Welcome back, Howard Platzman!
Dave Reitzes
Did you author these?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.paranet.ufo/msg/a6e6e5f9b07c3644?dmode=source
<QUOTE ON>--------------------------------
From: ho...@aol.com (Howpl)
Subject: Re: UFO Evidence
Date: 1999/01/27
Message-ID: <19990127180706...@ng95.aol.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 437694897
References: <capr2.119$VQ5.8...@news1.i1.net>
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
X-Admin: n...@aol.com
>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
>disporve 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 opportunity to colllude.
- Burn marks, depressions, and other physical evidence found on the ground
where UFOs were reportedly seen
- Burned skin, scoop marks, nosebleeds and other physical effects on those
reporting 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 reported 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.paranet.ufo/msg/0fd95f3647e31747?dmode=source
<QUOTE ON>--------------------------------
From: ho...@aol.com (Howpl)
Subject: Re: UFO Evidence
Date: 1999/01/28
Message-ID: <19990128171039...@ng146.aol.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 438093764
References: <kwantem-2701...@r1ad31.in-tch.com>
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
X-Admin: n...@aol.com
>(Howpl) wrote:
>
>
>>- Sightings (and abduction experiences, yes) described similarly by people
>>without apparent mental problems and with no opportunity to colllude.
>
>What do you mean, no opportunity 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 REPORTED.
>>- Burn marks, depressions, and other physical evidence found on the ground
>>where UFOs were reportedly seen
>
>Lightning strikes?
>
YOU ARE APPARENTLY UNFAMILIAR WITH THESE REPORTS. 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
>>reporting 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 REPORTS SAY NO BLOOD IS EVER FOUND, AS IF THE CUTS WERE MADE BY LASER
SCALPELS (NO SUCH TOOLS EXISTED AT THE TIME THESE REPORTS STARTED POURING
IN).
REPORTS ALSO SAY THAT NATURAL PREDATORS ACTUALLY SHRINK FROM THE CARCASSES
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
>reported
>>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.paranet.ufo/msg/f3ef7bbb4c0775e8?dmode=source
<QUOTE ON>--------------------------------
From: ho...@aol.com (Howpl)
Subject: Re: UFO Evidence
Date: 1999/01/29
Message-ID: <19990129170204...@ng-cf1.aol.com>
X-Deja-AN: 438489410
References: <78omrh$gdd$1...@newsflash.concordia.ca>
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
X-Admin: n...@aol.com
>
>> 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 reports.
>
>> - Sightings (and abduction experiences, yes) described similarly by people
>> without apparent mental problems and with no opportunity 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 reportedly 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
>> reporting 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 reporting 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
>reported
>> 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>--------------------------------
Dave
howardp
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 document. It was never intended for publication.
It was like a reporter'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
Dave Reitzes
> On Apr 30, 11:02�pm, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> 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.
I'll take that as a "yes." \:^)
> 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 document. It was never intended for publication.
> It was like a reporter'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.
You really should try to get your facts straight before you start making
dopey threats.
You really should consider getting your facts straight, period. It can
actually be rather satisfying.
> Nothing surprises me about the (lack of) ethics of your tactics or your
> tortured rationales for them. Correct me if I am wrong,
You're wrong.
When aren't you 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?
You have a vivid imagination.
Almost as vivid as Judyth's.
Coincidence? I don't think so.
> 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
And here I thought Anna Lewis Vincent was making that story up.
Dave
John McAdams
>On Apr 30, 11:02?pm, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> 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 document. It was never intended for publication.
Which doesn't explain why it contained so much nonsense.
>It was like a reporter's notes.
Are the typical reporter's notes nonsense?
>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.
How did that happen?
I know, Judyth told you that stuff!
And you believed it!
>I have the right to get things straight, don't I,
>before I go public?
Translation: I have to get an early account that was a pack of lies
and could not stand up to scrutiny sanitized before people start
picking it apart.
Howard . . . for decades buffs have been attacking the WC on the
grounds that the first accounts, and the primary sources don't support
the later conclusions.
You expect to be exempt from such scrutiny, eh?
Fat chance.
>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.
>
Be careful of threats, Howard. You may not understand just how
vulnerable your participation in this affair makes you.
>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?
>
Nothing on my site came from any Dutch hackers. My page was finished
before Judyth got cozy with those folks.
>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.
It has to be offensive to Peter too, or the message gets on the group.
>Do you have at least one rule of professional
>conduct you follow, or do you simply skip each ethical question that comes
>along?
Oh, my!
Howard, I don't think you really want to raise "ethics" here. Being
party to a fraud is . . . well, not too ethical.
>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.
>
>
That's more plausible than Judyth's story.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
jfk...@gmail.com
The Team McAdams process starts with a very narrow position -- "she lied."
When additional information is provided, they claim "she is changing her
story". How credible is this process?
Barb Junkkarinen
HILARIOUS coming from YOU!!!!
At least you seem to be keeping a sense of humor about this shambles,
I guess.<>g>
Dave Reitzes
>
> > 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,
Okay, let's discuss a subject you dodged the last time you appeared
here: Let's talk about Judyth's letter to President John F. Kennedy.
Do you have any reason to believe that someone directed Judyth to
write this letter to JFK, and, if so, who? Do you have any reason to
believe that the letter was conceived at any particular place and
time, and, if so, where and when?
What was the purpose of this letter, was its purpose achieved, and, if
so, how?
Please be specific and cite your sources.
Dave
Dave Reitzes
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.paranet.ufo/msg/36d9ce14209c7fd4?dmode=source
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
From: ho...@aol.com (Howpl)
Subject: Re: UFO Technology/Alternative Theories Rumors/
Specifications/Theories/Ideas
Date: 1999/01/27
Message-ID: <19990127182322...@ng95.aol.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 437714255
References: <36a995fa....@news.peak.org>
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
X-Admin: n...@aol.com
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 reports 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/msg/5902acfd41a4345d?dmode=source
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
From: ho...@aol.com (Howpl)
Subject: Re: This NG has gone to hell.
Date: 1997/06/24
Message-ID: <19970624164...@ladder02.news.aol.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 252357726
References: <5okl53$bes$1...@bashir.peak.org>
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
X-Admin: n...@aol.com
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 report?
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/msg/4a8596cae8b47125?dmode=source
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
From: ho...@aol.com (Howpl)
Subject: Corso book
Date: 1997/07/18
Message-ID: <19970718145...@ladder01.news.aol.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 257578723
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
X-Admin: n...@aol.com
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/msg/ce83e9e75c5c362f?dmode=source
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
From: ho...@aol.com (Howpl)
Subject: Of Corso
Date: 1997/07/17
Message-ID: <19970717151...@ladder02.news.aol.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 257433192
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
X-Admin: n...@aol.com
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...@aol.com (Howpl)
Subject: Re: Of Corso
Date: 1997/07/18
Message-ID: <19970718144...@ladder01.news.aol.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 257576958
References: <19970717213...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
X-Admin: n...@aol.com
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 sexual abuse and that I longed for a bit of the sexy 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.reports/msg/0bd5d2cff49aa50a?dmode=source
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
From: ho...@aol.com (Howpl)
Subject: Is Corso for real?
Date: 1997/06/25
Message-ID: <19970625154...@ladder01.news.aol.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 252493183
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.ufo.reports
X-Admin: n...@aol.com
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 "reportage."
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 finishing 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 report was prompted by the publication
of
this book.
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.ufo.reports/msg/f3240e9e776cc500?dmode=source
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
From: ho...@aol.com (Howpl)
Subject: How many Corsos are there?
Date: 1997/06/26
Message-ID: <19970626155...@ladder02.news.aol.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 252758121
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.ufo.reports
X-Admin: n...@aol.com
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.reports/msg/38e242d6538ecede?dmode=source
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
From: ho...@aol.com (Howpl)
Subject: Corso and the Transistor
Date: 1997/10/21
Message-ID: <19971021214...@ladder02.news.aol.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 282270425
X-Admin: n...@aol.com
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.ufo.reports
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/msg/a9d74c06a20b9882?dmode=source
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
From: ho...@aol.com (Howpl)
Subject: Re: JFK assassination and UFO's???
Date: 1997/12/18
Message-ID: <19971218223...@ladder02.news.aol.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 299464209
References: <3498A7...@concentric.net>
X-Admin: n...@aol.com
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/msg/52d5b8f99a3c4a50?dmode=source
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
From: ho...@aol.com (Howpl)
Subject: Re: Shaw and the UFO's
Date: 1999/02/04
Message-ID: <19990204163528...@ng97.aol.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 440740974
References: <36B7E10D...@concentric.net>
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
X-Admin: n...@aol.com
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/msg/58e241124f7e02e5?dmode=source
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
From: ho...@aol.com (Howpl)
Subject: Re: Corso Again - Paging Tom
Date: 1997/08/11
Message-ID: <19970811181...@ladder01.news.aol.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 263524495
References: <5sadqc$n3o$1...@newsd-4.alma.webtv.net>
X-Admin: n...@aol.com
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 circumstances,
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/msg/48e879d367b24674?dmode=source
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
From: ho...@aol.com (Howpl)
Subject: Re: Area 51 Break-in?
Date: 1997/08/01
Message-ID: <19970801150...@ladder02.news.aol.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 261311301
References: <01bc9e62$84354b00$1cb2...@Kavik.worldnet.att.net>
X-Admin: n...@aol.com
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 ship
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/msg/d0fab5ac8aa148c6?dmode=source
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
From: ho...@aol.com (Howpl)
Subject: streiber?
Date: 1997/11/21
Message-ID: <19971121224...@ladder02.news.aol.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 291299046
X-Admin: n...@aol.com
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 fashion (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/msg/838ef6f597ac1be0?dmode=source
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
From: ho...@aol.com (Howpl)
Subject: Re: Is Whitley Strieber a fraud?
Date: 1999/01/29
Message-ID: <19990129163416...@ng-cf1.aol.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 438482408
References: <36b0a451...@news.interport.net>
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
X-Admin: n...@aol.com
>
>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 support 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
temporal 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/msg/0fd95f3647e31747?dmode=source
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
-Howard
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9c0cb782db7764e8?dmode=source
From: ho...@aol.com (Howpl)
Subject: Re: JAMES FILES UPDATE
Date: 1999/03/29
Message-ID: <19990329144711...@ng99.aol.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 460455955
References: <7do1eh$2ot$1...@news.tdl.com>
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
X-Admin: n...@aol.com
>
>The FBI has verified James Files and a prosecutorial report 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 report"?
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/msg/a6e6e5f9b07c3644?dmode=source
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
Howard
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.ufo.reports/msg/c0009b094d4443ab?dmode=source
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
From: ho...@aol.com (Howpl)
Subject: Re: ...debunk idiots
Date: 1997/06/25
Message-ID: <19970625155...@ladder02.news.aol.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 252495365
References: <19970624230...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.ufo.reports
X-Admin: n...@aol.com
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/msg/bb11053e48e9a458?dmode=source
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
From: ho...@aol.com (Howpl)
Subject: Re: Why do alleged aliens look human like or even come here?
Date: 1997/08/13
Message-ID: <19970813152...@ladder02.news.aol.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 263946720
References: <33EF9D5D...@fubar.com>
X-Admin: n...@aol.com
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 pussyfooting 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/msg/46af3d34215a5a92?dmode=source
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
From: ho...@aol.com (Howpl)
Subject: Leir and implants
Date: 1999/02/08
Message-ID: <19990208134747...@ng-cf1.aol.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 442052898
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
X-Admin: n...@aol.com
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/msg/f3ef7bbb4c0775e8?dmode=source
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
Same request.
Prove it.
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.paranet.ufo/msg/a223043ee90665c8?dmode=source
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
From: ho...@aol.com (Howpl)
Subject: Re: Roswell autopsy
Date: 1997/12/05
Message-ID: <19971205215...@ladder02.news.aol.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 295579524
References: <6608hh$si6$2...@news.clt.bellsouth.net>
X-Admin: n...@aol.com
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 report -- 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/msg/bf2393010be9c0dd?dmode=source
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
From: ho...@aol.com (Howpl)
Subject: Re: Alien autopsy rerun!
Date: 1997/08/13
Message-ID: <19970813160...@ladder02.news.aol.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 263955098
References: <33f13...@news.mountain.net>
X-Admin: n...@aol.com
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
Martin Shackelford
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" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:84bb2a20-4a8c-4470...@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
On May 2, 7:28 pm, howardp <ho...@aol.com> wrote:
Steve Thomas
wrote:
> 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.
and you declare belief in the pope idiotic so what?
>
> Martin
>
> "Dave Reitzes" <dreit...@aol.com> wrote in message
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.paranet.ufo/browse_thread/thread/a...
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.paranet.ufo/msg/36d9ce14209c7fd4?d...
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.paranet.ufo/browse_thread/thread/7...
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.paranet.ufo/msg/5902acfd41a4345d?d...
>
> <QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
>
> From: ho...@aol.com (Howpl)
> Subject: Re: This NG has gone to hell.
> Date: 1997/06/24
> Message-ID: <19970624164101.MAA11...@ladder02.news.aol.com>#1/1
> X-Deja-AN: 252357726
> References: <5okl53$be...@bashir.peak.org>
> Organization: AOLhttp://www.aol.com
> Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
> X-Admin: n...@aol.com
>
> 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 report?
>
> 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/b...
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.paranet.ufo/msg/4a8596cae8b47125?d...
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/browse_thread/thread/35721...
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/msg/ce83e9e75c5c362f?dmode...
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/msg/d6e7a14e446502ef?dmode...
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.ufo.reports/browse_thread/thread/b...
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.ufo.reports/msg/0bd5d2cff49aa50a?d...
>
> <QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
>
> From: ho...@aol.com (Howpl)
> Subject: Is Corso ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dave Reitzes
wrote:
> 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
Feel free to engage "less idiotic" issues of evidence, Martin. Let's
start with an item of evidence you and Dr. Platzman each seem
strangely unwilling to discuss: Judyth's letter to President John F.
Kennedy.
As I asked Dr. Platzman (and have asked you several times in the
past):
Do you have any reason to believe that someone directed Judyth to
write this letter to JFK, and, if so, who? Do you have any reason to
believe that the letter was conceived at any particular place and
time, and, if so, where and when?
What was the purpose of this letter, was its purpose achieved, and, if
so, how?
Please be specific and cite your ("less idiotic"?) sources.
Dave
Dave Reitzes
What's the matter, Martin? Nine years isn't long enough for you and
Lady Wingnut to get your stories straight?
Dave
Michael O'Dell
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" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:ibTWj.3147$ah4....@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com...