Not the same thing.
Given the size of the universe, and the near certainty of life developing
in
the right environment, I believe there are very many ETs in the universe.
Believing they are buzzing my house and abducting my neighbors is another
story.
Michael
"Martin Shackelford" <mshack4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:ibTWj.3147$ah4.2424@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cheap diversionary tactic, Dave.
> LNers love to try to smear CTs by associating them with UFOs.
> The Pope is less idiotic--and declares belief in ETs perfectly OK.
>
> Martin
>
> "Dave Reitzes" <dreitzes@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:84bb2a20-4a8c-4470-b912-9f6e3002ea4c@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On May 2, 7:28 pm, howardp <ho...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> On Apr 30, 11:02?pm, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi, Howard.
>>
>> > Did you author these?
>>
>> In fact, I did not respond to David R's question about several e-
mails,
>> but he publishes anyway. Whether or not I wrote any of the several
>> 10-year
>> old posts he sent me, it was clear to me that he will use any tactic at
>> all -- in this case, trying to smear me as a UFO nut in his
intellectual
>> inquiries. I would prefer to debate the issues at hand, of course, but
>> not
>> with someone for whom attempted character assassination is regarded as
a
>> viable tool of debate.
>>
>> While I have your wandering attention, David, please remove from your
Web
>> site a 5-year-old outline I sent around to my then-associates. It was
>> never more than a working do***ent. It was never intended for
>> publication.
>> It was like a re****ter's notes. I can't and won't vouch for the truth
of
>> any of it, as it was not a public post, and it contains material I
later
>> determined was not true. I have the right to get things straight, don't
>> I,
>> before I go public? Possibly even the obligation (though you never let
>> that stop you). If it is not removed immediately, this notice should
>> suffice to render your inaction grounds for litigation.
>>
>> Nothing surprises me about the (lack of) ethics of your tactics or your
>> tortured rationales for them. Correct me if I am wrong, but you and/or
>> McAdams were also involved in the publication of copyrighted material,
>> weren't you, specifically an early draft of an early book that was
stolen
>> by Dutch hackers? You do know this made you an accessory to extortion,
>> don't you?
>>
>> Apparently, the censors of this group have not yet seen fit to write
>> ethical guidelines more exacting that McAdams's judgement that a word
or
>> two is offensive to HIM. Do you have at least one rule of professional
>> conduct you follow, or do you simply skip each ethical question that
>> comes
>> along? More likely, you don't even notice them. It's easy to shoot from
>> the hip and sound clever and much more difficult to engage in real
>> discussion. You're a clever guy.
>>
>> Hey, David -- I WAS ABDUCTED BY ALIENS OVER 100 TIMES. THAT'S WHY I
CAN'T
>> GET THE JFK ASSASSINATION STRAIGHT.
>>
>> H
>
>
>
>
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.paranet.ufo/browse_thread/thread/ae0bb447b74d72aa/36d9ce14209c7fd4?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#36d9ce14209c7fd4
>
>
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.paranet.ufo/msg/36d9ce14209c7fd4?dmode=source
>
>
> <QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
>
> From: ho...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Howpl)
> Subject: Re: UFO Technology/Alternative Theories Rumors/
> Specifications/Theories/Ideas
> Date: 1999/01/27
> Message-ID: <19990127182322.09002.00000063@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>#1/1
> X-Deja-AN: 437714255
> References: <36a995fa.2090740250@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
> Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
> X-Admin: n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> I'm having a terrible time remembering the name of the author, but a
> book
> called "Unconventional Flying Objects" came out a year or two ago by a
> NASA
> engineer (Hill?) who claims to have processed UFO re****ts for NASA,
> not
> officially looking into the phenomenon. The book was written in the
> 1970s but
> published posthumously. It includes physics lectures beyond my
> ability to
> follow, but "Hill" was a propulsion expert and his book is a highly
> detailed
> analysis of plausible propulsion systems for UFOs as well as
> debunkings of
> various misunderstandings about the nature of space travel. If you
> haven't
> seen it, you must.
> - Howard
>
> <QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
>
>
>
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.paranet.ufo/browse_thread/thread/70b5e8a559b0775f/5902acfd41a4345d?hl=en&lnk=st&q=author%3Ahowpl%40aol.com#5902acfd41a4345d
>
>
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.paranet.ufo/msg/5902acfd41a4345d?dmode=source
>
>
> <QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
>
> From: ho...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Howpl)
> Subject: Re: This NG has gone to hell.
> Date: 1997/06/24
> Message-ID: <19970624164101.MAA11881@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>#1/1
> X-Deja-AN: 252357726
> References: <5okl53$bes$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
> Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
> X-Admin: n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> 1. Is there a better newsgroup on the subject?
>
> 2. I'm new to this subject on the Net. Has anyone discussed Corso's
> book,
> which would seem to be definitive re Roswell -- unless he isn't who he
> says he is.
>
> 3. Could his book have prompted the new AF re****t?
>
> 4. Do you know how to get a copy of the AF? Is it online?
>
> <QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
>
>
>
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.paranet.ufo/browse_thread/thread/b231334273dfd0d2/4a8596cae8b47125?hl=en&lnk=st&q=author%3Ahowpl%40aol.com#4a8596cae8b47125
>
>
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.paranet.ufo/msg/4a8596cae8b47125?dmode=source
>
>
> <QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
>
> From: ho...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Howpl)
> Subject: Corso book
> Date: 1997/07/18
> Message-ID: <19970718145501.KAA18475@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>#1/1
> X-Deja-AN: 257578723
> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
> Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
> X-Admin: n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> I tried to get a dialogue going on Corso's book in the sci.skeptic
> group
> with no success. How about you folks?
>
> For those who haven't read it, here's the teaser -- meant only as an
> enticement to read, i.e., don't judge the book by this summary alone.
> [That would fail to take into account the entirety of the evidence - a
> scientific no-no. Right?]
>
> As head of the Foreign Technology section of the Army, Corso claims to
> have used his office as examiner of foreign -- i.e., German technology
> --
> as the perfect cover for a deeper agenda: analyzing Roswell
> debris/technology (foreign = alien in this case), which he "harvested"
> and
> covertly seeded to scientists working at major defense contractors.
> Night
> vision, lasers, fiber optics, and other technological developments
> were
> boosted by the "reverse engineering" he encouraged and funded. NBC's
> Dateline did a segment on Corso a few weeks ago but was typically
> superficial and did not lay a glove on him. Now in his 80s, it's
> doubtful
> he wrote the book for the fame and fortune that may tempt younger
> hoaxers.
>
> <QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
>
>
>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/browse_thread/thread/357211bf13821ccd/ce83e9e75c5c362f?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#ce83e9e75c5c362f
>
>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/msg/ce83e9e75c5c362f?dmode=source
>
>
> <QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
>
> From: ho...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Howpl)
> Subject: Of Corso
> Date: 1997/07/17
> Message-ID: <19970717151400.LAA05864@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>#1/1
> X-Deja-AN: 257433192
> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
> Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
> X-Admin: n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> Of course, all you compulsive debunkers out there have heard of Col.
> Corso's book The Day After Roswell by now. Will those who have read
> it
> now please proceed to debunk it? If no hoax, this would be a very
> high-level confirmation of the Roswell story and so much more.
>
> For those who haven't read it, here's the teaser -- meant only as an
> enticement to read, i.e., don't judge the book by this summary alone.
> [That would fail to take into account the entirety of the evidence - a
> scientific no-no. Right?]
>
> As head of the Foreign Technology section of the Army, Corso claims to
> have used his office as examiner of foreign -- i.e., German technology
> --
> as the perfect cover for a deeper agenda: analyzing Roswell
> debris/technology (foreign = alien in this case), which he "harvested"
> and
> covertly seeded to scientists working at major defense contractors.
> Night
> vision, lasers, fiber optics, and other technological developments
> were
> boosted by the "reverse engineering" he encouraged and funded. NBC's
> Dateline did a segment on Corso a few weeks ago but was typically
> superficial and did not lay a glove on him. Now in his 80s, it's
> doubtful
> he wrote the book for the fame and fortune that may tempt younger
> hoaxers.
>
> <QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
>
>
>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/msg/d6e7a14e446502ef?dmode=source
>
>
> <QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
>
> From: ho...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Howpl)
> Subject: Re: Of Corso
> Date: 1997/07/18
> Message-ID: <19970718144600.KAA18074@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>#1/1
> X-Deja-AN: 257576958
> References: <19970717213600.RAA00745@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
> Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
> X-Admin: n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> The assertion that Corso's book has a lot of "filler" is certainly not
> a
> criticism that applies to your response. In fact, I would say there's
> nothing, abolutely nothing, to your response. Filler would lift it to
> another substantive level entirely.
>
> Now, will the bright lights in this skeptics group please respond to
> those
> parts of Corso's book that are clearly not filler.
>
> By the way, I agree that not every chapter is filled with lurid tales
> of
> alien ***ual abuse and that I longed for a bit of the ***y stuff as
> his
> technology-by-technology narrative churned on -- but, damn it, the guy
> maintains he got his leads from the Roswell files in his possession!
>
> Sure, his descriptions of how he "seeded" industry is fairly
> pedestrian,
> but it is detailed. You know, you can't win with this group: if
> someone
> writes an over-the-top book, he's a kook. If it's like Corso's, he
> gets
> chided for all the dull "filler." Just address the substance,
> please.
>
> <QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
>
>
>
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.ufo.re****ts/browse_thread/thread/b2bee60f31b1db1d/0bd5d2cff49aa50a?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#0bd5d2cff49aa50a
>
>
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.ufo.re****ts/msg/0bd5d2cff49aa50a?dmode=source
>
>
> <QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
>
> From: ho...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Howpl)
> Subject: Is Corso for real?
> Date: 1997/06/25
> Message-ID: <19970625154800.LAA17228@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>#1/1
> X-Deja-AN: 252493183
> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
> Newsgroups: alt.ufo.re****ts
> X-Admin: n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> Now that millions of Americans have had the chance to see Col. Corso
> on TV
> (last night's Dateline), his credibility becomes an even more critical
> issue. NBC didn't try to show that he isn't who he says he is; they
> only
> quoted others who could be expected to say he's wrong (without getting
> into any of the messy details, of course). This is what we've all come
> to
> expect from our top journalists, so it shouldn't be a surprise. The
> last
> thing they had him say on screen was a promise to "tell you later"
> about
> "a time machine" -- a piece of film editing that could have no other
> motive than to make him appear to be a kook. For all we know, he was
> joking, but NBC didn't give him a chance to explain -- indeed, I'm
> sure
> they were delighted to have this sound bite to close its pathetic
> excuse
> for "re****tage."
>
> My question, then, is: Who among the knowledgeable people in this
> newsgroup can debunk Corso? I've been told that he didn't tell his
> prologue writer that the book was about UFOs. If that's true, that's
> bad,
> but it doesn't quite do the job of fini****ng him off.
>
> I'm still reading the book, which, in addition to the startling
> revelations, contains some pretty sophisticated insights into why a
> cover-up would be initiated and the hows and why of its evolution.
> I'm
> still wondering if the new AF re****t was prompted by the publication
> of
> this book.
>
> <QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
>
>
>
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.ufo.re****ts/browse_thread/thread/44413028c8d52e39/f3240e9e776cc500?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#f3240e9e776cc500
>
>
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.ufo.re****ts/msg/f3240e9e776cc500?dmode=source
>
>
> <QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
>
> From: ho...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Howpl)
> Subject: How many Corsos are there?
> Date: 1997/06/26
> Message-ID: <19970626155600.LAA23187@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>#1/1
> X-Deja-AN: 252758121
> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
> Newsgroups: alt.ufo.re****ts
> X-Admin: n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> I ran a search thru the AOL member directory and came up with 16
> Philip
> Corso's living at 16 different addresses. This strikes me as very
> odd.
> It doesn't strike me that Philip Corso is a common name. This reminds
> me
> of the X-Files episode when they find multiple Social Security
> staffers
> using the same name across the country. What's going on here?
>
> <QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
>
>
>
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.ufo.re****ts/browse_thread/thread/711fce0f8181bf7b/38e242d6538ecede?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#38e242d6538ecede
>
>
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.ufo.re****ts/msg/38e242d6538ecede?dmode=source
>
>
> <QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
>
> From: ho...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Howpl)
> Subject: Corso and the Transistor
> Date: 1997/10/21
> Message-ID: <19971021214600.RAA17945@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>#1/1
> X-Deja-AN: 282270425
> X-Admin: n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
> Newsgroups: alt.ufo.re****ts
>
>
> I know American Computer, whoever that is, is claiming that the
> transistor came
> from ETs, but Col. Corso never claimed such a thing -- and those who
> would
> criticize him, like the gentleman from MUFON, should at least get
> their facts
> straight.
>
> Corso simply says the following. His superior asked him to take a
> chip
> (supposedly Rosewell craft debris) over to Bell Labs because of their
> experience in developing the transistor. Corso wonders whether his
> boss gave
> them similar debris in 1947, but he clearly labels this pure
> speculation.
> CORSO'S OWN TRIP TO BELL LABS TOOK PLACE IN 1961, NOT 1947, SO HE CAN
> HARDLY
> FIGURE INTO THE FALSE STORY, IF IT IS A FALSE STORY, ABOUT THE
> TRANSISTOR.
>
> <QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
>
>
>
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/a01895f46716d22d/a9d74c06a20b9882?hl=en&lnk=st&q=author%3Ahowpl%40aol.com#a9d74c06a20b9882
>
>
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a9d74c06a20b9882?dmode=source
>
>
> <QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
>
> From: ho...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Howpl)
> Subject: Re: JFK assassination and UFO's???
> Date: 1997/12/18
> Message-ID: <19971218223600.RAA24552@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>#1/1
> X-Deja-AN: 299464209
> References: <3498A747.55B6@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> X-Admin: n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
> Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
>
>
> One connection:
>
> Col. Corso - who just published "The Day After Roswell" - was head of
> the
> Foreign Technology Division of the Army, claimed direct Roswell role,
> and was
> friendly with Hoover. His book makes a couple of references to the
> understanding he shared with Hoover that knowing too much could get a
> guy -
> i.e., a president - killed. Corso's book has been called
> disinformation re
> UFOs. Posters to the Internet have alleged that he played a role in
> the JFK
> thing by spreading rumors that Jack Ruby was a Commie. Corso was very
> far
> right wing - apparently involved in smuggling in ex-Nazi scientists.
> That
> juicy enough for ya?
>
> <QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
>
>
>
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/24aabd996bca332/52d5b8f99a3c4a50?hl=en&lnk=st&q=author%3Ahowpl%40aol.com#52d5b8f99a3c4a50
>
>
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/52d5b8f99a3c4a50?dmode=source
>
>
> <QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
>
> From: ho...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Howpl)
> Subject: Re: Shaw and the UFO's
> Date: 1999/02/04
> Message-ID: <19990204163528.26437.00000717@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>#1/1
> X-Deja-AN: 440740974
> References: <36B7E10D.7967AA96@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
> Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
> X-Admin: n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> fyi -
>
> Col. Corso's book that came out last year - The Day After Roswell -
> was, as he
> claims, head of Army tecnology research, an investigator for Sen.
> Russell, and
> close pals with Hoover.These are undisputable facts, I believe. He
> was also
> reputed to be instrumental in securing the services of Nazi scientists
> for the
> US.
>
> The book is an eye-opener, whether a true confession (in which case
> our
> government has, via Corso, confessed to a conspiracy to suppress our
> knowlege
> of UFOs), or, as I'm sure most of this group believe, sheer
> disinformation OR a
> way for an 82-year-old man to leave some money behind for his family.
>
> How is that Jim Marrs gets off so easily for writing Alien Agenda?
> This is
> true believer stuff.
>
> As for myself, I refuse to state a position on the grounds that it
> might
> humiliate me. I guess I'm an agnostic, but the data is endless and
> fascinating
> -- and you might be surprised by how similar the JFK and UFO debates
> have
> developed.
>
> -Howard
>
> <QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
>
>
>
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.paranet.ufo/browse_thread/thread/b1c6da2207498cca/997cd0e9b2981bd1?hl=en&lnk=st&q=author%3Ahowpl%40aol.com#997cd0e9b2981bd1
>
>
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.paranet.ufo/msg/58e241124f7e02e5?dmode=source
>
>
> <QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
>
> From: ho...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Howpl)
> Subject: Re: Corso Again - Paging Tom
> Date: 1997/08/11
> Message-ID: <19970811181700.OAA27917@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>#1/1
> X-Deja-AN: 263524495
> References: <5sadqc$n3o$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> X-Admin: n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
> Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
>
>
>>
>>Howpl wrote an excellent explanation of why thinking Corso's book is
>>some kind of plot or cover up to deceive anyone can't be.
>>
>>An 82-year-old Pentagon Insider Whistleblower claiming to view an alien
>>body and handle artifacts from a crashed saucer could have his story
>>published without mentioning the help to R&D of Fortune 500 contractors.
>>
>>His reputation and book will be clobbered by the PR departments of
>>powerful defense contractors plus the usual beatings from our Military
>>and Intelligence Agencies.
>>
>>Doc in Phoenix
>>
> Thanks Doc - In case you missed, Dateline (NBC) did go to the PR
> depts. of
> some of these firms to check out Corso's claims. A couple of points
> about
> PR depts. They are staffed in many cases by kids who were born years
> after Corso had the files. Whether kids or old-timers, do you really
> think they have the time or inclination to investigate whether or not
> Corso ever paid a visit to one of their researchers? If they did, are
> they likely to find anyone alive who was working then? If they do
> find
> someone, are they likely to be in a position to know? If they are,
> are
> they likely to fess up? If in the most unlikely of cir***stances,
> they
> did confess, you know PR's response would still be a chuckle and the
> statement "To the best of our knowledge the inventions that helped
> make
> our reputation were designed by human beings we employed." But, of
> course, they never did any of this. They went straight to the
> punchline
> without checking at all. And, anyway, Corso took pains not to be
> noticed.
> I assume he is as skilled in surrepticious behavior as his station in
> the
> military requires.
>
> Howard
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> <QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
>
>
>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/browse_thread/thread/614e4f3f27390335/48e879d367b24674?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#48e879d367b24674
>
>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/msg/48e879d367b24674?dmode=source
>
>
> <QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
>
> From: ho...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Howpl)
> Subject: Re: Area 51 Break-in?
> Date: 1997/08/01
> Message-ID: <19970801150901.LAA16730@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>#1/1
> X-Deja-AN: 261311301
> References: <01bc9e62$84354b00$1cb2ced0@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> X-Admin: n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
> Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
>
>
> >Unlikely? It is this age-old sceptical argument that is "unlikely",
>>actually "illogical" would be a better word.
>>
>>> > Where are they?
>>
> Exactly when do skeptics stop and say to themselves - "You know, there
> was
> a time when nobody dreamed the earth revolved around the sun . . . or
> tiny
> little organisms could make people sick . . .or we could fly to the
> moon .
> . . or . . ."
>
> Fact: the universe is 10 to 20 billion years old.
> Fact: mankind is 3-5 million years young.
> Conclusion: other civilizations, if they exist, could easily have
> enjoyed
> millions or billions of years of additional time to develop their
> technologies.
> Conclusion: there is no basis, other than arrogance, for earth-centric
> assertions about what is and is not possible or "likely."
> Question: isn't it the case that the time of travel to a space ****p
> occupant is much less than the time as shared from its home planet?
> Thus,
> even if hundreds of years may elapse from the point of view of those
> left
> behind, on-board time might be no more than a year.
>
> <QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
>
>
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.paranet.ufo/browse_thread/thread/4576d22f230bf85d/d0fab5ac8aa148c6?hl=en&lnk=st&q=author%3Ahowpl%40aol.com#d0fab5ac8aa148c6
>
>
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.paranet.ufo/msg/d0fab5ac8aa148c6?dmode=source
>
>
> <QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
>
> From: ho...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Howpl)
> Subject: streiber?
> Date: 1997/11/21
> Message-ID: <19971121224500.RAA17577@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>#1/1
> X-Deja-AN: 291299046
> X-Admin: n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
> Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
>
>
> I'm sure Streiber has been discussed in the group in the past, but I
> was
> wondering how he is viewed by both "sides" of the UFO debate. Is he:
>
> -Nuts in a way medical science hasn't pinned down?
>
> -Nuts in classic fa****on (though he claims his form of lunacy, if it
> is lunacy,
> is unknown to science)?
>
> -A liar?
>
> <QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
>
>
>
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.paranet.ufo/browse_thread/thread/957bf246437ee634/838ef6f597ac1be0?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#838ef6f597ac1be0
>
>
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.paranet.ufo/msg/838ef6f597ac1be0?dmode=source
>
>
> <QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
>
> From: ho...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Howpl)
> Subject: Re: Is Whitley Strieber a fraud?
> Date: 1999/01/29
> Message-ID: <19990129163416.01110.00000642@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>#1/1
> X-Deja-AN: 438482408
> References: <36b0a451.5633868@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
> Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
> X-Admin: n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>
>>What do you all think? I am not sure if he is a fraud or not.
>>
>>
> I've asked this question before and he seems to have little sup****t in
> this
> group. Streiber's stuff is of the high strangeness variety, i.e,. the
> branch
> of ufology that pursues links between the paranormal and UFO
> phenomena.
>
> The books strike me as honest. Two things bother me, though. (1) He
> never
> really delivers a knockout punch to the allegation that he suffers
> from
> tem****al lobe epilepsy. (2) He was a fiction writer for years, and
> his alleged
> facts intersect his concerns as a novelist. I guess the question is
> which came
> first. The favorable interpretation is that his fiction reflected
> actual
> experience, though he didn't realize it until much later.
>
> Howard
>
> <QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
>
>
>
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.paranet.ufo/browse_thread/thread/2fbdf01d745f4835/0fd95f3647e31747?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#0fd95f3647e31747
>
>
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.paranet.ufo/msg/0fd95f3647e31747?dmode=source
>
>
> <QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
>
> From: ho...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Howpl)
> Subject: Re: UFO Evidence
> Date: 1999/01/28
> Message-ID: <19990128171039.12693.00000503@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>#1/1
> X-Deja-AN: 438093764
> References: <kwantem-2701991946390001@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
> Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
> X-Admin: n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>>(Howpl) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>- Sightings (and abduction experiences, yes) described similarly by
>>>people
>>>without apparent mental problems and with no op****tunity to colllude.
>>
>>What do you mean, no op****tunity to collude? There is a well-established
>>myth about UFOs. All people have to do is make there stories conform --
>>say they saw a big-eyed gray alien, etc.
>>
> YOUR WELL-ESTABLISHED MYTH IS VERY SIMPLE COMPAED TO THE MASS OF DATA
> COLLECTED. GO TO THE DATA. UNLESS YOU WANT TO CLAIM THAT ALL THE TOP
> ESEARCHERS ARE FRAUDS, THEIR WORKS LIST CASE AFTER CASE OF PEOPLE
> APPARENTLY
> UNFAMILIAR EVEN WITH THE BASICS (GRAYS) - AND YOUR RESPONSE ONLY
> ADDRESSES THE
> BASICS - PEOPLE WHO DO NOT WANT TO GO PUBLIC FOR FEAR OF THEIR
> REPUTATIOS,
> PEOPLE WHO DON'T EVEN WANT TO ADMIT THEIR CONCERNS, ETC.
>
> READ THE TRANSCRIPTS OF THESE SESSIONS. THERE'S A LOT MORE THAN
> GRAYS BEING
> RE****TED.
>
>>>- Burn marks, depressions, and other physical evidence found on the
>>>ground
>>>where UFOs were re****tedly seen
>>
>>Lightning strikes?
>>
> YOU ARE APPARENTLY UNFAMILIAR WITH THESE RE****TS. DOES LIGHTNING MAKE
> SEVERAL
> DEPRESSIONS OF IDENTICAL SIZE IN A CIRCULAR PATTERN, DEEP ENOUGH TO
> SUGGEST THE
> RECENT PRESENCE OF A HEAVY OBJECT?
>
>>>- Burned skin, scoop marks, nosebleeds and other physical effects on
>>>those
>>>re****ting sightings or abductions
>>
>>Sun burn? Self-mutilation?
>
> THESE SYMPTOMS RUN IN FAMILIES AND ARE EVEN EXPERIENCED BY CHILDREN.
> DO YOU
> REALLY BELIEVE THAT A LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE ARE MAIMING THEIR OWN
> CHILDREN -
> WHILE THEY SLEEP - AND DOING IT IN THE EXACT SAME WAY? ALL FOR THE
> SAKE OF
> WHAT?
>
> VERY FEW WANT THE ATTENTION, AND THOSE WHO SEEM TO WANT IT HAVE CASHED
> IN
> LITTLE FROM GOING PUBLIC.
>>
>>>- A huge mass of data derived from hypnosis, which is impossible to
>>>dismiss
>>en
>>>masse as the product of biased researchers
>>
>>Hypnosis is hardly a good way to get at the truth.
>
> IT IS ONE TOOL AMONG OTHERS. YOU DON'T RESPOND TO THE CONVERGENCE OF
> DATA FROM
> HYPNOTIZED EXPERIENCERS AND THOSE WHO REMEMBER SPONTANEOUSLY.
>>
>>>- Unexplained cattle mutilations
>>
>>Cow gets attacked by predator. Rancher does not want to lose insurance,
>>which does not pay for predator-caused deaths. Therefore rancher claims
>>"mysterious" death.
>>
> THE RE****TS SAY NO BLOOD IS EVER FOUND, AS IF THE CUTS WERE MADE BY
> LASER
> SCALPELS (NO SUCH TOOLS EXISTED AT THE TIME THESE RE****TS STARTED
> POURING IN).
>
> RE****TS ALSO SAY THAT NATURAL PREDATORS ACTUALLY SHRINK FROM THE
> CARC*****
> RATHER THAN FEED ON WHAT'S LEFT OF THEM.
>
> DO YOU REALLY SEE RANCHERS VACUUMING UP ALL THE BLOOD AT THE SCENE OF
> THE
> CRIME? WHY? LEAVE THE BLOOD AND YOU'VE GOT A NON-CONTROVERSIAL
> EXPLANATION.
>
>>>And it's just not good enough to show some were hoaxes. "Scientists"
>>concluded
>>>that crop circles were a hoax when two Englishmen confessed to creaing
>>>them
>>--
>>>despite the fact that the patterns appear all over the world and were
>>re****ted
>>>decades earlier.
>>
>>Why do you assume Doug and Dave were the only ones, or the first, to
make
>>crop circles?
>
> YOU SKIPPED OVER SEVERAL POINTS. SHOULD I ASSUME YOU FOUND THEM
> IMPOSSIBLE TO
> COUNTER.
>
> -Howard
>
>
>>
>>**********************************************
>>* The language of truth *
>>* is unadorned and always simple. *
>>* - Ammianus Marcellinus *
>>* http://burtcom.com/kwantem
*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> <QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
>
>
>
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/b55576f51c7c6ad9/9c0cb782db7764e8?hl=en&lnk=st&q=author%3Ahowpl%40aol.com#9c0cb782db7764e8
>
>
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9c0cb782db7764e8?dmode=source
>
> From: ho...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Howpl)
> Subject: Re: JAMES FILES UPDATE
> Date: 1999/03/29
> Message-ID: <19990329144711.17242.00001857@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>#1/1
> X-Deja-AN: 460455955
> References: <7do1eh$2ot$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
> Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
> X-Admin: n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>
>>The FBI has verified James Files and a prosecutorial re****t is in
process.
>>
>
> Bob -
>
> What the heck does this mean? I was very enthusiastic early on Files
> and very
> tolerant long after most others in this group wrote you off as a
> hustler. Then
> you announce a grand departure from the group to pursue what you
> implied was
> the imminent empanelment of a grand jury. You were back in a matter
> of weeks,
> with no explanations for your return (none that I saw, at least). It
> gets
> harder and harder to give you the benefit of the doubt when you refuse
> to give
> us the courtest of clarity.
>
> "Verified"?
> "Prosecutoriual re****t"?
>
> What are you talking about?
>
> And so much talk. It do get tiresome, old friend.
>
> -Howard
>
> <QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
>
>
>
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.paranet.ufo/browse_thread/thread/2fbdf01d745f4835/a6e6e5f9b07c3644?hl=en&lnk=st&q=author%3Ahowpl%40aol.com#a6e6e5f9b07c3644
>
>
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.paranet.ufo/msg/a6e6e5f9b07c3644?dmode=source
>
>
> <QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
>
> From: ho...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Howpl)
> Subject: Re: UFO Evidence
> Date: 1999/01/27
> Message-ID: <19990127180706.09002.00000050@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>#1/1
> X-Deja-AN: 437694897
> References: <capr2.119$VQ5.859789@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
> Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
> X-Admin: n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>let's
>>say I claim to have a volcano in my backyard. You come to visit to see
>>it, and find nothing. Then I tell you that of course you can't see it,
>>because it's in another dimension, and is thus invisible. But it's
>>there! It's not my fault that you can't comprehend other dimensions.
>>
>>Would the above be acceptable to you? There's no way to prove or
>>dis****ve that volcano. If it wouldn't be acceptable to you, then why is
>>presenting alien activity in a nonfalsifiable light acceptable?
>>
>
> I'm familiar with the thesis that UFOs can be visible to some -- those
> with
> psychic powers -- and not to others (see Colin Wilson's new book).
> But the
> original debate here focussed on motive. You attack a straw man.
>
> That the behavior of these alien-types seems pointless to us is a
> point in
> favor of rejecting their reality --- but only a point. The totality
> of the
> evidence goes way beyond motive. The alien thesis is not falsifiable
> simply
> because we fail to assign motive. There are:
> - Thousands of visual sightings by persons of sound mind (many
> professional
> pilots, many subjected to psych tests)
> - Movements on radar screens matching up with movements sighted by
> pilots
>
> - Sightings (and abduction experiences, yes) described similarly by
> people
> without apparent mental problems and with no op****tunity to colllude.
> - Burn marks, depressions, and other physical evidence found on the
> ground
> where UFOs were re****tedly seen
> - Burned skin, scoop marks, nosebleeds and other physical effects on
> those
> re****ting sightings or abductions
> - Strange, unidentified items ("implants") extracted from supposed
> abductees
> (see photos in Streiber's new book) .
> - A huge mass of data derived from hypnosis, which is impossible to
> dismiss en
> masse as the product of biased researchers
> - The fact that so much data emerges without recourse to hypnosis
> - The basic affinity of both sets of data.
> - Unexplained cattle mutilations
> - Unexplained crop circles
>
> I'm sure I could go on, but I think you get the point. There may be
> no way to
> refute the UFO/alien thesis with a single experience - or lack
> thereof.
> Frankly, I'd be very impressed if YOU could provide an alternative
> explanation
> for all data collected thus far. I haven't heard one yet.
>
> And it's just not good enough to show some were hoaxes. "Scientists"
> concluded
> that crop circles were a hoax when two Englishmen confessed to creaing
> them --
> despite the fact that the patterns appear all over the world and were
> re****ted
> decades earlier.
>
> Real scientists review the totality of the evidence, and if the weight
> of the
> evidence doesn't clearly fall to one side or another, they either
> devise an
> experiment that might push their knowledge along, or they remain
> agnostic.
>
> Either way - reality or mass delusion - the phenomenon needs
> explaining. Mass
> delusion is, to me, a much less appealing hypothesis than alien
> visitation for
> the simple reason that we have never seen mass delusion of the sort
> being
> implied here. The mechanism for it would seem to pose at least as
> much of a
> challenge as the mechanism permitting long distance space travel.
>
> Howard
>
> <QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
>
>
>
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.ufo.re****ts/browse_thread/thread/2ea76c56ddf03bbe/c0009b094d4443ab?hl=en&lnk=st&q=author%3Ahowpl%40aol.com#c0009b094d4443ab
>
>
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.ufo.re****ts/msg/c0009b094d4443ab?dmode=source
>
>
> <QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
>
> From: ho...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Howpl)
> Subject: Re: ...debunk idiots
> Date: 1997/06/25
> Message-ID: <19970625155901.LAA14076@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>#1/1
> X-Deja-AN: 252495365
> References: <19970624230701.TAA04984@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
> Newsgroups: alt.ufo.re****ts
> X-Admin: n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> Of the debunkers, you write: "There obviously are ulterior motives for
> their posts."
>
> Your phrase "compulsive debunker" hits the mark precisely, but I think
> you
> underestimate the pleasure involved in debunking. These are, for the
> most
> part, people whose egos swell when they expose (or think they expose)
> others as fools. They are in essence saying: "I can't be fooled as
> you
> have, which is proof that I'm so much smarter than you." Face it, we
> all
> get a rush from proving the other guy is phony -- only we aren't, to
> coin
> another phrase, "abusive debunkers." It's a pathetic motive but not an
> ulterior one.
>
> <QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
>
>
>
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.paranet.ufo/browse_thread/thread/c2ad986d2fda9722/bb11053e48e9a458?hl=en&lnk=st&q=author%3Ahowpl%40aol.com#bb11053e48e9a458
>
>
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.paranet.ufo/msg/bb11053e48e9a458?dmode=source
>
>
> <QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
>
> From: ho...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Howpl)
> Subject: Re: Why do alleged aliens look human like or even come here?
> Date: 1997/08/13
> Message-ID: <19970813152501.LAA03137@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>#1/1
> X-Deja-AN: 263946720
> References: <33EF9D5D.21ADC203@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> X-Admin: n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
> Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
>
>
>>
>>> Why are they here buzzing our planes, maybe kidnapping people,
>>> declining
>>> to meet with Clinton (to the best of my knowledge)? That's a tough
>>> one.
>>> There's the human-alien hybrid hypothesis and the preparing to take us
>>>
>>> over hypothesis, which could explain their relative asociability. For
>>>
>>> those who prefer a rosier view, there's the show-us-the-path-to-peace
>>> hypothesis. But I have the same problem with that one as I have with
>>> God
>>> - if you've got a message for us, why all the *****footing around?
>>> For
>>> heaven's sake, open up the clouds and just tell us!.
>>
>>Sure..but .that also applies to the first two hypotheses you put forward
>
> I agree with you basicly. None of these hypotheses is awfully
> convincing
> about why they do what they do. If they're so much more powerful than
> we
> are, they wouldn't have to slink in the shadows. Then again, if
> they're
> so hell-bent on not showing themselves, why do they appear to be
> showing
> themselves to everyone but Clinton on an almost daily basis? Land on
> the
> White House lawn , already! Or stay invisible. I don't get this
> in-between stuff.
>
>>As for not meeting the Clintons ... can you really blame the (alleged)
>>aliens (if they are found to exist). Let's face it - one Clinton would
>>probably try to bed the aliens, and the other would attempt to sell the
>>aliens real estate in a decidedly dodgy deal.
>>
> Good one.
>>
>
> <QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
>
>
>
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.paranet.ufo/browse_thread/thread/e5bcc0dc99e1e637/46af3d34215a5a92?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#46af3d34215a5a92
>
>
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.paranet.ufo/msg/46af3d34215a5a92?dmode=source
>
>
> <QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
>
> From: ho...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Howpl)
> Subject: Leir and implants
> Date: 1999/02/08
> Message-ID: <19990208134747.11011.00000048@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>#1/1
> X-Deja-AN: 442052898
> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
> Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
> X-Admin: n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Saw Dr. Leir's book on preliminary results of testing "implants" he
> reputedly
> removed from abductees. I think he should have waited until he could
> make
> further progress, but he seems to feel he's done enough to show that
> these
> items are intelligently formed and not of this world.
>
> Anyone know his work?
>
> -Howard
>
> <QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
>
>
>
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.paranet.ufo/browse_thread/thread/2fbdf01d745f4835/f3ef7bbb4c0775e8?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#f3ef7bbb4c0775e8
>
>
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.paranet.ufo/msg/f3ef7bbb4c0775e8?dmode=source
>
>
> <QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
>
> From: ho...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Howpl)
> Subject: Re: UFO Evidence
> Date: 1999/01/29
> Message-ID: <19990129170204.01110.00000651@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> X-Deja-AN: 438489410
> References: <78omrh$gdd$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
> Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
> X-Admin: n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>
>>> I'm familiar with the thesis that UFOs can be visible to some -- those
>>> with
>>> psychic powers -- and not to others (see Colin Wilson's new book).
But
>>> the
>>> original debate here focussed on motive. You attack a straw man.
>>
>>I sniped the straw man, because it had no one's address on it. It
>>claimed a volcano in the back yard is an extra ordinary claim and if you
>>cam over to my back yard and there was no volcano, you would demand
proof
>>of my invisible volcano.
>>
> Huh? Some theses are harder to falsify than others. A permanent
> object in a
> confined space is no the same thing as a transient object in limitless
> space.
>
>>> That the behavior of these alien-types seems pointless to us is a
point
>>> in
>>> favor of rejecting their reality --- but only a point. The totality
of
>>> the
>>> evidence goes way beyond motive. The alien thesis is not falsifiable
>>> simply
>>> because we fail to assign motive. There are:
>>
>> No they are falsifiable cause they are claims made without being
>>able to be proven true or false. As we shall see:
>
> "To prove something true" means nothing if it is not accompanied by a
> standard
> of proof. Preponderance or weight of the evidence is one such
> standard, and I
> think it reasonable for someone to argue that the weight of the
> evidence favors
> an ET explanation -- though I'm not necessarily committing myself to
> that view
> here. A simple look to see if there is a UFO in the vicinity is
> unlikely to
> prove or falsify the theory. It is a more complicated matter.
>>
>>> - Thousands of visual sightings by persons of sound mind (many
>>> professional
>>> pilots, many subjected to psych tests)
>>
>> Lights in the sky do not equal aliens.
>>
> Lights in the sky moving in certain ways. Objects seen nearer to the
> ground or
> on the ground. You simplify too much.
>
>>> - Movements on radar screens matching up with movements sighted by
>>> pilots
>>
>>
>> Angels, also do not equal ET. (Angels is a term for ghost images
>>on radar screens)
>
> What's the term for UFOs sighted by pilots in the air? There is a
> huge number
> of such re****ts.
>>
>>> - Sightings (and abduction experiences, yes) described similarly by
>>> people
>>> without apparent mental problems and with no op****tunity to colllude.
>>
>> Name them?
>
> Exactly which books have you read? Or failed or read?
>
>>
>>> - Burn marks, depressions, and other physical evidence found on the
>>> ground
>>> where UFOs were re****tedly seen
>>
>> Could have any number of explanations, none having anything to do
>>with little green men.
>>
>
> Any number? Just give me one.
>
>>> - Burned skin, scoop marks, nosebleeds and other physical effects on
>>> those
>>> re****ting sightings or abductions
>>
>> Again, any number of explanations.
>>
>
> Same request.
>
>>> - Strange, unidentified items ("implants") extracted from supposed
>>abductees
>>> (see photos in Streiber's new book) .
>>
>> No one likes Streiber. He has all the claims but nothing to back
>>them up.
>>
> Streiber isn't the only one re****ting recovery of such objects. Do you
> dispute
> his account of surgeries and analyses in his most recent book? On
> what
> grounds?
>
>>> - A huge mass of data derived from hypnosis, which is impossible to
>>> dismiss
>>en
>>> masse as the product of biased researchers
>>
>> We need not have biased researchers to dismiss them. Hypnosis is
>>unreliable. Sorry.
>>
> That word "unreliable" is being used to carry much more weight than
> you need to
> justify your dismissals.
>
>>> - The fact that so much data emerges without recourse to hypnosis
>>
>>And this proves what? More camp fire stories.
>>
> Campfire stories told to strangers with great trepidation and much
> emotion.
> These are all great actors, then. Is that what you're saying?
>
>>> - The basic affinity of both sets of data.
>>
>> That is silly. Affinity means nothing on its own. Besides, UFO's
>>could be a Jungian Archetypes, which explains the affinity.
>>
> As if a Jungian archetype is any more credible than the ability of a
> race, say,
> 1 billion older than ours, could devise technology for interplanetary
> travel.
> 100 years ago, you would have told the Wright Bros. they were nuts.
> Have you
> no modesty in light of the puniness of our existence relative the
> vastness of
> space and time?
>
>>> - Unexplained cattle mutilations
>>
>> Did you know there is a UFO/cattle mutilation response team? They
>>have yet to find and evidence of attack that could not have been man
made
>>or animal made.
>>
> So farmers all over the world are carving up their cows, pre-cooked,
> just for
> the fun of it?
> Or gangs of rampaging youth in remote farm areas are cutting flesh
> with laser
> precision and vacuuming out all the blood.
>
>>> - Unexplained crop circles
>>
>> Have another beer at the inn! Most are fakes.
>>
> Most?
>
>>> I'm sure I could go on, but I think you get the point.
>>
>> I am sure you could, but it would a lot more work than this.
>>Sorry, my friend but what you have said , is nice but does not come
close
>>to showing ET.
>>
> I haven't tried to show ET. I have tried to show that your dismissals
> are glib,
> based on ignorance of, or blindness to, the totality of the data
> .
>>>There may be no way to
>>> refute the UFO/alien thesis with a single experience - or lack
thereof.
>>> Frankly, I'd be very impressed if YOU could provide an alternative
>>explanation
>>> for all data collected thus far. I haven't heard one yet.
>>
>> Well, that is not data but claims, and as suck more explanation is
>>needed to show these claims are valid.
>>
> Huh?
>
>>> And it's just not good enough to show some were hoaxes. "Scientists"
>>concluded
>>> that crop circles were a hoax when two Englishmen confessed to creaing
>>> them
>>--
>>> despite the fact that the patterns appear all over the world and were
>>re****ted
>>> decades earlier.
>>
>> OK show me one that an alien did?
>>
>
> The point is that there are many that neither of these two Brits could
> have
> done.
>
>>> Real scientists review the totality of the evidence, and if the weight
>>> of
>>the
>>> evidence doesn't clearly fall to one side or another, they either
devise
>>> an
>>> experiment that might push their knowledge along, or they remain
>>> agnostic.
>>
>> Howard, i do not think agnostic is the word you want to use! :-)
>> The totality of the evidence is that there is none that says ET is
>>home. All it is is smoke and mirrors and a lot of money to be made in
>>hustling people for their coins.
>>
>
> Prove it.
>
>>> Either way - reality or mass delusion - the phenomenon needs
explaining.
>>Mass
>>> delusion is, to me, a much less appealing hypothesis than alien
>>> visitation
>>for
>>> the simple reason that we have never seen mass delusion of the sort
>>> being
>>> implied here. The mechanism for it would seem to pose at least as
much
>>> of
>>a
>>> challenge as the mechanism permitting long distance space travel.
>>
>>Sorry but mass delusion happen a lot!
>
> At this level of complexity?
>
> And in recent years it has
>>a lot to do with Aliens. Sorry but thanks for posting.
>>
>
> Sorry but the real bad guys in the history of science are the knee-
> jerk
> skeptics of the prevailing religion, er, paradigm.
>
>> Just Thought I Should Mention It
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> <QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
>
>
>
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.paranet.ufo/browse_thread/thread/c5fdf0613dc1db7/a223043ee90665c8?hl=en&lnk=st&q=author%3Ahowpl%40aol.com#a223043ee90665c8
>
>
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.paranet.ufo/msg/a223043ee90665c8?dmode=source
>
>
> <QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
>
> From: ho...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Howpl)
> Subject: Re: Roswell autopsy
> Date: 1997/12/05
> Message-ID: <19971205215800.QAA21120@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>#1/1
> X-Deja-AN: 295579524
> References: <6608hh$si6$2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> X-Admin: n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
> Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
>
>
>> If Stan Winston is the
>>special effects guy that the Fox autopsy show had on, well I got news
>>that guy said he didn't think it was a actual alien. He was also told
>>that the autopsy film was dated to the forties or sixties. He initially
>>sounded impressed because he thought that who ever did this had to of
>>done it then, therefore under those conditions he didn't think he and
>>his crew could do it.
>><
>
> Winston is the guy and if you actually saw the program you would know
> your
> information is only half-true. (1) Winston had his crew gathered with
> him and
> they very clearly spoke about their present abilities. There's no
> doubt about
> this at all. (2) Assuming 20/20 was accurate in its re****t -- they
> never
> actually showed an interview with Winston -- the man does indeed say
> he
> doesn't think it's an alien, but, then, what would you expect him to
> say? [I'm
> sure he got a lot of ribbing for his appearance on the program; his
> professional reputation was at stake and probably thought that
> discretion was
> the better part of valor. The fact is, neither 20/20 nor Stan Winston
> ever
> indicates what it is about the film that he -- and his crew? -- found
> unconvincing upon second viewing.] Finally, 20/20 tried to duplicate
> in a very
> loose sense and only a small part of the whole film. Winston and crew
> refer to
> very specific effects (especially, the bleeding) and explain why they
> are
> impossible to create even given today's technology. Do the other
> recreations
> attempt to duplicate these specific aspects of the film?
>
> <QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.paranet.ufo/browse_thread/thread/1c8091b81d2eacb5/bf2393010be9c0dd?hl=en&lnk=st&q=author%3Ahowpl%40aol.com#bf2393010be9c0dd
>
>
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.paranet.ufo/msg/bf2393010be9c0dd?dmode=source
>
>
> <QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
>
> From: ho...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Howpl)
> Subject: Re: Alien autopsy rerun!
> Date: 1997/08/13
> Message-ID: <19970813160001.MAA05024@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>#1/1
> X-Deja-AN: 263955098
> References: <33f13445.0@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> X-Admin: n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
> Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
>
>
> Is it still your belief that the film holds up. Some months ago I
> sent a
> blistering letter to ABC taking them to task for a loathsome
> "debunking"
> effort. Now I'm reading in Kevin Randle's new book that the research
> community pretty much agrees the film is a hoax? Is he correct?
>
> -Howard
>
> <QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
>
>
> Dave
>
>
>
|
