides in this debate would certainly define those
 >qualifications in a vastly different manner.

 >Unfortunately, it is increasingly apparent that there is a
 >growing attitude that if they're not our friends, then they must
 >be our enemies.

 >We're talking about a simple article here, and a study that is
 >one of thousands that take place every year. Let's not give it
 >more importance in the grand scheme of things than it deserves.

 >Steve


Hello Steve, Paul..

Since I put up some statistical pages, I get queried from time
to time by people making unexpected studies.

One of the more recent ones found seemingly impossibly high
correlations between Satanism and UFO sightings counts.

I referred this scholar, connected with a religious university,
to a different UFO database.


Best wishes

- Larry Hatch







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 22

                  Re: Unknown Animal Devours Colt - Connors

From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 08:40:03 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 10:57:47 -0500
Subject: Re: Unknown Animal Devours Colt - Connors


 >From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
 >To: UFO Updates <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 00:35:54 -0800
 >Subject: Re: Unknown Animal Devours Colt Near

 >>From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net>
 >>Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 12:58:13 -0700
 >>To: UFO Updates <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Unknown Animal Devours Colt Near Salta Argentina

 >>>From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@earthlink.net>
 >>>To: UFO Updates <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 12:37:09 -0500
 >>>Subject: Unknown Animal Devours Colt Near Salta Argentina

 >><snip>

 >>That's nothing. I had a known animal... a St. Bernard that would
 >>devour 12 Colt's at every opportunity. Of course he had to be
 >>put into rehab for a while, after a spring break binge in Ft.
 >>Lauderdale, but that's another story.

 >I always liked St. Bernards, who doesn't? This one sounds rather
 >special, [burp!] Highly civilized, a real social animal.  I'm
 >sure you miss him immensely.


Hi Larry,

Nah, I don't miss him at all. He was the most cantankerous,
obnoxious, belligerent rascal on the block. He had absolutely no
respect for anyones leg or gardens. He was nothing but a fall
down, drooling lush. He died with his face in a bucket of suds
and was the best thing that could have happened. <G>

However, had he been more genteel and favored more esoteric
spirits, he would have been most cavalier, debonair and admired.
But, he fiddled his life away like a throw-away from Moe's
Tavern.


Wendy Connors
So, there ya have it, but whadda ya got?







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 22

                   Re: John Alexander On Greer? - Kimball

From: Paul Kimball <Kimballwood@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 12:42:38 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 16:47:37 -0500
Subject: Re: John Alexander On Greer? - Kimball


 >From: Stephen G. Bassett <ParadigmRG@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 23:42:13 EST
 >Subject: PRG/X-PPAC/D2003/CH Update - 02-21-03

<snip>

 >X-PPAC Congressional Alert

 >A new congressional alert relating to the Columbia tragedy has
 >been sent to the House and Senate. Excerpt:

 >"The cost of maintaining a truth embargo on the facts
 >surrounding an extraterrestrial presence continues to grow. If
 >safer means to place payloads into space lay ensconced within
 >the "black" world behind the national security curtain, this
 >cost now includes the lives of astronauts."

This is beyond the pale - tying a tragedy like the loss of the
Columbia to the "black" world behind the national security
curtain, with absolutely no - zip, zilch, nada - evidence that
the disaster had anything even remotely to do with UFOs,
government black ops, or a consipracy of silence/cosmic
watergate (whichever you prefer). It dishonours the lives of the
seven dead astronauts, and all of us who genuinely believe in
space exploration.

 >See: www.x-ppac.org/Alerts.html#2-20-03

Oh... and here's a key part that was not posted here, but that
everybody should know about:

'One of the most important questions this testimony addresses is
whether the United States government has for decades been in
possession of propulsion and energy technologies taken or
reverse engineered from retrieved extraterrestrial vehicles. X-
  PPAC is convinced the answer to this question is "yes". The
logic is quite simple:... (6) Lt. Col. Philip J. Corso in his
memoir, The Day After Roswell, clearly stated some
extraterrestrial-derived technological concepts were transferred
to the commercial arena under his guidance, but the energy and
propulsion systems were not among them.'

Ugh - which is Canadian for "what a load of garbage"!

Paul Kimball
www.redstarfilm.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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 22

                  Re: John Alexander On Greer? - McGonagle

From: Joe McGonagle <joe@ufology.org.uk>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 17:50:26 -0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 16:49:31 -0500
Subject: Re: John Alexander On Greer? - McGonagle


 >From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 07:01:31 -0500
 >Subject: Re: John Alexander On Greer?

<snip>

 >It is easy for observers to wave away the above suggestion
 >saying "conspiracy theory", but what makes it impossible?

 >Why is John Alexander's story given more credibility than all
 >the other nonsensical 'explanations' given for Roswell, for
 >example?

 >It's is safe and popular to wave away obvious possibilities with
 >the "conspiracy theory" put downs, as we hear from time to time
 >on the Strange Days Indeed radio show. But such a disparaging
 >term is not enough reason to fail to at least acknowledge a 50%
 >likelihood that Alexander may be ladling disinformation.

Hear hear, well said!

People keep telling me that my theory is complete fantasy, but
how can they prove that the universe isn't really being
manipulated by the fairies at the bottom of my garden?

"Fantasy" is an even more disparaging term than "conspiracy
theory", which makes my theory even more likely to be right.

Er...well, that would be if I actually _had_ a garden..... Darn
it, the fairies must have magicked it away to make me look
silly!

Joe







                         The UFO UpDates Archive
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 23

                    Lawsuit Aims To Silence UFO Watchdog

From: Royce J. Myers III - The Watchdog <ufowatchdog@earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 11:16:48 -0800
Fwd Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 16:55:42 -0500
Subject: Lawsuit Aims To Silence UFO Watchdog


PRESS RELEASE


LAWSUIT AIMS TO SILENCE VOICE OF CRITIC IN UFO DEBATE
Supposed Psychic and Self Proclaimed UFO Authority Alleges Libel
In Unfounded Lawsuit

21-February-2003

Sean David Morton, who has promoted himself as "one of America's
greatest psychics" and as the "world's foremost UFO researcher",
has filed a one-million dollar defamation lawsuit against
ufowatchdog.com.

Morton was the subject of a series of ufowatchdog.com articles,
most notably 'The Shameless Psychic and His Prophecy of Lies' in
which many of Morton's claims were called into serious question.
Morton was invited to directly comment on the story, which was
later published in February 2001. Morton failed to respond to
several invitations for comment, including a posted open
invitation on the ufowatchdog.com website.

In his lawsuit, Morton alleges all information pertaining to him
published by ufowatchdog.com is "false", including an
autobiography and a list of production/writing credits both
authored by Morton himself. This leaves the question of why
Morton would actually claim something written by him is false.

ufowatchdog.com editor Royce J. Myers III calls the lawsuit
"completely meritless and an absolute abuse of the judicial
system." Myers further added, "Mr.Morton is simply trying to use
the courts by trampling on the First Amendment in an attempt to
silence one of his numerous critics."

When asked about Morton's claim of being libeled, Myers said,
"Mr. Morton's allegations are pure fantasy, as are the vast
majority of his UFO and psychic claims. Mr.Morton was invited to
comment and has, by choice, continually failed to respond or
comment. Mr.Morton has been aware of ufowatchdog.com since it
debuted in February 2001. You can't hold someone else
accountable for your own failure to speak up."

"Mr. Morton apparently will go to any length in trying to silence
someone with something to say about him, as he has named
ufowatchdog.com's webhost as a defendant, which is ludicrous.
Thanks to Mr.Morton's baseless lawsuit, the webhost has shut
down the Ufowatchdog.Com website. The webhost has nothing to do
with the content of the website. The lawsuit is clearly
retaliatory and intended to stifle any debate about Mr. Morton's
public claims about UFOs, the paranormal, and his alleged
credentials. Essentially, he's trying to scare anyone from
engaging him in the eye of the public and apparently is under
the assumption that issues pertaining to UFOs and the paranormal
are one-sided debates solely for him to participate in." Myers
stated.

Prominent Los Angeles civil rights attorney Carol A. Sobel,
representing UFOWATCHDOG.COM, responded to the complaint. On
February 20, 2003, Sobel filed a motion to have the lawsuit
dismissed on the grounds that Morton is "...prevent[ing]
Defendants from engaging in protected expressive activities --
  namely calling into question [Morton's] self-proclaimed
national expertise on extraterrestrial life, UFOs, and the
paranormal."

Filed under a special California state law enacted in 1992 to
combat what the California Legislature called "...a disturbing
increase in lawsuits brought primarily to chill the valid
exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech", the
state law protects people from defamation and other SLAPP
(Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) lawsuits. The
motion allows for the lawsuit to be quickly dismissed when such
complaint arises from the exercise of First Amendment petition
and free speech rights on an issue of public interest.

Sobel noted in the motion to dismiss the lawsuit, "The existence
of extraterrestrial life is unquestionably a matter of great
public interest. People all over the world are engaged in
research to answer the question of whether such life exists.
Needless to say, this matter is quite controversial, bringing
with it vehemently contrasting positions based on scientific and
religious grounds."

A hearing on the motion is scheduled for March 14, 2003 at
8:30AM in L.A. Superior Court in department E at 825 Maple Ave.,
Torrance, California.

Since early 2001, ufowatchdog.com has been a news source for
both UFOs and the paranormal. Most notably, ufowatchdog.com has
challenged a number of the claims made by well known UFO
personalities, has provided commentary on the UFO and paranormal
fields, as well as having exposed UFO hoaxes all in an effort to
further more rational and scientific debate regarding issues
such as UFOs and the paranormal.







                         The UFO UpDates Archive
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 23

                   Re: John Alexander On Greer? - Kimball

From: Paul Kimball <Kimballwood@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 17:16:04 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 17:28:32 -0500
Subject: Re: John Alexander On Greer? - Kimball


 >From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 07:01:31 -0500
 >Subject: Re: John Alexander On Greer?


 >>From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 23:41:57 -0500
 >>Subject: John Alexander On Greer?

<snip>

 >>"But" wouldn't your time, energy and resources be better spent
 >>trying to accomplish the 'real thing' (congressional hearings)
 >>as opposed to these 'mock' hearings? Why are we fed a steady
 >>diet of reasons (excuses) why congressional hearings can't
 >>happen?

<snip>

 >Half a century of this makes it clear that extremely influential
 >people, who remain anonymous, are actually running the United
 >States government. That's not a "conspiracy theory", it is an
 >observation, and obvious. The UFO issue is an issue that makes
 >this unarguably clear, possibly the best indication available.

Eleanor:

It is not obvious, and it is not unarguably clear. It IS
conspiracy theory - you know, the kind that debunkers point to
when they want to ridicule and undermine the work of serious UFO
researchers.

A short example... when I was at the 2001 MUFON symposium, in
the dealer room, just a couple tables down from Stan Friedman
(for whom I have a great deal of respect, even if we sometimes
disagree) was a group of folks straight out of the late 1960s
who were trying to convince everyone who walked past that the US
government was controlling us using devices mounted in trucks
that zapped our brains with some kind of... well, brain zapper.
No doubt they too believed that their "theory" was unarguable,
and obvious. I wondered how they had escaped the effects of the
brain zapper, but that's another story. When I asked them,
however, they accused me of being a government agent!

These people, by their very presence, made Stan and others look
a bit loopy just for being in the same room. Unfortunately,
statements like the one you make above have the same general
effect, and provide the debunkers with more amunition than they
could ever muster on their own.


Best regards,






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 23

                     Re: John Alexander On Greer? - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 22:38:00 +0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 17:39:06 -0500
Subject: Re: John Alexander On Greer?


 >From: Paul Kimball <Kimballwood@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 12:42:38 EST
 >Subject: Re: John Alexander On Greer?

 >>From: Stephen G. Bassett <ParadigmRG@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 23:42:13 EST
 >>Subject: PRG/X-PPAC/D2003/CH Update - 02-21-03

 >>X-PPAC Congressional Alert

 >>A new congressional alert relating to the Columbia tragedy has
 >>been sent to the House and Senate. Excerpt:

 >>"The cost of maintaining a truth embargo on the facts
 >>surrounding an extraterrestrial presence continues to grow. If
 >>safer means to place payloads into space lay ensconced within
 >>the "black" world behind the national security curtain, this
 >>cost now includes the lives of astronauts."

 >This is beyond the pale - tying a tragedy like the loss of the
 >Columbia to the "black" world behind the national security
 >curtain, with absolutely no - zip, zilch, nada - evidence that
 >the disaster had anything even remotely to do with UFOs,
 >government black ops, or a consipracy of silence/cosmic
 >watergate (whichever you prefer). It dishonours the lives of the
 >seven dead astronauts, and all of us who genuinely believe in
 >space exploration.

 >>See: www.x-ppac.org/Alerts.html#2-20-03

 >Oh... and here's a key part that was not posted here, but that
 >everybody should know about:

 >'One of the most important questions this testimony addresses is
 >whether the United States government has for decades been in
 >possession of propulsion and energy technologies taken or
 >reverse engineered from retrieved extraterrestrial vehicles. X-
 >PPAC is convinced the answer to this question is "yes". The
 >logic is quite simple:... (6) Lt. Col. Philip J. Corso in his
 >memoir, The Day After Roswell, clearly stated some
 >extraterrestrial-derived technological concepts were transferred
 >to the commercial arena under his guidance, but the energy and
 >propulsion systems were not among them.'

 >Ugh - which is Canadian for "what a load of garbage"!


Amen to this! We have a similar expression in the States. Some
other expressions that apply are "crass opportunism" and
"wishful thinking." But what it all boils down to is very muddy
thinking, whether or not Eleanor likes the word
"conspiratorial". Whatever comes down the pike is screened
through a pre-existing belief system, and instead of science
being done, facts and evidence are accepted or rejected on the
basis of their confirming or contradicting what someone wants or
prefers to believe.

Bah, humbug!


  - 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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 23

                          Zilch Empiricism And UFOs

From: Vince White <Vinceomni@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 20:55:18 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 17:42:01 -0500
Subject: Zilch Empiricism And UFOs


Greetings all;

This is addressed to those who have shredded empiricism with
lazy smug assertions that the Columbia tragedy has nothing to do
with UFOs. Nothing?

A careful examination of many quality observations near the
Tejon ranch in the Tehachapi's in the late 80's indicate that
disc and triangular shaped objects were seen performing non
aerodynamic movements on many nights. They were seen emerging
from a NORTHROP facility without alarm or interference from
Edwards AFB.

These sightings occurred in the midst of US aerospace R&D
facilities. Either they were ours or theirs.

There is of course another facility where long before Mr.
Lazar's fame, where objects behaving like UFOs i.e. zig-zagging,
sudden high G maneuvers etc. were regularly observed. Again,
either theirs or ours.

This clearly should suggest that secret testing of field
propulsion vehicles very well may have occurred. Zilch
empiricism leads to zero connection to Columbia. But honest
empiricism leads to the logical possibility that some agency
possesses an alternative to reactive propulsion.

Are there empiricists willing to speak up on this?


Vince White






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 23

                    Re: John Alexander On Greer? - Velez

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 00:05:57 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 17:50:20 -0500
Subject: Re: John Alexander On Greer? - Velez


 >From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 07:01:31 -0500
 >Subject: Re: John Alexander On Greer?

 >>From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 23:41:57 -0500
 >>Subject: John Alexander On Greer?

 >>>From: Stephen G. Bassett <ParadigmRG@aol.com>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 23:42:13 EST
 >>>Subject: PRG/X-PPAC/D2003/CH Update - 02-21-03

 >>>PRG
 >>>Paradigm Research Group

 >>>Update - February 21, 2003
 >>>[To the combined X-PPAC/PRG/D2003/CH mail lists.]

 ><snip>

Hi Eleanor,

You wrote:

 >Hi -

 >Just wanted to be sure you saw this opposing viewpoint
 >in case this issue is discussed on tonight's SDI show:

'Opposing viewpoints' are _always_ most welcome. One of the
things I love most about the concept of democracy is how it
invites the expression of many divergent points of view. How it
provides all a 'level playing field.'

"Oppose" away!  ;)

I asked Stephen Bassett:

 >>"But" wouldn't your time, energy and resources be better spent
 >>trying to accomplish the 'real thing' (congressional hearings)
 >>as opposed to these 'mock' hearings? Why are we fed a steady
 >>diet of reasons (excuses) why congressional hearings can't
 >>happen?

You respond:

 >Half a century of this makes it clear that extremely influential
 >people, who remain anonymous, are actually running the United
 >States government.  That's not a "conspiracy theory", it is an
 >observation, and obvious.  The UFO issue is an issue that makes
 >this unarguably clear, possibly the best indication available.

UFOs? I blame the popular modern belief in the existence of a
"Shadow Government" on a combination of; the late President
Eisenhower's parting admonition for the American people to,
'beware of the military/industrial complex' and the
assassinations of John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, and Martin
Luther King.

In modern times the UFO information cover-up may have become one
of the 'indicators' as you say, but the root of the widely held
'belief' that a Shadow Government exists stem from the
aforementioned warning and assassinations. It is history that is
_burned_ into the hearts and minds of every American who lived
through those times. UFOs do not share any kind of parity status
with those traumatic social events. At least not in the minds of
the masses.

UFOs are important to 'us'... we are in a minority.

 >>Instead of being encouraged to actively work/fight for
 >>congressional hearings, we are asked to accept this diluted -
 >>watered down- version.

 >I suggest that this watered-down version is making the best of
 >a terrible situation, and deserves praise.

_Stephen_ deserves praise. He is a tireless and I might add
creative worker for the cause of UFO information disclosure.
None better.

However, proposals for public events, especially ones that
promise to chew up the amount of hard cash resources that
Stephen projects for this one-off side-show 'might be' better
spent elsewhere. We won't know for sure unless we discuss it.

Stephen's mock hearing isn't even the real meat of the questions
I asked. The real questions have to do with John Alexander's
remarks about Greer and how he ruined the possibility of an
actual congressional hearing on the subject of UFOs. That's no
'light weight' comment when you consider the source. It needs to
be looked into.

Don't _you_ want to know? If not, why not?

 >>We are being asked to endorse and support 'mock' hearings that
 >>will 'essentially' only serve to consume valuable resources that
 >>could be applied to much greater benefit for all realizing the
 >>genuine article - 'actual' as opposed to 'mock' congressional
 >>hearings.

 >On the other hand, in view of the seamless stonewalling over the
 >past 50+ years, you could wait for the next millenium, possibly.

That's not true Eleanor. You need to bone up on your history.
There has already been a congressional hearing on the question
of UFOs. One of our own List-mates, Dick Hall, was an integral
part of making those hearings a reality way back when.

If it happened once, it _can_ happen again.

 >>(I'm paraphrasing Alexander)

 >>John Alexander intimated that plans to conduct congressional
 >>hearings was not only in the works, but well under way until
 >>Greer put on his three-ring-circus at The National Press Club.
 >>According to John Alexander the whole process went to pot and
 >>all plans for a congressional hearing was curtailed as a result.

[Listen at:

  http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/sdi2003.html

  SDI 227 - Bassett --ebk]

 >But what is the potential for John Alexander to be working for,
 >in fact, the anonymous group who have been keeping the lid
 >on UFO information for so long?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. It isn't clear.
What I do know is, a statement such as the one Alexander made
about Dr. Greer; that an effort to secure a congressional
hearing 'may' have been sabotaged, needs to be clarified and
followed up on.

 >Why is John Alexander's story given more credibility than all
 >the other nonsensical 'explanations' given for Roswell, for
 >example?

I'm not giving Alexander "credibility". What "story"? I'm
'questioning' his statement.

 >It's is safe and popular to wave away obvious possibilities
 >with the "conspiracy theory" put downs, as we hear from time
 >to time on the Strange Days Indeed radio show.

Eleanor, because my belief in government conspiracy does not run
as deep as your own, it is not a 'put down.' I have expressed my
views on SDI. You shouldn't personalize it and take it as a put
down of the things that you believe in. It is just my own
opinion. That, and a $1.50 will get me on a bus. ;)

 >But such a disparaging term is not enough reason to fail to at
 >least acknowledge a 50% likelihood that Alexander may be ladling
 >disinformation.

Maybe so. But what if the coin turns up 'tails' and he's telling
the truth? Don't you think we ought to find out? That's all I'm
doing here. Why does that upset you?


Regards,

John

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

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/petition







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 23

                      Budd Hopkins' NYC UFO - 02-22-03

From: Intruders Foundation <Ifinfo1@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 23:27:25 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 18:21:42 -0500
Subject: Budd Hopkins' NYC UFO - 02-22-03



Intruders Foundation Seminar Series Announcement

ABDUCTEE PANEL DISCUSSION

Saturday, March 1, 2003

Back by popular demand, the Intruders Foundation (IF) will be
presenting an abductee panel discussion, in which several UFO
abductees, appearing for the first time publicly, will speak
about their extraordinary experiences and how they have dealt
with them. Always compelling, these first-hand accounts offer
the audience a rare chance to hear exactly what occurs during
abduction, and what led these individuals to begin the process
of exploring their memories. Hypnosis will be discussed and a
free dialogue period will offer members of the audience a chance
to question the speakers about their encounters. Budd Hopkins
will introduce the panel members (who desire anonymity) and will
add his own comments. Among the participating panelists will be
an abductee who is connected to the "Mickey & Baby Ann"
relationship mentioned in Budd Hopkins' book, WITNESSED.

(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 1st 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!

----------

UPCOMING SEMINARS - Mark Your Calendars!

* April 5, 2003: Richard Dolan, Author of "UFOs and the
National Security State"

----------

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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 23

                    Re: John Alexander On Greer? - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 01:22:37 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 18:24:24 -0500
Subject: Re: John Alexander On Greer? - Gates


 >From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 23:41:57 -0500
 >Subject: John Alexander On Greer?

 >>From: Stephen G. Bassett <ParadigmRG@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 23:42:13 EST
 >>Subject: PRG/X-PPAC/D2003/CH Update - 02-21-03

 >>PRG
 >>Paradigm Research Group

 >>Update - February 21, 2003
 >>[To the combined X-PPAC/PRG/D2003/CH mail lists.]


 >>X-PPAC Congressional Alert

 >>A new congressional alert relating to the Columbia tragedy has
 >>been sent to the House and Senate. Excerpt:

 >>"The cost of maintaining a truth embargo on the facts
 >>surrounding an extraterrestrial presence continues to grow. If
 >>safer means to place payloads into space lay ensconced within
 >>the "black" world behind the national security curtain, this
 >>cost now includes the lives of astronauts."

 >>See: www.x-ppac.org/Alerts.html#2-20-03

John, Listers,

This attempt to connect the shuttle disaster to ET presence and
the black world is garbage and will only lead to further
discreditation of the subject matter and has the potential to
discredit potential future UFO hearings.

 >>Citizen Hearing

 >>The Citizen Hearing concept received very positive reviews from
 >>colleagues and supporters met during the recent 30-day driving
 >>trip through California, Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico. PRG
 >>will continue to build the structural base for this event by
 >>seeking new sponsors, advisory board members, funding and the
 >>participation of former members of Congress.


 >Hi Stephen,

 >First I'd like to say that I admire your energy and dedication.
 >You are one of the few who work diligently at raising public
 >awareness about a _major_ issue... UFOs. (Hold on to your panty-
 >hose, here comes the 'but'. :)

 >"But" wouldn't your time, energy and resources be better spent
 >trying to accomplish the 'real thing' (congressional hearings)
 >as opposed to these 'mock' hearings? Why are we fed a steady
 >diet of reasons (excuses) why congressional hearings can't
 >happen? Instead of being encouraged to actively work/fight for
 >congressional hearings, we are asked to accept this diluted -
 >watered down- version.

I agree with John on this one.

 >We are being asked to endorse and support 'mock' hearings that
 >will 'essentially' only serve to consume valuable resources that
 >could be applied to much greater benefit for all realizing the
 >genuine article - 'actual' as opposed to 'mock' congressional
 >hearings.

Why bother with mock if you want the real thing? Kind of like
wanting to go through the motions of drinking a mock glass of
water in anticipation of drinking the real thing down the road
someday.

 >Something that has not been properly addressed on this List, or
 >anywhere else for that matter, has to do with a statement made
 >by the former director of NIDS, John Alexander in regard to
 >Greer and the effect and timing his 'Disclosure Project'.

 >(I'm paraphrasing Alexander)

 >John Alexander intimated that plans to conduct congressional
 >hearings was not only in the works, but well under way until
 >Greer put on his three-ring-circus at The National Press Club.
 >According to John Alexander the whole process went to pot and
 >all plans for a congressional hearing was curtailed as a result.

I have heard this from reliable people that the circus at the
Press club actually set hearings back... for various reasons.

I was also told that the anti-SDI folks were seeing
Greer/Disclosure as one of many vehicles to get on to kill SDI;
Greer was seeing the same thing as one of many vehicles to
promote disclosure. In essence both sides were using each other
for their own agenda.

Not to mention problems with some of the witness accounts.

<snip>

 >It's also important to know what those original plans were and
 >if it's possible to breath new life into them. Until these
 >important questions are answered, it would be wise to hold off
 >squandering rare and hard to acquire resources on a 'mock'
 >hearing. Those same resources 'may be' applied to securing the
 >real thing. That is, if the possibility still exists.

If anybody wants to take a drink of a mock glass of water, I am
sure that John and myself would be happy to provide some kind of
mock glass to go with the mock drink..... :)


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 23

               Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Rimmer

From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 11:43:53 +0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 18:27:01 -0500
Subject: Re: Radical Or Ordinary Misperception? - Rimmer


Radical misperception and radical misinvestigation. David
Clark's account of the Cracoe fiasco is now on line at the
Magonia website:

http://www.magonia.demon.co.uk/arc/80/cracoe1.htm


--
John Rimmer
Magonia Magazine
www.magonia.demon.co.uk







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 23

                      Off Topic - Danger To UK Websites

From: Geoff Richardson <geoff@fastdog.karoo.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 13:25:21 -0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 18:33:11 -0500
Subject: Off Topic - Danger Tto UK Websites


Know this is not directly related to Ufology but I believe that
it should be brought to the attention to all who have a website
with a ".co.uk" domain. ".co.uk domain wiped off face of
internet!"

Please visit - http://theregister.co.uk/content/6/29359.html


Regards,

Geoff Richardson
The WHY? 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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 23

                  Re: Another Abduction Question - Gonzalez

From: Luis R. Gonzalez <lrgm@arrakis.es>
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 22:25:22 +0100
Fwd Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 18:35:33 -0500
Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question - Gonzalez


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 16:53:03 +0000
 >Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 22:46:30 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question - Hall

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 15:57:22 +0000
 >>Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question

 >>From: Luis R. Gonzalez <lrgm@arrakis.es>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 16:44:29 +0100
 >>Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question

 >>However, my main point is this: Heinlein, Asimov, and the other
 >>SF "greats" clearly represent some of our most creative and
 >imaginative writers (though I am personally not a big fan of
 >>SF). A vast SF literature exists in which they have imagined and
 >>written stories about almost anything imaginable that might be
 >>possible and might actually occur eventually. Under these
 >>circumstances, it would be very surprising if some (obviously
 >>select and not broadly representative) elements of one or more
 >>SF stories did _not_ resemble some elements of abductions. If
 >>you pursue this logic, you can use resemblances to SF to
 >>discredit just about any anomalous data in any area. A very
 >>useful, but illogical, technique.

 >James McDonald once characterized the reasoning processes of
 >Phil Klass as "argument by concatenation."

 >You merely juxtapose two sets of things without making any clear
 >argument as to why they are or must be causally connected. This
 >statement only reiterates your belief and does not tell me any
 >reason why it must be the answer. In fact, you have not
 >responded to my argument that it would be surprising if such
 >similarities did not exist. Possibilities are only that, not
 >established facts.

One of the thing that more surprise me about some "hard"
ufologists is how they do not want to realise that the UFO
phenomenon is just part of a "continuum". It coexists with BVM
visions, ghosts, cryptozoological creatures, "brain control"
victims, etc.. Their evidences are all of the same degree.
Besides that, when I talk about the UFO phemomenon I refer also
to the high percentage 80-90%? of cases which had
"conventional" explanations. You cannot dismiss all that and say
that your few selected cases have an ET origin, and everything
else is _not_ real.

Of course, within a big set of data you can always find
coincidences. Sometimes those coincidences are just random,
others there is some causal connection. But when the volume of
coincidences is high and they go from simple details to main
themes, the probability of such causal connection is also high.

To me, the biggest coincidence is that dozens and dozens of
alien civilizations have decide to visit us just in the
extremely short period of time we can identify them as such...
and then, do nothing!!


Luis R. Gonzalez Manso






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 23

                  Re: Another Abduction Question - Gonzalez

From: Luis R. Gonzalez <lrgm@arrakis.es>
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 22:25:26 +0100
Fwd Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 18:38:06 -0500
Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question - Gonzalez


 >From: Ray Stanford <dinotracker@earthlink.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 14:36:11 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 15:57:22 +0000
 >>Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question

 >>However, my main point is this: Heinlein, Asimov, and the other
 >>SF "greats" clearly represent some of our most creative and
 >>imaginative writers (though I am personally not a big fan of
 >>SF). A vast SF literature exists in which they have imagined and
 >>written stories about almost anything imaginable that might be
 >>possible and might actually occur eventually. Under these
 >>circumstances, it would be very surprising if some (obviously
 >>select and not broadly representative) elements of one or more
 >>SF stories did _not_ resemble some elements of abductions. If
 >>you pursue this logic, you can use resemblances to SF to
 >>discredit just about any anomalous data in any area. A very
 >>useful, but illogical, technique.

 >Excellent point, Richard, even though I personally have doubts
 >about the N.Y. case under discussion, after studying it
 >carefully.

 >Using the principle of 'reductio ad absurdum' to Luis R.
 >Gonzalez's methodology, we might conclude that the lunar
 >missions were hoaxes because Jules Verne prescientently, it
 >would seem, depicted a launch to the moon from Florida (in his
 >'From The Earth To The Moon'), from where the lunar missions
 >were launched.

The question about the similarities between abduction and SF
stories is not a methodology, it is a _fact_ Those who prefer to
believe that we are nowadays being visited by races and more
races of aliens, just dismiss that fact as an irrelevant
coincidence.

Others, like me, consider that fact as pointing to the real mind
behind both kind of narratives: the human mind. I am sure that
if we humans finally contact a real alien civilization, it will
be _completely_ different from anything we have ever imagine.

On the other hand, believers are right. Except in some concrete
cases like Linda and 'Nighteyes', Barney Hill and 'The Bellero
Shield' or Schirmer and 'Mars Needs Woman', abductees were _not_
exposed directly to the SF stories they seem to repeat, so those
similitudes are just a sign.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 23

             Re: Lawsuit Aims To Silence UFO Watchdog - Connors

From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net>
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 15:39:34 -0700
Fwd Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 18:43:27 -0500
Subject: Re: Lawsuit Aims To Silence UFO Watchdog - Connors


Well, here we go, folks. Sean David Morton is trying to sue
Royce Meyers, who brings us the truth about the hucksters,
charltans and other cretins pounding their Tom-Tom's in the
field of Ufology.

Ol' Sean is supposed to be psychic. How about the fact that if
you sue somebody and lose, you open yourself up to a
countersuit? His psychic abilities must have been under a cloud
or something.

In my opinion, about the only thing Sean David Morton is good
at, is his inability to keep his hands in his own pocket. I
wonder if ol' Sean is ragged because he didn't come up first
with the $400 flashlight scam ol' Doc Greer has going?

So the magic question is, who is bringing the lawsuit against
Royce? I wonder if it's that self-proclaimed "UFO Lawyer", Peter
Gersten? I have thoughts of old Purple Robes, silver stars and
quarter crescent moons shimmering among the purple, strumping
around the courtroom with flair, bellowing UFO platitudes to the
jury and bringing down the crystal omens for the jury to
contemplate. All the while Sean's cultists Oommm in the
bleachers, hoping Purple Robes will bring down the High Poobah
from the Great Mother Ship to bring justice to the unwashed
masses.

And I used to think George Adamski and the Giant Rock cronies
were two tiddly's away from a wink. Royce, it is gonna be fun
watching you bring these cretins to their knees to beg for
mercy. Go git 'em, Tiger!

I'm psychic too. Sean's gonna lose.


Wendy Connors
So, there ya have it, but whadda ya got?







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 23

                        Spain: CE-1's From Fall 2002

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 11:00:52 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 20:02:58 -0500
Subject: Spain: CE-1's From Fall 2002


INEXPLICATA
The Journal of Hispanic Ufology
February 24, 2002


Lights over Spain Between November 5 and December 8, 2002
by Jordi Ardanuy


These cases could be associated into two blocks corresponding to
the Mediterranean (X=E1tiva and Murcia) and the center of the
Iberian Peninsula (Zamora, Badajoz and Madrid). It is worth
noting that both elements of this taxonomy feature a main news
story which unchained others in which the lights were seen. In
the first group publication and above all, dissemination via UFO
lists regarding the X=E1tiva case; in the second, publication on
the Internet of the Madrid sighting by Iker Jimenez and its
subsequent dissemination through his own radio broacast.

A UFO Over Badajoz (November 5)
Source: ikerjimenez@yahoogroups.com  (list)
Date: December 21, 2002.

The narrator was not a witness and does not really know how it
all happened. It would appear to have occured on November 5,
between 3-4 a.m.. He learned of the event through the Iker
Jimenez Milenio 3 readio program. He found nothing in the
digital editions of "Hoy" de Badajoz (newspaper).

Sightings in X=E1tiva (Valencia--November 21 and 29)
Source: Europa Press
Date: December 12 and 13, 2002

Paco Hell=EDn, a local police officer, private pilot, and in his
own words, presenter of a UFO radio show on Cadena SER's X=E1tiva
affiliate, saw a powerful, light-blue light in the early hours
of November 20-21 in the company of several members of the local
police force. The sighting ocurred between 6:10 and 6:50 hrs.,
with the object remaining visible between 40 and 50 minutes. A
decision was made to phone the control tower at Manises Airport
to have the station's radar detect the object. "After giving
them the coordinates of 150-170 degrees southeast, taking the
airport as reference, we were told that their radar showed
nothing, because for an aircraft to be detected, it must carry a
transponder that issues a signal."

In the early hours of November 29, the same witness observed
through binoculars "a metallic object shaped like an inverted
thimble, remaining static but sometimes moving vertically,
giving off a powerful light blue brilliance along its edges."
Using the size of the Moon as reference, the light "could have
been equal to 1/5 or 1/6 the size of the full moon," which was
behind him all the time the observation took place. He used as
reference the catenary cables of the RENFE train line that
crosses the community as well as the horizon delineated by the
mountains surrounding the area.

The location where the sighting occurred is outside the
community, near the entrance to the municipality through the
road to Llosa. On one occasion, the metallic object was above
the Lluis Alcany=EDs hospital. This X=E1tiva resident decided to
report the case to the Instituto Nacional de Astronom=EDa, who
told him that it could have been the International Space
Station. Other experts have doubted this possibility due to its
scant luminosity and point toward Venus as a likely object,
although the imprecise coordinates hinder a full confirmation.

On the other hand, Rafael Esteller, also a resident of this
community, saw a light moving at high speeed on Wednesday,
November 27 as he drove around 7:00 a.m. toward Albacete, some
40 km. from X=E1tiva. "There were three lights, two of them static
and a thrd moving at such a speed that it can't be anything else
(sic)."

Light over Murcia, November 22, 2002.
Source: <ikerjimenez@yahoogroups.com>.
Date: December 13, 2002

In the early hours of November 22 (an uncertain bit of data,
since it could refer to two days after the second sighting),
friends of the narrator claimed having seen something similar to
the X=E1tiva UFO, also in the early morning hours around 6 a.m.,
which leads this writer to believe that by being seen from
Valencia and Murcia, although two days later, it could perhaps
be a planet or star visible in those days. The description given
is of a large, brilliant light, much larger than a star although
not as large as the Moon, and which did not move.

Venus has also been offered as an explanation.

Light over Madrid, December 4, 2002
Source:  <ikerjimenez@yahoogroups.com>. Reported by: Iker Jim=E9nez
Date: 6 December 2002; position corrected on  10 December
2002

Several witnesses, members of the Milenio 3 radio team directed
by Iker Jimenez among them, were treated to the sight of a
powerful unidentified light source over Madrid, from the
southeast, at 5 a.m. last Wedneseday (the 4th).

Some reporters from the SER radio network looked out their
windows and attested to the light's presence. It was round and
motionless and emitted a powerful blue flash. Our investigations
have proven it was not a star, planet or satellite. It suddenly
vanished two hours later. It had four tips or issued four beams
of light. Witnesses phoned the radio station and alerted the
persons on duty at the newsroom.

The proposed explanation has been Venus, which was rising in the
horizon at 5:09 and two hours later had ascended to some 20
degrees (a palm's distance with the arm oustretched,
approximately).

Another member of the same list claimed to have seen the same
phenomenon in August, September and December. The descriptions,
while very imprecise, suggest a possible astronomic origin.

Light Over the Highway on December 8, 2002
Source: Lista ikerjimenez@yahoogroups.com and personal e-mail.
Date: December 13,  2002


Driving along the road near M=F3stoles along Natl. Hwy. 5 at
around 20:00 hrs. more or less, both witnesses saw a very bright
white light in the distance; it was spherical and large, not
fitting the typical observation parameters of an airplane. The
apparente size increased and suddenly diminisehd in size until
it vanished, but without moving at any time.


=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Translation (C) 2003 - Scott Corrales
Institute of Hispanic Ufology







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 24

               Re: Lawsuit Aims To Silence UFO Watchdog - King

From: Tom King <tomking2030@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 16:19:36 +0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 20:38:15 -0500
Subject: Re: Lawsuit Aims To Silence UFO Watchdog - King


Hello List,

I think nearly everyone here supports Royce and the work he has
done. We should support him whenever a clown like Sean David
Morton tries to knock him down.

I for one and sick and tired of all of these UFO carnies running
around making claim after claim that don't come true. These tall
tales Morton sells the public should be cross examined by
public. Websites telling another side of a story shouldn't be
shut down because it hurts someones feelings.

 From what I understand this isn't the only lawsuit Morton is
currently pursuing. I believe he is also suing a radio station
for firing him.

SDM should be sued for all the stuff he said that didn't come
true.


Tom King

www.ufovideo.com









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 24

                                RMP Follow-Up

From: Andy Roberts <aj.roberts@blueyonder.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 18:53:55 -0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 20:40:21 -0500
Subject: RMP Follow-Up

Pilgrims,

Further to the entertaining but instructive discussions on the
list recently about Radical Misperception and the Cracoe Fell
case.... If anyone wishes to read the chapter written on this
case for The UFOs That Never Were (Clarke, Randles, Roberts,
London House, 2000), please email me off-List and I'll send it
as a Word attachment.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 24

                        Selling Ufology By The Pound

From: Andy Roberts <aj.roberts@blueyonder.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 21:30:35 -0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 20:44:15 -0500
Subject: Selling Ufology By The Pound


Pilgrims,

A sorry tale about the state of ufology in the UK follows:

Perceptive observers will recall Eric Morris' recent messages
about UFO video footage shot by him.

His latest was:

 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 23:59:31 +0000
 >Subject: Liverpool 01-16-03 UFO Video

 >A packed crowd of nearly fifty people sat and watched the most
 >compelling piece of UFO video footage ever to be shot in the UK.

<snip>

 >Many sceptics slapped BUFOSC's Eric Morris on the back and
 >stated  'You have the real smokin gun evidence of UFOs invading
 >our skies.'

<snip>

 >Several left very shocked after only coming to be sceptical and
 >to see just a few lights in the sky, however what they observed
 >was very different.
 >"What we have on tape here is Priceless" said Morris and we are
 >not releasing the tape until scrupulous investigations into it
 >have been made.

You will also recall at the time that certain UK ufologists were
highly sceptical about Eric's video and his plans for it.

A source working in deep cover (and not, I hasten to add, myself
or known to myself until today) contacted Eric with a simple
enquiry about his video. This was as follows:

 >From: ZoeForsyth17@aol.com
 >To: bufosc@hotmail.com
 >Subject: Video Footage
 >Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 17:48:47 EST

 >I wonder whether it would be possible for you to pass on the contact
 >details of Eric Morris who took some UFO footage.

 >I've heard about his footage on the internet and would like to have more
 >details.

 >Zoe

A simple request for information. No intimation that 'Zoe' had
any financial interest in Eric's video. Just an enquiry as to
how to contact Eric for more details.

Eric's reply was most illuminating.


 >Subj: Re: Video Footage
 >Date: 23/02/2003 09:52:45 GMT Standard Time
 >From: bufosc@hotmail.com
 >To: ZoeForsyth17@aol.com
 >Sent from the Internet (Details)

 >Hello Zoe

 >I have the most amazing UFO footage the world is ever likely
 >to see, filmed on the `16.1.03 by myself, on a field investigation,
 >investigating sightings in an area near Runcorn,the video footage
 >lasts for 2 minutes and shows at least 4 discs (in daylight).
 >I am open to offers gor exclusive rights to this footage subject
 >to agreement with lawyers to the right people.

 >You can call me on ***** ****** or *********** (or text) and betweem
 >9:30pm-8am British time (***********).

 >Without bragging or sounding irritating this is the best daylight disc
 >footage one has ever seen. An American film producer is taking a
 >look at it for me to make an offer but if others want to top his price,
 >I am open.

 >Look forward to hearing from you.

 >PS I work night duty 8pm-8am as a Registered General Nurse Night
 >Manager and am hardly in during the evenings, although I am off
 >(at present) Tuesday and Wednesday night.

 >Eric Morris
 >Registered General Nurse
 >D.P.H.E. (Nursing Studies)
 >Founder British UFO Studies Centre (1994).We are 10 next year!!!

Eric's contact details have been deleted from the above email.
Now you've read it consider the following:

Eric originaly stated:

 >"What we have on tape here is Priceless" said Morris and we are
 >not releasing the tape until scrupulous investigations into it
 >have been made.

Yet when contacted by someone he didn't know there was no
mention of any 'scrupulous investigations', just a straight
forward invitation for 'Zoe' to make a financial offer for the
film.

Curiouser and curiouser.

I think further comment on this case is superfluous. Eric
appears to be disinterested in what, if anything, the video
shows or what its relevance to ufology is. Instead he seems
happy to sell it to the highest bidder. 'Scrupulous
investigations' don't seem to feature in this equation nor, as I
suggested in earlier emails is Eric's footage 'priceless' as he
said. Quite the opposite in fact.

I'd like to publically challenge Eric to explain just what his
motives in ufology are, why he's offering this video to the
highest bidder and what happened to the 'scrupulous
investigations' which were to be made prior to te tape being
released but which seem to be missing from emails to potential
buyers.

Watch and learn pilgrims, watch and learn.

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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 24

             Re: Lawsuit Aims To Silence UFO Watchdog - Gevaerd

From: A. J. Gevaerd - Revista UFO <gevaerd@ufo.com.br>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 21:36:09 -0300
Fwd Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 20:48:40 -0500
Subject: Re: Lawsuit Aims To Silence UFO Watchdog - Gevaerd


 >From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 15:39:34 -0700
 >Subject: Re: Lawsuit Aims To Silence UFO Watchdog

 >Well, here we go, folks. Sean David Morton is trying to sue
 >Royce Meyers, who brings us the truth about the hucksters,
 >charltans and other cretins pounding their Tom-Tom's in the
 >field of Ufology.

 >Ol' Sean is supposed to be psychic. How about the fact that if
 >you sue somebody and lose, you open yourself up to a
 >countersuit? His psychic abilities must have been under a cloud
 >or something.

 >In my opinion, about the only thing Sean David Morton is good
 >at, is his inability to keep his hands in his own pocket. I
 >wonder if ol' Sean is ragged because he didn't come up first
 >with the $400 flashlight scam ol' Doc Greer has going?

 >So the magic question is, who is bringing the lawsuit against
 >Royce? I wonder if it's that self-proclaimed "UFO Lawyer", Peter
 >Gersten? I have thoughts of old Purple Robes, silver stars and
 >quarter crescent moons shimmering among the purple, strumping
 >around the courtroom with flair, bellowing UFO platitudes to the
 >jury and bringing down the crystal omens for the jury to
 >contemplate. All the while Sean's cultists Oommm in the
 >bleachers, hoping Purple Robes will bring down the High Poobah
 >from the Great Mother Ship to bring justice to the unwashed
 >masses.

 >And I used to think George Adamski and the Giant Rock cronies
 >were two tiddly's away from a wink. Royce, it is gonna be fun
 >watching you bring these cretins to their knees to beg for
 >mercy. Go git 'em, Tiger!

 >I'm psychic too. Sean's gonna lose.


Wendy and folks:

I think this is a nice opportunity for us, Brazilians and
Americans, to check out how close our UFO scenario can be. I
have in my country a very similar conduct in Ufology as Royce
Myers in the States. I not only research the field for decades,
serving as the editor of a national circulation magazine, as I
have also persistently exposed hoaxes and hoaxers in my country.
And because of that I have faced 10 lawsuits in the last 8
years, 9 of them coming from the person (*).

Royce Myers is being sued because he had the courage to come
forward and expose someone whose story and claims are beyond the
minimum accepted. I admire his work and efforts to challenge
these persons and as soon as I read the release he sent to
everybody, I felt myself in his shoes. But as immediately as
possible I reminded of an old proverb that once comforted me and
I hope it does the same for him: truth will always prevail, as
evil is not self-sustaining and good is.


All the best,

A. J. Gevaerd

(*) By the way, that guy's name is Urandir Fernandes de
Oliveira, who had his people spreading in the US recently an
outrageous story of a supposed abduction he went through, with
amazing but completely faked photos of fire marks in bed and
ceiling. Yeah, that story.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 24

                   Re: Another Abduction Question - Bowden

From: Tom Bowden <tomrbowden@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 17:44:27 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 21:14:29 -0500
Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question - Bowden


 >From: Luis R. Gonzalez <lrgm@arrakis.es>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 22:25:22 +0100
 >Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question

<snip>

Luis,

I have to comment on some of your points:

 >One of the thing that more surprise me about some
 >"hard" ufologists is how they do not want to realise

 >that the UFO phenomenon is just part of a
 >"continuum". It coexists with BVM visions, ghosts,
 >cryptozoological creatures, "brain control"
 >victims, etc.. Their evidences are all of the same
 >degree. Besides that, when I talk about the UFO
 >phemomenon I refer also to the high percentage
 >80-90%? of cases which had "conventional"
 >explanations. You cannot dismiss all that and say
 >that your few selected cases have an ET origin, and
 >everything else is _not_ real.

Properly speaking, the "80-90%" which are legitimately explained
do not properly belong to the UFO phenomenon. It is the
remaining 10 to 20% which do. Categorization as a UFO should not
automatically imply ET origin.  This is an unwarranted leap
without the rest of the evidence that we are missing.

 >Of course, within a big set of data you can always
 >find coincidences. Sometimes those coincidences are
 >just random, others there is some causal connection.
 >But when the volume of coincidences is high and they
 >go from simple details to main themes, the
 >probability of such causal connection is also high.

 >To me, the biggest coincidence is that dozens and
 >dozens of alien civilizations have decide to visit
 >us just in the extremely short period of time we can
 >identify them as such... and then, do nothing!!

 >Luis R. Gonzalez Manso

You presume they are doing nothing because you are not aware of
what they are doing. Assuming there are one or more intelligent
ET races, visiting us, and considering the degree to which this
entire matter of UFOs has been wrapped in a shroud of mystery
and intrigue, I submit that there may be a hidden agenda which
is being carried out. By obtaining the covert complicity of some
secret agencies among the more powerful governments on Earth,
these operations could be kept hidden.

Of course this is the basic UFO "conspiracy theory". While it
might not be your favorite theory, it is internally consistent
and it is highly consistent with the history of the handling of
the UFO matter in the U.S. military and intelligence system for
at least the past six decades.

This argument does not rest on disputed evidence such as the MJ-
12 documents, but on well established history such as The
Robertson Panel, Project Blue Book Special Report #14, the
report by the Condon Committee, and scores of highly credible
reports where witnesses such as Gordon Cooper have state that
unknown, intelligently controlled craft were observed and filmed
on military bases, but where our military/intelligence
organizations will not acknowledge the existence of the film.

The problem with abductions is that these cases ride on the fine
line between accepted reality and what the professional
establishment labels fantasy. This makes the unfortunate
abductee an easy target for every armchair debunker with a pet
theory about what makes people report weird, unexplained
experiences.

It is no accident that virtually no physical evidence exists for
the entire UFO phenomenon, let alone abductions.  I truly
believe that someone or something does not want any really solid
evidence to be found. This "smoking gun" if it were revealed,
would begin to erode the entire structure of the shroud of
secrecy, all the way down to the arguments against the reality
of abductions. Once those cats are out of the bag, no amount of
spin control could herd them back in.

We need to find that smoking gun!


Tom B.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 24

                  'Jonathan's Space Report' - Latest Issue

From: Todd Lemire <tlemire@comcast.net>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 20:52:38 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 21:28:00 -0500
Subject: 'Jonathan's Space Report' - Latest Issue


I thought I'd forward the latest space report as it refers to us
'UFO Nuts' (paragraph 6 included below) For the complete report
see the link below. I'm sure someone on this list would like to
possibly correct Mr. McDowell and/or exchange some polite emails
with him? I do emphasize that one must read the entire report in
context to understand the paragraph below.

Todd Lemire

http://www.michiganufos.com

-----

Source:

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


What possible reason can there be for this? The data had
_already_ been made public; it doesn't interfere with the
investigators' access to the data to keep it available for
everyone else. It seems totally at variance with the openness of
the rest of the investigation, and just begs for conspiracy
theorists and UFO nuts to start thinking NASA has something to
hide. I completely understand wanting not to release preliminary
engineering analysis from the investigation, but this is data
that was made available in a standard way while the mission was
still up, and was circulated as it came out on several internet
lists. Anyway, I already archived the data I have at:

http://hea-www.harvard.edu/~jcm/space/elements/27600/S27647

if anyone wants 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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 25

               Re: 'Jonathan's Space Report' - Latest Issue -

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 23:03:48 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 01:49:32 -0500
Subject: Re: 'Jonathan's Space Report' - Latest Issue -


 >From: Todd Lemire <tlemire@comcast.net>
 >Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 20:52:38 -0500
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Subject: 'Jonathan's Space Report' - Latest Issue

 >I thought I'd forward the latest space report as it refers to
 >us 'UFO Nuts' (paragraph 6 included below) For the complete
 >report see the link below. I'm sure someone on this list would
 >like to possibly correct Mr. McDowell and/or exchange some
 >polite emails with him? I do emphasize that one must read the
 >entire report in context to understand the paragraph below.

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

 >What possible reason can there be for this? The data had
 >_already_ been made public; it doesn't interfere with the
 >investigators' access to the data to keep it available for
 >everyone else. It seems totally at variance with the openness of
 >the rest of the investigation, and just begs for conspiracy
 >theorists and UFO nuts to start thinking NASA has something to
 >hide. I completely understand wanting not to release preliminary
 >engineering analysis from the investigation, but this is data
 >that was made available in a standard way while the mission was
 >still up, and was circulated as it came out on several internet
 >lists. Anyway, I already archived the data I have at:

 >http://hea-www.harvard.edu/~jcm/space/elements/27600/S27647

 >if anyone wants it.


Thanks Todd,

He should look within NASA to get the answer. But I'm betting
it's the problem with space debris.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 25

                   Re: John Alexander On Greer? - Bassett

From: Stephen G. Bassett <SGBList2@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 00:10:38 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 02:04:21 -0500
Subject: Re: John Alexander On Greer? - Bassett


 >From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 23:41:57 -0500
 >Subject: John Alexander On Greer?

 >>From: Stephen G. Bassett <ParadigmRG@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 23:42:13 EST
 >>Subject: PRG/X-PPAC/D2003/CH Update - 02-21-03

 >>snip

 >>The Citizen Hearing concept received very positive reviews from
 >>colleagues and supporters met during the recent 30-day driving
 >>trip through California, Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico. PRG
 >>will continue to build the structural base for this event by
 >>seeking new sponsors, advisory board members, funding and the
 >>participation of former members of Congress.

 >Hi Stephen,

 >First I'd like to say that I admire your energy and dedication.
 >You are one of the few who work diligently at raising public
 >awareness about a _major_ issue... UFOs. (Hold on to your panty-
 >hose, here comes the 'but'. :)

 >"But" wouldn't your time, energy and resources be better spent
 >trying to accomplish the 'real thing' (congressional hearings)
 >as opposed to these 'mock' hearings? Why are we fed a steady
 >diet of reasons (excuses) why congressional hearings can't
 >happen? Instead of being encouraged to actively work/fight for
 >congressional hearings, we are asked to accept this diluted -
 >watered down- version.

The effort to persuade Congress to do its job will continue. The
CH is just one more option.

 >We are being asked to endorse and support 'mock' hearings that
 >will 'essentially' only serve to consume valuable resources that
 >could be applied to much greater benefit for all realizing the
 >genuine article - 'actual' as opposed to 'mock' congressional
 >hearings.

The concept of the CH has been well received by those I have
spoken with during the past month driving around the western
states of CA, NV, AZ and NM. It is a two-for-one in that the
very fact it is being considered puts pressure on the Congress.
The point of the project is that Congress has resisted repeated
efforts to hold open hearings. The prospect of a Citizen Hearing
held right up the street from the Capitol is not going to bring
any comfort to current members of the House and Senate.

As for resources, it has been extremely difficult to raise money
to pursue disclosure and congressional hearings. For every
dollar I have been fortunate to raise, I have spent 19 of my own
until my personal assets were exhausted.

The Citizen Hearing presents a highly focused event with a clear
mission statement and a finite, defined outcome. It offers a way
for someone of considerable resources to make a clear
contribution to the process of disclosure.

Further, the live coverage and taped archive of such a hearing
will have considerable residual potential.

Congress and the truth embargo management consortium have been
literally waiting out the grim reaper - counting on witnesses to
die off and reduce the pressure for public disclosure. It is a
morbid game which the CH is aimed to thwart.

 >Something that has not been properly addressed on this List, or
 >anywhere else for that matter, has to do with a statement made
 >by the former director of NIDS, John Alexander in regard to
 >Greer and the effect and timing his 'Disclosure Project'.

 >(I'm paraphrasing Alexander)

 >John Alexander intimated that plans to conduct congressional
 >hearings was not only in the works, but well under way until
 >Greer put on his three-ring-circus at The National Press Club.
 >According to John Alexander the whole process went to pot and
 >all plans for a congressional hearing was curtailed as a result.

 >What do you know about this? Is what Alexander tells us true?
 >Was there a pre-existing effort (prior to Greer's press club
 >presentation) to conduct congressional hearings? Were those
 >plans scrapped, as Alexander says, because of Greer?

I was present at John Alexander's presentation and spoke with
Bob Brown the next day. It is my understanding from Bob that
John had lobbied aggressively to speak at Laughlin should there
be a speaker cancellation. Bob said that John had indicated he
had substantial new material and recent information.

As best as I could ascertain, the only new information presented
by John was at the beginning of the talk when he revealed the
NIDS/congressional hearing connection.

What I heard was this: NIDS had been holding secret meetings
with one or more members, including one committee chairman, on
having hearings. NIDS had worked up a script for these
hearings, which was being negotiated with the committee chair.
  When the public press conference was held the 9th of May
committee chair terminated the private process underway.

Two things came across very clearly, at least to me: 1) that
John had made the trip to Laughlin primarily to make this
statement about NIDS, congressional hearings and the May 9th,
2001 press conference; 2) John's contempt for Steven Greer.

However, I did not take notes and John Alexander should be
queried on exactly what he said in Laughlin as well as the
NIDS/congressional hearing specifics.

 >Very important questions... even more, very serious allegations.
 >If Greer is responsible for single-handedly ruining any
 >prospects for congressional hearings, then that is something
 >that we _all_ need to know about.

 >It's also important to know what those original plans were and
 >if it's possible to breath new life into them. Until these
 >important questions are answered, it would be wise to hold off
 >squandering rare and hard to acquire resources on a 'mock'
 >hearing. Those same resources 'may be' applied to securing the
 >real thing. That is, if the possibility still exists.

If NIDS were to be forthcoming with the particulars of their
congressional hearing effort, that would be constructive.

 >Just one man's questions, and one man's opinion.
 >I await your response.
 >Regards from frozen N.Y.C.

If anyone wishes to put several hundred thousand dollars into
the advocacy work earmarked specifically for direct pressure on
the Congress to hold formal, open hearings which are not
scripted to make one political party or another look good, or
spin a story to serve inside agendas, I would be happy to put
that money to good use. If requested, I would be happy to table
the CH project as part of such a funding infusion.

However, until the universities, foundations and private
philanthropists are able to climb the wall of ridicule the
government has carefully crafted, and shake off the propaganda
trance, such money is not forthcoming.

New ideas and approaches will have to be put forward until
something draws the necessary interest and money. The CH is one
more approach for consideration.


Regards,

Steve Bassett







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 25

                      Re: Cambridge Object Seen? - Hale

From: Roy Hale <roy.hale@ntlworld.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 05:24:20 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 02:56:02 -0500
Subject: Re: Cambridge Object Seen? - Hale



Hi All,

I received a sighting report for Friday night 21/02/03, in which
a chap who was looking out of his window at 10.30pm, saw what he
described as an "Orange Double Decker size object coming out of
the sky, with a blazing and sparking tail"

This object seemed to be chucking out some kind of sparks from
behind, and was estimated  at 10.000 MPH? The object was seeming
to crash into earth about 30 miles from where it was seen?There
was no noise from the object, but the chap concerned was over
whelmed by its size, and the trail behind it?

Considering the object was quoted as being the size of a double
decker bus, and the distance the chap was from the object' I
would presume this to be a very large object!

The sighting took place in South Cambridgeshire, Duxford.

Anyone have any info on Astronomical events occurring at that
time?

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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 25

                  Re: Selling Ufology By The Pound - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 01:26:10 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:18:48 -0500
Subject: Re: Selling Ufology By The Pound - Gates


 >From: Andy Roberts <aj.roberts@blueyonder.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 21:30:35 -0000
 >Subject: Selling Ufology By The Pound

 >Pilgrims,

 >A sorry tale about the state of ufology in the UK follows:

Andy, Listers

Sorry tales sound like a skunk in the UK woodpile.

 >Perceptive observers will recall Eric Morris' recent messages
 >about UFO video footage shot by him.

 >His latest was:

 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 23:59:31 +0000
 >>Subject: Liverpool 01-16-03 UFO Video

 >>A packed crowd of nearly fifty people sat and watched the most
 >>compelling piece of UFO video footage ever to be shot in the UK.

 ><snip>

 >>Many sceptics slapped BUFOSC's Eric Morris on the back and
 >>stated 'You have the real smokin gun evidence of UFOs invading
 >>our skies.'

 ><snip>

 >>Several left very shocked after only coming to be sceptical and
 >>to see just a few lights in the sky, however what they observed
 >>was very different.
 >>"What we have on tape here is Priceless" said Morris and we are
 >>not releasing the tape until scrupulous investigations into it
 >>have been made.

Hmm, wonder what is meant by "scrupulous investigations"?


 >You will also recall at the time that certain UK ufologists were
 >highly sceptical about Eric's video and his plans for it.

 >A source working in deep cover (and not, I hasten to add, myself
 >or known to myself until today) contacted Eric with a simple

Whenever I hear terms like "deep cover" and "source" mentioned
in the same sentence, my mind wanders over to Hoagland and a few
others... if you know what I mean. :)

 >enquiry about his video. This was as follows:

 >>From: ZoeForsyth17@aol.com
 >>To: bufosc@hotmail.com
 >>Subject: Video Footage
 >>Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 17:48:47 EST

 >>I wonder whether it would be possible for you to pass on the contact
 >>details of Eric Morris who took some UFO footage.

 >>I've heard about his footage on the internet and would like
 >>to have more details.

 >>Zoe

 >A simple request for information. No intimation that 'Zoe' had
 >any financial interest in Eric's video. Just an enquiry as to
 >how to contact Eric for more details.

Pretty forthright if you ask me.

 >Eric's reply was most illuminating.


 >>Subj: Re: Video Footage
 >>Date: 23/02/2003 09:52:45 GMT Standard Time
 >>From: bufosc@hotmail.com
 >>To: ZoeForsyth17@aol.com
 >>Sent from the Internet (Details)

 >>Hello Zoe

 >>I have the most amazing UFO footage the world is ever likely
 >>to see, filmed on the `16.1.03 by myself, on a field investigation,
 >>investigating sightings in an area near Runcorn,the video footage
 >>lasts for 2 minutes and shows at least 4 discs (in daylight).
 >>I am open to offers gor exclusive rights to this footage subject
 >>to agreement with lawyers to the right people.

Ah, if the email quote is in fact correct and hasn't been
modifed before passing it on to Andy, it appears like the film
is going to be abducted by Pound, Dollar and Euro flying in the
cash cow mothership. I would imagine that the abductors are
going to perform minimal amounts ot testing on the subject
before unloading it to a wider audience on TV.

Eric could probably do better by consulting with Ray and Volker
on his next move. They have some knowledge on marketing UFO
related film.

 >>You can call me on ***** ****** or *********** (or text) and betweem
 >>9:30pm-8am British time (***********).

 >>Without bragging or sounding irritating this is the best daylight disc
 >>footage one has ever seen. An American film producer is taking a
 >>look at it for me to make an offer but if others want to top his price,
 >>I am open.

Hmm, sounds like the gent wants to launch a bidding war......

 >>Look forward to hearing from you.

 >>PS I work night duty 8pm-8am as a Registered General Nurse Night
 >>Manager and am hardly in during the evenings, although I am off
 >>(at present) Tuesday and Wednesday night.

 >>Eric Morris
 >>Registered General Nurse
 >>D.P.H.E. (Nursing Studies)
 >>Founder British UFO Studies Centre (1994).We are 10 next year!!!

 >Eric's contact details have been deleted from the above email.
 >Now you've read it consider the following:

 >Eric originaly stated:

 >>"What we have on tape here is Priceless" said Morris and we are
 >>not releasing the tape until scrupulous investigations into it
 >>have been made.

 >Yet when contacted by someone he didn't know there was no
 >mention of any 'scrupulous investigations', just a straight
 >forward invitation for 'Zoe' to make a financial offer for the
 >film.

 >Curiouser and curiouser.

 >I think further comment on this case is superfluous. Eric
 >appears to be disinterested in what, if anything, the video
 >shows or what its relevance to ufology is. Instead he seems
 >happy to sell it to the highest bidder. 'Scrupulous
 >investigations' don't seem to feature in this equation nor, as I
 >suggested in earlier emails is Eric's footage 'priceless' as he
 >said. Quite the opposite in fact.

"Scrupulous investigations" could mean background checks on
those placing the bids... :) Perhaps he is just being cautious
you know lining up the checks and contracts while the
investigation is ongoing. That leads to another thought. What
happens if the investigation discovers that the objects are in
fact something proasic?


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 25

                  Re: Another Abduction Question - Stanford

From: Ray Stanford <dinotracker@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 01:31:34 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:25:50 -0500
Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question - Stanford


 >From: Luis R. Gonzalez <lrgm@arrakis.es>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 22:25:26 +0100
 >Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question

 >>From: Ray Stanford <dinotracker@earthlink.net>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 14:36:11 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question

 >>Using the principle of 'reductio ad absurdum' to Luis R.
 >>Gonzalez's methodology, we might conclude that the lunar
 >>missions were hoaxes because Jules Verne prescientently, it
 >>would seem, depicted a launch to the moon from Florida (in his
 >>'From The Earth To The Moon'), from where the lunar missions
 >>were launched.

And Luis R. Gonzalez responded:

 >The question about the similarities between abduction and SF
 >stories is not a methodology, it is a _fact_ ... [SNIP]

It is a method of debunking claims of alien encounters. The
significance Luis seems to access to speculative associations
between fiction and claims of alien abduction are only unfounded
speculation, seemingly constrained by little else than what
might be taken as his own personal desire to 'explain' what he
finds unacceptable.

Let me briefly summarize something that happened to a friend of
mine years before the Betty and Barney Hill thing ever happened:

That friend, in his twenties, was the son of a retired U.S. Air
Force General, and lived in San Antonio, Texas. He had to go to
New Mexico for a few days, and when he returned he was extremely
upset, so I drove from my home town of Corpus Christi to San
Antonio to hear something he said he wanted to tell me about why
he was, suddenly, "...really pissed-off at the flying saucers!"

I rushed up to San Antonio, concerned to hear why he was upset
with UFOs, because at the time I was only fifteen and a whole-
hearted George Adamski fan and, thus, convinced that all aliens
were 'friendly space brothers' with whom no one in their right
mind should be "pissed".

Arriving at my friend's home, I noted that one fender of his
beloved, MG sports car was severely damaged in a very odd way,
much as though smashed from _below_! It had been in fine shape
before his New Mexico trip.

"That's why I'm so pissed-off!", my friend declared, pointing at
the car immediately after he came to the door.

It turned out that he had been travelling on a mountain road in
New Mexico when, as he said, "...the disaster happened!"

Rounding a mountain curve, he had found a "flying saucer, clear
as could be..." confronting him at frighteningly close range. He
wanted to flee, but his engine died. He felt like time was
standing still, like he was somehow, "...suspended!"

Next thing he knew, over _two-hours_ were _missing_, and he and
his car were at an entirely different place on the same highway,
and on the opposite side. He car was pointing in the opposite
direction from that in which he had been travelling before
encountering the UFO.

My friend was totally stunned. His car seemed to have been
_dropped_ from above and onto some big rocks, one of which had,
thus, smashed his fender from _below_!

If I recall correctly, my friend had to flag down some help from
the roadway in order to get the car dislodged from the rocks and
back to the highway.

Let me be entirely clear of one point: My friend never mentioned
being abducted or remembering encountering any alien beings. He
was just very disgusted at the damage to his beloved MG car and
puzzled at what happened to the missing time, but I'm confident
all us can recognize a familiar pattern of events and phenomena.

I tried to convince my friend that UFO intelligences would not
have done those terrible things to him, based on my ill-founded
faith in Adamski.

To have accepted my friend's story and his interpretation of it
simply did not fit in with anything Adamski had been
'preaching', so in trying to protect my beliefs, I insisted my
friend had just been so frightened by coming around the curve
and seeing the object, that he had thrown on the brakes, skidded
the car around to the opposite side of the road, bounced up atop
some rocks, passed out due to shock, and awakened two hours
later.

He insisted there were no skid marks, that it had happened in
_broad_daylight_, that it was about a mile down the same highway
from where he had encountered the object, that he could not
possibly have gotten the car atop those rocks under its own
power, that he had felt that he and the car, "...were somehow
suspended...", and that the event had effected his body
adversely (but I cannot recall just in what way).

Guess the year.

O.K. It was 1955! My friend hadn't read The Interrupted
Journey, any of Budd Hopkins' books, or any other abduction
books or literature, because they were all years away in the
future.

So, to make a long story short, Luis may be right in dismissing
some claims of alleged abduction as being influenced by things
read, but in the case just described and in some other more-
evidential cases, I think he is 'barking up the wrong hypothesis
tree'.

He should escalate his hypothesis.

My San Antonio friend was absolutely puzzled and dumbfounded. So
was I.

There is possibly a very high noise-to-signal ratio in abduction
accounts, but from my friend's 1955 misfortune and other cases,
it would seem prudent to be a bit less sure that no abductions
occur, as some appear to presently believe.


Ray Stanford








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 25

               Re: Off Topic - Danger Tto UK Websites - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 22:58:58 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:29:03 -0500
Subject: Re: Off Topic - Danger Tto UK Websites - Hatch


 >From: Geoff Richardson <geoff@fastdog.karoo.co.uk>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 13:25:21 -0000
 >Subject: Off Topic - Danger To UK Websites

 >Know this is not directly related to Ufology but I believe that
 >it should be brought to the attention to all who have a website
 >with a ".co.uk" domain. ".co.uk domain wiped off face of
 >internet!"

 >Please visit - http://theregister.co.uk/content/6/29359.html


Uh Geoff?

Any chance this is a put-on?


Best wishes

- Larry








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 25

               Re: Off Topic - Danger Tto UK Websites - Shough

From: Martin Shough <mshough@parcellular.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 08:01:28 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:30:37 -0500
Subject: Re: Off Topic - Danger Tto UK Websites - Shough


 >From: Geoff Richardson <geoff@fastdog.karoo.co.uk>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 13:25:21 -0000
 >Subject: Off Topic - Danger To UK Websites

 >Know this is not directly related to Ufology but I believe that
 >it should be brought to the attention to all who have a website
 >with a ".co.uk" domain. ".co.uk domain wiped off face of
 >internet!"

 >Please visit - http://theregister.co.uk/content/6/29359.html

Nobody panic - this is ".uk.co" not '.co.uk'


MS








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 25

                  The Law A Con Man And A Good Alien Story

From: John. W. Auchettl <Praufo@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 06:04:06 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:33:29 -0500
Subject: The Law A Con Man And A Good Alien Story

List and EBK,

"Mr. Stroud reportedly told one of the SEC's lawyers that he got
the bonds from a woman in shortwave radio contact with Hatton, a
9=BD-foot tall extraterrestrial who has been circling Earth for
some time now."


NOW READ ON!


http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20030222/RJANI/T=
PBusiness/TopStories

Fraud case involving alien seems a bit spacy

By JANIS MACKEY FRAYER
Saturday, February 22, 2003 - Page B4


An Oklahoma court has entered a default judgment against a
Vancouver-area Internet promoter in a bizarre story of alleged
shams, bogus cheques, alien contact and royal connections.

The court ordered Garry Stroud to pay $2-million (U.S.) in
connection with a civil fraud case filed in 2001 by the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission. The SEC claims Mr. Stroud
fleeced about $1-million in total from at least 2,200 investors
worldwide by hawking bogus investments in different "prime bank"
trading programs and so-called Morgenthau Gold Bond Certificates
(not to be confused with the foot powder). A relief defendant in
the case, Adele Louros of Montreal, is the named holder of
several Internet payment accounts linked to Mr. Stroud,
according to the SEC.

Now initially, Mr. Stroud was as unknown to the U.S.
establishment as the Juno Awards, poutine or David Frum.
Authorities took an interest in his alleged sucker schemes only
after he introduced himself with a $9-million rubber cheque from
a non-existent Swiss bank.

The cheque was tendered as part of a purported settlement in yet
another case, this one involving an unemployed single father
named Donald English. Mr. English is credited with orchestrating
one of the greater alleged Ponzi schemes of our time.  absorbing
$50-million from the masses in just a few weeks back in 2001.
The pyramid collapsed when the payouts stopped and Mr. English
spent 40 days in an Oklahoma jail on a contempt charge for
failing to fess up where the money went.

Then along came Mr. Stroud.  seemingly out of the blue. who
offered to pay $9-million to reimburse those cheated by Mr.
English's venture. The infamous cheque bounced, but Mr. Stroud
allegedly made off with the list of investors and started
working the phones. That's when the British Columbia Securities
Commission joined the fun, too.

The more investigators sniffed, the stranger the stink they
found. Among other spectacular declarations, Mr. Stroud claimed
an interest in Peruvian debt paper worth more than $1-trillion
to the American government. Mr. Stroud reportedly told one of
the SEC's lawyers that he got the bonds from a woman in
shortwave radio contact with Hatton, a 9=BD-foot tall
extraterrestrial who has been circling Earth for some time now.
Guess it's tough to find parking for a spaceship.

Mr. Stroud did not return a phone call this week to his place in
Aldergrove, B.C., a small farming community in the Fraser Valley
Bible Belt. However, he once politely told a British reporter
that it was Mr. English who operated a Ponzi scheme -- not he.
Mr. Stroud then added, quite cheerfully, "You know, I'm the
Queen's fifth cousin."


Pity the poor lobbyist who thought it would be a great use of
resources to take Andr=E9 Ouellet to a basketball game. The chief
postmaster was spotted court side at a Toronto Raptors match
recently, looking somewhat bored by his host's ear-contorting
chatter. When half time rolled around, Mr. Ouellet promptly
rolled out.  likely to hop the next Rapidair to Ottawa from the
island airport (his weekly expense summary may confirm that).

Second-row seats go for $525.00 a pop.  meaning somebody paid
$1,050.00 (or the equivalent of 2,187.5 regular stamps for
domestic mail delivery) to entertain Mr. Ouellet for the 24
minutes he stuck around. A quick rattle of the abacus works it
out to $43.75 a minute or $2,625.00 an hour for his time -- not
your typical public service rate.


READ GIVING SKI GROUP A LIFT

It seemed rather fitting that ski racing legend Ken Read made a
speech this week to the Commercial Finance Association. The CFA
brings together that population of Crazy Canucks that deals in
risk management, insolvency and asset-based lending. And the
former World Cup champion is spearheading a restructuring
himself these days as the new head of Alpine Canada.

When Mr. Read took the gig in May, the organization and skier
morale was sliding faster than he did at Val d'Is=E8re in 1975.
Since then, he has landed new corporate sponsors like Canadian
Imperial Bank of Commerce, forged training partnerships with
European countries, and made key acquisitions, including former
national coach Max Gartner.

The result? Canada's first world downhill championship in a
decade and a promising young squad that can focus on competing
instead of surviving. It costs about $40,000 a year to put a kid
on the national ski team.

The dinner was sponsored by Congress Financial and GE Capital,
with a big contingent from Bennett Jones LLP.  including former
national team member turned legaleer, Perry Spitznagel. In the
Q&A, Mr. Read revealed he skis on a pair of Salomon 176s and can
still get a free drink at any bar in Kitzbuhel.


TALES OF OLD MONEY AND NEW FUNDING

Profile raised: Edward Rogers (the junior one). The czar-in-
  training made his first presentation to the analyst community
as co-chief of Rogers Cable at the big RBC Dominion Securities
technology hoedown in Whistler, B.C. Viewers report decent
reception. Money raised: $50,000 by Women in Capital Markets.
About 1,000 financial wonks (of both genders) squeezed into the
Royal Ontario Museum this week for the annual Vinifera wine
gala.

Money raised will fund WCM scholarships and outreach programs
aimed at convincing young women there is more to Bay Street than
cigar smoke and cheap ties. Honestly.

Janis Mackey Frayer is the host of The Close on Report on
Business Television.

-end-


John. W. Auchettl
PRA

Phenomena Research Australia [PRA]
P.O. Box 523, Mulgrave, Victoria, Australia, 3170
Australian & Asia UFO
1961-2003 - 42 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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 25

                  Re: Zilch Empiricism And UFOs - Friedman

From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@rogers.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:02:43 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:50:46 -0500
Subject: Re: Zilch Empiricism And UFOs - Friedman


 >From: Vince White <Vinceomni@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 20:55:18 EST
 >Subject: Zilch Empiricism And UFOs

 >Greetings all;

 >This is addressed to those who have shredded empiricism with
 >lazy smug assertions that the Columbia tragedy has nothing to do
 >with UFOs. Nothing?

 >A careful examination of many quality observations near the
 >Tejon ranch in the Tehachapi's in the late 80's indicate that
 >disc and triangular shaped objects were seen performing non
 >aerodynamic movements on many nights. They were seen emerging
 >from a NORTHROP facility without alarm or interference from
 >Edwards AFB.

 >These sightings occurred in the midst of US aerospace R&D
 >facilities. Either they were ours or theirs.

 >There is of course another facility where long before Mr.
 >Lazar's fame, where objects behaving like UFOs i.e. zig-zagging,
 >sudden high G maneuvers etc. were regularly observed. Again,
 >either theirs or ours.

 >This clearly should suggest that secret testing of field
 >propulsion vehicles very well may have occurred. Zilch
 >empiricism leads to zero connection to Columbia. But honest
 >empiricism leads to the logical possibility that some agency
 >possesses an alternative to reactive propulsion.

 >Are there empiricists willing to speak up on this?


Vince,

I have been pointing out for decades that Dr. Stewart Way built
and tested an electromagnetic submarine at U. of Calif., Santa
Barbara, in the mid 1960s and that a Japanese conglomerate built
an EM ship using superconducting magnets much later.

Replace seawater, an electrically conducting fluid, with ionized
air (plasma) also an electrically conducting fluid. There are no
moving parts but interactions between electric and magnetic
field to produce thrust, reduce drag and heating, change radar
profile, eliminate sonic boom production.

A literature search which I did while at McDonnell Douglas in
1969 turned up about 900 related technical reports of which
about 90% were classified. Such systems would not be simple to
develop.

None of this establishes a connection between UFOs and the
Columbia disaster. We have certainly known for a long time that
there is a substantial black budget for the development of all
kinds of new expensive classified technologies.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 25

                  Re: Tell Ya What I'm Gonna Do! - Hamilton

From: Bill Hamilton <skyman22@fastmail.fm>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 06:12:24 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:52:37 -0500
Subject: Re: Tell Ya What I'm Gonna Do! - Hamilton


 >From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net>
 >To: UFO Updates <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 19:50:49 -0700
 >Subject: Tell Ya What I'm Gonna Do!

 >Step right up folks! Don't be shy! Tell ya whad I'm gunna do.
 >Fer a measley, paultry sum of $100... that's U. S. dollars,
 >folks. I'll sit in my office and channel through Mon-Ka yer
 >personal alien spirit guide.

 >Absolutely the finest alien spirit guide available guaranteed to
 >tell me your future financial status as it relates to the event.

 >I promise that no flashlights will be used, nor crystals of any
 >kind...just channeled energy from my superior brain power to the
 >limitless universe and Mon-Ka the Magnificent.

 >I guarantee my satisfaction 100%, so how can you go wrong? Ya
 >can't folks! Why the miniscule sum of $100 will get your desires
 >through me to Mon-Ka itself. Only I can communicate with the
 >great Mon-Ka, so get your orders in early folks.

 >Privately email me where to send your $100 (cash only please). A
 >donation from your gift will be given to my favorite personal
 >charity!

 >Why pay good money for hokey flashlight parties in the boondocks
 >and psychic mumbo jumbo from people you don't even know? That's
 >why you should trust me to be your intermediary to Mon-Ka,
 >Soltec and Flapwapple of Saturn.

 >Offer limited to the first 100 million who send in their $100.
 >Hurry! Offer Ends Soon!

This is very disappointing. I used to hear the voice of Mon-ka
for free. He told us all sorts of wonderful things about
ourselves. Soltec came through too, but Flapwapple was just not
tuned to our frequency.

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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 25

                                Jerry Black?

From: A. J. Gevaerd - Revista UFO <gevaerd@ufo.com.br>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 11:38:44 -0300
Fwd Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 17:03:39 -0500
Subject: Jerry Black?


I wonder if Jerry Black is still oin UFO UpDates, and if so, I
ask him to contact me in private: gevaerd@ufo.com.br. I
appreciate if anyone here can give me his address.


Thanks!

A. J.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 25

                  Re: Tell Ya What I'm Gonna Do! - Connors

From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:07:28 -0700
Fwd Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 17:08:23 -0500
Subject: Re: Tell Ya What I'm Gonna Do! - Connors


 >From: Bill Hamilton <skyman22@fastmail.fm>
 >To: UFO Updates <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 06:12:24 -0800
 >Subject: Re: Tell Ya What I'm Gonna Do! - Hamilton

 >>From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net>
 >>To: UFO Updates <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 19:50:49 -0700
 >>Subject: Tell Ya What I'm Gonna Do!

 >>Step right up folks! Don't be shy! Tell ya whad I'm gunna do.
 >>Fer a measley, paultry sum of $100... that's U. S. dollars,
 >>folks. I'll sit in my office and channel through Mon-Ka yer
 >>personal alien spirit guide.


<snip>

 >This is very disappointing. I used to hear the voice of Mon-ka
 >for free. He told us all sorts of wonderful things about
 >ourselves. Soltec came through too, but Flapwapple was just not
 >tuned to our frequency.

 >Bill H.

I understand your disappointment, Bill, I really do. However, it
is the way of things now...you know, kick backs to Mon-Ka, etc.
They felt used by giving away thier secrets for free, so I
stepped in and used good old Capitalism and convinced them
they'd get a cut of the profits. I've got an iron-clad contract
with them now, but it expires in 3068 N.E.

It is easy to give them their cut too! I just throw the money up
in the air and what doesn't come down is obviously theirs! <G>

Flapwhapple is the Grand Peekapoo of Saturn. You didn't hear
from it because earthlings are beneath it's dignity. The only
reason I communicate is because I still have bootleg Gripple
available. <G>


Wendy Connors

So, there ya have it, but whadda ya got?









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 25

                    Re: John Alexander On Greer? - White

From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 11:33:48 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 17:12:46 -0500
Subject: Re: John Alexander On Greer? - White


 >From: Paul Kimball <Kimballwood@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 17:16:04 EST
 >Subject: Re: John Alexander On Greer?

 >>From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 07:01:31 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: John Alexander On Greer?

 >>>From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 23:41:57 -0500
 >>>Subject: John Alexander On Greer?

 ><snip>

 >Eleanor:

 >It is not obvious, and it is not unarguably clear. It IS
 >conspiracy theory - you know, the kind that debunkers point to
 >when they want to ridicule and undermine the work of serious UFO
 >researchers.

 >A short example... when I was at the 2001 MUFON symposium, in
 >the dealer room, just a couple tables down from Stan Friedman
 >(for whom I have a great deal of respect, even if we sometimes
 >disagree) was a group of folks straight out of the late 1960s
 >who were trying to convince everyone who walked past that the US
 >government was controlling us using devices mounted in trucks
 >that zapped our brains with some kind of... well, brain zapper.
 >No doubt they too believed that their "theory" was unarguable,
 >and obvious. I wondered how they had escaped the effects of the
 >brain zapper, but that's another story. When I asked them,
 >however, they accused me of being a government agent!

 >These people, by their very presence, made Stan and others look
 >a bit loopy just for being in the same room. Unfortunately,
 >statements like the one you make above have the same general
 >effect, and provide the debunkers with more amunition than they
 >could ever muster on their own.


So how does reminding people that the government has lied and
lied again on UFO (and other) matters make anyone look 'loopy'?
I won't go into details here, but I had a long exchange of
emails with John Alexander, in which he was clearly lying too.
This was based on things I know first hand, and didn't simply
'read it somewhere'.

Should we sit back when a known liar makes statements which have
a high likelihood of being untrue?


Eleanor White








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 25

                  Re: Another Abduction Question - Hamilton

From: Bill Hamilton <skyman22@fastmail.fm>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 08:49:29 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 17:16:17 -0500
Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question - Hamilton


 >From: Ray Stanford <dinotracker@earthlink.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 01:31:34 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question

 >>From: Luis R. Gonzalez <lrgm@arrakis.es>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 22:25:26 +0100
 >>Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question

 >>>From: Ray Stanford <dinotracker@earthlink.net>
 >>>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 14:36:11 -0500
 >>>Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question

 >>>Using the principle of 'reductio ad absurdum' to Luis R.
 >>>Gonzalez's methodology, we might conclude that the lunar
 >>>missions were hoaxes because Jules Verne prescientently, it
 >>>would seem, depicted a launch to the moon from Florida (in his
 >>>'From The Earth To The Moon'), from where the lunar missions
 >>>were launched.

 >And Luis R. Gonzalez responded:

 >>The question about the similarities between abduction and SF
 >>stories is not a methodology, it is a _fact_ ... [SNIP]

 >It is a method of debunking claims of alien encounters. The
 >significance Luis seems to access to speculative associations
 >between fiction and claims of alien abduction are only unfounded
 >speculation, seemingly constrained by little else than what
 >might be taken as his own personal desire to 'explain' what he
 >finds unacceptable.

<snip>

 >So, to make a long story short, Luis may be right in dismissing
 >some claims of alleged abduction as being influenced by things
 >read, but in the case just described and in some other more-
 >evidential cases, I think he is 'barking up the wrong hypothesis
 >tree'.

 >He should escalate his hypothesis.

 >My San Antonio friend was absolutely puzzled and dumbfounded. So
 >was I.

 >There is possibly a very high noise-to-signal ratio in abduction
 >accounts, but from my friend's 1955 misfortune and other cases,
 >it would seem prudent to be a bit less sure that no abductions
 >occur, as some appear to presently believe.

I entirely agree with Ray. I hesitate to mention something as
personal as my own wife's experiences with this phenomena which
was not restricted to "missing time" or abduction, but had a
number of complex elements enter into it.

When she was previously married she had a fully conscious
experience in 1991, also partly witnessed by her husband. This
involved an intrusion into the house by 2 typical Grays, balls
of light that glided through the house unobstructed, the
presence of many lights over her 2.5 acre property seen through
the north-facing kitchen window, and then a subsequent period of
missing time for a period of about 4 hours. There was one
subsequent episode also witnessed by her former husband. I have
witnessed some strange episodes, not that dramatic, that have
convinced me that the phenomena she described is real. The 1991
incident was also seen by a neighbor at a distance who could see
the lights over her property.

At least some of these encounters are real and are reported by
credible and observant people. I do not think they can be
relegated to fantasy, hallucination, or other psychological
disturbances without stretching the reported facts even though
some abduction reports could be so classified as the evidence
warrants.


-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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 25

                  Re: Another Abduction Question - Friedman

From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys@rogers.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:11:32 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 17:19:02 -0500
Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question - Friedman


 >From: Luis R. Gonzalez <lrgm@arrakis.es>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 22:25:22 +0100
 >Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 16:53:03 +0000
 >>Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 22:46:30 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question - Hall

 >>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 15:57:22 +0000
 >>>Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question

 >>>From: Luis R. Gonzalez <lrgm@arrakis.es>
 >>>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 16:44:29 +0100
 >>>Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question

 >>>However, my main point is this: Heinlein, Asimov, and the other
 >>>SF "greats" clearly represent some of our most creative and
 >>imaginative writers (though I am personally not a big fan of
 >>>SF). A vast SF literature exists in which they have imagined and
 >>>written stories about almost anything imaginable that might be
 >>>possible and might actually occur eventually. Under these
 >>>circumstances, it would be very surprising if some (obviously
 >>>select and not broadly representative) elements of one or more
 >>>SF stories did _not_ resemble some elements of abductions. If
 >>>you pursue this logic, you can use resemblances to SF to
 >>>discredit just about any anomalous data in any area. A very
 >>>useful, but illogical, technique.

 >>James McDonald once characterized the reasoning processes of
 >>Phil Klass as "argument by concatenation."

 >>You merely juxtapose two sets of things without making any clear
 >>argument as to why they are or must be causally connected. This
 >>statement only reiterates your belief and does not tell me any
 >>reason why it must be the answer. In fact, you have not
 >>responded to my argument that it would be surprising if such
 >>similarities did not exist. Possibilities are only that, not
 >>established facts.

 >One of the thing that more surprise me about some "hard"
 >ufologists is how they do not want to realise that the UFO
 >phenomenon is just part of a "continuum". It coexists with BVM
 >visions, ghosts, cryptozoological creatures, "brain control"
 >victims, etc.. Their evidences are all of the same degree.
 >Besides that, when I talk about the UFO phemomenon I refer also
 >to the high percentage 80-90%? of cases which had
 >"conventional" explanations. You cannot dismiss all that and say
 >that your few selected cases have an ET origin, and everything
 >else is _not_ real.

There surely are a  lot of proclamations here with no data to
support them. Who in the world of scientific ufology claims that
"everything else is not real"? We say that after sifting and
sorting and seeking conventional exclamations, we find a
substantial number of cases involving structured manufactured
flying craft behaving in ways that, especially back in the
immediate post war, era we Earthlings could not duplicate .
Therefore, they were built somewhere else.

The large scale studies such as Blue Book Special Report 14
(3201 case) revealed that the better the quality of the sighting
the more likely to be listed as an UNKNOWN (TruUfo). On the
basis of 6 different characteristics, the probability that the
UNKNOWNS were just missed KNOWNS was less than 1%. The average
UNKNOWN was observed for longer than the average KNOWN. Clearly
we must distinguish between the witness who totally unexpectedly
observes something that is strange to him, and the investigator
who has time to check all kinds of data before reaching a
conclusion. The fact that most sightings can indeed be explained
establishes that most people are good observers but not
necessarily good interpreters. There is no contnuum here. The
gold miner knows gold is worth mining of there is an ounce of
gold per ton of ore. Luis would say it is 99.99% dross, it is
all dross..

 >Of course, within a big set of data you can always find
 >coincidences. Sometimes those coincidences are just random,
 >others there is some causal connection. But when the volume of
 >coincidences is high and they go from simple details to main
 >themes, the probability of such causal connection is also high.

 >To me, the biggest coincidence is that dozens and dozens of
 >alien civilizations have decide to visit us just in the
 >extremely short period of time we can identify them as such...
 >and then, do nothing!!

Who says that all these visitors are not part of the same
galactic Association ? When was the last time that Earthlings
showed that soon they would be visiting the stars taking their
brand of friendship (Hostility) with them? Every civilization in
the neighborhood would certainly be concerned about this
primitive society whose major activity is tribal warfare.
Earthlings from many nations convened in Salt Lake City a while
back for sporting events at that..

As I have said before, the 4th rule for debunkers is do one's
research by Proclamation, investigation is too much
trouble. Maintaining a gray basket is a necessity.


Stan Friedman

www.v-j-enterprises.com/sfpage.html








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 25

                    Re: Tell Ya What I'm Gonna Do! - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 18:33:53 +0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 17:20:46 -0500
Subject: Re: Tell Ya What I'm Gonna Do! - Hall


 >From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net>
 >To: UFO Updates <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 19:50:49 -0700
 >Subject: Tell Ya What I'm Gonna Do!

 >Step right up folks! Don't be shy! Tell ya whad I'm gunna do.
 >Fer a measley, paultry sum of $100... that's U. S. dollars,
 >folks. I'll sit in my office and channel through Mon-Ka yer
 >personal alien spirit guide.

 >Absolutely the finest alien spirit guide available guaranteed to
 >tell me your future financial status as it relates to the event.

 >I promise that no flashlights will be used, nor crystals of any
 >kind...just channeled energy from my superior brain power to the
 >limitless universe and Mon-Ka the Magnificent.

 >I guarantee my satisfaction 100%, so how can you go wrong? Ya
 >can't folks! Why the miniscule sum of $100 will get your desires
 >through me to Mon-Ka itself. Only I can communicate with the
 >great Mon-Ka, so get your orders in early folks.

 >Privately email me where to send your $100 (cash only please). A
 >donation from your gift will be given to my favorite personal
 >charity!

 >Why pay good money for hokey flashlight parties in the boondocks
 >and psychic mumbo jumbo from people you don't even know? That's
 >why you should trust me to be your intermediary to Mon-Ka,
 >Soltec and Flapwapple of Saturn.

 >Offer limited to the first 100 million who send in their $100.
 >Hurry! Offer Ends Soon!

 >Wendy Connors
 >Channel Baron to Mon-Ka

 >Serious ufological research by appointment only

List,

Beware of false prophets who claim to be the one true channel to
Mon-Ka.

Mon-Ka once spoke to me through my windshield wipers on a rainy
trip to a UFO conference in Connecticut. I have a witness
associated with the Fund for UFO Research whose initials are
RPS, and who also heard Mon-Ka speak. He had a squeaky voice,
but his message was clear. He said that all channeled messages
were false, including this 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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 25

                       UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 8 Number 9

From: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:26:29 +0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 17:28:29 -0500
Subject: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 8 Number 9


Posted on behalf of Joseph Trainor.

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

       UFO ROUNDUP
Volume 8, Number 9
February 26, 2003
Editor: Joseph Trainor

http://www.ufoinfo.com/roundup/


EXPERTS HUNT FOR CLUES
IN COLUMBIA DISASTER

       Both NASA and the inquiry board hunted for clues that
would identify the cause of the disaster that befell the
space shuttle Columbia on Saturday, February 1, 2003.
       Scientist Tom Hutter noticed an intriguing anomaly at
the time of the Columbia disaster.  In an exclusive email to
UFO Roundup, Hutter stated that he had studied "an X-ray
flux chart from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) website, which includes GOES 8 and 10
satellite data from within the time window of the shuttle
disaster."
       "Being the (GOES 8) chart is using Universal Time (UT),
the (X-ray) spikes must be calculated to the local time of
the reported incident," Hutter stated, "I don't know what
effects X-ray flux would have on the shuttle, but there
certainly was some heavy activity at the time."
       As the Columbia was flying over California on its final
approach, it was struck by an unusual purple energy bolt,
which was photographed by an amateur astronomer in San
Francisco.  (See UFO Roundup, volume 8, number 7 for
February 12, 2003, "Columbia destroyed by weird energy
bolt," page 1.)
       One theory is that the bolt was a blue jet, a little-
known electrical phenomenon of the upper atmosphere.
Atmospheric scientist Walter Lyons of FMA Research in
Colorado described blue jets as "upward lightning strikes."
The high incidence of X-rays, as reported by Hutter, might
have created an environment conducive to the triggering of a
blue jet.
       On Monday, February 17, 2003, "NASA asked Western (USA)
farmers and ranchers to watch for pieces of the space
shuttle Columbia during spring plowing.  Officials said
fewer pieces are being found two weeks after the disaster."
       "Pieces of the shuttle began falling to Earth while
Columbia was streaking over California, the (inquiry) board
also said.  The shuttle disintegrated over East Texas.  No
debris has been found west of Granbury, Texas, which is
roughly 20 miles (32 kilometers) west of Fort Worth."
       "More than 2,600 pieces of the shuttle are in a
warehouse at Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral,
Florida, and 10,000 more are on their way" from the
collection point at Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana.
"By weight, those pieces represent only a 'tiny, tiny
fraction' of the shuttle's 178,000 pounds," Harold Gehman,
chairman of the inquiry board, said.
       On Tuesday, February 18, 2003, the inquiry board
admitted that "the space shuttle Columbia was shedding
pieces as it approached California."
       "The comment by James Hallock, chief of the (USA)
Department of Transportation's aviation safety division,
confirmed what some videos seem to suggest."
       "'We have been poring over the films,' Hallock said,
'From the timing I've seen right now, it does look like
things were beginning to come from the shuttle as it
approached right about California' on its re-entry path."
       Also on Tuesday, "Shuttle Columbia's nose landing gear
has been found largely intact in woods near Toledo Bend
Reservoir," located on the Texas-Louisiana state line.
"Navy Capt. Chris Murray said residents found the gear
Tuesday and notified divers who were searching the lake for
shuttle debris."
       On Thursday, February 20, 2003, "search teams combed
the desert 100 miles (160 kilometers) north of Las Vegas
(Nevada) in search of debris from space shuttle Columbia.
Air-traffic control radar led investigators to the spot."
       "The search focused near Caliente, Nev. (population
1,123).  The shuttle flew south of Caliente three minutes
before it disintegrated over Texas on Feb. 1.  All seven
crewmembers perished."
       "During Columbia's liftoff, not one but three chunks of
debris flew off the 15-story external fuel tank and hit the
orbiter's left wing, according to a document NASA made
public Friday," February 21, 2003.
       "The document, dated Jan. 24, is third in a series of
reports that analysts at Boeing, a major shuttle contractor,
prepared to help NASA judge if the debris endangered the
shuttle and its crew of seven astronauts."
       "The first report talked of 'a large piece of debris,'
not three.  All three reports, completed while Columbia was
in orbit reassured NASA that any damage from the debris
would not threaten the flight."
       "NASA officials said Friday the new Boeing report was
part of a number of documents being released slowly in
response to the Freedom of Information Act requests from
journalists and others."
       "Officials also said the fuselage of the space shuttle
Columbia, probably including the crew cabin, remained
largely intact for at least a half-minute (30 seconds) after
pieces of the left wing began breaking away and NASA lost
contact with the astronauts."
       "A NASA spokesman said the space agency believes the
final breakup of Columbia came 32 seconds after voice
communication was lost."
       "NASA said Friday the analysis of sporadic telemetry
data transmitted during the 32 seconds is far from complete,
but engineers have extracted information from the first five
seconds and the last two seconds."
       "Significantly, the last two seconds show that the
shuttle had lost all pressure in the three hydraulic systems
for the left wing.  A breakup of the wing would have allowed
hydraulic fluid to drain away.  All other systems were
functioning normally in the final two seconds."  (See USA
Today for February 18, 2003, "NASA asks farmers to watch for
debris," page 3A; for February 19, 2003, "Inquiry panel
suspects that breach hurt space shuttle," page 9A; and
February 21, 2003, "NASA searches for shuttle debris in
Nevada," page 2A; and the Duluth, Minn. News-Tribune for
February 19, 2003, "Pieces were lost as Columbia reached
California," page 2A; for February 20, 2003, "Columbia's
front landing gear found," page 3A; and February 22, 2003,
"Three hunks of debris hit shuttle," page 7A.)


LARGE SILVER UFO HOVERS
OVER SCOTTISH MALL

       "The appearance of a UFO in the sky above Kingsgate
Retail Park" in South Lanarkshire, Scotland, UK "last week
caused spooked drivers to bump their cars."
       "Several people reported seeing a large silver object
in the area as they drove past at around 8:45 a.m. last
Wednesday," February 12, 2003.
       "Drivers were so distracted by the bizarre sighting
that at least two minor bumps (collisions in the USA--J.T.)
were reported, as the attention of motorists wandered from
the more mundane forms of transportation before them on the
road."
       "A local man, who did not want to be named, contacted
the News to describe the experience of a friend who was
driving toward the retail park ( mall in the USA--J.T.) at
the time."
       "He said, 'My friend saw something hovering, which was
silver in appearance and looked like one of the dishes you
see on the side of television transmitters.'"
       "'It was large, and it was pulsating.  He wasn't the
only one who saw it, as you couldn't have missed it.  He saw
it and thought, Good God! and was really shaken by the whole
thing.'"
       "'Then the object suddenly disappeared.  It was so
strange.  My friend thinks the accidents of Kingsgate were
the result of people seeing this thing, as well.'"
       "The sighting also intrigued the East Kilbride UFO
Club, whose members were warned in advance that they might
be able to spot something strange in the sky."
       "Colleagues in Cumbernauld had seen a similar object
around half an hour previously and alerted their South
Lanarkshire counterparts that it appeared to be heading in
their direction."
       "Lee Close, of the Anglo-Scottish UFO Research Agency
(ASURA), has been investigating last week's events in tandem
with the local UFO club."
       "He said, 'This is the first time I've come across a
UFO causing a car crash, although I'm aware of it having
happened in America before.'"
       "'People in Scotland tend to think, Oh, there's
something in the sky, and just carry on, so the fact that
it's caused two fender benders is quite unusual.  The fact
that it's in daylight interests us immensely, too."  (See
the Lanarkshire Home News for February 19, 2003, "UFO
spotted over Kingsgate Retail Park during morning rush
hour."  Many thanks to Loren Coleman for forwarding this
newspaper article.)


TWO LUMINOUS UFOs SEEN
IN FORT COLLINS, COLORADO

       On Monday, February 17, 2003, at 10:35 p.m., eyewitness
M.D. spotted two luminous UFOs in Fort Collins, Colorado
(population 118,652).  "I just saw them hovering over," M.D.
reported, "They would move higher and lower according to the
clouds.  When a cloud was near, they moved up.  And when it
passed, they would appear closer to the ground again."
       "I saw two bright lights very close together.  They
would come together and form one light.  I got binoculars to
see a closer view.  There were red, blue, yellow and green
lights.  It seemed to have a triangular formation with a red
light on top and many other different colors on the bottom.
There were at least five (UFOs) in the area."
       "They were moving quite a bit in the same area but
stayed in the same vicinity for a substantial amount of
time.  Every once in a while, they seemed to shut off lights
and/or have bright lights circling around the object.  They
seemed to be tilting in my direction."  (Email Form Report)


UFOs SEEN FREQUENTLY
OVER WISCONSIN

       On Saturday, February 1, 2003, the female witness
reported, "My son and I were visiting a friend of mine in
Weyauwega, Wis. (population 1,806).  The general location
was just north of Main Street on the east side of Highway
110 and south of the Wisconsin Central Railroad tracks.  My
boy was sledding in the snow, and I was taking pictures.  It
was in the evening and starting to get dark pretty quickly
(estimate: about 5:45 p.m.--J.T.).  My son pointed up to the
sky, and we noticed some lights coming in from what I
believe was the southwest."
       "At this point, I just pointed the camera and took
shots.  The object really gave us the impression of a
balloon, except for the lights.  The object passed almost
directly overhead and then headed south towards the train
tracks.  As the object passed, I could make out more of a
disk shape than a balloon shape.  I just remember my son
asking me over and over what it was, and I didn't have a
clue."
       Weyauwega, Wis. is just north of the intersections of
Highways 10 and 110, about 50 miles (80 kilometers) west of
Green Bay.
       Two days later, on Monday, February 3, 2003, at 9 p.m.,
eyewitness Michael J. was at his home in Milwaukee, Wis.
(population 596,974) and "was letting my dog outside.  When
I looked up, I saw a strange light (that) almost looked like
a falling star in the sky.  Thinking it was, I watched it
for a while.  But, unlike a falling star, it moved very fast
to one location and stayed still for about five minutes.
Then moved very slowly for a while, moving north.  It
stopped again and just hovered, so I grabbed my camera and
tried to take a photo of it.  After my camera flash, the sky
(itself) seemed to flash back lightly."
       Michael said he saw the UFO "around 62nd Avenue and
Bluemount Avenue in Milwaukee.  It was white and yellow.
Now, I'm not crazy or on any kind of drugs, but this is the
first time I've ever seen anything strange."
       The next day, Tuesday, February 4, 2003, Thomas E. "was
driving west on Old Sauk Road in Madison, Wis. (population
208,054)," the state capital, "when I saw ahead of me what I
thought was a plane.  As I continued west, the object
appeared to be stationary, and I drove under it."
       "I estimate it to have been 30 to 40 feet (9 to 12
meters) in length, maybe 10 to 15 feet (3 to 4.5 meters)
wide, hovering at an altitude of 200 to 300 feet (60 to 90
meters).  It appeared to be shaped roughly like a boat.
There were lights or windows running along each of the
sides, and there appeared to be people at the windows...at
least black circles in the 'windows' which I interpreted to
be occupants.  There appeared to be about 10 'occupants' on
either side of the craft.  The craft was itself dark except
for the yellow lights in the windows.  None of the lights
were blinking, and the craft made no sound."  (Many thanks
to John Hoppe of UFO Wisconsin for these reports.)


YOUNG MOTHER SPOTS A
UFO IN SMITHERS, B.C.

       On Thursday, February 20, 2003, at 2:40 a.m., the
female witness "was up with her baby at 2:40 a.m. and has a
great view of Hudson Bay Mountain in Smithers (population
5,624)," a small city on Canada's province of British
Columbia.  "Her blinds were semi-open and allowed her to see
a very bright light crossing the mountain, and then coming
to a complete stop over one of the longest (ski) runs, which
is called 'Cold Smoke.'  She went on to say that the light
was 'dead center over the run,' and wondered if it was just
hovering, or 'maybe' it had landed."
       "She also reported hearing a clicking sound from the
direction of the object.  The object moved from east to west
before coming to a complete stop over the run.
Approximately five minutes went by, and a Canadian Pacific
train could be heard coming in the distance, and the object
disappeared, in her words, 'turned off.'"  Many thanks to
Canadian ufologist Brian Vike for this report.)

THREE GREAT NEW UFO
BOOKS ARE NOW ON SALE

       Three UFO books have recently gone on sale, and they're
a must for any ufologist's library.
       UFO DEFENSE TACTICS: WEATHER SHIELD TO CHEMTRAILS by
Alicia K. Johnstone, Ph.D. (Hancock House Publishers, $14.95
U.S.) is a small but information-packed book that discusses
the UFO sightings of 1995 through 1997 in explicit detail.
One chapter has a detailed section on chemtrails, which
Alicia defines as "chemically augmented contrails," plus a
five-page gallery of crystal-clear chemtrail photographs
that might just convince even the skeptics.
       The book opens on October 29, 1996, with Alicia driving
south on Highway 3 in Kitsap County, Washington state.
Approaching the U.S. Navy submarine base in Bangor, Wash.,
she sees an unusual object in the sky.  This proves to be
the opening gun in a journey of discovery that brings Alicia
face-to-face with some of the most unusual phenomena in
contemporary American life, including weather modification,
UFOs and tornadoes, hovering fireballs and the STS-96 space
shuttle mission.  For the dedicated ufologist, this book is
definitely a keeper.  (The book's ISBN number is 0-88839-
501-9.  Readers can order online by sending an email to
sales@hancockhouse.com.  Otherwise, write to Hancock House
Publishers, 1431 Harrison Avenue, Blaine, Wash. 98230-5005.)
       UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS: STARCRAFT by Der Voron
(PublishAmerica Book Publishers, $19.95 U.S.) opens with a
little-known close encounter of the pre-Roswell era.  During
the Battle of Kursk in July 1943, Lt. Gennadi Zhalaginov of
the Soviet Red Army spotted "a dark egg-shaped object that
appeared above our (artillery) battery" and "rushed by at
great speed; its middle part pulsated."  Der discusses some
of the best-known UFO incidents and spends some time on "the
UFO crashes," notably the Kalahari Desert event of 1989 and
the capture of the seven aliens at Varginha, Minas Gerais
state, Brazil on January 20, 1996.
       In Chapter 4, Der identifies and provides drawings of
31 models of extraterrestrial (ET) "starcraft," including
classic saucers, spherical objects, egg-shaped objects,
elongated cylinders, Saturn-shaped objects, toy-like tops
and even a vimana straight out of the Hindu Mahabharata.  In
Chapter 5, he outlines theories of what constitutes a UFO
"powerplant"--portable fusion reactors and energy
capacitors.  Der's book is very well-written and has the
unique quality of appealing to both the first-time reader
and the long-time "saucer buff."  This is a very handy book
to have, if ever you spot an unusual object in the daytime
sky and want to find out what it is.  (The book's ISBN
number is 1-59129-738-9.  To order, visit the website at
www.publishamerica.com.)
       HITLER'S FLYING SAUCERS by Henry Stevens (Adventures
Unlimited Press, $18.95 U.S.) dumps the hypothesis of ET
origin entirely and argues that UFOs were first developed by
Germany's Third Reich during World War II.  According to
Stevens, development of the saucers was a wartime necessity.
When the Russians re-captured the Caucasus and knocked out
the oil fields of Romania, cutting off the Reich's fuel
supplies, German scientists, notably Karl Ramsauer, Ludwig
Prandtl, Kurt Deibner and Erich Schumann, had to come up
with a revolutionary new means of powering aircraft.  The
first crude saucers flew in late 1943.  Reichsfuehrer-SS
Heinrich Himmler took control of the project and set up a
special "saucer factory" at the German rocket research
center at Peenemunde on the Baltic.  The project was under
the control of Himmler's trusted aide, Hans Kammler, 42, who
mysteriously disappeared in February 1945.
(Editor's Note:  Kammler was an architect who drew up the
construction plans for the Vernichtungenslager (German for
destruction camp) at Auschwitz-Birkenau in southern Poland.)
       Stevens takes "man-made saucer" research to the next
level and provides an impressive number of source documents
relating to the secret SS project.  His book is far more
detailed than either Man-Made UFOs 1944-1994 or Renato
Vesco's Intercept UFO.  He also raises disturbing questions
about some of the strange events at the end of World War II.
Such as "the last saucers out of Berlin."  Who--or what--was
aboard the four silvery Flugschieben that lifted off the
runway at Templehof the afternoon of April 24, 1945?  And
where did they go?  (The book's ISBN number is 1-931882-13-
4.  Order online at www.adventuresunlimitedpress.com or send
an email to aup@frontiernet.net.  Or send a letter to
Adventures Unlimited Press, One Adventure Place, Kempton,
Illinois, USA 60946.)

       Join us in seven days for more UFO, Fortean and
paranormal news from around the planet Earth, brought to you
by "the paper that goes home--UFO Roundup."  See you next
week!

UFO ROUNDUP: Copyright 2003 by Masinaigan Productions, all
rights reserved.  Readers may post news items from UFO
Roundup on their websites or in news groups provided that
they credit the newsletter and its editor by name and list
the date of issue in which the item first appeared.

E-Mail Reports to: Joseph Trainor <Masinaigan@aol.com>
or use the Sighting Report Form at:

http://www.ufoinfo.com/forms/form_sighting.htm

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Website comments: John Hayes <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>

UFOINFO: http://www.ufoinfo.com

Official Archives of UFO Roundup, AUFORN Australian
UFO Reports and Experiences, UFO + PSI Magazine, plus
archives of Filer's Files, Oz Files, UFO News UK and
UFO Sightings Italia.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
UFO Roundup is only sent to subscribers.
If you wish to unsubscribe or feel you have received
the bulletin in error, please write to:

   <webmaster@ufoinfo.com>

With the subject: Unsubscribe UFO Roundup.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 25

                 19 'Close Encounters' In Fife Being Probed

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 17:37:37 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 17:37:37 -0500
Subject: 19 'Close Encounters' In Fife Being Probed

Source: The Evening Telegraph - Dundee, Scotland

http://www.eveningtelegraph.co.uk/ShowStory.cfm?StoryID=31693

Tuesday, February 25, 2003

19 'Close Encounters' In Fife Being Probed

An appeal for witnesses to a string of alleged 'close
encounters' in North East Fife has led to a "massive public
response" with UFO investigators currently looking into 19
reports in Fife and a string of unexplained sightings across
Central Scotland.

Ex-navy submariner Lee Close, who is chief investigator with the
Anglo Scottish UFO Research Agency (ASUFORA), revealed today
that since the local Press highlighted alleged UFO sightings
last year, the number of calls and emails to him continued
flooding in.

He remained open minded as to whether many of these reports
could be explained by astronomical or aircraft factors. It was
also his team's job to sift out any potential hoaxes.

Encouraged

But he was encouraged that people seeking answers were still
prepared to come forward and share what they had seen -
  especially when many individuals often felt embarrassed to do
so.

Speaking from West Lothian, Mr Close said, "The reports keep
coming in and some go back many years.

"They include a 'small gold sphere' seen from Dundee about five
miles off RAF Leuchars, and a man who said that on two or three
occasions he saw several large, cigar-shaped objects hovering
and then disappearing in the Ladybank area when he travelled
daily between Dundee and Glenrothes between 1989 and 2002.

"We are also looking at an astonishing case from Ballingry in
1958. A lady, now 80, can recollect the event like it happened
yesterday.

Aliens

"She said an orange, long, cigar-shaped object followed a jogger
called John Hodge. It was witnessed by several 12 year-olds."

Seven years ago two local women made headlines around the world
after claiming they encountered aliens at Drummy Wood, Freuchie.

UFO enthusiasts are now being drawn to the area in renewed
numbers following a new "sighting" by a retired US army captain
and his family during a visit to the area last summer.

Mr Close said this was still being investigated, but he was also
intrigued by the number of other alleged unexplained sightings
in the area.

[UFO UpDates thanks www.http://anomalist.com for the lead]







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 25

                    Re: Another Abduction Question - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 21:35:57 +0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 17:39:16 -0500
Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question - Hall


 >From: Luis R. Gonzalez <lrgm@arrakis.es>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 22:25:22 +0100
 >Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 16:53:03 +0000
 >>Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question - Hall

 >>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 15:57:22 +0000
 >>>Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question

 >>>From: Luis R. Gonzalez <lrgm@arrakis.es>
 >>>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 16:44:29 +0100
 >>>Subject: Re: Another Abduction Question

 >>>However, my main point is this: Heinlein, Asimov, and the other
 >>>SF "greats" clearly represent some of our most creative and
 >>imaginative writers (though I am personally not a big fan of
 >>>SF). A vast SF literature exists in which they have imagined and
 >>>written stories about almost anything imaginable that might be
 >>>possible and might actually occur eventually. Under these
 >>>circumstances, it would be very surprising if some (obviously
 >>>select and not broadly representative) elements of one or more
 >>>SF stories did _not_ resemble some elements of abductions. If
 >>>you pursue this logic, you can use resemblances to SF to
 >>>discredit just about any anomalous data in any area. A very
 >>>useful, but illogical, technique.

 >>James McDonald once characterized the reasoning processes of
 >>Phil Klass as "argument by concatenation."

 >>You merely juxtapose two sets of things without making any clear
 >>argument as to why they are or must be causally connected. This
 >>statement only reiterates your belief and does not tell me any
 >>reason why it must be the answer. In fact, you have not
 >>responded to my argument that it would be surprising if such
 >>similarities did not exist. Possibilities are only that, not
 >>established facts.

 >One of the thing that more surprise me about some "hard"
 >ufologists is how they do not want to realise that the UFO
 >phenomenon is just part of a "continuum". It coexists with BVM
 >visions, ghosts, cryptozoological creatures, "brain control"
 >victims, etc.. Their evidences are all of the same degree.
 >Besides that, when I talk about the UFO phemomenon I refer also
 >to the high percentage 80-90%? of cases which had
 >"conventional" explanations. You cannot dismiss all that and say
 >that your few selected cases have an ET origin, and everything
 >else is _not_ real.

Luis,

Continuum of what? The co-existing phenomena (or non-phenomena)
that you and other skeptics want to link with UFOs have no
necessary connection with the UFO phenomenon at all. Each must
be evaluated individually as to whether there is credible
evidence, objective instrumental evidence, etc. And it always
surprises me (not!) when skeptics leap from rebutting an
argument of UFO reality to insisting that we produce evidence of
ET. These are two separate issues or questions too.

 >Of course, within a big set of data you can always find
 >coincidences. Sometimes those coincidences are just random,
 >others there is some causal connection. But when the volume of
 >coincidences is high and they go from simple details to main
 >themes, the probability of such causal connection is also high.

You look at the huge numbers of "coincidences" that I have
reported in my writings and tell me that they are merely random.
If facts, evidence, logic, mean anything, then the data are
telling us that UFOs are something very real and unexplained,
and furthermore that the ET theory (or, as McDonald said years
ago) something very more bizarre must be correct.

 >To me, the biggest coincidence is that dozens and dozens of
 >alien civilizations have decide to visit us just in the
 >extremely short period of time we can identify them as such...
 >and then, do nothing!!

Only kook groups (which you seem to confuse with serious
researchers) talk about "dozens and dozens of alien
civilizations." And "do nothing" is one of your many false
assumptions. Sorry, Luis, you need to filter your data better,
stop confusing kook groups and crazy ideas with serious
research, and reconsider your logic and reasoning. Stop
associating UFOs with other alleged (real or unreal) phenomena,
look at the hardcore data, not what mushbrains with axes to
grind have to say.


  - 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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 25

               Re: Lawsuit Aims To Silence UFO Watchdog - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 21:42:34 +0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 17:40:28 -0500
Subject: Re: Lawsuit Aims To Silence UFO Watchdog - Hall


 >From: Tom King <tomking2030@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 16:19:36 +0000
 >Subject: Re: Lawsuit Aims To Silence UFO Watchdog

 >Hello List,

 >I think nearly everyone here supports Royce and the work he has
 >done. We should support him whenever a clown like Sean David
 >Morton tries to knock him down.

 >I for one and sick and tired of all of these UFO carnies running
 >around making claim after claim that don't come true. These tall
 >tales Morton sells the public should be cross examined by
 >public. Websites telling another side of a story shouldn't be
 >shut down because it hurts someones feelings.

 >From what I understand this isn't the only lawsuit Morton is
 >currently pursuing. I believe he is also suing a radio station
 >for firing him.

 >SDM should be sued for all the stuff he said that didn't come
 >true.


Yes, and where are some pro bono lawyers and deep-pocket
contributors when we need them to help Royce. Does he need
contributions? Legal help? Scumbags like Morton need to be
confronted big time.

  - 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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 25

                      Re: Cambridge Object Seen? - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 21:55:36 +0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 17:41:38 -0500
Subject: Re: Cambridge Object Seen? - Hall


 >From: Roy Hale <roy.hale@ntlworld.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 05:24:20 -0000
 >Subject: Cambridge Object Seen?

 >Hi All,

 >I received a sighting report for Friday night 21/02/03, in which
 >a chap who was looking out of his window at 10.30pm, saw what he
 >described as an "Orange Double Decker size object coming out of
 >the sky, with a blazing and sparking tail"

 >This object seemed to be chucking out some kind of sparks from
 >behind, and was estimated  at 10.000 MPH? The object was seeming
 >to crash into earth about 30 miles from where it was seen?There
 >was no noise from the object, but the chap concerned was over
 >whelmed by its size, and the trail behind it?

 >Considering the object was quoted as being the size of a double
 >decker bus, and the distance the chap was from the object' I
 >would presume this to be a very large object!

 >The sighting took place in South Cambridgeshire, Duxford.

 >Anyone have any info on Astronomical events occurring at that
 >time?


Roy,

The most immediate and obvious hypothesis is a fireball meteor,
which should be testable. They are ordinarily seen over a wide
area and result in multiple witnesses. Distance, size, and speed
estimates are worthless in such reports without knowing what
assumptions the witness made.


  - 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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 25

                     Re: John Alexander On Greer? - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:24:19 +0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 17:43:13 -0500
Subject: Re: John Alexander On Greer? - Hall


 >From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 11:33:48 -0500
 >Subject: Re: John Alexander On Greer?

 >>From: Paul Kimball <Kimballwood@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 17:16:04 EST
 >>Subject: Re: John Alexander On Greer?

<snip>

 >>Eleanor:

 >>It is not obvious, and it is not unarguably clear. It IS
 >>conspiracy theory - you know, the kind that debunkers point to
 >>when they want to ridicule and undermine the work of serious UFO
 >>researchers.

 >>A short example... when I was at the 2001 MUFON symposium, in
 >>the dealer room, just a couple tables down from Stan Friedman
 >>(for whom I have a great deal of respect, even if we sometimes
 >>disagree) was a group of folks straight out of the late 1960s
 >>who were trying to convince everyone who walked past that the US
 >>government was controlling us using devices mounted in trucks
 >>that zapped our brains with some kind of... well, brain zapper.
 >>No doubt they too believed that their "theory" was unarguable,
 >>and obvious. I wondered how they had escaped the effects of the
 >>brain zapper, but that's another story. When I asked them,
 >>however, they accused me of being a government agent!

 >>These people, by their very presence, made Stan and others look
 >>a bit loopy just for being in the same room. Unfortunately,
 >>statements like the one you make above have the same general
 >>effect, and provide the debunkers with more amunition than they
 >>could ever muster on their own.

 >So how does reminding people that the government has lied and
 >lied again on UFO (and other) matters make anyone look 'loopy'?
 >I won't go into details here, but I had a long exchange of
 >emails with John Alexander, in which he was clearly lying too.
 >This was based on things I know first hand, and didn't simply
 >'read it somewhere'.

 >Should we sit back when a known liar makes statements which have
 >a high likelihood of being untrue?

 >Eleanor White

Since you are making serious charges about John Alexander's
truthfulness, it is incumbent upon you to be specific in your
charges. I have stated chapter and verse about Steven Greer. If,
as you claim, you have first-hand knowledge of his lying, tell
us what it is based on.


   - 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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 26

                    Re: John Alexander On Greer? - White

From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:01:12 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 12:31:59 -0500
Subject: Re: John Alexander On Greer? - White


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:24:19 +0000
 >Subject: Re: John Alexander On Greer?

 >>From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 11:33:48 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: John Alexander On Greer?

 >>>From: Paul Kimball <Kimballwood@aol.com>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 17:16:04 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: John Alexander On Greer?

 ><snip>

 >Since you are making serious charges about John Alexander's
 >truthfulness, it is incumbent upon you to be specific in your
 >charges. I have stated chapter and verse about Steven Greer. If,
 >as you claim, you have first-hand knowledge of his lying, tell
 >us what it is based on.

I've provided off-list details to John Velez and yourself, Dick.
Since the other issue is not UFO-related, I won't try to post a
reply to this List. I will be happy to explain off-List to
anyone interested.

Please remamber, I have not said John Alexander _is_ lying in
the case of the other Congressional Hearings, rather, what he
has to say is suspect based on other attempts to cover up.


Eleanor White







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 26

                          Re: Jerry Black? - Young

From: Kenny Young <ufo@fuse.net>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:23:51 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 12:38:29 -0500
Subject: Re: Jerry Black? - Young


 >From: A. J. Gevaerd - Revista UFO <gevaerd@ufo.com.br>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 11:38:44 -0300
 >Subject: Jerry Black?

 >I wonder if Jerry Black is still on UFO UpDates, and if so, I
 >ask him to contact me in private: gevaerd@ufo.com.br. I
 >appreciate if anyone here can give me his address.

 >Thanks!

 >A. J.

A.J., List,

Jerry Black is not online, however he is open to speak with
anyone at his toll-free number of 1-877-731-8400. Black is
currently looking into the people and investigators who were
involved in the Ed Walters/Gulf Breeze UFO case. We should be
hearing a bit more from him soon.


Best regards,

Kenny Young
Florence, KY







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 26

                Columbia Investigation Focusing On Mysterious

From: Loren Coleman <lcolema1@maine.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 20:56:40 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 12:42:21 -0500
Subject: Columbia Investigation Focusing On Mysterious


Source: Associated Press

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGA1XTUKMCD.html

Feb 25, 2003

Investigation Board Focusing on Mysterious Object Spotted Flying Near
Columbia in Orbit

By Marcia Dunn
The Associated Press

SPACE CENTER, Houston (AP) - The board investigating the
Columbia tragedy said Tuesday it wants to know more about a
mysterious object that almost certainly fell off the shuttle and
was flying alongside the spacecraft during its second day in
orbit.

The object was never noticed during the flight. After the
shuttle's destruction over Texas on Feb. 1, the Air Force Space
Command began analyzing radar data that might shed light on the
disaster and noticed the object.

Initially, NASA said it suspected the object might be frozen
waste water dumped overboard or an orbiting piece of space junk
that the shuttle happened to encounter.

But Air Force Brig. Gen. Duane Deal, a board member, discounted
both possibilities Tuesday and said the object almost had to
have come from the shuttle itself.

"You or I could invent a dozen scenarios," Deal said. "It could
have been something loose that separated, it could have been
something inside the payload bay." It also could have been part
of the left wing, where all the overheating and other troubles
developed during re-entry.

He described the object as about 1 foot by 1.3 feet in size and
said it was flying in tandem with Columbia one day into the
mission. It was within 50 feet of the shuttle and, within that
first day, started separating farther and farther away until it
burned up on re-entry three days later, he said.

"It's not like my friend Rick Husband rendezvoused with a piece
in orbit," Deal said, referring to Columbia's commander. "It was
something that more than likely came loose."

The composition of the object is unknown, but it was lightweight
and not dense, Deal said. Lab testing is planned by the Air
Force and NASA to determine the material, based on its
reflectivity.

Columbia had just gone through a major maneuver in orbit Jan.
17, about 24 hours into its flight, when the object popped out
of nowhere, Deal said. That suggests it could have broken loose
from the shuttle during the maneuver.

Following the accident, Space Command staff went through reams
of data to track the object until its atmospheric re-entry Jan.
20. Nearly 3,200 radar observations were made of Columbia during
its 16 days in orbit.

"It's been the most laborious examination that's ever taken
place in the history of Space Command, looking at every single
one of those observations," Deal said.

Because the astronauts did not do a spacewalk and did not have
many windows, they would not have noticed the unidentified
object, Deal said.

Meanwhile, a piece of a thermal tile, believed to be from the
top of the left wing, remains the westernmost piece of debris
found yet - and probably the earliest known fragment from its
breakup.

The board's chairman, retired Navy Adm. Harold Gehman Jr., said
the fragment came from the upper surface of the left wing near
the fuselage. It was found in West Texas, about 300 miles west
of Fort Worth.

Gehman said he does not know how badly damaged the fragment is
and stressed that it is too early to draw any conclusions from
it.

But he held up pictures of another tile fragment found about 30
miles west of Fort Worth. It was dark gray or almost black with
orange specks and extremely rough surfaces - heat damage that is
much more severe than what is normally seen from shuttle tiles.

Engineers do not yet know whether the damage occurred during or
after the breakup of Columbia, Gehman said. It is so badly
damaged that investigators do not even know what part of the
shuttle it came from.

Of the more than 8,100 pieces of shuttle debris recovered, about
5,300 have been identified, Gehman said.

Both NASA and the investigation board believe any wreckage west
of Texas could provide hard evidence about what was happening to
Columbia as it descended on its way to a Florida landing. The
shuttle was 16 minutes away from touchdown when it disintegrated
over Texas, killing all seven astronauts.

The 10-member board suspects the left wing was breached,
allowing superheated gases to penetrate during re-entry. A
central focus of the investigation is whether any of the debris
from liftoff 16 days earlier caused or contributed to that
breach.

Board member Scott Hubbard, director of NASA's Ames Research
Center, said computer analyses show that a hole of 20 square
inches would account for the rapid 60-degree rise in temperature
detected in Columbia's left landing gear compartment during the
final few minutes of flight.

What needs to be done next is a more sophisticated and complex
analysis in which the hole is moved to various wing locations,
he said.

Among the early tentative findings: the tires in the left
landing gear compartment likely did not explode, though there
was some disturbance going on in that area; the ship's hydraulic
systems failed in the final seconds of the doomed flight and the
hydraulic fluid dumped out somewhere; and even though the power
and guidance systems were still working up until the total loss
of data and the fuselage was still intact, there were no signals
from the left wing.

---

On the Net:

NASA: http://spaceflight.nasa.gov

AP-ES-02-25-03 1952EST
This story can be found at: http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGA1XTUKMCD.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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 26

                   Re: John Alexander On Greer? - Kimball

From: Paul Kimball <Kimballwood@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:40:45 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 12:46:08 -0500
Subject: Re: John Alexander On Greer? - Kimball


 >From: Stephen G. Bassett <SGBList2@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 00:37:22 EST
 >Subject: Re: John Alexander On Greer?

 >>From: Paul Kimball <Kimballwood@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 12:42:38 EST
 >>Subject: Re: John Alexander On Greer? - Kimball

 >>>From: Stephen G. Bassett <ParadigmRG@aol.com>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 23:42:13 EST
 >>>Subject: PRG/X-PPAC/D2003/CH Update - 02-21-03

<snip>

 >>>X-PPAC Congressional Alert

 >>>A new congressional alert relating to the Columbia tragedy has
 >>>been sent to the House and Senate. Excerpt:

 >>>"The cost of maintaining a truth embargo on the facts
 >>>surrounding an extraterrestrial presence continues to grow. If
 >>>safer means to place payloads into space lay ensconced within
 >>>the "black" world behind the national security curtain, this
 >>>cost now includes the lives of astronauts."

 >>This is beyond the pale - tying a tragedy like the loss of the
 >>Columbia to the "black" world behind the national security
 >>curtain, with absolutely no - zip, zilch, nada - evidence that
 >>the disaster had anything even remotely to do with UFOs,
 >>government black ops, or a consipracy of silence/cosmic
 >>watergate (whichever you prefer). It dishonours the lives of the
 >>seven dead astronauts, and all of us who genuinely believe in
 >>space exploration.

 >You seem to be implying that the X-PPAC Congressional Alert was
 >claiming the crash was _caused_ by the "black" world. It did
 >not. It raised a simple point: if technology is being held back
 >from public (NASA) use which would provide a safer method of
 >putting payloads into space, which is to say it is being held
 >back because the cover-up of the ET presence would not permit
 >its open use, then the loss of astronauts to less safe
 >technology (shuttle) is a cost of the cover-up.

Read the original post again - the link that is made between the
shuttle crash and the 'black' world of government is clear to
anyone with a junior high school education. To attempt to argue
otherwise is to engage in the kind of semantics that only a
lawyer or a politician could love - and I say that as a lawyer!
It is using the shuttle disaster for the crassest of purposes.

 >You say there is no evidence for such suppressed technology.
 >That is your opinion.

Yup. It's my opinion. However, when Corso is a key component for
the 'evidence' that the post mentions, I think I'm on pretty
solid ground here. Perhaps you should have included a reference
to Lazar too.

 >If it comes to pass there is no extraterrestrial presence
 >engaging this planet now, no crashed vehicles, no retrieved
 >technology, no derived craft, then many people in the UFO/ET
 >research/activist community will owe the National Aeronautics
 >and Space Administration and all its past and present employees
 >a considerable apology. I will be at the head of the line.

That's a lot of stuff lumped in there - typical tactic for a
propagandist. There are those of us who are open to the idea
that ET is visiting this planet, and may even have crashed, who
do not believe - who do not take the massive leap in logic,
without any supporting evidence - that this means we have
somehow figured out how it all works, and have secretly produced
our own versions. As Stan Friedman has often told me, if we
could travel back in time, say to ancient Rome, with a computer,
there's no way they could figure out how it works. Makes sense
to me.

 >As for your self-righteous assertion of dishonoring the lives of
 >astronauts. Many books have been written about the loss of
 >military and civilian lives to the abuse of power by the United
 >States government or to incompetence and indifference of the
 >government and its representatives. If you think that patriotic
 >Americans serving their country have never been victims of the
 >abuse of power by the covert, "black" world, you are living in a
 >parallel universe. Gulf War veterans dying of service related
 >inflictions were told they were "mental". Please sell your
 >indignation somewhere else. This son of a U.S. Navy officer is
 >not buying.

Another typical propagandist distraction - I thought only the
debunkers used this kind of ploy! Of course the US government -
  all governments - have done things that have hurt their
citizens. To believe otherwise is to be naive. To suggest,
without proof, that they did it with the shuttle, is to be, at
best, irresponsible.

My indignation (why is it self-righteous, by the way? Because I
disagree with you?) stems from people like you who take a
tragedy and seek to use it to advance their own agenda, with no
evidence (and its clear to me that you have no idea what the
word evidence actually means) to back their claims up. My
indignation rises even further when these people try to weasel
out of responsibility for the words they either wrote or support
by claiming it meant something else.

Please sell YOUR self-righteous, and self-serving, malarky
somewhere else. This son of a former Canadian Air Force officer
(not to mention nephew of two American servicemen, and brother
of a Canadian reservist) isn't buying.*

Paul Kimball

* I have no idea how the whole military/son thing is relevant,
other than as another example of the kind of distraction usually
raised by someone who has nothing of any substance to say but,
as you started it, I'm glad to finish 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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 26

                   Re: John Alexander On Greer? - Kimball

From: Paul Kimball <Kimballwood@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:46:08 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 12:48:08 -0500
Subject: Re: John Alexander On Greer? - Kimball


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:24:19 +0000
 >Subject: Re: John Alexander On Greer?

 >>From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 11:33:48 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: John Alexander On Greer?

 >>>From: Paul Kimball <Kimballwood@aol.com>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 17:16:04 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: John Alexander On Greer?

<snip>

 >>So how does reminding people that the government has lied and
 >>lied again on UFO (and other) matters make anyone look 'loopy'?
 >>I won't go into details here, but I had a long exchange of
 >>emails with John Alexander, in which he was clearly lying too.
 >>This was based on things I know first hand, and didn't simply
 >>'read it somewhere'.

 >>Should we sit back when a known liar makes statements which have
 >>a high likelihood of being untrue?

 >>Eleanor White

 >Since you are making serious charges about John Alexander's
 >truthfulness, it is incumbent upon you to be specific in your
 >charges. I have stated chapter and verse about Steven Greer. If,
 >as you claim, you have first-hand knowledge of his lying, tell
 >us what it is based on.

Dick:

Bravo!

When you call someone a liar, you better be prepared to back
that up. If not, you're no better than a tabloid rag, and just
as likely to get sued.

So, Eleanor, spill the beans. Why is this man a "known liar"? If
you are unwilling to do so, I suggest we'll all have a pretty
good idea of who's credibility is questionable.


Paul Kimball






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 26

             Astronomers Pressing Search For Earth-Like Planets

From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@privat.dk>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 05:59:24 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 12:51:22 -0500
Subject: Astronomers Pressing Search For Earth-Like Planets

Source: ABC News, February 24, 2003,

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/DailyNews/planets030224.html

Stig

***

Anybody Out There?

Astronomers Picking Up Effort to Find Life-Friendly Planets

By Amanda Onion

**

Feb. 24 - Are we alone? Could there be other life flourishing
on some distant planet?

Although efforts to send people into space are stalled following
the Columbia tragedy, the drive continues to try to understand
realms that astronauts like the Columbia crew had just begun to
probe.One way scientists hope to understand what or, perhaps
even who exists beyond our solar system, is by searching for
planets like our own. And even NASA, amid its soul-searching, is
intensifying that search with planned space missions designed to
find faraway planets with newly refined techniques.

"In the next year or two we expect to have many more planets
discovered," said Demitar Sasselov, head of an astronomy team at
the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics that recently
found a new planet.

Seeing Planets in Wobbles and Blinks


Sasselov's team is not alone. Since 1995, teams of astronomers
across the country have detected about 100 large planets zipping
around stars in far-distant solar systems. The discoveries are
the result of new, indirect methods that sense planets by
carefully observing their stars.

One method, developed in the late 1980s, detects extra-solar
planets by observing the wobble of a star as it slightly jiggles
due to the gravitational pull of its orbiting planet. While this
technique has helped find a trove of new planets, it's only
sensitive enough to find Jupiter- sized ones, since only large
planets tug enough on their stars to be detected.

As far as the search for extraterrestrial life is concerned,
finding Jupiter-sized planets is important, but less interesting
than finding smaller ones.

"A planet of Jupiter's size has 300 times the mass of Earth and
is a large ball of gas so it wouldn't be habitable - at least
in ways we'd think of," said Greg Laughlin, an astronomer at the
University of California in Santa Cruz.

A second method that researchers have just begun to refine could
help in the search of distant planets more like our own.

So-called transit searches examine the slight dimming of a
star's light caused as a planet moves between the star and
telescopes on Earth. The dimming is so slight it has been
compared to seeing the shadow cast by a mosquito buzzing in
front of a search light nearly 200 miles away.

"The limitation is that you're not able to detect very slight
dimming of a star from the ground because the atmosphere of the
Earth makes it difficult to get highly precise measurements,"
said Sasselov, whose team recently used the transit method to
find the planet OGLE-TR-56b orbiting its star 5,000 light years
away.

In order to get a clearer view, NASA plans to perch the search
in space.


Scanning From Space

In October 2006, NASA will launch a space system that will
constantly scan stars for distinctive dimming signs of faraway
planets. Focusing on 10 million stars at a time, the Kepler
system, equipped with a telescope designed to measure
brightness, will zero in on about 150,000 stars that fit
criteria of suitable, life-hosting solar systems.

Since Kepler will orbit above the Earth's atmosphere, its
telescope will have a clear view and should be able to detect
very subtle changes in brightness caused by smaller planets
passing in front of their suns.

Sasselov, who is a member of the Kepler mission, expects that
the telescope will find about 1,000 Jupiter-sized planets in its
first year and about a dozen Earth-sized planets after four
years of searching.

"We'll have a big computer that will keep tags on each one of
the stars," he said. "Kepler will snap digital images that will
tell us when they blink."

Once Kepler concludes its four-to five-year search, NASA hopes
to send even more powerful telescopes into space that could
probe the atmosphere of key planets for signs of water, oxygen
and chemicals that are produced by life.

Meanwhile, other astronomers have been calculating the odds that
scientists will find life-friendly planets.


What We'll Find

Kristen Menou, an astronomer at the University of Virginia in
Charlottesville, recently created computer models of remote
solar systems by studying the Jupiter-sized planets discovered
so far.

"You can look, given the architecture of a planetary system, and
ask whether an Earth-like planet can exist in this orbit," said
Laughlin, who has created similar computer models.

As a fellow at Princeton University, Menou and colleagues there
considered factors including a discovered planet's size and
orbit to conclude if an Earth-sized planet might also fit within
the system.They concluded about a quarter of distant solar
systems discovered so far could host Earth-like abodes.

But confirming such predictions will require patience.

Several planets likely haven't been detected yet because they
orbit their stars over longer time periods, says Laughlin. A
longer orbit creates a longer lag between wobbles or dimmings in
their stars - and years to confirm their existence.

Yet it's planets with longer orbits that likely belong to
systems hosting planets like Earth.


Our Ideal Jupiter

For example, our Jupiter takes 11 years to orbit the sun and it
exists in what seems like a perfect place to protect Earth. It's
not too close to the sun so that it would jettison our planet
from the solar system, and yet it remains close enough so its
orbit protects our planet from incoming comets.

As time goes on, Laughlin and others are confident more
discoveries will make the prospect of extraterrestrial life seem
more likely.

Although the first steps to finding such planets will be limited
to Earth- based astronomy and orbiting, unmanned telescopes,
Sasselov believes astronauts will eventually join in the search.

"Doing what the astronauts do every time they fly around the
Earth is an important step in going even further," he said. "It
may seem like science fiction now, but someday they may go to
the planets we find today. For better or for worse, we are a
curious species.

"And so far, that has served us well."

**

Copyright C. 2002 ABC News Internet Ventures.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 26

                    Re: John Alexander On Greer? - Velez

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 02:27:11 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 12:55:58 -0500
Subject: Re: John Alexander On Greer? - Velez


 >From: Stephen G. Bassett <SGBList2@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 00:10:38 EST
 >Subject: Re: John Alexander On Greer?

 >>From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 23:41:57 -0500
 >>Subject: John Alexander On Greer?

 >>>From: Stephen G. Bassett <ParadigmRG@aol.com>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 23:42:13 EST
 >>>Subject: PRG/X-PPAC/D2003/CH Update - 02-21-03

 >>>snip

 >>>The Citizen Hearing concept received very positive reviews from
 >>>colleagues and supporters met during the recent 30-day driving
 >>>trip through California, Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico. PRG
 >>>will continue to build the structural base for this event by
 >>>seeking new sponsors, advisory board members, funding and the
 >>>participation of former members of Congress.

 >>Hi Stephen,

 >>First I'd like to say that I admire your energy and dedication.
 >>You are one of the few who work diligently at raising public
 >>awareness about a _major_ issue... UFOs. (Hold on to your panty-
 >>hose, here comes the 'but'. :)

 >>"But" wouldn't your time, energy and resources be better spent
 >>trying to accomplish the 'real thing' (congressional hearings)
 >>as opposed to these 'mock' hearings? Why are we fed a steady
 >>diet of reasons (excuses) why congressional hearings can't
 >>happen? Instead of being encouraged to actively work/fight for
 >>congressional hearings, we are asked to accept this diluted -
 >>watered down- version.

 >The effort to persuade Congress to do its job will continue. The
 >CH is just one more option.

 >>We are being asked to endorse and support 'mock' hearings that
 >>will 'essentially' only serve to consume valuable resources that
 >>could be applied to much greater benefit for all realizing the
 >>genuine article - 'actual' as opposed to 'mock' congressional
 >>hearings.

 >The concept of the CH has been well received by those I have
 >spoken with during the past month driving around the western
 >states of CA, NV, AZ and NM. It is a two-for-one in that the
 >very fact it is being considered puts pressure on the Congress.
 >The point of the project is that Congress has resisted repeated
 >efforts to hold open hearings. The prospect of a Citizen Hearing
 >held right up the street from the Capitol is not going to bring
 >any comfort to current members of the House and Senate.

 >As for resources, it has been extremely difficult to raise money
 >to pursue disclosure and congressional hearings. For every
 >dollar I have been fortunate to raise, I have spent 19 of my own
 >until my personal assets were exhausted.

 >The Citizen Hearing presents a highly focused event with a clear
 >mission statement and a finite, defined outcome. It offers a way
 >for someone of considerable resources to make a clear
 >contribution to the process of disclosure.

 >Further, the live coverage and taped archive of such a hearing
 >will have considerable residual potential.

 >Congress and the truth embargo management consortium have been
 >literally waiting out the grim reaper - counting on witnesses to
 >die off and reduce the pressure for public disclosure. It is a
 >morbid game which the CH is aimed to thwart.

 >>Something that has not been properly addressed on this List, or
 >>anywhere else for that matter, has to do with a statement made
 >>by the former director of NIDS, John Alexander in regard to
 >>Greer and the effect and timing his 'Disclosure Project'.

 >>(I'm paraphrasing Alexander)

 >>John Alexander intimated that plans to conduct congressional
 >>hearings was not only in the works, but well under way until
 >>Greer put on his three-ring-circus at The National Press Club.
 >>According to John Alexander the whole process went to pot and
 >>all plans for a congressional hearing was curtailed as a result.

 >>What do you know about this? Is what Alexander tells us true?
 >>Was there a pre-existing effort (prior to Greer's press club
 >>presentation) to conduct congressional hearings? Were those
 >>plans scrapped, as Alexander says, because of Greer?

Hi Stephen,

You wrote:

 >I was present at John Alexander's presentation and spoke with
 >Bob Brown the next day. It is my understanding from Bob that
 >John had lobbied aggressively to speak at Laughlin should there
 >be a speaker cancellation. Bob said that John had indicated he
 >had substantial new material and recent information.

 >As best as I could ascertain, the only new information presented
 >by John was at the beginning of the talk when he revealed the
 >NIDS/congressional hearing connection.

 >What I heard was this: NIDS had been holding secret meetings
 >with one or more members, including one committee chairman, on
 >having hearings. NIDS had worked up a script for these
 >hearings, which was being negotiated with the committee chair.
 >When the public press conference was held the 9th of May
 >committee chair terminated the private process underway.

Stephen, thank you for being so forthcoming with this
information. This is important. If John Alexander is telling the
truth about what transpired as a result of Greer interjecting
himself into the proceedings, then we all have a serious
situation that requires immediate attention.

I would consider it an unforgivable crime against humanity if it
turns out that there was any 'intentionality' in Greer's actions
or timing. I'm not going to beat the conspiracy drum, but if
ever there was a situation that cried out to be considered in
that light, this is it. We all know that 'dis-information'
agents exist, maybe Alexander has 'outed' one. Who knows?

I'm sure I'm not alone when I say that I was shocked and struck
dumb when, at the last hour, Greer tacked on the issues of Free
energy and space defence weapons to the UFO disclosure agenda.
It had all the appearances of someone intentionally shooting
themselves in the foot. However, if the desired result was to
send any interested congressional parties running for the hills,
it was _most_ effective. If the intention was to derail possible
congressional hearings, it was a triumphant success.

There are a few urgent questions that need answering. If the
people of the world (not just here in the USA) were cheated out
of an opportunity to conduct congressional hearings on UFOs,
then we all need to know about it. We need to know if an
expression of 'popular support' could possibly revive the
process that NIDS started. This is an issue of _major_
importance to us all.

 >Two things came across very clearly, at least to me: 1) that
 >John had made the trip to Laughlin primarily to make this
 >statement about NIDS, congressional hearings and the May 9th,
 >2001 press conference; 2) John's contempt for Steven Greer.

It was important for him to do #1 for the sake of public
accountability. And... I for one, don't blame him one bit for
#2. If what he says is true, then 'contempt' would be too tame a
term to describe the feelings one would _justifiably_ have for
Greer.

 >However, I did not take notes and John Alexander should be
 >queried on exactly what he said in Laughlin as well as the
 >NIDS/congressional hearing specifics.

I agree wholeheartedly Stephen. Clarification is called for.
This is a serious allegation that is being made. In this case
the people not only have a right to know, they have a need to
know.

Dick Hall: Would it be possible for you to invite John to
participate in this thread? It would be most helpful if we could
ask him a few pertinent questions regarding his statements. You
are already on speaking terms with him and he may be more
responsive if you were the one to invite him.

 >>Very important questions... even more, very serious allegations.
 >>If Greer is responsible for single-handedly ruining any
 >>prospects for congressional hearings, then that is something
 >>that we _all_ need to know about.

 >>It's also important to know what those original plans were and
 >>if it's possible to breath new life into them. Until these
 >>important questions are answered, it would be wise to hold off
 >>squandering rare and hard to acquire resources on a 'mock'
 >>hearing. Those same resources 'may be' applied to securing the
 >>real thing. That is, if the possibility still exists.

 >If NIDS were to be forthcoming with the particulars of their
 >congressional hearing effort, that would be constructive.

Let's see if we can get John Alexander on board here. We're
at a point where further discussion would only be speculative.
We need to speak with the 'principle'. The source.

 >>Just one man's questions, and one man's opinion.
 >>I await your response.
 >>Regards from frozen N.Y.C.

 >If anyone wishes to put several hundred thousand dollars into
 >the advocacy work earmarked specifically for direct pressure on
 >the Congress to hold formal, open hearings which are not
 >scripted to make one political party or another look good, or
 >spin a story to serve inside agendas, I would be happy to put
 >that money to good use. If requested, I would be happy to table
 >the CH project as part of such a funding infusion.

Then maybe it would be prudent to hold off until this situation
resolves itself. We need to ask John Alexander directly if there
is any possibility, no matter how remote, to revive the process
he began and that he claims Greer ruined. If we're real lucky
there may be a chance to put that $ to some good use - 'real' as
opposed to 'mock' congressional hearings.

BTW, I hope you realize that I am only asking questions that I
think are legitimate. 'Somebody' accused me privately of
attempting to "disparage" your idea. I hope you haven't taken
any of my questions or remarks in that way. When I said that I
admire your efforts I meant that sincerely. Nothing 'personal'
going on here. Strictly 'business.'  ;)

 >However, until the universities, foundations and private
 >philanthropists are able to climb the wall of ridicule the
 >government has carefully crafted, and shake off the propaganda
 >trance, such money is not forthcoming.

That's ok Stephen. If there is a real possibility for securing
congressional hearings, we'll _all_ dig deep and contribute what
we can. I will be your number one fund raiser. We need to
resolve this Alexander business so that we have a clear picture
as to what is possible and what isn't.

 >New ideas and approaches will have to be put forward until
 >something draws the necessary interest and money. The CH is one
 >more approach for consideration.

Keep your fingers and toes crossed. We 'might' be able to secure
the gen-u-wine article! 'Oh dream of dreams'.  :)


Warm regards,

John Velez






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 26

               Re: Budd Hopkins' NYC UFO - 02-22-03 - Gonzalez

From: Luis R. Gonzalez <lrgm@arrakis.es>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 12:23:13 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:56:48 -0500
Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins' NYC UFO - 02-22-03 - Gonzalez


 >From: Intruders Foundation <Ifinfo1@aol.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 23:27:25 EST
 >Subject: Budd Hopkins' NYC UFO - 02-22-03

 >Intruders Foundation Seminar Series Announcement

 >ABDUCTEE PANEL DISCUSSION

 >Saturday, March 1, 2003

<snip>

 >Among the participating panelists will be
 >an abductee who is connected to the "Mickey & Baby Ann"
 >relationship mentioned in Budd Hopkins' book, WITNESSED.

As the only abductees connected with the "Mickey & Baby Ann"
relationship are "Richard", "Linda Cortile" and (might be)
Linda's son, this looks interesting. Has "Richard" finally
surfaced? Is "Linda Cortile" again in the limelight? Have she or
her son recalled new abductions?

Considering that Hopkins' book was published in 1996, we non-
NYers will appreciate any update.

Speaking about updates and IF Seminars, can anybody tell us what
happened in the last Seminar announced (November 9, 2002)?


Luis R. Gonzalez Manso







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 26

                  Chile: Balloons Begin Crossing S. America

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 12:00:38 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:59:16 -0500
Subject: Chile: Balloons Begin Crossing S. America



SOURCE: Imprimatur. com
DATE: February 25, 2003

BALLOONS (NOT UFOs) BEGIN CROSSING SOUTH AMERICA

Luis Eduardo Pacheco reports that a brillant object reported for
two hours in the skies over Calama, Chile on the evening of
Friday, February 21, 2003 corresponded to the transit of the
second MIR balloon launched from Bauru (Brazil) within the
framework of the HIBISCUS campaign, aimed at researching
atmospheric ozone in the tropics.

The news item (in Spanish) can be see at:

http://www.estrellanorte.cl/site/home/20030221234413.html

While the transit of the balloon over a fair share of Brazil and
Bolivia took place in broad daylight, it was hardly seen due to
overcast conditions which prevailed over the region. The only
unclouded area was northern Chile, where it was indeed possible
to see it. This can be easily ascertained by viewing the GOES-8
photographs on the evening of Feb. 21.

A new launch occurred yesterday (02/24). This third balloon is
currenly flying over Bolivia and could enter Chilean airspace
during the day, which will likely give rise to new sightings in
the area.

The first balloon was launched on 2/19, but due to a leak
experienced at an altitude of 16 kilometers, the flight was
interrupted.

It can be seen that the pattern of February 2001 is being
repeated. At that time, the same balloons caused several false
UFO alarms.

At least one more balloon launch is expected in coming days. I
will apprise you of the event.


Regards to all,

Luis Eduardo Pacheco.

=========================================
Translation (C) 2003 Scott Corrales
Institute of Hispanic Ufology (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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 26

                          Secrecy News -- 02/26/03

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@fas.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 12:10:52 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 16:02:19 -0500
Subject: Secrecy News -- 02/26/03


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
Volume 2003, Issue No. 17
February 26, 2003


**      SHAKING HANDS WITH SADDAM
**      POWELL: US "NOT PROUD" OF 1973 CHILE COUP
**      REPORT ON FISA IMPLEMENTATION
**      FISA AND THE PATRIOT ACT
**      STATE HISTORICAL ADVISORY COMM MINUTES
**      PSYOPS: LEAFLETING IRAQ
**      UPDATE ON INTEL BUDGET (NON-)DISCLOSURE


SHAKING HANDS WITH SADDAM

Is Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld an evildoer? If not, then
what is he doing shaking hands with Saddam Hussein?

An innocent person might be forgiven for asking such questions
upon seeing a striking photograph of Rumsfeld making nice with
the Iraqi dictator in 1983.

In a "debate" over U.S. policy towards Iraq that depends largely
on facile slogans and self-dramatization, the Rumsfeld
photograph is a discordant reminder that the official version of
events is a partial account at best.

The photo is among the neglected resources of the not too
distant past that were unearthed and published by the National
Security Archive yesterday.

The new Archive collection, edited by Joyce Battle, helps fill
in gaps in the record, documenting U.S. partnership with Iraq in
its 1980-88 war against Iran and the acquiescence of U.S.
officials, including some current Bush Administration figures,
in Iraqi abuses. See:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm

"It would be nice... if prominent Bush officials acknowledged
their past moral culpability," wrote The New Republic's Peter
Beinart, who favors military action against Iraq, in the
February 24 issue of that magazine. "Rumsfeld should have
trouble sleeping at night given his role in abetting Saddam's
crimes."

But obviously it was never Rumsfeld's intent to abet Saddam's
crimes. That, in a way, is the point. A fuller account of the
record of U.S. policy toward Iraq provides grounds for healthy
skepticism about political ends and means, including the ability
of the United States to militarily compel Iraqi disarmament
without incurring significant unintended consequences.

Last year, Senator Robert Byrd discussed the Reagan
Administration's transfer to Iraq of biological agents including
anthrax, bubonic plague and many others, and placed supporting
documentation in the Congressional Record on September 20:

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_cr/s092002.html


POWELL: US "NOT PROUD" OF 1973 CHILE COUP

The 1973 CIA covert action against Chile's President Salvador
Allende "is not a part of American history that we're proud of,"
said Secretary of State Colin Powell last week in another
occasion for reflection on how U.S. foreign policy can go
astray.

The Secretary's remark came in response to a question from a
student at a forum broadcast by Black Entertainment Television
on February 20.

"With respect to ... what happened with Mr. Allende, it is not a
part of American history that we're proud of," Powell said. "We
now have a more accountable way of handling such matters and we
have worked with Chile to help it put in place a responsible
democracy." See:

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2003/02/dos022003.html

The statement met with intense interest in Chile, eliciting
reactions ranging from appreciation to contempt. See, for
example, "Gobierno alaba reconocimiento de Powell," El Mercurio,
February 22:

http://diario.elmercurio.com/nacional/politica/noticias/2003/2/22/302604.htm

REPORT ON FISA IMPLEMENTATION

Oversight and implementation of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act (FISA), the law that governs domestic
surveillance of persons who are suspected agents of foreign
powers or international terrorists, have been hampered by
inappropriate secrecy, according to a new Senate report.

"The secrecy of individual FISA cases is certainly necessary,
but this secrecy has been extended to the most basic legal and
procedural aspects of the FISA, which should not be secret. This
unnecessary secrecy contributed to the deficiencies that have
hamstrung the implementation of the FISA. Much more information,
including all unclassified opinions and operating rules of the
FISA Court and Court of Review, should be made public and/or
provided to the Congress," said the bipartisan report, jointly
authored by Senators Arlen Specter, Patrick Leahy and Charles
Grassley.

See "FISA Implementation Failures: Interim Report on FBI
Oversight in the 107th Congress by the Senate Judiciary
Committee" here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2003_rpt/fisa.html

The Senators introduced a new bill, the "Domestic Surveillance
Oversight Act of 2003," to increase official FISA reporting
requirements. The text of the bill (S. 436), along with
introductory statements, and supporting materials introduced
into the Congressional Record, may be found here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2003_cr/s436.html


FISA AND THE PATRIOT ACT

The Justice Department has continued to slowly respond to
congressional questions about the implementation of the USA
Patriot Act. The latest installment of official responses, dated
December 23, 2002, focused on the changes that were made to the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act by the Patriot Act.

The answers, which are often evasive but occasionally
interesting, are contained in three letters from Assistant
Attorney General Daniel J. Bryant to Senators Leahy and
Feingold. The letters, which seem to have gone completely
unremarked, may be found here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/index.html#qfr

Out of a series of 93 questions for the record posed by Congress
over the past year concerning the implementation of the USA
Patriot Act, the Justice Department has now answered 56. Thirty-
seven questions remain unanswered.


STATE HISTORICAL ADVISORY COMM MINUTES

The minutes of the December 2002 meeting of the State Department
Historical Advisory Committee meeting were approved for release
this week. The minutes, which provide some interesting gossip
and the odd tidbit of information regarding declassification of
historical records, may be found here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/advisory/state/hac1202.html


PSYOPS: LEAFLETING IRAQ

U.S. Central Command has published a gallery of leaflets that
the U.S. military has dropped on Iraq from November 2002 through
as recently as this week.

The leaflets include verbal messages (e.g., "Military fiber
optic cables have been targeted for destruction. Repairing them
places your life at risk.") together with graphic illustrations.

See the CENTCOM Leaflet Gallery here (thanks to MJR):

http://www.centcom.mil/galleries/leaflets/showleaflets.asp

The U.S. military's psychological operations campaign against
Iraq was described in "Firing Leaflets and Electrons, U.S. Wages
Information War" by Thom Shanker and Eric Schmitt, New York
Times, February 24:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/24/international/middleeast/24MILI.html


UPDATE ON INTEL BUDGET (NON-)DISCLOSURE

Following a series of postponements, a Freedom of
Information Act lawsuit against the Central Intelligence
Agency seeking declassification and disclosure of the
total intelligence budget figure for 2002 is now inching
forward.

The CIA indicated last week that it will file a motion for
summary judgment, including classified and unclassified
declarations to support dismissal of the case, on March
20. The Federation of American Scientists, which favors
declassification, will respond a month later, and the
Agency will reply a month after that.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/foia/cia021903.html

The continued classification of the intelligence budget
total is perhaps the most enduring example of unwarranted
national security secrecy. Exposing and correcting this
erroneous practice could have an important salutary effect
on classification policy generally, or so we believe.


_______________________________________________

Secrecy News is written by Steven Aftergood and published by the
Federation of American Scientists.

To SUBSCRIBE to Secrecy News, send email to
secrecy_news-request@lists.fas.org
with "subscribe" in the body of the message.

OR email your request to saftergood@fas.org

Secrecy News is archived at:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/index.html

_______________________
Steven Aftergood
Project on Government Secrecy
Federation of American Scientists
web:  www.fas.org/sgp/index.html
email: saftergood@fas.org
voice: (202) 454-4691






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 26

                         Re: Jerry Black? - Gevaerd

From: A. J. Gevaerd - Revista UFO <gevaerd@ufo.com.br>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 13:53:48 -0300
Fwd Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 16:04:54 -0500
Subject: Re: Jerry Black? - Gevaerd


 >From: Kenny Young <ufo@fuse.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:23:51 -0800
 >Subject: Re: Jerry Black?

 >Jerry Black is not online, however he is open to speak with
 >anyone at his toll-free number of 1-877-731-8400. Black is
 >currently looking into the people and investigators who were
 >involved in the Ed Walters/Gulf Breeze UFO case. We should be
 >hearing a bit more from him soon.



Thank you very much!

A. J.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 26

                    Re: John Alexander On Greer? - VWhite

From: Vince White <Vinceomni@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 12:55:28 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 16:08:12 -0500
Subject: Re: John Alexander On Greer? - VWhite


 >From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys@rogers.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 18:47:07 -0400
 >Subject: Re: John Alexander On Greer

 >What in the world is the connection between past evil or
 >dishonest actions by the US Government got to do with the
 >question of either free energy technology or new means for
 >getting astronauts safely to orbit???

Connection to safe orbit? It is worth repeating that this
question is possibly answered by field reports and observations
at R&D sites.

Perhaps to be answered by past field reports in the Tehachapi's
at the Northrop facility or currently at the BAe Warton Special
Projects site in Lancashire UK.

Flying triangles have been repeatedly sighted performing
nonaerodynamically and silently except for an occasional humming
sound and RAF escort.

Forget, for a moment moral judgements about governments.

What is actually being observed at aerospace testing facilities?

Maybe the answer to that question would answer to the moral
question.


Empirically speaking,

Vince White







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 26

                          Filer's Files #9 -- 2003

From: George A. Filer <Majorstar@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 14:27:17 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 16:11:21 -0500
Subject: Filer's Files #9 -- 2003


FILER'S FILES #9 -- 2003 Skywatch Investigations.
George A. Filer, Director Mutual UFO Network Eastern
February 26, 2003, Majorstar@aol.com
Webmaster: Chuck Warren
My website is at: www.Georgefiler.com
Sponsored by: www.Georgefiler.com


UFO SIGHTINGS CONTINUE HIGH

The purpose of these files is to report the UFO eyewitness and
photo/video evidence that occurs on a daily basis around the
world and in space. This report includes: Life may exist on
Europa, Shuttle's wing key to the disaster, New Jersey disc and
missing time, Pennsylvania egg, Virginia teenagers spot UFO?
Georgia college student sees lights, Minnesota spheres, Kansas
investigation, Arizona oval climbs, Washington UFO
investigation, Canadian UFO sightings highest ever, Argentina
sightings include tall humanoid, UK video of lights, and
Australia teardrop. Get your free e-mail account at:
GoNowMail.Com

LIFE MAY EXIST ON EUROPA

Scientists simulating meteorite impacts on the frozen oceans of
Europa have made an electrifying discovery, which raises the
chances of finding life on Jupiter's moon. Jerome Borucki, at
the NASA Ames Research Center fired aluminum bullets into a
block of ice. They found that when the bullet impacted, sensors
embedded in the ice detected an electric shock. A second, and
much larger, electrical discharge was observed a few moments
later. A shell of ice many kilometers thick encases the surface
of Europa and scientists speculate that liquid water -- and
therefore life -- might lie beneath. Evidence for the presence
of the molecular building blocks for life comes from the yellow-
brown stains seen on the ice by the Galileo probe. "Europa is a
high priority target for exploration because the key ingredients
for life seem to be there. But even if you have the ingredients,
the question is, is there a spark that creates the first organic
molecules?" Says Ron Greeley, a planetary scientist at the
Arizona State University. Borucki's bullet experiments suggest
meteorite impacts might have provided that spark.

The electric shock had gone undetected because no-one had put
sensors below an impact crater before. The team thinks the
current is caused by the movement of protons as the ice cracks.
Methane and ammonia are likely to be present in Europa's ice and
the energy pumped into the ice by a meteorite impact will melt
it. Shock this mixture  with electricity, says Borucki, and
complex molecules should form. "We do see a handful of very
large craters on Europa, and there would have  been a lot of
energy associated with those," comments Greeley. A lander may be
sent to the surface of the Europa to look for  organic matter.
Greenley estimates the  earliest launch date for the mission to
be 2011.  Journal of Geophysical Research - Planets (Vol 107, p
24) Thanks to Tom Deuley

SHUTTLE'S WING KEY TO DISASTER

HOUSTON -- There are no firm answers yet as to exactly why
shuttle Columbia broke apart February 1, but it appears to
involve a stripped heat protection panel from the leading edge
of the left wing. NASA reports that the a major contributor to
the loss appears to be the presence of superheated air inside
Columbia's left wing, the result of some kind of breach in the
structure. Pieces of the shuttle were seen falling from the
shuttle over the California coast, although none have been
recovered. One theory is that a reinforced carbon-carbon (RCC)
panel on the forward edge of Columbia's left wing was the first
major piece to break loose during reentry. The U-shaped manmade
gray composite material (RCC panels) are each bolted in four
places to a flat area on the front of the wing structure. These
deflect the 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit temperatures during reentry
and if one is missing, the hot gas generated during reentry,
could get inside the wing cavity and create havoc. Left wing
sensors showed higher than normal temperature readings during
reentry. The flow of air moving over the wing was apparently
disrupted, allowing other panels and heat protection tiles to
break free. Eventually the structural integrity of the wing
began failing from the hot air and increased drag forcing the
shuttle's computers to compensate by firing Columbia's steering
jets. Proving that a dislodged RCC panel instigated the ship's
failure might require finding the scorched part. If an RCC panel
turns out to be the primary culprit, the key question will be
why it fell off in the first place. Possibilities include
corrosion undetected before launch, insulating foam from the
external tank striking the wing during launch, or orbital debris
flying into the wing after launch, NASA officials said.

Another possibility is the failure of thermal seals surrounding
the main landing gear door on the left wing, but sensors inside
the wheel well did not detect that kind of temperature rise
here. On the first day after launch a 1 foot by 1.3 feet in size
object was flying in tandem with Columbia and picked up on radar
and reentered the atmosphere three days later. NASA Goddard
Space Flight Center's Orbital Information Group (OIG) has
removed orbital data called "elements" for Columbia's STS-107
mission so outsiders will be unable to investigate. It is also
possible that some kind of electrical event took place. At least
one video exists where something like lightning is striking, or
discharging from, the shuttle as it approached the California
coast.

Doug Kohl, a former shuttle program engineer, who was also a
materials scientist for the same Lockheed group that developed
the shuttle's tiles, believes it was an electrical event at high
altitude during reentry that was the reason for the RCC panel
failure. "I still think that the RCC saw something such as a
large static discharge that damaged it and the surrounding
thermal protection system tiles, and that the problem progressed
from there," Kohl said. He is particularly interested in this
theory because he now lives in California within an hour's drive
of where it's possible an RCC panel fell to the ground after
breaking loose from Columbia. Kohl has done some debris
searching himself and encouraged his neighbors to report their
eyewitness accounts of what they saw and heard Feb. 1 as
Columbia flew directly overhead. "If an electrical event caused
the damage it will be readily evident to any materials person
familiar with electrical damage in composites, as the fibers
will look like a blown out steel belted radial tire where the
charge exited the structure," Kohl said. It's also possible that
the external tank foam insulation that was seen striking the
left wing during Columbia's January 16 launch played a roll in
this scenario, Kohl said. The foam could have damaged some tiles
enough to set up heating and turbulence that led to the panel
popping off. He doubted the insulation would damage an RCC panel
itself. "They're tough," he said. "They take a licking and keep
on ticking." Whatever happened, Kohl remains loyal to his former
space colleagues. Thanks to NASA Complete Columbia Coverage

NEW JERSEY DISC CAUSES MISSING TIME

JERSEY CITY -- The witness reports, "I was riding my bike on
Bergen Avenue coming from my second job at a video store on July
3, 1992, at 10:18 PM, when I saw what I thought was a meteor
coming straight down at lightning speed. It was an orange fire
ball speeding down, and when it got 200 feet from the ground, it
suddenly stopped. It was a flying disc that was flying down on
its edge. When it stopped it slowly began to turn right side up
and that's when I saw that it was dark gray on top. Then it
slowly turned on its edge and I saw the bottom that had five
pentagon shaped lights which covered the whole under side. These
were emerald in color and were arranged with one in the middle
and the rest around it. Then, it just shot up and accelerated so
fast that I could not follow it. There was no sound. I stood
motionless and my tears started flow, because I felt no fear at
all, just an overwhelming feeling of disbelief, and then
admiration and love. One thing I can't explain is that, "I was
suddenly holding my bike on Belmont Avenue, but I first saw the
UFO on Bergen Avenue." I stood there for about half an hour
after it left, just looking up, and my tears coming out. I had
both memory lapse and paralysis during the event and sleep
disorder later. I kept have my mouth shut, specially from my Dad
about the sighting. Thanks to John Schuessler MUFON Director
MUFON

PENNSYLVANIA EGG SHAPED CRAFT SEEN

PLYMOUTH MEETING -- As my mother was driving my friend and I to
the mall on February 3, 2003, I looked to my right and saw a
strange sight at about 8 PM. An egg shaped craft, slightly
lighter than the night sky, was floating around. To prove this
was indeed a UFO, I looked carefully and saw pin-shaped rods of
light flying out of the craft before it disappeared. Thanks to
Peter Davenport and webmaster Christian Stepien who has built a
great website. Visit NUFORC

VIRGINIA TEENAGERS SEE POSSIBLE UFO

POWHATAN -- Three 14 year old male witnesses were outside
talking at 7:10 PM and decided to get a book called the "The UFO
Hunter's Handbook" on February 8, 2003. When David ran up to get
the book. The observer reports, "I spotted a small, silver, slow
moving dot or craft. I told Jim and David and we were
astonished. We then agreed it was a gray type C shuttle. We
filed this report to warn MUFON. The object was slow moving with
a constant light source. We took a picture and it turned up
blank except for a blurry cloud with a flash over it. We believe
there was some sort of force field. We watched for thirty
minutes not far from Richmond. We estimate the object was over
300 feet in size but appeared to us about the size of an
aspirin. Thanks to John Schuessler, MUFON Director,
schuessler@mho.net: WUFOD-I..2-422-V

GEORGIA LIGHTS

Tom Sheets writes, MUFON Eastern Director George Filer received
a call from a Georgia college student wishing to pass along
information. George notified this writer on February 24, and I
phoned the witness that day and found him to be a student at
Georgia Southern in Statesboro. He stated that on Sunday night
Feb. 23, he was up late working on a project in their four
stories high Fine Arts Building. About 2 AM he went out onto the
roof for some fresh air and was looking at the stars. One seemed
to draw his attention as being especially bright and pretty. He
thought it might be one of the currently visible planets. Then
this bright "star" visibly moved very slowly as to appear almost
stationary. He continued to watch as the "star" performed
maneuvers up and down and other obvious unnatural movements at a
slower, more moderate speed (as opposed to the oft reported
faster darting lights). Being unfamiliar with such distant
nocturnal lights, he began thinking of some sort of very high
UFO and ran to the campus library to borrow a flashlight for
signaling.

Over the next few hours, the movements continued and the witness
located several campus night workers who also witnessed the
maneuvers. When he reached the library, he was sure that he
observed a different light than that first observed. He was
unhappy that this hours long episode put him far behind in the
completion of his project! The length and number of observations
made seems to rule out autokinesis i.e. there was constant
movement for a long period as the witness changed locations and
found other witnesses who allegedly observed the same actions.
Thanks to Tom Sheets MUFON GA State Director.

MINNESOTA SPHERES

ST. PAUL -- Bill McNeff MUFON SD writes at, "About 2:00 AM on
the morning of December 30, 2002, an independent truck
contractor was heading west on I-94 around 47 miles east of St.
Paul. Something made him look to the south and he saw an
unidentified object at about 45 degrees elevation heading
northwest. It appeared to pass between two airplanes. He said he
felt energy coming from this object and received a message that
he "should report this and that two other people had also seen
it". It was not as bright as a star but was in the shape of two
spheres pressed together to form a rough egg shape. The object
glowed white with a little blue. It rose about 30 degrees before
he lost sight of it in the northwest. It was about the size of a
muzzleloader ball at arm's length. He left a message at CUFOS
and Mark Rodeghier notified us. Thanks to Bill McNeff Minnesota
MUFON SD

KANSAS FLASHING LIGHT KEEPS PACE WITH AIRCRAFT

I've seen UFOs more than once in my life, was a Field
Investigator for MUFON, and am convinced the phenomenon
represents something beyond the normal activities of man.
Whenever possible, I like to figure out explanations for those
sightings. In Filer's Files #8, I believe I have a highly likely
explanation for what the observer saw. A few years ago I too saw
something very similar, off to the south side of the plane, I
saw a dancing, flashing whitish light zipping around on the
ground, apparently following the plane and appearing
intermittently, like playful lightning or some sort of bizarre
electrostatic earth-lights phenomenon. Several of us watched
this light display for several minutes, but then I suddenly
figured out what it was. The moon was high in the sky directly
in line with the ground lights, but high enough I hadn't noticed
it at first. Bodies of water, such as rivers, ponds, and lakes,
were reflecting the moonlight towards my eyes. I ran a program
I've created to calculate the appearance and location of the
moon on January 8, 2003, at 8 PM, using latitude 36 N and
longitude 97 W as the observation point on the earth. This
location is very close to the almost due north flight path from
Dallas to Wichita, and would be a little past the midpoint of
the flight. The moon was 1/3 full at an azimuth of 243 degrees
(WSW), and at an 27 degrees above the horizon. An observer
looking out the left side of the plane, and slightly behind the
wings (as described in the report) would be able to see the
moon's reflection as they looked down. This all fits perfectly
with my theory that the observer saw the moon reflecting on
ground water bodies. It also explains why the lights quit over
the town, partly because the plane changed its heading, and also
because there are fewer bodies of water in town. Thanks to John
Craig, johncraig@alltel.net

ARIZONA HIGH ALTITUDE OVAL ASCENDED UPWARD

GILBERT -- The observer February 09, 2003, reports, "About 10:45
AM I was taking some photos of my Sister-in Law's house when an
object caught my eye at a very high altitude. It appeared to be
oval of silver/white with blue skies as a background. This
object was traveling very slow and left no contrail. I compared
this object to surrounding air traffic which all were leaving
contrails at 35k feet. I watched as the object for ten minutes,
then it moved northeast, stopped then ascended upward until it
vanished out of sight. I don't know of any aircraft that moves
like this. I was able to capture some photos and upon zooming
in, this was not an airplane. My guess is that this object was
at a very high altitude because even using 9 x zoom, it was hard
to make the shape out. I noticed on the zoomed photos was a
defined shading on the bottom of the object. I work in the
aerospace industry and I've seen many unexplained objects in the
sky, mainly the reddish orange orbs. Thanks to Peter Davenport.
NUFORC

IDAHO LIGHTS MOVE IN "S" DESIGN

GRANGEVILLE -- On February 11, 2003, three different lights were
spotted at 6:15 PM, with the one in the south shooting straight
up fast. A large yellow star began to move slightly at first and
then moved to the left in a curved fashion, then curved to the
right, down and then back to the left, much like making an S
over and over. It would stop and hover. The third light started
before the second was finished. It was very colorful changing
colors and moving in an odd curving fashion that would slow
almost to a stop and speed up again. It flew south and
disappeared where the first one did. Thanks to Peter Davenport
NUFORC

CALIFORNIA GLOWING LIGHTS

MADERA, COUNTY -- The witness awakened around 4:30 AM, and could
not sleep and went to the kitchen to get a drink of water. He
reports, "I saw this glowing red green light real low hovering
towards the foothills on February 21, 2003. When I went to get
the camera it was gone, and then all of sudden it flashed right
in my window.  It was so fast, do not look at the flash of my
camera, look what I circled. It made me a believer, just seeing
what the thing did. I live right above the foot hills. Thanks to
Darlene, dcody@attbi.com

WASHINGTON INVESTIGATION

SPOKANE -- Kathleen writes, Regarding Judge Ed's last week's
report in Filer's Files # 8, I spent the night up on a butte
overlooking the Judge's area. Deer Park provides me a view of
the north side of Tower Mountain, Felps Field and Mt. Spokane to
the east. We sometimes see stationary lights, but nothing that
would be going into Tower Mountain. We are near two medical
helicopter approach beacons so we can see when they come thru
from the north into Spokane. I'm not sure what Judge Ed is
seeing. Granted there is always some unexplained sightings, but
its hard for me to believe that one person has so many sightings
in a well populated area. There was an unusual incident that
occurred on February 1, 2003, when Peter Davenport got a report
from an astronomer who was near the airport shooting the
Northern lights to the north of Spokane. He witnessed a large
black object thru his telephoto lens moving from west (over Deer
Park) to Mt. Spokane. It had no lights. This was at 10:40 PM. At
10:48, another report came in from the east of the astronomer's
location spotting a large object moving toward Mt. Spokane. The
description was similar. Ironically I woke up about that time
feeling very uncomfortable. My dog was very restless and wanted
to go outside. This uneasy feeling held thru the night with me
and the dog. A neighbor farmer said his cows were moving about
alarmed the same night and Craig's horses were running pretty
wild as if frightened. I guess some things can't always be
explained. The feeling I had was not a pleasant one. Very
disturbing. More to come. Thanks to Kathleen A.

BRINNON -- About 3:55 AM, on February 10, 2003, I looked into
the southern sky and saw pulsating lights that continued
pulsating over different places in the sky and not always in the
same way. There was no noise and I have never seen anything like
it. I contacted a couple of local TV stations and one did say
they contacted the FAA, but there was no record of anything.
These lights lasted about 40 minutes and I am curious if anyone
else saw them.

SEATTLE -- The witness was just standing on his porch on
February 11, 2003, having a cigarette at 1:20 AM, when he looked
to the sky and got a flash directly in the face with 2 quick
pulses of blue light. He looked where the light source came from
and saw an object outlined with about twelve yellowish lights
dropping down behind some trees. I live near Boeing field....but
have never seen anything like it. It was silent...no engine or
prop noise. ((NUFORC Note: Several reports to the FAA and local
media about this event. Thanks to Peter Davenport

CANADIAN UFO SIGHTINGS INCREASE SHARPLY IN 2002

WINNIPEG (CP) - Scott Edmonds of the Canadian Press reports, "In
2002 we had the largest number of separate events for a single
year in the history of collecting UFO data for Canada," Chris
Rutkowski of Ufology Research of Manitoba said Wednesday. "We
have some extraordinary cases in Canada last year reported
literally from one end of the country to the other." Since 1989
his group has been compiling reports from across Canada. There
were 483 UFO sightings reported in 2002 - almost 30 per cent
more than in 2001 and a 250 per cent increase since 1998. That's
a record if 1993 is excluded when one celestial fireball
contributed to a high of 489 reports that year, explained
Rutkowski, who added that 154 of them were easily explained
because of the fireball. "Overall it's fascinating to see that
the number of cases in Canada rose so dramatically last year,"
he said. There is no easy explanation for the increase, he
added.

Rutkowski said one of the strangest unexplained sightings
occurred in January 2002 near the tiny community of Inkerman,
N.B. "A large object with flashing lights and brightly lit
windows flew slowly and fairly silently over a highway," he
said. "A couple stopped their car and watched it as it moved
down behind some trees." Overall, British Columbia was once
again the place to be in 2002 to see a UFO. The province
produced 176 sightings, more than Ontario and Quebec combined
and up from 123 in 2001. The Yukon produced 20 reports last year
and has consistently produced about that many or more since
1998. Ontario produced 128 reports last year, Alberta 51,
Manitoba 36, Quebec 34, Nova Scotia 23, Saskatchewan 6, New
Brunswick 4, Newfoundland 3 and Nunavut 2. More UFOs were
reported in late summer and February than any other time of the
year. Thanks to Scott Edmonds

SELKIRK, MANITOBA -- The witness took the dog outside for a walk
at 10:30 PM, and noticed an orange colored ball with a short
tail on February 12, 2003. After watching it for about 4
seconds; the one ball broke into two. It was only a second or
two after seeing it break up that both objects disappeared.
Thanks to Brian Vikes HBCC UFO Research

SMITHERS, B.C. -- Brian Vike reports, I had a woman who was up
with her baby at 2:40 AM, on February 20, 2003. Her home is at
the base of Hudson Bay Mountain and the ski runs. She saw a
bright light crossing the mountain from east to west for several
miles, and then coming to a complete stop over Cold Smoke Ski-
run. The light was dead center of the run, and she wondered if
it was just hovering or landing. She heard a clicking sound from
the direction of the object. Brian remarks, "Many sounds bounce
off the mountain which allows everyone to hear noises much
clearer." She says, It was an extremely bright white, with an
orange light coming from the center that moved quicker than any
helicopter or plane. After five minutes she heard a train in the
distance and the object disappeared. One hour later, the object
once again showed up in the same spot but lasted only a couple
of minutes. Her cat perked it's ears up looking in the direction
of the object. The light was half the size of her thumb nail and
round in shape.

HBCC UFO Note: Brian called the Smither's Ski Hill. I was told
work was being done on four runs throughout the early morning,
and would be continuing throughout this week and over the
weekend in the wee hours. This sighting may be the result of
grooming equipment working on the ski hill, "but," what puzzles
me is that the object was spotted traveling three kilometers
along the mountain before it came to a stop. Thanks to Brian
Vike HBCC UFO

STRANGE BIPEDAL ANIMAL IN ARGENTINA

BARRIO PER=D3N -- Three residents living on the city's periphery
claim to have seen a strange two-meter tall biped, who has
terrified the area. The new reports were from Demetrio Villalba,
43; Eleuteria del Carmen Alvarez, 72; and Nelida del Valle
Matarena, 53: who in spite of living in different parts of the
residential subdivision and not knowing each other, made almost
identical descriptions about the creature they had seen at
around the same time in the morning hours of January 13, 2003.
They all agreed on having been reluctant to speak out "for fear
of mockery" and stressed that their decision to come forward
stemmed from the case having acquired public notoriety. Rancher
Rogelio Martinez made initial reports two years ago describing a
fierce plantigrade of large size and humanoid mien, that has
regularly devoured his animals since then.

El Tribuno reports sightings and traumatic encounters with the
animal intensified in recent days. Pedro Villalba, said, "I was
alarmed by the barking of my dogs early morning, and looked out
the window and saw an enormous hairy animal walking on two legs
that waddled from one side, waving its arms which ended in
thick, curved claws." The dogs growled, barked and howled, but
did not dare attack as it ran away." A mother and daughter
state, "It was 3 AM, our dog was howling in sheer fright, so we
went outside to see what was happening and we saw this horrible,
enormous creature, with clawed hands and covered in hair from
head to toe. It turned its head toward us but, it kept on
walking away." Thanks to Scott Corrales, Institute of Hispanic
Ufology for the Translation (C) 2003 and PLANETAUFO.

Editor's Note: UFO sightings are very high in South America,
these sightings are often accompanied by sightings of large
hairy humanoids.

STRANGE LIGHTS ON SECURITY VIDEO IN ENGLAND

LIVERPOOL -- Merseyside Anomalies Research Association, MARA has
obtained some excellent UFO footage from a train station time-
lapse security camera. The video runs about 4 times faster than
real time speed when played on a normal video recorder but there
is a digital clock on the video for timing purposes. The video
shows 9 lights in the sky in South Liverpool. You can see a
frame from the video on our website www.mara.org.uk taken on
November 9, 2002 around 2 AM, although the single frame doesn't
do it justice. We are not making any rash claims about the
footage, in fact we don't think it is extra-terrestrial.  I
suspect it is a rare atmospheric phenomenon. I am having
difficulty in getting UK academic institutions interested in the
video at the moment. I still believe an academic involvement is
crucial to help solve this case, so if you know of any USA
University departments that study such phenomena, please let me
know.  Thanks to Bill Bimson Merseyside Anomalies Research
Association  www.mara.org.uk

AUSTRALIA UFO LOOKS LIKE TEARDROP

GEELONG, VICTORIA -- The witness was up early on February 7,
2003, and saw a UFO hovering over the hills at 6:45 AM. The
observer states, "I saw a lot of detail on the craft, it was
black and had a bright blue indigo color coming from the cracks.
It looked a lot like a sieve on the surface with the light
illuminating from the cracks." It was fast and moved, like as if
it were a speeding bullet. Left to right, upside down, it would
even go around and around like a dog chasing his tail. It was
shaped like a teardrop and made a high pitched sound for twelve
minutes.

UFO DEFENSE TACTICS - WEATHER SHIELD TO CHEMTRAILS

A. K. Johnstone, Ph.D., explores with evidence, the creation of
a weather shield to deter UFOs from entering earth's atmosphere,
by manipulating weather elecotromagnetically and with contrails.
Numerous UFO sightings are examined from a scientific viewpoint,
including EM pulses, and fireballs. Order illustrated book,
$14.95 from Hancock House 1-800-938-1114.

GET YOUR FREE E-MAIL ACCOUNT AT: www.filer.unfranchise.com

My web portal now offers a free e-mail account to people who
read Filer's Files. Most people check their e-mail several times
a day and my sight brings you the news, sports, business news,
and weather plus your own GoNowMail.Com account. Some day you
may need to send a Hallmark Card, flowers or a gift. Its all
here for your convenience at discount prices. Shop at the mall
without walls with 100 stores. I spend over 40 hours a week in
UFO research. Frankly, if you use some of these products, I get
a small percentage paid by the stores for sending you there. I
use many of these products and they're great. Register as a
Preferred Customer to get your own e-mail account and get
special discounts.

I phoned my mother, who said she wanted perfume for her gift. We
had two feet of snow on the ground, so I looked up
frangrance.com on my website. The perfume she wanted was being
sold at a 35% discount, that I ordered with my Visa. Four days
later she had the perfume she wanted, and was very happy. There
is a store for your every special need, and you can qualify as a
preferred customer for many of these stores.

Almost every week, I get letters from people who claim to be
suffering from what they call Chemtrail illness generated by jet
and auto emissions. I was formally Vice President of MEDCOR a
health testing company and learned breathing in pollution of any
kind causes free radicals to form in our body that are missing
an electron, making the molecule unstable. These unstable free
radicals attack the healthy molecules searching for its missing
electron setting off a destructive chain reaction. If not
stopped the free radicals wreak havoc on our cells and our
bodies. To stop this chain reaction you need antioxidant
nutrients such as Vitamins E, C, Beta-carotene and CoQ 10 and
Isotonix OPC-3. Scientific Isotonix OPC-3 studies have validated
that these are the most powerful antioxidant free radical
scavengers know to man, and one of the greatest discoveries in
history. You can purchase Isotonix OPC-3 at the Health and
Nutrition Store for about a dollar a day. You can use Visa or
MasterCard at:  www.filer.unfranchise.com

WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW WHEN BUY OR SELL A HOME

Learn how you can obtain the best real estate agent for your
needs. To get a free copy of this report e-mail me at
Majorstar@aol.com

MUFON UFO JOURNAL -- For more detailed monthly investigative
reports subscribe to the MUFON JOURNAL. A MUFON membership
includes the Journal and costs only $35.00 per year. To join
MUFON or to report a UFO go to http://www.mufon.com/. To ask
questions contact MUFONHQ@aol.com or HQ@mufon.com. Mention that
I recommended you for membership.

Filer's Files is copyrighted 2003 by George A. Filer, all rights
reserved. Readers may post the COMPLETE files on their Web Sites
if they credit the newsletter and its editor by name and list
the date of issue. These reports and comments are not
necessarily the OFFICIAL MUFON viewpoint. Send your letters to
Majorstar@aol.com. Sending mail automatically grants permission
for us to publish and use your name. Please state if you wish to
keep your name, address, or story confidential. CAUTION, MOST OF
THESE ARE INITIAL REPORTS AND REQUIRE FURTHER INVESTIGATION.

Regards,


George Filer
www.Georgefiler.com











   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 26

                    An Open Letter To Linda Moulton Howe

From: A. J. Gevaerd - Revista UFO <gevaerd@ufo.com.br>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:59:23 -0300
Fwd Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 16:42:12 -0500
Subject: An Open Letter To Linda Moulton Howe


Dear Linda:

We met a couple of times in congresses in the US and Italy, and
exchanged a few letters in the past and e-mails lately. We spent
some time discussing Ufology and exchanging personal experiences
in San Marino, a few years ago, sharing a bottle of wine. I
believe I told you at that time what I will repeat now: that I,
for one, as have many many others, admired your good work and
devotion to the UFO field. I always thought of you as an example
of objectivity and professionalism. And I always had the feeling
that you should be listened to by any UFO researcher as a
reliable source.

Unfortunately, I have to tell you now that I no longer have the
same confidence in your work, if any at all. I have to tell you
that I am completely shocked with your misconduct in a
particular case involving the greatest UFO hoaxer of all times
in Brazil. And I feel compelled to share this feeling with other
people in the US and around the world. People who felt for you the
same way I did and should be aware of the new facts.

Linda, I am totally and deeply disappointed with the lack in
your impartiality and professionalism towards the referred case.
I am mostly sorry that you have decided to entirely ignore the
truth and skip any kind of serious analysis of the real facts
about the case. Instead of that, you have decided to totally
support an obvious fake that everybody in Brazil knows so very
well for 7 long years. I do wonder what motivates you to do it
and certainly it has to be a very strong reason, that I'd rather
not think about.

I am completely amazed to find out that you came to Brazil just
a few weeks ago, that you landed in my hometown, Campo Grande,
and you didn't even bother to call me or meet me, or with any
other responsible UFO researcher in my country, to hear what we
have to say about this particular case and to see what we have
to show about it. You simply decided to come all the way from US
to Campo Grande only and exclusively to listen to a well-known
hoaxer, whose trajectory and activities in Ufology are
completely rejected by the entire responsible media and serious
UFO researchers of all ages in Brazil, instead of seeking the
truth. You have decided to passionately support an evident fake,
a repulsive scam perpetrated by a man that shames the Brazilian
UFO Community, instead of listening to anyone else.

Of course, it is your choice who you should listen to or not.
Especially if you have received an invitation from the
interested party (along with tickets and probably expenses etc)
to go to a foreign country to listen to him/her. But any UFO
researcher in any country, or even any journalist anywhere,
would agree that it was an enormous lack of responsibility not
to listen to people who have been observing, documenting and
investigating such a scam for many years. If you haven't been
advised about it before, or if you hadn't been informed of the
problems with this particular case earlier, that would be a
different story. But you have!

See:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/dec/m24-005.shtml

and

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/dec/m24-011.shtml

You have been fed with lots of info that you decided to ignore.
The case you report on your web site, amazingly in the section
of Science, is definitely not what you think it is and I am
impressed to see how easily you've been deceived with bogus
information, as well as I am amazed to find out that your skills
in detecting frauds have declined to a such degree.

At least as an obligation that comes with the duty invested in
the UFO research, or that of UFO journalism, you should consider
all the available information about that particular case. You
did not. Why? What prevented you from going to the sources and
check out what they know? You don't want to take my word for
that? No problem. But what prohibited from listening to the
entire Brazilian UFO Community and simply ignore their findings
and their extensive knowledge about the case involving the man
that you so enthusiastically support. What prevented you from
talking to your colleague-journalists on the main TV networks
in Brazil, where your supported "abductee" was exposed -
repeatedly?

I have checked out your agenda and found that you will be
speaking about this bogus case at several UFO conferences in the
States.

So it is my responsibility to inform everyone that the case is a
complete fake, one-hundred percent phony, and I will
respectfully ask them to do what you should have done, which is
to examine all the facts available. This is the reason for this
open letter. All Brazilian UFO researchers can be consulted any
time by anyone, as well as the media, for info about the
referred case and others involving the same person. Jeff Rense
still keeps in his website several of our letters and reports in
English that are concerned to this matter.

Well, Linda, I am mostly sorry for that and I hope that some
day, not too late, when you decide to check out the evidences
that you are solemnly ignoring, you will realize the damage that
you are causing. UFO researchers have been targets of hundreds
of accusations that we fail in objectivity and in applying
proper methods of research. Well, let me tell you that we, the
Brazilian UFO researchers, as an amalgamated coalition, working
relentlessly for the truth, have with much effort and
difficulties prevented thousand of more people to be fooled by
the man whose story you so devotedly support and promote at your
website. Our work in our country is done. I hope someone does
the same in the USA.

I refer to:

http://www.earthfiles.com/news/news.cfm?ID=473&category=Science


A. J. Gevaerd
Editor, Brazilian UFO Magazine (20 years being published)
President Brazilian Center for Flying Saucer Research (CBPDV)
National Director, Mutual UFO Network (MUFON)

gevaerd@ufo.com.br







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 26

                         A Warning To Wendy Connors

From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 20:27:11 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 18:31:46 -0500
Subject: A Warning To Wendy Connors


Hello Wendy,

Yesterday Mon-Ka directed me to send you the following warning.
I tried to send it to you directly using your email on the List
but it was returned. Therefore I must post it to UFO UpDates and
all Listerions must immediately heed Mon-Kas warning.

-----

Ms Connors,

This warning demands that you cease and desist claiming to be a
psychic channeling representative of Mon-Ka.

I am Mon-Ka and I have not licensed you to represent me. I will
allow you to represent me for a license fee of $10,000.

If you continue to represent me I will be forced to have one of
the finest legal experts of people who do not have a clue, the
esteemed Peter Gersten represent me. In his robed splendor and
with an array of crystals he will intimidate the judge and will
cause you to pay the license fee and expenses or spend a year
inside the infamous Santa Rita jail.

Once again, you have been warned to cease and desist from your
claims to channel me or your channel tuner will be blocked
through a surprise prefrontal lobotomy. Only Sean Morton, Sodom
Hussein and Kim IL Jung Gomorrah currently hold the proper
licenses to represent my demonic intentions for this planet of
mere mortals stuck in their human bodies.

Beware!

Mon-Ka, son and heir of Mon-Fri and Sat-Sun


This message is sent through the computer of Josh Goldstein, who
is completely and foolishly under my control.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 26

                        Thing That Fell From The Sky

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:47:37 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 18:39:51 -0500
Subject: Thing That Fell From The Sky


SOURCE: El Tribuno Digital Aregentina
DATE: February 26, 2003

SALTA RESIDENTS RECALL "THING THAT FELL FROM THE SKY"

**Communities southeast of Salta witnessed the surprising event
in August 1995**

The time was 1:45 pm on August 17, 1995. An unidentified flying
object fell mysteriously from the sky against Cerro Colorado, a
hard to reach area near the community of El Galp=F3n. The vehicle,
cylindrical in shape, according to local residents, exploded in
such a way that it caused the earth to shake.

"The object zig-zagged and produced a strong tremor when it
fell," say the main witnesses of the event, Paz Zamana and her
husband Juan Cisneros, who own a house on the slopes of the hill
were the object collided. The elderly spouses remarked that "the
thing passed this way several times. One night we saw it as an
orange light and at the other day it came back lovelier and
shinier.It remained suspended in the air and then it exploded
and fell behind the hill".

The event, witnessed by thousands in a 300 km circunference,
caused the earth to shake and frightened the locals. "I was home
when I heard a tremendous explosion. When I went out I got to
see the smoke. The people of [the town of] Joaquin V. Gonzalez
left their homes when they felt the explosion that caused the
earth to shake, and they headed by car and on foot toward the
Juramento River, drawn by the phenomenon, " said Antonio
Galvano, an experiences pilot and one of the main researchers in
the sighting. "I immediately took to my small plane and flew
over the area for several days until I found a large strip,
measuring some 300 meters wide and many more in length, which
was at the summit of Cerro Colorado at an elevation of some 900
meters. From what I saw, the expansion wave razed all the
vegetation in the area, incinerating trees and pastures."

According to Galvano, who belives to this day that a UFO
collided there, "the spacecraft fell on account of a malfunction
and prior to hitting the ground unleashed the conflagration that
left the strip. Then it collided and caused it all to shake. The
phenomenon was seen at El Galp=F3n, Tunal, Joaquin V. Gonzalez and
Met=E1n."

Another startling bit of information is that Galvano, as he
covered the area in his ultralight, suffered a short circuit and
the aircraft plummeted inexplicably, since it was in tip-top
condition. The site was eventually reached by a rescue team
composed by some 20 people. "Their task was authorized by the
police, but they found nothing because the object had fallen
into a canyon which could only be reached by helicopter."

It then happened that within a few days and over two months,
strange English-speaking individuals worked in the area and
combed it using helicopters and pickup trucks, said Galvano.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Translation (C) 2003 Scott Corrales
Institute of Hispanic Ufology (IHU)
Special thanks to Christian Hern=E1n Quintero, PLANETAUFO.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 26

                      Possible Meteor Outburst March 1

From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:56:59 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 18:42:16 -0500
Subject: Possible Meteor Outburst March 1


Hi Errol, and List.

I find this a handy heads-up warning source for UFO
investigators about non-UFO events that could result in UFO
reports. This is where the ballon advisory came from I posted
about a month ago for the Southern Hemisphere. This again
targets the Southern Hemisphere. URLs are at the end of the
text.

See below.

Don ledger

==================================================================
This Is SKY & TELESCOPE's AstroAlert for Meteors
==================================================================

There is a possible meteor outburst predicted to occur at 21:54
Universal Time on March 1, 2003. Unfortunately it will only be
observable from the Southern Hemisphere as the radiant is
located at RA 013, Dec -64 (near the fourth magnitude star Zeta
Tucanae). The outburst is related to particles from comet C/1976
D1 (Comet Bradfield).

The moon will be near its new phase so there will be no lunar
interference. Considering darkness and radiant altitude, South
America appears to be the most suitable place for observations.

As Esko Lyytinen mentions below, any activity from this source
should be bright, but the strongest portion of the display will
last only ten minutes.

Esko Lyytinen further comments: "This is indeed considered very
reliable as to the close encounter of the trail. The thing that
may make this suspicious is the dimness of the parent comet as
compared to the parent comets of Lyrids and Aurigids (known long
period comet with showers and outbursts observed).

The trail stretching can be considered to be proportional to the
semimajor-axis powered to 2.5. With this comet it is about 100,
that is ten times bigger than with the Leonids, so the trail is
about 300 times more stretched than a 1-rev. Leonid-trail,
making it less dense by about that much. Because of quite
central (about 10000km, inside the Earth orbit) and 1-rev and
high inclination, the outburst width (in time) is expected to be
very small maybe only about ten minutes the strongest phase
(might be even shorter). The meteors are expected to be
relatively bright, probably mostly NOT real fire-balls (there
may well be those among) but not dim either. Because of the
brief observing period, even possible moderate rates may not
give many meteors. Don't expect a storm. Because of the
stretching by long period, a storm level is very very
improbable.

It is impossible to give any rates-prediction, but if one tries
to observe, I recommend to try to get an as wide a coverage as
possible even close to horizon, for the short time interval. The
timing is expected to be accurate to 15 minutes or probably even
better, but be ready for a possible little more error in the
timing. The radiant is above horizon also in South Africa, but
about only ten degrees, I recall. Radio M-scatter observers in
the South are advised to keep their receivers ready.

I think that in principle m-scatter is very suitable for
recording this. You only have to be where the radiant is (well)
above horizon, preferably quite high. Although I have not
figured out the exact limits, South America is suitable, the
more southern (and western), the better. Could be also recorded
from New Zealand and South-Eastern Australia and from South
Africa (these with relatively low radiant). Of course Antarctic
would be fine, if there were an observer and a suitable
transmitter could be found.

For visual observations at the best places (for this) in the
Antarctic, the radiant is quite high, but the Sun only about 11
deg below horizon which is not bad either for the expected non-
dim meteors. I far as I know, there is near the best location
(in Antarctic) at least one Russian base, but hardly any
interested observer(?)

I hope that something will be observed."

If anyone happens to witness any activity from this source
please share your results with the American Meteor Society at
lunsford@amsmeteors.org and with Sky & Telescope at
observers@skypub.com

Clear Skies!

Robert Lunsford
AMS Operations Manager

==================================================================
AstroAlert is a free service of SKY & TELESCOPE, the Essential
Magazine of Astronomy (http://SkyandTelescope.com/). This e-mail
was sent to AstroAlert subscribers. If you feel you received it
in error, or to unsubscribe from AstroAlert, please send a plain-
text e-mail to majordomo@SkyandTelescope.com with the following
line -- and nothing else -- in the body of the message:
unsubscribe meteor e-mail@address.com
replacing "e-mail@address.com" with your actual e-mail address.
==================================================================







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 26

                    Re: John Alexander On Greer? - White

From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:42:55 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 18:48:23 -0500
Subject: Re: John Alexander On Greer? - White


 >From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 02:27:11 -0500
 >Subject: Re: John Alexander On Greer?

 >>From: Stephen G. Bassett <SGBList2@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 00:10:38 EST
 >>Subject: Re: John Alexander On Greer?

<snip>

Stephen Bassett writing:

 >>What I heard was this: NIDS had been holding secret meetings
 >>with one or more members, including one committee chairman, on
 >>having hearings. NIDS had worked up a script for these
 >>hearings,

Eleanor White commenting:

It has been the experience of people trying to get important
issues discussed publicy and responded to appropriately, that
key issues have sometimes been "scripted out" of government
deliberations, making fair resolution of an issue impossible.
One good example were the statements by local emergency
officials at the Oklahoma City bombing who went on TV and
publicly stated they had found unexploded bombs inside the
building. Another are the seismographic readings at the World
Trade Center collapse which point to heavy explosives going off
(Richter 2.1 and 2.3) as opposed to simply falling debris. Or
the fact that a third building collapsed with no apparent cause,
or cell phone calls from within the twin towers in which the
callers declared they heard "explosions going off all over the
place", as happens in a planned implosion.

I suggest that "scripting" is a very bad way for supposedly open
hearings to start off.

More Stephen Bassett:

 >>which was being negotiated with the committee chair.
 >>When the public press conference was held the 9th of May
 >>committee chair terminated the private process underway.

John Velez replying:

 >Stephen, thank you for being so forthcoming with this
 >information. This is important. If John Alexander is telling the
 >truth about what transpired as a result of Greer interjecting
 >himself into the proceedings, then we all have a serious
 >situation that requires immediate attention.

For sure!

<snip>

 >I'm sure I'm not alone when I say that I was shocked and struck
 >dumb when, at the last hour, Greer tacked on the issues of Free
 >energy and space defence weapons to the UFO disclosure agenda.
 >It had all the appearances of someone intentionally shooting
 >themselves in the foot.

"Free" (i.e. seemingly free, but in fact from sources yet
unknown to human scientists) energy was publicized in hopes that
such a timely benefit of release of UFO technology might
accelerate the genuine hearings by generating public interest
and pressure.

Space defence weapons may possibly exist right now with a
mission to deter attack from UFOs. No way to know with the total
secrecy in effect. Is it not important to know if government(s)
do have weapons tasked for that?

 >However, if the desired result was to
 >send any interested congressional parties running for the hills,
 >it was _most_ effective. If the intention was to derail possible
 >congressional hearings, it was a triumphant success.

Frankly, John, I don't see why any member of Congress would
not want full disclosure on both of the above issues. Do you?

If those issues send them running for the hills, then are they
actually doing their job?

 >There are a few urgent questions that need answering. If the
 >people of the world (not just here in the USA) were cheated out
 >of an opportunity to conduct congressional hearings on UFOs,
 >then we all need to know about it. We need to know if an
 >expression of 'popular support' could possibly revive the
 >process that NIDS started. This is an issue of _major_
 >importance to us all.

We also need to know exactly what that NIDS 'script' looks like.

<snip>

 >I agree wholeheartedly Stephen. Clarification is called for.
 >This is a serious allegation that is being made. In this case
 >the people not only have a right to know, they have a need to
 >know.

I agree too, as long as all the details about NIDS' plans for
the hearings are made known.

At age 61, it sure would be nice to know something substantial
about UFOs before passing on.


Eleanor White







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 26

                       Aliens Help Roswell To Flourish

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 19:25:15 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 19:25:15 -0500
Subject: Aliens Help Roswell To Flourish



Source: mywesttexas.com

http://www.mywesttexas.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=3D2288&dept_id=3D475621&newsid=
=3D7185031&PAG=3D461&rfi=3D9

02/26/2003

Reports Of Space Aliens Help Roswell To Flourish
By Burr Williams - Sibley Nature Center

Do you believe an alien spacecraft crashed on the evening of
July 4, 1947 northwest of Roswell, N.M.?

This is what allegedly took place:

At 11:30 that night, Rancher Mac Brazel heard a loud noise,
different from the thunder occurring at the same time. In the
morning he went to perform routine ranch work and found a debris
field "three football fields wide and three-quarter of a mile
long." He stopped and picked up a tow sack full of the debris.

On the 6th, Brazel brought his sack to the sheriff in Roswell,
who contacted Air Force Intelligence Officer Jesse Marcel at
Roswell Army Airfield, who went with Brazel to the ranch. They
collected more material and brought it back from town. The local
funeral home received a call about how many child-sized caskets
are in stock, and was asked how to preserve bodies that have
been exposed to the elements.

The funeral home director, Glenn Dennis, then went to the air
base, expecting to receive the bodies, but a nurse on duty told
him to leave immediately. A day later the nurse met Dennis, who
told him she saw big-eyed aliens on the examining table. The
next day the nurse disappeared, and was never heard from again.

On the same day of Dennis' experiences, the commander of the air
base ordered a press release about the crash. The local
newspaper related the story (and since then the newspaper has
sold more than 50,000 copies of the page with the story.) Marcel
flew to Fort Worth with some of the debris and spread it out in
front of General Ramey, and was told to step out of the room.
When he returned, the debris had been replaced with debris from
a weather balloon, a photograph was taken, and on July 9 many
newspapers printed the picture of the weather balloon material,
along with a story that informed the world that no flying saucer
was found at Roswell.

Today, in 2003, 400 people a day visit the UFO Museum and
Research Center. The morning that Deborah and I visited, cars
with license plates from Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Chihuahua,
Quebec, Washington State, South Dakota, Missouri, Illinois and
several other states filled the parking lot. Ninety thousand
tourists visit Roswell each year, increasing city hotel tax
revenues by 35 percent in the last four years. Alien-seeking
tourists have pumped more than five million dollars a year into
the local economy.

Thousands of folks have seen unusual lights and shapes in the
sky. Many come to Roswell to compare what they have seen with
the sightings of others. A number of people have moved to
Roswell to be part of the UFO "interpretative" community,
attending and giving lectures, writing articles and maintaining
Web sites.

Almost every store downtown sells something adorned with an
alien design. There is a Crashdown Caf=E9, with a flying saucer
crashed into its fa=E7ade, for example. Many small towns in the
west are declining in population, suffering economically, and
slowly decaying, but not Roswell. The resurgence began in the
early 1990's, after Glenn Dennis and others that experienced the
events of 1947 decided to make sure no one forgot and began the
UFO Museum and Research Center.

This July 4 and 5, the city will hold its UFO Festival. The town
of 50,000 will swell to 75,000. Every motel and campground will
be filled. Speakers will present their theories, musicians will
fill stages, sci-fi movies will thrill audiences, a parade of
lights will sparkle, kids will present an alien fashion show,
and dozens of vendors will hock everything from blow-up plastic
aliens to books to flying saucer burgers.

Roswell has three alien museums. The UFO Museum and Research
Center is the largest, housed in an old theater downtown. Along
with equipment and clothing of the 1940s, ample reading material
is displayed -- dozens of the affidavits of the eyewitnesses,
plus copies of various newspaper stories written at the time. A
dummy of an alien used in a TV movie is the most photographed
object in the museum. The museum also has a library, filled with
books and articles on aliens and UFOs. This museum has no entry
fee, unlike the others.

The other two museums are not as well funded. Near the airport
is the UFO Enigma Museum, featuring a recreation of the
purported crash site. South of town is the Midway Sighting UFO
Museum, where a visitor can watch videos of alien UFOs filmed by
the owners.

Across the street from the UFO Museum and Research Center is the
Alien Resistance Headquarters, funded by three local churches.
The proprietor, Guy Malone, is a Christian who says he has seen
aliens. He believes they are fallen angels. His mission is to
prevent folks from joining cults that are based on contacts with
aliens. Those cults, like the Raelians of human cloning fame,
say aliens are here to help us, while Malone says the fallen
angels mated with human women and created a hybrid race that has
brought us the incredible modern day high-technological world
that will soon bring the downfall of human society.

Visitors can go to a purported crash site as well (at least
three different places have supporters claiming it is the
correct site.) Not far from town (and close enough so bus tours
are offered during the UFO Festival) Landowner Hub Corn will
lead the tour for $15 a person, and will even allow camping for
$98 a night. No artifacts are there -- it is just a lonesome
piece of prairie where a person can give free rein to their
imagination.

There are other reasons to visit Roswell. Bottomless Lakes State
Park is an amazing series of water-filled sinkholes 13 miles
east of town, offering camping, fishing, swimming and hiking. At
the Bitterlakes National Wildlife Refuge, 11 miles east of town,
a visitor can observe thousands of snow geese and sandhill
cranes in the winter in the saline lakes of the refuge. Both
sites offer bizarre landscapes.

During the growing season a person can look for and learn about
the 90 species of dragonflies found in the refuge (the most
diverse dragonfly community anywhere in the world.) On Aug. 22
and 23 of this year, the Friends of the Bitterlakes will hold
their Dragonfly Festival, with speakers, artwork, craft shows
and tours of the refuge.

------

Burr Williams is education director for the Sibley Learning
Center.

C. MyWestTexas.com 2003

[UFO UpDates thanks www.http://anomalist.com for the lead]






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 26

             Re: An Open Letter To Linda Moulton Howe - Moulton

From: Linda Moulton Howe <earthfiles@earthfiles.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 18:58:59 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 19:34:28 -0500
Subject: Re: An Open Letter To Linda Moulton Howe - Moulton


 >From: A. J. Gevaerd - Revista UFO <gevaerd@ufo.com.br>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>,
 >Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:59:23 -0300
 >Subject: An Open Letter To Linda Moulton Howe


Dear Mr. Gevaerd:

I don't know what fuels your negative campaign, but it is not
from objective research of the Corghinho phenomena, physical
evidence and eyewitnesses.

As far as I know, I am the first person on February 9, 2003, to
have collected several scorched and control samples from both
the bed and ceiling of the Urandir Oliveira bedroom for American
lab analysis. I also sampled other physical evidence where other
farmers have watched mysterious lights interact with the land. I
will be reporting analytical results when they are available.

Also, among several firsthand eyewitness interviews I recorded
about Corghinho phenomena, I discussed with Jose Carols De
Souza, a lawyer and Attorney General of the State of Rio de
Janeiro, about the night of January 4 to 5, 2003, when he and
his wife encountered a glowing gold and red craft he estimates
was at least 18 meters in diameter on the hill above Urandir
Oliveira's farm.


Sincerely,

Linda Moulton Howe

Reporter and Editor
Earthfiles.com,
and News Contributor,
Premiere Radio Networks
and Dreamland Online

P. O. Box 300
Jamison, PA
18929-0300

Fax: 215-491-9842






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 26

             Re: An Open Letter To Linda Moulton Howe - Moulton

From: Linda Moulton Howe <earthfiles@earthfiles.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 18:58:59 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 19:07:16 -0500
Subject: Re: An Open Letter To Linda Moulton Howe - Moulton


 >From: A. J. Gevaerd - Revista UFO <gevaerd@ufo.com.br>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>,
 >Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:59:23 -0300
 >Subject: An Open Letter To Linda Moulton Howe


Dear Mr. Gevaerd:

I don't know what fuels your negative campaign, but it is not
from objective research of the Corghinho phenomena, physical
evidence and eyewitnesses.

As far as I know, I am the first person on February 9, 2003, to
have collected several scorched and control samples from both
the bed and ceiling of the Urandir Oliveira bedroom for American
lab analysis. I also sampled other physical evidence where other
farmers have watched mysterious lights interact with the land. I
will be reporting analytical results when they are available.

Also, among several firsthand eyewitness interviews I recorded
about Corghinho phenomena, I discussed with Jose Carols De
Souza, a lawyer and Attorney General of the State of Rio de
Janeiro, about the night of January 4 to 5, 2003, when he and
his wife encountered a glowing gold and red craft he estimates
was at least 18 meters in diameter on the hill above Urandir
Oliveira's farm.


Sincerely,

Linda Moulton Howe

Reporter and Editor
Earthfiles.com,
and News Contributor,
Premiere Radio Networks
and Dreamland Online

P. O. Box 300
Jamison, PA
18929-0300

Fax: 215-491-9842







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 27

             Re: An Open Letter To Linda Moulton Howe - Gevaerd

From: A. J. Gevaerd - Revista UFO <gevaerd@ufo.com.br>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 21:03:50 -0300
Fwd Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 09:44:59 -0500
Subject: Re: An Open Letter To Linda Moulton Howe - Gevaerd


 >From: Linda Moulton Howe <earthfiles@earthfiles.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 18:58:59 -0500
 >Subject: Re: An Open Letter To Linda Moulton Howe

 >>From: A. J. Gevaerd - Revista UFO <gevaerd@ufo.com.br>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>,
 >>Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:59:23 -0300
 >>Subject: An Open Letter To Linda Moulton Howe


 >Dear Mr. Gevaerd:

 >I don't know what fuels your negative campaign, but it is not
 >from objective research of the Corghinho phenomena, physical
 >evidence and eyewitnesses.

 >As far as I know, I am the first person on February 9, 2003, to
 >have collected several scorched and control samples from both
 >the bed and ceiling of the Urandir Oliveira bedroom for American
 >lab analysis. I also sampled other physical evidence where other
 >farmers have watched mysterious lights interact with the land. I
 >will be reporting analytical results when they are available.

 >Also, among several firsthand eyewitness interviews I recorded
 >about Corghinho phenomena, I discussed with Jose Carols De
 >Souza, a lawyer and Attorney General of the State of Rio de
 >Janeiro, about the night of January 4 to 5, 2003, when he and
 >his wife encountered a glowing gold and red craft he estimates
 >was at least 18 meters in diameter on the hill above Urandir
 >Oliveira's farm.

 >Sincerely,

 >Linda Moulton Howe


Linda,

I still definitely refuse to believe that you could be so
gullible to fall for such a scam. I do not understand how could
your skills get so decreased. And I am searching other
explanations.

You ask me what fuels my negative campaign? Well, looks like
you've lost a great chance to see by yourself what I could have
shown you here in Campo Grande! Now, it is me who asks you what
is actually preventing you from looking at both sides of this
question? Why you so strongly deny checking out evidence for
yourself? You must admit that you are conducting an
irresponsible investigation that only takes one side into
consideration.

Perhaps, among other things, this is what fuels me.

For me, who read your books and always observed your career with
admiration, it is much more than odd that you would take
someone's word so easily when _all_ Brazilian UFO researchers
have been ignored. How is it possible that you don't see what so
many other people see?

You speak of physical evidences of objects interacting with the
land in Corguinho (it is not Corghinho). Do you mean those small
circular stones that can be found just about everywhere in my
State, and of which Urandir sold thousands to people all over
Brazil for about US$50? Or do you mean the Navy flare used by
him to fake a ridiculous UFO crash in 2001? Or do you mean the
intensive use of 3-buck laser pointers, helium advertising
balloons and strong automobile beams of light to make people
idiots on his farm, believing that they are seeing ships from
other planets? Or could you possibly mean the phosphorous
liquids, powders and pastes that Urandir uses to fake strange
green colors in the dark, that he says are people's auras?

I guess you didn't know any of these things. Did you, at least,
know that he was magician? Well, I can also tell you (and show
you very impressive documentation about) many other interesting
stories about intraterrestrials in Urandir's farm, but they are
not from any 8th dimension celestial city, as he tells his
followers. They are very human, just his employees fooling
people for their money.

You speak about samples. Perhaps you could check out some
samples that we have of the "akashical register plates" that
thousand of fanatics and naive people are after, believing that
Urandir got them from ETs to give as gifts to his selected ones
(who pay). At last, you should know something about the many
other ways to cheat people with fairy tales that he uses, just
like the story you now support. What about the cure for cancer
and AIDS? Or the promise of eternal life or resuscitation? Ah,
and there is the profitable foreseeing of deaths to fool the
deceaseds families. Oh, yes, Linda, it is all for sale at a
reasonable price.

I am sorry however that I cannot buy a ticket for you to come
down to Brazil and check it all by yourself. You should have
done that the first time, when you had a chance. All it would
take was a phone call. Now that you didn't, and you insist on
supporting the bogus, I will definitely show the facts I have
and let people decide. I have my team working day and night to
have lots of stuff in English.

I really held you in high esteem. I am sorry that I cannot
simply sit still and do nothing. As a journalist myself,
as an editor of the only Brazilian UFO magazine for 20 years,
and as someone entirely devoted to serious and responsible UFO
research, I will do what I have to.

Sincerely,

A. J. Gevaerd







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 27

                  Re: A Warning To Wendy Connors - Connors

From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 18:08:47 -0700
Fwd Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 09:50:34 -0500
Subject: Re: A Warning To Wendy Connors - Connors


 >From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
 >To: UFO Updates <UFOUpdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 20:27:11 +0100
 >Subject: A Warning To Wendy Connors


 >Hello Wendy,

 >Yesterday Mon-Ka directed me to send you the following warning.
 >I tried to send it to you directly using your email on the List
 >but it was returned. Therefore I must post it to UFO UpDates and
 >all Listerions must immediately heed Mon-Kas warning.

Ah, yer mudder wears combat boots! Cum an git us ta stop if ya
tink ya bigga nuff! I's gots a contract I tells ya! Yeah, a
contract!

Wendy's Attorney

Wendy's response:

Oh, you'd look just darling in your purple robes! Kissie, kissie!

Wendy











   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 27

                 Re: An Open Letter To Linda Moulton Howe -

From: Thiago Luiz Ticchetti <thiagolt@opengate.com.br>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 22:22:19 -0300
Fwd Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:00:44 -0500
Subject: Re: An Open Letter To Linda Moulton Howe -


 >From: A. J. Gevaerd - Revista UFO <gevaerd@ufo.com.br>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>,
 >Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:59:23 -0300
 >Subject: An Open Letter To Linda Moulton Howe

 >Dear Linda:

 >We met a couple of times in congresses in the US and Italy, and
 >exchanged a few letters in the past and e-mails lately. We spent
 >some time discussing Ufology and exchanging personal experiences
 >in San Marino, a few years ago, sharing a bottle of wine. I
 >believe I told you at that time what I will repeat now: that I,
 >for one, as have many many others, admired your good work and
 >devotion to the UFO field. I always thought of you as an example
 >of objectivity and professionalism. And I always had the feeling
 >that you should be listened to by any UFO researcher as a
 >reliable source.

 >Unfortunately, I have to tell you now that I no longer have the
 >same confidence in your work, if any at all. I have to tell you
 >that I am completely shocked with your misconduct in a
 >particular case involving the greatest UFO hoaxer of all times
 >in Brazil. And I feel compelled to share this feeling with other
 >people in the US and around the world. People who felt for you the
 >same way I did and should be aware of the new facts.

 >Linda, I am totally and deeply disappointed with the lack in
 >your impartiality and professionalism towards the referred case.
 >I am mostly sorry that you have decided to entirely ignore the
 >truth and skip any kind of serious analysis of the real facts
 >about the case. Instead of that, you have decided to totally
 >support an obvious fake that everybody in Brazil knows so very
 >well for 7 long years. I do wonder what motivates you to do it
 >and certainly it has to be a very strong reason, that I'd rather
 >not think about.

<snip>

I do not believe either.

I considered Linda one of the most important and serious UFO
investigators in the world. But seems that I was wrong.

I am not complaining about her trip to Mato Grosso do Sul,
Brazil, to meet Urandir and investigate his claims, but a
serious investigator, researcher and reporter would look for the
both sides of the story! And A.J. Gevaerd lives in Mato Grosso
do Sul State. She could drop by to speak with him and learn what
he had to say. But no, and I do not know why Linda, didn't do
that. Has she been threatened by anybody? Because it is not
possible. We here in Brazil sent so much information about
Urandir and his fakes in Brazil and even so Linda pretends to be
blind and misunderstands. What is happening to Linda?

I can only say that I am saddened by her attitude lately and I
have a warning: Linda will be sorry because she's working with a
lying and using person.

Regards


Thiago Luiz Ticchetti
Vice-Presidente Entidade Brasileira de Estudos Extraterrestres (EBE-ET/RAB)
International Coordinator UFO Magazine Brazil

www.ebe-et.com.br







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 27

                              Columbia Tragedy

From: Tom Bowden <tomrbowden@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:47:18 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:27:58 -0500
Subject: Columbia Tragedy


Dear Listers,

I would like to restate my previous post about the Columbia
tragedy. It is unfortunate that the recent round of debates in
this vein have grown so acrimonious. Rather that add fuel to
those flames, I would prefer to begin a new, simpler thread.

On the heels of the Space Shuttle Columbia tragedy, I would like
to express the hope that NASA would realize that they must put
more resources into developing (or discovering) an alternative
technology to the current means of space travel. Even the newer
developments which have been publicized are rooted in the same
ballistic rocketry that has been used since the beginning.

It is difficult to understand how an agency like NASA can
steadfastly refuse to pay any attention to the potential of
discovering a new space technology by conducting an in-depth
scientific study of UFOs, unless one admits the possibility that
some ulterior motive on the part of certain influential parties
is at work.

Regardless of the many internecine squabbles in the ufological
community, the one thing that unites us is the realization that
we are dealing with something that is real, and that is
unexplained, and which at least _seems_ to represent a flight
technology beyond our conventional aerodynamics and rocketry.

In the wake of the Challenger tragedy, NASA re-engineered their
policies to allow one voice to stop a planned launch if that one
voice brought up a good reason for the delay or cancellation. No
one can doubt the wisdom of this new policy.

The next step should be for NASA to allow a minority voice to be
heard on unconventional approaches to new development, such as
the study of UFOs as a potential source of new ideas. They
should not allow the voice of "conventional wisdom", a la James
Oberg, to put blinders on all the thought processes that might
otherwise lead to some radical new approach with potential for a
real improvement.

I sincerely hope that no more tragedies such as the loss of the
Columbia and crew must occur before NASA awakes to the
realization that they must do whatever is necessary to find some
alternatives to their current approach to space travel
technology.

Thoughts? How about you, Mr. Oberg?


Tom Bowden






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 27

              Observations At Aerospace Facilities? [Was: John

From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 03:36:15 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:35:32 -0500
Subject: Observations At Aerospace Facilities? [Was: John


 >From: Vince White <Vinceomni@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 12:55:28 EST
 >Subject: Re: John Alexander On Greer?

 >>From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys@rogers.com>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 18:47:07 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: John Alexander On Greer

 >>What in the world is the connection between past evil or
 >>dishonest actions by the US Government got to do with the
 >>question of either free energy technology or new means for
 >>getting astronauts safely to orbit???

 >Connection to safe orbit? It is worth repeating that this
 >question is possibly answered by field reports and observations
 >at R&D sites.

 >Perhaps to be answered by past field reports in the Tehachapi's
 >at the Northrop facility or currently at the BAe Warton Special
 >Projects site in Lancashire UK.

 >Flying triangles have been repeatedly sighted performing
 >nonaerodynamically and silently except for an occasional humming
 >sound and RAF escort.

 >Forget, for a moment moral judgements about governments.

 >What is actually being observed at aerospace testing facilities?
 >
 >Maybe the answer to that question would answer to the moral
 >question.


Hello Vince,

In your post above you asked the question "What is actually
being observed at aerospace facilities?"

In your previous email a couple of days ago you claimed: "A
careful examination of many quality observations near the Tejon
ranch in the Tehachapi's in the late 80's indicate that disc and
triangular-shaped objects were seen performing non aerodynamic
movements on many nights. They were seen emerging from a
NORTHROP facility without alarm or interference from Edwards
AFB."

I have not responded to that previous e-mail because I was
waiting for Bill Hamilton to respond. He hasn't yet done so,
causing me to butt in.

The reason I mention Bill is because he is how I first found
about the claimed activities at the Tejon ranch. That was at the
end of the 1980s. He also published a book that made such claims
soon after that time. I have not looked at the book for many
years and no longer have a copy. My failing memory recalls that
Bill claimed to have gotten information from anonymous sources
in the Antelope Valley (which contains Lancaster, Palmdale,
Edwards AFB, USAF Plant 42, the Northrop radar testing facility,
a similar facility from Lockheed located at Hellendale, to name
just a few). Other than some claims I have no true evidence that
disk or triangle shaped objects were flying in/ flying out or
hovering over the Tejon ranch facility of Northrop.

Back at that time, out of curiosity, my son and I used to go out
there at night and camp out to observe. In the numerous times we
went out there we did not sight any UFOs or strange lights. Soon
the word got around the LA area and Norio Hayakawa (a
conspiracy/UFOs spokesman without any empirical evidence) and
his mindless minions started viewing trips out there. My son
and I moved up to a mesa that completely overlooked the
Northrop facility and after a few nights gave up.

I had also talked with several people who lived in the nearest
houses to the facility and they said they had not seen any disk
or triangle UFOs there. The closest neighbor said he had only
seen some strong lights like laser beams a few times over the
preceeding years. That is all I know. I was hoping Bill Hamilton
would respond with more empirical evidence of past claims. You
claimed in your pevious post regarding empiricism that there are
quality reports of disks and triangle objects were seen emerging
from the Northrop facility. I would like to know

what empirical evidence you have to support that claim.

I asked the nearest neighbor about claims that the facility had
many underground levels. He did not know that but confirmed that
at the time of construction a lot of cement trucks were there.
He also said that at times cars with high ranking officers
passed his property going in and out of the facility. That
proves nothing about UFOs. Vince, please put your quality
reports and evidence for UFOs in a post on this List. Bill, if
you are reading this I would like you to comment and put what
you've got on this list.

We all would like to know what the aerospace industry is testing
out at Groom Lake. Today I saw an update on the pieces found
from the Space Shuttle Columbia. They said the desert 100 miles
north of Las Vegas is being searched. If they would let me I
would gladly search Area 51 for them. I don't think they will
allow that so I must rush my labworkers to finish developing my
invisibility drink. :-)


Josh








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 27

              Re: An Open Letter To Linda Moulton Howe - Gates

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 01:03:12 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:37:45 -0500
Subject: Re: An Open Letter To Linda Moulton Howe - Gates


 >From: A. J. Gevaerd - Revista UFO <gevaerd@ufo.com.br>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>,
 >Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:59:23 -0300
 >Subject: An Open Letter To Linda Moulton Howe


 >Dear Linda:

 >We met a couple of times in congresses in the US and Italy, and
 >exchanged a few letters in the past and e-mails lately. We spent
 >some time discussing Ufology and exchanging personal experiences
 >in San Marino, a few years ago, sharing a bottle of wine. I
 >believe I told you at that time what I will repeat now: that I,
 >for one, as have many many others, admired your good work and
 >devotion to the UFO field. I always thought of you as an example
 >of objectivity and professionalism. And I always had the feeling
 >that you should be listened to by any UFO researcher as a
 >reliable source.

 >Unfortunately, I have to tell you now that I no longer have the
 >same confidence in your work, if any at all. I have to tell you
 >that I am completely shocked with your misconduct in a
 >particular case involving the greatest UFO hoaxer of all times
 >in Brazil. And I feel compelled to share this feeling with other
 >people in the US and around the world. People who felt for you the
 >same way I did and should be aware of the new facts.

 >Linda, I am totally and deeply disappointed with the lack in
 >your impartiality and professionalism towards the referred case.
 >I am mostly sorry that you have decided to entirely ignore the
 >truth and skip any kind of serious analysis of the real facts
 >about the case. Instead of that, you have decided to totally
 >support an obvious fake that everybody in Brazil knows so very
 >well for 7 long years. I do wonder what motivates you to do it
 >and certainly it has to be a very strong reason, that I'd rather
 >not think about.

 >I am completely amazed to find out that you came to Brazil just
 >a few weeks ago, that you landed in my hometown, Campo Grande,
 >and you didn't even bother to call me or meet me, or with any
 >other responsible UFO researcher in my country, to hear what we
 >have to say about this particular case and to see what we have
 >to show about it. You simply decided to come all the way from US
 >to Campo Grande only and exclusively to listen to a well-known
 >hoaxer, whose trajectory and activities in Ufology are
 >completely rejected by the entire responsible media and serious
 >UFO researchers of all ages in Brazil, instead of seeking the
 >truth. You have decided to passionately support an evident fake,
 >a repulsive scam perpetrated by a man that shames the Brazilian
 >UFO Community, instead of listening to anyone else.

 >Of course, it is your choice who you should listen to or not.
 >Especially if you have received an invitation from the
 >interested party (along with tickets and probably expenses etc)
 >to go to a foreign country to listen to him/her. But any UFO
 >researcher in any country, or even any journalist anywhere,
 >would agree that it was an enormous lack of responsibility not
 >to listen to people who have been observing, documenting and
 >investigating such a scam for many years. If you haven't been
 >advised about it before, or if you hadn't been informed of the
 >problems with this particular case earlier, that would be a
 >different story. But you have!

 >See:

 >http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/dec/m24-005.shtml

 >and

 >http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/dec/m24-011.shtml

A.J. Listers,

As near as I can tell the folks in Brazil are claiming that this
guy is a phony hoaxer that everybody in Brazil has known about
for 7 years. Yet when you check the above email, especially the
first one all you have is one persons pronouncement without any
supporting evidence that the individuals story is not to be
believed.

Linda Howe was apparently on site, besides talking to that person,
has also spoken to other farmers who verify some of the story,
not to mention the Attorney General whose wife saw something
in the area in January.

So could you give us the specific information and facts (without
an attack on Linda)  which leads at least two of you to conclude
that this guy is a phony hoaxer; also the specific information
as to why the story is appearing to be verified to a degree by
Independent witnesses who have witnesses?

Also could you tell us how many witnesses the folks down their
interviewed and what there story is?


Thanks,

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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 27

                    Re: John Alexander On Greer? - Velez

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 01:05:33 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:39:51 -0500
Subject: Re: John Alexander On Greer? - Velez


 >From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:01:12 -0500
 >Subject: Re: John Alexander On Greer?

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:24:19 +0000
 >>Subject: Re: John Alexander On Greer?

 >>>From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 11:33:48 -0500
 >>>Subject: Re: John Alexander On Greer?

 >>>>From: Paul Kimball <Kimballwood@aol.com>
 >>>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>>Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 17:16:04 EST
 >>>>Subject: Re: John Alexander On Greer?

 >><snip>

 >>Since you are making serious charges about John Alexander's
 >>truthfulness, it is incumbent upon you to be specific in your
 >>charges. I have stated chapter and verse about Steven Greer. If,
 >>as you claim, you have first-hand knowledge of his lying, tell
 >>us what it is based on.

Hi Eleanor, All,

You wrote to the List:

 >I've provided off-list details to John Velez and yourself, Dick.

Eleanor, I'm here to discuss UFOs, abductions, and related
phenomena. This is a 'UFO' discussion List. What you sent to me
is a whole other kettle of fish. I didn't ask you for it.
Because of that, I think I have a right to comment on it here on
the 'open List'.

After reading your 'reason' for calling John Alexander a 'known
liar' in public, all I can say is, I think you're _way_ off
base. Just because he tells you that he is not familiar with the
list of 'mind-control' technology you asked him about, doesn't
make him a "liar."

You claim that John Alexander _must_know_ about these devices
and that his denial is 'evidence' that he is lying. Further,
that his denial indicates that he is aiding and abetting a
'cover-up' of a secret US government black op group called
'MKULTRA'. A group which, according to you, is implanting
unwitting citizens with mind control devices.

John Alexander's response was to recommend that you and others
seek psychiatric help. Although the remark may have been
insensitive, it was only an expression of his own 'personal'
opinion about what you presented to him.

That doesn't justify calling him a liar or vilifying him in
public the way that you do. He's as entitled to his opinion as
any of us are. I think your 'evaluation' of him is off base and
way over the top. In my very humble opinion a public retraction
or apology is in order.

 >Since the other issue is not UFO-related, I won't try to post a
 >reply to this List. I will be happy to explain off-List to
 >anyone interested.

Good idea.

 >Please remamber, I have not said John Alexander _is_ lying in
 >the case of the other Congressional Hearings, rather, what he
 >has to say is suspect based on other attempts to cover up.

You're way off-base on this one Eleanor. Far left field from
what I can see from the cheap seats. Let's try to stay focused
on the subject of _UFOs_ and securing a congressional hearing on
the subject. This 'side' discussion about Alexander being a
'known liar' is distracting from the more important question
about the hearings.

Please.

John Velez






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 27

                          Review 'Journey to Mars'

From: Colin Bennett <colin@bennettc25.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 13:48:00 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:44:51 -0500
Subject: Review 'Journey to Mars'


Review by Colin Bennett of "Journey to Mars" by Sean Casteel,
with additional
material by Commander X.

One from the rainforest. And the hot dark side of the jungle
your mother warned you about. Sean Casteel's Journey to Mars is
a brilliant and inspired antidote to all common sense,
rationalism, and especially the sober courts of corporate
scientific Ufology.

The only flag under which books like this sail is the Jolly
Roger. Here is a skull-and-crossbones book containing all the
delicious stuff that drives the poor straight palefaces wild. We
have, no less, the flight of Tesla to Mars, Nazi UFO technology,
Antigravity, Frank Znidarsic's Search for Free Energy, Cold
Fusion, bases on the Moon and Mars, and techno-occult
conspiracies of any and every kidney.

This book is certainly the night mare of what those who have the
affrontery to think they sit in judgment on "reality". They hate
inpirations such as are in this book. Inspirations are messy and
imprecise, just like the mind. Worse, the book's sense of play
is profound. Only through play do we make discoveries. Only
through play do we rediscover that innocence whose loss is the
very deepest modern curse. The book expresses the irresistible
idea that once that arriveste harpie called the real is
deconstructed, it contains more beautifully impossible B-feature
agendas than Dick Hall and his lost and rapidly vanishing tribe
could possibly believe before breakfast.

Priests in their funny hats, scientists with their blessed
experiments, and researchers with their everlasting facts, all
of whom want to burn the rainforest out of us in their separate
ways, will try and trash this book, most out of cultural fear
than anything else. Consequently, this book is to be bought in
great quantities immediately, and distributed throughout the
world to schools, nuclear bases and asylums. It should held up
as a talisman against all those UFO books that cause clowns to
kill themselves, and make warthogs squint-eyed with factspiel
grief.

It is a superb example of that inspired intellectual erotica
that we all feel guilty and schizophrenic about. Of course, like
pornography, like mine own posts indeed, this book will not have
a single customer or reader. Both are Charles Fort's damned
texts.

But like mine own posts again, the message will be read in
bathrooms and garages, under sheets by torchlight, for this kind
of book is one of the few ways we have of in modern society of
communicating with the unconscious without losing our money, our
mind, or our ass. So watch out all you clean factual kitchen-
tops, this book has your name on its rebirth list. So read it
whilst Mother Hall is not looking. Stow it away carefully with
Reich and Leary, Bennett and Fort in the mind's underground
forests where the death squads won't find it.

Browsers have been warned. Just touch Journey to Mars on the
bookshop shelf and you will become B Feature in turn, and you
will be a lot better off for it. Years will drop off your mind,
and mortgages, rent books and palefaces and facts (who are all
these things put together), will never be seen in the same light
again.

So watch out all List Bears, this book is the Antidote to the
need to disbelieve. Of course the old crows and queens and
pantomime dames of Ufological sobriety so visible on this List
will judge this book as pulp and trash. But like Greer's books,
Corso's The Day After Roswell, as time goes by, books like this
will tell us far more about our society than thousands of long
forgotten sober tomes judged to be of greater literary and
scholarly and "scientific" worth.

Journey to Mars is a path to the rainforest. Stay in its dark
green lung. And when the death-squad scientific palefaces try to
hunt down and steal your dreams, join the resistance, take
pirate ships such as this book and steal them back. And long may
Sean Casteel's Jolly Roger fly over seas beyond the sun and
moon!

Got to go now and buy some groceries for poor bed-ridden Mrs.
Finchley round the corner. I'll leave her a copy of Journey to
Mars in the hope that she will take up her bed and walk. This is
more than could possibly be hoped for from those manuals typed
by those factspiel typists who are far too well adjusted to be
really intelligent.

I'll be back.

Colin (Bad Man) Bennett


You take the blue pill or the red pill.
Take the blue pill, the story ends, you wake up in bed and believe
whatever you want to believe.
Take the red pill, you stay in wonderland. And I'll show you how deep
the rabbit hole goes.


******************
Combat Diaries http://www.thewhyfiles.co.uk
Web Server Statistics for the last 7 days: 44,457 hits
Politics of the Imagination given Anomalist Award for Best Biography
of the Year, 2002
Full feature High Moon on Oberg and NASA now running in Fortean
Times 168
Long List post on Greer in preparation. (Wendy, you'll love 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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 27

                     South American Balloon Series Ends

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 09:43:35 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:47:50 -0500
Subject: South American Balloon Series Ends


SOURCE: Imprimatur.com
DATE: February 27, 2003


THE PRE-HIBISCUS SERIES COMES TO A CLOSE

This year's pre-HIBISCUS campaign by France's CNES, aimed at
securing ozone distribution data from the atmosphere in tropical
areas, has ended successfully.

The launches made as part of said campaign were the following

Short range balloons:

10ZL ENVISAT1 (10.000 m3)  successfully launched on 2/18 in the
morning

3SF   (10.000 m3) successfully launched on 2/19 in the afternoon

10ZL ENVISAT2 (10.000 m3) successfully launched on 2/23 at 20:20
hrs. local (23:20 utc)


Long-Range balloons:

MIR ENVISAT1 (45.000 m3) launched on 2/19 at las 20:00 hrs local
(23:00 utc). The launch failed when the balloon developed a
leak.

MIR ENVISAT2 (45.000 m3) launched on 3/20 at  20:00 hrs local
(23:00 utc); still in flight.

MIR PREHIBIS (45.000 m3) launched on 2/22 at 20:00 hrs local
(23:00 utc). The launch failed when the balloon developed a leak
at the Tropopause level.

MIR46 (45.000 m3) launched on 2/23 ats 20:00 hrs local (23:00
utc); still in flight.

Scientiests deduct that they will obtain excellent data tending
toward validation of the recently launched ENVISAT satellite.

As of this writing (14:00 UTC; 2/27) only two MIR balloons
remain in flight, which are over the Pacific Ocean following a
more or less straight line along the Tropic of Capricorn,
heading for Australia.

Without mishaps, the first of these balloons should reach
Eastern Australia on February 28, departing the area two days
later; the second would tentatively reach it on March 1st, and
then move into the Indian Ocean on March 3rd.

Up to the moment, the only UFO-related incident occurred in the
city of Calama on Friday, Feb. 21, when the MIR was seen over
Chilean skies. However, far from the controversy and media
display generated by these very same balloons in the SWWS 2001
campaign, the press immediately attributed the event to the
transit of the French devices.

If the MIR balloons remain in flight, and no decision is made to
preemtpivedly terminate the mission, they would complete their
first circumnavigation of the globe, re-entering the South
American landmass from the Atlantic Ocean between March 12 and
the 17th.

More information:

http://www.aero.jussieu.fr/projet/HIBISCUS/en/many/campaign2003.
html

To follow the MIR balloon route:

http://ballon.cnes.fr:8180/bauru2003/localisations_bauru2003_gb.
htm

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

Translation (C) 2002 Scott Corrales
Institute of Hispanic Ufology (IHU)
Special thanks to Luis Eduardo Pacheco







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 27

                     Pioneer 10 Spacecraft Falls Silent

From: Steven L. Wilson, Sr <Ndunlks@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 09:57:02 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 11:02:24 -0500
Subject: Pioneer 10 Spacecraft Falls Silent


Pioneer 10 Spacecraft Falls Silent

.c The Associated Press

LOS ANGELES (AP) - Pioneer 10, the first spacecraft to venture
out of the solar system, has fallen silent after traveling
billions of miles from Earth on a mission that has lasted nearly
31 years, NASA said Tuesday.

What was apparently the spacecraft's last signal was received
Jan. 22 by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory's Deep Space Network.
At the time, Pioneer 10 was 7.6 billion miles from Earth; the
signal, traveling at the speed of light, took 11 hours and 20
minutes to arrive.

The signal and the two previous signals were very faint. The
Deep Space Network heard nothing from Pioneer 10 during a final
attempt at contact on Feb. 7. No more attempts are planned.

Pioneer 10 was launched March 2, 1972, on a 21-month mission. It
became the first spacecraft to pass through the asteroid belt
and the first to obtain close-up images of Jupiter. In 1983, it
became the first manmade object to leave the solar system when
it passed the orbit of distant Pluto.

Although Pioneer 10's mission officially ended in 1997,
scientists continued to track the TRW Inc.-built spacecraft as
part of a study of communication technology for NASA's future
Interstellar Probe mission. Pioneer 10 hasn't relayed telemetry
data since April 27.

"It was a workhorse that far exceeded its warranty, and I guess
you could say we got our money's worth," said Larry Lasher,
Pioneer 10 project manager at NASA's Ames Research Center.

Pioneer 10 carries a gold plaque engraved with a message of
goodwill and a map showing the Earth's location in the solar
system. The spacecraft continues to coast toward the star
Aldebaran in the constellation Taurus. It will take 2 million
years to reach it.

On the Net:

Pioneer 10:
http://spaceprojects.arc.nasa.gov/Space-Projects/pioneer/PNhome.html



02/25/03 19:45 EST


Copyright 2003 The Associated Press

Researcher Steven L. Wilson, Sr






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 27

                         About The Brazilian Hoaxer

From: Eustaquio Anddrea Patounas <socex@terra.com.br>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 12:28:01 -0300
Fwd Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 11:15:40 -0500
Subject: About The Brazilian Hoaxer


Translated from: http://www.terra.com.br/brasil/2000/03/27/011.htm

Paulistan Urandir Fernandes de Oliveira is arrested with the
charges of selling land for a city for ETs


Monday 27, March 2000, 10h50min

Paulistan Urandir Fernandes de Oliveira, also known as UFO, will
be indicted charged with fraud and ideological falseness. He was
arrested last Sunday in Porto Alegre, accused of selling ilegal
lots in the town of Corguinho, in Mato Grosso do Sul, where he
had plans to build a city to receive extraterrestrial. Urandir
is in jail at 17 Civil Police Sation in the "gaucho" capital.

Three and-a-half-hours after being arrested by the police,
Oliveira talked to the Zero Hora newspaper in Jorge Mafra's
office (Marshal). He confirmed the sale of land in the town of
ETs, and assured that the project is serious and that he has
been acting legally. Here are the main points from his
interview:


Zero Hora: Do you admit the accusations?

Urandir Fernandes de Oliveira: I am not worried about it. All I
am doing is legal. I do not promise cure to no one, only teach
self-aid for manipulation of the mind.

ZH: What is Portal Project?

Oliveira: A place where people have parapsylogical, ecological
and ufological experiences. There are 490 hectars (of land), and
my intent is to buy 1,5 thousand to form a comunity where I will
raise cattle and fish. Associates will pay R$ 1,4 thousand (in
todays exchange rate is about US$ 390) for this. I represent the
project, I am the president.

ZH: Only who pays can take part in the project?

Oliveira: Those who won't have resources to buy shares will
receive a donation. Even those unemployed will live there.

ZH: What is there in the area?

Oliveira: There's nothing as yet, we are gathering money.

ZH: From who did you buy the land?

Oliveira: The land is in the name of Zeferino Bingolin, local
resindent in Campo Grande. I have a buy and sell contract and I
only have to pay tha last mortgage to own the land. Participants
know about it. A surveyor is measuring the land and so far we
are also getting a license from IBAMA. The project was
officially recognized (recognized firm) six months ago in Campo
Grande (notary's office).

ZH: Do you know the author of the denunciation?

Oliveira: I met him eight months ago. He was watching one of my
seminars and influenced other people against me, but they did
not look for me. He said that my contract was wrong and made
another one. I believed his words because I needed to get the
bureaucratic work done, but he did something else, he denounced
me.

ZH: What is your wealth?

Oliveira: I have a Ranger, for which I am paying the mortgage, a
small lot in Sao Paulo and a pickup Veraneio to transport
visitors. I have 81 cattle, which belong to the participants.

ZH: Are the cattle yours?

Oliveira: They belong to everyone. When sold, they will receive
their part.

ZH: What do you do for a living?

Oliveira: I have been working by myself for four years, giving
lectures. I used to work in the building industry and I also
have a publishing company which now is inoperative in the town
of Presidente Wenceslau (SP).

ZH: Did the people who bought shares visit your project?

Oliveira: Some visited, I have photos and videos of them over
there.

ZH: Did they pay for the trip?

Oliveira: They paid for the tickes and food. A day costs R$ 40
(about U$ 11) per visitor and R$ 20 (about U$ 5.5) for
associates (members).

ZH: How much did you sell so far?

Oliveira: We sold about 6 thousand shares of the 490 hectares.
Each person bought as much as they wanted.

ZH: What are your lectures about?

Oliveira: About mental evolution, aprenticeship in the
maniputaltion of energy and self control.

ZH: Do people pay to attend them?

Oliveira: I charge R$ 50 (about US$ 14), but half of the people
do not pay because they can't afford it. Thirty percent of the
public pay R$ 10 (about US$ 3). Very few people pay the full
amount.

ZH: Are shares sold during the lectures?

Oliveira: Yes, yesterday (Saturday) I sold two for R$ 1,4
thousand (about US$ 390).

ZH: Did you ever had trouble with the police?

Oliveira: No. Once I was arrested because of a domestic fight
with my ex-wife with another woman, but there was nothing.

ZH: How do you explain the story of the lights in your hands?

Oliveira: Since I was a kid I am a paranormal. I used to bend
objects, but anyone can do this with training. It is only that
when I was 13 a purple light beamed me up and two people put a
microchip in my neck. That helped me with the manipulation of
the energy.

ZH: Who were those people?

Oliveira: They were extraterrestrials. They are just like us.


Ag=EAncia RBS/Zero Hora







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 27

                 Re: Observations At Aerospace Facilities? -

From: Bill Hamilton <skyman22@fastmail.fm>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 07:54:20 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 11:18:22 -0500
Subject: Re: Observations At Aerospace Facilities? -


 >Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 03:36:15 +0100
 >From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Subject: Observations At Aerospace Facilities? [Was: John Alexander...]

 >>From: Vince White <Vinceomni@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 12:55:28 EST
 >>Subject: Re: John Alexander On Greer?

<snip>

 >In your post above you asked the question "What is actually
 >being observed at aerospace facilities?"

 >In your previous email a couple of days ago you claimed: "A
 >careful examination of many quality observations near the Tejon
 >ranch in the Tehachapi's in the late 80's indicate that disc and
 >triangular-shaped objects were seen performing non aerodynamic
 >movements on many nights. They were seen emerging from a
 >NORTHROP facility without alarm or interference from Edwards
 >AFB."

 >I have not responded to that previous e-mail because I was
 >waiting for Bill Hamilton to respond. He hasn't yet done so,
 >causing me to butt in.

 >The reason I mention Bill is because he is how I first found
 >about the claimed activities at the Tejon ranch. That was at the
 >end of the 1980s. He also published a book that made such claims
 >soon after that time. I have not looked at the book for many
 >years and no longer have a copy. My failing memory recalls that
 >Bill claimed to have gotten information from anonymous sources
 >in the Antelope Valley (which contains Lancaster, Palmdale,
 >Edwards AFB, USAF Plant 42, the Northrop radar testing facility,
 >a similar facility from Lockheed located at Hellendale, to name
 >just a few). Other than some claims I have no true evidence that
 >disk or triangle shaped objects were flying in/ flying out or
 >hovering over the Tejon ranch facility of Northrop.

Back in the 1980s I lived a long stone's throw from this
facility and talked to many people in the area. There were
reports from some eyewitnesses of disk-shaped and rectangular
craft over the facility as well as "orbs of light". In 1988, two
large triangular-craft passed over this facility (but did not
emanate from it). I have heard no recent reports.

The Tejon Ranch facility is definitely an underground facility.
For one thing it is an RCS facility and has pylons or stingers
that raise model aircraft up on hydraulic elevators to expose
them to radar pulses to measure their radar cross section
profiles.

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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 27

                        Re: Columbia Tragedy - Oberg

From: James Oberg <jamesoberg@houston.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 09:58:08 -0600
Fwd Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 11:22:36 -0500
Subject: Re: Columbia Tragedy - Oberg


From: Tom Bowden <tomrbowden@yahoo.com>
To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:47:18 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Columbia Tragedy

<snip>

 >The next step should be for NASA to allow a minority voice to be
 >heard on unconventional approaches to new development, such as
 >the study of UFOs as a potential source of new ideas. They
 >should not allow the voice of "conventional wisdom", a la James
 >Oberg, to put blinders on all the thought processes that might
 >otherwise lead to some radical new approach with potential for a
 >real improvement.

 >I sincerely hope that no more tragedies such as the loss of the
 >Columbia and crew must occur before NASA awakes to the
 >realization that they must do whatever is necessary to find some
 >alternatives to their current approach to space travel
 >technology.

 >Thoughts? How about you, Mr. Oberg?


So I'm the by-name bad guy, I put blinders on people, I let
astronauts die because I single-handedly mislead NASA officials?
Gawd -- are you one sick puppy!

_Open_ your eyes and mind, and read - and if you can, offer
critiques - of what I've posted at www.jamesoberg.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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 27

                       Re: Columbia Tragedy - Lennick

From: Michael Lennick <xxxx.xxx>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 11:28:40 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 14:29:42 -0500
Subject: Re: Columbia Tragedy - Lennick


 >From: Tom Bowden <tomrbowden@yahoo.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:47:18 -0800 (PST)
 >Subject: Columbia Tragedy

<snip>

 >I sincerely hope that no more tragedies such as the loss of the
 >Columbia and crew must occur before NASA awakes to the
 >realization that they must do whatever is necessary to find some
 >alternatives to their current approach to space travel
 >technology.

 >Thoughts? How about you, Mr. Oberg?

Here are the facts:

The Space Shuttle in launch configuration weighs about six
million pounds - about the mass of a small building. It takes
about seven million pounds of thrust to move it the first few
inches off the pad and carry it aloft.

Once beyond the pull of earth's gravity (something the shuttle
never achieves, by the way. The only manned vehicle we've ever
built that can do that from launch was the Saturn Five moon
rocket), any number of lower-thrust technologies can move us
around the solar system. NASA is currently putting a lot of
research into those options - ion, nuclear, solar etc, but only
for deep space missions.

There have been and continue to be active and well-funded
research programs dedicated to finding a cheaper route to orbit,
given that the current cost of more than ten-thousand
dollars/pound is the primary impediment to the industrial
exploitation of zero-G, which is what will really make space
technology take off, as it were. Prototypes, from Freeman Dyson
and Ted Taylor's Project Orion (nuclear propulsion) to current
promising work using ground-based laser launchers, have shown
promise but have failed to breech the power vs cost barrier.

Tom Bowden shows great enthusiasm for the needs of the program
and recognizes that we have to move beyond expensive,
inefficient and polluting chemical thrusters to truly take our
place off-planet. Unfortunately, the type of research - and more
important, government (and thus public) funding he envisions
would require such an alternatively-powered craft to land in
the D.C. Mall during a live news broadcast and offering to share
technology to be taken seriously.

Remember that congress, which signs the cheques, likes stuff
that can be built in Congressional Districts, but loves even
more stuff they can trash, lampoon and blame on the other guys
(who can ever forget Senator Proxmire's  notorious "Golden
Fleece" awards?)

In such a political climate, no administrator (not even Dan
Goldin), nor any president (not even Jimmy Carter, let alone the
shrubbery currently running the world) could entertain such a
notion.

I do admire Tom Bowden's optimism, though. It's exactly the sort
of open mind that'll be required to move us past our current
approaches. Clearly, he's looking in the most interesting
direction. Now all we need is a practical, homegrown and
home-funded way to get there.

m.


[Michael Lennick's 13-part series, 'Rocket Science', starts its
  second-run on Canada's Discovery Channel, tonight at 9:00 PM
  Eastern, with repeats at 1:00 AM, 10:00 AM and 4:00 PM the
  following day, as well as at 1:00 PM the next Monday. Set your
  VCRs - this one's a keeper. --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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 27

             Re: An Open Letter To Linda Moulton Howe - Gevaerd

From: A. J. Gevaerd - Revista UFO <gevaerd@ufo.com.br>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 13:02:17 -0300
Fwd Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 16:14:38 -0500
Subject: Re: An Open Letter To Linda Moulton Howe - Gevaerd


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 01:03:12 EST
 >Subject: Re: An Open Letter To Linda Moulton Howe

 >>From: A. J. Gevaerd - Revista UFO <gevaerd@ufo.com.br>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>,
 >>Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:59:23 -0300
 >>Subject: An Open Letter To Linda Moulton Howe

<snip>

 >A.J. Listers,

 >As near as I can tell the folks in Brazil are claiming that this
 >guy is a phony hoaxer that everybody in Brazil has known about
 >for 7 years. Yet when you check the above email, especially the
 >first one all you have is one persons pronouncement without any
 >supporting evidence that the individuals story is not to be
 >believed.

 >Linda Howe was apparently on site, besides talking to that person,
 >has also spoken to other farmers who verify some of the story,
 >not to mention the Attorney General whose wife saw something
 >in the area in January.

 >So could you give us the specific information and facts (without
 >an attack on Linda) which leads at least two of you to conclude
 >that this guy is a phony hoaxer; also the specific information
 >as to why the story is appearing to be verified to a degree by
 >Independent witnesses who have witnesses?

 >Also could you tell us how many witnesses the folks down their
 >interviewed and what there story is?

Dear Robert:

I am sorry that my previous messages sounded like attacks on
Linda. But situation is really much worse than people in the US
can imagine. I understand that friends on UFO UpDates deserve to
see the facts, and they exist. Of course! Unfortunatelly, there
is numerous reports in Portuguese and very few in English. Some
of  it can still be found at Jeff Rense's website, as well as
much mail from Brazilians giving and supporting evidence that
the claimed case is simply a hoax.

I am afraid, however, that 99% of the Brazilian UFO community
don't speak English and very few people here even know the
existance of UFO UpDdates and its importance. On similar Lists
in Brazil - and we have some with 800 and 1,100 people - all of
course in Portuguese, you will find very hot debates about the
hoax with many contributions from people who discover new
details. So, when I say that everybody in our country knows
these facts, it is not an exageration.

The man that I'm referring to has a very well known background
and a publicized historic of fakery and deception. All TV
networks where he has presented himself in the past, along with
the independent stations, have unmasked and exposed him. This is
one of the biggest reasons why he is trying to get space and
publicity in other countries and especially in the USA. He loves
the benjamins... A very simple search with any Internet search
engine wil show dozens of pages where the label "fake" is very
clear. And they come from all over the country. The midia I am
referring to, as well as many UFO researchers in my country, can
be contacted. Some of them speak English.

See, its most the 'Jonhatan Reed' case, for example. Very few
people in Brazil know about it and even less people have any
idea if it is a fake or real. Now, it works for regular,
ordinary UFO researchers. It cannot be applied to those really
engaged in a wordwide investigation of the subject. I see the same
situation with Linda's investigation in Brazil. First of
all, it is a great mistake to accept an invitation accompained
by a ticket and expenses to travel to anywhere coming from the
person whose story is being investigated. Suppose I get a ticket
from... let's say Dr. Greer for example... to fly all the way
from Brazil to his place to chat with him. If I come back saying
and publishing wonderfull things about his fantastic experiences
and close encounters, would that be valid to you? Or, worst,
what if I am previously well informed about Greer's suspicious
activities and the great polemics towards him, and even than I
simply ignore it and still publish a long report about his
"real" experiences?

Want another example? Linda's report at her website shows
Urandir's description of a situation in which a TV crew from
Bandeirantes Network went all the way from Sao Paulo to his farm
and, with him, filmed a previously arranged encounter with a
spaceship. Linda believes in that story without even trying to
know the situation better. Well, when it happened, he had a
segment in a program on the Network called "Brazil Reality",
which Brazilian UFO researchers called "Brazil Non-Reality". The
presenters of the program, fired shortly afterward, were in on
the scam with Urandir and some of them and a cameraman went to
his farm to document the so-called 'encounter'. Well, Robert, it
was all staged and if you saw the tape you'd be alarmed with
such a simply trick. After the firing, one of the presenters and
the cameraman confessed the "arrangement". I am impressed that
Urandir used that "evidence" to fool Linda ...

The allegation that Linda was talking to an Attorney General
whose wife saw something in the area in January is simply
hilarious to anyone who knows a little about politics and
corruption in Brazil. This gentleman may be a sincere and
reliable source, but his position means absolutely nothing. We
have federal judges selling sentences to narco-dealers in
Brazil. So, a man's position isn't a guarantee that what he
claims is actually real. And please know that there are thousands
of people regularly visiting our hoaxer's farm, for which they
pay a lot. And not all of them are uneducated, ignorant persons.

Maybe I should give some more info about this hoaxer. Well, let
me summarize it. This guy moved to the farm 8 years ago, seeking
gold only. When talking to other people that lived in the area,
who had a few intersting UFO cases, he started to figure out how
to make profit out of it. At the time, as an unemployed
construction worker, he was a very active circus magician and
knew several tricks with cards, perfumes, dice, objects,
'telepathy', etc. He figured out some form of using his skills
combined with beautiful, fabricated, UFO stories. This is the
origin of the biggest UFO hoaxer of all times in Brazil. And he
is very close to being a great success in the US, too.

And not only in Brazil, but in the entire world. No one, at any
time in history, had such a huge scheme to attract people and
cheat them with faked UFO manifestations (laser pointers, helium
balloon etc). And no one in the world at any time in history,
made so much money with these "experiences". His monthly income
is estimated from US$ 150,000 to US$200,000. Compare that to the
minimum salary in Brazil, which is U$60, and you will find that
he makes about 3,000 times that per month. And that is not an
exageration.

Well, that's only part of the story. I will continue later.

All the best,

A. J.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 27

                  Re: About The Brazilian Hoaxer - Gevaerd

From: A. J. Gevaerd - Revista UFO <gevaerd@ufo.com.br>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 13:06:41 -0300
Fwd Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 17:44:40 -0500
Subject: Re: About The Brazilian Hoaxer - Gevaerd


 >From: Eustaquio Anddrea Patounas <socex@terra.com.br>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 12:28:01 -0300
 >Subject: About The Brazilian Hoaxer

 >Paulistan Urandir Fernandes de Oliveira is arrested with the
 >charges of selling land for a city for ETs

 >Monday 27, March 2000, 10h50min

 >Paulistan Urandir Fernandes de Oliveira, also known as UFO, will
 >be indicted charged with fraud and ideological falseness. He was
 >arrested last Sunday in Porto Alegre, accused of selling ilegal
 >lots in the town of Corguinho, in Mato Grosso do Sul, where he
 >had plans to build a city to receive extraterrestrial. Urandir
 >is in jail at 17 Civil Police Sation in the "gaucho" capital.

 >Three and-a-half-hours after being arrested by the police,
 >Oliveira talked to the Zero Hora newspaper in Jorge Mafra's
 >office (Marshal). He confirmed the sale of land in the town of
 >ETs, and assured that the project is serious and that he has
 >been acting legally. Here are the main points from his
 >interview:

<snip>

 >ZH: From who did you buy the land?

 >Oliveira: The land is in the name of Zeferino Bingolin, local
 >resindent in Campo Grande. I have a buy and sell contract and I
 >only have to pay tha last mortgage to own the land. Participants
 >know about it. A surveyor is measuring the land and so far we
 >are also getting a license from IBAMA. The project was
 >officially recognized (recognized firm) six months ago in Campo
 >Grande (notary's office).

<snip>

 >ZH: How much did you sell so far?

 >Oliveira: We sold about 6 thousand shares of the 490 hectares.
 >Each person bought as much as they wanted.

 >ZH: What are your lectures about?

 >Oliveira: About mental evolution, aprenticeship in the
 >maniputaltion of energy and self control.

 >ZH: Do people pay to attend them?

 >Oliveira: I charge R$ 50 (about US$ 14), but half of the people
 >do not pay because they can't afford it. Thirty percent of the
 >public pay R$ 10 (about US$ 3). Very few people pay the full
 >amount.

 >ZH: Are shares sold during the lectures?

 >Oliveira: Yes, yesterday (Saturday) I sold two for R$ 1,4
 >thousand (about US$ 390).

 >ZH: Did you ever had trouble with the police?

 >Oliveira: No. Once I was arrested because of a domestic fight
 >with my ex-wife with another woman, but there was nothing.

<snip>

See here, Urandir himself says that he sold 6,000 shares of 490
hectares for R$ 1,400.00 each (about US$ 600 at that time, not
R$ 390 as translated here, which is now). He made R$ 8,4 million
(or US$ 3,6 million). And what is worst: that wasn't even his
own land. This is why he was arrested.


A. J.






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 27

                        Re: Real Blame And A Question

From: Vince White <Vinceomni@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 12:13:13 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 17:50:45 -0500
Subject: Re: Real Blame And A Question


Listers;

This post is an effort to raise a general question about
claimed aborted congressional hearings on UFOs. It has been
stated that Greer's press conference, with it's discussion of
ZPE and SDI frightened congress into silence.

If this were true, the congressional hearings would be a failure
from the outset, for honest hearings would have to deal with FAR
tougher and unpleasant issues. If ZPE sullies congressional
sensibilties, how would they deal with lost planes, control of
the skies or abductions? Blame for no hearings rests with
congress alone, anything else is duck and coverup. Congress can
subpoena Greer's witnesses anytime it gets the moral courage to
do so. Blame not Greer but lack of congressional leadership.
Anything else is watch the birdie distraction.


Vince White








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 27

              Re: An Open Letter To Linda Moulton Howe - Cunha

From: Pedro Luz Cunha <pplcunha@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 14:20:45 -0300 (ART)
Fwd Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 17:59:51 -0500
Subject: Re: An Open Letter To Linda Moulton Howe - Cunha


Robert,

You can check about a dozen or more (I saw 388) links in Brazil
(www.yahoo.com.br) about the 'Phony guy'. But they are links to
Portuguese language pages. And you can also check Brazilian
television Rede Globo about a challenge to two 'paranormal'
people in Brazil. One of them is the 'Phony guy'. The challenge
was to confront them with the well known American James Randi
who, as far as I know, doesn't believe paranormal. As you know,
he is a skeptic, and has seen dozens of different cases, and all
of them, as far as I know, were frauds, according to him. The
challege was/is offering US$ 1 million  to whoever could prove
to be paranormal. Was the challenge refused? According to Globo
TV Network, it was refused. Why was/is the 'Phony guy' afraid of
facing the challenge? He could get some good pocket money.

Mr. Gevaerd has been 'in loco' in Mato Grosso do Sul, and has
proved that many phenomena produced my Mr. 'Phony guy', are
fake. His research is serious and I am sure he can show you
whatever you ask him to be presented from his research.
Debunking can be painful, but it is easy not to debunk and
accept what strange fact you first see as proof of an anomalous
phenomena?

What is questioned here is not if Mr. 'Phony guy' is a fake or
not (the current thought is that he is), but the way Ms. Linda
has put up her story was really akward for someone of such fame.
For what I know of ethics amogst colleagues in a field of study,
the good thing would be also to hear all the sides of the story.
Please refer to the article, here in UFO UpDates from Mr. Jerry
Black (whom I don't personally know him). I think he has a point
there. The link:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/1998/jul/m04-003.shtml

Ms. Linda should have listened to 'all' the sides of the story
before running the story. Where is the science here? Where are
the scientific methods? Well, I would also like to hear about
the scientific methods used, in detail, to come up with the
claims that Mr. 'Phony guy' is not Mr. 'Phony Guy'.

Science is unforgiving when you make mistakes. I believe we all
want Ufology to be considered serious matter. That's why we have
all this questioning.

A good field investigation should be done by Linda.

I hope this helps to clarify the question.


Pedro Cunha








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 27

                    Re: John Alexander On Greer? - White

From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 13:28:11 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 18:08:19 -0500
Subject: Re: John Alexander On Greer? - White


 >From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 01:05:33 -0500
 >Subject: Re: John Alexander On Greer?

 >>From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:01:12 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: John Alexander On Greer?

<snip>

 >Hi Eleanor, All,

 >You wrote to the List:

 >>I've provided off-list details to John Velez and yourself, Dick.

 >Eleanor, I'm here to discuss UFOs, abductions, and related
 >phenomena. This is a 'UFO' discussion List. What you sent to me
 >is a whole other kettle of fish. I didn't ask you for it.
 >Because of that, I think I have a right to comment on it here on
 >the 'open List'.

This is my last post to anyone on this topic.

It _was_ another kettle of fish; that's why I sent it off-List.
I sent it to you as you had weighed in heavily on this topic.

 >After reading your 'reason' for calling John Alexander a 'known
 >liar' in public, all I can say is, I think you're _way_ off
 >base. Just because he tells you that he is not familiar with the
 >list of 'mind-control' technology you asked him about, doesn't
 >make him a "liar."

With due respect, John Alexander is using his ability to access
the public's ear through the media to state there is no
evidence, where in fact there is plenty. I haven't heard him say
or write that he is "not familiar" with our documented evidence.

On one overnight talk show appearance, he repeated this denial
of existence of evidence, having been informed by my group of
quite a bit of such evidence. (You have only seen a part of it.)

I suspect that if John Alexander were to state that there is no
evidence of UFO abductions, this might be a similar situation.
You know there are witnessed events, burns, surgical wounds, and
recovered implants. That is evidence. So is our similar,
physical evidence, and witnessed evidence.

 >You claim that John Alexander _must_know_ about these devices
 >and that his denial is 'evidence' that he is lying.

The evidence we presented was dead centered in his claimed area
of expertise. Some of it dates back to the Korean War. That
seems like a reasonable cause to assume this expert knew about
the evidence.

 >Further,
 >that his denial indicates that he is aiding and abetting a
 >'cover-up' of a secret US government black op group called
 >'MKULTRA'. A group which, according to you, is implanting
 >unwitting citizens with mind control devices.

No, I do not claim implants are used. Some folks do, I do not.
My experience and research indicates that just like the total
control exerted over UFO abductees, even before they are
implanted, implants are unnecessary. (In fact, our experiences
occur at the same level of technical performance as with the
abductions; the difference is that ours are entirely Earthly.)

What I claim is that just as with abductees, there is both
physical evidence of such programs, and evidence clearly
establishing similar post-WW II programs being run by
government, documented evidence.

Please remember, his denial was that no _evidence_ exists, not
that there were no programs in existence. We were not trying to
get him to say there are such programs going on currently, just
that he acknowledge and respect the documented evidence.

There _is_ evidence, the problem is human nature is to avoid bad
news, so no one wants to look into it. Just as few want to look
into UFO or military abductions.

When a "big name" reinforces the idea that no evidence exists to
the public, people who deserve to be heard (and deserve justice)
suffer.

 >John Alexander's response was to recommend that you and others
 >seek psychiatric help. Although the remark may have been
 >insensitive, it was only an expression of his own 'personal'
 >opinion about what you presented to him.

Well, as an imperfect human being, I may have overreacted, but
what was clear is that in spite of being presented with
undeniable documentation, and scientists whom he could contact
to confirm it, he continued saying there is no evidence, to us,
and more importantly, to the public.

Just as when naysayers declare that daylight discs, multiple
witness sightings, witnessed abductions, and all of the physical
evidence relating to UFOs are "not evidence".

If an abductee with surgical scars, an implant, and the sharply
indented impression around the legs reported by some, were told
they had no evidence by a UFO naysayer, even having seen photos
of these things, that would be a comparable situation.

 >That doesn't justify calling him a liar or vilifying him in
 >public the way that you do. He's as entitled to his opinion as
 >any of us are. I think your 'evaluation' of him is off base and
 >way over the top. In my very humble opinion a public retraction
 >or apology is in order.

I apologize to any who feel John Alexander probably didn't know
about some very significant developments in his own field, and
that "lying" does not apply. I apologize for my choice of words,
but I do not acknowledge that John Alexander has been candid
with the public or fairly treated us in this matter. This matter
is heavily emotional for those who have been or are going
through it, as with abudctees.

 >You're way off-base on this one Eleanor. Far left field from
 >what I can see from the cheap seats. Let's try to stay focused
 >on the subject of _UFOs_ and securing a congressional hearing on
 >the subject. This 'side' discussion about Alexander being a
 >'known liar' is distracting from the more important question
 >about the hearings.

I agree the hearings are the most important issue, bar none.

As I've stated above, this is my last post on John Alexander.


Eleanor White







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 27

                       Fylingdales: The UFO Conection

From: Andy Roberts <aj.roberts@blueyonder.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 20:33:51 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 18:12:33 -0500
Subject: Fylingdales: The UFO Conection


Pilgrims,

The March 2003 issue of UFO Magazine (UK) features the following
article as its lead story:

FYLINGDALES: THE UFO CONECTION -

In what is arguably their most compelling article to date, Dr.
David Clarke and Andy Roberts interview a former Squadron Leader
who, while stationed at RAF Fylingdales in North Yorkshire,
tracked UFOs on their radar, submitted an official report after
two UFOs were seen hovering over the base by MoD Police, and
tells of an incident in which one UFO, complete with attendant
occupants, landed on a nearby farm.

Asked if he believed UFOs to be extraterrestrial in origin, he
responded with one of the most amazing comments you are ever
likely to see. Check it out!

http://www.ufomag.co.uk/LatestIssueINDEX.htm


Happy Trails

Andy
(not bad for an anklebiter eh?)







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 27

              Re: Pioneer 10 Spacecraft Falls Silent - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 17:55:06 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 22:04:18 -0500
Subject: Re: Pioneer 10 Spacecraft Falls Silent - Maccabee


 >From: Steven L. Wilson, Sr <Ndunlks@aol.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 09:57:02 EST
 >Subject: Pioneer 10 Spacecraft Falls Silent


 >Pioneer 10 Spacecraft Falls Silent

 >.c The Associated Press

 >LOS ANGELES (AP) - Pioneer 10, the first spacecraft to venture
 >out of the solar system, has fallen silent after traveling
 >billions of miles from Earth on a mission that has lasted nearly
 >31 years, NASA said Tuesday.

<snip>

 >Pioneer 10 carries a gold plaque engraved with a message of
 >goodwill and a map showing the Earth's location in the solar
 >system. The spacecraft continues to coast toward the star
 >Aldebaran in the constellation Taurus. It will take 2 million
 >years to reach it.

Long before that we will either have dissed ourselves or we will
have achieved space travel at speeds greater than the Pioneer
10. Some space scavenger will have retrieved it and sold it to
the highest bidder as a souvenir.







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 27

                    Re: Real Blame And A Question - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 23:40:03 +0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 22:19:29 -0500
Subject: Re: Real Blame And A Question - Hall


 >From: Vince White <Vinceomni@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 12:13:13 EST
 >Subject: Real Blame And A Question

 >Listers;

 >This post is an effort to raise a general question about
 >claimed aborted congressional hearings on UFOs. It has been
 >stated that Greer's press conference, with it's discussion of
 >ZPE and SDI frightened congress into silence.

 >If this were true, the congressional hearings would be a failure
 >from the outset, for honest hearings would have to deal with FAR
 >tougher and unpleasant issues. If ZPE sullies congressional
 >sensibilties, how would they deal with lost planes, control of
 >the skies or abductions? Blame for no hearings rests with
 >congress alone, anything else is duck and coverup. Congress can
 >subpoena Greer's witnesses anytime it gets the moral courage to
 >do so. Blame not Greer but lack of congressional leadership.
 >Anything else is watch the birdie distraction.


Vince,

Once again speaking from someone with direct experiential
knowledge of Congress and Government, your comments here
illustrate why we are very unlikely ever to get Congressional
hearings on UFOs. You make so many false and hubristic
assumptions about how things work, that you succeed only in
confusing yourself and other people.

Most of all, They are not "Greer's witnesses." He has only tried
to exploit and use them for his own very obviously (for anyone
with eyes to see) personal agenda. Believe what you like, but
you know not whereof you speak when it comes to Congressional
hearings.


  - 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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 27

                                 Pioneer 10

From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 16:57:42 -0700
Fwd Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 22:21:25 -0500
Subject: Pioneer 10


I always liked the Pioneer 10 mission. It was very neat to know
that an object built by humankind would journey to the stars.
Little did anyone know just how successful and long enduring
that mission would become. An absolute triumph for the
technological achievement of humankind.

But, as I contemplate that Pioneer 10 whispered it's last
message to us, I feel a sense of both loss and unimaginable joy.
Sad to see the end of a mission, but overwhelmed with the
knowledge that the possibility exists that long after our
species has run its course and fades into oblivion, that little
piece of machinery will journey forever.....

Even beyond the stars... Beyond the Universe itself.....

A gift back to God from us with a special golden plate saying we
were, what we were.


Wendy Connors









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 27

                   Re: Real Blame And A Question - Denzler

From: Brenda Denzler <bdenzler1@email.msn.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 19:43:55 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 22:24:58 -0500
Subject: Re: Real Blame And A Question - Denzler


 >From: Vince White <Vinceomni@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 12:13:13 EST
 >Subject: Real Blame And A Question

 >This post is an effort to raise a general question about
 >claimed aborted congressional hearings on UFOs. It has been
 >stated that Greer's press conference, with it's discussion of
 >ZPE and SDI frightened congress into silence.

 >If this were true, the congressional hearings would be a failure
 >from the outset, for honest hearings would have to deal with FAR
 >tougher and unpleasant issues. If ZPE sullies congressional
 >sensibilties, how would they deal with lost planes, control of
 >the skies or abductions?

I think, Vincent, that the problem is not whether the members of
Congress can deal with tough issues. The problem is that when
one talks about ZPE, one is talking about something that many
people don't believe exists. I know that there is infomation out
there suggesting quite the contrary, but my point is that for
most main-stream people with a mainstream view of reality and
what is and is not possible, ZPE is in the realm of "fantasy"
and "what hoaxers use to sucker the gullible."

To marry the ZPE idea with an idea the reality of which is
equally in doubt (UFO reality), in the mainstream worldview,
only creates additional problems for both ideas. If Greer's
objective was to get Congressional attention, he might have been
successful with _one_ of these ideas. But since both of them
contest reality as it is commonly accepted to be, he pretty much
was painting himself as a nutcase, in the eyes of many of those
who _might_ have otherwise listened to him. He shot himself in
the foot, and the quest for Congressional attention too.

I was asked to help some folks in our state by going to Senator
Edwards in support of Congressional hearings on the UFO
situation, with the justification for such hearings being the
disclosure of the existence of ZPE devices. "The world would
benefit from knowing the truth about UFOs, and benefit in very
real, material ways," is what Greer and his supporters were
trying to say. But I don't think the case for disclosure about
the UFO situation _needs_ to be justified in that way. The group
approaching Senator Edwards thought that my degree might help
give some weight to the legitimacy of their ideas.
Unfortunately, since I don't believe that marrying the two ideas
is wise, I had to refuse to join the group, even though a dear
friend of mine wanted me to participate. If they had had only
one clear-cut agenda instead of a mixed one (UFOs vs. UFOs and
FPE), I may have made a very different decision.

If there were appropriate Congressional hearings and some kind
of admission that there is a reality behind some UFO sightings,
the question of ZPE would eventually emerge of its own accord
from the subsequent proceedings and investigations. Why
jeapordize the entire endeavor for hearings by making the
situation you're asking our representatives to investigate sound
even "kookier" and more complex than it already is?


Brenda Denzler






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 28

                  Re: An Open Letter To Linda Moulton Howe

From: Thiago Luiz Ticchetti <thiagolt@opengate.com.br>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 22:11:23 -0300
Fwd Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 08:37:58 -0500
Subject: Re: An Open Letter To Linda Moulton Howe


 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 01:03:12 EST
 >Subject: Re: An Open Letter To Linda Moulton Howe

 >A.J. Listers,

 >As near as I can tell the folks in Brazil are claiming that this
 >guy is a phony hoaxer that everybody in Brazil has known about
 >for 7 years. Yet when you check the above email, especially the
 >first one all you have is one persons pronouncement without any
 >supporting evidence that the individuals story is not to be
 >believed.

 >Linda Howe was apparently on site, besides talking to that person,
 >has also spoken to other farmers who verify some of the story,
 >not to mention the Attorney General whose wife saw something
 >in the area in January.

 >So could you give us the specific information and facts (without
 >an attack on Linda) which leads at least two of you to conclude
 >that this guy is a phony hoaxer; also the specific information
 >as to why the story is appearing to be verified to a degree by
 >Independent witnesses who have witnesses?

 >Also could you tell us how many witnesses the folks down their
 >interviewed and what there story is?

Robert and list,

Please, understand what this man is doing is very easy! Do
remember Jim Jones? Do you remember Heaven's Gate? Do you know
those tragic stories? Then you will understand what kind of
menace that man means to us and to Ufology!

I repeat: We are _not_ complaining about Linda's trip to Mato
Grosso Do Sul! What we do not understand is why she ingored all
our information and most importantly, why she did not talk with
Gevaerd to see the both sides of the story.

We do have official documents that proves he is a thief and a
cheater. Ask A.J. Gevaerd about those documents. They are all in
Portuguese, and I offer my self to translate all those documents
for you.

Seach in the UFO UpDates Archive for the e-mail that I posted
talking about the Urandir's fakes and hoaxes.

Please, do not misunderstand, I am just trying to warn you.

Best wishes


Thiago Luiz Ticchetti
Vice-Presidente Entidade Brasileira de Estudos
Extraterrestres (EBE-ET/RAB)
International Coordinator UFO Magazine Brazil

www.ebe-et.com.br








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 28

                          Re: Pioneer 10 - Tonnies

From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 19:44:27 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 08:44:11 -0500
Subject: Re: Pioneer 10 - Tonnies


 >From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net>
 >To: UFO Updates <UFOUpdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 16:57:42 -0700
 >Subject: Pioneer 10

<snip>

 >But, as I contemplate that Pioneer 10 whispered it's last
 >message to us, I feel a sense of both loss and unimaginable joy.
 >Sad to see the end of a mission, but overwhelmed with the
 >knowledge that the possibility exists that long after our
 >species has run its course and fades into oblivion, that little
 >piece of machinery will journey forever.....

The famous plaque on board Pioneer 10 wasn't designed for
aliens; it was designed for our descendants.

If we survive our "technological adolescence," hopefully we will
overtake Pioneer 10 and greet it with fondness.

=====

Mac Tonnies
macbot@yahoo.com

MTVI: http://www.mactonnies.com
Transcelestial Ontology, Posthumanism and Theoretical Ufology

Blog: http://posthumanblues.blogspot.com (updated daily)







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 28

                           Aztec Crash Documentary

From: Paul Kimball <Kimballwood@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 23:18:49 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 08:47:34 -0500
Subject: Aztec Crash Documentary


All:

Just a note that may be of interest to some. Along with Do You
Believe in Majic?, the documentary we are filming this year for
Space here in Canada about the Majestic 12 saga, we've just
signed on to shoot a documentary film about the 1948 Aztec
Incident. We'll try and figure out whether something really
happened, or whether it's all a hoax.

The folks helping us with the production have started a website
at:

http://www.Aztec1948.com

for those who may be interested. I understand that it's pretty
bare bones right now. Still - FYI.


Paul Kimball
www.redstarfilm.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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 28

                        E-mail To Linda Moulton Howe

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 09:37:53 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 09:37:53 -0500
Subject: E-mail To Linda Moulton Howe

ebk

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 16:15:53 -0500 (EST)
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <MAILER-DAEMON@aol.com>
Message-Id: <200302272115.QAA21289@rly-xm05.mx.aol.com>
To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/report; report-type=delivery-status;
        boundary="QAA21289.1046380553/rly-xm05.mx.aol.com"
Subject: Returned mail: User unknown
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated (failure)

The original message was received at Thu, 27 Feb 2003 16:14:48 -0500 (EST)
from tomts15-srv.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.3]


*** ATTENTION ***

Your e-mail is being returned to you because there was a problem with its
delivery.  The address which was undeliverable is listed in the section
labeled: "----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----".

The reason your mail is being returned to you is listed in the section
labeled: "----- Transcript of Session Follows -----".

The line beginning with "<<<" describes the specific reason your e-mail could
not be delivered.  The next line contains a second error message which is a
general translation for other e-mail servers.

Please direct further questions regarding this message to your e-mail
administrator.

--AOL Postmaster



    ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
<lmh333@aol.com>

    ----- Transcript of session follows -----
... while talking to air-xm05.mail.aol.com.:
 >>> RCPT To:<lmh333@aol.com>
<<< 550 MAILBOX NOT FOUND
550 <lmh333@aol.com>... User unknown
Reporting-MTA: dns; rly-xm05.mx.aol.com
Arrival-Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 16:14:48 -0500 (EST)

Final-Recipient: RFC822; lmh333@aol.com
Action: failed
Status: 2.0.0
Remote-MTA: DNS; air-xm05.mail.aol.com
Diagnostic-Code: SMTP; 250 OK
Last-Attempt-Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 16:15:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ufo-updates-i.virtuallystrange.net ([64.231.162.21])
           by tomts15-srv.bellnexxia.net
           (InterMail vM.5.01.04.19 201-253-122-122-119-20020516) with ESMTP
           id
<20030227211442.SHQY25972.tomts15-srv.bellnexxia.net@ufo-updates-i.virtuallystra
nge.net>;
           Thu, 27 Feb 2003 16:14:42 -0500
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20030227161407.03c34940@pop6.sympatico.ca>
X-Sender: b1ahzg82@pop6.sympatico.ca
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 16:14:38 -0500
To: "- UFO UpDates Subscribers -":;
From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: An Open Letter To Linda Moulton Howe - Gevaerd
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

From: A. J. Gevaerd - Revista UFO <gevaerd@ufo.com.br>
To: UFO UpDates - Toronto" <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 13:02:17 -0300
Subject: Re: An Open Letter To Linda Moulton Howe

<snip>

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/









   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 28

                           Re: Pioneer 10 - McCoy

From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@charter.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 20:21:09 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 09:40:22 -0500
Subject: Re: Pioneer 10 - McCoy


 >From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net>
 >To: UFO Updates <UFOUpdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 16:57:42 -0700
 >Subject: Pioneer 10

 >I always liked the Pioneer 10 mission. It was very neat to know
 >that an object built by humankind would journey to the stars.
 >Little did anyone know just how successful and long enduring
 >that mission would become. An absolute triumph for the
 >technological achievement of humankind.

 >But, as I contemplate that Pioneer 10 whispered it's last
 >message to us, I feel a sense of both loss and unimaginable joy.
 >Sad to see the end of a mission, but overwhelmed with the
 >knowledge that the possibility exists that long after our
 >species has run its course and fades into oblivion, that little
 >piece of machinery will journey forever.....

 >Even beyond the stars... Beyond the Universe itself.....

 >A gift back to God from us with a special golden plate saying we
 >were, what we were.


Hello, all

Well, first thing, I am back. After a long struggle with my
former internet provider, and the long wait for the contract
to expire (business related by the way) I am now able to
communicate again. Thanks to my new Cable Modem
Provider.

Anyway, I agree with Wendy, however, it would be great if
in 300 years or so it ended up in Starfleet Museum.


GT McCoy
"Not all who wander are lost." J.R.R. Tolkien







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 28

                 Re: Re: Review 'Journey to Mars' - Oplatka

From: Laurel Oplatka <calabash2003@webtv.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 22:06:24 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 09:54:10 -0500
Subject: Re: Re: Review 'Journey to Mars' - Oplatka


 >From: Colin Bennett <colin@bennettc25.fsnet.co.uk>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 13:48:00 -0000
 >Subject: Review 'Journey to Mars'

 >Review by Colin Bennett of "Journey to Mars" by Sean Casteel,
 >with additional
 >material by Commander X.

<snip>

Hi, Listers,

Once again Colin has penned a highly entertaining, dazzling
piece which illustrates wonderfully why this book will not, in
the long run, be relegated to the "mere bagatelle" UFO book
heap.

Colin's very perceptive advanced writings, including this book
review, truly paint a picture showing that 'The whole is greater
than the sum of its parts'. In essence this notion, IMHO,
portrays beautifully the holistic approach to the UFO/Grand
Mystery.


Best Regards,

Laurel






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 28

                  Re: Real Blame And A Question - Goldstein

From: Josh Goldstein <clearlight@t-online.de>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 05:48:09 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 09:44:42 -0500
Subject: Re: Real Blame And A Question - Goldstein


 >From: Vince White <Vinceomni@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 12:13:13 EST
 >Subject: Real Blame And A Question

 >Listers;

 >This post is an effort to raise a general question about
 >claimed aborted congressional hearings on UFOs. It has been
 >stated that Greer's press conference, with it's discussion of
 >ZPE and SDI frightened congress into silence.

 >If this were true, the congressional hearings would be a failure
 >from the outset, for honest hearings would have to deal with FAR
 >tougher and unpleasant issues. If ZPE sullies congressional
 >sensibilties, how would they deal with lost planes, control of
 >the skies or abductions? Blame for no hearings rests with
 >congress alone, anything else is duck and coverup. Congress can
 >subpoena Greer's witnesses anytime it gets the moral courage to
 >do so. Blame not Greer but lack of congressional leadership.
 >Anything else is watch the birdie distraction.


Hi Vince,

If you look up press reports the day after Greer's press
conference at the National Press Club you will see that he got
pilloried over the lack of quality of his presentation. That was
partially because he had not adequately prepared, had not
investigated and vetted any of his witnesses, and presented all
kinds of spurious information not related to the subject at
hand.

Before Greer Richard Hoagland had a press conference where he
was also rightly pilloried for being a flake. No one in Congress
is going to take flakey presentations before the press as
something worthy of investigation. Both Greer and Hoagland blew
it, and tarred and feathered themselves. Greer has only himself
to blame for his efforts going nowhere. Hoagland, still after
all these years, chatters like a dyslexic parrot, in my opinion.
Somehow Greer keeps his scams going. I guess PT Barnum was
right.

I am guessing that John Alexander would have presented a much
more professional position and used rigor in approaching
congress with more developed criteria.


Keep 'em flying,

Josh










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 28

                        Re: Columbia Tragedy - Bowden

From: Tom Bowden <tomrbowden@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 21:27:12 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 09:50:02 -0500
Subject: Re: Columbia Tragedy - Bowden


 >From: James Oberg <jamesoberg@houston.rr.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 09:58:08 -0600
 >Subject: Re: Columbia Tragedy

 >>From: Tom Bowden <tomrbowden@yahoo.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:47:18 -0800 (PST)
 >>Subject: Columbia Tragedy

 ><snip>

 >>The next step should be for NASA to allow a
 >>minority voice to be heard on unconventional
 >>approaches to new development, such as the study of
 >>UFOs as a potential source of new ideas. They
 >>should not allow the voice of "conventional
 >>wisdom", a la James Oberg, to put blinders on all
 >>the thought processes that might otherwise lead to
 >>some radical new approach with potential for a real

 >>improvement.

 >>I sincerely hope that no more tragedies such as the
 >>loss of the Columbia and crew must occur before
 >>NASA awakes to the realization that they must do
 >>whatever is necessary to find some alternatives to
 >>their current approach to space travel technology.

 >>Thoughts? How about you, Mr. Oberg?

 >So I'm the by-name bad guy, I put blinders on
 >people, I let astronauts die because I
 >single-handedly mislead NASA officials?
 >Gawd -- are you one sick puppy!

 >_Open_ your eyes and mind, and read - and if you
 >can, offer critiques - of what I've posted at
 >www.jamesoberg.com

 >--------

Mr. Oberg,

I think you misunderstood. I am not blaming this on you
personally. However you are a particularly outspoken advocate of
the collective "conventional wisdom" that refuses to recognize
the potential of investigating UFOs for the purpose of perhaps
discovering and "mining" some new technology.

Many of us ufologists do not now and have never expected you and
your colleagues to accept UFO reality without question. What we
really want is for you to admit that a truly objective study of
this phenomenon should be funded and carried out to find out,
among other things, what potential might exist for the
improvement of our current space technology.

As for the articles on your website, please let me know if any
of them contain any more interesting arguments than the usual
well-worn litany of debunking dogma. I grew weary of that over
15 years ago, and your articles were a contributing factor in my
decision to cancel my subscription to Omni Magazine. You spend
way too much time and energy trying to argue against the lunatic
fringe (why bother?) and trying to prove that there are no true
UFOs. Why not look at the best possible cases and see what can
be learned from them?

I never said I blame you for single-handedly causing the deaths
of astonauts. I am well aware that NASA cannot guarantee the
personal safety of the astronauts, and I admire the degree to
which NASA engineers have managed to make this incredibly
complex technology work, but I still think NASA should not
ignore the possibility that an alternative and superior
technology might be within reach if only some effort would be
expended to look at UFO flight performance capabilities as a
clue to what is possible.

Why would it be so hard to admit that there just might be some
potential there that you have overlooked? The supporting
evidence is huge. All you have to do is open your eyes and your
mind.


Tom Bowden








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 28

                   Re: Real Blame And A Question - Kaeser

From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 05:50:53 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 10:30:41 -0500
Subject: Re: Real Blame And A Question - Kaeser


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 23:40:03 +0000
 >Subject: Re: Real Blame And A Question

 >>From: Vince White <Vinceomni@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 12:13:13 EST
 >>Subject: Real Blame And A Question

 >>Listers;

<snip>

 >>If this were true, the congressional hearings would be a failure
 >>from the outset, for honest hearings would have to deal with FAR
 >>tougher and unpleasant issues. If ZPE sullies congressional
 >>sensibilties, how would they deal with lost planes, control of
 >>the skies or abductions? Blame for no hearings rests with
 >>congress alone, anything else is duck and coverup. Congress can
 >>subpoena Greer's witnesses anytime it gets the moral courage to
 >>do so. Blame not Greer but lack of congressional leadership.
 >>Anything else is watch the birdie distraction.

 >Once again speaking from someone with direct experiential
 >knowledge of Congress and Government, your comments here
 >illustrate why we are very unlikely ever to get Congressional
 >hearings on UFOs. You make so many false and hubristic
 >assumptions about how things work, that you succeed only in
 >confusing yourself and other people.

 >Most of all, They are not "Greer's witnesses." He has only tried
 >to exploit and use them for his own very obviously (for anyone
 >with eyes to see) personal agenda. Believe what you like, but
 >you know not whereof you speak when it comes to Congressional
 >hearings.

 > - Dick

Vince,

Having worked here on the "Hill" for the past 18 years, I would
agree with Richard on this. While it is true that Congress is
unlikely to take the issue on 'head-on', there would be proper
ways to approach it that would less politically damaging.

Both of Greer's events took place while I was here and in
contact with Cong. Schiff's office and others, but most Members
and staffers had no idea that these events were taking place and
(quite honestly) had more important issues to deal with at hand.
The parade of witnesses a couple of years ago included few that
were not already known to most researchers and many of their
stories were found to be lacking when checked. As far as any
real evidence is concerned, they had nothing to offer, and
therein lies the problem. The fact that Dr. Greer used these
witnesses to promote his own "free energy" agenda certainly
didn't help.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 28

                    Re: Real Blame And A Question - White

From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 06:05:25 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 10:33:37 -0500
Subject: Re: Real Blame And A Question - White


 >From: Brenda Denzler <bdenzler1@email.msn.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 19:43:55 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Real Blame And A Question

 >>From: Vince White <Vinceomni@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 12:13:13 EST
 >>Subject: Real Blame And A Question

<snip>

 >I think, Vincent, that the problem is not whether the members of
 >Congress can deal with tough issues. The problem is that when
 >one talks about ZPE, one is talking about something that many
 >people don't believe exists. I know that there is infomation out
 >there suggesting quite the contrary, but my point is that for
 >most main-stream people with a mainstream view of reality and
 >what is and is not possible, ZPE is in the realm of "fantasy"
 >and "what hoaxers use to sucker the gullible."

ZPE, zero point energy, "free" energy, is _not_ - repeat- _not_
touted by the serious researchers as 'energy from nothing'. This
is a popular _mis-conception_.  What ZPE research does is to look
for ways to tap energy sources as yet unknown because humanity
does not understand all laws of physics at this time.


Eleanor White








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 28

             Re: An Open Letter To Linda Moulton Howe - Roberts

From: Andy Roberts <aj.roberts@blueyonder.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 13:53:28 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 10:35:12 -0500
Subject: Re: An Open Letter To Linda Moulton Howe - Roberts


 >From: Thiago Luiz Ticchetti <thiagolt@opengate.com.br>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 22:11:23 -0300
 >Subject: Re: An Open Letter To Linda Moulton Howe

Pilgrims,

This whole Moulton Howe farrago, coming as it does on the back
of the Radical Misperception debate serves to amplify yet
another problem with ufologists.

This is that by and large, no matter how well a hoax is
investigated, exposed and published, it will rattle around for
years in the subject because:

*    People can make money out of it and don't care whether it's
a hoax or not. Sceptical ufologists may know but the dummy in
the street who reads the books or attends the lectures will
swallow hoaxes hook, line and sinker

*    Ufologists don't want to admit just how riddled the subject
is with hoaxes and hoaxers. The party line is that they comprise
a small percentage. I would suggest that whilst this is true
they are very effective and the cases they hoax have lasting
impact on the subject

*    In this case most of the info appears to be in a language
we don't speak


Happy Hoaxing

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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 28

                  Re: Real Blame And A Question - Hamilton

From: Bill Hamilton <skyman22@fastmail.fm>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 06:13:36 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 10:37:27 -0500
Subject: Re: Real Blame And A Question - Hamilton


 >From: Brenda Denzler <bdenzler1@email.msn.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 19:43:55 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Real Blame And A Question

 >>From: Vince White <Vinceomni@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 12:13:13 EST
 >>Subject: Real Blame And A Question

 >>This post is an effort to raise a general question about
 >>claimed aborted congressional hearings on UFOs. It has been
 >>stated that Greer's press conference, with it's discussion of
 >>ZPE and SDI frightened congress into silence.

 >>If this were true, the congressional hearings would be a failure
 >>from the outset, for honest hearings would have to deal with FAR
 >>tougher and unpleasant issues. If ZPE sullies congressional
 >>sensibilties, how would they deal with lost planes, control of
 >>the skies or abductions?

 >I think, Vincent, that the problem is not whether the members of
 >Congress can deal with tough issues. The problem is that when
 >one talks about ZPE, one is talking about something that many
 >people don't believe exists. I know that there is infomation out
 >there suggesting quite the contrary, but my point is that for
 >most main-stream people with a mainstream view of reality and
 >what is and is not possible, ZPE is in the realm of "fantasy"
 >and "what hoaxers use to sucker the gullible."

Pardon me for jumping in here, but the existence of ZPE is
accepted in the scientific world and leading theoretical
physicists have written many papers on it.

See: http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html

These physicists are also interested in the question of tapping
into the ZPE as a source of energy, but no device has yet passed
rigorous testing.

 >To marry the ZPE idea with an idea the reality of which is
 >equally in doubt (UFO reality), in the mainstream worldview,
 >only creates additional problems for both ideas. If Greer's
 >objective was to get Congressional attention, he might have been
 >successful with _one_ of these ideas. But since both of them
 >contest reality as it is commonly accepted to be, he pretty much
 >was painting himself as a nutcase, in the eyes of many of those
 >who _might_ have otherwise listened to him. He shot himself in
 >the foot, and the quest for Congressional attention too.

I agree that they should not be offered together as it has been
difficult enough to obtain a congressional hearing on UFOs.

However, the benefit of coupling this with the possibility of
learning new science or technology, which is what is hoped for,
might be presented in a non-specific way.


-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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 28

                        Re: Columbia Tragedy - Oberg

From: James Oberg <jamesoberg@houston.rr.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 09:13:53 -0600
Fwd Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 10:42:14 -0500
Subject: Re: Columbia Tragedy - Oberg


 >From: Tom Bowden <tomrbowden@yahoo.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 21:27:12 -0800 (PST)
 >Subject: Re: Columbia Tragedy - Oberg

 >I think you misunderstood. I am not blaming this on you
 >personally. However you are a particularly outspoken advocate of
 >the collective "conventional wisdom" that refuses to recognize
 >the potential of investigating UFOs for the purpose of perhaps
 >discovering and "mining" some new technology.

 >As for the articles on your website, please let me know if any
 >of them contain any more interesting arguments than the usual
 >well-worn litany of debunking dogma. I grew weary of that over
 >15 years ago, and your articles were a contributing factor in my
 >decision to cancel my subscription to Omni Magazine. You spend
 >way too much time and energy trying to argue against the lunatic
 >fringe (why bother?) and trying to prove that there are no true
 >UFOs. Why not look at the best possible cases and see what can
 >be learned from them?

 >Why would it be so hard to admit that there just might be some
 >potential there that you have overlooked? The supporting
 >evidence is huge. All you have to do is open your eyes and your
 >mind.


Tom,

I think it's hopeless, after all these years, for me to try to
give you a correct impression of my views on the subject - and
the way you've represented them here is garbled to the point of
caricature.

It seems to me that I have failed to clearly communicate to you
my arguments, but perhaps you provide the explanation for this,
in your requesting a personalized proof, before you will even
look at it, that my available writings are anything but "well-
worn litany of debunking dogma".

With a mind so closed as yours, my arguments are fruitless, and
I don't have time these days to make a new effort because,
frankly, I don't see any value to 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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 28

                          Re: Pioneer 10 - Bennett

From: Colin Bennett <colin@bennettc25.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 15:27:42 -0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 10:44:40 -0500
Subject: Re: Pioneer 10 - Bennett


 >From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >To: UFO Updates <UFOUpdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 19:44:27 -0800 (PST)
 >Subject: Re: Pioneer 10 - Tonnies

 >>From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net>
 >>To: UFO Updates <UFOUpdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 16:57:42 -0700
 >>Subject: Pioneer 10


Hello List Bears,

I certainly agree with and join in the mystical enthusiasm shown
as regards Pioneer 10. Frank Drake's original project was
launched in the last era of the golden age of space exploration,
and he was one of the last recognisable faces. I recommend the
book that he wrote with Dava Sobel, Is Anyone Out There?

However, it might be born in mind that the famous plaque
referred to might indeed be a source of confusion to aliens. It
show a naked white man and woman who have no pubic hair, and the
female has no genitalia at all. It is a sobering thought indeed
to consider what bits might be missing on any alien plaque sent
in return. That there might indeed be similar cargo-cult
misinterpretations as regards any intelligent communication is a
sobering thought. The social psychology of modern media taboos
is interesting in this respect.

At the time Pioneer 10 was launched in March, 1972, the Chicago
Sun-Times tried to air-brush the offending organs (that is when
they existed to air-brushed in the first place!). From the day's
first edition to the last, the paper piecemeal eliminated one
bit of sexual anatomy after another. The Los Angeles Times
denounced NASA for spreading smut throughout space, and at tax
payers expense. Feminists complained that the woman seemed
subservient to the man. White folks complained that the figures
looked too white, and black people complained that the figures
looked too black. Naked humans had never been shown on Canadian
TV at all (and still are not!), and there were was a crisis
meeting. Frank Drake's caretaker at the Space Science Building
called the plaque pornographic.

I'll be back.

Colin (Bad Man) Bennett


You take the blue pill or the red pill.
Take the blue pill, the story ends, you wake up in bed and believe
whatever you want to believe.
Take the red pill, you stay in wonderland. And I'll show you how deep
the rabbit hole goes.


******************
Combat Diaries http://www.thewhyfiles.co.uk
Web Server Statistics for the last 7 days: 44,457 hits
Politics of the Imagination given Anomalist Award for Best Biography
of the Year, 2002
Full feature High Moon on Oberg and NASA now running in Fortean
Times 168
Long List post on Greer in preparation. (Wendy, you'll love 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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 28

             Re: An Open Letter to Linda Moulton-Howe - Connors

From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 08:40:02 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 10:52:28 -0500
Subject: Re: An Open Letter to Linda Moulton-Howe - Connors


People on this List actually continue to take Linda Moulton-
Howe's research seriously?

Unbelievable.

She aligned herself with Art Bell and that, in itself, makes her
research suspect.

Look. She did a good job once with the Mute situation. It's been
downhill for her on the slide of sensationalism and yellow
journalism. That happens to one-hit wonders.

Get the stars out of your eyes. Wake up!


Wendy Connors










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 28

             Re: An Open Letter To Linda Moulton Howe - Gevaerd

From: A. J. Gevaerd - Revista UFO <gevaerd@ufo.com.br>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 12:01:10 -0300
Fwd Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 11:12:38 -0500
Subject: Re: An Open Letter To Linda Moulton Howe - Gevaerd


 >From: Andy Roberts <aj.roberts@blueyonder.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 13:53:28 -0000
 >Subject: Re: An Open Letter To Linda Moulton Howe

 >>From: Thiago Luiz Ticchetti <thiagolt@opengate.com.br>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 22:11:23 -0300
 >>Subject: Re: An Open Letter To Linda Moulton Howe

 >Pilgrims,

 >This whole Moulton Howe farrago, coming as it does on the back
 >of the Radical Misperception debate serves to amplify yet
 >another problem with ufologists.

 >This is that by and large, no matter how well a hoax is
 >investigated, exposed and published, it will rattle around for
 >years in the subject because:

 >*  People can make money out of it and don't care whether it's
 >a hoax or not. Sceptical ufologists may know but the dummy in
 >the street who reads the books or attends the lectures will
 >swallow hoaxes hook, line and sinker

 >*  Ufologists don't want to admit just how riddled the subject
 >is with hoaxes and hoaxers. The party line is that they comprise
 >a small percentage. I would suggest that whilst this is true
 >they are very effective and the cases they hoax have lasting
 >impact on the subject

 >*  In this case most of the info appears to be in a language
 >we don't speak



Andy and "Pilgrims",

I definitely think that it would help a lot to cut the number of
hoaxes in the UFO scenario if some UFO researchers and congress
promoters do their homework. If they remove the stages where
hoaxers present their fairy tales, and if the UFO community stop
giving these guys any space at all, they will gradually decrease
in number. Perhaps they will never disappear entirely, because
of the very nature of the UFO phenomena itself.

I will avoid mentioning names here, but three guys in the
States, particularly, are great disgraces to the entire UFO
scenario. One keeps aliens in freezers, other levitates when he
wishes and the last one has very expensive flashlights for
sale. See, folks, been a speaker at about a 100 UFO
congresses in the States, where I have been 52 times in 12 years.
And I keep watching people listening to guys like these and
congress promoters have guys like these at their events.


A. J.








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 28

                               Aztec Symposium

From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 09:45:38 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 12:06:07 -0500
Subject: Aztec Symposium


It's Open Season!

I will be attending the Aztec, NM Symposium next month. Since I
rarely attend these type of events, I just wanted you to know
that you have a rare opportunity to possibly see the Wicked
Witch of Ufology in the flesh. I'm not speaking at the event.
Just there to lurk around and...

...to see if old Purple Robes will be sneaking off to a local
Butte to Ooomm down a Mothership or something. He wasn't very
successful doing so in Sedona, Az, after all his proclamations,
etc. last time, so figure he'd probably give it a try here in my
home state. God, I hope he prances around in his robe!

OK, I'll be honest. I want James Moseley to autograph my copy of
"Shockingly Close to the Truth..." He owes me big time since I
gave him all that great publicity with my book review.

If ya bump into me (I'm a fat old broad, so that will probably
happen) be sure to say "Hi." Be careful, though...I sport a cane
and know how to use it. <G>

Wendy Connors








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 28

                   Re: Real Blame And A Question - VWhite

From: Vince White <Vinceomni@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 11:55:22 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 12:09:44 -0500
Subject: Re: Real Blame And A Question - VWhite


 >From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 23:40:03 +0000
 >Subject: Re: Real Blame And A Question

 >Most of all, They are not "Greer's witnesses." He has only tried
 >to exploit and use them for his own very obviously (for anyone
 >with eyes to see) personal agenda. Believe what you like, but
 >you know not whereof you speak when it comes to Congressional
 >hearings

Dick;

"Greer's witnesses" was a figure of speech. But since you have
direct experiential knowledge of Congressional hearings perhaps
you could enlighten those of us who haven't why we are unlikely
to ever have hearings. Specifically clarify.

What is confusing and hubristic in asserting it will take
someone with unusual courage and political capital to take the
risk to initiate hearings? Does the word leadership have no
meaning? Isn't it through leadership that someone will finally
say, in an open forum, the taboo phrase; "UFO coverup"?

In the absence of an unambiguous UFO event, providing political
cover, how will broad ranging hearings occur? Since you imply
you know what is needed, tell us please.

 From this vantage point, the blame excuse game is in full play.
Congress will always find an excuse until a man or woman takes a
giant political risk and openly confronts our government's lies.
Some in Congress know real hearings would be like nothing this
nation has ever faced before. That knowledge is the barrier to
hearings, not Greer.

As for those who want witnesses to provide proof, some of them
left it back at the office. Look there.


Vince White







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 28

                 Re: An Open Letter To Linda Moulton Howe -

From: Thiago Luiz Ticchetti <thiagolt@opengate.com.br>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 14:22:26 -0300
Fwd Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 15:20:22 -0500
Subject: Re: An Open Letter To Linda Moulton Howe -


 >From: Andy Roberts <aj.roberts@blueyonder.co.uk>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 13:53:28 -0000
 >Subject: Re: An Open Letter To Linda Moulton Howe

 >>From: Thiago Luiz Ticchetti <thiagolt@opengate.com.br>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 22:11:23 -0300
 >>Subject: Re: An Open Letter To Linda Moulton Howe

 >This whole Moulton Howe farrago, coming as it does on the back
 >of the Radical Misperception debate serves to amplify yet
 >another problem with ufologists.

 >This is that by and large, no matter how well a hoax is
 >investigated, exposed and published, it will rattle around for
 >years in the subject because:

 >*    People can make money out of it and don't care whether it's
 >a hoax or not. Sceptical ufologists may know but the dummy in
 >the street who reads the books or attends the lectures will
 >swallow hoaxes hook, line and sinker

 >*    Ufologists don't want to admit just how riddled the subject
 >is with hoaxes and hoaxers. The party line is that they comprise
 >a small percentage. I would suggest that whilst this is true
 >they are very effective and the cases they hoax have lasting
 >impact on the subject

 >*    In this case most of the info appears to be in a language
 >we don't speak


I agree with almost everything you say. Yes, there are many
people who make money with hoaxes; yes, there are many
ufologists who know that a case is a hoax but keep their mouths
shut, but the language "problem" is silly. What do you expect?
For all the world to speak English? It is not my fault if you
speak just English. Ive offered to help you to understand the
situation.

I sincerly hope that all our efforts to show you what Linda is
getting into are understood.


Regards

Thiago Luiz Ticchetti
Vice-presidente da EBE-ET/RAB
Brasilia/DF
Brasil










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 28

                          Secrecy News -- 02/28/03

From: Steven Aftergood <saftergood@fas.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 12:25:30 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 16:11:46 -0500
Subject: Secrecy News -- 02/28/03


SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
Volume 2003, Issue No. 18
February 28, 2003


**      TTIC TAKES SHAPE
**      DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE MAY UNDERGO "CHANGES"
**      CIA ESTIMATE ON NORTH KOREAN NUCLEAR WEAPONS
**      SOUTH AFRICAN NUCLEAR SECRECY PROBED
**      NASA PUBLISHES COLUMBIA FOIA MATERIALS ONLINE
**      ATTORNEY'S ACCESS TO CLASSIFIED INFO DENIED
**      SCIENCE AND NATIONAL SECURITY


TTIC TAKES SHAPE

In his State of the Union address, President Bush announced the
creation of a new interagency intelligence organization to be
known as the Terrorist Threat Integration Center (TTIC) "to
merge and analyze all threat information in a single location."

But the Presidential announcement seemed to have preceded any
clear conception of how the new Center would operate, and only
now are some of the details beginning to emerge.

The proposed structure and function of the TTIC were outlined
this week in testimony before the Senate Governmental Affairs
Committee by Winston P. Wiley, chair of the TTIC senior steering
group. See:

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2003_hr/022603wiley.html

Among the questions raised by the new proposal are why the TTIC
is subordinated to the Director of Central Intelligence rather
than the Department of Homeland Security; how it relates to the
existing DCI Counterterrorist Center, which is already supposed
to provide an interagency focus to the anti-terrorism effort;
and its potential to erode the legal barrier that separates the
CIA and other foreign intelligence agencies from domestic
surveillance and law enforcement.

But never mind all that. "TTIC is very good news for the
American people and very bad news for terrorists," Mr. Wiley
promised.

A February 14 White House fact sheet on TTIC, entitled
"Strengthening Intelligence to Protect America," may be found
here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2003/02/wh021403.html

A description of the DCI Counterterrorist Center, whose mission
appears to overlap significantly with that of the new TTIC, is
available here:

http://www.cia.gov/terrorism/ctc.html


DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE MAY UNDERGO "CHANGES"

Stephen A. Cambone, nominated to the newly created post of Under
Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, laid out his vision of
the agenda for military intelligence in response to questions
from the Senate Armed Services Committee this week.

While mostly general in nature, his comments implied that the
vast Pentagon intelligence apparatus may be poised for
significant restructuring or reorganization.

If confirmed, Dr. Cambone said, his office would initiate an
evaluation of "the timeliness, relevance, and utility" of
current military intelligence products. "That evaluation would
be used to recommend, as appropriate, changes in policy, plans,
programs, requirements, and resource allocations to meet the
needs of DoD officials." See:

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2003_hr/022703cambone.html


CIA ESTIMATE ON NORTH KOREAN NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Exposure of North Korea's uranium enrichment program led to the
collapse of the 1994 US-DPRK Agreed Framework late last year.
But with the demise of the Framework, North Korea now has an
even more direct path to nuclear weapons through the production
of plutonium.

That is what emerges from an unpublished CIA estimate that was
provided to Congress last November.

The CIA noted that North Korea's uranium enrichment plant would
not be fully operational before "mid-decade" -- a fact that has
been overlooked in some journalistic accounts -- and then could
produce enough weapons-grade uranium for two or more nuclear
weapons per year. With the collapse of the Agreed Framework,
however, North Korea can now pursue plutonium-fueled weapons
more quickly and in greater quantities through reprocessing of
reactor fuel.

The unclassified CIA estimate was previously reported by Bill
Gertz of the Washington Times, but the text has not been
generally available. It may now be found here:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/nuke/cia111902.html


SOUTH AFRICAN NUCLEAR SECRECY PROBED

In 1993, South Africa announced that it had accomplished what no
other country had even attempted: the dismantlement of its
nuclear weapons program.

"As one of the few states to acquire a nuclear weapons arsenal
and the only state ever to destroy one, the South African case
presents a rare opportunity to study the causes and processes of
nuclear acquisition and disarmament. South Africa's nuclear
history thus is a potentially valuable source of lessons for
global nonproliferation policy," according to a report of a
conference on the subject held last year.

"But secrecy remains a major obstacle to further inquiry and
disclosure, as most former programme employees fear the legal
repercussions of revealing new details about the programme,
including non-technical information posing no possible
proliferation hazard."

Historians, former officials and others gathered last summer in
South Africa under the auspices of the South African History
Archive and Queens College to consider the history of the
country's nuclear weapons program and the feasibility of
relaxing the secrecy which continues to surround it. The
proceedings of that July 2002 conference were published this
week. See (thanks to DB and PL):

http://www.wits.ac.za/saha/nuclearhistory/


NASA PUBLISHES COLUMBIA FOIA MATERIALS ONLINE

While NASA officials are grilled over who knew what when about
possible damage to space shuttle Columbia prior to its
destruction upon reentry February 1, NASA is pushing more and
more of its internal documentation on the matter into the public
domain.

In one innovative move, the agency has posted on its website a
list of categories of information concerning Columbia that have
been requested under the Freedom of Information Act and
indicated that "responsive records will be posted as they are
released."

NASA's Columbia FOIA website, which already contains several
tens of megabytes of disclosed data, is here (thanks to MJR):

http://www.nasa.gov/columbia/foia/index.html


ATTORNEY'S ACCESS TO CLASSIFIED INFO DENIED

The author of a manuscript on the Chinese nuclear weapons
program which the government says contains classified
information may not show the manuscript to his attorney, a
federal appeals court ruled this week.

Danny B. Stillman, a former Los Alamos National Laboratory
employee, had submitted his manuscript for pre-publication
review, as required. Upon review, the Defense Department and the
CIA moved to prohibit publication on grounds that classified
information was involved. Stillman filed suit to challenge the
validity of the government's classification claim. His attorney,
Mark S. Zaid, who holds a security clearance, sought access to
the manuscript, and it was authorized last year in D.C. District
Court. But the government objected, and filed an appeal, which
resulted in this week's reversal.

"The district court abused its discretion by unnecessarily
deciding that a plaintiff has a first amendment right for his
attorney to receive access to classified information," the
appeals court ruled strangely.

Instead, before making such a decision, the lower court should
have attempted to "resolve the classification issue without the
assistance of defense counsel." Accordingly, the case was sent
back to the lower court. See the February 25 ruling here:

http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200302/02-5234a.pdf


SCIENCE AND NATIONAL SECURITY

Scientists and university administrators continue to express
skepticism about the utility of new national security controls
on academic research, and frustration with their impact on
university science.

See "Sept. 11 Research Limits Draw Fire," by Nathan J. Heller,
The Harvard Crimson, February 24, here (thanks to JJ):

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=274170

Scientists contend that "Key elements of the sweeping new
security rules are vague, confusing, and possibly
counterproductive," reports David Malakoff in "Security Rules
Leave Labs Wanting More Guidance," Science, February 21:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/299/5610/1175


_______________________________________________

Secrecy News is written by Steven Aftergood and published by the
Federation of American Scientists.

To SUBSCRIBE to Secrecy News, send email to
secrecy_news-request@lists.fas.org
with "subscribe" in the body of the message.

OR email your request to saftergood@fas.org

Secrecy News is archived at:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/index.html

_______________________
Steven Aftergood
Project on Government Secrecy
Federation of American Scientists
web:  www.fas.org/sgp/index.html
email: saftergood@fas.org
voice: (202) 454-4691







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 28

              Re: An Open Letter to Linda Moulton Howe - Hebert

From: Amy Hebert <yellowrose129@attbi.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 12:44:50 -0600
Fwd Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 17:33:17 -0500
Subject: Re: An Open Letter to Linda Moulton Howe - Hebert


 >From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net>
 >To: UFO Updates <UFOUpdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 08:40:02 -0700
 >Subject: Re: An Open Letter to Linda Moulton Howe

 >People on this List actually continue to take Linda Moulton-
 >Howe's research seriously?

<snip>

Hi, Wendy:

I tried to share a case study with Linda a few years back, sent
her everything including photographs - never heard from her. I
tried to obtain information about a sighting report posted on
her web site for my research - never heard back from her.

In a weekend E-mail discussion, Linda and I went 'round and
'round about a photograph posted on her web site she claimed to
be of "energies" photographed in a crop circle which I indicated
was only lens flare. Linda rejected the lens flare theory. I
then contacted three well known researchers, two who are
considered professionals in photo analysis and one known for his
crop circle studies, and asked their opinions about the image in
the photograph. All three indicated that it could be lens flare.
I sent their opinions to Linda but the original story remained
posted to her web site as is (claiming it to be some kind of
"energy" photographed in a crop circle) with no mention of the
three analyses.

I was going to post the many images I have since photographed of
lens flares (to the IFO Database) that are quite similar to the
image in Linda's photograph on her web site but when I went to
find the URL to create a link, guess what? Linda now requires a
$26 per year subscription to her "X-Files" site or you can't
read anything, review anything and most of all, confront or
challenge her claims without first supporting her financially.

If I, poor as a church mouse, can afford a web site, so can
Linda. There are many ways to share one's work without resorting
to charging admission to view the show. If this is how Linda
must finance her "expeditions" then one must seriously question
her motives and all the information she has produced in the past
and will produce.

When I see sensationalized headlines posted on a web site I
automatically question the motives. If your work is not good
enough to stand on its own then no amount of fantastic claims
and wild titles (or $$$) will support it. It may get you
invited to speak at conferences, on TV programs and paid trips
around the world but in the long run, it won't stand up to
informed scrutiny.

If we place our confidences in limited sources of information we
also limit the answers we receive. Too many people, and I was
once one of them, accept what they are told in books, articles,
"research" papers, TV programs, videos and at conferences
according to self-proclaimed and consensually accepted experts.
Few people question the source as well as the information.

Thank you, Wendy, for sharing your opinions about Linda Moulton-
Howe and for giving me the courage to do so as well.


Sincerely,

A. Hebert








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 28

                    Re: Real Blame And A Question - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 18:55:55 +0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 17:36:03 -0500
Subject: Re: Real Blame And A Question - Hall


 >From: Vince White <Vinceomni@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 11:55:22 EST
 >Subject: Re: Real Blame And A Question

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 23:40:03 +0000
 >>Subject: Re: Real Blame And A Question

 >>Most of all, They are not "Greer's witnesses." He has only tried
 >>to exploit and use them for his own very obviously (for anyone
 >>with eyes to see) personal agenda. Believe what you like, but
 >>you know not whereof you speak when it comes to Congressional
 >>hearings

 >Dick;

 >"Greer's witnesses" was a figure of speech. But since you have
 >direct experiential knowledge of Congressional hearings perhaps
 >you could enlighten those of us who haven't why we are unlikely
 >to ever have hearings. Specifically clarify.

 >What is confusing and hubristic in asserting it will take
 >someone with unusual courage and political capital to take the
 >risk to initiate hearings? Does the word leadership have no
 >meaning? Isn't it through leadership that someone will finally
 >say, in an open forum, the taboo phrase; "UFO coverup"?

 >In the absence of an unambiguous UFO event, providing political
 >cover, how will broad ranging hearings occur? Since you imply
 >you know what is needed, tell us please.

 >From this vantage point, the blame excuse game is in full play.
 >Congress will always find an excuse until a man or woman takes a
 >giant political risk and openly confronts our government's lies.
 >Some in Congress know real hearings would be like nothing this
 >nation has ever faced before. That knowledge is the barrier to
 >hearings, not Greer.

 >As for those who want witnesses to provide proof, some of them
 >left it back at the office. Look there.

Vince,

I have published my views on Congressional hearings and the
kooks and con-men who continue to give UFO research a bad name
very widely in all sorts of magazines and journals, and on UFO
Updates. First off, whether you and I like it or not the field
of UFOs is considered nutty and full of wild and unsubstantiated
claims and conspiracy theories. Why? Because people like Greer
and the many others (including The Watchdog's targets) make it
seem that way. Some UFO groups contribute to this reputation by
failing to show any discrimination in their publications and
public meetings.

Congressmen are very busy people (especially now with all the
foreign and domestic problems) and it is their job to construct
legislation and develop budgets for all these foreign and
domestic problems. Not to investigate scientific mysteries.
UFOs, to them, are a tabloid subject. Efforts by some of us to
call the serious facts to their attention have garnered some
interest, and then along comes Greer and Company. Until UFOs are
perceived as a serious scientific issue (or there is a sighyting
or series of sightings that blow the lid off), it is very
obvious why Congressional hearings are all but impossible to
obtain. The previous hearings were held because we made it clear
that the Air Force was (choose your words) lying, covering up,
issuing decitful and counter-to-fact statements,_and_ a wave of
sightings at that time punctuated what we were saying.
"Government operations" are a legitimate matter of Congressional
oversight.

There is a lot more I could say, but I don't have the time to
write a book on it. This will give you the general idea. What it
will take for Congressional hearings to occur is a scenario
something like this: Don Johnson proves to be right and there is
a big wave of sightings next month; some VIPs or members of
Congress, or major news media personnel are witnesses or hear
from highly credible witnesses; the kooks and con-men with axes
to grind are stifled or held at bay; solid factual information
about the most significant new sightings along with solid cases
from the past are clearly and coherently communicated to Members
of Congress and/or the President.


  - 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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 28

                    Re: Real Blame And A Question - Hatch

From: Larry Hatch <larry@larryhatch.net>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 12:08:07 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 17:38:38 -0500
Subject: Re: Real Blame And A Question - Hatch


 >From: Eleanor White <eleanor@raven1.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 06:05:25 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Real Blame And A Question

 >>From: Brenda Denzler <bdenzler1@email.msn.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 19:43:55 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Real Blame And A Question

 >>>From: Vince White <Vinceomni@aol.com>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 12:13:13 EST
 >>>Subject: Real Blame And A Question

 ><snip>

 >>I think, Vincent, that the problem is not whether the members of
 >>Congress can deal with tough issues. The problem is that when
 >>one talks about ZPE, one is talking about something that many
 >>people don't believe exists. I know that there is infomation out
 >>there suggesting quite the contrary, but my point is that for
 >>most main-stream people with a mainstream view of reality and
 >>what is and is not possible, ZPE is in the realm of "fantasy"
 >>and "what hoaxers use to sucker the gullible."

 >ZPE, zero point energy, "free" energy, is _not_ - repeat- _not_
 >touted by the serious researchers as 'energy from nothing'. This
 >is a popular _mis-conception_. What ZPE research does is to look
 >for ways to tap energy sources as yet unknown because humanity
 >does not understand all laws of physics at this time.


Hello all:

One fellow (or group) is offering a $10,000 reward, or more, for
a simple demonstration of the 'free energy' devices being thrust
before the public.

Read the fine print. Eric Krieg does _not_ want any rights to
the machine or whatever, and the usual trickery is carefully
excluded.

The Free Energy device announced nationwide, or world wide by
Dr. Steven Greer would qualify perfectly, provided it passes
some fairly straightforward test as outlined on the site above.
(chuckle!)

http://www.phact.org/e/freetest.html

As for ZPE, (Casimir effect) its been established, but don't go
buying any ZPE generators any time soon.

ZPE is rather like a quantum spring. Virtual particles push two
plates together preferentially. Once pushed together you have
to put energy _in_ to pry them apart again!

Quantum stuff is hard to work with. Rubber bands might be a
better analogy. Try and get some free/novel useful energy from
those.

One important caveat that nearly everyone seems to miss.

What is being sought is _useful_ energy, the kind that can do
work, like the mechanical energy of a gasoline engine or water
turbine, electricity etc. What is _not_ going to help is passive
energy, heat mostly, which just sits there and does no work.

Even heat can be converted to useful energy if you have some
plentiful source of heat, at a suitably higher temperature,
_and_ some place to dump the waste heat, nearby, and at a
significantly lower temperature. Virtually all electric
generating plants (but not solar panels) work this way, even the
nuclear plants.

Hydroelectric plants used the stored kinetic energy of falling
water... the Sun being the heat source, and space itself as the
heat sink causing the rainfall.

If and when some breakthrough occurs along these lines,
and I deeply want it to happen, it will result from the
work of physics... not internet cranks and garage tinkers.


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 > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 28

                         UFO Over Vina del Mar Chile

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 13:08:06 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 19:18:18 -0500
Subject: UFO Over Vina del Mar Chile



SOURCE: Imprimatur.com
DATE: February 28, 2003

UFO IN VINA DEL MAR (CHILE)

Chilean UFO researcher Rodrigo Cuadra reports that a UFO was
seen today at 06:20 a.m., Friday, February 28, 2003, over Vina
del Mar in Chile's 5th Region.

The witness is Mr. Ricardo Barraza, a resident of the Vina del
Mar commune, who claims that, as he headed off to work, he looked
to the Southern sky, where he noticed a pulsating luminous
object that began to move quickly toward the South. He noticed
that the light was being followed by an enormous dark mass that
was easily concealed by the darkness of the sky at that early
hour.

Unfortunately there is no visual record of the sighting.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Translation (C) 2003 IHU
Special thanks to Rodrigo Cuadra Salazar
Revista TOC (Tecnolog=EDa, OVNIs y Ciencia)






   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 28

             Re: An Open Letter to Linda Moulton Howe - Connors

From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 16:29:19 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 19:22:51 -0500
Subject: Re: An Open Letter to Linda Moulton Howe - Connors


 >From: Amy Hebert <yellowrose129@attbi.com>
 >To: UFO Updates <UFOUpdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 12:44:50 -0600
 >Subject: Re: An Open Letter to Linda Moulton Howe - Hebert


 >>From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net>
 >>To: UFO Updates <UFOUpdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 08:40:02 -0700
 >>Subject: Re: An Open Letter to Linda Moulton Howe


 >People on this List actually continue to take Linda Moulton-
 >Howe's research seriously?

<snip>

 >Hi, Wendy:

 >I tried to share a case study with Linda a few years back, sent
 >her everything including photographs - never heard from her. I
 >tried to obtain information about a sighting report posted on
 >her web site for my research - never heard back from her.

<snip>

 >I was going to post the many images I have since photographed of
lens flares (to the IFO Database) that are quite similar to the
image in Linda's photograph on her web site but when I went to
find the URL to create a link, guess what? Linda now requires a
$26 per year subscription to her "X-Files" site or you can't
read anything, review anything and most of all, confront or
challenge her claims without first supporting her financially.

<Snip>

 >Thank you, Wendy, for sharing your opinions about Linda Moulton-
Howe and for giving me the courage to do so as well.

 >Sincerely,

 >A. Hebert

Hi Amy,

Thank you for your courage to join in to voice displeasure over
people who take advantage of a serious area of study to
bastardize it in the name of self glory and pursuit of the
almight dollar.

There is absolutely nothing wrong in making a living doing
ufological work. It's is the manner in which you do so that is
always open to question and corruption. Linda Moulton-Howe
certainly has the right to charge the fools who would pay her
for questionable research, but when you do that, your reputation
suffers. And hers, among intelligent people in this area of
research, is so tarnished now that a tanker of Tarn-X wouldn't
work. <G>

I am certainly not jealous of her making money, but I am
dumbfounded that people will pay top dollar for absolute junk
from her, gush all over her as a UFO expert (she certainly
isn't) and yet legitimate researchers can't get people to
support their work by buying their books, monographs, etc.
Richard Hall's case is a case in point. His book, UFO Evidence
II is high priced, but is worth 100 times what the asking price
is ($53), yet so-called researchers on this list wouldn't buy it
because it cost too much. Yet, they'll plunk down $40 for a
book, $29.95 for a video or $26 to get on the website to get
questionable research by Linda Moulton-Howe.

Let's face it. The dog and pony show in Ufology always draws the
crowd and most people are dumb as a bag of hammers, but think
they are brilliant. It is the way of things in the human
condition. Linda Moulton-Howe is content to fleece the flock and
that is her right.


Wendy Connors








   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 28

                    More Information On Brazil's Urandir

From: Jeferson Martinho <jeff@vigilia.com.br>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 19:46:53 -0300
Fwd Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 19:12:20 -0500
Subject: More Information On Brazil's Urandir


My name is Jeferson Martinho. I am a Brazilian journalist and
publishs one of the biggest Brazilian Ufology sites:

http://www.vigilia.com.br

I have important information about Linda's recent questioning
and about alleged 'paranormal' Urandir Fernandes Oliveira. This
information was published on my site, that has journalistic and
scientific approaches.

I am sending to you a copy of an article, published some time
ago. Urandir is dangerous for serious Ufology! It's important
that the international community knows it.

I am at your disposal!

Best regards,
Jeferson Martinho
Portal/Revista Vigilia - Editor
http://www.vigilia.com.br
jeff@vigilia.com.br
redacao@vigilia.com.br
vigilia@vigilia.com.br

-----

Original text, in Portuguese, at:

http://www.vigilia.com.br/sessao.php?categ=3D0&id=3D286

Alleged Paranormal is arrested in Porto Alegre

From: Reda=E7=E3o Vig=EDlia redacao@vigilia.com.br

Date: 29/03/2000 - Time: 14h47min


The self-proclaimed paranormal Urandir Fernandes de Oliveira,
who says he is in contact with extraterrestrial and manager of
Portal Project, in the town of Corguinho, in Campo Grande, was
arrested in the night of 25th of March, Saturday, in Porto
Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul.

The arrest was made by police from 17 Police Station in
Porto Alegre, after a judge expedited a preventive warrant of
arrest attending a request from Lawyer Nicolau Borges L=FCtz Neto,
from Porto Alegre, representing some of the victims of an
alleged scheme of illegal selling of land in Corguinho

Project Portal, on Boas Sorte (Good Luck) Farm, received
hundreds of people from everywhere in the country, hoping to
make contact with extraterrestrials, in a session which
was already denounced by UFO Magazine (Brazil) to really be a
staging performance involving tricks and acting.

According to what Urandir "explains" to potential careless
buyers, the world will be hit by a great catastrophe in the next
two or three years, with floods in many places of the planet.
But, a site named by him as "City of ETs" - where lots of 400m2
are - would be safe from this planetary catastrophe, and life
will follow harmoniously, including help from extraterrestrials.

Lawyer Lutz Netto argues, in the warrant of arrest, that
prospecting in the notary-office revealed the nonexistence of
property in the name of Urandir in that region, and the
indicated place used in the marketing for sales for Portal
Project is registered as belonging to Empresa Agropecuaria Sao
Valentim, with main offices in Sao Paulo.

Another irregularity, which motivated e request to base the
indictment of Urandir in article 171 of Brazilian Criminal Code
(fraud), would be the refusal of agents of Portal Project to
return to former members funds already paid.

At the closing of this report, Urandir was still in jail. Please
return Vhere and check for more information soon.

-----

Homepage denounces charlatanism in Ufology

Whoever feels deceived by false promises or injured by people
who use Ufology as a means to call attention has now one more
resource to make things public. Its UFO-Denuncia Homepage,
running since February 2000, by editor Ademar Jose Gevaerd from
Revista UFO (UFO Magazine).

The site was created in the middle of a controversy involving
the ufological community and the alleged paranormal, Urandir
Fernandes de Oliveira.

For now, the home page UFO-Denuncia prints denouncements of
deceitful acts credited to the alleged paranormal, besides the
contacts, who claims to "energize" (sic) people and to have the
power to cure.

At the beginning of the year, Urandir, who has already been
challenged before by Revista UFO Editor, Gevaerd, to prove his
claims, reappeared in many television programs and caused a
strong reaction from researchers of UFO phenomena. During one of
the programs, he was again challenged and promised, this time to
the crew of "Fantastico" show that he would prove to be what he
claims to be. So far, though, the ufological community and fans
of this subject are still waiting for him.

Meanwhile, many articles and a few denunciation letters are
posted at the UFO-Denuncia site. Almost all of them refer to
Urandir's claims, even though Editor Gevaerd assured that
there's room for every type of denunciation. The site makes
clear that there will be action about the subjects shown there,
making the facts known to the authorities so they can take their
steps.

At the end of February, when responding to an interview by e-
  mail given to Revista Vigilia, Gevaerd revealed that in only
three weeks the site received more than 1,600 visits and dozens
of letters. Until then, none of them had been a police case. "No
serious denunciation received was completely identified as with
the sender wishing that the case was sent to the police. I
personally answered around 20 denunciations and, to 7, I asked
the complainers to take the question to the police, and Procoms,
etc. I don't know if they did... I doubt it", said the Editor.

According to him, "99% of the letters are of indignation against
Urandir and congratulating us for the initiative. 1% are letters
attacking us with non-sense and low offenses". He also calls
attention to another grave factor: "the curious thing is that,
from the 99%, some letters are from culturally privileged people
who claim to have been deceived by Urandir, from sexual abuse to
serious fraud, like selling phantom real estate and things of
that type".

Among the published complaints are reports like the one from
Fernando Goncalves da Silva, from Santo Andr=E9 (SP). He says that
on 12th of October he went to Corguinho with his daughter "to
the alleged close encounters people say happens there". According
to him, after spending an average of R$ 400,00 (a little more
than US$100.00) a person to stay in a "precarious camping
site", only to witness what "was a illusionist's show, with laser
canons in countdown, done by Urandir and his followers. Flying
Saucers were not seen even in dreams."

Comparing the alleged paranormal to Jim Jones, Fernando shows
how worried he is: "I warn you, besides this all, the
authorities about crime against public economy and charlatanism
from that gentleman, in order to combat a sect like Jim Jones',
which took, years ago, 900 people to suicide. Mr. Urandir abuses
poor and innocent people, and in his lectures in Sao Paulo he
charges R$ 60,00 per person, in sessions of pure dumbness. His
right place is in jail. His contacts are fake and I could check
that!"

Daniela S. (she prefers to give only her first name), 28, a
teacher from Rio de Janeiro presented another complaint. In a
letter entitled "I was deceived", she says she followed the work
of the alleged paranormal for years, and after "4 days of living
with 'Portal Project', I was sure that all was a great humbug!"
She says she is revolted, and complains: "more still I realized
that I let myself be deluded for so much time..."







   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 28

                   Jerry Black To Linda Moulton Howe 1998

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 21:39:42 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 21:39:42 -0500
Subject: Jerry Black To Linda Moulton Howe 1998

http://members.xoom.com/ufobarb/jb03.html


UFOs And Credibility
An Open Letter To Linda Moulton Howe
by Jerry Black

July 1998


Recently on the Art Bell Show, a gentleman referred to as "Kent"
talked to Linda Moulton Howe for about two hours. He related a
story of being employed by a major courier company, and being
sent to NASA to pick up a package. After receiving the package,
it fell open. Out of the package came photographs of the "face"
on Mars which had not been shown to the general public. Upon
seeing the photographs, he was reprimanded by the gentleman who
had given the package to him, and the photographs were placed
back into the tube, for the courier to continue on his way.

Linda Moulton Howe spoke about the two-hour conversation on the
Art Bell Show, and made comments indicating that she thought
this was a solid case. Richard Hoagland, who was on the show at
the same time, felt the case was "98%" valid. He left that
remaining two percent open. To the credit of Mr. Hoagland, he
did investigate the case, and found that the gentleman was
hoaxing the story that he had told Ms. Howe. He even admitted
this.

Richard Hoagland's defense, regarding his 98% assessment in
originally deeming the story credible, was, "Well, I did leave
that two percent open." That is not good enough. One cannot make
a comment on high credibility, based on a person relating a
story that they were told by yet another person over the phone.
Even though one may know and trust that person (in this case,
that person was Linda Moulton Howe), one cannot automatically
say, "Well that case sounds like it's 98 percent authentic."

Linda Moulton Howe, who is the big culprit in this particular
case, ran with this story prematurely, as she has done with
others in the past, certainly before any investigation was
conducted. Because of this she has lost a lot of credibility,
not only on this case, but on others in which she has done the
same thing.

When Mr. Art Bell asked her what she had to say when it was
determined, through Richard Hoagland's investigation, that this
was an admitted hoax, she said, "Well, it doesn't make any
difference. We have some other pictures out there showing better
images of the face on Mars, structures, and things of that
nature." One has nothing to do with the other. This is a case of
Ms. Howe again trying to shrug off her mistake of running
prematurely with cases, as she has clearly demonstrated is her
nature in the past -- as though it makes no difference. It does
make a difference. It makes a difference in one's credibility.

Since that time, Linda Moulton Howe has brought forth the name
of a gentleman called "Cooper." Cooper has related information
to Ms. Howe concerning the autopsy video and his alleged
knowledge of this situation. He is apparently saying that the
autopsy video is authentic, and has given her some other
information concerning the crash at Roswell.

Again, Ms. Howe has presented the story of her conversation with
this gentleman, concerning the autopsy video, telling Art Bell
and his listeners that this is a bona fide story. We wonder when
she will realize that a conversation with someone over a
telephone is just that -- a conversation over the phone. One
cannot make any distinctions as to the credibility of a case
until one has at least personally spoken with the proponent of a
story and conducted an investigation. In fact, if these people
who call on the phone will not meet with Linda Howe, or Richard
Hoagland, or whoever it might be, once they have placed that
phone call, then, in my opinion, the investigation should be
dropped. One cannot handle these types of investigations over
the phone. Anyone can call and make claims, as these people do,
or send some type of document that may look valid.

The bottom line is, one cannot conduct an investigation over the
phone. It simply cannot be done, in my opinion. One must
convince the person on the other end to meet with you, to
discuss the situation eye to eye, get more information, and then
begin the investigation of what is being related. Only then can
one determine if there is any credibility to a given case.

Linda Moulton Howe has lost a considerable amount of credibility
in the past few years, because of situations just like this one.
I have learned from a credible source that she also continues to
use a photograph of the alleged body of an alien being in her
various lectures, even after being told, over a year ago, that
the photograph was not real. The photograph is of a dummy alien
made up for the Showtime movie, Roswell, and is the same dummy
on display at the UFO Museum in Roswell, New Mexico. Ms. Howe
was advised of this over a year ago, yet still uses it in her
lectures, presenting it as a bona fide photograph of an alien
being.

So as far as I am concerned, Richard Hoagland -- while we
applaud the fact that he did conduct an investigation, to bring
the case of "Kent" to a close -- should not be making these 98%
and 2% statements. Sure, it's easy to say, after the fact,
"Well, I did leave that two percent open." But to listeners of
the Art Bell Show you have relegated the story as 98% authentic
just because of what Linda Howe told you. The proper statement
to Art Bell or Linda Moulton Howe would be, once Mr. Hoagland
had heard this, "The story sounds interesting. I think a lot of
investigation needs to be done on this to see if this gentleman
is telling us the truth. Will he meet with us at a place and
time convenient to all of us, where we can talk with him? We
need more information." At that time a full investigation should
proceed. Mr. Hoagland would have no way of knowing if what Ms.
Howe, or her informant, was saying was "98%" true. It shouldn't
matter if Ms. Howe was one's best friend... Realistically, even
if my father had made that statement, I would not make the claim
that the story was "98%" valid, before any investigation had
been made.

Linda Moulton Howe is yet another figure in the UFO field that
has lost a lot of credibility, by continually making these
ludicrous statements about people calling her on the phone,
making claims about this or that, then running with those
stories prematurely. I really cannot even understand what reason
she would have to do so. Is it because she becomes of more
interest to the Art Bell Show when she does this? I have no
idea, but I do know that her credibility has been drastically
compromised. You can bet that most serious researchers will now
take a second look at anything she has to say, before trusting
the credibility of the stories she comes forth with. She has
only herself to blame for this.

In the future, I wish Ms. Howe would check things out
thoroughly, before making claims on the air. It does no harm to
bring it to the attention of the Art Bell audience that you have
talked to someone about a case, or that you are proceeding
cautiously, based on a phone call from someone. It would even be
acceptable for her to tell us that she was trying to meet with
the person, and checking to see if that was possible, before
making unfounded claims. As it is, she has no way of knowing if
the person is telling her the truth or not. It would not be bad
protocol to even advise listeners of the investigation, letting
the listeners know where the case stands.

To go on the air, though, after talking to a complete stranger
for two hours, and to say, "Oh, this sounds like a solid case,"
is ludicrous. It has to be because Ms. Howe is simply trying to
maintain some kind of status on the Art Bell Show, or that she
really is a very gullible person. We do not have room for any
more gullible people in the UFO field... We have more than we
need at the moment.

Again, UFO research and credibility must go hand in hand. We're
losing a lot of credibility with the general public, because of
statements like these Linda Moulton Howe has been making about
"Kent" and "Cooper." She must change her way of doing things,
for the good of the field, because she is the person that people
hear on the radio, and she is the person they go to listen to
when UFOs are being discussed.

Linda Moulton Howe needs to be extremely cautious, for the good
of UFO research in general, and should be a bit more skeptical
about things she hears in the future. This is the only way she
will continue to be a viable force in the UFO community, to be
considered a responsible, objective, and scientific
investigator.

I thank everyone for their time in reading this.

Regards,

Jerry Black

JB/gmj


                     A Note About Jerry Black

Mr. Jerry Black has been researching and investigating UFOs in a
scientific and objective manner for the past 39 years. He spent
four and a half years re-investigating the Ed Walters/Gulf
Breeze case, with experienced investigators Rex Salisberry,
Barbara Becker, and Zan Overall. Mr. Black invites your comments
on the above. He can be reached at the following address and
phone number:

Jerry Black
6276 Taylor Pike
Blanchester, Ohio 45107
(513) 625-2613


NOTE: Permission is granted by the author to reproduce this
article in its entirety, in electronic form. Please contact the
author for permission to reproduce segments only.


The UFO
Research
Network










   UFO UpDates
   A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
   'Its All Here In Black & White'
   Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 2003 >
   Feb > Feb 28

                  John Powell On Linda Moulton Howe - 1994

From: JOHN POWELL
Date: 11-26-94 (09:57)       Number: 2635 of 2652 (Refer# NONE)
Fwd Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 21:52:49 -0500
Subject: John Powell On Linda Moulton Howe - 1994


  -=> Quoting Rich Boylan to John Powell <=-

JP>Well, another way of stating it is to say that we haven't found in the
JP>lab evidence of the use of devices that we already know exist...<grin>

RB> Maybe YOU don't "know" that they exist, but I do. Some helpful
RB> person sent me an article about a portable, hand-held laser
RB> micro-torch that even a Special Ops trooper with night-vision glasses
RB> could use in the dark to excise bovine mucous-membrane tissue.

Rich, I have determined that you need an OCR scanner!

Does the article reveal any operating characteristics, temperature, beam
width, etc.?

JP> JP>I have personally found Linda Howe to be unreliable and without
JP> JP>credibility. Since this was a personal/private 'discovery' (that I
JP> JP>made public some time ago) I don't expect _anybody_ else to believe
JP> JP>me. But, for my own use, I have no use for any alleged contribution
JP> JP>she may make to the study of anything...

JP> RB> Perhaps you would care to repeat the event that caused you to
JP> RB> lose faith in Linda Moulton Howe's credibility?

JP>I'd rather not. I can't prove it and she can't disprove it, so it
JP>becomes gossip unless someone were to rely on my credibility -

RB> Your credibility is good enough or me.

Here's the basic story:

I interviewed Linda a couple of years ago on matters in general
by telephone. It was pleasant but she didn't say much of
anything and mostly asked me questions. I thought that was
somewhat odd. A week later I got a half-dozen advertisements
for her videotapes in the mail I thought that was somewhat odd
too but neither were a big deal.

I then met her at a MUFON conference and we discussed alien
abductions briefly. She mentioned that at least several alien
implants had been surgically recovered and were currently being
studied at various institutions including MIT. I asked her for
details and she told me she wasn't in a position to divulge
details. She did offer that there would be no point in
continuing to search for alien implants in abductees because the
aliens had switched to an implant technology that was of organic
material so that it wouldn't be detectable by X-ray or MRI. I
mentioned that it was amazingly coincidental that the aliens
would start using an undetectable implant at the same time we
humans started trying to detect them, and I asked her how she
knew this since they were undetectable. She gave me a stare,
turned and walked away without saying anything else.

I interviewed/chatted with her again not long after that by
telephone to see if I could establish a 'guest speaker' sort of
role for her on MUFONet. (I was the MUFONet Moderator at the
time...) Short of that I asked her if she'd be willing to submit
cattle mutilation reports through the MUFONet reporting system
to enhance onsite investigation by MUFON Field Investigators.
She was very noncommittal, even made a couple of silly excuses
why she couldn't use the computer network and why she didn't
think sending cattle mutilation reports to a worldwide network
for investigation would be a good idea.

I let her know that I was very unimpressed with her
unwillingness to share information that she would still have
ultimate control over. She then told me of late breaking news
regarding a crop circle event that allegedly had occurred only
days before in the Midwest. I collected what details I could
from her. (The crop circle appeared in a farmer's field, was
very complex and detailed, included UFO sightings, the military
arrived and burned his field, etc.)

Almost immediately I called Sheldon Wernikoff (who shows up
around here now and then when he isn't taking summers off) who
lives near Chicago and who was in a better position to verify
the details. I know and trust Sheldon to be thorough and
accurate and he reported that no such crop circle event, no such
crop circle, no such sightings, no nothing had occurred.

What you just read is the extent of the documentation. I didn't
record the conversations with Howe. So, naturally, you'd have to
either take my word for it or not... (I prefer that you _don't_
take my word for it and see how credible she is for yourself...)

Thanks, take care.
John.
-
<Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence>


--- FMail/386 0.98a
  * Origin: Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence BBS (1:261/1201)
SEEN-BY: 270/101 280/1 396/1 3615/50 51
PATH: 261/1201 1087 1023 396/1 3615/50

<<<>>>